[Vote] Who did 911?

[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.

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.

Falling for one of My links!? But you go and use Wikipedia that almost anyone could go and change, and if he were of a mind to sit and watch it day and night, change back to what he wanted whenever somebody else changed it to something different.

So, who is the conspiracy theorist here? Those who adhere to the official government report? Or those who recognize that it was government that was behind the whole thing?

[BADecker]

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.

True. But so did Pearl Harbor, and lots of other things.

[no-ice-please]

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.

True. But so did Pearl Harbor, and lots of other things.

That's an interesting point.

The intention of 911 was probably to have some great effect on Americans, but that isn't really how Americans work. The people who were directly affected by it considered it an earthshaking event but for most it was another big news event, that's all.

So when you see someone say "it changed our world forever" it's either an American being dramatic or a non american being polite or someone who was directly impacted by it.

[TECSHARE]

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.

I said feet and the link uses meters....and...? Does this some how negate the force needed to eject them or the math it is based on? This is just another distraction from the points.


First of all steel doesn't snap like a twig, it bends and contorts under pressure. Additionally such massive objects don't just randomly get thrown so far from the core structure. The amount of energy required to propel them that distance from the towers requires explosive forces. The fact that you are arguing the mass of the object has no bearing on the amount of force needed to propel it a great distance from the building is quite telling of your ignorance of basic physics. Materials were disintegrated, and were propelled for great distances. The building was pulverized, and yes, there were traces of thermate explosives btw.

[Spendulus]

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.

I said feet and the link uses meters....and...? Does this some how negate the force needed to eject them or the math it is based on? This is just another distraction from the points.


First of all steel doesn't snap like a twig, it bends and contorts under pressure. Additionally such massive objects don't just randomly get thrown so far from the core structure. The amount of energy required to propel them that distance from the towers requires explosive forces. The fact that you are arguing the mass of the object has no bearing on the amount of force needed to propel it a great distance from the building is quite telling of your ignorance of basic physics. Materials were disintegrated, and were propelled for great distances. The building was pulverized, and yes, there were traces of thermate explosives btw.

Well, 500-600 feet is the actual limit of the rubble heap, so it's not like it was 3x beyond the rubble.   

I'm not sure what you are trying to say (bolded above).  The force any falling object has is related to it's mass and gravitational acceleration.  A lightweight object is equally capable of going the same distance as a heavy object if either is deflected sideways.   Because the force involved is gravity.....

Now you seem to think that additional force over and above that would be required - I don't see why.  At 1800 feet, we could talk about something like that.  But why do you think it would be required just at the edge of the rubble heap?

Also, some steels certainly can snap, and quite obviously hundreds of welded together steel box columns did come apart into bunches of pieces, didn't they?

Finally, I don't even see the logic or internal consistency in the conspiracy theory as presented.  Let me show you why.

1.  Plane hits building at level XYZ.
2.  Building burns for an hour.
3.  Carefully planted explosives at or about the same level XYZ are detonated.
4.  Building collapses FROM FLOORS PLANE STRUCK.

You realize that after the plane hit that building was totally worthless, whether or not it went down?  It would have had to be destroyed later as unsafe and dangerous.

So why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

It makes no sense.   As for the "traces of thermite found?"   This is pretty laughable from several points of view.  A lot of thermite compounds exist, typically we might look at iron oxide and aluminum, both finely powdered.  Well, you could find those anywhere.  That is not evidence of thermite.  It's just rust and maybe beer cans.

Next, thermite is not an explosive as we typically use the term.  So it's not going to launch 4 ton chunk of metal anywhere.  To get around this problem I understand the answer is ratcheted up - "Oh, but it was NANO-THERMITE!!!!"

Those are rare and highly dangerous things to handle.  I'm not familiar with their use although similar issues exist with nano powdered metals of all sorts.  And that stuff, it's ridiculous to talk about a stealth operation of this scale using it - or for that matter anything else.

It's quite puzzling why exactly anyone who was going to conceive of blowing up a building would come up with thermite and or nano thermite.  Seems like it would be the absolute worst idea, frankly.  Very hard to get ignition, too.

