9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

HorsieJuice said:

Why would I expect you to get the engineering right when you can't get the spelling right?

Click to expand...

I have a disability spatial dysgraphia. So I cant spell. So what? Dose my spelling have something to do with the validity of my claim?

Or is just yet another person trying to belittle someone into silence?

LostMarbels said:

What's the point? You won't look.

You didn't even watch what I already presented.

Click to expand...

I've already seen what you presented...so where is the affirmation of molten steel? It's easy to say, and for others to repeat...but where is the proof?


Btodd

Btodd said:

I've already seen what you presented...so where is the affirmation of molten steel? It's easy to say, and for others to repeat...but where is the proof?


Btodd

Click to expand...

It is all over media footage. It is even seen pouring out of the towers.

LostMarbels said:

It is all over media footage. It is even seen pouring out of the towers.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. How do you know that was molten steel? Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than steel, and not only were the skin of the planes made of aluminum, but the entire facade of both the Twin Towers. (and what you're talking about isn't seen pouring out of 'the towers', it's pouring out of one tower...right where the plane hit).

Did you bother to check out stuff like that?


Btodd

Btodd said:

You missed the point. How do you know that was molten steel? Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than steel, and not only were the skin of the planes made of aluminum, but the entire facade of both the Twin Towers.

Did you bother to check out stuff like that?


Btodd

Click to expand...

Yep..... Lets be honest here. What can I possibly site that you wont refute? Even if I show you something, than what?

Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site/Ground Zero after 9/11. - YouTube

Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found - YouTube

LostMarbels said:

Yep..... Lets be honest here. What can I possibly site that you wont refute? Even if I show you something, than what?

Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site/Ground Zero after 9/11. - YouTube

Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found - YouTube

Click to expand...

Yes, let's be honest. None of that was tested for being steel, so you can't claim that's what it was. Furthermore, thermite doesn't leave melted steel for days on end (it burns very hot, very quickly, and requires an enormous amount in order to cut through a small amount of steel, but only at a vertical angle...not a horizontal angle that the columns of the WTC Towers relied on).

Furthermore, you can't cite (not 'site') a single example of thermite being used to bring down a building in the history of demolitions...on top of that, you would have to show that thermite can be timed to make each floor collapse from the top-down, in perfect succession, in order for this to happen. Video footage of thermite being used to burn through certain materials always show it to require a TON of thermite to burn through even a small amount of metal...so that stuff would have been all over the place. But it wasn't.

So who is the one refusing to adhere to the evidence?


Btodd

Here's the math on the jet fuel inside WTC.

How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?

There shouldn't have been any molten anything. The fuel would have burnt out in minutes. One big fire ball. Some residual, then it's out.

How long dose jet fuel burn anyways? 6 weeks? Underground with no oxygen?

Btodd said:

Yes, let's be honest. None of that was tested for being steel, so you can't claim that's what it was. Furthermore, thermite doesn't leave melted steel for days on end (it burns very hot, very quickly, and requires an enormous amount in order to cut through a small amount of steel, but only at a vertical angle...not a horizontal angle that the columns of the WTC Towers relied on).

Furthermore, you can't cite (not 'site') a single example of thermite being used to bring down a building in the history of demolitions...on top of that, you would have to show that thermite can be timed to make each floor collapse from the top-down, in perfect succession, in order for this to happen. Video footage of thermite being used to burn through certain materials always show it to require a TON of thermite to burn through even a small amount of metal...so that stuff would have been all over the place. But it wasn't.

So who is the one refusing to adhere to the evidence?


Btodd

Click to expand...

I can sight wadt ever eye chosed two. I'm bad at written language..... get over it.

I never stated it was thermite. Don't know if it was actually. But no one has told me how all the molten metal formed. How did jet fuel get the temp to rise to the point to not only melt metal, but remain hot for 6 weeks?

Aluminum: 1220 degrees Fahrenheit.

How much thermal energy would be lost in radiation, and in heating up the concrete?

Here's a cool backyard experiment with only a couple of pounds of homemade thermite, not tons. I'm also pretty sure this guy doesn't have the technology or budget of the government, but he cuts steel beams.

THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube

LostMarbels said:

I can sight wadt ever eye chosed two. I'm bad at written language..... get over it.

I never stated it was thermite. Don't know if it was actually. But no one has told me how all the molten metal formed. How did jet fuel get the temp to rise to the point to not only melt metal, but remain hot for 6 weeks?

Aluminum: 1220 degrees Fahrenheit.

How much thermal energy would be lost in radiation, and in heating up the concrete?

Click to expand...

The jet fuel only started the fires. The fires reached temperatures higher than the minimum required to melt aluminum, which was abundant. When the buildings collapsed, all that had to happen was for this heat to get trapped and fed just enough oxygen to keep burning.

If you're not saying that it was the result of thermite, or the result of demolition charges...then what are you saying?


Btodd

I just got done looking up the construction of the WTC. They used carbon steel In the construction, and A light weight 1,200 psi concrete flooring

The yield strength assigned to any grade of steel is the point at which it will bend and not regain its original shape. So A36 steel -- a mix of carbon and iron, like all steels -- can handle 36,000 pounds per square inch (36 kilopounds) of pressure before it begins to deform, and 52,000 psi of compression before deformation.

( Source: ASTM.org)

In the external walls of towers one and two of the World Trade Center, the steel also varied by thickness to allow for different pressure loads at different levels. In the lower levels, the thickness was most frequently around 4 inches (10 centimeters), while at higher floors, it could be as thin as 0.25 inch (0.64 centimeter).

(source: FEMA)

In the construction of the floors themselves, a mix of A36 and ASTM A 242 steel was used. it's load strength is 46,000 psi. ASTM A 242 is what is known as a high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steel, which means that it was extra-strong, allowing less of it to be used which makes for a lighter building. Also this would mean the upper floors were allot lighter than the lower floors, and contained less mass than the lower floors.The WTC used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.

(Source:Wikipedia)

I have seen figures stating that 1,500,000 tons of materials went into the building of the twin towers. So that would be 750,000 tons, or 1,500,000,000 lbs per tower. If we completely disregard the fact that 2/3 of the towers weight was in their base, and lower levels, we come up with each floor weighing 6,818 tons, or 13,636,000 Lbs. Each tower had 3,800,000 square feet of office space. That would be 34,545 Sq ft pr floor. 1 square foot = 144 square inches, so that equals 4,974,480 Sq inches pr floor. That would come to a wopping 2.74 Psi load pr floor being carried by 36,000 to 52,000 psi rated beams. At ground level with all the floors pressing upon them, the beams at the base would be carrying around 301.40 psi. That's allot of weight.

If I'm wrong, explain to me, show me, teach me, Yelling, name calling, and pointing out my spelling accomplishes nothing.

Btodd said:

The jet fuel only started the fires. The fires reached temperatures higher than the minimum required to melt aluminum, which was abundant. When the buildings collapsed, all that had to happen was for this heat to get trapped and fed just enough oxygen to keep burning.

If you're not saying that it was the result of thermite, or the result of demolition charges...then what are you saying?


Btodd

Click to expand...

As I said in before:" I do not have a hardest stance on this issue as of yet. So I'm willing to listen to presented arguments, and learn what you have to teach."

I'm not for or against either stance, neither ring completely true. I want to understand why, not just be belittled into not daring to think for myself, nor do I just want to jump on the band wagon. Something's about 911 do not add up.

Here's another thing I need clarification on. If every floor did way 6,818 tons, the 18 floors in tower one that came down would weigh 122,724 tons, or 245,448,000 Lbs. (way over exaggerated) if it fell straight down onto the 14,974,480 sq. inch 91st floor, that would be a load of 49.34 psi, and it would be dispersed over 32, 36,000 psi floor trusses, a 52,000 psi inner core, and a 23,000 psi outer skin.

How much resistance in psi would the falling 18 floors encounter if you were to add up all the yield strength of the steels entire surface area affected?

Meaning, how much force would it take to smash 32, 18'L 12"H X32"W X.25 I beams rated for 36,00o psi? Or the 52 x 22 inch thick center column rated at 52,000 psi? Also the 236 columns rated at 23,000 psi each, that made up the walls on each and ever floor?

LostMarbels said:

Here's another thing I need clarification on. If every floor did way 6,818 tons, the 18 floors in tower one that came down would weigh 122,724 tons, or 245,448,000 Lbs. (way over exaggerated) if it fell straight down onto the 14,974,480 sq. inch 91st floor, that would be a load of 49.34 psi, and it would be dispersed over 32, 36,00 psi floor trusses, a 52,000 psi inner core, and a 23,000 psi outer skin.

How much resistance in psi would the falling 18 floors encounter if you were to add up all the yield strength of the steels entire surface area affected?

Meaning, how much force would it take to smash 32, 18'L 12"H X32"W X.25 I beams rated for 36,00o psi? Or the 52 x 22 inch thick center column rated at 52,000 psi? Also the 236 columns rated at 23,000 psi each, that made up the walls on each and ever floor?

Click to expand...

Do you realize how many variables were in play as to exactly how the building fell? Too many to even discuss and too many to try and predict from scratch.

Huge planes hit the buildings at 500mph +, MASSIVE amount of damaging forces involved with both collisions, on top of the jet fuel burning.

bhsmte said:

Do you realize how many variables were in play as to exactly how the building fell? Too many to even discuss and too many to try and predict from scratch.

Huge planes hit the buildings at 500mph +, MASSIVE amount of damaging forces involved with both collisions, on top of the jet fuel burning.

Click to expand...

Part of science is to question.

In my example, the 245,448,000 Lbs. of the 18 falling floors would equal would equal 111,333,340 kg. Ill take the overall height of 415 meter / 110 floors to get a ball park story of 3.77 meters, or about 12.4 Ft. per story. Energy at impact: 4101 joules, or 21 psi. after an 12.4 foot drop. Add the impact to the weight of the structure falling 49.34 + 12.40= 61.74 Psi. spread out over the 14,974,480 sq. inch 91st floor. So..... no collapse.

Next I'm going to find try and find out how many joules of energy was absorbed by the building at impact.

From the NIST F.A.Q. (This is covered in greater detail in the NIST report):

"12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.


Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.


This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."


Btodd

LostMarbels said:

Here's a cool backyard experiment with only a couple of pounds of homemade thermite, not tons. I'm also pretty sure this guy doesn't have the technology or budget of the government, but he cuts steel beams.

THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube

Click to expand...

I watched this video, LM. I have to admit, I'm a person who lives in denial when things are painful. In going through horrific chemo for six months after cancer surgery, I lived not looking up anything, not knowing that I wasn't supposed to survive. When I know I've sinned, I run from the Lord until my life gets so miserable that I finally repent and ask for forgiveness. When 9/11 occurred I didn't think much about the fact that 3000 people died. I was kind of like a robot when I watched their grieving families. It wasn't until a few years ago when I was watching all of the 9/11 documentaries on cable late at night that I started to face what really happened.

So I think I know why so many are arguing against your theories. It is just plain too painful. That is why America accepted the word of the government and media. It's too painful to accept the fact that your own government could be that cruel. I voted for George Bush twice and to think he is a murderer is so upsetting. He had us fooled. He cried on camera over it. But when you really look at it objectively, when you are searching for the truth, the original story begins to fall apart. I've run away from 9/11 all these years because I didn't want to think about it. But it never goes away. You can avoid it all year long but that date comes along every year and you have to face it. But if you only watch the recitation of the names of victims on tv, eventually it will get boring, we will all be detached. If you can manage to avoid the documentaries with the people falling from the buildings and avoid hearing the 911 calls, you can begin to let it go. I think that is what most people want.


The incident was more personal than that for me and as hard as I tried, I've never been able to just accept the original story. I've always had questions. I think I was 50 or so at that time and wasn't a believer and my life had not been one of success. In the back of my mind, many who were killed had much more promising futures, as I said in another thread or earlier, maybe a survivor's guilt. But when you've made a lot of mistakes you tend to look at other people's lives a lot, at least I do. So I now, after all of those years, wonder what their lives would have been like. I imagine them as mostly young, rushing to work as I used to do, maybe they had spouses, small children, etc. and were never suspecting it was anything but a normal day. Then BAM!! It was all taken away. And here I am, still alive and living a good life. I'm not asking "why"? I'm asking WHY would a government have an agenda that could only be put in place by murdering 3,000 Americans? A normal person would immediately shake that thought from his mind. But this may have and probably was carried out. What evil could invade the minds of people to do such a thing? What makes those people any different from Hitler or Mao or Stalin, other than the fact that they did it in secret. What are they planning now to achieve their agenda? And if I voted for a present day Hitler, Mao or Stalin, how will I see through Antichrist?

Sorry to get off topic but I am beginning to heavily lean toward the fact that the government's story was a cover-up.

LM, the video showed those explosions and they looked just like the flashes of light seen in the video of the towers falling in slow motion. Wow, this is really an evil possibility. Maybe we have to wait until we are ready to face the truth.

LostMarbels said:

Here's another thing I need clarification on. If every floor did way 6,818 tons, the 18 floors in tower one that came down would weigh 122,724 tons, or 245,448,000 Lbs. (way over exaggerated) if it fell straight down onto the 14,974,480 sq. inch 91st floor, that would be a load of 49.34 psi, and it would be dispersed over 32, 36,00 psi floor trusses, a 52,000 psi inner core, and a 23,000 psi outer skin.

How much resistance in psi would the falling 18 floors encounter if you were to add up all the yield strength of the steels entire surface area affected?

Meaning, how much force would it take to smash 32, 18'L 12"H X32"W X.25 I beams rated for 36,00o psi? Or the 52 x 22 inch thick center column rated at 52,000 psi? Also the 236 columns rated at 23,000 psi each, that made up the walls on each and ever floor?

Click to expand...

A couple of quick things... yes, you could place a large amount of mass on the building without it collapsing. But that is nothing remotely like what happened when the collapse began. You then have a system that needs dynamic considerations because kinetic energy has been introduced into the system. Just adding up yield stress values doesn't account for any of that. Nor does it consider all of the variables that entered the picture once the collapse ensued. Things like concrete and it's inherent weakness to cracking under certain types of loading, the fact that all the yield stresses you quoted are based on ambient design conditions (I won't get into all of the fire protection issues here), on and on... Too many things to just simplify this down to stress values. If it was that easy we wouldn't need engineers.

I put a pretty lengthy post on his other 9/11 thread. You might get something out of reading it (or maybe not). Like everyone else here, I'm no expert on the WTC designs. I'm not here to attack anyone, just present my opinions which are based on my own experience as a design engineer.

LostMarbels said:

Here's a cool backyard experiment with only a couple of pounds of homemade thermite, not tons. I'm also pretty sure this guy doesn't have the technology or budget of the government, but he cuts steel beams.

THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube

Click to expand...

Now consider the amount of thermite that would be required for the WTC's. Now consider that it would need a significant heat source and be already in a solid state (so as to be painted on) so that lateral "cuts" would be made.

Paul01 said:

A couple of quick things... yes, you could place a large amount of mass on the building without it collapsing. But that is nothing remotely like what happened when the collapse began. You then have a system that needs dynamic considerations because kinetic energy has been introduced into the system. Just adding up yield stress values doesn't account for any of that. Nor does it consider all of the variables that entered the picture once the collapse ensued. Things like concrete and it's inherent weakness to cracking under certain types of loading, the fact that all the yield stresses you quoted are based on ambient design conditions (I won't get into all of the fire protection issues here), on and on... Too many things to just simplify this down to stress values. If it was that easy we wouldn't need engineers.

I put a pretty lengthy post on his other 9/11 thread. You might get something out of reading it (or maybe not). Like everyone else here, I'm no expert on the WTC designs. I'm not here to attack anyone, just present my opinions which are based on my own experience as a design engineer.

Click to expand...

Yes I have taken that into consideration. I left every single ounce in that calculation as if all 122,724 tons fell 18 feet into the 91st floor. Truth is a lot of debris burnt up and even fell to the way side. Also, none of the naysayers take into account Mass is the amount of matter present in a body while weight is a measure of how strongly gravity pulls on that matter. Mass is an intrinsic property of the body and remains the same wherever the body might be. Weight is a force, and force is (Mass * Acceleration). The mass of the TWC was many times greater than the weight coming down upon it. The greater the mass of an object, the more sluggish the object becomes in relation to change. Mass is a measure of an object's inertia. Thus, the mass of an object is directly proportional to its inertia. A 1.5 billion Lbs. object is going to destroy a 13.6 K Lbs. object just by it sheer mass. There simply is not enough force to act upon the WTC's mass, changing it's state of rest, into free fall.

No matter what is said. Energy is dissipated every time it acts on another force. It must first destroy the floor below it by exerting 53,000 PSI to destroy the center Colum alone. Then on what energy is left is there to fall to the next floor to meet an unchanged resistance of a minimum 53,000 yet again. However the falling material is losing mass to pulverized dust, slabs of concrete have fell over the side of the building. The object has slowed due to resistance and is smaller in size.