9/11 is just around the corner...
And I thought you guys might appreciate a good documentary discussing how the buildings may have come down.
Amazon Prime is currently featuring 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, put together by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
http://tinyurl.com/y8ut5nb5 (link is to Amazon)
They question the official story and provide science and analysis about how the three buildings came down, starting with WTC 7.
They only deal with the what, not the who or the why and it is quite well put together without a lot of the typical music that accompanies the "we know something you don't know" type of production. There is little to no discussion surrounding conspiracies and none of the people interviewed come off as crack pots; indeed they all have impressive credentials and experience. They simply analyze the way the buildings came down, and speculate the causes using scientific analysis and drawing from their experience and expertise in their fields. So if crackpot conspiracies are your thing, look elsewhere.
One interesting addition is the inclusion of psychological analysis of why people believe the way they do about these events (or events in general)- or rather why people, when presented with evidence that runs counter to what they have already accepted and believed typically do not believe it or accept the new evidence. I thought that was interesting, although it did sort of give the flavor of "if you don't believe us, you're a head case".
As you are probably aware, the A&E Truth folks tend to agree that the buildings were brought down using explosives, and the evidence they provide refutes that jet fuel and office fires were responsible for the building collapses that happened. It is probably not as comprehensive as I had hoped. For example, there is literally no discussion or analysis of things like det-cord (e.g. where is/was it) or how things may have been coordinated and they only briefly even mentioned where some of the materials they believe were used could have been sourced. They probably avoided some of that because it delves a bit into conspiracy land, and I applaud them for avoiding that.
Worth a look. 7.5/10
Amazon Prime is currently featuring 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, put together by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
http://tinyurl.com/y8ut5nb5 (link is to Amazon)
They question the official story and provide science and analysis about how the three buildings came down, starting with WTC 7.
They only deal with the what, not the who or the why and it is quite well put together without a lot of the typical music that accompanies the "we know something you don't know" type of production. There is little to no discussion surrounding conspiracies and none of the people interviewed come off as crack pots; indeed they all have impressive credentials and experience. They simply analyze the way the buildings came down, and speculate the causes using scientific analysis and drawing from their experience and expertise in their fields. So if crackpot conspiracies are your thing, look elsewhere.
One interesting addition is the inclusion of psychological analysis of why people believe the way they do about these events (or events in general)- or rather why people, when presented with evidence that runs counter to what they have already accepted and believed typically do not believe it or accept the new evidence. I thought that was interesting, although it did sort of give the flavor of "if you don't believe us, you're a head case".
As you are probably aware, the A&E Truth folks tend to agree that the buildings were brought down using explosives, and the evidence they provide refutes that jet fuel and office fires were responsible for the building collapses that happened. It is probably not as comprehensive as I had hoped. For example, there is literally no discussion or analysis of things like det-cord (e.g. where is/was it) or how things may have been coordinated and they only briefly even mentioned where some of the materials they believe were used could have been sourced. They probably avoided some of that because it delves a bit into conspiracy land, and I applaud them for avoiding that.
Worth a look. 7.5/10
0
-
Were the two 767s just a coincidence, or an elaborate cover? 0 -
There were no explosives other than 300 tons of airliner the terrorists used.
Plane crashes into building. Fuel is sprayed all over the interior. Ignites, burns very hot. The building was designed for vertical forces. Not lateral or super hot forces.
Anybody that thinks there were Gmen that put explosives in the portion of the building that the planes would hit just baffles me. [:(]
ros0 -
I very highly recommend reading the book "The Harbinger" by Jonathan Cahn. It has answers to many questions regarding 9\11 and saves a lot on the cost of tin foil. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by roswellnative
There were no explosives other than 300 tons of airliner the terrorists used.
Plane crashes into building. Fuel is sprayed all over the interior. Ignites, burns very hot. The building was designed for vertical forces. Not lateral or super hot forces.
Anybody that thinks there were Gmen that put explosives in the portion of the building that the planes would hit just baffles me. [:(]
ros
So, you have examined this documentary and have evidence with which to refute their findings? Please bring it forward.0 -
One of the local inspectors "hit" us because some of the "fireproofing" on a steel beam had been knocked off. My opinion is that if that beam gets so hot the fire proofing is going to save it we had better already have evacuated!
One of my guys wanted to know how often steel beams burst into flames!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Were the two 767s just a coincidence, or an elaborate cover?
It's hard for me to say which, if either. I do wonder if the one of the jetliners was supposed to have hit WTC 7 in whatever plan there was.0 -
I don't know if the wife has Amazon Prime, Mr. P, and if she does, I may give this a look.
To date, everything I've read by 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' has been, IMO, very light on actual fact and very heavy on speculation and nonsense.
Does the documentary consist of the same type of 'evidence' in the link below?
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
One of the local inspectors "hit" us because some of the "fireproofing" on a steel beam had been knocked off. My opinion is that if that beam gets so hot the fire proofing is going to save it we had better already have evacuated!
One of my guys wanted to know how often steel beams burst into flames!
Well, it is well documented that steel beams can weaken and ultimately sag due to flame temperatures generated by office equipment burning (in point of fact, this is discussed in the documentary I mention above). To help prevent that from happening quickly, fireproofing is a useful addition to a structure. It is a bit of a belt and suspenders approach to give folks enough time TO evacuate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't know if the wife has Amazon Prime, Mr. P, and if she does, I may give this a look.
To date, everything I've read by 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' has been, IMO, very light on actual fact and very heavy on speculation and nonsense.
Does the documentary consist of the same type of 'evidence' in the link below?
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
I just looked at a small sampling of what is there. Most of it is discussed and presented, from what I can tell. In the film, they show some of the film analysis of things like freefall times/acceleration, as one limited example.
If you don't have Prime, it appears that all of the segments of the 90 minute video are on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVop2lZSzd8&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO&index=20 -
Like the Kennedy assassination. The 9/11 incident as horrible as it was. Created lots of room for opinion.
We know what opinions are like.0 -
it cannot possible have been a terrorist act alone, our government had to help it along, dont forget the missile that hit the pentagon at the moment of a plane hitting it
i worked in the tallest building in saint louis for a decade, the logistics to get that amount of explosives to the upper floors wold be a task, on top of have both planes hit the exact floor they where on by novice pilots
sure why not ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by 1911a1-fan
it cannot possible have been a terrorist act alone, our government had to help it along, dont forget the missile that hit the pentagon at the moment of a plane hitting it
i worked in the tallest building in saint louis for a decade, the logistics to get that amount of explosives to the upper floors wold be a task, on top of have both planes hit the exact floor they where on by novice pilots
sure why not ?
I am unaware of any prerequisite that the planes had to hit xyz floor. Furthermore WTC7 was not hit by a plane. I would think there was plenty of opportunity to load explosives in the buildings, prior to the event, unless every suitcase that went in was inspected. I have no specific experience with the WTC buildings but I have worked in high rises and the ones I worked in would be quite easy to get things stashed over the course of many weeks months or years (I have no idea how long things were being prepared for this, nor do I particularly care as I'm not entertaining particular conspiracies).0 -
It looks like many people haven't seen fuel tanks explode in real life, if you haven't you'd be amazed at what it looks like and the damage it can do [;)]. Remember these planes were loaded for cross country flights and had only a short time in the air so they had more than enough fuel to damage what they wanted, it was well planned by someone, who ??....that, we will never know. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Junkballer
It looks like many people haven't seen fuel tanks explode in real life, if you haven't you'd be amazed at what it looks like and the damage it can do [;)]. Remember these planes were loaded for cross country flights and had only a short time in the air so they had more than enough fuel to damage what they wanted, it was well planned by someone, who ??....that, we will never know.
And perhaps even fewer who have seen a building that has undergone controlled demolition.0 -
Two planes flown by Saudi born terrorists flew into the WTC towers creating tremendous lateral stresses,....causing explosions,....and spilling huge quantities of jet fuel that created an inferno resulting in catastrophic collapse after a period of time.
Nothing more,...nothing less, IMHO of course.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Two planes flown by Saudi born terrorists flew into the WTC towers creating tremendous lateral stresses,....causing explosions,....and spilling huge quantities of jet fuel that created an inferno resulting in catastrophic collapse after a period of time.
Nothing more,...nothing less, IMHO of course.
Possible but extremely unlikely, particularly for WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.
Side note: did you know that the buildings were designed to withstand direct hits by aircraft?0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm
maybe it was.....0 -
Maybe it's just me, but I think it is at least worthwhile to listen to what experienced high rise architects and civil engineers have to say on the subject. They aren't postulating wild theories about aliens or that the government was involved. They're simply challenging the NIST report and the explanations given that appear to have not just overlooked ample available objective evidence, but in some cases denied it outright.
No one refutes that there were fires in WTC 7. However part of the explanation for buildings 1 and 2's collapse is that jet fuel was involved. Ok. Well, no jet fuel was involved in WTC7, so now what? Office fires brought down the building? Unlikely, according to experts.
But, you don't have to listen to me, watch for yourself and decide.0 -
quote:Originally posted by forgemonkey
If you've ever prepared, ignited and maintained a 'forge' with a deep tuyere the dynamics become evident as to what happened.
With the amount of plane fuel and resulting oxygen hungry fire unleashed upon impact the up draft of oxygen needed became self sustaining from the below floors, stairways, elevator shafts, etc.
In essence, you had two of the worlds tallest 'forges' capable of heating/melting any structural material including steel. And the domino effect from the weight above the super heated areas was predictable.
One thing I am familiar with is how steel conducts heat. I am 100% willing to accept that on a few floors of WTC 1 and 2, there was ample heat to more than significantly soften the steel. What I don't accept is why the building didn't just topple due to bending at those points, and why it subsequently pancaked (at the rate of free-fall) every floor beneath as if there were no uncompromised steel structure there. And THEN there is WTC 7 where no jet fuel was involved.
One of the things looked at specifically, is the specific way the structure toppled.0 -
Did they get into the actual smoke cloud configuration?
Different materials create different plumage. It is science.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Two planes flown by Saudi born terrorists flew into the WTC towers creating tremendous lateral stresses,....causing explosions,....and spilling huge quantities of jet fuel that created an inferno resulting in catastrophic collapse after a period of time.
Nothing more,...nothing less, IMHO of course.
I agree completely. have to admit, out of all the things we could cry conspiracy over. I don't get it here. its really easy to see how those buildings would collapse after what happened. would have been a miracle if they didn't collapse. its simple physics. and is also easy to see how they collapsed the way they did.0 -
It still amazes me the easiness of folks to dismiss measured evidence which does not fit their preconceived notions. It also amazes me how so many dismiss logical questions without anything other than armchair science and ad hominem attacks.
If one is to believe the official conspiracy theory, you must ignore many damning pieces of evidence which run contrary to its basic premise. I am not willing to ignore any evidence, nor am I suggesting that anyone swallow someones unqualified opinions.
There is plenty of material available,MrP's linked video being one,which would give anyone with an open mind and rudimentary understanding of science reason to doubt the veracity of the official conspiracy theory.
I have studied this more than most people and have pretty much given up on posting it here for the same reasons I no longer try to convince liberals that anthropogenic global warming is a sham. Both groups have closed their minds and declared it settled.
I have met the founder of A&E, listened to his presentations,shared a beverage with him after his lecture, and have found him to be a credible and serious individual. The questions he raises and the problems he identifies with the official conspiracy theory are rational and should not be dismissed.
I have also met and discussed this event with people who were crackpots,mentally ill, and irrational. Their argument and claims were easy to disregard since they all hinged on opinion and wild unsubstantiated theories. The existence of crackpots ,however, does not eliminate consideration of the rational points brought to light by reasoned,sane, and credentialed experts.
I don't know exactly what transpired that day. I don't know all who were involved. What I do know is that the official conspiracy proffered by our govt does not match the observed and measured data and there is a concerted effort to keep people from examining things further. That bothers me.
Thank you MrP for posting. It is good to keep this fresh as it is an event which needs to be remembered with honesty.0 -
quote:Originally posted by forgemonkey
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by forgemonkey
If you've ever prepared, ignited and maintained a 'forge' with a deep tuyere the dynamics become evident as to what happened.
With the amount of plane fuel and resulting oxygen hungry fire unleashed upon impact the up draft of oxygen needed became self sustaining from the below floors, stairways, elevator shafts, etc.
In essence, you had two of the worlds tallest 'forges' capable of heating/melting any structural material including steel. And the domino effect from the weight above the super heated areas was predictable.
One thing I am familiar with is how steel conducts heat. I am 100% willing to accept that on a few floors of WTC 1 and 2, there was ample heat to more than significantly soften the steel. What I don't accept is why the building didn't just topple due to bending at those points, and why it subsequently pancaked (at the rate of free-fall) every floor beneath as if there were no uncompromised steel structure there. And THEN there is WTC 7 where no jet fuel was involved.
One of the things looked at specifically, is the specific way the structure toppled.
Think of it this way,,,,,,,a common decorative forging technique is to heat the middle section(upper floors) of thick walled sq. tubing(building) and put it in our hydraulic press(above floors weight) ,,,,,,,the tubing collapses in a uniform(think accordion) straight down fashion. The somewhat even weight distribution of the above floors certainly supports an accordion collapse.
IIRC the initial collapse of the above floors was almost straight down, causing the domino effect of all below.
BTW I confided in ReTroxler shortly after nine eleven re forging the letters for the inscription for the on site museum. We were unable to obtain permits for 3-Phase( for our big hammer) in time. A couple of the steel beam ends were actually melted and all were warped. And sent to NM forging.
I understand the analogy but it doesn't work. You're talking uniform heating and a highly constrained press. Those conditions weren't present. Furthermore, there was evidence of thermite that the official report not only ignored but denied outright.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 204targetman
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Two planes flown by Saudi born terrorists flew into the WTC towers creating tremendous lateral stresses,....causing explosions,....and spilling huge quantities of jet fuel that created an inferno resulting in catastrophic collapse after a period of time.
Nothing more,...nothing less, IMHO of course.
I agree completely. have to admit, out of all the things we could cry conspiracy over. I don't get it here. its really easy to see how those buildings would collapse after what happened. would have been a miracle if they didn't collapse. its simple physics. and is also easy to see how they collapsed the way they did.
As I pointed out, this is not about crazy conspiracies. The call for further investigation came from family and friends who lost loved ones who noted that the official explanation did not jive with what, by all appearances, looked like a controlled demolition.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mag00
Did they get into the actual smoke cloud configuration?
Different materials create different plumage. It is science.
Not in this film. They may have info on it on their site, however. I have not really looked at it in a long time.0 -
quote:Originally posted by skicat
It still amazes me the easiness of folks to dismiss measured evidence which does not fit their preconceived notions. It also amazes me how so many dismiss logical questions without anything other than armchair science and ad hominem attacks.
If one is to believe the official conspiracy theory, you must ignore many damning pieces of evidence which run contrary to its basic premise. I am not willing to ignore any evidence, nor am I suggesting that anyone swallow someones unqualified opinions.
There is plenty of material available,MrP's linked video being one,which would give anyone with an open mind and rudimentary understanding of science reason to doubt the veracity of the official conspiracy theory.
I have studied this more than most people and have pretty much given up on posting it here for the same reasons I no longer try to convince liberals that anthropogenic global warming is a sham. Both groups have closed their minds and declared it settled.
I have met the founder of A&E, listened to his presentations,shared a beverage with him after his lecture, and have found him to be a credible and serious individual. The questions he raises and the problems he identifies with the official conspiracy theory are rational and should not be dismissed.
I have also met and discussed this event with people who were crackpots,mentally ill, and irrational. Their argument and claims were easy to disregard since they all hinged on opinion and wild unsubstantiated theories. The existence of crackpots ,however, does not eliminate consideration of the rational points brought to light by reasoned,sane, and credentialed experts.
I don't know exactly what transpired that day. I don't know all who were involved. What I do know is that the official conspiracy proffered by our govt does not match the observed and measured data and there is a concerted effort to keep people from examining things further. That bothers me.
Thank you MrP for posting. It is good to keep this fresh as it is an event which needs to be remembered with honesty.
Well said, Jim.0 -
Having some experience with explosives my problem with this theory is When and How could "Someone" have gotten the explosives required to do that into the building? Then set it all up. Plus they would have had to know about where the planes would impact so their lines would not be cut.
I have seen steel break and it gives off light and a flash when it happens.
I really don't feel that there was any "Conspiracy" except the one carried out by the muslim terrorist's.
The main question I ask is why? That is a lot of trouble and work to go through and would have a lot of people involved that would have to be trusted to remain quite. I just don't see it happening.
There would have been better and easier ways to get America behind a war with islam.0 -
Most of the video available form A&E for 9/11 truth is fairly old and has been reviewed and countered. Being old does not mean it is not worthwhile to review it if you have not before.
There is a lot of speculation as to the near 'free fall acceleration' of the twin towers, and many focus upon this as something that confirms there was structural damage done to the floors below the impact levels. Free fall from 1,000 feet occurs in 7.9 seconds. The claim is made that the 9 - 11 second time approaches this speed.
Obviously the 11 second time cited for Tower 1 is not even close, as it is 39% longer than would be a free fall acceleration.
Even the 9 seconds cited for Tower 2 is 14% longer than would be a free fall time, even if we ignore the height of the rubble pile post collapse
In short, the collapse of both towers experienced significant resistance that kept them from realizing free fall acceleration.
Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition. A simple look into the design of the towers makes it fairly obvious as to why they would collapse in this manner. Once the floors began to give way, something that is evidenced by the puffs of smoke and debris exiting the windows at the beginning of the collapse, there is nothing to exert a lateral force on the buildings, so they collapse, as gravity would suggest, in a downward direction.
These folks do seem sincere, and I don't doubt that some of them are. Architects, however, are not engineers, and the citing of a EE to explain why he can't explain a structural failure does not seem to advance the conversation.
Popular Mechanics did a fairly thorough report regarding the failures, including that of WTC 7. WTC 7 is, of course, much more surprising that WTC 1 and WTC 2, but we must remember that the fire resistance of buildings is based upon the fire suppression system functioning. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rendered the fire suppression system in WTC 7 inoperative.
Lastly, it has often been mentioned that the building were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. While this is true, when the building designers were interviewed, they were designing for the impact of a 707 class airframe losing its way on approach to one of the local airports. The 400 knot speed of the much heavier flying fuel tanks that were the 767s created an impact force an order of magnitude higher than the original design parameters.
The two buildings held up very well considering what they were hit with and what they were design to withstand. It is a tribute to not only the designers, but to the construction methods and maintenance of them over the years.
Obviously one can draw their own conclusions, and any new evidence should be considered with an open mind. I don't see anything here that suggests a re-thinking of the official conclusion is in order.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most of the video available form A&E for 9/11 truth is fairly old and has been reviewed and countered. Being old does not mean it is not worthwhile to review it if you have not before.
There is a lot of speculation as to the near 'free fall acceleration' of the twin towers, and many focus upon this as something that confirms there was structural damage done to the floors below the impact levels. Free fall from 1,000 feet occurs in 7.9 seconds. The claim is made that the 9 - 11 second time approaches this speed.
Obviously the 11 second time cited for Tower 1 is not even close, as it is 39% longer than would be a free fall acceleration.
Even the 9 seconds cited for Tower 2 is 14% longer than would be a free fall time, even if we ignore the height of the rubble pile post collapse
In short, the collapse of both towers experienced significant resistance that kept them from realizing free fall acceleration.
Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition. A simple look into the design of the towers makes it fairly obvious as to why they would collapse in this manner. Once the floors began to give way, something that is evidenced by the puffs of smoke and debris exiting the windows at the beginning of the collapse, there is nothing to exert a lateral force on the buildings, so they collapse, as gravity would suggest, in a downward direction.
These folks do seem sincere, and I don't doubt that some of them are. Architects, however, are not engineers, and the citing of a EE to explain why he can't explain a structural failure does not seem to advance the conversation.
Popular Mechanics did a fairly thorough report regarding the failures, including that of WTC 7. WTC 7 is, of course, much more surprising that WTC 1 and WTC 2, but we must remember that the fire resistance of buildings is based upon the fire suppression system functioning. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rendered the fire suppression system in WTC 7 inoperative.
Lastly, it has often been mentioned that the building were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. While this is true, when the building designers were interviewed, they were designing for the impact of a 707 class airframe losing its way on approach to one of the local airports. The 400 knot speed of the much heavier flying fuel tanks that were the 767s created an impact force an order of magnitude higher than the original design parameters.
The two buildings held up very well considering what they were hit with and what they were design to withstand. It is a tribute to not only the designers, but to the construction methods and maintenance of them over the years.
Obviously one can draw their own conclusions, and any new evidence should be considered with an open mind. I don't see anything here that suggests a re-thinking of the official conclusion is in order.
A couple of things. The Popular Mechanics article did a fine job of debunking all of the crackpot theories and an outstanding job of ignoring every rational objection to the official conspiracy theory. There is also significant conflict of interest in the reporting as Pop Mechanics was completely carrying water for the official position.
What you said about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707 is correct but then you wandered a bit. The 707 is a slightly smaller plane than the 767's, that is true. However, 707's are faster planes and the impact energy was calculated using max speed and payload. Kinetic energy rises only with a multiple of the mass of the plane but rises with the square of the velocity. Therefore the lighter,faster 707 actually releases more of a kinetic impact than the planes which actually hit the towers. Those who imply the calculations were done using reduced figures of slowly flying lost aircraft are doing so to deliberately discredit the design of the building.
One thing I'll ask you to consider is that in order for the govts official conspiracy theory to be true, all of the evidence has to fit in the framework of a non controlled and organic collapse. Any evidence which intimates some other agency at play, besides random non symmetric fires and damage, voids ones acceptance of the govts position.
When talk goes to the heat necessary to melt steel and concrete, proponents of the official conspiracy theory will usually bring up the point that the steel didn't need to reach the melting point in order for it to collapse. That is a true statement but misleading. It ignores the fact that molten steel was observed running like lava and nobody on the official conspiracy theory side of the debate can explain where the energy to melt steel and concrete came from when relying only on the energy of plane impacts and burning hydrocarbon fuel in atmosphere.
The formation of spontaneously formed blast furnaces like Forgemonkey describes is another theory I hear touted frequently. It has the disadvantage of having zero forensic evidence to back it up.0 -
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most of the video available form A&E for 9/11 truth is fairly old and has been reviewed and countered. Being old does not mean it is not worthwhile to review it if you have not before.
There is a lot of speculation as to the near 'free fall acceleration' of the twin towers, and many focus upon this as something that confirms there was structural damage done to the floors below the impact levels. Free fall from 1,000 feet occurs in 7.9 seconds. The claim is made that the 9 - 11 second time approaches this speed.
Obviously the 11 second time cited for Tower 1 is not even close, as it is 39% longer than would be a free fall acceleration.
Even the 9 seconds cited for Tower 2 is 14% longer than would be a free fall time, even if we ignore the height of the rubble pile post collapse
In short, the collapse of both towers experienced significant resistance that kept them from realizing free fall acceleration.
Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition. A simple look into the design of the towers makes it fairly obvious as to why they would collapse in this manner. Once the floors began to give way, something that is evidenced by the puffs of smoke and debris exiting the windows at the beginning of the collapse, there is nothing to exert a lateral force on the buildings, so they collapse, as gravity would suggest, in a downward direction.
These folks do seem sincere, and I don't doubt that some of them are. Architects, however, are not engineers, and the citing of a EE to explain why he can't explain a structural failure does not seem to advance the conversation.
Popular Mechanics did a fairly thorough report regarding the failures, including that of WTC 7. WTC 7 is, of course, much more surprising that WTC 1 and WTC 2, but we must remember that the fire resistance of buildings is based upon the fire suppression system functioning. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rendered the fire suppression system in WTC 7 inoperative.
Lastly, it has often been mentioned that the building were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. While this is true, when the building designers were interviewed, they were designing for the impact of a 707 class airframe losing its way on approach to one of the local airports. The 400 knot speed of the much heavier flying fuel tanks that were the 767s created an impact force an order of magnitude higher than the original design parameters.
The two buildings held up very well considering what they were hit with and what they were design to withstand. It is a tribute to not only the designers, but to the construction methods and maintenance of them over the years.
Obviously one can draw their own conclusions, and any new evidence should be considered with an open mind. I don't see anything here that suggests a re-thinking of the official conclusion is in order.
A couple of things. The Popular Mechanics article did a fine job of debunking all of the crackpot theories and an outstanding job of ignoring every rational objection to the official conspiracy theory. There is also significant conflict of interest in the reporting as Pop Mechanics was completely carrying water for the official position.
What you said about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707 is correct but then you wandered a bit. The 707 is a slightly smaller plane than the 767's, that is true. However, 707's are faster planes and the impact energy was calculated using max speed and payload. Kinetic energy rises only with a multiple of the mass of the plane but rises with the square of the velocity. Therefore the lighter,faster 707 actually releases more of a kinetic impact than the planes which actually hit the towers. Those who imply the calculations were done using reduced figures of slowly flying lost aircraft are doing so to deliberately discredit the design of the building.
One thing I'll ask you to consider is that in order for the govts official conspiracy theory to be true, all of the evidence has to fit in the framework of a non controlled and organic collapse. Any evidence which intimates some other agency at play, besides random non symmetric fires and damage, voids ones acceptance of the govts position.
When talk goes to the heat necessary to melt steel and concrete, proponents of the official conspiracy theory will usually bring up the point that the steel didn't need to reach the melting point in order for it to collapse. That is a true statement but misleading. It ignores the fact that molten steel was observed running like lava and nobody on the official conspiracy theory side of the debate can explain where the energy to melt steel and concrete came from when relying only on the energy of plane impacts and burning hydrocarbon fuel in atmosphere.
The formation of spontaneously formed blast furnaces like Forgemonkey describes is another theory I hear touted frequently. It has the disadvantage of having zero forensic evidence to back it up.
Not to mention the evidence that was found of thermite having been used. And of course, the problem STILL remains, that WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and no jet fuel was burning inside it.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments