Quote:

 

J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)

http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"

http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 19 2008, 09:16 PM

How do you explain the following figures?

Quote:

 

J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)

http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"

http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Now if we extrapolate those figures we can assume that it would have taken 72 days with 12 people just to load the explosives and that's just for one building, but let's say that they used some special type of explosive which was lighter, and they were really motivated to get the job done, and even though the buildings were much larger let's say they had less columns then let's go ahead and cut that figure in half IE 36 days with 12 people to load the explosives now perhaps you can explain to me how this could be done in three of the most secure buildings in the world without anyone noticing or without being captured on video or without the bomb sniffing dogs noticing etc etc?

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 12:01 PM

So the question is, why would you need to wire the entire building, if you believe that only 6 floors of damage is enough to cause the WTC to collapse? (As in the official story!)

sevon

Feb 20 2008, 03:50 PM

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 12:01 PM

So the question is, why would you need to wire the entire building, if you believe that only 6 floors of damage is enough to cause the WTC to collapse? (As in the official story!)

Do you agree with that claim? (That 6 floors of damage could cause the collapses witnessed on 9/11?)

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 12:01 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 19 2008, 09:16 PM

How do you explain the following figures?

Quote:

 

J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)

http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"

http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Now if we extrapolate those figures we can assume that it would have taken 72 days with 12 people just to load the explosives and that's just for one building, but let's say that they used some special type of explosive which was lighter, and they were really motivated to get the job done, and even though the buildings were much larger let's say they had less columns then let's go ahead and cut that figure in half IE 36 days with 12 people to load the explosives now perhaps you can explain to me how this could be done in three of the most secure buildings in the world without anyone noticing or without being captured on video or without the bomb sniffing dogs noticing etc etc?

OK...Lets assume that you believe that the official story is true. A plane hit WTC 1 causing sever damage between 93rd and 99th floors and the ensuing fires brought the WTC 1?? Agreed!

So the question is, why would you need to wire the entire building, if you believe that only 6 floors of damage is enough to cause the WTC to collapse? (As in the official story!)

According to your logic, all that would be needed is enough explosives loaded between floors 93 and 99 to achieve the same results....so this makes your wiring all of WTC a completely mooted point.

Do you really think the WTC are according to you "three of the most secure buildings in the world"

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 04:22 PM

sevon

Feb 20 2008, 03:50 PM

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 12:01 PM

So the question is, why would you need to wire the entire building, if you believe that only 6 floors of damage is enough to cause the WTC to collapse? (As in the official story!)

Do you agree with that claim? (That 6 floors of damage could cause the collapses witnessed on 9/11?)

No....Do you??

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 04:22 PM

sevon

Feb 20 2008, 03:50 PM

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 12:01 PM

So the question is, why would you need to wire the entire building, if you believe that only 6 floors of damage is enough to cause the WTC to collapse? (As in the official story!)

Do you agree with that claim? (That 6 floors of damage could cause the collapses witnessed on 9/11?)

No.

Aldo Marquis CIT

Feb 20 2008, 04:53 PM

Trajan,

If a demotilition expert wanted to bring down the towers or a replica of them and he decided to do it using a scenario similar to that of 9/11, what would happen if he planted explosives all throughout the 94th-98th floors out of 110 floors and blew out 4 floors (trusses/perimeter columns), do you think they could make the whole thing collapse or implode downward without stopping???

We are simply talking about swapping the gradual elimination of support (jet fuel fire) for the immediate elimination of support (explosives).

If someone asked you to place your bet on whether it would implode downward without stopping or not, which would you choose?

Is it likely that it will implode downward without stopping?

Or is it likely that it will not?

If not, why wouldn't a demolition expert do it this way?

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 05:21 PM

Regardless you don't understand the NIST report, it wasn't just the localized structural damage from the fire which caused the collapse, the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors,

Aldo Marquis CIT

Feb 20 2008, 05:56 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 05:21 PM

Regardless you don't understand the NIST report, it wasn't just the localized structural damage from the fire which caused the collapse, the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors,

Oh please do show me the portion of the NIST report that details this.

Quote:

 

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST Report Q&A

sevon

Feb 20 2008, 05:14 PM

If you don't agree with that claim, then the OP was not a "moot point". Because it wouldn't require only 6 floors of explosives, it would require a lot more.

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 06:02 PM

I asked you the question and you did not answer it Sevon?? I'm seeing the kind of dodging that would make one of the worlds best dodgers in the ring Muhammad Ali envious! lol

So please answer.... Yes or No and explain your reasons.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 06:00 PM

Aldo Marquis CIT

Feb 20 2008, 05:56 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 05:21 PM

Regardless you don't understand the NIST report, it wasn't just the localized structural damage from the fire which caused the collapse, the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors,

Oh please do show me the portion of the NIST report that details this.

Right here:

Quote:

 

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST Report Q&A

NIST

 

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 06:14 PM

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 06:02 PM

sevon

Feb 20 2008, 05:14 PM

I asked you the question and you did not answer it Sevon?? I'm seeing the kind of dodging that would make one of the worlds best dodgers in the ring Muhammad Ali envious! lol

So please answer.... Yes or No and explain your reasons.

Your question relies on a red herring, you don't understand the NIST report, the NIST does not support the progressive "pancake" collapse scenario.

But regardless you already stated that you don't believe in your own scenario so why don't you answer the original question in the OP instead of trying to shift goal posts and change the topic? Answer: you can't!

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 06:02 PM

sevon

Feb 20 2008, 05:14 PM

If you don't agree with that claim, then the OP was not a "moot point". Because it wouldn't require only 6 floors of explosives, it would require a lot more.

I asked you the question and you did not answer it Sevon?? I'm seeing the kind of dodging that would make one of the worlds best dodgers in the ring Muhammad Ali envious! lol


To put it simply....I do not believe that the damage caused by the planes and ensuing heat would be sufficient to cause a collapse, not even if every single column, truss etc etc sag or failed within those 6 floors if impact.

So to make an argument that it would take months (Because thats were he is going) to wire these building is ridiculous....yet to believe it can be done by damage to 6 floors renders your argument pointless. NIST can't get past the initiation and then they delve into the realms of fantasy, by having a computer simulation which they had to tweak with to get the building to collapse.

So arguing that it would take 12 men months to wire a building the size of the WTC, when you believe it can collapse from anywhere/everywhere within those 6 floors is pointless as it wouldn't take that long if thats what you believe. Trying to argue that the logistical problem of getting the building wired is impossible and arguing that the collapse is possible based on less than 5% damage isn't working I'm afraid.

That is a logical fallacy and a mooted point.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM

"How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?"

Stundie

 

So please explain exactly how the towers fell....because telling us that "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards." doesn't quite explain it??

Quote:

 

If there is no pancaking phenomenon, then what phenomenon explains the collapse?
Because NIST haven't explained it?

Quote:

 

Owing to differences in the initial impacts, the collapses of the two towers were found to differ in some respects, but in both cases, the same sequence of events applies. After the impacts had severed exterior columns and damaged core columns, the loads on these columns were redistributed. The hat trusses at the top of each building played a significant role in this redistribution of the loads in the structure.

The impacts also dislodged some of the fireproofing from the steel, increasing its exposure to the heat of the fires. In the 102 minutes before the collapse of 1 WTC, the fires reached temperatures that, although well below the melting point, were high enough to weaken the core columns so that they underwent plastic deformation and creep from the weight of higher floors. The NIST report provides a useful model of the situation.

“At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. (p. 29)"


NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster PDF

Quote:

 

Also remember to include the the molten metal,

Quote:

 

the eroding of the steel which FEMA couldn't explain and of course,

Quote:

 

those all important witnesses who heard explosions.

Quote:

 

5.1.1
Test Observations
Table 5–1 presents observations that were recorded during the conduct of the tests. All dimensions given are approximate since they were estimated by making observations through furnace viewports. Times were generally recorded to the nearest minute. The term “report” is used to describe a loud sound, which might be described as a “bang” or a “pop.” Because these loud reports were often accompanied by observed movement of the metal deck and the dislodging of fireproofing material, it is presumed that the reports signaled explosive spalling of the concrete. The exact location and extent of any spalling was not possible to ascertain.

Quote:

 

Table 5–2. Test observations – Assembly No. 2.
Test Exposed (E) or Observations
Time, Unexposed (U)
min Surface

1 E & U Faint reports heard.
1 E The SFRM began to discolor.
3 E & U A faint report was heard.
3 E SFRM over-spray on the steel deck began to fall when report was heard.
5 E The steel deck began to deform east of the east bridging truss and west of the
west bridging truss.
10 E A buckle in the steel deck was observed. The buckle was located 1 ft west of
the center deck support angle and ran in a north–south direction. The length
of the buckle spanned from the north truss to the south truss.
12 E The steel deck was bowing downward between the bridging trusses and the
center deck support angle.
15 E & U A faint report was heard.
16 E & U A faint report was heard.
18 E & U Reports became slightly louder. There were three reports in a row, approx. 5
seconds apart.
22 E & U Reports continued and became slightly louder.
22 E There was minor fall off of the SFRM on the top angle of the east bridging
truss. The fall off was partial and did not result in bare steel being exposed.
23 E & U Reports continued.
30 E & U Reports continued.
34 E Visual deformation of the top angles of bridging trusses was observed.
36 E There was no visual buckling of the bridging truss web members.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6B (Draft) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC Disaster Fire Resistance Tests of Floor Truss Systems (Draft)

Quote:

 

How did the upper lighter portions manage to destroy a stronger heavier structure below it?

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 06:47 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM

"How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?"

through the doors and by removing the "DANGER - EXPLOSIVES" labels.

Stundie

Feb 20 2008, 06:02 PM

I can answer.

I do not know how long it would take...because any answer I or anyone else gives is based on speculation....

Quote:

 

We do not know how long, how many men or where they were planted.....

Quote:

 

There is no point on arguing on speculation......

Hence the reason I support a new investigation....to find answer to these questions.

Now back to you??

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 06:52 PM

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 06:47 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM

"How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?"

through the doors and by removing the "DANGER - EXPLOSIVES" labels.

I do hope your joking. Tell me how they would have gotten them past the dog sniffing dogs, tell me how not one person, security guard, or video camera captured them loading these tons and tons of explosives and setting them into the building. The idea that they could have been loading the building for 72 days straight in three of the most secure buildings in the world just doesn't stand up to rationality.

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 07:00 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 06:52 PM

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 06:47 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM

"How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?"

through the doors and by removing the "DANGER - EXPLOSIVES" labels.

I do hope your joking. Tell me how they would have gotten them past the dog sniffing dogs, tell me how not one person, security guard, or video camera captured them loading these tons and tons of explosives and setting them into the building. The idea that they could have been loading the building for 72 days straight in three of the most secure buildings in the world just doesn't stand up to rationality.

Did they have thermite sniffing dogs?

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 07:06 PM

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 07:00 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 06:52 PM

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 06:47 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM

"How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?"

through the doors and by removing the "DANGER - EXPLOSIVES" labels.

I do hope your joking. Tell me how they would have gotten them past the dog sniffing dogs, tell me how not one person, security guard, or video camera captured them loading these tons and tons of explosives and setting them into the building. The idea that they could have been loading the building for 72 days straight in three of the most secure buildings in the world just doesn't stand up to rationality.

Did they have thermite sniffing dogs?

I'm sure they had dogs that could detect any type of explosive but since there is no conclusive evidence of thermate to begin with the point is moot. Furthermore; thermate probably couldn't have done the job anyway for this kind of demo one would need to used shape charges using C-4.

But hay let's say they did use thermate and they didn't have thermate sniffing dogs perhaps you can explain how they were able to plant this thermate all over the towers for 72 days without anyone noticing?

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 07:16 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 07:06 PM

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 07:00 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 06:52 PM

Headspin

Feb 20 2008, 06:47 PM

Trajan Octavian Titus

Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM

"How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?"

through the doors and by removing the "DANGER - EXPLOSIVES" labels.

I do hope your joking. Tell me how they would have gotten them past the dog sniffing dogs, tell me how not one person, security guard, or video camera captured them loading these tons and tons of explosives and setting them into the building. The idea that they could have been loading the building for 72 days straight in three of the most secure buildings in the world just doesn't stand up to rationality.

Did they have thermite sniffing dogs?

I'm sure they had dogs that could detect any type of explosive but since there is no conclusive evidence of thermate to begin with the point is moot. Furthermore; thermate probably couldn't have done the job anyway for this kind of demo one would need to used shape charges using C-4.

But hay let's say they did use thermate and they didn't have thermate sniffing dogs perhaps you can explain how they were able to plant this thermate all over the towers for 72 days without anyone noticing?

so you don't know whether the dogs were capable of detecting thermite, so your argument about "how did they get it past the bomb sniffing dogs" has no merit if thermate was used, therefore this strengthens the thermate hypothesis because the dogs would not have detected it.

you just admitted that there was some evidence for thermate - "no conclusive evidence" - you are implying there is some evidence? or are you claiming there is NO evidence?

"thermate probably couldn't have done the job" - how do you support this speculation, do you have a statistcal model? or are you saying it could not have been done?

Quote:

 

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

[URr]http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php[/URL]

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!

How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Debunking 9-11 Thermite and Sulfer