CB_Brooklyn

What happened at the WTC on 9/11? Let's look at the data:


--------------------------------------------------

Where Did All The WTC Structural Steel Go?



See the animation on this page:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web...s/HTRHome.html


Each tower had 47 massive core columns, that if laid end-to-end would stretch over 20 miles. Where'd it all go?

Where's all the desks, chairs, computers, xerox machines, water coolers, telephones, filing cabinets, and carpeting? Where'd it all go?


Kindly show evidence of this material at Ground Zero after the attacks, but before it was supposedly trucked away. While you're at it, also show evidence of the perimeter columns which stretched around all four sides of each tower from top to bottom. You must show enough steel to account for two 1/4 mile high towers.



Where did the steel spire go? Watch this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ

fastom

I think a better question would be "How did it go?"

There is a big basement and certainly quite a bit of rubble which would have destroyed fax maxhines and desks. It looked like enough rubble to account for all the building.

But how in heck did the big steel girders break into pieces? It seems something caused the inside structure of the building to just give way. There is no reason for the center columns to be destroyed below the fire area.

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

paulskinback

You'd be surprised what can break into tiny pieces of dust with all that weight coming down on top of it.

Everything was pulverised, and a lot of the rubble was red/dark orange from the amount of human remains spread all over it.

There was also a hell of a lot of large steel girders I remember seeing on the news that were taken to an island nearby and basically piled up before being recycled

__________________
'Everything that can be invented has been invented.- - 1899, Charles Duell, U.S. Office of Patents.

'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.' - Ken Olson, 1977, Digital Equipment Corporation

MSD

The thing that makes the WTC collapse so unbelievable is that we'd never seen a building that big fall before. When the shear force on metal passes a certain point it remains solid but behaves like a liquid.

The website you linked to is so poorly designed that I'm not even sure what they're trying to say on some pages, but if it's trying to convince me that energy weapons were used on the WTC, it failed miserably. The glass and concrete were pulverized and became the dust cloud that covered Manhattan after the collapse. The steel is visible in ground zero photos. Most of it collapsed and compacted into the "bathtub" foundation. The outer cage ended up partially in the crater and partially sprawled out across nearby streets and buildings. The fact is that buildings wouldn't be of much use to us if they weren't mostly empty space. Sure, there might be 20 miles' worth of columns in the core, but let's say for the sake of argument that they're at most 10% steel. The concrete turned to dust and the rebar was crushed into the pile that went from several stories below ground level up to several stories above the ground. In [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTCgroundzero.jpg]this[/img] picture, you can see part of the shell that is still upright, 15-20 stories high above the rubble pile using a nearby building approximately the same distance from the camera as a reference point.

The spire fell straight toward the camera, which was having difficulty autofocusing because of the dust and smoke in the air and because of the rapid fall of the spire.

fastom

OK, but WHY did the "spire" fall? Why did the concrete pulverize into dust? Especially at the top that had nothing falling on it.
Some sort of energy other than gravity felled those towers and in that regard the site is right.
Interesting stuff about the towed cars and the firetrucks, some of it is more innocently explainable though.

ratbastid

Gravity felled the towers. Jet fuel poured down the central support and caught fire, superheating and weakening the core supports. Under a 1/4 mile fall, everything that was pulverizable pulverized--either from the distance it fell, or from the weight of what fell on top of it.

fastom

Say what? Are you talking about the same World Trade Centers... in New York?

There was no pouring jet fuel in the center... that's the stairwells and elevator shafts and nobody reported blazes in there.

Pulverization isn't a normal event, distance does not equal pulverization... oddly enough.

Try a simple experiment: After you finish the Cap'n Crunch and slurp up all the extra milk take the bowl and hold it up high. Now let go.

Did the bowl pulverize before it hit the ground? Did the bowl turn into fine powder after it hit the ground, or maybe just break into five pieces? Try dropping another bowl on top of it, keep going until you get thorough pulverization or run out of the world supply of bowls.

shakran

I think you need to review the video footage of that day. The top of the tower was intact as it fell. Only after it hit the ground did it pulverize.

Considering the number of REAL conspiracies and general dumbassery that's going on in government today, it never ceases to amaze me that people prefer to fantasize about fake ones.

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

CB_Brooklyn

Rense Picked Up Dr Judy Wood's 9/11 Work

http://www.rense.com/general75/melt.htm

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide...tion_waves.mpg
I hope that this will clear up any confusion on either side of this.

Facts:

- Most of the fuel burned up in the initial impact in the cases of both towers, and also the Pentagon. This was made evident from the large balls of fire visible in the various videos taken that morning. In order to understand this, one must imagine when a gas can explodes. If anyone has ever exploded a gas can, one knows that while there is some residual fire after the initial explosion, the vast majority of the fuel is ignited instantly and cannot burn for more than a few seconds. Likewise, when the planes hit the towers and the Pentagon, most of the fuel burned up withing a few seconds. The impacts would have instantly punctured the fuel containers in the wings, causing much of the fuel to splatter and ignite in a loose form. What little fuel was left did cause fires inside the buildings, as was evident by the smoke, but one must also take into account the amount of smoke....

- Over the course of the hour or so that each building burned, it was clear by video evidence that the smoke coming from each building was not increasing, but was in fact decreasing quickly. Any firefighter can attest to this being a clear indicator that the fire is dying down, and that it's usually on it's way out. Please feel free to contact your local fire department to verify this, as I did. To be clear, the fires going out means that the high temperature would not have been reinforced by a continuing blaze; the temperature would have begun dropping quickly.

- According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators, kerosene ignites at around 444°F. The temperature that the fire will eventually reach depends on both the combustion rate (based on O2) and the rate at which heat can be disbursed in the given scenario. Again, any firefighter can explain from experience and training that the black, sooty smoke (like that found on 9/11 at the WTC towers) were O2 deprived. Again, please contact professionals to verify this if you wish. In an oxygen deprived environment, higher temperatures cannot be reached. You can test this yourself by comparing a match in the open vs. a match in a bottle with a very small hole.

- Each WTC tower had roughly 200,000 tons of steel. As I'm sure Dilbert can verify, steel is a very good conductor of heat. When one applies heat to a small area of a large steel structure, that heat will disperse and spread quickly throughout the whole of the structure.

- In data provided by the Corus Construction Centre, the usual safety margins for construction, the WTC towers could have easily withstood fires reaching and exceeding temperatures of 1022°F.

- According to Dr. Shayam Sunder, the Cheif of NIST Materials and Construction Systems Division, "Now, several of you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings."(warning, .pdf file...but notice that it is from the official NIST.gov site). This is further indication, and from someone who is more expert than most, that the jet fuel itself would have burned off in "less than ten minutes".



I'll add more later, for sure, but I wanted to clear up just a few points so that we're all on the same page. Everyone have a great weekend, and CB_Brooklyn welcome to the site.

fastom

I reviewed it...again... and i see the same as always. Incredible amounts of "pulver".

How is that there doesn't even need to be much movement before the concrete just vaporizes? In a natural fall (and that ain't one!) it would have made a gigantic pile of concrete chunks... instead there is some steel (maybe enough, though the original post does raise that valid question) but where in heck is all the concrete? Did looters steal it?

Willravel

I personally think that the controlled energy weapon theory is at least as likely if not more likely than the generally accepted story. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to support the energy weapon or controlled demolition theories at this time. We'd need the proverbial or literal smoking gun.

CB_Brooklyn

Watch the steel spire turn to dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ

Cavi Mike

I suggest everyone here get your hands on a copy of Loose Change 2nd Edition. It will answer all of your questions including the "jet fuel melted the steel" theory which is quickly debunked by the fact that even fully oxygenated pure kerosene can't reach and sustain 2000 degrees Fahrenheit which is what it would take to weaken steel enough to lose it's strength to the point of bending. It can only reach 1500 degrees and like I said, it would have to be fully oxygenated from the inside of the flame, which is impossible without a source, plus it's inside of a building where the very small amount of oxygen in the air was consumed almost instantly. The reality is the fuel inside that building burned closer to 800 degrees or didn't burn at all, just smoldered.

random facts;
-jet fuel is nothing more than refined kerosene and those "turbo-heater" space heaters are nothing more than jet engines
-structural steel melts at roughly 2700F

Without air, there is no fire.



Loose Change can be found on any torrent site. If you're torrent illiterate I may be willing to allow some to download it from me. I don't have a lot of monthly "bandwidth" so even a couple downloads is going to put me well over my transfer limit.

__________________
pearls ain't free

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

samcol

Google video hosts dozens of user uploaded 9/11 videos. Here's a link to the loose change one: Loose Change 2nd Edition

Not DVD quality but it does the trick.
Also,
Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State

I'm having problems linking them, anyway just do a search for them under google video if anyone wants to see them for free.

fastom

Dil, you don't know steel from Shinola...

What are you meaning by "well before melting" , ten degrees less?

Ever seen an electric stove element? You can have a big heavy pot of stew up there and it doesn't crash down. The thing is glowing red, it's more than 3/4 of the way to melting into a blob and yet still retains most of it's strength?
Turbo charger exhausts can glow red and be much closer to melting yet still hold up a 75 lb turbo and not bend.

I believe you have steel confused with butter.

CB_Brooklyn

You're right about the "big heavy pot" example. Dr Wood uses similar examples here.

The_Jazz

I believe you have low-grade steel confused with high-grade structural steel. They're made in different ways and designed to do different things. A stell pot won't hold up a building, and structural steel doesn't conduct heat as efficiently.

Try again.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

I was really hoping you might respond to my longer post, Dil. I know we've gone through some of it before, but I tried to stick to cold, hard provable facts.

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

I'm trying to understand you're thoughts here. The plane hits the building, damaging the outer supports where it impacted, and possibly damaging the interior supports to an unknown degree. This impact could have stripped the fire-protection from the steel supports. Most (50%+) of the fuel from the plane burned up in the fire ball, the rest may have burned up in about 10 minutes. The continuing fire was fueled completely and exclusively by the contents of the building - carpet, desks, computers, paper, tacky fake plants, etc. The heat continually generated by the fires fueled by the office contents was able to weaken the steel and, in tandem with the damage by the initial impact, was the reason the building fell.

Yes?

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

Okay, I disagree and here's why:
1) All of the contents of the building were required to meet standards approved for fire safety. The insulation around the steel is hardly the only step taken to avoid problems should there be a fire. There were (seldom mentioned) water systems, all contents, desks, computers, cheap fake plants, had to follow code (nothing that could burn too well was in the building). According to NYC code, all wood must be pressure treated with fire retardant chemicals. The paint on the walls must be fire retardant. The floor, carpet, wood, cement, etc. must be fire retardant. When any of these did eventually burn, it would have been slow and cool. In addition to this, I cannot find anything inside the building that could have burned at more than a few hundred degrees. Computers would burn low and slow, mostly being melting plastic. Chairs would be much the same.
- Black smoke still = low O2 fire. Either you skipped that, or you agree. If you skipped it, I hope you'll indulge me. If you agree, then it works with what I wrote above to suggest that the temperature and severity of the fire after about 10-15 minutes would be small and inconsequential. How well do you think plastic burns in a low O2 environment?
- The building collapsed in under an hour. While I could easily understand that the building collapsed after maybe 8-10 hours of burning, the thing dropped is less than an hour and it fell at free fall speeds. This would suggest that the crash did damage to the entire structure instead of just the entry point and surrounding areas. Also, it gave at once, suggesting that the heat of the fire was able to weaken the remaining steel in a hour enough to cause it to lose it's strength.

fastom

So Dil...

What type of steel that melts or softens at low temperatures do you think they built the towers with? Any type i'm aware of would easily withstand that fire.

Regardless of how hot the flames were, to have collapsed in the manner it did is not possible.

Steel seems to be a very mysterious thing to some of you. Perhaps you've only ever seen it from a distance and never actually tried to use a cutting torch like i have. If you ever have you will notice that no matter what you do you will not weaken the steel with an acetylene or propane flame ...we don't use kerosene or jet fuel for torches but the same applies... it needs the pressurized oxygen fed to it to have any real effect. That doesn't happen with wind or still air, it needs concentrated pressure, think of a hose like you'd use to fill a tire.

Perhaps you've seen a campfire before? OK, probably not, but in case... when the wind comes up and fans the flames the fire gets hotter, your marshmallow gets cooked quicker. Any wind at the WTC would be obvious by the smoke. There wasn't much wind, Hurricane Katrina maybe could have made the fire hot enough... but more likely it'd have blown the fire out.

Try holding a proper cutting torch with that pressurized oxygen 4" away from a piece of steel and see if you can cut it.... nope? Of course not, you need to have the tip almost touching the steel so the flame isn't diluted by the air gap. If you run out of the oxygen your torch is useful only as a cigarette lighter.

You can't convince me with your 'experts' who sound more like lawyers trying to get a drunk off a DUI conviction.

But regardless of this nitpicky stuff, how can you possibly explain the whole escapade, not just one little aspect, in light of all the inconsistancies that have come to light since then. Certainly the culprits are very powerful and can affect media coverage and the agencies who'd investigate the matter.

The_Jazz

fastom, I think that you're comparing apples and oranges. While I certainly agree that your real-world experience holds true when dealing with the small flame of a cutting torch, what's actually being discussed here is a fire whose base is several thousand square feet per floor with heat being conducted from the lowest floor to the top. As for wind, I really don't see how that's relevant. The interior of the fires were being fed through a chimney effect through the stairwells by the doors used during the evacuation. Given the number of folks that escaped after the plane strikes, I can't imagine that those would remain closed for very long. Then there's also the ductwork of the HVAC system that would also conduct oxygen throughout the fire zone.

I think if you look at any well-recorded event, you'll find small inconsistencies here and there that can be explained away to almost everyone's acceptance. The key is "almost".

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

shakran

Yeah, and those fire safety standards involve standard fires. The copy machine catches fire. Someone tosses a cigarette in a trash can. The coffee maker shorts out.

They're not designed to withstand a hellish conflagration caused by a giant airplane dumping tons of burning kerosene all over the place.

Car interiors are also designed to fire safety standards, but they still burn like crazy if you dump flaming gasoline in them, as you can see by observing any carbeque resulting from a traffic accident.



You usually think things through better than this Will Of course things that could burn well were in the building. What do you use to start a fire in the fireplace? Newspapers. Think there were newspapers in there? What else burns well? Kleenex, paper (especially paper with a waxy coating like you might find in, oh, say, a printer). Wood burns really nicely if you get it hot enough. The WTC was certainly hot enough to burn all that wood that made up the desks, especially since most of them were probably pressed particle board. That's NICE and flammable.

Fire retardant does not mean fire proof. Get something hot enough and it will burn. And even things that are coated in fire resistant chemicals, will burn if something gets through that barrier. If you don't believe me, go make some thermite, and put it on a fire proof safe that you've filled with important papers, and set it off. About 3 seconds later you'll have a fireproof safe with a gaping hole in the top and bottom and ashes where the papers used to be.

Won't do much good if the walls are knocked down by a giant airliner doing a few hundred mph.

You're assuming standard ignition. Yes, if you hold a bic up to a computer it'll burn low and slow. Start the fire by exploding a 200 ton bomb filled with kerosene right next to it, and it'll burn quite a bit faster and hotter.

not necessarily. Here's an experiment for you. Get a good fire going. Now put a big grean leaf on it. It'll burn black, but there's plenty of O2 around. Black smoke is also caused by various chemicals burning off. Trust me, I've covered enough high O2, black-smoke-belching fires to be certain of this.

No it wouldn't. It would suggest that the crash did severe and unrecoverable damage to the area that the crash happened in. Once one floor collapsed you have the weight something like 40 floors coming down on the floor underneath it. Buildings aren't designed to withstand the weight of a 40 story building crashing down onto them.

MSD

I've answered the question of steel failure and structural failure before, so here's the condensed version:

The jet fuel burned off quickly, but not before spreading through at least the affected floors in a matter of seconds. Because of the interior structure this fuel was distributed unevenly. According to the head of the materials engineering department at MIT, a temperature difference of only a couple hundred degrees from one side of each support beam to the other would cause it to warp, not soften or melt. The fire wouldn't have had to burn at more than a few hundred degrees to bring down the buildings. This would be enough to put significant force on the affected floors. Each floor was attached to the load-bearing outer cage with angle brackets; the force from the warping support beams started to rip the brackets out of the cage. As the brackets popped, the load was transferred to the other brackets, already stressed from the unusual motion of the building. Once enough brackets failed, the floor would break free and slam down onto the floor beneath it, compromising the brackets attaching that floor. The compression of the air between floors blew out windows and ejected debris, causing the puffs of smoke that can be mistaken for demolition charges.

Because the outer cage was mostly intact, the collapsing towers fell straight down. The center structural column could not support the weight of the floors without the outer angle brackets, so it gave way at the affected floors, allowing the upper section of the tower to fall in the only direction it could be expected to fall, straight down. The upper sections brought down most of the cage while the cascading collapse of the floors pulverized the interior and the shear force was enough to bring down the steel supports.

fastom

Mr SD
That is a wild theory. It isn't proven. It is not logical, it is making a scenario that fits the result.

Could they ever duplicate that in tests?

Here's some analysis of the analyzers...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5071

For the attention span challenged...

"The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

It’s in PM’s book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths”, that we find this survey. Here they include other figures like Forman Williams, although they fail to tell you that Dr. Williams was also a member of NIST’s top advisory committee, and therefore was defending his own work. Williams is presented by PM as a disinterested academic expert, but one must wonder how disinterested Williams was when the University of California San Diego received $393 million in federal grants in 2005, the same year the NIST WTC report came out, with his own Engineering department receiving $44 million of that sum.[18] Another of PM’s disinterested experts was Engineering professor Richard Fruehan of Carnegie Mellon University, an institute that received $100 million in federal grants that same year, with Engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total.

In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administration’s terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design."

shakran

You are supporting a theory that a "directed energy" weapon was used on the WTC, that the public has been lied to about there having been a plane crash (and by inference therefore that thousands of New Yorkers were somehow brainwashed or hypnotized into thinking there was a plane, that hundreds were killed on purpose by presumably some sort of government conspiracy group, and that video showing the airplanes was faked), and you have the nerve to say that Mr. SD's very logical argument for the warping of steel is a "wild theory?"

Come back when you have a leg to stand on

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

fastom

I don't at all support that theory. I think they were demolished by something but i also think a couple planes flew in there. I don't think the planes had much to do with the subsequent "collapse" (demolition) of the buildings.

If that demolition is considered a directed energy weapon then i guess it's a lot more logical than magical melting steel and the jet fuel falling down the elevator shafts into the basement malarky.

shakran

OK. Then here's your challenge. Tell us why. Why would someone want to bring the towers down that much faster? It wouldn't be the terrorists - they're smart enough to strike and then get the hell out of dodge. That pretty much leaves the government. Why would the government want to collapse the buildings so soon after the impact?



Yeah, you're right. That whole gravity thing is a total fraud. What a joke.

Willravel

It's more spectacular.

Dilbert1234567

removed

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen