Looking at 9/11 with actual science

[E5RANGER375]

Nope I am going on IMO common sense.

well you and I probly share the same opinion of each others "common sense" opinion.

All I feel that I know beyond a REASONABLE doubt is that the buildings did'nt fall as a result of the planes crashing into them or the fuel fires. I believe they were a controlled demolition.

now who planned and perpotrated this act is yet to be proven to me. but I do know and believe based on facts that the U.S. Government is covering up the facts and that makes me strongly want an answer why. also i do know based on facts that they knew at least 2 planes had been hi-jacked before they ever left the ground. hense the reason the black boxes have been hidden from us

and thats all im asking people to do is ask questions and listen to facts, and not what the media or the government tells you, or their PAID investigators.

What would it hurt to re-open a transparent investigation? If the government is not hiding anything then they wont have to worry. it will cost less than it did for barry to hide his kenyan birth certificate.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Since I watched the Towers collapse on TV and read the official conclusions of the structural engineers who studied the collapse - and because it agrees with my own (minimal) collapsed structure rescue training, I don't find any government conspiracy theory credible. The buildings behaved exactly as I would have expected when the main structural members were "softened" by the extended fires and were unable to sustain the weight of the floors above them. Once the top 20 or 30 floors started the collapse, the weight on the remaining vertical structural members just kept increasing, causing a cascading pancake collapse.

If you've ever watched videos of a building demolition being prepared, you will probably note that the building is gutted before the explosives are emplaced into structural members, and they are not just "attached" to the members, they are placed INTO the members. That's an awful lot of prep work for a couple buildings that were at least partially occupied at all times up to the day of the incident.

 

[jbombelli]

no actualy if you read quotes from top taliban alcowarda people they say that they never it to be that big of a success and that it was just a bonus (in my own parafrasing)

the video you just watched shows scientific facts about metal. most of the jet fula was destroyed on impact in a fireball and the other went down shaft and was burned up quickly. what you were left with was a building fire. not enough heat to BURN THROUGH STEEL!! also how about the test that confirm explosive residue all over the place in the dust? also did the video talk about the 4 black boxes that the government says they never recovered but workers on the ground (YOUR BROTHEREN) say they SAW recovered and taken by the FBI and CIA???? or were those cops and firefighters lying too? funny how key testimonies were left out of the official report, or were even not allowed to testify before congress. the inconsistancies and FACT (not speculation) dont add up. you are free to believe what you want, but several independant studies have been done and they have the same conclusion. maybe one day people will learn the truth and then they will have unrefutibe evidence to try and denny it. until then the blind sheep will roam and be led to slaughter.

Due to my interest in knives, I've studied metallurgy somewhat. In particular steels and heat treating and tempering.

You don't have to burn through steel to bring down a building when it's framed in steel, especially a large building like that. You only have to weaken it. That can be done with just a few hundred degrees.


My theory consists of jetliners crashing into tall, steel-framed buildings, and the resulting fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel weakening the frames of the buildings in the area where the planes hit them, with collapse being the inevitable result.

Take a metallurgy course or two. It will open your eyes to how steel reacts to heat.

 

[j706]

Since I watched the Towers collapse on TV and read the official conclusions of the structural engineers who studied the collapse - and because it agrees with my own (minimal) collapsed structure rescue training, I don't find any government conspiracy theory credible. The buildings behaved exactly as I would have expected when the main structural members were "softened" by the extended fires and were unable to sustain the weight of the floors above them. Once the top 20 or 30 floors started the collapse, the weight on the remaining vertical structural members just kept increasing, causing a cascading pancake collapse.

If you've ever watched videos of a building demolition being prepared, you will probably note that the building is gutted before the explosives are emplaced into structural members, and they are not just "attached" to the members, they are placed INTO the members. That's an awful lot of prep work for a couple buildings that were at least partially occupied at all times up to the day of the incident.

Yea all good points. I was a millwright/welder for 20+ years and have worked with steel a large portion of my life. I also graduated from Decator Township Fire Academy for FF I & II where we studied the science of fire and its effects on certain materials. Not saying I am any kind of expert on the subject but I have always been interested and fascinated by fire science.

Hot steel is weak steel. Hot steel also expands (Grows) in all directions. Bare steel and massive fire combined with structural integrity and massive amounts of weights is a very bad situation. That is not even mentioning the impact and the resulting loss of structural integrity.

One thing the truthers never get around to addressing is how both towers collapsed at the airliner impact points. The tower hit last fell first because it was hit lower down on the structure. IE more weight on the damaged area IMO.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Take a metallurgy course or two. It will open your eyes to how steel reacts to heat.

Yup, shoot at some AR500 and watch it repel shots, hit the same AR500 after it being subjected to high heat and watch it FAIL.

Don't have to take a course, it can be proved with minimal proof right before a persons eyes.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Due to my interest in knives, I've studied metallurgy somewhat. In particular steels and heat treating and tempering.

You don't have to burn through steel to bring down a building when it's framed in steel, especially a large building like that. You only have to weaken it. That can be done with just a few hundred degrees.


My theory consists of jetliners crashing into tall, steel-framed buildings, and the resulting fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel weakening the frames of the buildings in the area where the planes hit them, with collapse being the inevitable result.

Take a metallurgy course or two. It will open your eyes to how steel reacts to heat.

i agree it could weaken steel, im not disputing that, but i said "burn through steel" because even aircraft fuel fire wont cause the holes burned through the steel that were discovered. also, where did the heat come from that turned the steel to molten steel? thats not jet fuel.

 

[Compatriot G]

Here is something else to consider. When the planes crashed, the fuel caused fires. As I look around the office I'm in, I see plastics and paper everywhere. Plastics and paper burn hot. Some of my firefighter buddies have told me a house fire can easily reach 2000 degrees. I used to work in a foundry melting iron. At 2500 degrees, iron is molten. I believe steel has similar melting points. If a fire was burning at 2000 degrees, you are only 500 degrees away from causing steel beams to start melting. Steel beams at 2000 degrees are going to be very weak and wobbly.

 

[j706]

Here is something else to consider. When the planes crashed, the fuel caused fires. As I look around the office I'm in, I see plastics and paper everywhere. Plastics and paper burn hot. Some of my firefighter buddies have told me a house fire can easily reach 2000 degrees. I used to work in a foundry melting iron. At 2500 degrees, iron is molten. I believe steel has similar melting points. If a fire was burning at 2000 degrees, you are only 500 degrees away from causing steel beams to start melting. Steel beams at 2000 degrees are going to be very weak and wobbly.

And add tall building draft and or air draw after it has been opened up like it was. Chimney effect could have also been acting like a forge. Just a thought.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Yea all good points. I was a millwright/welder for 20+ years and have worked with steel a large portion of my life. I also graduated from Decator Township Fire Academy for FF I & II where we studied the science of fire and its effects on certain materials. Not saying I am any kind of expert on the subject but I have always been interested and fascinated by fire science.

Hot steel is weak steel. Hot steel also expands (Grows) in all directions. Bare steel and massive fire combined with structural integrity and massive amounts of weights is a very bad situation. That is not even mentioning the impact and the resulting loss of structural integrity.

One thing the truthers never get around to addressing is how both towers collapsed at the airliner impact points. The tower hit last fell first because it was hit lower down on the structure. IE more weight on the damaged area IMO.

everyones an expert and wants to now make guesses. dont guess! listen to people who have studdied the facts related to these particular buildings and also what they tested for in the chemicals. i leave what i dont know on this to the people that do know. some welder and a fire academy graduate is not qualified to make factual statements to how a building collapses IMO.

if i blew a chunk out of your left leg so the bone was weakened and exposed and you still stood, and then i blow out your other leg, which side will you collapse on?

your question has been answered. just like water follows the path of least resistance (as tought in survival) so also will a building thats falling.

 

[Compatriot G]

i agree it could weaken steel, im not disputing that, but i said "burn through steel" because even aircraft fuel fire wont cause the holes burned through the steel that were discovered. also, where did the heat come from that turned the steel to molten steel? thats not jet fuel.

I have watched many of these videos over the last couple of years and the hole thing always comes up. How do we know those holes weren't there from when the Towers were constructed? Is it possible that a sub-standard beam got used? I mean this is New York. I'm sure Tony Soprano would have used sub-standard beams if they were cheaper. And I'm almost certain that building inspectors could have been paid to check-off everything as meeting code.

 

[shibumiseeker]

If you've ever watched videos of a building demolition being prepared, you will probably note that the building is gutted before the explosives are emplaced into structural members, and they are not just "attached" to the members, they are placed INTO the members. That's an awful lot of prep work for a couple buildings that were at least partially occupied at all times up to the day of the incident.

I'm with you on this.

I have been a fan of CDI (Controlled Demolition, Inc.) for two decades, have watched them prep a building for implosion, and talked with some of their engineers, drooled over the hot looking daughter of the family who is in charge of the pyrotechnics when someone is filming a movie scene using one of the implosions they do. I've been personally present at about half a dozen large structure demolitions. It takes WEEKS of preparations and a LOT of charges placed throughout the structural members (hundreds), and all of these have to be timed precisely. Many of the existing structural members are cut or weakened beforehand. It involves a couple dozen techs during that time, and shock tube and wire is run EVERYWHERE. Furthermore, there is a very distinct set of sounds that are made when the charges are set off since they have to be done in a certain order. And these people are the best in the business in the world.

Now, let's see, scale that up by a hundredfold, make it two buildings. All those people putting all those charges throughout a building's structural members, orchestrating it, and keeping this conspiracy quiet which would require at least a hundred people working for weeks in two highly populated buildings, also requiring the complicity of security and maintenance people who would likely be in that building when they were brought down. And that is somehow more believable than a couple of jetliners being flown into the buildings, a conspiracy that involves far fewer people and a lot less prior work. As I said, Occam's Razor.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

everyones an expert and wants to now make guesses. dont guess! listen to people who have studdied the facts related to these particular buildings and also what they tested for in the chemicals. i leave what i dont know on this to the people that do know. some welder and a fire academy graduate is not qualified to make factual statements to how a building collapses IMO.

(Snipped)

The problem you have is that different sets of experts have apparently come to different conclusions about how the collapses occurred. Since I've seen pictures of structural collapses nearly identical to the Towers and I watched the collapses with my own eyes, I have to go with the simplest conclusion that matches what I saw. If you feel the need to believe a much more complicated conspiracy theory, that's up to you.

 

[jbombelli]

i agree it could weaken steel, im not disputing that, but i said "burn through steel" because even aircraft fuel fire wont cause the holes burned through the steel that were discovered. also, where did the heat come from that turned the steel to molten steel? thats not jet fuel.

There is a lot of fuel to continue burning for a while in a fire like that. Especially in a large building. A lot of heat will build-up. I could easily see steel melting when it's gone on for a bit. Add in drafts, plenty of other metals that will actually BURN, and you have a recipe to melt steel.



Do you know how much prep work actually goes into lacing a building with explosives to make a successful demolition? A building that size would take months. All the walls and ceilings would be ripped apart. The buildings would be off-limits during that time. This is not the sort of thing you can do between midnight and 4:00 am a few days a week, disguising your work with new drywall as you go. This is full-time work for months on end, and leaves the interior of the building in question an absolute wreck. There's no WAY that could be kept secret. NO WAY. I don't care how many CIA goons someone thinks George Bush sent in there to do that.

The truth is, some nutjobs hijacked some planes full of people and fuel, and crashed them into those buildings. That's the extent of the conspiracy.


edited: I'm going to bow out of this thread now. These troofer threads always end up ticking me off. I view them as an insult to my country, and to my friends and countrymen who died on that day.

 

[Cru]

I have watched several videos about the 9/11 theories. I'll admit that I have my doubts about the "official" story. I also find it hard to believe that the amount of people needed to pull off the "inside job" theory would be able to do it without there being issues. So really, I'm in the middle on it, but I lean towards the "it was terrorists" side.

What I REALLY think is it was terrible no matter who did it. What I DO believe is we should all focus on what we need to do to make America better, and be inspired to take action against BOTH corrupt government AND terrorist organizations, instead of arguing about which one caused this specific event.

Just my thoughts.

 

[kedie]

Once again, let Vincent Dunn drop some knowledge.

Why the WTC Building Collapsed

Also, WTC 7 did not use traditional steel I beam frame construction. WTC7 used what are called transfer trusses. Fires burned inside building 7 all day and caused one of the trusses to fail which in turn brought down the building.

 

[tk21k]

You can believe what ever theory you would like. I just encourage you all to look at who is promoting the theory you believe and what they have to gain from it. Whether that is the government or a character name Dylan Avery.

 

[j706]

everyones an expert and wants to now make guesses. dont guess! listen to people who have studdied the facts related to these particular buildings and also what they tested for in the chemicals. i leave what i dont know on this to the people that do know. some welder and a fire academy graduate is not qualified to make factual statements to how a building collapses IMO.

if i blew a chunk out of your left leg so the bone was weakened and exposed and you still stood, and then i blow out your other leg, which side will you collapse on?

your question has been answered. just like water follows the path of least resistance (as tought in survival) so also will a building thats falling.

Man you seem to always feel the need to get indignant when someone doesn't agree with you. I wrote pretty clearly that I am NOT an expert. The guys in the video aren't either. A structural engineer or architect certainly is not an expert on attacks on structures with aircraft,their causes,effects and aftermath. .

 

[E5RANGER375]

Man you seem to always feel the need to get indignant when someone doesn't agree with you. I wrote pretty clearly that I am NOT an expert. The guys in the video aren't either. A structural engineer or architect certainly is not an expert on attacks on structures with aircraft,their causes,effects and aftermath. .

but you still are making guesses.
im stating what i believe and why i dont believe your theroies. sorry if im arguing a point and you dont think your getting the proper reach around.

i havent engaged in name calling. im tired of all the babies on INGO that are afraid to argue for what they believe, or wear their feelings on their sleeves. sorry if your use to (as a cop) everyone bowing down to you, but here its level playing field)

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm sitting in a building full of engineers (mechanical, civil, metallurgical, dynamic, thermo, aero, blah blah blah) and we all agree that the buildings fell because the planes hit them.

I do agree that the Fed is covering things up, such as the final voice and data recordings, exactly what may have been on board (it is entirely plausible that the terrorists brough HE onboard), and many other things that people should know but that Uncle Sugar doesn't think they can handle.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Once again, let Vincent Dunn drop some knowledge.

Why the WTC Building Collapsed

Also, WTC 7 did not use traditional steel I beam frame construction. WTC7 used what are called transfer trusses. Fires burned inside building 7 all day and caused one of the trusses to fail which in turn brought down the building.

When metal gets hot it becomes weak... we all know this.. then add A LOT of weight to it and if that fire that is HOT continues to burn for to long then the metal will fail... that and it was weakend pretty bad from the impact..... the one towers took longer really because there was not as much weight above it compared to the other and the one plane hit off to the side compared to the other so the one that hit to the side took less stuff out.

Personally I dount question the physics of it..... just question events leading up to it and after.


I think the plane was the only thing they used. look at what happens whten a large airlines full of fuel explodes...... it is a giant napalm bomb really.....