loose change

The old 'explosives hidden in the back pocket of the Maytag repairman' trick. That's the second time we fell for it this month. The truck bomb the terrorists used in 1993 didn't work because the energy was loosely coupled to the structure and the redundancy of the structure.

Flying jumbo jets into them was a semi-controlled way of demolishing them, and even that approach barely worked due to all the energy needed to take out large areas of multiple floors and initiate the global collapse.

No one talks about the energy within the tower. There was about a trillion Joules of gravitational energy stored in each tower. That's equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and all that energy was contained within the tower itself, not the loose coupling associated with an atomic bomb. The towers themselves provided all the energy for the destruction that ensued once the global collapse started.

.

 

I saw a clip of a conspiracy video the other day that showed some sun glint from one of the helicopters flying near the towers. They claimed (or insinuated without any explanation) that this sun glint is what caused the towers to collapse.

Some people will believe anything, though.

It's reminiscent of the claims that the federal government was shooting at people trying to escape the burning compound in Waco. It was claimed that sun glint in the video was the result of guns being fired. The video tapes of that incident were analyzed by three independent groups including ones outside the U.S. and all concluded that it was sun glint from objects on the ground, not firing of guns.

.

 

Gee shaggie, conflating an issue with numerous exposed concrete evidentiary findings with any manner of ridiculous issue and yet we're supposed to believe you exercise rational discernment and differentiation? Seems you do not.

You also fail repeatedly to note the fact that your theorims (along with those posited by your roster of deferred-to and unquestioned authority figures (ala the PB syndrome)) ignore the symmetrical collapse of the entire undamaged substructure based on the ASSYMETRICAL damage to only a section of the upper floors. Further you conssitently ignore (or perhaps are unaware that the WTC towers were contructed with sufficient redundancy to sustain 6x the conventional load per floor. Moreover, the outright falsehoods of most of the oft touted "official" reports revolve around patently false assertions of the central core structure, leaving out the 47 interlinked column supports which were the actual load bearing aspect of the structures (not the outer columns).

Add to this the (again) patently false assertions concerning the temperature at which steel would lose sufficient structural strength to "pancake" (as Eager Asserts - again with no actual evidence and despite the fact that no known steel structure has ever collapsed entirely from fire in any such manner), compounded by the again ignored (by official shills) fact that the floor trusses were embedded in solid concrete not simple resting on open welded seats (as per popular diagrams) and the straightdown, free-fall speed global ollapse becomes an even more laughable "conspiracy theory" than the much more visually consistent controlled demolition argument.

Since the clear felony of eradicating evidence from a crime was assisted with due federal diligence in as short a time as possible, seems you lose even more integrity dismissing all that is clearly indicative of an inside job.

Oh and if you also think that anything other than the "official version" is a "conspiracy theory" (especially without any actual independently verified presentation of evidence for any aspect of that version) then I suggest you go look up the definition of "conspiracy". Whether it was planned and orchestrated in secret is not in question, who those planners were IS.

Means, motive and opportunity - the very things this administration has in abundance. The very things they continue to bear since they could easily debunk the most salient arguments by simply releasing the confiscated video tapes from the Pentagon area amongst other "claimed" evidentiary materials.

Yeah, you talk about UFO's and glints off helicopters and show yourself as intellectually honest as the lying shills whom you defer to. Maybe you can earn a slot on the Art Bell show for your efforts.

 

Blame the people who made the video about the sun glint off the helicopter, not the ones pointing out that assertion. I didn't propose that. It's those kinds of assertions that should be rejected.

Regarding loading, it's true a floor could take an overload of 6X, but that's under static conditions and with the geometry of the structure still intact where it can still support such a load. The structure was already damaged by the aircraft and fire, so that 6X factor can't be assumed to be true near the damaged area.

Even if the 6X is assumed, once the east wall of the south tower buckled and the top part of the building was in free fall, the dynamic loads were at least 30 times the normal static loads (this can be shown by analyzing the force of the top 30 floors falling through a distance of one floor height). There were about 30 floors above falling together as a unit. Even the 6X safety factor couldn't stop such a dynamic load.

Also, after the building buckled, the structure was already compromised. Columns and beams were sheared and the building was essentially in two large disconnected units, one falling on the other. In such a state, loads were no long being conveyed to the lower section of the building through straight, connected columns. It was more like a debris pile hitting the lower sections in an non-orderly fashion. The assumptions about a 6X safety factor are no longer valid in that case.

.

 

It's true there were plates from the floors that were embedded in the concrete as well as bolts holding the floors. If you look at the debris, however, those plates were bent at a near 90 degree angle. They simply didn't hold, and neither did the bolts. The dynamic loads during the collapse were too high.

.

 

There isn't any contradiction between an asymmetric initiation and a relatively symmetric collapse. Once the top section of a 200 foot wide building tilts 15 degrees, the column connections have been sheared apart. At that point, the top section is basically disconnected from the lower part. It has nowhere to go but down.

I know some sites like to show small buildings knocked over in a single piece, but those aren't 200 foot wide structures with perimeter columns similar to an eggshell, a central core, and 90% empty space. Such a structure can't be tilted 15 degrees without compromising most or all of the columns in the perimeter and core.

.

 

Lick is earning his degree in Structural Engineering at Google University as we speak. Expect a response shortly.

 

lol

 

Your Popular mechanics shill has no degree in Structural Engineering either, nor does Dr. Thomas Eager whose report some here would unquestionably accept.

Fact is, historic known and documented behaviours of building collapses are empirically verifiable by anyone caring to do some actual scrutiny on the matter. That three buildings (one not even touched by any airplane) suffered global collapse with all concrete (even from the uppermost sections above the crash sites) being pulverized into fine dust as only demolition would achieve.

Notwithstanding the fact that building 7 was a block away from the towers surrounded by many other buildings, none of which suffered any collapse.

One needs a modicum of plain ol' fashioned consistent logic to see the farce of the "official" conspiracy theory. Neither planes hitting upper floors nor hydrocarbon-based fires cause global collapse to 110 story multiply redundant structures, never before and never again.

One of Mr. Chalabi's little Dearborn Michigan sycophants, Wacky? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

 

This is verbiage and jargon. There is no history of 757's crashing into huge office towers and exploding in a giant fireball, so there is no history to say what should have happened.

Contrast this to your theory of thermite explosives. You couldn't provide a single example of thermite being used to demolish anything anywhere, yet you believed this was a likely explanation for why the towers collapsed.

Moreover, you are just going back and restating arguments you couldn't prove before. Free fall speeds? So you said, but could not prove. And yes building 7 was the only one to fall a block away, but it wasn't the only one damaged. So why mislead?

And are you going to back up your claim that Chertoff's cousin wrote the PM article? Or is that error something you were hoping nobody would notice. Remember, when you are wrong, it only proves how right you are (at least in your mind), so no need to cover it up.

 

Lol. Wow. You really misconstrued my statement. My bad, I wasn't as specific as I should have been.

Here's what could happen. Dress as a repair man with C4 or Thermite contained in large tool box as well in van. State that you are there to do maintance on the elevators. Plant explosives in each floor around the elevator shafts which happen to be near the core of the building. C4 can be planted between walls as well. This would take a lot of explosives, visit van to retrieve needed amounts. Drive away once finished. Using remote detonation device, detonate after planes hit towers.

Of course, I'm no expert in explosives. However, my bf is a relative expert. He was trained in demolition, even a building as large as the towers. He saw the pictures of the towers and could identify that it was planned demolition by the symetrical collapse. The steel was not bent, it was cut. What cuts steel? Not a fire, not even one caused by jet fuel, which is a hydrocarbon. C4 and thermite will cut steel.

Let's see what a real expert would say, someone who has an extensive knowledge of physics and chemistry, not just explosives: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Then again, it appears most everyone here has a degree in physics/ chemistry. The chemistry doesn't lie, no matter how much you want to deny the truth.

Peace & Love

 

Oh, Adam & the rest of his unit didn't watch the coverage b/c they couldn't sit around all day watching tv. When they had free time, they would have rather gone to a movie b/c the coverage reminded them where they would be going in a couple monthes...

Peace & love

 

You'll need to come up with a better theory than sneaking thermite into elevator shafts. Much the same for Jones. He mentions thermite over and over again yet gives no explanation for how something like that could bring a building down.

Jones has already determined in his mind that it was thermite. Just to give you an example, he claims that the sulfidation of steel observed in some of the debris steel was caused by the one or two percent of sulfur that's sometimes used in thermite. What he ignores is the fact that there were tons and tons of gypsum panels in the building that were pulverized during the collapse and which consist of calcium sulfate (a sulfur-bearing material). There was calcium sulfate powder everywhere available to interact with the steel in the debris pile at high temperatures.

Diesel fires were burning in WTC7. Sulphur is a common impurity in diesel fuel. When steel is hot in the presence of sulphur is undergoes sulphidation. It has the appearance of being eroded away. A lower melting point eutectic consisting of iron and sulphur forms in the steel. The effect of that eutectic can give the impression that the steel partly melted away. Jones mis-interprets that as being caused by thermite, whereas people who are trained in materials science easily recognize it as sulphidation. People in industry are aware of sulphidation, as components such as smokestacks have eroded away and failed in the presence of sulphur impurities. Yet, no one in industry would attribute it to thermite sneaked in by someone.

There are no verified accounts of molten steel in the WTC debris. There were a couple of people who made such a claim but there is no evidence of it. For example, someone claimed that molten steel was poured out of elevator carts, which doesn't make sense, since the molten steel would have melted the cart before it could be poured. It's possible there were molten pools of aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at about 500 to 600C, much lower than the melting point of steel. The hot piece of metal in that pic that Jones shows is not molten.

It's up to people whether they want to believe someone like Jones who claimed the sulphur came from thermite sneaked in by someone or from the large amounts of sulphur-bearing materials in the buildings. Jones is part of a very small group, just as there are a few biologists who believe in creationism. There are hundreds of other people with advanced degrees who don't agree with Jones based on the physics. The other professors at BYU have distanced themselves from him with good reason.

.

 

Hippie-chick, since you feel that the WTC was staged by the government, do you feel that your bf was in on the plan too? He essentially works for the government and works with demolition. Just wondering what your thoughts are on that issue. Based on your assertions, it's possible that your bf was involved in the killing of thousands of people that day. If not, then, according to what you state, he's involved with the same group that allegedly killed thousands of Americans.

.

 

Don't be a jerk. Everyone knows that this was a rogue element within our government. Not everyone in the government is bad, and even fewer people in government know what is going on at the top levels. Everything is compartmentalized.

If anyone is working for the government, it's you. You are like a few others in here who incessantly attack those with alternative explanations for what happened.

 

WTC7 wasn't a block away. It was across the street from the north tower. The pic below was taken from the top of the north tower. WTC7 is circled in yellow.

WTC7 was also struck by the debris from the north tower. The southwest corner was gashed and the central part of the south face had a gash in it going up about 20 stories according to firemen. The building was damaged and unstable enough that the firemen made the decision in the morning to not bother trying to save it.



.

 

People don't want to have a real debate on this. They want to blame some mystery group within the government for everything and come up with assertions that have no basis. That's as bad as any misleading that the government or any other group is doing. It's no better being a shill for a conspiracy group than it is a shill for the government.

.

 

Most people who have seen the collapse of WTC-7, who aren't on the government's payroll, know that it didn't come down by fire. Even Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demolition. Hell, you can even see the demolition squibs as well as the crimp located just below the penthouse prior to the collapse.

 

The tornado sounded like a freight train. Does that prove anything?

.

 

There's weren't any demolition packs on WTC7. Watch a controlled demolition. There's a string a bright flashes all along the perimeter of the building. None of that was seen on WTC7.

These conspiracies about WTC7 are essentially a moot issue. WTC7 would have had to have been demolished anyway after the damage it incurred from the north tower collapse and the fires.

.