Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoahFence said:
Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...
Trust me I'm not.

The thing is, what could be in that building that would make it better to let it burn or demolish it? If you were coming up with a "diabolical master plan" wouldn't you want to control the access to whats in the building as apposed to spilling it into the street? The whole plan to destroy WTC7 makes no sense.

Now, the CIA, FBI, ect surrounding the building telling the FDNY to stay out, that would be another story.
 
Last edited:
As nearly as I can determine, his speculation is that the Overlords told the FDNY not to fight the fire in WTC 7 because they knew they would be demolishing it later in the day. It would have been a little awkward to have the fire department call and say the fires were all out and then have some huge collapse with no cause they could point to. Also there was the obvious risk that the firefighters IN the building would have seen all those big flashing, ticking, Acme bombs...;)

ETA: of course ALL the records pertaining to the planning and execution of 9/11 were on computers in WTC 7. They knew all that stuff would be destroyed in the collapse.
 
Last edited:
I recently rebuilt my computer and had to blast my house out of existence to get rid of the old hard drive. The insurance company was livid, and as such didn't pay me a dime.


Good thing being a paid disinformation agent is a lucrative career.
 
tempesta29 said:
The path of least resistance is the path which provides the least amount of resistance to motion. What's your point? A ~10 story section of one of the towers choosing to plow through ~100 floors below it is not mass choosing the path of least resistance. That's a mass passing through a larger mass as its being destroyed by controlled demolitions.

Neither of the upper sections decelerates as it encounters undamaged structure, but they should have. Since they did not, the upper sections were not destroying the lower.
Click to expand...

Objects are not sentient, they don't CHOOSE what paths to follow. They can only go in the direction in which the forces acting on them are applied.

Here's a little thought experiment. Think of going in your kitchen, pulling the fridge away from any walls, and setting it rocking by pushing on, say, the left side, near the top. Rock it up until the left feet actually come off the floor. Now there are three possibilities here:

1) It will rock back down onto all four feet. This will happen if the line of force due to the weight (which is always acting straight down and is approximately in the center of the fridge) is TO THE LEFT of the right feet. The fridge will have an Uprighting Moment equal to M=Wx, where W is the weight and x is the horizontal distance between the line of force of W and the right feet.

2) The fridge will perch at an angle on the right feet only. This is an unstable situation, which at least in theory would occur if the fridge comes to a stop with the line of force due to the weight going down DIRECTLY THROUGH the line of the right feet. Any perturbation (small disturbance) would send the fridge either back down or toppling over.

3) The fridge topples over onto its RIGHT side. This will happen if the line of force from the weight is further RIGHT than the right side feet. The fridge will then have an Overturning Moment, also equal to M=Wx. The direction in which the Moment wants to turn the fridge can be determined from the right hand rule.
 
NoahFence said:
I recently rebuilt my computer and had to blast my house out of existence to get rid of the old hard drive. The insurance company was livid, and as such didn't pay me a dime.


Good thing being a paid disinformation agent is a lucrative career.
Click to expand...
You didn't fill out the right paper work, you should have "made out like a bandit".


:D
 
tempesta29 said:
I'm not making the claim that it should have toppled. I'm making the claim that if it were to collapse in some way, it wouldn't have collapsed down. I honestly think the building should have never fallen in any way.

You do know something can topple without a fulcrum right?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are not using the term correctly.
 
tempesta29 said:
There is no reason that WTC 7 should have acquired any downward momentum in the first place. That's the whole point. It shouldn't have collapsed down. If it suffered catastrophic damage to its south face then it should have toppled in that direction.
Click to expand...
Maybe your mistake is in assuming that the structure should have remained substantially intact and the whole thing would just be lying there on its south face. Structural steel doesn't really do that. If the building didn't collapse substantially to the south, how do you explain that the North face is lying on top of the pile of debris?
 
tempesta29 said:
The path of least resistance isn't straight down. There were hundreds of tons of unscathed steel columns to resist that path.

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?
Click to expand...

Apparently in the universe inhabited by tempesta29l, if you hold a small rock above a big rock, and release it, instead of falling straight down and hitting the big rock, it dodges around the big rock.
 
tempesta29 said:
What about WTC 7's composition means it should have been reduced to a pile of rubble because of moderate debris damage and fire?

Here is a smaller building, heavily damaged from a failed CD. Virtually all support is taken out except for the far side. It does not collapse down. It topples over and retains its form.

The overwhelming number of WTC 7's columns were undamaged, yet it failed to retain any semblance of its former structure and somehow reached free fall despite the fact that steel would have resisted failure significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYAbeA3yR38
Click to expand...

I guess my response earlier got shunted to AAH or deleted with the clean up so I'll repost a bit more politely... You basically answered my question that you do not think different constructions and systems are important to determining whether or not the same behavior was to be expected and you demonstrated it with an example. What was I getting at with the question?

Your Turkish building example is not only different from a structural framing system standpoint but also a material standpoint. A reinforced concrete framing system creates a more monolithic construction that reduces the number of separate pieces (thus fewer connection points AKA weak points) and increases the relative rigidity of the structural frame as a whole. This, with the building's smaller size, and much more significant removal of the structure - one significant enough to place the center of the upper portions mass outside of the portion of the footprint still connecting it to the lower half - made it susceptible enough to "topple" and rigid enough for whatever fulcrum was there for it to get the angular momentum needed to do it.

WTC 7 was made of an assembly that comprised a lighter steel frame. It was taller, and had long floor spans. It comprised of a core construction rather than a traditional column grid system meaning it handles it's loads differently than your Turkish demolishion. The fact that it's not made of a monolithic construction material also makes it less rigid than your example. The corner damage wasn't nearly as deep as in your example and wasn't enough to shift the center of mass sufficient to do it, and the collapse began elsewhere anyway. Basically this means your topple scenario doesn't happen here.

Finally, that you decided to compare two completely different construction methods and materials as 100% comparable means you are not qualified to speak on these matters. Buildings have to be analyzed individually because in very few instances are they replicas of each other, and thus very few instances will look or behave similar. You have to look at their specific construction methods and framing systems, and then examine how their exact damage affects their ability to redistribute loads. You cannot carelessly say, as you just did, that they will exhibit the same behavior. And this is why you are wrong both in your comparison, and in your justification for concluding that the WTC 7 collapse is a "controlled demolition." And it's why no matter how many architects and engineers you purport to support this controlled demolitions theory are wrong regardless of whatever professional titles they hold. The information, the results of the research stands on its own merit; the results you have present do not.
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
So the upper block has to shift horizontally in order for it to follow a path other than through the lower block?
Click to expand...


Umm... You've already expressed your belief that it can't possibly travel any distance down through the building, so where else can it go; up?

One of the towers was simply hit on a corner. Again, no toppling toward that side.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the topic is simply astounding. Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
Apparently in the universe inhabited by tempesta29l, if you hold a small rock above a big rock, and release it, instead of falling straight down and hitting the big rock, it dodges around the big rock.
Click to expand...

Well, in effect it'll do that, by bouncing off the big rock. The really weird thing about tempesta29's universe is that, if you try to drop a brick on an egg, you'll always miss. In fact, if you drop a brick on a field entirely covered in eggs except for a precisely brick-shaped hole, it'll land perfectly aligned to the hole so as not to break any of the eggs, because that's the path of least resistance that falling objects always take.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, in effect it'll do that, by bouncing off the big rock. The really weird thing about tempesta29's universe is that, if you try to drop a brick on an egg, you'll always miss. In fact, if you drop a brick on a field entirely covered in eggs except for a precisely brick-shaped hole, it'll land perfectly aligned to the hole so as not to break any of the eggs, because that's the path of least resistance that falling objects always take.

Dave
Click to expand...
You should patent that as a method of getting any object to land just where you want it.

Cover the landing area with eggs except for the place where you want the object to land.

The object when dropped will land exactly where you want it to.


...pun intended. ;)
 
C7 said:
The fireboat Harvey, along with a couple other fireboats, supplied all the water with enough pressure to reach the 12th floor and more. So questions about hoses, friction losses and outlets are moot and just an intentional diversion.
Click to expand...

triforcharity said:
SHOW US THE MATH.
Click to expand...
OK, here's the math:

Fireboat Harvey Cross connections in the firemain allow them to be set up in series to deliver a total of 8000 gpm at 300 psi.
http://www.fireboat.org/history/engineering.asp

By cutting the flow to 4000 gpm @ 300 psi
Using 5 - 5" hoses = 800 gpm each
The Friction Loss for this 1800 foot section of 5 inch fire hose with 800 GPM is 92.16 PSI (pounds per square inch)
http://www.frictionlosscalculator.com/default.aspx

12th floor = 144' + 20' rise from river = 164' x .5 psi loss per floor = 82psi

300 psi - 92 psi friction and 82 psi rise losses = 4000 gpm @ 126 psi available to the 12th floor of any building around the WTC.

I'm not sure how these pumps work but if gpm varies with psi, then to achieve optimum psi, bring up pressure/flow until you reach max pressure at other end.

Maybe that is not how it was done but this demonstrates that it was possible to get plenty of water to the 12th floor.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+Joh...ro+of+9%252F11

So, I have found a way. Can you think of a better way? Or are you saying that it could not be done?

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

Remember the point here is that NIST said there was NO water to fight WTC 7. This is to point out the false statement by NIST so please stay on point.


To preempt the childish remarks about "Googled" information somehow not being valid, I will remind you that the data at the sources given are valid regardless of who presents it or how and where they got it.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.
[/B]
Remember the point here is that NIST said there was NO water to fight WTC 7. This is to point out the false statement by NIST so please stay on point.
Click to expand...
Okay, now tell us how much water they needed to cover exposures around the building and to fight the fires in WTC6 and cover exposures there.
 
Christopher7 said:
OK, here's the math:

Fireboat Harvey Cross connections in the firemain allow them to be set up in series to deliver a total of 8000 gpm at 300 psi.
http://www.fireboat.org/history/engineering.asp

By cutting the flow to 4000 gpm @ 300 psi
Using 5 - 5" hoses = 800 gpm each
The Friction Loss for this 1800 foot section of 5 inch fire hose with 800 GPM is 92.16 PSI (pounds per square inch)
http://www.frictionlosscalculator.com/default.aspx

12th floor = 144' + 20' rise from river = 164' x .5 psi loss per floor = 82psi

300 psi - 92 psi friction and 82 psi rise losses = 4000 gpm @ 126 psi available to the 12th floor of any building around the WTC.

I'm not sure how these pumps work but if gpm varies with psi, then to achieve optimum psi, bring up pressure/flow until you reach max pressure at other end.

Maybe that is not how it was done but this demonstrates that it was possible to get plenty of water to the 12th floor.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+Joh...ro+of+9%252F11

So, I have found a way. Can you think of a better way? Or are you saying that it could not be done?

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

Remember the point here is that NIST said there was NO water to fight WTC 7. This is to point out the false statement by NIST so please stay on point.


To preempt the childish remarks about "Googled" information somehow not being valid, I will remind you that the data at the sources given are valid regardless of who presents it or how and where they got it.
Click to expand...

uh uh uh, stoopid Twoofie!
 
Fighting a fire in a building who's stability is in question sounds like it'd be fun. Like Russian Roulette.
 
I'm thinking if all the water was being used to hose down #6, there'd be

wait for it.....

NO water to fight #7.

I'm still trying to figure out why the NIST report is both totally wrong and the only source he uses. Not that he'll ever explain his many, many contradictions. I think twoofers are allergic to explaining why they do what they do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom