Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Glite]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

 

[Year Zero]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

Right, it was radically different and from what I here it was actually a bad design; a lot of wallboard was used instead of concrete. According to one engineer who designed the building(I believe his name is Robertson), concrete was not a structural element in the building save for the floor decks. I know this because a fellow debunker actually e-mailed the guy to confirm this several weeks ago.

 

[Garrette]

I do hope Love hasn't taken off on us.

He/She has already started another thread after posting here, but she hasn't responded to comments there, either.

 

[love]

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

 

[Year Zero]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

It doesn't have to happen throughout the whole building.

 

[kookbreaker]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

Did I say all strength? NO! But it does not have to.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

It doesn't need to. Why would you think that it does?

 

[Ashles]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

What did you not understand about the TV Tower analogy? When structural integrity fails then an entire building can fall in one go.

And what do you think happened to all the concrete?
It's obvious to us what happened to it all (hint, it was lying in huge piles and became huge dust clouds that covered everything in the surrounding area), but you obviously disagree -so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

BTW this is all assuming you aren't just joking.

 

[Psiload]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

Uhh... it didn't.

Only the steel that was subjected to the intense heat of the jet fuel fire lost it's strength. The inevitable and predictable failure of this steel led to a collapse of the the floor trusses directly involved(see pretty moving picture below), which pancaked down and subjected the floors below to stresses they could not bear, and they collapsed onto the floor below, and they in turn collapsed on the floors below, etc... a chain reaction which brought the entire building(s) down.

This process, from beginning to end, can clearly be seen taking place in the video records of the event, unless of course, you're too preoccupied trying to spot the black helicopters, or your tinfoil hat has slipped down over your eyes.

 

[Ed]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

Maybe you ought to read the last few posts.

 

[Ed]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

It was a B-25 which is a baby. Different construction. Irrelevant.

 

[Psiload]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber which struck The Empire State Building. The max fuel load of the B-25 was 1241 gallons, and the crash DID produce a massive fire.

The planes which struck the World Trade Towers were Boeing 727s. The max fuel load of the 727 is 6707 gallons.

Not a fair comparison anyway. The WTC tower's modern construction made them much more vulnerable to structural failure resulting from fire damage.

 

[Garrette]

Without knowing for certain, I would imagine two other relevant things:

1. The fuel tanks were much smaller and probably not nearly full.

2. The fuel itself was not the super-hot burning jet fuel of today.

 

[Psiload]

Without knowing for certain, I would imagine two other relevant things:

1. The fuel tanks were much smaller and probably not nearly full.

2. The fuel itself was not the super-hot burning jet fuel of today.

Throw into the equation the faster speed, and much larger mass of the 727, and we've got one gigantic sledgehammer with which to squash this mosquito of a comparison.

B-25 Mitchell gross weight- 27,000lbs (approx)
727 gross weight- 191,000lbs (approx)

These are called facts, love. You should look them up sometime. They're fun, and generally free!

 

[love]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

 

[kookbreaker]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.

Perhaps you did not notice the smoke clouds, the huge piles of debris, etc? Unless you went and counted the amount of concrete at ground zero, you are dealing with a non-starter.

There was a hell of a lot more than 10 meters of rubble, and it was spread over a large area.

As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

As was already pointed out to you, it was not in free fall. Debris can be seen in the videos clearly falling faster (it is in free fall)

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

So your complant is not so much that it is in free-fall, but falls too fast for your preferences? Very well then:

Each floor that fails actually adds to the kinetic energy of the falling structure. The 'intact' floors below suddenly have to deal with a massive dynamic load that is well beyond what they were designed to with as a static load. Their load bearing capacity is simply overwhelmed and becomes basiclly irrelevant in face of the falling structure.

Understand?

 

[Year Zero]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

That's from looking at pictures on the internet.

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

Exactly, the PHOTOS on THIS THREAD. People that were actually there to investigate didn't seem to have a problem.

As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

They weren't falling in free-fall. You can clearly see debris that fell free of the tower falling at a considerably higher rate than the tower. The determination of the "free-fall" speed was made on shaky calculations that vary greatly.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.

Again, they are not in free fall, although the people(qualified engineers) that investigated this and came up with the pancake theory said that this effect would cause the towers to collapse at speeds close to that of free fall.

Here's a report shattering the "free fall" claim. I hope you like math.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

Specific report: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Stuff about the dust cloud:

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

 

[Blackwell]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

Really? Without any air spaces? We'll have to take all that air into consideration during any future calculations.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.

You didn't see that much debris in total? How did you measure the amount of debris? Were you there? Surely you're not basing your "10 meters of rubble" nonsense simply on the images posted here? Do you think those images comprise the entire disaster site?
Now what about the basement areas of the towers? How many cubic yards of material do you think they hold? Please be sure to back up any of your "calculations" with facts. Thanks.

 

[Ashles]

OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

We all saw the World Trade Centres collapse into huge piles of rubble with colossal dust clouds.

Now people are trying to say "Hmmm... but where is all the debris?"

It is... in huge great piles and, as mentioned previously more than once, in the enormous dust clouds.

Now I ask again - assuming that you chose to ignore the obvious physical evidence, what exactly are you suggesting happened to the "missing" concrete?

 

[love]

So your complant is not so much that it is in free-fall, but falls too fast for your preferences? Very well then:

Each floor that fails actually adds to the kinetic energy of the falling structure. The 'intact' floors below suddenly have to deal with a massive dynamic load that is well beyond what they were designed to with as a static load. Their load bearing capacity is simply overwhelmed and becomes basiclly irrelevant in face of the falling structure.

Understand?

Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.

 

[kookbreaker]

How much of that concrete was used in the base of the structure? I seriously doubt there was a whole lot of concrete higher up in the structure.