So I really just don't get it - can't we have a better conspiracy theory than this?

[Salman Anjum]

Muslim were not did 911 attack...!!!

Muslims are not a terrorists......


Muslims don't kill innocent People....

“If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind.”  (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)

Islam is perfect..

[BADecker]

3.  Carefully planted explosives at or about the same level XYZ are detonated.

You realize that after the plane hit that building was totally worthless, whether or not it went down?  It would have had to be destroyed later as unsafe and dangerous.

So why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

It makes no sense.

You really ARE going off the deep end. You should be asking this question of the families of the people who died.

[BADecker]

Muslim were not did 911 attack...!!!

Muslims are not a terrorists......


Muslims don't kill innocent People....

“If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind.”  (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)

Islam is perfect..

It was an inside job, done by parts of the U.S. government and the U.S. military. Some of the terrorist that these U.S. perpetrators used may have been Muslim... at least on the outside. It absolutely was NOT the Muslims that did 9/11.

[Spendulus]

3.  Carefully planted explosives at or about the same level XYZ are detonated.

You realize that after the plane hit that building was totally worthless, whether or not it went down?  It would have had to be destroyed later as unsafe and dangerous.

So why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

It makes no sense.

You really ARE going off the deep end. You should be asking this question of the families of the people who died.

The fact that your hands are typing and words are appearing does not mean that you make sense.  Your ad hominem attacks don't shield a basic issue.  Why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

That would be like trying to rob a bank, and having one team go in with guns and another at the same time trying to tunnel in from underground.

[J. J. Phillips]

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.

True. But so did Pearl Harbor, and lots of other things.

I'm fairly confident that gripflierGO was just making a short meaningless post to get his sig ad an extra view. A lot of users do that. It's annoying.

[J. J. Phillips]

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....

For people catching up, the situation appears to be this.

One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

Brilliant.

[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....

For people catching up, the situation appears to be this.

One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

Brilliant.

But wait, there's more.  No "controlled demolition" tosses 4 ton chunks of metal 500 feet.  

So WTF?  I would like a clear and simple explanation of one or both or the best of these theories, because I truly don't get it.  And no rambling off into Evil World Overlords halfway through the explanation -we might be in agreement about the Evil World Overlords, but that doesn't have anything to do with HOW a building falls down or whether a plane hit it.

[BADecker]

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....

For people catching up, the situation appears to be this.

One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

Brilliant.

But wait, there's more.  No "controlled demolition" tosses 4 ton chunks of metal 500 feet.  

So WTF?  I would like a clear and simple explanation of one or both or the best of these theories, because I truly don't get it.  And no rambling off into Evil World Overlords halfway through the explanation -we might be in agreement about the Evil World Overlords, but that doesn't have anything to do with HOW a building falls down or whether a plane hit it.

If 4-ton chunks of metal were tossed 500 feet in the collapse of the Twin Towers, then controlled demolition absolutely does toss 4-ton chunks of metal 500 feet.

[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....

For people catching up, the situation appears to be this.

One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

Brilliant.

But wait, there's more.  No "controlled demolition" tosses 4 ton chunks of metal 500 feet.  

So WTF?  I would like a clear and simple explanation of one or both or the best of these theories, because I truly don't get it.  And no rambling off into Evil World Overlords halfway through the explanation -we might be in agreement about the Evil World Overlords, but that doesn't have anything to do with HOW a building falls down or whether a plane hit it.

If 4-ton chunks of metal were tossed 500 feet in the collapse of the Twin Towers, then controlled demolition absolutely does toss 4-ton chunks of metal 500 feet.

Sez who?  You?  Controlled demolition means just that - the force of the explosive charges is applied to a job, not to randomly blowing things up and tossing shrapnel around.  This is crazy talk.  There are hundreds of controlled demo videos, go show one where something is tossed 500 feet.

To illustrate the problem, ask what kind of explosion would toss a Humvee 500 feet.   That's not characteristic of a "controlled demolition."  Neither is it something a 500 lb shell would do.  In fact, no explosive would do this, because it would disintegrate the metal into small pieces rather than move it as a large object.  This is because the metal disintegrates when the shock wave exceeds the speed of sound in steel.  High explosives pressure wave exceed that requisite velocity by a factor of ten.

If the debris field mound extended 500 feet, which it did, who says the chunk didn't just slide down the mound and come to a stop at marker 500.

[freakying99]

So everyone picked the US Gov? I think its least likely to be them. It was da joos!

[Netpyder]

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.

True. But so did Pearl Harbor, and lots of other things.

I'm fairly confident that gripflierGO was just making a short meaningless post to get his sig ad an extra view. A lot of users do that. It's annoying.

hello,
i have not forgotten our debate , i am just a little bit busy with my personnal life, not going very well right now. i will post the notes when i finish sorting out the real life problem i have first. i am sorry to keep you waiting

[Spendulus]

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.

True. But so did Pearl Harbor, and lots of other things.

I'm fairly confident that gripflierGO was just making a short meaningless post to get his sig ad an extra view. A lot of users do that. It's annoying.

hello,
i have not forgotten our debate , i am just a little bit busy with my personnal life, not going very well right now. i will post the notes when i finish sorting out the real life problem i have first. i am sorry to keep you waiting

Hey Netpyder first things first.   There is a joke about a Mom yelling to her kid "Come to dinner!".  The kid is in his room on a computer and he yells back "I'll be there.  Just a minute.  Someone on the Internet is wrong!"

Real life is important.

[BADecker]

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....

For people catching up, the situation appears to be this.

One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

Brilliant.

But wait, there's more.  No "controlled demolition" tosses 4 ton chunks of metal 500 feet.  

So WTF?  I would like a clear and simple explanation of one or both or the best of these theories, because I truly don't get it.  And no rambling off into Evil World Overlords halfway through the explanation -we might be in agreement about the Evil World Overlords, but that doesn't have anything to do with HOW a building falls down or whether a plane hit it.

If 4-ton chunks of metal were tossed 500 feet in the collapse of the Twin Towers, then controlled demolition absolutely does toss 4-ton chunks of metal 500 feet.

Sez who?  You?  Controlled demolition means just that - the force of the explosive charges is applied to a job, not to randomly blowing things up and tossing shrapnel around.  This is crazy talk.  There are hundreds of controlled demo videos, go show one where something is tossed 500 feet.

To illustrate the problem, ask what kind of explosion would toss a Humvee 500 feet.   That's not characteristic of a "controlled demolition."  Neither is it something a 500 lb shell would do.  In fact, no explosive would do this, because it would disintegrate the metal into small pieces rather than move it as a large object.  This is because the metal disintegrates when the shock wave exceeds the speed of sound in steel.  High explosives pressure wave exceed that requisite velocity by a factor of ten.

If the debris field mound extended 500 feet, which it did, who says the chunk didn't just slide down the mound and come to a stop at marker 500.

Just because the sonic broadcasting pulverized much of the concrete, doesn't mean the metal was pulverized. When you drop chunks of this and that from 1,300 feet in a conglomerate mess, you never can tell the exact place that all the pieces will land.

[monbux]

Probably an inside job, but most likely - we won't know for sure...  Gee, those action films are starting to look realistic now - with all the fighting and backstabbing (Captain American - The Winter Soldier).  There was also talk regarding the structure of the twin towers and how they shouldn't have been affected the way they were because of their steal beams - I saw it somewhere on an article.

Off topic - You know it's serious when the fourth most voted option is: "I don't care. Where is my crack pipe?"

[Spendulus]

Probably an inside job, but most likely - we won't know for sure...  Gee, those action films are starting to look realistic now - with all the fighting and backstabbing (Captain American - The Winter Soldier).  There was also talk regarding the structure of the twin towers and how they shouldn't have been affected the way they were because of their steal beams - I saw it somewhere on an article.

Off topic - You know it's serious when the fourth most voted option is: "I don't care. Where is my crack pipe?"

Yeah seems like I fairly easily disprove the claim that the steel beams couldn't have melted last couple pages.  

So don't throw out the crack pipe option.

And yes, it certainly looks like it was an inside job - an inside job by Muslim Terrorists inside the airplane cockpits.