9/11, Loose Change

[astr0creep]

something this idiotic could have easily resulted in an economic crash.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it didn't... :ph34r:

 

Taks, I'm only speculating. I don't know the details of what happened and neither do you. We only know what the media show us and the media is controlled by the government in power.

 

We'll never know what really happened and even if someone tells us without any shadow of a doubt, we would still question the possiblity of a government conspiracy.

[trulez]

In my complete lack of expertise, I don't see why the towers still couldn't have fallen.  It wasn't just a fire, but a full on explosion with additional structural damage caused by the plane itself crashing into it (and you can see a definite moment just before explosion with the second plane so it's not like it just exploded on the outside).

 

 

It seems like something that is just sooo big though.  And given the media seems to have little problems pointing out the faults of Bush, I'm surprised that they could also be involved.  This sounds like Pulitzer prize type stuff.  I suppose anyone can be bought though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, the engineers that worked on WTC have officially said the buildings were designed from ground up to withstand a commercial airliner crashing into them. Secondly, jet fuel lacks the detonation velocity to explode in a manner that could harm the structure of WTC buildings, and as seen in the videos most of it went up in a ball of flame outside of the building.

 

"For hydrocarbon fuels in air, the detonation velocity can be up to 1800 m/s."

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects...A/Glossary.html

 

"TNT has a detonation velocity of 6,940 m/s compared to 1,680 m/s for the

detonation of pentane in air, and the 0.34 m/s stoichiometric flame speed

of gasoline combustion in air."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/chem-faq/part3/section-2.html

 

 

1) I thought the Pentagon crash was suspicious until I took the trouble to learn about the engineering physics. Then it's still interesting and counter-intuitive but entirely consistent.

Here's a 9/11 site made by a physics professor, maybe you can quote the stuff he gets wrong and then write down what's your correct educated findings.

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

Like most conspiracy theories its all good fun until you look too closely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm trying to look as closely as I can, I've reviewed every report (pro and anti gov) but it seems everytime someone raises a question worthy of an answer there's no one stepping up giving those answers, and all the evidence is conviscated by the government so there's no way an impartial research can be done.

 

 

but I have to admit the lack of evidence at the pentagon crash site was intriguing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there's plenty of evidence. when conspiracists cite a "lack of evidence" that really means they are unwilling to admit the validity of the evidence that does exist.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give me a sample of evidence that contradicts what the physics professor has written down:

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

 

Through their investigations, the jet fuel, combined with other combustibles could have reached a maximum of something like 800-1000 degrees, while the temperature needed for the structural steel to weaken to the point that it would start to bend was like 1160 degrees.  Also, the steel was designed to support 6 times what it was required to support.

the conspiracists ignore some basic physics when making this claim. first, their assumption of 800-1000 degrees is for an open air flame. this was hardly an open air flame. a better analogy would be a crucible. temperatures can easily get much higher than that in such a situation.

Maybe you should gets your terms right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_burn

 

also, 1160 is the melting point of the steel (generic steel is just over 1000, higher grade building steel is probably where the 1160 came from).

Is not.

 

"Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 2750

[taks]

"Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 2750

[taks]

But it didn't...  :ph34r: 

no, but even a self-serving politician is smart enough to understand what could have happened.

 

Taks, I'm only speculating. I don't know the details of what happened and neither do you.

the details are everywhere. so no, not true, i do know the details.

 

We only know what the media show us and the media is controlled by the government in power.

that's a bunch of conspiracist nonsense.

 

We'll never know what really happened and even if someone tells us without any shadow of a doubt, we would still question the possiblity of a government conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we do know. stating otherwise is, again, putting the cart before the horse. you assume "we'll never know" then justify the same conspiracy with even more conspiracy.

 

taks

[astr0creep]

But it didn't...  :ph34r: 

no, but even a self-serving politician is smart enough to understand what could have happened.

 

Taks, I'm only speculating. I don't know the details of what happened and neither do you.

the details are everywhere. so no, not true, i do know the details.

 

We only know what the media show us and the media is controlled by the government in power.

that's a bunch of conspiracist nonsense.

 

We'll never know what really happened and even if someone tells us without any shadow of a doubt, we would still question the possiblity of a government conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we do know. stating otherwise is, again, putting the cart before the horse. you assume "we'll never know" then justify the same conspiracy with even more conspiracy.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1- Perhaps they knew nothing would happen, since money is electronic and it only takes a few hours/days to backup a system.

 

2- You sure you know all the details?

 

3- If you watch news broadcasts from other countries you will see how subjective the American media is. Especially news services. You can grab extra pieces of information that are never shown on American television(I'm not saying medias from other countries are not subjective, Oh God no!).

 

4- We only know what they(the media) let us know. Not necessarily lies but not necessarily the whole truth either. We interpret conclusions based on what we know. My interpretation is different than yours but it is just as valid because we know the same things.

 

 

Putting the cart before the horse is what speculation is.

Edited June 19, 2006 by astr0creep

[alanschu]

First of all, the engineers that worked on WTC have officially said the buildings were designed from ground up to withstand a commercial airliner crashing into them. Secondly, jet fuel lacks the detonation velocity to explode in a manner that could harm the structure of WTC buildings, and as seen in the videos most of it went up in a ball of flame outside of the building.

 

I'm sorry. I'm not skilled enough at knowing how much of the explosion was in or outside the building based on looking at a picture. And 1800 m/s detonation blast immediately following a jet liner crashing into it seems fairly violent to me.

 

Sure, it was designed to withstand a commercial airliner flying into it. Are commercial airliners all the same since 1973 though? And does designing something to withstand a commercial airliner make it impervious to collapse? THere are buildings designed to withstand earthquakes, but earthquakes still take them down. Bulletproof vests are designed to stop bullets, but they don't always do it. Etcetera.

[taks]

First of all, the engineers that worked on WTC have officially said the buildings were designed from ground up to withstand a commercial airliner crashing into them.

the crash didn't cause the structrue to fall last i checked. it was over an hour of burning that weakened the unprotected steel that caused the collapse. no engineer has ever said it was designed to withstand that heat for that long.

 

Secondly, jet fuel lacks the detonation velocity to explode in a manner that could harm the structure of WTC buildings, and as seen in the videos most of it went up in a ball of flame outside of the building.

the impact wasn't enough. that's why the buildings stood for over an hour afterwards.

 

Here's a 9/11 site made by a physics professor, maybe you can quote the stuff he gets wrong and then write down what's your correct educated findings.

well, gee... where to begin.

 

btw, this is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy. he's a physics professor therefore he must be right. i suppose all of the structural engineers that have analyzed the data and concluded differently don't suffice to counter one lone physics professor, arguing points that are outside of his expertise?

 

but it seems everytime someone raises a question worthy of an answer there's no one stepping up giving those answers, and all the evidence is conviscated by the government so there's no way an impartial research can be done.

uh, a) no, there's lots of evidence that has not been confiscated and b) plenty of people are stepping up. there's a point, however, where you just have to give up because no amount of real science will convince non-believers that there isn't some sort of conspiracy. it has been proved all faulty analysis (the conspiracy), so why continue beating the horse. he is dead.

 

Give me a sample of evidence that contradicts what the physics professor has written down:

why don't you give me an example of what he got right.

 

Maybe you should gets your terms right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_burn

there is nothing incorrect in what i state. in fact, your own "proof" clearly states that jet fuel burns at most at 1000 C in open air. duh.

 

Again, jet fuel temperatures in open air burn is around 500-599

Edited June 19, 2006 by taks

[trulez]

that's F not C.  brilliant detective work there.  i clearly stated C.  F is 9/5*C + 32.

Can you point out the word Celsius or the capital letter C in your reply that I quoted?

 

the conspiracists ignore some basic physics when making this claim. first, their assumption of 800-1000 degrees is for an open air flame. this was hardly an open air flame. a better analogy would be a crucible. temperatures can easily get much higher than that in such a situation.

 

also, 1160 is the melting point of the steel (generic steel is just over 1000, higher grade building steel is probably where the 1160 came from). even if temperatures got only to 800, their assertions ignore the fact that steel weakens significantly well before even that temperature. it's not like you start heating it and suddenly it starts melting without any changes beforehand.

And since your "From" field indicates you're from USA I'd have to assume you're using the standard measurement of temperature of that country, Fahrenheit.

 

If you'd like to point out the source, where you get your melting point of steel being 1160 degrees Celsius, I'd like to read up on that one.

 

 

Here's my sources:

 

"Maximum burning temperature: 980 degrees C"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

 

"Structural Steel Melts ~1510 C"

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[taks]

1- Perhaps they knew nothing would happen, since money is electronic and it only takes a few hours/days to backup a system.

i think the point is that even an idiot politician is smart enough to know that taking down the towers is NOT in anyone's best interest.

 

2- You sure you know all the details?

yes, at least all of the relevant details.

 

3- If you watch news broadcasts from other countries you will see how subjective the American media is. Especially news services. You can grab extra pieces of information that are never shown on American television(I'm not saying medias from other countries are not subjective, Oh God no!).

uh, and do you think i only focus on what i've seen on US tv? you're joking, right? i don't even watch the news.

 

4- We only know what they(the media) let us know. Not necessarily lies but not necessarily the whole truth either. We interpret conclusions based on what we know. My interpretation is different than yours but it is just as valid because we know the same things.

it's not just as valid. you're allowing emotion and "gut feel" to dictate your response. "there just must be something wrong because such-and-such website pointed out an inconsistency." use a little science and logic, and put away pre-conceived notions and you'll discover the truth.

 

 

Putting the cart before the horse is what speculation is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it is not. putting the cart before the horse is another name for a question that presumes an answer. circular logic. speculation is taking a guess at an answer.

 

taks

[alanschu]

The "Screw Loose Change" is pretty entertaining too!

[taks]

that's F not C.  brilliant detective work there.  i clearly stated C.  F is 9/5*C + 32.

Can you point out the word Celsius or the capital letter C in your reply that I quoted?

touche. but the context of what i was saying makes it obvious i was talking about C.

 

If you'd like to point out the source, where you get your melting point of steel being 1160 degrees Celsius, I'd like to read up on that one.

i didn't say that. it was quoted from Oerwinde here:

Another thing that I saw was investigating that. Through their investigations, the jet fuel, combined with other combustibles could have reached a maximum of something like 800-1000 degrees, while the temperature needed for the structural steel to weaken to the point that it would start to bend was like 1160 degrees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Maximum burning temperature:  980 degrees C"

you said 500-599 F earlier... which is it?

 

also, this is open air burn. you're assuming that inside the WTC is a comparable environment for comparison.

 

"Structural Steel Melts ~1510 C"

ok, so what's your point? fwiw, i had misread the melting point of steel in my original posts earlier. not that it matters, it was in response to Oerwinde's comment anyway.

 

the physics prof gets it wrong by saying that a fire burning and weakening the steel by 50% isn't enough. exactly how does he know that?

 

taks

Edited June 19, 2006 by taks

[astr0creep]

1-i think the point is that even an idiot politician is smart enough to know that taking down the towers is NOT in anyone's best interest.

 

2-yes, at least all of the relevant details.

 

3-uh, and do you think i only focus on what i've seen on US tv?  you're joking, right?  i don't even watch the news.

 

4-it's not just as valid.  you're allowing emotion and "gut feel" to dictate your response.  "there just must be something wrong because such-and-such website pointed out an inconsistency."  use a little science and logic, and put away pre-conceived notions and you'll discover the truth.

 

5-no, it is not.  putting the cart before the horse is another name for a question that presumes an answer.  circular logic.  speculation is taking a guess at an answer.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1- According to "Loose Change" and other sources, it was in the best interest of Mr. Silverstein.

 

2- You sure you know all the relevant facts and that none of them are fabricated/wrong?

 

3- I was hoping you didn't. I'm glad.

 

4- I'm not letting my gut feeling dictate my arguments. Something does smell fishy or else this thread(and others) wouldn't be up. But I actually don't really care. Because no matter if it is a cover up or not, history will remember 9/11 as a terrorist attack that produced a war with Iraq which turned into Vietnam 2. Everything else we say is pure uselessness, speculation and conspiracy theories, unless we're working for the CIA or NSA or whatever.

 

5- Whatever. The end before the start, the dessert before the main course, the kum before the suck. Who cares about such details, you knew what I meant.

 

Astr0.

[trulez]

the crash didn't cause the structrue to fall last i checked.  it was over an hour of burning that weakened the unprotected steel that caused the collapse.

That has been proven to be false statement. Structural steel can withstand, depending on the grade of the steel, a constant temperature of 620-1120 degrees of Celsius.

 

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1175

 

Here's a 9/11 site made by a physics professor, maybe you can quote the stuff he gets wrong and then write down what's your correct educated findings.

well, gee... where to begin.

Just one is enough, you don't need to go over the whole site. Pick a one thing he's wrong and prove it.

 

i suppose all of the structural engineers that have analyzed the data and concluded differently don't suffice to counter one lone physics professor, arguing points that are outside of his expertise?

Sure, show me those reports, I'm sure that if you know they exist you can produce a link to one.

 

Give me a sample of evidence that contradicts what the physics professor has written down:

why don't you give me an example of what he got right.

I don't have to because he, unlike you, provides full references at the bottom of his page. If you do the research you'll find he's correct.

 

 

Maybe you should gets your terms right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_burn

your own "proof" clearly states that jet fuel burns at most at 1000 C in open air. duh.

Are you missinterpreting the information on purpose?

 

The wikipedia states that the maximum burn temperature is 980 degrees C, it does not state maximum in open air, it's simply THE maximum. Unless you'd like to debate what the word "maximum" means, of course.

 

MAXIMUM:

"The greatest possible quantity or degree."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maximum

 

So, to recap:

 

OPEN AIR: 260-315 degrees C

MAXIMUM: 980 degrees C

Edited June 19, 2006 by trulez

[taks]

1- According to "Loose Change" and other sources, it was in the best interest of Mr. Silverstein.

so what. he's not in a position to fly a jetliner into his buildings, either.

 

2- You sure you know all the relevant facts and that none of them are fabricated/wrong?

i'm sure some of the analysis is wrong, actually. that doesn't mean i don't have all (or at least enough) of the evidence to make an informed decision on the matter. i do have a pretty solid scientific background, btw.

 

3- I was hoping you didn't. I'm glad. 

oh no. personally, i think ALL of journalism is flawed. somehow journalists have taken on the task of being our "protectors" and end up injecting too much opinion in the news. IMO, they should report. nothing more, nothing less.

 

4- I'm not letting my gut feeling dictate my arguments. Something does smell fishy or else this thread(and others) wouldn't be up.

but i don't think something smells fishy. that's my point. science and logic dictate that analysis. you're putting the cart before the horse again... "or else this thread(and others) wouldn't be up." you're using the conspiracy (the cart) as evidence of a conspiracy (the horse).

 

Everything else we say is pure uselessness, speculation and conspiracy theories, unless we're working for the CIA or NSA or whatever.

no, debate is fine. it's when malcontents misuse, and misrepresent, data to their own ends that we have a problem.

 

5- Whatever. The end before the start, the dessert before the main course, the kum before the suck. Who cares about such details, you knew what I meant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i was just getting at the fallacy itself. speculation is OK, as it is opinion, sometimes informed, sometimes ill-informed. however, the cart before the horse scenario means someone is using the question as the evidence! unfortunately, when this is used by the conspiracists, it sounds convincing and tends to get people believing in their nonsense.

 

taks

Edited June 19, 2006 by taks

[alanschu]

astr0, watch that Screw Loose Change video. It's good times.

[kirottu]

Meh.

 

I think this is clearly theory against practice kind of scenario.

 

In theory WTC buildings could withstand hit of commercial airplane and fuel burning, but in practice they did not.

Edited June 19, 2006 by kirottu

[taks]

Just one is enough, you don't need to go over the whole site. Pick a one thing he's wrong and prove it.

he states quite clearly that 1000 C is enough to weaken steel to cause the collapse, even though it is known to weaken the supports to 1/2 their original strength (it is actually worse, 1/2 occurs at 800-1000 F). his assumption is that the design was for 600% overkill. he does not consider how much the structure was weakened simply by the impact of the plane itself. there's one flaw.

 

Sure, show  me those reports, I'm sure that if you know they exist you can produce a link to one.

gee, the official report, maybe? how about this analysis by a structural engineer:link. do a search on the name Mroszczyk.

 

I don't have to because he, unlike you, provides full references at the bottom of his page. If you do the research you'll find he's correct.

there's a difference between being right about individual points and being right in his analysis. his numbers for the various melting points and what happens in controlled conditions are accurate (mostly). however, his analysis of the situation is entirely incorrect, no matter how many references he cited.

 

Are you missinterpreting the information on purpose?

 

The wikipedia states that the maximum burn temperature is 980 degrees C, it does not state maximum in open air, it's simply THE maximum. Unless you'd like to debate what the word "maximum" means, of course.

put fuel, other combustibles, and air into a relatively closed container (the WTC) and you get a different "maximum" then just jet fuel.

 

are you intentionaly misinterpreting the information?

 

besides, nowhere have i said it was above 1000 C, have i?

 

taks

[taks]

In theory WTC buildings could withstand hit of commercial airplane and fuel burning, but in practice they did not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yup. actually, in theory, they could withstand the impact, not all the other things combined.

 

the leading theories on the breakup are actually more of a "domino effect" scenario. the columns themselves were strong enough, but there was enough damage to supporting trusses that slowly parts of the overall structure began to collapse, putting more and more weight on each remaining column. one by one, as the support structure failed, so did the main columns. eventually, each was stressed beyond even the overkill load at room temperature and the towers fell.

 

taks

[mkreku]

I just wanted to point out that the black box of a plane is never positioned in the nose of a plane. It is usually found in the back, where it's supposed to be probable to survive a crash.

 

"The device's shroud is usually painted bright orange and is generally located in the tail section of the aircraft.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder

[trulez]

gee, the official report, maybe?  how about this analysis by a structural engineer:link.  do a search on the name Mroszczyk.

 

From the resource you provided:

"If columns were lost, the loads would redistribute to the remaining columns. It should be noted that the WTC designers explicitly designed the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (minus fuel load), the largest aircraft at that time, even though building codes did not have such a requirement. The Morning of Sept. 11, 2001 At 8:46 am, a hijacked 767, American Airlines Flight 11, was flown into the north face of the North Tower of the WTC. The plane was traveling at 470 mph and was carrying 92 people and approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel. The impact occurred between the 94th and 98th floors. Between 31 and 36 columns on the north wall were destroyed over a four-story area and the core took a direct hit. At 9:02 am, another 767, United Airlines Flight 175, was flown into the South Tower. This plane was traveling at 586 mph and carrying 65 people. The impact occurred between the 78th and 84th floors destroying between 27 and 32 columns on the south face over a five-story range. Unlike the North Tower, the core was not hit directly."

 

"After swaying back and forth a half a dozen times, it was over. Both buildings were standing. The design worked, the loads redistributed to the remaining columns, but, the jet fuel had ignited and fires were raging throughout the upper floors of both towers."

 

So the design worked, the buildings absorbed the kinetic energy of an plane hitting it at ~500mph. After that it was simply about the integrity of the steel, and could it hold.

 

Proven by the physics professor and the various sites I cited it should have, easily. Yet something MELT the steel, the jet fuel could not do it, so what did.

 

Again, from the source you provided:

"In some areas, temperatures reached between 1700

Edited June 19, 2006 by trulez

[mkreku]

the leading theories on the breakup are actually more of a "domino effect" scenario.  the columns themselves were strong enough, but there was enough damage to supporting trusses that slowly parts of the overall structure began to collapse, putting more and more weight on each remaining column.  one by one, as the support structure failed, so did the main columns.  eventually, each was stressed beyond even the overkill load at room temperature and the towers fell.

I talked to one of my professors about that, and he thought it was really odd but that was the only logical explanation he could think of. But for that to happen (the domino effect), the entire structure must have been insanely under-dimensioned. Usually when you build a structure that's supposed to be safe for humans, you build it six times stronger than it has to be. That means, if (for example) an elevator is capable of carrying 2000 lbs, then the real limit before it risks failure is 12,000 lbs. The bottom pillars of the twin towers were designed to support the entire weight of the structure above them PLUS an unbelievable amount of extra force from vibrations, small earthquakes, bombs and even aircrafts colliding with them. It would have been much easier to believe the domino effect theory if the planes had hit on the 30'th floor (or so) instead of on the 75'th+ floor, because all engineering theories point to the fact that the structure should be able to withstand a collapse of the floors above it. Apparently it didn't though.

[taks]

ok. of course, after the plane hit the building the front and back of it were... shall we say, nearly the same?

 

taks

[taks]

But for that to happen (the domino effect), the entire structure must have been insanely under-dimensioned. Usually when you build a structure that's supposed to be safe for humans, you build it six times stronger than it has to be. That means, if (for example) an elevator is capable of carrying 2000 lbs, then the real limit before it risks failure is 12,000 lbs. The bottom pillars of the twin towers were designed to support the entire weight of the structure above them PLUS an unbelievable amount of extra force from vibrations, small earthquakes, bombs and even aircrafts colliding with them. It would have been much easier to believe the domino effect theory if the planes had hit on the 30'th floor (or so) instead of on the 75'th+ floor, because all engineering theories point to the fact that the structure should be able to withstand a collapse of the floors above it. Apparently it didn't though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, remember, we're talking about a design that was simulated in a controlled environment. lots of problems. first, define 6 times. what does that mean? probably means that the structure was designed to hold a weight of 6 times what was expected. well, what was expected? nobody expected a 767 or 757 class jetliner with 10,000 gallons of fuel to hit the darned thing and then burn for an hour. also, the explosion itself weakened everything, and knocked a lot of the supports down. remember, the whole structre was designed for this fabled 6x load. start removing pieces and you don't get a linear change, i.e. removing 1 out of 50 members doesn't necesarily translate to 2%, it could easily be much more. buildings are designed so that forces are evenly distributed. increase that force relatively evenly, and no problems. take out a corner of the building, and likewise the columns on the corner of the building, and suddenly the remaining load is unevenly distributed. with the metal in the building now unprotected (the impact knocked a lot of it off experts surmise), and burning at nearly 1000 C in places, with torque due to bowing (vertical pressure would be tension), suddenly we have a few columns that just can't hold their load. it took a while, but slowly they failed to the point of catastrophic failure.

 

taks

[taks]

But it fails to mention what is the jet fuels burning temperature, which is not enough to melt steel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you assume jet fuel is the only thing burning, why? also, you assume that the only metal in the building was that of the support columns, again, why?

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that prepping a structure like the WTC towers for demolishion (as was suggested in the documentary) would take weeks, probably months, and also require drilling into the concrete structure to place the charges in order for them to have any effect?