• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Could anyone more knowledgable comment on this?

[polite-tone]
may I ask that either your thread titles or your opening post contain some information in the subject you wish to discuss? Those of us with slow connections don't want to have to poke around to find the subject to be discussed.
[/polite-tone]
 
I don't buy the Explosives theory. The amount of planning and the logistics of the device placement and the number of persons that would have had to have been "in on it" just make it that much more unbelievable. Someone would have spilled their guts by now.

There are many independent experts that conclude that the collapses could have indeed happen the way they did.

As we have all seen, if the Government wanted a reason to attack Afghanistan, they could have just used ploys like they did with Iraq, why take such a chance of being found out, and why kill 3000 Americans? I just don't buy it.
 
Caution! Black Helicopter Zone

neutrino_cannon said:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Click to expand...

Go find yourself an empty Aluminum soft drink can. Set it on the floor, open end up. Very gently place a foot on it, and shift your weight so you are standing on the can. (this won't work if you weigh more than 225 lb-don't ask how I know).
The can remains whole. It supports your weight.
get off. now, step on the can quickly. See how it collapses--from the top down!

There is no core on modern buildings. The whole weight is carried around the edges, pretty much. Get the support structures hot enough, and steel looses strength-rapidly. At 1000 degrees, it's down to 60-70%. And the rivets probably less than that. so, the top floors collapse under the heat of JP-4 burning, and colapses, rapidly-onto the floors below. Like the can, they can handle the load, unless there is an impact. a big impact. like a number of floors collapsing onto another floor. This is especially easy when a 300000+ lb aircraft has not only set the fires, but exchanged a whole lot of energy into the supports on that floor.
As for the "Squibs", it looks like windows popping to me.
 
Where to begin?:

Molten Steel: There's no evidence for it. Just a few accounts (one of which is being dramatic. The author is begging for more solid info on molten steel. Also, explosives do not make molten steel. His suggestion that Thermite was used means that his hypothesis now has two types of explosives being used. Mixing destruction materials is a recipie for massive errors, boys and girls.

Explosives: Where, exactly, and how did they plant these without the tens of thousands of visitors and workers not noticing?

Arrogance: As a physics major, I know the limitations of my field. Having a physics degree, even a PHD, does not make one the equivelant of a structural engineer. Not even close.

Puffs of smoke: Often said to be the swuibs of explosive charges. In fact they are debris being blown out from forced air fromt he collapsiing building (at least on WT7. Videos of buildings destroyed by explosives show much larger puffs. The squibs on the qorld trades center are happening after the collapse has started.

Loud noises in the Building: Whoop-dee doo. Its on fire and approaching collapse.

The Fire: He claims thisBut here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC.

Uh, actually it is. Metal without fireproofing conducts heat wonderfully. With thousands of gallons splashed and burning on the columns. Office materials burning as well as anything else flammable will not allow the columns to cool.

Dr. Jones proceeds after that to selectively quote from the NIST report to make it sem like such temperatures were never reached. In fact NIST never had a chance to test any metal from the core.

Finally: I would point out that Dr. Jones is a bit of a whackjob. He was prominent in the Cold Fusion nonsense of a years ago. His antics, while not as grating as those of Pons & Fleichmann, still show some, errr, detachment, from reality.
 
Ladewig said:
[polite-tone]
may I ask that either your thread titles or your opening post contain some information in the subject you wish to discuss? Those of us with slow connections don't want to have to poke around to find the subject to be discussed.
[/polite-tone]
Click to expand...


The scarcity of information in either thread title or opening post was actually a ploy to force people to read the claim in total as opposed to taking my possibly biased summary of it.

But since you ask with politeness code, here's what I understand this to be:

The author of the claim in question believes that a primary contributing factor to the collapse of the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2001 was pre-placed explosives in the towers. The author cites two lines of evidence:

1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Artifacts of the event which suggest explosives. The collapse of the towers, and particularly of WTC 7 are more consistent with controlled demolition than with fire damage, he claims. “Squibs” of debris being blown out of the tower suggest controlled demolition as well. He cites a few early reports of explosions having been heard as well. Finally, he suggests that melting and vaporization patterns of steel members suggest thermite or explosives use.
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The current model of the towers’ collapse is inadequate. The vertical collapse of the building (especially of WTC 7) seems to him inconsistent with the existing model. Most importantly, the heat of the burning jet fuel would have been inadequate to damage the steel.


As I understand it, it would have taken a heck of a lot to make a building that large tip over. Large buildings are, after all, a little hard to rotate. Therefore it is entirely unsurprising that the towers collapsed vertically (incidentally the phrase “into their own footprints” is a little bit of an overstatement). WTC 7 was smaller though, does anyone know if the same would apply? The top floors of the South Tower that the author suggests as evidence for building rotation (or at least the top of it), and furthermore as evidence for explosives when they “crumble into dust” are probably the curtain walls of the building. The dust and debris obscures the central core of the building, which necessarily fell vertically because that’s where it ended up.

More interesting to me are the claims of “squibs” (because I can see the bleeding things in the video!). Are those squibs? If not, what am I seeing? I’m also curious about the claims of molten steel. I think the claims of prior explosions (or at least significant, WTC-related ones) have been discredited by seismographic evidence (or at least according to wikipedia).

I’m no engineer, but the rest of the mainstream hypothesis seems fine to me. You don’t need to heat metal much at all to screw it up structurally, in many cases. I don’t see the temperature threshold at which the metal would have lost integrity mentioned in this paper.

Finally, this hypothesis seems very silly in several respects. You can’t cut steel with explosives just by leaving explosives around the steel. The agents responsible for the Towers’ destruction would have required access to the structural columns themselves and some shaped charges (as well as knowledge of controlled implosions and massive coordination) or very large charges (as well as knowledge of controlled implosions and massive coordination). The latter option does not seem consistent with the people jumping out of the towers, the explosives would have flattened them if they could cut steel from a distance (blasted inverse square law!). The former seems equally unlikely, but works well for the conspiracy-minded.

Finally, why would anyone trying to make this a huge, gory spectacle try to collapse the building more or less vertically? Wouldn’t they make efforts to tip them sideways and play dominoes with Manhattan?
 
One funny observation, the wtc conspiracy theorists usually seem to point out that controlled demolitions company was hired to get rid of the rubble of the buildings and they suggest that is odd or sign of conspiracy.

I ask, if not such a company, then what kind of company would you hire for such job?
"The not actually destroying buildings but just collecting the remains thereof company" doesn't sound like much of a business to me. :)
 
I was really only curious about the squibs, the rest seems to have been addressed at one point or another.

Couldn't really saved myself some time if I'd just thought "why would controlled explosions be going on after the building is starting to collapse?"

Controlled implosions would use charges throughout the demolition, to my understanding, to control the fall, but if charges were the major initiatior of the fall, they should have been visible beforehand.
 
A presidential blow job could not be kept secret. I rest my case.
 
neutrino_cannon said:
The scarcity of information in either thread title or opening post was actually a ploy to force people to read the claim in total as opposed to taking my possibly biased summary of it.

But since you ask with politeness code, here's what I understand this to be:
Click to expand...

I apologize. I wasn't asking for a summary of what this article was about. I was asking that future threads have at least a topic listed somewhere before the link. Something as simple as "WTC conspiracy" would have been enough for me.


I do consider the topic interesting enough to follow this thread, but if I hadn't been in a curious mood and clicked on your title, I wouldn't have found this discussion of materials and physics.

Also, good titles make it easier to find the thread weeks or months from now.
 
Last edited:
He mentions the second law of thermodynamics several times. Case closed :rolleyes:.

Squibs (I thought that was a sea animal .. never mind ...). When a building is collapsing, things are breaking inside it, violently. Structures popping and snapping.

Collapsing vertically. That is the normal mode. There was a series about demolitions, on Discovery or NG; itwas then they needed a building to NOT collapse vertically (for instance to make it collapse away from a building that was to be spared), that the demolition specialists had problems. And it makes sense: The forces acting on the structure of a building are vertical. Since a building is very heavy, a LOT of force is needed to make it do anything but collapse vertically.

Hans
 
You know what the oddest thing is to me? Thousands of people were in those buildings that day and successfully evacuated. Tens of thousands. People who took the stairs, people who evacuated from the offices where explosives were supposedly stored, people whose job it was to know the conditions of their floors and of the building. Hundreds or thousands more weren't in the buildings at the time but would have been at odd hours like the night shifts. Where are the janitors who saw people skulking around the trade center with plastic explosives? Where is the lady who saw a weird package attached to a column? The office services manager who was warned not to ask any questions when he came across that weird-looking insulation with the wires attached? This isn't a moon-landing scenario where once the rocket is out of sight someone can make up lies about it not going where everybody said it went, it's a freaking pair of buildings occupied daily by more people than live in the entire city of Cheyenne, Wyoming.
 
Last edited:
I think as far as windows popping several floors below the actual area of collaspe is misleading. The WHOLE building was collasping, not just the top. As the upper floors compressed that pressure had to go somewhere, not all of it was blown out the sides. That pressure would have built up behind the windows built to withstand pressure (pressure from steady winds, for instance) until a few blew out with dust and debris being blown out as well. As one window blows it relieves the pressure on the ones around it making it look as if something took place just behind that one window when in reality it was all over the floor, it's just that that one window blew first.

To think that just because the upper floors were being smashed that this wouldn't effect the floors right below it is fallacy. I'm sure as far away as the ground floor debris, dust, and just plain air pressure were blowing out elevator doors and other vertical access points.

You might want to ask the author why does it look like random windows blowing out? If it were designed explosions then you think there'd be a pattern to windows blowing out.

By the way, I was a munitions inspector and did demolition in the Air Force so I have a little bit of experience with this.
 
[aside]If some entity could do all those things, why did they have to destroy WTC 1,2, and 7? Whatever their goal was (weaken the U.S. economy, discourage airline travel, justify a war, spread anti-semetic rumors, lower real estate prices in NYC, etc.), wouldn't it have been acheived by destroying 1500 people in one tower? Placing timed explosives in three buildings triples the threat of being discovered while barely raising the effects of the goal. [aside]
 
Does he have an article about the missle that hit the pentagon? It wasnt really a plane you know.
 
Ladewig said:
[aside]If some entity could do all those things, why did they have to destroy WTC 1,2, and 7? Whatever their goal was (weaken the U.S. economy, discourage airline travel, justify a war, spread anti-semetic rumors, lower real estate prices in NYC, etc.), wouldn't it have been acheived by destroying 1500 people in one tower? Placing timed explosives in three buildings triples the threat of being discovered while barely raising the effects of the goal. [aside]
Click to expand...

This is true. Why not just blow the three buildings (why #7 along with 1 and 2 we'll never know) without warning? That way, you won't allow so many people to escape. Why set up explosives, let two planes hit the towers (which would have rendered your setup useless anyways as any timers or cables for your explosives would have melted, broke, or otherwise been disabled) then allow a long time to pass before collasping the towers? I mean, wasn't it and hour before they collasped? Why allow so many to escape? Doesn't make sense when you think about it.

The web page is just a bad theory, no basis in physics or logic.
 
I've never seen any analysis on the rivets (or whatever was holding the steel beams together). Is it possible that they were the "weak link" with regards to the intense heat? Can anyone point me to any info on that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom