Quote:
Originally Posted by sayulita
I am now absolutely convinced that these were controlled demolitions and that our government was involved.
|
Your government was not involved, but certain persons in your government were. Learn and understand the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruxan
the wtc collapsed because fully loaded commercial jets full of fuel were crashed into them.. and the other factor was the wtc buildings were poorly engineered.. 
in other words they collapsed because of the poorly designed truss conections, add a lot of heat and damage and poof!!! a free fall collapse.. |
I'm guessing you want to be a Nazi Propagandist when you grow up.
Neither of the two commercial jets were "fully loaded" as you claim. You can cite no evidence to support you claim, and your claim contradicts statements by both the NTS and FEMA
"There were 92 people on board Flight 11 and 65 people on board Flight 175." - 1.3 Timeline and Event Summary from FEMA Report
Your claim is refuted and debunked.
Neither of the two commercial jets were "full of fuel" as you deceitfully claim.
"It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. - 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
Since the aircraft load is 23,980 gallons, each aircraft had approximately 40% of its potential fuel load.
Your claim is refuted and debunked.
You are now 0-for-2.
Both World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Aircraft had been known to strike buildings in New York City. A Boeing B-25 struck the Empire State Building.
"The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds...; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds...." - 1.5.2 Unusual Building Loads
Boeing 707: 263,000 pounds
Boeing 767: 274,000 pounds
(274,000 - 263,000) / 263,000 *100 = 4.18% difference in weight.
Boeing 707: 146 foot wing span
Boeing 767: 156 foot wing span
(156 - 146) / 146 * 100 = 6.84% difference in wing span
Boeing 707: 153 foot length
Boeing 767: 159 foot length
(159 - 153) / 153 * 100 = 3.92% difference in length
530 mph is 777 ft/s
Force = Mass * Velocity
F = m * v
F707 = 263,000 pounds * 777 ft/s
F767 = 274,000 pounds * 777 ft/s
F707 = 204351000 = 277.06 MegaWatts
F767 = 212898000 = 288.65 MegaWatts
However, it is important to consider materials construction. As far as Boeing 707s go, they were more elastic than Boeing 767's, and would have caused more damage. Consider that the wing struts on a 707 are aluminum and steel, while on a 767 they are mylar (composite carbon/graphite).
The wings of a 767 are designed to break away on impact to carry the fuel cells away from the passengers (to increase survivability from fire), while on the 707 they were not.
"However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass and traveling at substantially higher speeds." - 1.5.2 Unusual Building Loads
I guess you are totally incapable of recognizing when your government is telling blatant lies.
A 767 is "
considerably larger" than a 707? There's only a 7% and 4% difference in wing span and length respectively.
A "
significantly higher weight?"
I just proved there was a 4.18% difference in weight and that is not "significantly higher" as your government claims.
Seems you and your government have something in common: You're both bad liars.
That info came from
World Trade Center Building Performance Study.
You are now 0-for-3.
Fuel Spill Volume (V) 7000.00 gallons
Fuel Spill Area or Enclosed Area 22700.00 ft2
Mass Burning Rate of Fuel (m") 0.051 kg/m2-sec
Effective Heat of Combustion of Fuel (DHc,eff) 43000 kJ/kg
Fuel Density (r) 810 kg/m3
Empirical Constant (kb) 1.6 m-1
Ambient Air Temperature (Ta) 77.00 °F
Gravitational Acceleration (g) 9.81 m/sec2
Ambient Air Density (ra) 1.18 kg/m3
Q = m"DHc,eff (1 - e-kb D) Adike
Where Q = pool fire heat release rate (kW)
m" = mass burning rate of fuel per unit surface area (kg/m2-sec)
DHc,eff = effective heat of combustion of fuel (kJ/kg)
Af = Adike = surface area of pool fire (area involved in vaporization) (m2)
kb = empirical constant (m-1)
D = diameter of pool fire (diameter involved in vaporization, circular pool is assumed) (m)
Pool Fire Diameter Calculation
Adike = pD2/4
Where Adike = surface area of pool fire (m2)
D = pool fire diamter (m)
D = √(4Adike/p)
D = 51.818 m
Heat Release Rate Calculation (Liquids with relatively high flash point, like transformer oil, require
Q = m"DHc,eff (1-e-kb D) Adike localized heating to achieve ignition)
Q = 4624815.52 kW
4383492.65 Btu/sec
tb = 4V / pD2n
Where tb = burning duration of pool fire (sec)
V = volume of liquid (m3)
D = pool diameter (m)
n = regression rate (m/sec)
Calculation for Regression Rate
n = m"/r
Where n = regression rate (m/sec)
m" = mass burning rate of fuel (kg/m2-sec)
r = liquid fuel density (kg/m3)
n = 0.000063 m/sec
Burning Duration Calculation
tb = 4V/pD2n
tb = 199.56 sec or
3.33 minutes
I am giving the government every benefit of the doubt, and I am assuming the fuel was concentrated. According to NIST, ~3,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off (as the fireball) in the explosion.
However, the reality is that the fuel was most likely spread out over a larger area and consequently,
it would have burned off even faster than 3.33 minutes.
The BTUs produced would have no effect on steel whatsoever.
It has not been proven with any degree of certainty that heat caused damage to the steel beams. If you would take some time to peruse SFPE 500 and SFPE 1995 (those are standards published by the Society of Fire Prevention Engineers before 9-11) you would know that JP5 does not produce enough heat to soften steel, or for that matter, affect steel in any way, unless someone was pumping pure oxygen into towers.
Since no one was pumping oxygen or using stoichemical catalysts in the fire, the JP5 (and this applies to all kerosene based jet fuels) could not have burned at a temperature greater than about 800° C (about 1500° F).
Steel begins to soften at about 1370° C (about 2500° F).
I find Pol Pot to have more credibility than you. That's twice I've embarrassed you.
If you don't understand the equations, join a police department, work your way up off the road to detective sergeant, and then go to arson school.
If you want to impress everyone, convert the BTUs to temperature, but you won't do that, because it refutes your claims.
You're 0-for-4.
That is a Standard Fire Curve. If you were a school-trained arson investigator (like me) or an engineer you should know what it is.
It takes 90 minutes to deflect a steel-beam a mere 1 mm.
That is not enough to be catastrophic by any sense of the imagination (or there wouldn't be any buildings in the US bigger than 2 or 3 stories).
Not only did the fires not burn hot enough, they never burned long enough to cause any damage to the steel beams.
0-for-5. You really suck.
Here's a transcript from one of the fire battalions that refutes your claims too.
"Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."
9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion
Seven to Ladder 15. "Fifteen."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."
Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."
9:57 a.m.
"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."
Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."
Battalion Seven Operations Tower One:
"Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."
Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."
Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."
Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."
Clearly the fires were not as bad as you claim they were. Worse than that, the damage to the central core you claim exists does not exist.
Debunked you again. 0-for-6.
Since you never read either the FEMA or NIST reports, you have no idea that neither one actually claims the aircraft and fire caused the building to collapse. They rely on "innuendo."
How else can I embarrass you....let's see...your own Congress even had issues:
[CENTER][CENTER]COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
[/CENTER]
[CENTER]HEARING CHARTER [/CENTER][/CENTER]
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
[CENTER][CENTER]
Noon to 2:00 p.m.[/CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]
2318 Rayburn House Office Building[/CENTER][/CENTER]
[LEFT][LEFT]The investigation has been hampered by a number of issues, including:[/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT]
·No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts.[/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT]
·Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records: The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns. The documents are necessary to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future. [/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT]
·Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study: The confidential nature of the BPAT study may prevent the timely discovery of potential gaps in the investigation, which may never be filled if important, but ephemeral evidence, such as memories or home videotapes, are lost. The confidentiality agreement that FEMA requires its BPAT members to sign has frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse, who are unsure if their work is complementary to, or duplicative of, that of the BPAT team. In addition, the agreement has prevented the sharing of research results and the ordinary scientific give-and-take that otherwise allows scientists and engineers to winnow ideas and strengthen results. [/LEFT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT][/LEFT]
·Uncertainty as to the strategy for completing the investigation and applying the lessons learned: The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings. (Its report is expected to rely largely on audio and video tapes of the event.) Nor does it plan to examine other important issues, such as building evacuation mechanisms. Instead, FEMA has asked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation. Yet so far, NIST has not released a detailed plan describing how it will take over the investigation, what types of analyses it will conduct, how it will attempt to apply the lessons it learns to try to improve building and fire codes, and how much funding it will require.
There you go. None of the FEMA or NIST investigators had access to the Ground Zero (and they so state in their reports). No real investigation was done, but note that they did claim the presence of sulfides.
"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." - C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
That is proof of demolition devices.
Did you read the criminal investigation? Of course you didn't, since none was ever done.
Here's another way your government lied and was deceptive (just like you):
That image is a complete and total misrepresentation of both WTC1 and WTC2.
New York City ordinances and building codes, county ordinances and building codes, New York State laws and building codes, and federal laws related to building high-rise structures prohibit the use of frame building 110 stories.
Yet that is exactly what FEMA depicts in their bogus drawing -- a frame building.
That image contradicts earlier images in the FEMA report which correctly show WTC1 and WTC 2 to be built around a central core.
It is further deceptive because the exterior exo-skeleton of the both WTC1 and WTC2 were never intended to provide vertical support: they supported the lateral load -- that is to say the Towers flexed or swayed in high winds because of the unique design. That very same design is also what would allow the Towers to absorb the impact of aircraft with no problem.
If you wish to comment on 9-11 in the future, I would suggest you get your facts straight, and it wouldn't at all be out of line for forum members to demand a total retraction and an apology from you for you totally outrageous claims that I refuted using facts.
Debunking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
What's the big deal again? Oh you mean the attacks that Bush allowed to happen and now people blame Obama for the current state of affairs?
Just checking.
|
Check harder.
If it was a conspiracy, then it began during the Clinton the Administration.
Share the blame correctly...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville
It was the "green martians" that came from outer space and planted those small bombs.. on all the floors...of the WTC.....
|
What moron would plant "
small bombs...on all the floors?"
You might want to REDO FROM START Demolitions 101, since you don't know what you're talking about.
It would have been enough to plant, um, "small bombs" (snicker) on every 5th Floor.
Explosively...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..
