thebeerbaron

iTrader: (1)

i sincerely applaud your ability to determine that the schmutz in a pixelated image is steel that has "dribbled down and rehardened".

i must have missed the memo that it is scientifically valid to compare one collapsing building, of unknown design, construction, and materials, to another building of unknown design, construction, and materials.

please, pull your head from the sand and THINK about how you are approaching this subject. i don't give a rats *** what conclusion you reach. i want you to have reached it based upon sound reasoning.

i could illustrate this point by throwing several theoretical crypto papers at you and ask you to pull out the one that is completely debunked. you'd have about the same chance doing that as you would choosing between several 9/11 explanations. it's not that you're not intelligent, it's just that you're displaying an inability to identify good science.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

How do you know thats melted steel? It could be melted anything. A cut like that could have been made from the tremendous amount of weight on top to the beam. Of it could have been a Bad seam. See when big people grow up and build building, they have to do it in pieces. (Like the Lego's you use for your physics model of the towers falling.) The beams are 90% of the time bolted and welded. (Unless they are filled with concrete and rhebar.)Under extreme... I mean extreme stress the welds and bolts can pop. Extreme stresses may have been caused by TWO OF THE WORLDS LARGEST BUILDINGS AT THE TIME FALLING AFTER A PLANE CRASHED INTO EACH ONE OF THEM.

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

..And I'm back

Slide 78 - $3.2BIL over 99 YEARS, only put $15MIL down. That's a STEAL! The buildings would have still gotten the subsidizes, so it should have been easy to to make a profit. It had already had over $1BIL in renovations, so most major maintenance was already done. Why would the cost of rebuilding the structures ($5.6-15BIL) have been considered??? Did they already have plans to demolish them and rebuild??? NO. I am sure the events of 9/11 went right along with the corporate growth plan, by eliminating a big SUBSIDIZED cash pot they had planned on cashing in on the next 99 yrs. The purchase of the WTC buildings was SOUND INVESTMENT.

Slide 82 - The WTC Towers had ALREADY been hit by a terrorist attack, and the intelligence community knew that it was still on their list of priority targets. This has been mentioned by several CIA personnel, that since the first attack, that Al Qaida was determined to bring one or both of the towers down. That is the attention you get for being in the record books, and being a symbol of America. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance company REQUIRED terrorism coverage. This was just GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE. Protect your investment. So he didn't even get enough to rebuild the WTC facilities...so he was UNDER-INSURED! I know my Home Owners Insurance won't let me get coverage for less than the cost of REBUILDING, not just the value of the house! He gained $7BIL...how much did he stand to earn if he was still getting subsidized tenants for the next 99yrs? Probably alot more than $7Bil, so, AGAIN, he LOST money.

Slide 83 - Concrete has a load bearing limit. If that limit is exceded, like having 80 other pre-fabed floor assemblies slam into it, then it tends to get pulverized. The welds and bolts attaching the floors to the inner core and the outside perimeter bearing wall weren't designed to bear the weight of 2 or more pre-fabed floors.

Slide 86 - This "Hat" works fine so long as the vertical support beams are intact and not weakened by intense heat, and you can only transfer so much before you also exceed the load bearing capacity of the undamaged beams.

Slide LOTS - The info on the "airplane proof" design, and the overall structural design on the building is pretty good. I can't really find anything wrong with it, except that "it" happens. Buildings collapse without a plane running into it, roofs cave in from snow loads that they were "designed" to handle. Watch "Engineering Disasters" on the Discovery Channel and you'll see lots of times when something had a certain criteria in the design, and it still failed when that situation happened.

Slide 110 - "there was this explosion..." You pick a better word for it? Maybe "A big loud bang". Seriously...I thought I heard rats in our shop earlier today. Ended up just being the exhaust fan getting blown by the wind and making a slight squeaking sound. But since my first impression was rats, it must be rats, right? Even my boss thought it was rats, till we went in and investigated the sound.

Slide 113 - You think they might have been referring to the floors FALLING one on top of the other as it fell? Why do people who think it's a conspiracy assume they were talking about explosions/explosives? "The floors just started falling on top of each other, BAM BAM BAM"...I must be talking about explosives, I said "BAM".

Slide 114 - Yet no video evidence shows these "orange and red flashes" all over the building. The pop sounds were probably the support beams snapping, and the flashes were the sparks caused by the metal when the joints broke and the beam started to slide down. Metal on metal friction can cause sparks. Maybe the pops were rivets breaking off and bouncing around?

Slide 115 - I thought it looked like a controlled demo the way it was coming down, too.

Slide 116 - Pops? You mean like metal shearing, or rivets and bolts snapping? In a steel framed building? NO WAY! And of course the building was "blowing out" on all 4 sides, that was the air and dust being pushed out by the falling floors. Get 2 pieces of flat cardboard, cut a square hole in the middle (Central Core, it was hollow) and then put dirt on the top of one. Now slam the other piece down on top of it...where did the dirt go? Does it look like what happened when the tower floors collapsed?

Slide 121 - OMG...Firefighters saw explosives in the buildings? Yet they won't say anything cause they'll lose their job? I guess that goes for all the other people who was in the building during the install of these explosives, and the people who continued going to work with explosives in their offices. I am sure it made them feel very safe knowing they worked in a building that was filled with explosives and that the date of the actual demolition was not released. Oh, and don't mention it to ANYONE ELSE, cause it's a super duper secret. How do you get all those thousands of people to go along with the conspiracy? Alot of those people lost friends and family in 9/11, yet they still won't mention the fact that they saw explosives? How do you get someone to continue going to work knowing they are sitting next to 10lbs of explosives and constantly tripping on the det cords? I know I wouldn't continue going to work, and I am 100% positive that OSHA would have heard from me!!!

Slide 122 - 700 fragments? From one person, a dozen, or hundreds of people? DNA will tell us for sure. Whatever happened to all those people on the floors impacted by the planes? You think they might have been blasted into tiny pieces and blown out the sides of the building? There would be a great enough eject force in that impact/explosion to put body parts a few buildings away at least.

Slide 123 - Most of the fragments were push outwards by the collapse (peeling a banana) and they FELL into the other buildings. How is that not OBVIOUS? The towers were 110 stories, and the buildings around it were 40-something. All the pictures showed damage ABOVE the resting point of the beams, so obviously it FELL. Show me a beam that is stuck in at a 90 degree angle, or that is stuck into a building at an upwards angle. Wait, there are none.

Slide 124 - That is interesting. The explosives could have been placed in the central core's elevator shafts and noone would have known. Of course, what about the people mentioned earlier that saw explosions around the perimeter of the building??? They provided "evidence" before, but now contradict the fact that explosives were only in the interior, and out of sight. Placing them in the shafts, although risky (I am scared of heights, so it's RISKY!), would make it near impossible to be detected, unless an elevator was getting serviced, and even then, I doubt they do it 80 floors up, where the explosives would be. Sounds PLAUSIBLE.

MX_Eva

Yes because nit picking over my statement, suggesting that simulations could be run on the towers colapse by assuming i didn't look at prior material is good debating. I know the Purdue animation only shows the plane collision. They didn't get the number of columns cut wrong, but the total number of cut or damaged. Isn't it possible the number seems off because they weren't counting columns as they traversed each floor, but rather on a floor by floor basis? Also, it's possible their qualification for a column to be damaged doesn't require it to be obliterated or cut.

In any case, several of us have stepped forward, looked at the material you have presented and even seen some material outside of that which you presented and have come up with solid arguements against previously stated "truths". I use truths and not facts for a very good reason. All you've done is say "you didn't look!" or divert all of what was said to a single point, ignoring the rest. We took time to carefuly consider your arguement but have not gotten the same in return.

TonyC

+1

that sucked.

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

Slide 125 - Wow. Way to blow that one up. They were undergoing maintenance/modernization, so the likelihood of finding the explosives goes WAY UP!! It was believable until the fact that a CERTIFIED CORPORATION was doing the work. If they prove be a CIA shell company, then we'll go back to having bombs in the shafts. A covert mission involving a few highly trained people, with some bright minds with some demolition experience picking the spots, could have been done in a week or so. But not likely with alot of elevator maintenance people around. So we just put "tenants" in the elevator shafts, and the tenant spaces...so where do you hide all those explosives now???

Slide 126 - A remote detonator. Cool. But you still need det cord running to all the explosives. "Requires much less time and cost in layout of expensive lead-in line for the blaster to be in a safe position." It just replaces the "plunger" detonator and the "lead-in line" that hooks to the start of the det cord.

Slide 128 - Air Expulsion. The force of the air being expelled by the falling floors, plus the outer support beams are bending outward (before they break) as the floor collapses, making it wider. Think of a banana peel.

Slide 131 - One more question, what is the likelihood of explosives and/or detonating cord surviving the impact/fireball of the planes impacting the same floors the explosives are on? VERY LITTLE.

Slide 132 - "Does this look like a gravitational collapse?" Yes, it does.

Slide 135 - I didn't see the antenna drop first, I saw it fall with the entire upper section of the building. And if you looked at how the "Cap" was made, the antenna wouldn't be able to drop if just the core failed, it would take a collapse across the entire structure, both inner and outer supports.

Slide 139 - The "squibs" immediately before the dust cloud was where the floors were ACTUALLY collapsing, but hadn't caused the fascia to give way yet. the ones that were random spouts farther down was were the air pressure from the collapsing floor was being forced down the central core and was blowing out, like a pressure vent.

Slide 142 - I didn't see a "Demolition Wave". Maybe they should have done a slow-mo and circled them for me??

Slide 145 - Still don't see signs of a "Demolition Wave". "Ejected horizontally", take a pencil, a #2, I don't care, and stand it vertically on the desk, now put a book on the top of it, with the end of the pencil in the middle of the cover (hardback). No lean on the book until the pencil breaks. Did the pieces of the pencil fly out or did it just harmlessly fall under the book?

Slide 146 - Still no signs.

Slide 148 - I don't see independent explosions ANYWHERE.

Slide 156 - Why are they using "Loose Change" video? Again with the squibs. Get over it, those ARE NOT explosives, but pressure relief points for the air being forced down the elevator/stair shafts by the collapsing floors!

Slide 159 - "Point of least resistance" The windows that got blown out were exactly that. They blew out 20-40 floors below the collapsing levels cause the shaft was sealed/blocked until it reached that point, IE open door from a staircase, elevator shaft door open, etc. Get a straw and put it in water...blow thru it...no put a hole in it...look your straw has explosives planted in it, cause it now has squibs.

Slide 162 - The Banana Peel Affect...the out wall was peeling from the building as the floors broke away. Afterall, what was holding the outer wall to the building? The floors. No floors, not lateral supports, so it leaned outwards until it snapped under it's own weight. This would have happened while it was still moving outwards, so it would still have it's momentum to continue the arch towards the ground.

Slide 167 - The 110 floors were pretty much pulverized during the collapse, and there are the basment levels. The "Pile" filled the basement levels.

Slide 168 and 169 - Yeah, they removed all the floor panels the day before. Couldn't wait till it actually collapsed to get started. It saved them TONS of $$$ from not having to put explosives on them, too. Putting them every 30ft on every beam was hard enough...but you have to have them "ready for shipment". Seriously, whay kind of idiots come up with this???

Slide 186 - Who here knows the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum? I don't. The melting temps for aluminum is alot lower than steel. 800-1000deg vs 2500deg. That's a big variance. And they are right, the video is clear. It was NOT a controlled demolition.

Slide 190 - I haven't heard of thermite being used in contolled demolitions. I know they use shaped charges wrapped around support beams to focus the blast to "cut" the beam. I have seen an incenary grenade go thru a engine block before. Open air fires can reach the melting point of ALUMINUM though. So the dripping metal would have to be aluminum, probably from stuff inside the buildings and the aircraft. If temps never got hot enough to melt steel, then that is the only possible answer.

JasonC SBB

The most damning evidence in my mind is that the speed at which #7 fell is such that the structure offered very little resistance. I linked the page and the paper with the calculations. Again, #7 showed little damage.

Nobody has modelled the "pancaking" aka "global collapse" to show that the buildings can fall at the speeds they did.

JasonC SBB

No, a beam like that would buckle like a connecting rod.

Do they make seams at an angle like that?

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

Connecting rods don't have seam?

I guess my years at Clemson university were just thrown away getting my CE degree. I know nothing. There are tons of seams in a building of that magnitude. And yes put 100,000+ tons of pressure on anything and it will bend like that and other wacky ways. Look at the rods in side your engine. Put some Nawz on them, and you can get some insane angles. It happens.

MX_Eva

How are you defining cut anyway? A lot of things are "cut" by putting a single point of pressure on them until it's 2 pieces. A snap can look a lot like a cut. Just saying.

JasonC SBB

Under compression connecting rods buckle. When they fail due to fatigue, they break, and the break has a very characteristic signature.

That pic shows a straight cut in the beam, and not due to slow heating; it looks like it was cut with heat, like a torch almost, or a cutting charge.

MX_Eva

Yes, nobody has because there is an impossible amount of data to consider and calculate to make such a model work. However, my point is that you can't say the buildings can't fall that fast until you make a model that proves they couldn't.

JasonC SBB

Here's a very characteristic fatigue failure:



In contrast, when a connecting rod has too much compressive force applied to it, it curves like a banana.

I know, I have both types of failed connecting rods.

JasonC SBB

This right here shows a calculation that in order to fall that fast, the internal structure of WTC7 only offered resistance = 15% of its weight. I think it's pretty undeniable.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC...xamination.pdf

MX_Eva

and that is terribly different from that column how?

JasonC SBB

Fatigue failures have a characteristic shiny area (upper 3/4 of above pic), and then a sheared portion (lower right 1/4th).

The beam in the pic appears cut with heat. It is straight, and has melty bits like candle wax.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

Your dealing with someone obsessed with a fantasy here. Compliance is not gonna happen. He's just gonna on and on link us with useless drivel. Everyone saw what happened on national television. I have wasted too much effort arguing with this ***** anyways.

JasonC SBB

That's a copout. It would be about the same order of magnitude as Purdue's simulation. I have an idea of FEA type analysis required because I have studied CFD simulation of airflow and heat transfer in my line of work, as well as FEA of electromagnetic structures.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

You need to learn to build structures before you argue on how they fall. All the wikipedia links in the world will now teach you real world experience.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)