A Kinder, more Professional Thread on the WTC

[Alarum]

Alarum there are several coherent theories which have far less "holes" than the official conspiracy theory YOU JUST CHOOSE TO IGNORE all the facts. And that is your perogative. However to simply accept the weak offical stroyline and pretend that there are not dozens of unanswered and blatantly ignored questions about 9/11- is nothing more than an ostrich mentality. I'm not talking about wild conspiracy theories or bizarre questions either- I am talking about questions that every patriotic American who values truth and freedom SHOULD BE ASKING!
Here is an excerpt of one intelligent point of view-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

If that is so, then why do you continue to pose this stuff? Ostrich mentality?

This site simply restates some sillyness, and simply gets facts wrong according to your own sites! The last time the WTC safety factor was mentioned it was 300% dynamic, 500% static. Now its up to 600% (static? Dynamic? Who knows)?

Meanwhile we have the usual nonsense. The WTC collapsed in ints own footprint? We've been there, done that. The claim that the concrete couldn't have been pulverized by kinetic energy of the collapse? Unsourced, unreferenced, and I'm going to go with untrue until I'm getting it from a structural engineer, not an ECONOMIST.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"It didn’t seem real… [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There are thousands of these steel beams [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]that just fell like pickup sticks."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ John Albanese, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer[/FONT]​

Volunteer firefighter, amateur photographer, and EXPERT IN BUILDING COLLAPSE! What a guy!

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]unbelievable."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),[/FONT]​

Dude, the WTC used lots of steel! Obviously a conspiracy! Am I ignoring the facts? Or are your 'facts' stuff like the WTC used steel construction, and the steel was probably heavy (of course according to someone else 229 beams of it were nothing, so maybe not).

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]General Manager, Marine Terminals, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Metal Management NE[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. [/FONT]​

So he doesn't believe in international terrorists, or the official WTC theory. He's not currently acting as a confidance builder. Can't guess why...

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.[/FONT]​

Obviously. I mean his evidence is so compelling - he knows the time WTC building 7 collapsed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured – separated from each other – yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95–98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95–98, photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.[/FONT]​

Yeah, excuse me if I continue to take the structural engineer's word over the economists, especially when the evidence looks like this:
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
That, by the way, is the link for grids of steel, which apparently shows that the truss system was not lightweight. Yeah. I'd say somebody googled and used the first credible looking result without even bothering to read it.

There's no credible sourcing, and the source himself has no professional credentials. And on this we're supposed to throw out the opinion of dozens of structural engineers?


Good theory on building collapse: Supported by observation and evidence
Formulated by structural engineers
Explains the collapse

Bad theory on building collapse: Supported by unnamed and vaguely referenced evidence
Formulated by economists
Offers no explaination.

 

[k]

So you believe thermite was used to bring the towers down. Does this negate the conspiracy theorist's claim that squibs from explosions are evident as the towers collapsed and that individuals heard explosions that must have been bombs going off in the buildings before the towers collapsed? Incase you didn't know, thermite does not explode, it burns.

I did not say thermite was used to bring them down...I said it was necessary for molten steel to exist.

 

[k]

Plenty. Even from the "conspiracy" website quoted by AmariJah, in this very thread.

I said "constructed." An aluminum "cover" is not exactly significant.

 

[k]

As far as I can tell, there is no theory, because any theory either comes off sounding ridiculous, because they're full of holes. Instead they simply yell and complain for every microsecond of everything that happened that day be explained, and then laugh at you when you provide evidence (because its not the right evidence, or enough evidence, or contradicts what some stupid website said).

It is pure hyperbole to say people who are brave enough to publicly voice their doubts about the OV are demanding "every microsecond....." But, that has become rather common because the large holes in the OV have to get filled w/ something....might as well be hyperboles.

 

[Marek]

I did not say thermite was used to bring them down...I said it was necessary for molten steel to exist.

I'm going to assume you believe that molten steel was present. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How do you know that thermite is a necessity for the existence of molten steel?

If thermite was not used to bring the WTC down, what was it used for? Why was it in the buildings?

 

[Alarum]

It is pure hyperbole to say people who are brave enough to publicly voice their doubts about the OV are demanding "every microsecond....." But, that has become rather common because the large holes in the OV have to get filled w/ something....might as well be hyperboles.

I believe that you're not answering my question as to what you're demanding, so I'm forced to make guesses. Care to chime in with exactly what would prove the Al Qaeda solely responsible? Or can I assume from the silence that my guess was correct?

I said "constructed." An aluminum "cover" is not exactly significant.

Given we have no sources, no references, and that the molten steel from thermite cools off after far less than a day (steel has a lousy heat capacitence, it heats up very quickly and loses heat very quickly) I don't really know what to think. We have some vague references to pools of what might be molten steel, might be molten aluminum, or might be a slow-burning wooden desk.

For molten metal, it's not inconcievable (and is in fact pretty likely) that portions of the aluminum covering melted.

I did not say thermite was used to bring them down...I said it was necessary for molten steel to exist.

That's a little bit of overkill. Thermite charges, high explosives, and a jet plane?


P.S. Any news on why it was so important that we examine every girder? I ask again, what we are looking for? Thermite traces?

Edit: Toned it down per request.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I said "constructed." An aluminum "cover" is not exactly significant.

No. You said

What is the source for showing the WTC was constructed out of Aluminum or had a significant portion of Aluminum?

Which we then proved. If the columns had aluminium coverings ( there were thousands of metres of steel columns BTW ), not to mention the many other sources of sluminium within a building, then there is your "significant portion".

Certainly enough to cause a relatively small pool of molten matel.

 

[AmariJah]

No. You said


Which we then proved. If the columns had aluminium coverings ( there were thousands of metres of steel columns BTW ), not to mention the many other sources of sluminium within a building, then there is your "significant portion".

Certainly enough to cause a relatively small pool of molten matel.

Wow! And youse guys call us "conspiracy nuts" Based upon the observalbe facts there were only very limited fires in the WTC towers, then the towers collapsed due to "natural" causes and ... then how do your propose that SEVERAL WEEKS LATER there are MOLTEN POOLS OF... Even if it were just Aluminum instead of steel exactly how do you THEORIZE that the basement got so hot that there were still pools of melted metal a significant time later???
Sorry but that is one kooky conspiracy theory that I simply cannot swallow!

 

[applepowerpc]

The Arab terrorists planted liquid oxygen in the basement and a little extra jet fuel so the fire would keep burning over 800 degrees.

 

[Alarum]

Wow! And youse guys call us "conspiracy nuts" Based upon the observalbe facts there were only very limited fires in the WTC towers, then the towers collapsed due to "natural" causes and ... then how do your propose that SEVERAL WEEKS LATER there are MOLTEN POOLS OF... Even if it were just Aluminum instead of steel exactly how do you THEORIZE that the basement got so hot that there were still pools of melted metal a significant time later???
Sorry but that is one kooky conspiracy theory that I simply cannot swallow!

I have no idea. What I do know is that the pools were anything but molten steel. A temperature of 1500 C is more then sufficient to melt a hole in concrete. The melting point of AISI 1040 steel is over 1500 C. There is no possible way that pools of liquid steel could form - the vessel supposedly holding them had a melting point below that of the steel - meaning it would have melted away beneath the steel. It could have held for minutes, even half an hour, but days would be utterly impossible.

This presents another problem. This is liquid steel:

This is liquid aluminum

Despite its temperature, it exhibits no cherry glow characteristic of steel. Misidentifying the two would be interesting - therefore it is worthwhile to see if the reports said liquid metal, or liquid steel. One is improbable, the other is just flat impossible.

At this point, when you have one substance that is unlikely to be identified properly, and another that had no possible vessel of containment, I'd say that witness credibility needs to be examined.

 

[k]

I'm going to assume you believe that molten steel was present. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How do you know that thermite is a necessity for the existence of molten steel?

If thermite was not used to bring the WTC down, what was it used for? Why was it in the buildings?

"A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings - they were a result of thermite detonations in the buildings' basements on
9/11."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

Even the OV admits molten steel was found up to 6 weeks after 9/11. Plus, there are three types of fires, or flame, each with their own distinct characteristics.

Neither WTC was an inferno and after they collapsed or were brought down the pile of rubble would have cut off oxygen (which is necessary for fire to exist) thus extinguishing any fires at its base. However, molten steel was present up to 6 WEEKS after 9/11?

 

[k]

No. You said


Which we then proved. If the columns had aluminium coverings ( there were thousands of metres of steel columns BTW ), not to mention the many other sources of sluminium within a building, then there is your "significant portion".

Certainly enough to cause a relatively small pool of molten matel.

Ah....now I understand and yes that is true...if they all had the aluminum covers then there would have been a LOT of aluminum.

However, why does the existence of that amount of aluminum explain molten steel?

 

[Marek]

"A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings - they were a result of thermite detonations in the buildings' basements on
9/11."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

Even the OV admits molten steel was found up to 6 weeks after 9/11. Plus, there are three types of fires, or flame, each with their own distinct characteristics.

Neither WTC was an inferno and after they collapsed or were brought down the pile of rubble would have cut off oxygen (which is necessary for fire to exist) thus extinguishing any fires at its base. However, molten steel was present up to 6 WEEKS after 9/11?

Wait, wait, wait... How do we know there was molten steel present 6 weeks after, or any time after, the collapse? I'm reading sources that say this probably isn't even true. And could you post a link show where the official version says this is true?

 

[CCGirl]

Wait, wait, wait... How do we know there was molten steel present 6 weeks after, or any time after, the collapse? I'm reading sources that say this probably isn't even true. And could you post a link show where the official version says this is true?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

 

[Marek]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

That article provides no references.

Take a look at this and see if you change your mind:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html