WTC Stuff...
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
Well.....I can't consider myself a conspiracy frother....I do think there are some "weird things" about the whole deal. I don't absolutely believe that the gov't is behind it all, but let's just say I would not be the least bit surprised and it would explain a few things.Westy said:
But we all know GWB and his posse are loons, with something to prove. COnjuring up a villain would be a good way to get their mandate though.
That said, I'd like to hope that that is not really the case.
Although I have seen no evidence it wouldn't suprise me if at some level of government someone knew it was going to happen and just let it happen, but the big conspiracy plan is just a little too hollywood.MMike said:
I'm with you there. I hate the idea that the country I know, love, and have spent 12 years serving would pull something like this. But they have done other things in the past on a smaller scale and the thought has crossed thier minds before as well.MMike said:
America as a whole didn't do it though. Those responsible may have thought they were doing it for America, but they certainly didn't do it on America's orders.jimmydean said:
This document http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Intersecting_Facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf discusses how one could resolve known facts against the three major "theories":
1. They caught us off guard
2. The government let it happen
3. The government made it happen
It is a very interesting read (as is this other document I haven't made it all the way through yet).
At the end they have some rebuttals to possible questions. This one discusses how many people would have needed to be involved:
This excerpt discusses possible motives:
"A second orbit of people, numbering 100 or so, responsible for carrying out particular aspects of the operation or providing logistical support for core insiders."
If you did your planning well, even these people wouldn't have to know anything about the overall plan.
If you did your planning well, even these people wouldn't have to know anything about the overall plan.
what happened with occam´s razor?
changleen used it to slash the wrists of rationalityALEXIS_DH said:
i have a hard time believing the same gvmt who couldnt pull out a half-assed covert op in nicaragua in times without internet, where the media had much less access and less pesky reporters could pull such a diabolical masterpiece.
i mean, there was hardly an obvious and tangible incentive or reward, the cost was humongous, and the risk would have been even bigger.
for gods sake, just look at this face!!!!! its dubyas mind we are talking about! (that is, unless the conspiracy includes W being a supremely rational and intelligent person capable of fooling everybody into thinking he is as dumb as he proves).
i mean, there was hardly an obvious and tangible incentive or reward, the cost was humongous, and the risk would have been even bigger.
for gods sake, just look at this face!!!!! its dubyas mind we are talking about! (that is, unless the conspiracy includes W being a supremely rational and intelligent person capable of fooling everybody into thinking he is as dumb as he proves).
Halliburton (Cheney's Company) has made huge profits. The oil companies (Bush's Texas Buddies) have made big cash too. Exxon in 4th quarter 2005 posted the highest earnings ever for a US company. Not that this proves anything. Just that there are plenty of rewards from the GWOT.ALEXIS_DH said:
Also proves nothing, but media is increasingly owned by big media conglomerates. That doesn't prove anything either.ALEXIS_DH said:
Bush being a moron (or not) does not counter the scientific evidence I have presented.ALEXIS_DH said:for gods sake, just look at this face!!!!! its dubyas mind we are talking about! (that is, unless the conspiracy includes W being a supremely rational and intelligent person capable of fooling everybody into thinking he is as dumb as he proves).
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
i´d guess you are assuming your points need to be refuted.RenegadeRick said:
although in my view, the burden of proof is yet on your side.
on the bush argument, i was just poking fun at the issue.
about the motives, and the profits.
i´d make a guess if those were the real motives, and assuming equally talented minds, it would have been way easier to just divert the funds thru corruption, or artificially leveraging oil prices.
after all, its the US government leverage we are talking about. hardly any single entity has more leverage than that....
after all, not-so-bright south american politicians could manage to steal sustainedly 1% of the GDP for years... pulling a similar feat in the US, even for a much lower % would yield likely as much or even more, and that would still be a kid´s game compared to pulling a successful 9/11.
in the end, mounting the whole 9/11 thing would be equivalent to using a nuke to kill a mole in your yard.
In the US bigger is better. In Texas bigger is never big enough.ALEXIS_DH said:
And yes, please refute my evidence, someone, anyone?
Like I said earlier, I lost family in WTC1. I don't want to believe that the gov't could be responsible, but Occam's Razor slices in that direction. In light of overwhelming evidence, it is indeed the simplest answer.
LIHOP cannot explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Insiders would be necessary.Changleen said:
Maybe insiders like leaseholder Larry Silverstein who stands to collect up to $4.6 billion for example?
Not that this proves anything, it is just HUGE motive. Not proof though.
yeah, but pulling a 9/11 is orders of magniture bigger than any of those....Changleen said:
if if they could actually pull 9/11, stealing 0.1% of the GDP or leveraging the oil markets would be a walk in the park for that genius....
I have read much on WTC security anomalies. They are discussed in the document I linked in at the top of the page http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Intersecting_Facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf.Changleen said:
Also from the same paper:
The options things I mention here prove nothing, but I USED TO WORK AT THE OPTIONS CLEARING CORPORATION. We cleared ALL the US options traded in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, etc. It was not possible to buy or sell options without your identity being known. Period.
Who were these market mavens? There has been no denial that the trades occurred. So who were they? Wouldn't the Wall Street Journal want to write up some of the most brilliant financial minds ever?
I think you're drastically over-crediting what it would actually take to pull... And why steal any of the GDP when your companies makes profit from it being as high as possible? As for leveraging the oil markets..ALEXIS_DH said:
Just think who is likely behind this.
ALEXIS_DH said:
If you haven't accounted for the evidence, it really doesn't matter how simple your theory is.
The official theory does not account for the available evidence, therefore the evidence indeed needs to be addressed and not simply ignored. If it can not be explained in the context of the official theory, then the official theory can not be correct, no matter how simple it may be.ALEXIS_DH said:
Those people are used to following orders without asking Q's. Later when they realized their part in the big picture they agreed with the purpose of what has happened, or they wouldn't have been picked in the first place..Changleen said:
Of course it is rediculous taht dubya had to do with the planning of 9/11. He couldn't manage his own ass to the bathroom without hitting that stupid head of his somewhere on the way. Looking at his stupid reaction sitting in the classroom when his advisor told him about the second tower, I wonder if he didn't think of that part him selfe though.ALEXIS_DH said:
The rewards have been proven: $;
The cost was not in lives that they care about anyways, i.e. their own. The material damage was for this very reason insured sky high just 2-3 months earlier;
The risk? Where would investigative critisism come from?? They control all authorities, their buddies own the media; gag is on this time as well.
Don't underestimate the US. They have pulled waaay more OP's that have remaind unundetected than the opposite. This one had the advantage of the grandest Hollywoodian proportions that average Joe only can relate to as fiction in films.
In fact, ask people around you what they belive taht the secret agiences of the US is up to and how far they can speculate that they are into some sort of foul play, and you will in most cases get very naive answers.
Why, because people generaly belive that their gvmt's are good and because one can't have any imagination about somthing that is so unknown.
this thread is retarded
Is really the best refutation that the backers of the official theory can muster?N8 said:
WOW, N8 with the block! Man, you are on fire! I'm glad I never had to face you in a public debate.N8 said:
N8 said:
I just noticed that even missing the word "this" in my reply, I still sounded pretty intelligent. At least I used a capital letter to begin my sentence and punctuation at the end.RenegadeRick said:
I note ALEXIS_DH and SDH have returned to the site today.ALEXIS_DH said:
I would still like to hear about how molten metal could exist at the WTC in absence of the required heat and pressure.
Thanks.
a) unlike many other posters of various forums I only state opinions based off my knowledge and experiences. That is why I offer opinions of how a structure can collapse.RenegadeRick said:
b) The report you mention may have merit or may not have merit but I am not a Metallurgist. As a engineer taking things at face value b/c someone says so is a recipe for disaster. Doctor or no Doctor.
My responses were simple and the properties of a building collapse can be confirmed by any structural engineer.
The bottom line is a building was hit by a point load that it WAS NOT designed for and it failed. That is engineering 101. How and why is open to interpretation depending on who you will speak with.
From your link/article:RenegadeRick said:
"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse..."
Nope, beg to differ...............
From a article in Civil Engineering magazine:
"The impacts from the aircraft have substantially degraded the towers' ability to withstand additional loading and have increased the susceptibility of the structures to fire-induced failure. It is likely that the force of the impact and the speed with which debris traveled through the structures compromised the sprayedon fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate areas of the impact. Additionally, some of the columns are now experiencing elevated stress due to the transfer of load from destroyed and damaged elements, and portions of the floor framing directly beneath the partially collapsed areas are carrying a substantial degree of additional weight from the resulting debrisin some cases, carrying greater weight than they were designed to resist.
"As floor framing and supported slabs above and in a fire area are heated, they expand. As a structure expands, it can develop additional, potentially large, secondary stresses in some elements. If the resulting stress state exceeds the capacity of some members or their connections, this can initiate a series of failures, potentially including buckling in columns or failure of floors.
As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and bow into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior. In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. The propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously because the columns could effectively lose lateral support over a length of several stories.
As the temperature of column steel increases and the modulus of elasticity degrades, the critical buckling strength of the columns will decrease, potentially initiating failure, even if lateral support is maintained. This effect is most likely to have been significant in the failure of the interior core columns.
So in simple terms:
Forces are cummulative. Loads are forces. Therefore, loads are cummulative.
Impact damage + fire damage (degraded (not melted) steel strength)+ the debris of a 10 ton airplane sitting in the middle of a floor = floor failure which sets off "pancake" reaction. i.e Dynamic loading.
From your article:
The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
YES! so this proves that the steel can be degraded at 650degrees but your article stated that the fire burned at about 1000 degrees b/c of jet fuel. Therefore the steel will degrade more and faster. Now add impact damage and plane debris and down she comes.
SDH:
Thank you for your time, but you are not answering the question I have asked. I have asked about molten steel in absence of the required heat and/or pressure as I have provided evidence for earlier in this thread.
If you cannot confirm or refute the figures for metal temperatures specified in the article I understand. Perhaps this is not within your realm of expertise.
Your refutation of a single point in the paper does not invalidate it in its entirety, and in any case it provides for degraded or weakened steel, but not molten steel. Even the quoted Civil Engineering Magazine does not address this point.
Thank you for your time, but you are not answering the question I have asked. I have asked about molten steel in absence of the required heat and/or pressure as I have provided evidence for earlier in this thread.
If you cannot confirm or refute the figures for metal temperatures specified in the article I understand. Perhaps this is not within your realm of expertise.
Your refutation of a single point in the paper does not invalidate it in its entirety, and in any case it provides for degraded or weakened steel, but not molten steel. Even the quoted Civil Engineering Magazine does not address this point.
The molten metal dripping from the building?RenegadeRick said:
Was it steel? The article assumed it steel? Could have it been Al from the plane? Metled metal from offcie equipment (file cabinets) That stuff melts easy. I melted a AL can in a camp fire in under a hour.
from the same magazine article:
"At the 80th floor of WTC 2in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the planethe fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower. The heat output from these fires will later be estimated to have been comparable to that produced by a large nuclear generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induces additional stresses on the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. "
Melted steel in the clean up picture:
Fire, fuel source (gas lines and O2 from subway tunnels) and confined space are the ingredients of a furnace! Not to mention the additional pressure and the time it took to get to those levels. The ground was even hot.
The collapse was a result of a sum of the forces.
