9/11 what do you think?

[tokeprep]

There is no article there.

Try the cached page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AX6DI2E8pl8J:www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Not sure why I was able to see it the first time and not the second time, but the cached page has the article.

But I will one up you with a tale from NIST:

from : http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.cfm

You aren't now deviating from the official stance and going out on your own to develop an unproven hypothesis are you?

I'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion from what you quoted. It says dislodged fireproofing was a critical problem; whether it was dislodged by the plane impact or it had already been dislodged, it wasn't there, rendering the steel more vulnerable than it otherwise would have been--whether it was already deficient, dislodged by the plane impacts, or some combination of both.

The idea of deficient fireproofing has some foundation. The South Tower collapsed after less than an hour; only a few floors of fireproofing in the impact zone had been replaced after the building's fireproofing was found deficient. The North Tower stayed up for another forty minutes; all of the fireproofing in the impact zone had been replaced after it had been found deficient. Obviously there are other factors that could explain why one tower lasted longer (higher impact site, different strike angle, etc.), but this could have played a role too: perhaps more fireproofing was dislodged in the South Tower, since it hadn't been replaced.

 

[echelon1k1]

Had they not extensive Boeing simulator training, you might have a point. But you don't ever have to fly a real plane to be able to do it when you're training in an exact replica of the cockpit with a realistic flight simulation.

Why would pilots train in Boeing simulators otherwise, if it wouldn't enable them to fly the plane? Isn't the next step, after the simulator, to actually fly the Boeing? You're suggesting that simulator-trained pilots are then incapable of flying the real plane? This seems incredibly dubious.

Again, a huge hit and miss on your part, but expected as we all know money isn't debt...

So in all the 9/11 commission report docs, in the public domain, there is no record of hanjours pilot logbook, as that would be key in understanding his experience and also easily verifiable.

I've been saying all along they would need way more experience on simulators and real world to pull off what the FDR says happened on the final minutes of AA77. The other thing I find fascinating is that the FAA/NTSB have no record of intra-cockpit conversations on flight 77.

 

[tokeprep]

But it didn't happen once, it happened 2 times, in one day , in one place. The third building sustained very little actual damage since the walls had no involvement with holding the building up since it was a masonry facade.

How can you possibly comment on this and expect to be taken seriously when you continually express your ignorance of the buildings' designs? World Trade Center 7, past its extraordinary foundation, was a tube structure just as the taller buildings were. Again, there are columns running along the whole perimeter of the outside walls and columns in the core. Together, they hold the building up. Remove one of the parts and the whole thing comes down.

When you have numerous fires burning uncontrolled throughout the building for 7-8 hours, with the sprinkler system inoperative and firefighters unable to get water to the fire, you have a very serious problem.

 

[tokeprep]

Dartmouth made an excellent set of videos, digitally enhanced with forensic techniques. I didn't even bring up the impossibility of determining the Tv after it had gathered a few floors.

No way to know what the free fall velocity was to calculate it, in mid-fall. No shape.

But, it fell at free fall or near 'bouts.

That was obvious to any mammal that observed it.

I suggest ya'll boys take a look for those. uh, other videos.

It you have not read everything and seen it all, please join the club and stop lying about it

The towers didn't fall at free fall velocity. If they had, it would have taken 8 seconds and hit the ground at 300 km/h. In reality, it took 10 seconds and it hit the ground at 200 km/h.

 

[echelon1k1]

How can you possibly comment on this and expect to be taken seriously when you continually express your ignorance of the buildings' designs? World Trade Center 7, past its extraordinary foundation, was a tube structure just as the taller buildings were. Again, there are columns running along the whole perimeter of the outside walls and columns in the core. Together, they hold the building up. Remove one of the parts and the whole thing comes down.

When you have numerous fires burning uncontrolled throughout the building for 7-8 hours, with the sprinkler system inoperative and firefighters unable to get water to the fire, you have a very serious problem.

Are you now claiming those fires burned for 7-8 hours?

 

[tokeprep]

The fuel was dashed against the steel beams and concrete at 500 MPH, do you really think it would just pool up and not ignite until nearly the entire fuel load dripped out into the elevator shaft and fell the 1000 feet to the bottom, where it was "heard" as an explosion and felt as a shake of the very buildings foundation. And this all happened a mere fraction of a second after the impact?

I guess we don't have to allow for the fuel to actually have to travel to get to the lobby, it must have teleported there with Star Trek Technology eh?

I'm not an expert on kerosene ignition. I wouldn't know. All I know is that the people questioning it and saying it's absurd generally aren't experts on kerosene ignition either.

I fully embrace my ignorance. I depend on expert opinion from physicists, structural engineers, architects, materials experts, and others. I do not presume to know. Unfortunately, the 9/11 truth movement does not embrace its ignorance. Instead it relies on "common sense," presumes that every eyewitnesses accurately describes everything, and resorts to comparisons of past events that are simply incomparable. That's why none of the work is peer reviewed and sitting in real scholarly journals--because it's unfounded bullshit that real experts cannot possibly take seriously. Real experts summarily dismiss almost all of the claims as total nonsense.

Fuel impacts building at 500 mPH, HUGE FiREBALL, none of the fuel burns up, all of it is instantly directed down an elevator shaft where it appears in the lobby as a huge explosion just an instant after the plane hit. Guess all those papers from the desks were what caused the giant fireball on impact and not the fuel, the fuel fell into a funnel and was instantly shot down 1000 feet of elevator shaft where it pressurized itself and blew up.

Not even kind of a likely story.

Implausible? Yes
Impossible?
Yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you just saying that jet fuel isn't that volatile? That you could throw cigarettes at it and it wouldn't ignite? If that's true, why are NIST's estimates about jet fuel consumption implausible?

NIST estimated 10,000 gallons in Flight 11, with 3,000 gallons consumed in the initial fireball, which leaves 7,000 gallons. NIST estimated 9,100 gallons in Flight 175, with around 3,800 gallons consumed in the initial fireball, which leaves around 5,300 gallons.

 

[tokeprep]

Quick search of the web reveals many pictures of molten steel and first responders talking about it, you can also see perfectly cut 45 degree angles on the columns too...

Really? Because I don't see molten steel in any of these pictures. I see heated steel, but that's not the same thing as molten steel. As I've already demonstrated in this thread, they don't look very different.

 

[tokeprep]

Again, a huge hit and miss on your part, but expected as we all know money isn't debt...

So in all the 9/11 commission report docs, in the public domain, there is no record of hanjours pilot logbook, as that would be key in understanding his experience and also easily verifiable.

He got a pilot certificate and then left the country to find work as a pilot. They just hand pilot certificates out?

I've been saying all along they would need way more experience on simulators and real world to pull off what the FDR says happened on the final minutes of AA77. The other thing I find fascinating is that the FAA/NTSB have no record of intra-cockpit conversations on flight 77.

You have a pilot with a death wish intent on pleasing God by crashing his aircraft into the appointed target, not an amateur practicing advanced maneuvers. He succeeded.

 

[echelon1k1]

Really? Because I don't see molten steel in any of these pictures. I see heated steel, but that's not the same thing as molten steel. As I've already demonstrated in this thread, they don't look very different.

Could you lend your expertise in explaining these 2 pictures?

 

[echelon1k1]

He got a pilot certificate and then left the country to find work as a pilot. They just hand pilot certificates out?



You have a pilot with a death wish intent on pleasing God by crashing his aircraft into the appointed target, not an amateur practicing advanced maneuvers. He succeeded.

Now explain the bolded in regards to hanjours total disregard for sharia law, as a supposedly observant, extremist, salafi-jihadist?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

They were cut during recovery efforts.

Here is a picture of a worker at the site doing just that:

 

[heckler73]

Do the Math?

Why? It's already been done...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

[HR][/HR]The in-service mass of Tower 1 (North Tower) of the World Trade is found to be 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons).
The potential energy above the 1st floor is found to be 480,600 MJ.

...
Core columns dimensions have been extracted from NIST’s SAP2000 model, which was released based on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. These dimensions are
currently available on the internet. It can be seen in this data that the variation of core columns steel is non-linear in the areas from floor B6 to floor 7 and from floor 107 to the
roof. There are also non-linear variations at the mechanical floors where the columns were somewhat heavier, but these are ignored. The variation of core column steel mass is shown in Table 7, which is based on calculations of core column steel per floor for selected floors (see Table 19 in Appendix 3).


The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures (in terms of mass per unit floor area), data from NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons. Further study may be warranted to examine other contemporaneous structures, validate the SAP2000 model values, and establish a more reliable estimation of the distribution between sources of removed debris.[HR][/HR]

Before anyone gets slap-happy with using those numbers, there is a decay in the Bulk Density as one goes up the tower. So the last 15% of the building has less mass than a simple 15% of the total, mainly due to the great change in core column density.
These details are explained in further detail within the paper, however.
But another caveat worth mentioning is this paper was published 6 years ago. Some data may have changed in light of new findings.

And if one needs further structural drawings, so they can calculate the approximate mass themselves:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/WTC1_blueprints.php

Now to be fair, it would be wrong to not include an example of contrary opinion, but pay attention to the guesstimates used in it.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

IMHO, I see the spontaneous collapse theory to be scientifically dubious at best.
And just to rub it in, here's a decent 8 page thread from a couple years ago talking about "the math".
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-column-loading-and-factor-of-safety-split-from-rubble-t539-30.html

 

[echelon1k1]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

 

[tokeprep]

Could you lend your expertise in explaining these 2 pictures?

View attachment 2688826

View attachment 2688830

When were these pictures taken? You're aware of how they removed all of the debris, aren't you? They cut the columns up. Pictures without context are meaningless.

 

[tokeprep]

Now explain the bolded in regards to hanjours total disregard for sharia law, as a supposedly observant, extremist, salafi-jihadist?

The last time you brought that up, I suggested that it had been discredited. You've done nothing to bolster it sense.

 

[echelon1k1]

The last time you brought that up, I suggested that it had been discredited. You've done nothing to bolster it sense.

You might have suggested it - doesn't make it so... Who discredited that notion? got anything to prove that?

 

[tokeprep]

Are you now claiming those fires burned for 7-8 hours?

In World Trade Center 7, yes. You disagree...?

 

[heckler73]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

What's interesting about that paper is it uses the mass approximations from Bazant and Zhou, which were--in light of Urich's later analysis--OVER-estimates.
[HR][/HR]This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision.
[HR][/HR]So even with the higher bias, it STILL does not compute.
Classical Mechanics does not support the hypothesis of spontaneous collapse as an initial premise.

Ergo, all of this discussion about elevators or fuel is a superfluous distraction...

 

[tokeprep]

You might have suggested it - doesn't make it so... Who discredited that notion? got anything to prove that?

I may have provided this link before but if not: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034892/10-years-9-11-key-question-remains-Why-hijackers-Las-Vegas.html.

 

[tokeprep]

IMHO, I see the spontaneous collapse theory to be scientifically dubious at best.
And just to rub it in, here's a decent 8 page thread from a couple years ago talking about "the math".
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-column-loading-and-factor-of-safety-split-from-rubble-t539-30.html

So what do you find credible?