[Vote] Who did 911?

[TECSHARE]

Concrete? 

Where the fuck did you get the idea there would be concrete that high up in the air on a building of that sort?

Now you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the architecture of the building and its materials, yet you claim knowledge and authority on the subject. Interesting.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
(note: this is just some random site, I do not necessarily support everything here, but it does have lots of details about the WTC core design)

[J. J. Phillips]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

Hi BADecker. These statements are a bit difficult to interpret. Let me try to find simpler statements that might correspond to what you're saying. You can clarify if I am misunderstanding you.

First, there are preconditions without which the sentence makes no sense.

(1) A plane X hit the South Tower.
(2) The fuel from X caused a fire Y in the South Tower.

Presumably we all agree on these. After this things become less clear.

Here's something you might be asserting:

(3) The fire Y could not have caused the steel girders in the South Tower to weaken enough to cause the South Tower to collapse.

Are you asserting (3)? If you are, then we could discuss this simple proposition. However, I think Spendulus has already done calculations to argue against this. I haven't checked his calculations, but I'm willing to.

If you are not asserting (3), then I think you're probably asserting (4) and/or (5):

(4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P.

The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is?

The reference to "with probability P" in (4) is suggested by your second sentence "The odds against ..." It seems like you're not saying such a collapse is not impossible, but improbable. How improbable? Less than one chance in 100?

Before going on, is (4) an accurate restatement of part of what you are saying?

I haven't included your reference to the time required for the collapsed. I would restate that as follows:

(5) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the collapse would take less than T seconds with probability P'.

I said "less than T seconds" because I think you're suggesting that it should have collapsed more slowly if the official narrative were true, right? Again, "the odds against" suggest you think P'(T) with T between 11 and 14 would be low. How low? I haven't verified that the time for the collapses were between 11 and 14 seconds. I can if it becomes relevant.

When you respond, it will be helpful if you refer to the numbered statements (1) - (5) to avoid confusion. Which of (1) - (5) are you asserting? All of them?

* In the original post I wrote "minimum" instead of "maximum" here. As I've said before, trying to be precise is tricky.

The more the words, the less the meaning.

Precision isn't needed. What is needed is an overview of all the events.

If the buildings came down as the official report indicated, RUN, because the buildings are all unsafe, right in their construction.

The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.

I think it should be clear to anyone who reads our two posts that your beliefs on this subject are imprecise, and you prefer them to be imprecise.

[BADecker]

The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.

Huh?

I think it should be clear to anyone who reads our two posts that your beliefs on this subject are imprecise, and you prefer them to be imprecise.

All you need do is look at the videos of the buildings coming down to see that there is imprecision all over the place.

Yet, there is precision in the "footprint falls." And there is precision in the near free fall falls. And there is precision in that Building 7 came down for no reason, at least in the way it came down. And there is precision in the fact that there is a lot of coverup in the whole thing.

So you see... there is precision in the general "things" while there is imprecision in the exact details.

[Spendulus]

Concrete? 

Where the fuck did you get the idea there would be concrete that high up in the air on a building of that sort?

Now you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the architecture of the building and its materials, yet you claim knowledge and authority on the subject. Interesting.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
(note: this is just some random site, I do not necessarily support everything here, but it does have lots of details about the WTC core design)

Badecker was responding, as I understand it, to my calculation of a 12 x 36 box vertical column support, which had no concrete surrounding it.  He can clarify.  Those were perimeter supports and they should be the primary structure holding the building up in the air.

This reference explains the elimination of virtually all concrete from the upper stories of skyscrapers since WWII.  But it should also be obvious to anyone who has looked at one going up....

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

[BADecker]

Concrete? 

Where the fuck did you get the idea there would be concrete that high up in the air on a building of that sort?

Now you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the architecture of the building and its materials, yet you claim knowledge and authority on the subject. Interesting.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
(note: this is just some random site, I do not necessarily support everything here, but it does have lots of details about the WTC core design)

Badecker was responding, as I understand it, to my calculation of a 12 x 36 box vertical column support, which had no concrete surrounding it.  He can clarify.  Those were perimeter supports and they should be the primary structure holding the building up in the air.

This reference explains the elimination of virtually all concrete from the upper stories of skyscrapers since WWII.  But it should also be obvious to anyone who has looked at one going up....

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

425,000   cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1   Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.

http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html

[J. J. Phillips]

The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.

Huh?

Sorry I meant "unsafe" not safe.

The idea that buildings are safe unsafe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.

When I was watching it unfold, I didn't expect the buildings to collapse. I doubt most people did, including the firefighters and those who sent the firefighters into the buildings. After the first one collapsed, I waited for the second one to collapse. Now that we have these tragic examples, the physics behind why they collapsed is better understood.

[Spendulus]

425,000   cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

Almost all of which was down low for the footing and the basements.  You neglected the factoid right above the one you quote, which was 200,000 tons of steel.

So the building had 850k tons of concrete, and 200k tons of steel.

Where is any support for your claim that to get to the steel fires had to get through the concrete first?

[BADecker]

425,000   cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1   Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.

http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html

Oh drat. More sites for the Feds to work on taking down!

