The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

If you think heat could not collapse the WTC!

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby greeney2 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:26 am

Here is another bridge overpass that collapsed yesterday, bringing up the argument again about the WTC collapse. A similar overpass in Oakland fell the very same way a few years back. The intense heat making the concrete burst and break away, which weaked the support system, by exposing the steel and also not surrounding the steel to hold it togather. Again stessing that the steel does not have to melt to fail, it mearly has to go above temperatures far from the melting point. And without the surrounding concrete, the steel alone has minimal strength. Temperatures that affect steel can be seen by looking at the iron carbon diagram.


http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 3&src=news
greeney2
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:38 am

Not quite the same.

Freeways, I thought, used reinforced concrete for structural support, not actual steel support beams.

Reinforced concrete isn't much good when the concrete breaks, because the little pieces of steel that reinforce the concrete are obviously far to small to support weight. They aren't designed for it. They are only designed to strengthen the concrete.


Rebar reinforced concrete:
Image
Steel beams. Obviously you know what steel beams look like, I couldn't find one with concrete surrounding it on google... But I'm sure you've seen exactly what I'm talking about.


The fact still remains, steel construction buildings collapsed that day from fire, and they are the only 3 steel construction buildings of that size to ever collapse, before or after.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:01 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World ... ngment.svg

parts of the WTC are similar to what you show. Each floor is a truss supported concrete floor. As fire broke these individual floors down, they internally collapsed one by one, and exposed girders and beams and elevator shafts over several floors adjoining where the airclaft hit, until the steel itself lost its temper and strength. It could no longer support its own weight and the combined weight of all floors above. That created the chain reaction of the these floors piledriving one after another straight to the ground. Each floor added to the total force by weight. But the first priciple of the fire breaking down the reinforsed concrete floors, than exposing key support beams to the fire. Probably only took a few key places to fail first and the rest followed like a domino affect. All in tact was strong as you could imagine, but a few elements failed, the rest could not support it.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquatank » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:35 pm

Greeney is right, the multiplication of Mass & Weight combined with the fires heat is what really brought WTC down WITH the additional Kinetic Energy from the aircraft hit (roughly equal to the force of a couple 2000 pounds of explosives bunker busters) and the initial explosion over pressure.

IF there were additional hidden charges detonated it was as a backup by other Al-Qaeda operatives in the area.

I'm still of the opinion that 9-11 was largely an Al-Qaeda recruiting operation that was played for primetime television and radio audiences in the Middle East simply because if the target had been hit 2-3 hours later the death toll would have been somewhere between 30000-60000 people. This indicates planning around media play times rather than the largest kill ratio possible.
Aquatank
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Midwest USA

Postby greeney2 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:43 pm

IF there were additional hidden charges detonated it was as a backup by other Al-Qaeda operatives in the area.


Anyone who ever watched a special on taking down a building knows the months and complexity of prepping the building and the beams. The idea anyone could have done this undetected, with 24/7 maintinance and security, plan it on the same stories the plane hit, and have the piolet hit those floors, is preposterous. Thats why all the believers in this theory have not come up with a single "step by step--how they did it" explanation, because its simply is impossible.

if the target had been hit 2-3 hours later the death toll would have been somewhere between 30000-60000 people.


That fact and the fact if they hit the buildings lower than they did. Everyone above the planes died.
Thank you for agree :) ing with my explanation.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:30 pm

All in tact was strong as you could imagine, but a few elements failed, the rest could not support it.


Disproportionate structural failure resulting in perfectly vertical collapse? Ok den.


Now, the actual towers are easy to say "well the planes and the fire combined took them down" because from a viewers perspective it seems likely. I personally don't buy it, but I have no arguments that are capable of refuting the theory.

However, I have two more points, one of which has been answered in such a way that I also don't believe it's legitimacy, and one hasn't been answered at all.

Building 7. This has been explained to me as fuel tanks catching fire from debris from the two falling towers, and causing it to collapse in exactly the same fashion as the towers did.

BUT, the pentagon crash has never been explained to me at all.
So, do one of you care to demonstrate to me how the engines and the wings of a commercial airliner did not punch through the walls and end up inside the building, but yet are not left outside the building.

Please.. Explain this to me.
Because there is obviously something I'm missing.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:35 am

Speed and a totally different construction of the Penagon vs the WTC.

While the WTC we watched both planes hit at full speed they sheered right thru the windows AND outside beams. Assuming the Pentagon plane was going much slower aiming for a target at ground level, more like landing speeds, the multiwalled construction of the building at that speed, and angle of hit, plus may not have had as much fuel left. Hit with a far different force, plus there are variants of these aircraft which vary by a major anount of weight. Not sure which hit the WTC and which hit the Pentagon.

The WTC pancaked straight down because each floor sheered the one under it, like a jackhammer, and the vertical drop just kept building up speed and momentum, faster than it could tilt sideways and fall like a tree. The bottom was supporting it but each floor failed from the top down, one by one. It didn;t fail from the ground level up. Had the 1993 bombing in the basement been successful, the bottom would have failed and it probably would have fallen like a tree. Many buildings are set up to fall a direction by blowing beams on one side and putting cables to opposite side to the weight pulls in one direction.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:36 am

Speed and a totally different construction of the Penagon vs the WTC.


At the risk of sounding rude, that's pretty obvious.


However, the speed of the craft that hit the pentagon was at least fast enough that it was able to just barely be seen in one frame, and the next frame it was entirely gone and replaced by an explosion. Not sure what frame-rate that camera was though, so to know the speed of the craft I'd have to know that.

I'm not sure it's a legitimate video anyway.

BUT, my question was about the pentagon strike.
Where did the multi-tonne engines, and the wings go?
They did not get inside the building, and they where not left on the outside.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:18 am

Wasn't trying to give a smartass answer, I just thought it was simple logic and simple term question. As far as the speed, I never really herd an exact speeds of impact, but I;ve sure the WTC one were calculated from camera coverage. Even in broad daylight very few people saw the Pentgon Plane. Servalance cameras, taping at normal speeds to capture people walking and cars driving. You only would capture one or two frames of something going very high speed, like the plane. I don;t have any explanation for the plane parts other than, aircraft disintigrate when they crash completly. The scenes are pretty grizzly, and when impact is solid, as opposed to sliding into a field like a landing, there is just nothing left. Bodies are bits and pieces, fragments, etc. It occurs in miliseconds, quick as a light bulb burning out. The pressure and energy within that fusalage in that instant, must be unreal. Like stories you hear about a straw being driven through a wood beam in a tornado, just mind boggling forces.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:47 am

Very mind boggling force indeed. The amount of force 10 pounds of C4 gives off is also pretty mind boggling. Even just a car moving at 15k is a lot more force then people realize.

But, despite that fact I don't buy into the complete disintegration of the whole plane aside from the fuselage. The engines are far more structurally integral, and have a higher density per cubic inch then any other part of the plane, and they are the heaviest parts also.
If ANY part of the plane should have punched through the pentagons reinforced concrete walls it would have been engines. Titanium, that's what we use for battle tanks, and naval vessels. There is a measureable amount of titanium in turbine jet engine construction as it has some useful chemical properties with regards to insulation/thermodynamics.

I would LOVE for a physicist to come here and tell me I'm wrong about the above stated facts, and show me the err of my ways, explaining why they never made it inside, but the fuselage -made of substantially less integral, dense, and heavy aluminum alloys- punched through how many layers of the wall?


I mean, lets level it down. Forget all the dumb conspiracy theory bullshit with the people who thought they heard a missile, because honestly two turbine jet engines with maxed out thrust at nearly ground level is pretty god damn loud, don't know how many people realize just how loud it is. So that's easy to mistake.

Forget the fact that some of the windows where the wings should have been remained intact, that could just be angles and camera magick. None of that really bears any evidence, just speculation. But the plane -with exception to the fuselage of the craft of course- could not just disappear.

I mean, the empennage? Ok, fair enough it could have been bent and dragged in with the rest of the plane, but the engines? Nah.

The bodies? No, don't believe that for a second that everyone on board was reduced to pieces so small they couldn't be found. It is feasible for this to happen to some people depending on their locations, but it's not feasible for every single individual on the plane. The plane would either be empty, or there would have to be some hardcore explosives.
Not Kerosene either, something a lot more brisant would be required.

Edit:
WOOPS! I accidentally wrote that the wings were more integral then the fuselage, it was meant to read engines obviously. :P
Fixed now.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Next

Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests