Madrid fire heats up 9-11 debate:

[The Judge]

"Unlike the twin trade towers (and WTC 7), this 32 story steel beamed building remains standing after burning for 17 hours straight."

"Engineers have gone up there and inspected" the building, Briceno said, adding that "it is very solid."

"The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex, Briceno said. By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark."

Contained here are some photos of the Madrid fire, and a chat thread discussing the collapse of the WTC and tower #7:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310898.shtml

Now I already know what the answers over here will be, but I'm not an engineer and I never got your collective take on this issue.

The assertions that make this argument even remotely interesting:

- "The owner of the WTC complex(Silverstein) wanted to demolish
the towers since he wanted to construct new buildings there
that would give him bigger money(higher leasing fees).

The study of what such a demolition would cost came to
the conclusion that it would likely end at $5 billion
(including the dangerous asbestos removal).

On 9/11 Silverstein got it all for free. He actually "earned"
$3.5 billion in insurance money, a first in that kind of case,
since he just weeks before the demolition had managed to
get a clause added to his insurance(a clause that normally
would be very very hard to get with ), the
clause added "terrorist attacks" to causes that would
entitle him to insurance money.

All in all the 9/11 "terrorist attacks"(sic) earned Silverstein
the nice sum of $7.5 billion, letting Silverstein build a new
corporate complex "for FREE" and even granting himself a giant
(in the billions) "reward"."

Some links asserting the "science" of the issue:

The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WTC TYPE TRUSSES ARE HEATED?
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php...

Scientific Anomalies of the WTC Collapse
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/physics/


Some other assertions made in the attached thread:

- "Jet fuel, AKA kerosene, burns very quickly. Neither tower imploded until at least 1/2 an hour after impact. In fact the north tower experienced an explosion large enough to burst at least the top 20 stories. I felt the shockwave from this blast at a distance of 1/2 mile. So here we have a very strong explosion 1/2 an hour after impact that requires an explanation.

Even the US Gov admits that after 1/2 an hour all jet fuel would have been used up. More than likely within 10 minutes after impact. So what explanation is assigned? We are told that office trash is what made the fire last that long. And the explosions were never reported in the MSM, although I have pictures of them and you can see some really good ones at http://www.reopen911.org/
When looking at the pictures keep in mind that the US Gov say these explosions were caused by burning office trash."

- "More of the "aviation fuel" argument. First, the jets that crashed into the WTC were not fully-loaded with fuel. Even if the tanks were "topped off" before take offs, a good portion of the gas was consumed during ascent and acceleration. Second, the jets went into descent and were speeding along at over 500mph as practically sea level which sucks up great quantities of fuel. Third, when the planes hit the towers, the fuel, which was traveling at 500mph continued through the building, breaking the windows and exploding into giant fireballs!!!! Did all that fast-traveling fuel suddenly stop in less than 208 feet and remain as a giant fuel pool in the buildings??? Logically "no" but since so many laws of physics were broken that day, anything is possible...
Jet fuel DOES NOT burn....the fumes burn!"

- A simple calculation: "Based this calculation on 25,000 gals of jet fuel, JETA1 (or basically kerosene or charcoal lighter fluid) this was the volume of fuel that was the most widely reported and accepted amount when I undertook this task. Now we know that the area of the WTC was 1 acre so if you uniformly spread 25,000 gallons across 1 acre of area what is the resultant height of the fluid level? Now I did not subtract the area for the core of the building which contained the elevators and mechanical chases etc etc. I was merely looking for a relative (ball park comparison) fluid height ........... and what do you think I came up with? Jet fuel to your knees? Ankles? Kind of covers your feet?
Alas and disappointment really set in when my calculation arrived at a mere 0.070" or just slightly greater than 1/16th of an inch 0.0625"
or about 1.5mm for any metric based reader. I was even further disappointed to learn that my original calculation should have been based on 10,000 gallons of fuel. But it does not even really matter what the volume of fuel was this was only intended to be a simple task anyone could accomplish and gain some insight as to the relationship of the amount of fuel involved and the size of the buildings."

- "The steel that was used in the construction of the wtc's that collapsed has a melting point of 3000 degrees F. The maximum temperature that JP-8 (jet fuel) burns at is 1800 degrees F. That is assuming that there is there is maximum oxygen available to feed the fire. The fires in the buildings were oxygen deficient due to the smoke inside the towers engulfing the flames. This would mean that the fires wouldn't even burn at the max. temp. Instead they were burning at less then its potential 1800 degrees."

- "You still haven't explained your new physics to us. You know the one, where we have to believe that FORTY SEVEN re-enforced steel core columns "pancaked". And don't give me "they melted or warped because of the fire" bovine excrement. You need an oxy-acetylene torch, targeted on a small area, to melt or even deform structural steel. Or high explosives."

- "If you have seen any construction photos of the TT's you would see that the 'pancake' hypothesis is absurd. the inner structure occupies half of the floor space."

The other side of the argument:

"You guys take half-truths and interpolate them to support some nutty conspiracies."

And my all time favorite LMFAO!!!:

"Radar indicated hovering objects near the towers minutes before each crash. The hovering objects could be seen in earlier footage that was distributed on the Internet and then carefully disguised as a promo for the Sci-Fi channel. This was not a promo, but the real thing. The fire probably did not bring down these buildings. The reason fireman radios did not work was that aliens were using strong electromagnetic fields to disturb the steel fabric of the buildings. The aliens wanted these buildings destroyed because a secret government agency in the WTC had been amassing evidence to counter an alien threat. Just like the section of the Pentagon was doing research into alien technology seized over the years. This was also a possible test by aliens for a much larger attack."

I know that you guys can do better than this, and I am interested to hear what you have to say... In other words, I want to see the smack stick hit this one out of the park.

Later,
Jay

[Josh L]

Why would you even post that here?

[Mark Worthington]

WTF?

Jay, you need to refill your prescription.

Regards,
Mark

Pssssst...Did you hear that the NFL rigged things so that the Patriots would win the first Super Bowl after 9/11?

[Josh L]

I have a secret video of the Pentagon crashing into the World Trade Center, which explains everything. The Pentagon is actually an ancient alien spaceship.

[Lewis Tanner]

This is what happens when people that don't know shit about something want to believe they're right. How about a comparison of the truss and plate construction system that made the WTC so appealing from a tenant perspective in that it offered a lot of square footage for a pretty reasonable price with very little space wasted on columns and the construction method used in "el tower del fuego" that these asscakes are clamoring to use as "evidence".

All the earmarks of uneducated hysteria and bad science here kids. It reminds me of the old puritan witchhunts for some reason.

The single most impressive bit of idiocy is the fact that these pinheads are trying to argue that there's no way the WTC could have burned for more than 30 minutes, while the building they point to as some form of revelation burned for 17 hours...

[Josh L]

Also, what's with Spanish people constantly trying to hype their tragedies up to be like 9/11? First they declared the train bombings to be "The 9/11 of Spain" and now there are comparisons made between this fire and the WTC. They have fucking disaster envy or something.

[Tommy R]

"Unlike the twin trade towers (and WTC 7), this 32 story steel beamed building remains standing after burning for 17 hours straight."

Unlike the WTC, this 32 story building didn't have a fucking airliner crash into it.

Tommy

[Steven Menk]

Originally Posted by Tommy R

Unlike the WTC, this 32 story building didn't have a fucking airliner crash into it.

Damn, quit pointing out the obvious.

By the way J, what's up with this?

The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor

Unlike the twin trade towers (and WTC 7), this 32 story

Great attention to detail.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Josh L

"Why would you even post that here?"

Because I wanted an engineers perspective, and I happen to respect the shit out of about 100 engineers here.

Originally Posted by Mark Worthington

"Did you hear that the NFL rigged things so that the Patriots would win the first Super Bowl after 9/11?"

Yes, I started the rumor!

Originally Posted by Lewis Tanner

"The single most impressive bit of idiocy is the fact that these pinheads are trying to argue that there's no way the WTC could have burned for more than 30 minutes, while the building they point to as some form of revelation burned for 17 hours..."

Lewis, you actually got that wrong. The pinheads were claiming that the jet fuel would have been totally expended after 30 minutes, more like ten, and as such the fires temperature was unlikely to reach the point to melt the steel structure of the building. The number 3000 keeps getting kicked around as the melting point of the steel and the jet fuel burns at 1800. Second, the jet fuel was listed as the reason for the explosion, which happened well after the time which it all would have been expended.

Originally Posted by Tommy R

"Unlike the WTC, this 32 story building didn't have a fucking airliner crash into it."

How does that explain WTC #7?

Not really the tech that I had anticipated.

I actually don't think that there was a conspiracy, but I was looking for some actual engineering knowledge as to why the towers fell in the neat little pattern that they did. Why the area wasn't molten hot after the collapse, and how the hell #7 fell down the same way as the others. Excuse me if I thought that this was the place to get it.

Seriously, I read the tech, article that was paid for and placed in Popular Mechanics, like an advertisement, and it left much to be desired.

I was actually hoping that someone like Tob, with his vast knowledge of construction materials, could add some substance to the issue also. I had questions like whether the support beams were cased in concrete or not, and how much heat it would take to burn through the beams with and without the concrete casing.

BTW, you can put your tinfoil hats back on guys because I'm not calling conspiracy, just looking for some facts and some tech... I thought that this is where people did that?

[The Judge]

And Steven, the building was 56 floors.

"Two floors in the building, and several staircases, collapsed as the fire spread through 26 of the skyscraper's 56 floors, forcing the evacuation of neighboring buildings.-Cbs OCT 14, 2004

[Tob]

Talk about hard to watch.....
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...tack_part1.wmv
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...tack_part2.wmv
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...tack_part3.wmv
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...k_addendum.wmv

I find the arguments that try to counter the heat/melting steel theory interesting, but thats where it stops.

As the Boeing 747 deteriorated, it dispersed approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel (Comment. This quantity of fuel is quite small considering that a Boeing 747 has a fuel capacity of 57,285 gallons.) inside the WTC, (allowing for fuel consumption during the flight). This was a massive amount of fuel and during the investigation of the WTC, fuel was even found in the elevator shafts and on the first floor.

There was plenty of oxygen (contrary to what some of these nutjobs wanna believe) and it got plenty hot. How hot? Who really knows? Hot enough to weaken the superstructure and allow expansion, buckling, explosions from numerous mechanical systems present on each floor? Absofuckinglutely. House of cards? In the end, thats what the structure became. Must have been the explosive charges that Bush had his deviants put in place. I think Katherine Harris masterminded it actually.

I suffered through this and the only questions I have are about #7 being taken down. Anyone have anymore information on this one than I'm allowed to see in the video?

On edit, because I've been inundated with material to study and Jay posted while I was watching/reading...

I was actually hoping that someone like Tob, with his vast knowledge of construction materials, could add some substance to the issue also. I had questions like whether the support beams were cased in concrete or not, and how much heat it would take to burn through the beams with and without the concrete casing.

Jay, I believe there were explosions in the towers as a result of the fires. The beams were coated/fireproofed and I've paid attention to the relevant theories as to how the steel could have melted with the coating on. I do know this, the coating comes off in chunks with a reasonable force/shock to the underlying metal. I've done it on new and old buildings alike. As old as the coating was I have to believe that corrosion of the steel contributed to a weaker bond between the two materials allowing it to separate when the planes hit. The heating/cooling systems within the towers are rarely mentioned, but they were present on every floor. Intense heat causes ugly things to mechanicals. The pancake theory - I've read arguments on each side and I've concluded that once this thing got started nothing was going to stop it from coming down. I'm not a fan of the truss/slab floor architecture when supported by small angular welded clips. The clips did indeed become the weak point and allowed the floors to stack all the way down. Watch and note what happens at the 31 second point in this clip. It would appear there were at least a dozen stories that were unleashed simultaneously upon the next floor down. There's no way that singular floor could contain the resultant energy, as this illustrates. As for the core coming down....fuck, I don't know. The core baffles me, much like #7.

[Josh L]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Because I wanted an engineers perspective, and I happen to respect the shit out of about 100 engineers here.

But the claims are so far out there that it doesn't even approach needing an engineering response to dispel it as bullshit. Unless of course you seriously believe that this guy (the property manager of the WTC) conspired with United and American airlines to kill thousands of innocent people, found pilots willing to kill themselves by flying their airliners into the buildings.. for what motive? So some other guy can get rich. And found hundreds of passengers willing to do so he can get rich, including the wife of the Soliciter General of the United States and one of the founders of Akamai.. all to provide the illusion of a terrorist attack, when in reality he was executing a controlled demolition. Oh, and don't forget whatever demolition company he must have hired to wire up the buildings. There aren't too many of those in the world with the staff and resources to bring down skyscrapers.

Oh and apparently Osama bin Laden was also in on this farce, since he's long since claimed responsibility. Or is the media also in on this conspiracy, and they're creating fake video tapes of Osama? Or is it the governments of multiple countries?

All so one guy can get 3.5 billion dollars... come the fuck on. By the time he paid out whatever bribes he'd have to offer to get the thousands of people involved in this conspiracy to go along with it he'd have spent infinitely more than that amount.

[The Judge]

What motive?

Why did the Germans burn down the Reichstag? It's hard to argue that the WTC disaster wasn't the turning point in GWB's presidency. It consolidated power and gave the Republicans the House and the senate. Has served to garner support for sweeping "Home Land Security" measures. The disaster was a calling to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and to further the NEO CoN agenda that Bush and all that are close to him support. Shit, 9/11 was used so many times during GW Bush's convention for re-election, including the "REMEMBER 9/11" banner hanging behind speakers including Laura Bush, it was worth it in advertising dollars alone.

It's hard to imagine GWB still being in office today, without the attacks.

Asking what was the motive really isn't what this is about. Intimating motive in this instance is very easy, and not necessarily the best line of thought for rational discussion, because it is all speculation. I just want some tech.


ON EDIT: Thanks Tob!

[dwygrsshpr]

NOVA had an excellent program on why the towers fell:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

If you want the real engineer's explanation, I would start there first. By real, I mean professor of material science at MIT. Read page 2 of the synopsis for answers about temperature and heat.

I would go to your local library and see if they have that episode available for viewing. I taped it when it first aired, so if you can't find it and are still interested, pm me and I will see a copy gets to you. There is no such thing as armchair science and physics. In the words of Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Anybody who thinks, much less authors an opinion about this being a case of "Jewish Lightning" is an idiot and a fool. There was no grand conspiracy, other than the terrorist's, and anyone who believes or subscribes to such theories otherwise is even more the fool. Jay, even you, should damn well know better.

On edit after reading Tob's post, the NOVA program also explained how the fire coating was essentially blown off by the impact of the two jetliners.

[Steven Menk]

Yes Jay, the Neo-Cons, Germans, Nazis, aliens, illegal aliens, prarie dogs, Jews and Islamic fundamentalists all came together so that the Republicans could win an election (which I think they would have won anyway). You and all the rest of the kooks are right and everybody else is wrong.

Whatcha you going to do about it? File a class action law suite? Ha!

[Ken Rahaim]

Originally Posted by The Judge

It's hard to argue that the WTC disaster wasn't the turning point in GWB's presidency.

Wrong. I've pointed it out and documented it here before that Bush was doing just fine legislatively PRIOR to 9/11. If you or anyone else chooses to ignore fact to keep the Reichstag/Nazi/Hitler comparo's pumped up, go ahead and continue to delude yourselves .

Mass roundups into re-education camps are the only thing that will help anyone who believes that kind of bullshit at this point.

[Tob]

A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems

Eagar is not a structural engineer, and IIRC, it had been all the way back in his undergrad days that he studied it.

Originally Posted by FEMA

1.5.3.1 ASTM E119 Standard Fire Test

Building code requirements for structural fire protection are based on laboratory tests conducted in accordance with the Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, ASTM E119 (also designated NFPA 251 and UL 263). Since its inception in 1918, the ASTM E119 Standard Fire Test has required that test specimens be representative of actual building construction. Achieving this requirement in actual practice has been difficult because available laboratory facilities can only accommodate floor specimens on the order of a 14-foot x 17-foot (4.3-meter x 5.2-meter) plan area in a fire test furnace. The specimens do not account for impact damage to fire protection coatings. For typical steel and concrete structural systems, the behavior of specimens in an ASTM E119 fire test does not reflect the behavior of floor and roof constructions that are exposed to uncontrolled fire in real buildings...

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/14720.php

For more on the steel fire protection, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
page 11, 2.1.3, Fire protection...

[dwygrsshpr]

Originally Posted by Tob

Eagar is not a structural engineer, and IIRC, it had been all the way back in his undergrad days that he studied it.

I did not say he is a structural engineer, and I believe his arguments fall in line with his experience as a materials engineer. Regardless of his area of expertise, I believe he has enough credentials to pose real theories of the collapse.

Thanks for the indymedia link - I look forward to reading though that carefully - I just skimmed for now.

[Tob]

Just a data point.

[PCP]

Originally Posted by The Judge

What motive?

......it was worth it in advertising dollars alone.... Intimating motive in this instance is very easy, and not necessarily the best line of thought for rational discussion, because it is all speculation.

Out of context sure, but "worth it"? Intimating motive? You're serious?

[Turbo6inKY]

- "The owner of the WTC complex(Silverstein) wanted to demolish
the towers since he wanted to construct new buildings there
that would give him bigger money(higher leasing fees).

Picking apart metallurgy when this is sitting there, you guys are slipping.

The WTC was owned by the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, not some hypothetical Jewish developer that was supposedly planning to demolish it and made out like a bandit on the insurance settlement.

[AndyWM3]

Regarding building collapses in general... There is a really good book, "Why buildings fall down" The author originally wrote one titled "why buildings stay up" and then after everyone asked him "yeah, but why do they fall down?" he wrote the (more successful) follow up.

Its a series of case studies of buiding collapses, using the case studies to cover common reasons why buildings fail. It makes for some entertaining reading, and illustrates some interesting engineering principles that apply to any large system (physical or even software)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Some common themes:
- the design was good, but a late project material specification change introduces weaknesses.

- Design and materials are good, but un-anticipated environmental events lead to weakening of key components over time.

- Higher than anticipated loads or wind stresses.

- Lack of redundancy... one hanger or fastener fails due to a flaw or faulty installation, and the additional load transfered to the adjacent component overwhelms it, leading to failure, leading to more load transfering to the next component, etc, and you get a zipper effect.

- and of course I think there are some cases of gross incompetancy all around.

I think a lot of people here would eat this book up.

[baglock1]

Just a couple points about the steel beam conspiracies.

-The fire coating on the beams is not fireproof forever. I was doing the HVAC on a new airport several years back and spoke with the guys doing the firecoating (mainly because they were a huge pain in my ass because no one bothered to account for the extra couple inches their coating was going to take up). They said that the fire coatings only job was to give the occupants an extra few minutes to get out of the structure. While I don't recall the exact numbers (I wish I did), I don't recall them being good for a couple thousand degrees for a couple hours). I'd like to find some more info on the thermal insulating properties of it personally. Of course, post date the data for whatever coating they were using back when the WTC was constructed.

-Steel melts at 2750* apparently. Jet fuel burns somewhere around 800*-1500*. From that PM article Jay mentioned, the senior engineer at the American Institute of Steel Construction is quoted as saying steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100* and at 1800*, it's closer to 90%. Not being an engineer, I can only speculate that the designers didn't spec the steel beams to be able to weaken by half and still support the weight of the building.

Assuming that the info is accurate though, I found the tidbit about Silverstein updating his clause to include terrorist attack interesting. Not that I'm putting any faith into the conspiracy theories, I just find it interesting.

[SeStone]

Originally Posted by Tob

Talk about hard to watch.....
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...tack_part1.wmv
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...tack_part2.wmv
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...tack_part3.wmv
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painf...k_addendum.wmv

Jesus christ, turn it off, turn it off! The most annoying man I've ever heard!

Off on a tangent here, but I found this link in the Nova article. Decent read.

Sam

[Steven Menk]

Originally Posted by baglock1

Assuming that the info is accurate though, I found the tidbit about Silverstein updating his clause to include terrorist attack interesting. Not that I'm putting any faith into the conspiracy theories, I just find it interesting.

It seems a lot more reasonable and less coincidental when you consider the the WTC had been a target of terrorism before.

[baglock1]

Originally Posted by Steven Menk

It seems a lot more reasonable and less coincidental when you consider the the WTC had been a target of terrorism before.

True, but to modify the coverage a few weeks before 9-11 and several years after the attack in 93...? Would that defense apply if I got fire coverage two weeks before my building burns and claim it was because my house burnt down 10 years ago?

Again, there's no question in my mind who and what is the cause of these attacks. It's just the timing of this action of Silverstein's. I dunno, maybe he had a premonition.

[Patrick B.]

Originally Posted by Turbo6inKY

Picking apart metallurgy when this is sitting there, you guys are slipping.

The WTC was owned by the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, not some hypothetical Jewish developer that was supposedly planning to demolish it and made out like a bandit on the insurance settlement.

The land was (and still is) owned by the New York / New Jersey Port Authority, but the buildings were owned by Silverstein Properties Inc. The WTC buildings were also managed by Silverstein Properties Inc.


Pat

[Stephen Mirsky]

Didn't Silverstein begin managing the complex shortly before the attacks? That would explain why he added additional insurance coverage right before the attacks.

I know if I started to control an office complex that had been the target of attacks in the past I'd make sure my Insurance would cover events in the future.

-Steve in NJ-

[Josh L]

They had also recently hired the former FBI agent who was the head investigator on the 93 WTC attacks. Perhaps his influence had something to do with getting the insurance.

He was killed on 9/11, by the way.

Maybe they just hired him because they wanted revenge for his having captured Ramzi Yosef.

[Evil Ash]

It was Gary Condits black ops orchestration that moved into a burning building to blow up the towers so he'd get out of the news for killing that intern.

Now move along and let the tragedy remain a tragedy and not a conspiracy of money.

[Blackhorse6]

Holy Dog Shit Batman!

I am not even a fuckin' engineer, and I can understand why the towers fell! How many more folks need to come out and say "If the towers were constructed in a different fashion (more traditional) the towers would NEVER have fallen!" The designer took a chance and it worked very well. I don't think anyone ever (when the towers were constructed) thought about suicidal camel jockeys ramming airplanes into the sides of the towers. Hell Bin Laden was actually surprised they fell.

Why must we keep being bombarded with this hokie ass crap?

Elvis is not dead, Alien ships are in Nevada, the Government is behind 9/11 and my Honda is the fastest car on the planet.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Blackhorse6

"I am not even a fuckin' engineer, and I can understand why the towers fell!"

I'm not a doctor, but I know that getting kicked in the balls hurts zippy!

The difference is, that I want to know why it hurts, the forces needed to cause pain, and the amount of force required to cause serious damage.

Especially when my cousin got kicked in the balls for 17 hours straight and didn't fall down.

Just because I read an article that was paid to be put in print, like an advertisement, doesn't mean that I don't still want to ask questions from people who know their shit and don't have an agenda to push. It's called objective analysis, and I feel that this is an issue worthy of that scrutiny. I don't give a sideways fuck if it twists someone's panties, as ignoring the past is a sure way to repeat it. I like to get facts and ask questions because that is how I learn. Being afraid of what someone else will think is not something I worry about, especially not here.

The people that I respect here know where I'm coming from, and those that don't at least know that I have the balls to ask questions when I don't know all the answers. There are no stupid questions, only self important jackasses who always think there right, and those that don't have the balls to ask.

Ken, although you may think that Bush didn't need the boost, that hardly makes it a fact. And although you presented the argument well, from what I remember of the thread, there was never a clear cut answer that both sides could agree on. Without looking, I remember Seb and I still claiming that Bush's numbers were low, and you and (maybe) Pete claiming the opposite. We both sited links, and facts and in the end we both agreed to disagree. Regardless, that is not what I want this thread to focus on, and no one is claiming conspiracy. I just wanted more information on why the WTC fell, especially #7 vs. why the Madrid building is still standing after burning for 17 hours.

Thank all the rest of you who took time out to offer some insight, and answers. I can't wait to read your links!

Later,
Jay

[Joe Campbell]

Why do I feel as if I just watched an Oliver Stone movie?

[Blackhorse6]

Judge the remark was not generated toward you in particular. I appreciate that you want to hear from qualified engineers. But from what I have seen/read/watched, the two incidents are no way even closely related.

The designs of the towers are different. The Madrid tower did not have its fire proof insulation blown off its metal frame by the impact of a fast moving large object.

It was this that may have contributed to the metal fatigue (melting?) that brought one floor down upon the other. The floors were attached in a way that made more interior room, but did not give them the structural integrity to handle the loss of fire proof materials and still support the floors under the intense heat/fire generated by the fuel/airplane/people/building materials and such.

Try this link http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

Just my non-engineering .02

And didn't #7 come down due to damage sustained from falling debris and fire?

[Charlie Duffy]

I just wasted 33 minutes and 6 seconds of my time watching part 1 of that inane conspiracy theory video by Eric Hufschmid. This guy is really out there. He believes someone launched a global hawk drone into the Pentagon, and that flight 77 landed at a military base somewhere in Ohio where the passengers and crew were taken to a room, blown up with a bomb, and their body parts were taken to a morgue in Dover, Delaware along with the bodies and body parts of those who worked in the Pentagon to make it look official. That's not a joke, this guy really believes that.

Unfuckingbelievable. And what's scary is that there are other people who no doubt take him, and his analysis of the events very seriously.

From what I've read and from the documentaries I've seen on how the towers fell, the trusses started to let go and then everything fell around them. Trusses are very strong and light structures, which is why they were used in the construction of the towers. The secret to a trusses strength is the fact that all of it's connecting parts are very heavily and evenly loaded. This means that if one piece lets go, the strength of the structure decreases significantly. Once that happens, the other attached structural members have to bear a much heavier load then they were designed to deal with and the structure won't last long after that. With a truss, it's essentially an all or none deal. All parts of it have to be intact.

I'm sure that some of the insulation was blown off from the impacts, but there is footage showing that prior to 9/11, there were parts of the trusses that were totally bare with no insulation, and other areas had a layer of insulation that was just too thin. This is a major problem with trusses because all you need is one small part with inadequate insulation to be exposed to a lot of heat to let go, and then the whole structure breaks. Multiply this over many trusses with inadequate insulation and you've got a major problem. Trusses don't last long at all when their not entirely intact, and firefighters know this, which is why they say don't trust the truss.

Of course none of this is mentioned by the conspiracy theorists. They think that the jets that struck the towers really didn't have a lot of fuel on board in the first place because they burned so much flying around before they reached the towers. Once they hit, the small amount of fuel they had left was burned in the initial impact, and it was the papers on everyone desks that caused the fires, not the jet fuel. Also, according to them, there wasn't enough oxygen to get the fuel to burn at it's maximum temperature of 1800 degrees, and since steel melts at 3000, there was no way that the fuel had anything to do with why the towers fell.

Seriosly....that's what those people think. Sad, but true......

[boo]

The people that jump on these conspiracy bandwagons are the same type of people that join cults. It’s amazing how easy someone can exploit the mind of an idiot by claiming to know something about anything. I can’t wait for the day when a Jim Jones type conspiracy figure emerges and offers all these toolsheds a tall tasty glass of grape koolaid.

[The Judge]

I was told that the Kool-Aid would be Cherry...

[zerobid]

Originally Posted by The Judge

I was told that the Kool-Aid would be Cherry...

I'm going to register with portland.indymedia.org so I can post an advertisement.

For Sale: 39 pairs of black Nike tennis shoes in great shape (only worn once). Matching black slacks and t-shirts also available. Act immediately, and I'll throw in a free Hale-Bopp picture guide.

[onestep]

Originally Posted by Blackhorse6

I don't think anyone ever (when the towers were constructed) thought about suicidal camel jockeys ramming airplanes into the sides of the towers.

According to the PBS? show I saw the buildings were designed to take a plane strike! Problem being is in the year they were designed they were not concidering planes the size and weight of 737s, 747s and 777s!

The difference between you and your cousin was he was stuck in the middle ages and wearing a full coddpiece, while you were wearing a plastic cup! You shrugged of the first couple blows but after that it just shattered.

[Ken Rahaim]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Ken, although you may think that Bush didn't need the boost, that hardly makes it a fact. And although you presented the argument well...

Regardless, that is not what I want this thread to focus on, and no one is claiming conspiracy. I just wanted more information on why the WTC fell, especially #7 vs. why the Madrid building is still standing after burning for 17 hours.

I got that you were more interested in the tech element of why the buildings fell (despite the sensationalist quotes you cited), but if that's what you wanted this thread to focus on, then I'd suggest you not bring up the Reichstag comparo otherwise some folks will question your motive as to what you wanted this thread to focus on.