The article specifically discusses how it could not have been anything but steel or iron. It specifically states how it could not be AL, and contains photographs of experiments with molten AL in comparison to molten steel.SDH said:
So your article mentions molten metal dripping from the WTC as well. The heat of a nuclear generating station sounds impressively high, but some quick research reveals this to not be the case. This article http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/rahmed/coolants.html, and many others like it describe the temperatures of various coolants used in reactors. None of which are near the required temperatures to melt steel.SDH said:
No disagreement here. I find this extremely plausible.SDH said:
Obvious, but irrelevant. I haven't been asking about the collapse (yet)SDH said:
Again, thank you for taking the time to review this evidence. Anything you could lend on what kind of metal may have been flowing from the WTC prior to collapse would be appreciated.
i will quote the ancient philosopher maddox (and a distant mechanics of materials class i took) on the topic of metal yield and ultimate strength VS temperature.RenegadeRick said:
am not aware of what of what exact alloy was used on the twin towers, but the temperature vs strength loss is something you cant escape. then you have the initial impact, which i guesstimate could be enough to bring inmediate areas beyond the yield point.
i´d guess you dont need as much heat as you´d initially think, since the standing2rubble transition isnt on-off. so it isnt a far fetched idea.
but changleen is a materials engineer i think, he could probably find what the alloy was and a strength VS temperature plot....
Deformed steel is weaker than non deformed steel.
To put that in bike perspective...........
Ever notice that once you bend your rear (steel) derail hanger it seems to bend much easier the next time? In engineering terms you have degraded the steel so it becomes less resistant to the same amount of load. Now do the same experiment, and heat the steel (even at 250deg) and see how easy it becomes to bend.
The other point I thought about is eccentric vs noneccentric loading.
Take a small bendable stick or maybe a straw put it between your 2 index fingers and push. Record the force it took to bend it. Now, bend the straw a little bit, and apply the same load as before, does it bend easier?
Back to WTC, deform the steel from its original state due to a massive collision load,(steel is now bent like the straw) add some fire (even though not much) but then add more load to the members b/c you have tons of airplane debris that was not there seconds before hand, let it site there for an hour or so and down comes London bridge.
To put that in bike perspective...........
Ever notice that once you bend your rear (steel) derail hanger it seems to bend much easier the next time? In engineering terms you have degraded the steel so it becomes less resistant to the same amount of load. Now do the same experiment, and heat the steel (even at 250deg) and see how easy it becomes to bend.
The other point I thought about is eccentric vs noneccentric loading.
Take a small bendable stick or maybe a straw put it between your 2 index fingers and push. Record the force it took to bend it. Now, bend the straw a little bit, and apply the same load as before, does it bend easier?
Back to WTC, deform the steel from its original state due to a massive collision load,(steel is now bent like the straw) add some fire (even though not much) but then add more load to the members b/c you have tons of airplane debris that was not there seconds before hand, let it site there for an hour or so and down comes London bridge.
Bending will decrease strength, but it can't lower the melting temperature!
but remember the law of force is cummulative......RenegadeRick said:
Bending (decrease of strength) + heat (decrease of strength) = degraded steel, now add increased load from plane debris
In an earlier post you mentioned "10 tons of airplane" which sounds like a lot, but since a ton is 2000 lbs and the average American weighs 200 pounds that would only be the weight of 100 people (20000/200=100)!SDH said:
I did some more research and a 757 actually weighs 110 tons! So this is really more like the weight of over 1000 people, plus the weight of the passengers, luggage, etc.
I had no trouble believing that a floor could support 100 people, but thousands? hmmm...
So could the weight of the aircraft contribute to the collapse? Sure.
But it still can't explain the molten steel...
Are you suggesting bent steel melts more easily than unbent steel?SDH said:
What I do have a problem with is some dude seeing melted metal in a picture and make a judgement on a picture based on color. This seems very subjective to me. There seems like there can be many variables surrounding this like quality of pictures (b/c pictures can distort color, like the color of bicyle frames) pure melted steel vs metal with other impurities in it etc.RenegadeRick said: