Looking at 9/11 with actual science

[SavageEagle]

WTC7 Pulled

With a fire raging inside WTC7, why would they risk sending people in to recover stuff.

Also remember that WTC 4, 5, and 6 were damaged sufficiently that they had to be brought down. And they ruled out using explosives because they were so structurally unsound that it wouldn't have been safe to let experts go in and place them.

They very easily could have put those fires out. I'm convinced there were stuff inside they WANTED destroyed. Either way, many witnesses were quoted saying that when 7 came down there were a series of explosions and it came down.

Now, that's not saying explosions weren't part of the building coming down, but we'll just never know.

 

[Hoosier8]

They very easily could have put those fires out. I'm convinced there were stuff inside they WANTED destroyed. Either way, many witnesses were quoted saying that when 7 came down there were a series of explosions and it came down.

Now, that's not saying explosions weren't part of the building coming down, but we'll just never know.

They very easily could have put those fires out.

How?

 

[public servant]

I was in the military already during 9/11 and I personaly felt something was being planned for. I cannot go into too many details but thats the sense I had. did anyone else that was in during 9/11 have the same feeling or knowledge of things?

Dude...you can't even spell top secret. They sure as hell weren't going to tell you any.

Sorry...I couldn't help myself. Carry on.

 

[Hoosier8]

Cables? Really.... I'd like to see that photo. Considering all the government stuff in that building that COULD have been saved, why destroy it? Why not gather all that stuff before demolishing it unless you wanted to cover something up?

Unprecedented levels. Yes. Not in terms of numbers (even though those are still pretty high), but in power. If there was a revolt in this Country and the military was in on the government's side, we'd have no chance. You say we barely have enough for two fronts, I beg to differ. We have more than enough, it's about how much is actually deployed. I've already had this conversation with a retired general not long ago. We could end this war today if we had enough resources deployed.

The sad part is that government is decommissioning over 25% of our military vehicles including tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, subs, battleships, and domestic bases. If I can find the link I'll post it.

I think I was wrong, I think the cable was on building 6.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

 

[E5RANGER375]

Dude...you can't even spell top secret. They sure as hell weren't going to tell you any.

Sorry...I couldn't help myself. Carry on.

I eat pop secret popcorn all the time, what are you talking about?

no i wasnt privy to anything like that before 9/11. i was just meaning more logistical stuff that people were aware of, maybe or maybe not .

 

[SavageEagle]

They very easily could have put those fires out.

How?

Well, I'm not a fireman, but they used to call me "The Fireman".... Seriously though, water was still flowing in the area because the firetrucks were still using hydrants in the area. That would mean that water was still flowing in WTC7 before it came down. I'm pretty sure those weren't jet fuel fires in them either. However, infrared photos of the site after WTC7 came down shown hot spots 3x's hotter than the Twin Tower sites.

I'll have to find the link to the photos and all videos. I'm sure WWIIIDefender can find them faster than I though. He was the one that pointed them out to me.

I think I was wrong, I think the cable was on building 6.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

I was pretty sure 7 was controlled demolition. Video from various documentaries on 9/11 this year showed different people inside 7 after the twin towers fell. The inside, besides dust, dirt and some debris in the lobby, looked very much intact.

 

[Lex Concord]

Planes...eplosives...government operatives...terrorists...while, from a moral perspective, the truth matters, I don't believe anyone will ever truly know....and I don't know that it much matters.

It doesn't change the result. That result is an acceleration of government attacks on individual liberty, with 9/11 being used as cover.

To me, this is the reality that truly matters, and the one we can actually do something about.

 

[kedie]

They very easily could have put those fires out. I'm convinced there were stuff inside they WANTED destroyed.

It was a risk vs. benefit analysis by the FDNY. After the towers came down there was no way that the FDNY was going to risk the lives of another 100 or more firefighters to save an empty and heavily damaged building. Even if there was stuff inside they wanted destroyed, whats the point of taking down the whole building? Why not just destroy the stuff you want to get rid of?

Well, I'm not a fireman, but they used to call me "The Fireman".... Seriously though, water was still flowing in the area because the firetrucks were still using hydrants in the area. That would mean that water was still flowing in WTC7 before it came down.

According to the final NIST report on WTC 7, water supplied by the citys system stopped flowing on the lower floors after the towers fell. The upper floors had water flowing in their sprinkler systems, supplied from storage tanks on those upper floors. Those sprinklers flowed until the water ran out.

 

[SavageEagle]

It was a risk vs. benefit analysis by the FDNY. After the towers came down there was no way that the FDNY was going to risk the lives of another 100 or more firefighters to save an empty and heavily damaged building. Even if there was stuff inside they wanted destroyed, whats the point of taking down the whole building? Why not just destroy the stuff you want to get rid of?

EXACTLY! Why? There's still something else there on why they did it. It could have been repaired for far cheaper than it cost to demolish and haul off.

According to the final NIST report on WTC 7, water supplied by the citys system stopped flowing on the lower floors after the towers fell. The upper floors had water flowing in their sprinkler systems, supplied from storage tanks on those upper floors. Those sprinklers flowed until the water ran out.

NIST report? As far as I knew they didn't have to truck in water...

 

[kedie]

Here's the WTC 7 NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

 

[dross]

The BBC report came 20 minutes before the actual collapse but everyone knew it was coming.

aHA! AHA, I SAY TO YOU SIR! YOU ADMIT IT!!!! YOU ADMIT IT!!!
BUSTED!!!!

THERE IT IS. JUST SAYIN'.

 

[printcraft]

 

[Hornett]

Now we'll get into the sciencey part.

Stress is a function of strain, which is a function of size, or in the case of a buckling verticle beam, height. Since the WTC was built modularly, the main beam is actually a series of beams joined together in 3 story segments. This adds a little wrinkle to the modeling since you have to analyze each beam individually, and the entire assembly as a whole.

So, if we apply equal strain (movement) to two columns of differing height, we'll get two different stresses. The longer column having the lower stress.

Knowing this, we apply it to what happened when the building began to fall.

As the top stories began to fall they impacted the first set of modular columns and the rest of the structure as a whole. The first set of columns immediately buckled and transmitted the force through the rest of the structure, which deformed or strained the building, but not enough to cause it to fail, then the debris hit the next set causing them to fail and inducing more strain into the building and so on and so forth. Eventually the strain exceeded the shear strength in the building column as a whole and the entire thing buckled and began to fall.

Also we need to consider the immense amount of energy contained in 20 or 30 floors of steel and concrete and other stuff, versus the force exerted by the column to slow it down to a rate other than 32.2 ft/sec/sec.

The equation for Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared (1/2 m V^2 = KE)

Plotted out, it's easy to see that the structural support force versus the energy of the falling building quickly reaches magnitudes of order difference very quickly. It's likely that nothing short of a mountain would have slowed the building's decent much less the existing

Dear Lord,
Please tell me you don't work in engineering for a living.
You have deflection confused with strain, buckling columns transmitting forces, and strain exceeding shear strength.
Good job on the speed of a falling object and the Kinetic energy formula though.

 

[Eddie]

The WTC Conspiracy theories remind me of the Hoax Moon Landing Theories; they sound all sciency and stuff until you actually try to verify the underlying "science". Then they just sound dumb.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

56 minutes from crash to ash on one of the towers. You can believe whatever you want, but I for one don't buy the 911 commision report. Heck WTC 7 isn't even covered in the report.

 

[Hoosier8]

Well, I'm not a fireman, but they used to call me "The Fireman".... Seriously though, water was still flowing in the area because the firetrucks were still using hydrants in the area. That would mean that water was still flowing in WTC7 before it came down. I'm pretty sure those weren't jet fuel fires in them either. However, infrared photos of the site after WTC7 came down shown hot spots 3x's hotter than the Twin Tower sites.

I'll have to find the link to the photos and all videos. I'm sure WWIIIDefender can find them faster than I though. He was the one that pointed them out to me.



I was pretty sure 7 was controlled demolition. Video from various documentaries on 9/11 this year showed different people inside 7 after the twin towers fell. The inside, besides dust, dirt and some debris in the lobby, looked very much intact.

I think you will have to trust some of the "experts" there, the firemen. Some wanted to try but others didn't want to risk their mens lives.

 

[Expat]

As soon as I saw this thread, why did I first think "Great minds think alike"?

Yeah, how can you doubt a theory these people support>

 

[SavageEagle]

Yeah, how can you doubt a theory these people support>

Because even a broken analog clock is still right twice a day?

 

[Expat]

I would trust the broken analog clock more than Rosie and Moore.

 

[SavageEagle]

That may be, but let me put it another way.

If those people supported Gun Rights for all like we do, would you suddenly think Gun Rights were bad?

Don't judge theories based on who supports them.