9/11, Loose Change

[astr0creep]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They had 9 weeks to prepare.

[alanschu]

9 weeks isn't very long in the world of demolishing buildings.

[taks]

They had 9 weeks to prepare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yet nobody noticed, in a city that never sleeps?

 

btw, it seems the lead structural engineer for the WTC didn't even take into account the possibility of a) the fire, and b) the jet.

 

linky.

 

seems they designed for a 707 to hit the building and not that much fire. from the article:

 

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.  Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

 

of course, credentials are meaningless... but hey, only designed the thing.

 

taks

Edited June 19, 2006 by taks

[trulez]

you assume jet fuel is the only thing burning, why?

It was not the only material burning, but as far as the reports go it was the one with potential to reach highest temperatures. What other materials might there been, in such quantities, that the temperature would have reached to the melting point of steel?

 

also, you assume that the only metal in the building was that of the support columns, again, why?

No I do not. The physics professor goes over WHY the molten metal is steel and not, say aluminium from the aircraft.

 

"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures."

 

What other type of metals you suggest there was in large quantities in that building so it could have melted and poured down? Incase you have any report telling there were some other type of metal I'd like to read the report.

[Calax]

why are the tail numbers on the two united aircraft still valid?

[trulez]

btw, it seems the lead structural engineer for the WTC didn't even take into account the possibility of a) the fire, and b) the jet.

 

linky.

Could you tell me the page number in that PDF file where it's said the structural engineer did not take into account for possibility of an plane?

 

seems they designed for a 707 to hit the building

Why are you contradicting your self? You just said it was not taken into account, now you're saying it was. Which is it?

 

...and not that much fire.

"Much fire" is objectional. I've already established that the highest temperatures that the fire could have reached due to the jet fuel would not have been sufficient to melt steel and bring the building down.

[astr0creep]

9 weeks isn't very long in the world of demolishing buildings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I said 9 weeks because the updated insurance policy for Mr. Silverstein took effect 9 weeks before the attack. A policy that prominently covered terrorist attacks and that is pretty much what smells fishy to me.

It looks like he new something was about to happen but didn't say anything.

 

Last game is on tonight and I have a party to prepare for when the Oilers wipe the ice with some Hurry canes.

 

So goodnight everyone.

[mkreku]

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.

No offense, but it's kind of pointless to discuss this subject unless you read up on it a little. You need to be able separate from different loads, stuff that I don't know the correct terms for in english. But there are two main types of forces a building is supposed to be able to withstand (excluding side forces and more uncommon forces): point loads and permanent loads (no idea what they are called in english). The one I was talking about is the permanent load (the one that the structure was designed for, including furniture, people, elevators, cooling systems etc.)) and the point loads is (for example) the force the building is designed to withstand for a fraction of a second. Like if everyone in the entire building decided to jump at once (which can actually happen in a nightclub or such).

 

What you are discussing is how the top 30 or so floors collapsed. Yes, they could collapse because of the heat making the steel structure bend unevenly, that is the easy part to understand, there's no use discussing that really. But that still doesn't explain why the 80 or so untouched/unharmed floors below suddenly couldn't hold the weight or the point load of the 30 floors above when they came crashing down. Remember, for a structure of these dimensions, the added weight of a Boeing is huge, but still bearable. The force of the 30 floors that came down should have been enough to seriously damage the building, probably crush a few unharmed floors below, but how could it topple the entire building? The further down in a skyscraper you get, the stronger its construction gets. Like the video said, it was like a freefall. Very odd. I guess only the building engineers know why the building behaved the way it did.

[alanschu]

I said 9 weeks because the updated insurance policy for Mr. Silverstein took effect 9 weeks before the attack. A policy that prominently covered terrorist attacks and that is pretty much what smells fishy to me.

It looks like he new something was about to happen but didn't say anything.

 

The WTC had been a victim of terrorist strikes before.

 

Seriously, watch the Screw Loose Change video. Both movies are interesting, and the Screw Loose Change brings up a lot of questions about the Loose Change video as well.

 

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Edited June 19, 2006 by alanschu

[Calax]

wouldn't the buildings destruction have looked.... less controled? I mean the blasted thing got hit in one point, I'd think that if anything the destruction would lean that way (for example the top of the tower would (on the one with the corner damaged) start to fall towards the missing corner rather than just kinda go everywhere.) And I'm wondering what is up with building seven.

[julianw]

Video only loaded halfway for me, so was the conclusion that Bush hired Osama bin Laden to blow up the twin towers so they could take out Saddam? This sounds a little similar to the conspiracy theory that FDR sacrificed Pearl Harbor to enter W.W.II..

Edited June 20, 2006 by julianw

[Calax]

Video only loaded halfway for me, so was the conclusion that Bush hired Osama bin Laden to blow up the twin towers so they could take out Saddam? This sounds a little similar to the conspiracy theory that FDR sacrificed Pearl Harbor to enter W.W.II..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope... they simply said that alot of things don't add up, and that if you look at it from THIS point (luke vader killed your daddy) it would appear that the bush administration orchestrated this whole thing to turn us into happy little zombies that would do his bidding in the "war on terror"

[alanschu]

wouldn't the buildings destruction have looked.... less controled? I mean the blasted thing got hit in one point, I'd think that if anything the destruction would lean that way (for example the top of the tower would (on the one with the corner damaged) start to fall towards the missing corner rather than just kinda go everywhere.) And I'm wondering what is up with building seven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The top of the South tower actually does tip when it falls.

[trulez]

The top of the South tower actually does tip when it falls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then it disintegrates while in the air, which again defies logic and the rules of physics. Concrete doesn't disintegrate on it's own.

 

The top half should have kept it's angular momentum and topple over, there was nothing stopping it. See the angle of the top 30 floors here:

 

[Walsingham]

Except I actually buy the conspiracy that FDR let Pearl get hit. There really are traces on that one. Plus it didn't need a lot of things to be done. It needed things to NOT be done. Much easier to arrange.

[mkreku]

A building is only made to withhold its own weight vertically. As soon as a building leans over too much in any direction, it is crushed by its own weight, something which occured to those top floors.

[alanschu]

The top of the South tower actually does tip when it falls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then it disintegrates while in the air, which again defies logic and the rules of physics. Concrete doesn't disintegrate on it's own.

 

The top half should have kept it's angular momentum and topple over, there was nothing stopping it. See the angle of the top 30 floors here:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you're reading more into that picture. I see a ton of dust kicking up, but I disagree that the top of the south tower disintegrates while in the air.

 

Besides, building demolitions don't start with blowing up the top floors.

[astr0creep]

Besides, building demolitions don't start with blowing up the top floors.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How do you know?

 

 

OMG! YOU did it Alan!

 

 

[alanschu]

[MarkyX]

Someone just had to email me to this specific topic. I registered here just for youguys, feel proud :ph34r:

 

(For the less informed, I'm the idiot behind the Screw Loose Change video)

 

First..

 

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.  Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

 

of course, credentials are meaningless... but hey, only designed the thing.

 

You're right that the man has credentials, but you're missing the fact that a plane lost in the fog would not be going 500 MPH. Are you suggesting that there are skyscrapers out there, built somewhere in the world, that can handle a 500 MPH 225,000 pound MISSILE?! Please don't say yes, you'll just lower my standards in humanity.

 

It was not the only material burning, but as far as the reports go it was the one with potential to reach highest temperatures. What other materials might there been, in such quantities, that the temperature would have reached to the melting point of steel?

 

Strawman argument. No one said anything about melting steel. The steel just needs to be weaken to lose support, which is exactly what happened with the jet fuel, carbon-based material, and plenty of oxygen. You're overestimating the strength of steel here.

 

I said 9 weeks because the updated insurance policy for Mr. Silverstein took effect 9 weeks before the attack. A policy that prominently covered terrorist attacks and that is pretty much what smells fishy to me.

It looks like he new something was about to happen but didn't say anything.

 

The WTC was a victim of a terrorist attack in 1993 there, plus there is the OK bombing in 1995. It wasn't an expectations to take insurance policies against terrorism, especially if you own one that is known world-wide.

 

But that still doesn't explain why the 80 or so untouched/unharmed floors below suddenly couldn't hold the weight or the point load of the 30 floors above when they came crashing down

 

You make it sound like 80 floors act as one, which doesn't work that way. There when thousands and thousands of pounds and loads of kinetic energy going downards. It's gravity doing it's work. Unfortunately, it killed 3000 people as well.

 

And I'm wondering what is up with building seven.

 

The building had their own generator and gas canisters, and they started a fire in the building. Eventually the entire building was engulfed in flames and the bottom parts of the buildings fell off due to the WTC debris. The firefighters knew it was going to collapse and wouldn't risk fighting it. That's why when it collapsed, there was no casualities.

 

It isn't that hard when you do a bit of research. Also, it did NOT fall on it's own footprint (not a single WTC building exists today) and it leaned slightly to the south. WTC7 was recently rebuilt.

 

Finally, for the gentlemen that linked to Steven E. Jones work on "how the buildings fell down" and supporting the theory of thermite, you might want to check his background.

 

One, he wasn't even peer reviewed by Structual Engineers and his own university denies him ( http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm )

 

Two, he wrote some whacked out papers before, including that Jesus walked on Ancient America ( http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/r...d%20figures.htm )

 

That's enough for me. You can also check out a new video that I was asked to upload called Usual Suspects, which focuses on three last will videos of the hijackers and Osama Bin Laden.

 

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...d=886664694&n=2

 

- Mark Iradian

Writer of Chronicles of Garas

The bastard behind Screw Loose Change video

[alanschu]

Heh, thanks for that.

[Calax]

no offence intended but my mind is screaming "ALT" like hades screames "EEEEEEEEE"

 

but then I'm not good at picking out alts.

[thepixiesrock]

No. He is completely legit. He told us.

[Hurlshort]

He seems pretty real to me...and firmly planted in reality. Conspiracy theories are just ideas that people use when the truth is too simple. But that doesn't change the truth.

[thepixiesrock]

He seems pretty real to me...and firmly planted in reality.  Conspiracy theories are just ideas that people use when the truth is too simple.  But that doesn't change the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That sounds like something the creator of the MarkyX alt would say.