[BADecker]

425,000   cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

Almost all of which was down low for the footing and the basements.  You neglected the factoid right above the one you quote, which was 200,000 tons of steel.

So the building had 850k tons of concrete, and 200k tons of steel.

Where is any support for your claim that to get to the steel fires had to get through the concrete first?

The info at http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html shows and explains it, along with many more links to Twin Tower info. This shows you how concrete the info is (pun intended).



EDIT: In addition, concrete is about 3 times as voluminous as steel, weight for weight. Therefore there was way more volume of concrete used in the buildings as there was steel.

[J. J. Phillips]

All you need do is look at the videos of the buildings coming down to see that there is imprecision all over the place.

Yet, there is precision in the "footprint falls." And there is precision in the near free fall falls. And there is precision in that Building 7 came down for no reason, at least in the way it came down. And there is precision in the fact that there is a lot of coverup in the whole thing.

I looked up a video of the South Tower collapse. It's the ABC footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1Vo

I resent having to relive this. I doubt these images will do anything to convince anyone, even though it's completely obvious what happened when one looks at it. If you're someone who has believed the demolition story, try to forget this belief for a few seconds and simply look at these images with an open mind. Yes, the government lies to you. Conspiracy theorists lie to you too. Look at it.

This is the first second or so of the collapse of the South Tower. The camera is zoomed into the part where the plane crashed. Below the image I've included a version with blue and red lines roughly aligned to where the side of the building is. Note that the blue line stays vertical, as it is aligned with the part below the crash site. The red line shows the way the floors above started the collapse.

The next two seconds after this make it very clear that the part above the crash site is collapsing at an angle. It's not collapsing straight down, and the collapse is beginning from the floors where the plane crashed.

Then the camera zooms out as the floors beneath begin to pancake on top of each other. Not much is visible due to the massive cloud of debris. This is what conspiracy theorists call "falling into its own footprint." If I have my geography correct, the building in the foreground of the last frame is "Building 7" -- the building which collapsed later. The official narrative says Building 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by the collapse of the two towers. Conspiracy theorists deny this. Does it look like it might have sustained serious damage on the side facing the towers?



Finally here are a few frames from several seconds later. This looks nothing like "falling into its own footprint." Note the massive cloud of debris which has at this point travelled several blocks and is several stories high. (I believe Building 7 is the tall building between the camera and where the South Tower was.)

For people who managed to look at these images with an open mind, use your own judgement about what you see and how well it fits the two narratives under discussion.

Be honest about what happened. Be honest about who did it. That's the least we owe the thousand or so people whose deaths are recorded in these images.

[BADecker]

Remember that the part below the collision point was already supporting the part above it. If the safety factor was less than two, it was grossly under-strength. A partial collapse should have been held or at least stalled by the lower floors.

At best, this video suggests that the pilots of the planes were instructed as to the optimum location in the buildings to crash the planes so that there would be the least damage to surrounding buildings when the two came down.

A worse scenario is that the buildings came down exactly in the way that they were designed in such a happenstance, but the people were never told that this is how it would happen under this set of circumstances. If they had been told, they might have found employment elsewhere.

The worst scenario is the one already explained, that the buildings were outfitted with demolition explosives to make them come down the way that they did. One of the questions is, "Are all of the big buildings outfitted with explosives right at the time of construction, so that in the event of a need, they can be brought down with limited damage - even domino effect - to surrounding buildings? Or do the explosives need to be installed at a later date?"

Whatever the real truth, if it was NOT demolition, the buildings in the area are grossly unsafe, as are similar buildings wherever they are found around the world.



EDIT: If Building 7 was so heavily damaged that it was impractical to save it, yet not so heavily damaged as to collapse it without demolition, when were the explosives installed? Why was there no delay to the demolition to make sure that people in surrounding buildings could get their property out of the buildings in case something went wrong with the demolition?

[TECSHARE]

(4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P.

The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is?

Check out page 9.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.

I think it should be clear to anyone who reads our two posts that your beliefs on this subject are imprecise, and you prefer them to be imprecise.

Actually the WTC towers were designed to withstand being hit by a Boeing 707 and still stand, as confirmed in interviews with the engineers.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

So yeah, it is shocking to most people (who bother to actually educate themselves on the subject).

[Spendulus]

425,000   cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

Almost all of which was down low for the footing and the basements.  You neglected the factoid right above the one you quote, which was 200,000 tons of steel.

So the building had 850k tons of concrete, and 200k tons of steel.

Where is any support for your claim that to get to the steel fires had to get through the concrete first?

The info at http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html shows and explains it, along with many more links to Twin Tower info. This shows you how concrete the info is (pun intended).



EDIT: In addition, concrete is about 3 times as voluminous as steel, weight for weight. Therefore there was way more volume of concrete used in the buildings as there was steel.

I don't see any support for your claim there.   The buildings were held up by vertical steel columns.  They had sprayed on fireproofing.  They were not encased in concrete. 

The steel columns got hot from the fire, then got weak, then gave out.

As for the central column?  A quick look at it shows it contained maybe 50k cubic yards of concrete, which curiously is about the same amount for the floors assuming they were 1 acre x 3" thick.  The concrete central pillar was probably was worthless the minute the planes hit.  But it wasn't what was holding the thing up in the air, anyway.

[Spendulus]

(4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P.

The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is?

Check out page 9.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.

I think it should be clear to anyone who reads our two posts that your beliefs on this subject are imprecise, and you prefer them to be imprecise.

Actually the WTC towers were designed to withstand being hit by a Boeing 707 and still stand, as confirmed in interviews with the engineers.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

So yeah, it is shocking to most people (who bother to actually educate themselves on the subject).

The link shows the debris field of both towers to be about size times the diameter of the "footprint" of the buildings, or close to 30 times the area of the footprint.  Not exactly "falling into it's own footprint."

As for the towers being designed to survive after being struck by an aircraft, they did survive.  They did not survive being cooked afterwards, of course.

[Spendulus]

425,000   cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

Almost all of which was down low for the footing and the basements.  You neglected the factoid right above the one you quote, which was 200,000 tons of steel.

So the building had 850k tons of concrete, and 200k tons of steel.

Where is any support for your claim that to get to the steel fires had to get through the concrete first?

The info at http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html shows and explains it, along with many more links to Twin Tower info. This shows you how concrete the info is (pun intended).



EDIT: In addition, concrete is about 3 times as voluminous as steel, weight for weight. Therefore there was way more volume of concrete used in the buildings as there was steel.

I don't see any support for your claim there.   The buildings were held up by vertical steel columns.  They had sprayed on fireproofing.  They were not encased in concrete.  

The steel columns got hot from the fire, then got weak, then gave out.

As for the central column?  A quick look at it shows it contained maybe 50k cubic yards of concrete, which curiously is about the same amount for the floors assuming they were 1 acre x 3" thick.  The concrete central pillar was probably was worthless the minute the planes hit.  But it wasn't what was holding the thing up in the air, anyway.

Well, that's what I get for falling for one of your links.  Apparently this is part of a conspiracy theory, that somehow the fact there was a central column of concrete was covered up as part of a dis information campaign to support some conspiratorial belief - I don't even know what it would be.  For sure, though, the bullshit is really thick around here.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the central core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design
The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[72] The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors.[73] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers that helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.

[TECSHARE]

Physics dictates that explosive force would be required to blow 4 ton girders over 500 feet from their original position. You can play word games with your footprints all day, I never made any such claims.

[Spendulus]

Physics dictates that explosive force would be required to blow 4 ton girders over 500 feet from their original position. You can play word games with your footprints all day, I never made any such claims.

Well, if the fall was ten seconds, it would need to be moving sideways at 50 feet per second, or about 35 mph.   That doesn't seem to prove the need for explosives.  Say something fell, then 100 feet down hit a section of the building that hadn't collapsed and spun off it at a slant.  Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet per second, so less than 2 seconds and you've got the velocity, then just need to translate it into sideways motion.

Anyway, which is it?  Bad guys with bombs that throw girders 500 feet, of the building "falling into it's own footprint"? 

I can't keep track of all the mutually contradictory conspiracy data factoids....

[TECSHARE]

Physics dictates that explosive force would be required to blow 4 ton girders over 500 feet from their original position. You can play word games with your footprints all day, I never made any such claims.

Well, if the fall was ten seconds, it would need to be moving sideways at 50 feet per second, or about 35 mph.   That doesn't seem to prove the need for explosives.  Say something fell, then 100 feet down hit a section of the building that hadn't collapsed and spun off it at a slant.  Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet per second, so less than 2 seconds and you've got the velocity, then just need to translate it into sideways motion.

Anyway, which is it?  Bad guys with bombs that throw girders 500 feet, of the building "falling into it's own footprint"? 

I can't keep track of all the mutually contradictory conspiracy data factoids....

Your "math" is flawed. Actual calculations are presented here (not that you bothered to look): 4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

[Spendulus]

Physics dictates that explosive force would be required to blow 4 ton girders over 500 feet from their original position. You can play word games with your footprints all day, I never made any such claims.

Well, if the fall was ten seconds, it would need to be moving sideways at 50 feet per second, or about 35 mph.   That doesn't seem to prove the need for explosives.  Say something fell, then 100 feet down hit a section of the building that hadn't collapsed and spun off it at a slant.  Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet per second, so less than 2 seconds and you've got the velocity, then just need to translate it into sideways motion.

Anyway, which is it?  Bad guys with bombs that throw girders 500 feet, of the building "falling into it's own footprint"?  

I can't keep track of all the mutually contradictory conspiracy data factoids....

Your "math" is flawed. Actual calculations are presented here (not that you bothered to look): 4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Why, please tell,would someone "bother to look" to divide 10 seconds into x number of feet?  Your link uses meters, not feet.

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

[gripflierGO]

It's the event that forever changed the world we live in. From the loss of our Freedoms and most of our privacy, to the invasion of nation after nation in the name of fighting terrorism. No matter what your stance is on who committed 9/11 or how it was done, there is no denying that it has forever changed our world.