I'm just a truther man, right. dont mind me.
British brothers and sisters, y'all wearing poppies or nah?
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
I'm not using it as a derogatory name. I'm using it to classify a group of people who hold similar beliefs. And again with the insults man.
Did you lose someone as a result of the war or 9/11? I'm just trying to figure out where all the anger and vitriol comes from.
I am also attaching a word to describe a group of people with similar beliefs. I am going to call them Fucking Retards. cool? dont get offended if your opinion lines up with that group of people okay.
like seriously, you ARE using it as a derogatory term otherwise you wouldnt keep using it in tongue in cheek comments. the least you could do is admit it and not dick tuck.
Well don't get me wrong. I'm a healthy skeptic (in general). I'll watch some documentaries and do a bit of reading and come back to discuss.
I'm a chartered engineer, specialising is safety.@Leigh what is your professional, not fighting background?
M
member 1013
Guest
Guys when I build a steel building we firespray the whole structure now... why do you think that may be?
Leigh, 3 buildings came down from two planes. No plane hit the third building. They blame the collapse partially on debris hitting the WTC 7 BUT the main reason was due to normal office fires they say.
So normal office fires brought down the WTC 7 at free fall speed. Yes the building was on fire for hours but there have been many other skyscrapers that were burning for much longer that didn't even collapse. In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fires before and post 9/11 apart from the three that happened at the same place on the same day.
M
member 1013
Guest
Steel, a basic building component, is a truly non-combustible material. However, steel beams and columns, if left unprotected, will experience damage and probable collapse in a fire situation; a fact dramatically illustrated by actual fires.
M
member 1013
Guest
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/
M
member 1013
Guest
M
member 1013
Guest
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. "Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M. "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M. "Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. "Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M. "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M. "Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
M
member 1013
Guest
New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies
by Natalie Wolchover | September 22, 2011 02:05pm ET
Ground Zero on Sept. 17, 2001.
Credit: U.S. Navy
View full size image
Many 9/11 conspiracy theories revolve around explosions that were seen and heard in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Despite scientific investigations that have explained the processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some conspiracy theorists suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" — that explosives had been implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what really brought them down.
Now a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific explanation for the mystery booms, and says his model of the Twin Towers collapse leaves no room for conspiracies. "My model explains all the observed features on 11th September: the explosions, molten metal coming out of the window, the time passing between the crash and the collapse, the fact that the explosions took place in a floor below the place it was burning, and the rapid collapse," Christen Simensen of SINTEF, a research organization in Norway, told Life's Little Mysteries.
As detailed in the new issue of Aluminum International Today, Simensen argues that molten aluminum from the airplane bodies chemically reacted with water in the buildings' sprinkler systems, setting off the explosions that felled the Twin Towers. [Did Nostradamus Really Predict the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks?]
New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies
by Natalie Wolchover | September 22, 2011 02:05pm ET
Ground Zero on Sept. 17, 2001.
Credit: U.S. Navy
View full size image
Many 9/11 conspiracy theories revolve around explosions that were seen and heard in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Despite scientific investigations that have explained the processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some conspiracy theorists suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" — that explosives had been implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what really brought them down.
Now a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific explanation for the mystery booms, and says his model of the Twin Towers collapse leaves no room for conspiracies. "My model explains all the observed features on 11th September: the explosions, molten metal coming out of the window, the time passing between the crash and the collapse, the fact that the explosions took place in a floor below the place it was burning, and the rapid collapse," Christen Simensen of SINTEF, a research organization in Norway, told Life's Little Mysteries.
As detailed in the new issue of Aluminum International Today, Simensen argues that molten aluminum from the airplane bodies chemically reacted with water in the buildings' sprinkler systems, setting off the explosions that felled the Twin Towers. [Did Nostradamus Really Predict the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks?]
New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies
If I want to tell someone I think they are dumb as fuck, I tell them they are dumb as fuck. I don't need to dick tuck or walk back my opinions if I'm not being presented with anything that will "open my eyes". I know I hold unpopular opinions, and that's fine, but I don't think this scenario warrants name calling. Have a good rest of your day man, you seem angry today.
Can you comment on jet fuel and melting steel beems, how impacts of full jetliner would affect buildings etc etc?
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKvgD9NyIi4
.
This skyscraper was burning for much longer than WTC 7 did. It partially collapsed, a few of the top floors. The structure and core is still there visibly standing strong. All the buildings on 9/11 were pulverised. There was no building left or core structure left at all. Everything turned to dust.
There is video evidence of debris hurling laterally at speeds over 60 mph. Where is the energy coming from to blast debris laterally at this speed?
No. I could read up on it but it is not my area of expertise. My degree was in electronic engineering, not structural or mechanical. I did do a couple of generic modules but that's all.
World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? - Home
Over 2,000 architects and engineers are against the official report and demanding a new investigation.
Over 2,000 architects and engineers are against the official report and demanding a new investigation.
M
member 1013
Guest
I'm not an engineer but I employ them. I was responsible for a lot of the construction of the Bow Tower in Calgary, a 58 story tower. If the jet fuel started a fire in the building the steel could melt from the fire.
Dude the pure weight of the WTC led them to collapse, they were not engineered to withstand structural lose that high up, only in the foundation.
Because one building collapsed one way proves nothing, its a logical fallacy. Please read all the peer reviewed studies I linked you, we all look forward to your ground breaking scientific analysis.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
member 1013
Guest
They could easily begin their own, as many other architects, engineers and physicists have done. I linked you some
M
member 1013
Guest
Chain of events
When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).
"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.
Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.
This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."
The third tower
A third building, World Trade Center 7, fell eight hours after the others. Scientists explained that this happened because of fires that ignited in the building upon the collapse of WTC 1, but some conspiracy theorists take it as further proof that the impacts of the hijacked airplanes weren't what brought any of the buildings down.
Simensen says his theory does not challenge the accepted scientific explanation of the collapse of WTC7.
"The official governmental report said the collapse [of World Trade Center 1 and 2] was due to overheating steel bars in the buildings and did not mention anything about explosions. Their theory … can be used to explain why WTC7 … collapsed. This collapse took place after eight hours of fire and was much slower than the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2," Simensen wrote. [10 Ways 9/11 Impacted Science]
When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).
"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.
Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.
This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."
The third tower
A third building, World Trade Center 7, fell eight hours after the others. Scientists explained that this happened because of fires that ignited in the building upon the collapse of WTC 1, but some conspiracy theorists take it as further proof that the impacts of the hijacked airplanes weren't what brought any of the buildings down.
Simensen says his theory does not challenge the accepted scientific explanation of the collapse of WTC7.
"The official governmental report said the collapse [of World Trade Center 1 and 2] was due to overheating steel bars in the buildings and did not mention anything about explosions. Their theory … can be used to explain why WTC7 … collapsed. This collapse took place after eight hours of fire and was much slower than the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2," Simensen wrote. [10 Ways 9/11 Impacted Science]
2000 isn't a lot in the whole scheme of things
M
member 1013
Guest
And as I said, they are all free to publish their own studies for peer review.
Welp, we have actual studies and experiments linked to why one side believes the towers went down.
The only thing the other side has responded with was...... 1 youtube video
The only thing the other side has responded with was...... 1 youtube video