This is an orange

[Spezialist]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

[upnorthman]

Makes me wonder......just a little.

How would we ever get the real answer to that question?

[steve74baywin]

Thanks Spez, I hadn't seen that one yet,,,although I have seen many others pointing to the same thing....
It does amaze me though the number of people who will still swear that a small fire on one of the upper floors caused it to fall, and that is exactly how they would expect it to fall they say. And I am the one that is nuts?

[Spezialist]

I had to start a thread on something interesting besides the political race for the presidency of 08,

[Amskeptic]

It does amaze me though the number of people who will still swear that a small fire on one of the upper floors caused it to fall, and that is exactly how they would expect it to fall they say. And I am the one that is nuts?

As long as there are questions that cannot be answered, I will not conclude anything. I do not understand why Building 7 collapsed so many hours later so perfectly without any of the jet fuel heat trauma attributed to the collapse of the towers. I do not understand why both World Trade Towers fell so neatly and so quickly. I do not understand why the air traffic controller logs disappeared as did the black boxes from both aircraft, I do not understand why these planes were able to deviate from their flight paths for so long without notice, I do not understand why Clinton Administration officials' warnings of potentially impending air terrorist attacks were treateed so cavalierly by Bush officials before 9-11, I do not understand why there is so little in the way of airplane parts at the Pentagon, never saw an engine or a landing gear or a tail section, I do not understand why the bin Laden family was given express exits from the U.S. within 48 hours.

With these questions left unanswered to my satisfaction (like saying it was the heat of the jet fuel that collapsed those steel columns when it was pretty clear that the "fuel mixture" was running chokingly rich which is a bit cooler than the limits provided by the protective insulation on the main structural beams), and with a skeptical intuition against the Bush Dynasty which has always found war a useful boost (Desert Storm for Pappy and 9-11 for Shrub who was just about to get nailed with the Enron and Energy Gaming of the southwest debacles), I remain skeptical. Not concluding anything. . . but I am skeptical of current official explanations.
Colin

[turk]

Those are good questions too. What temperature would the fuel burn at if spilled out that way? And how hot do steel structural beams need to be before the whole thing comes crashing? I heard it was designed to collapse in on itself (WTC) but I don't know about fuel causing that kind of a collapse.

[Amskeptic]

Those are good questions too. What temperature would the fuel burn at if spilled out that way? And how hot do steel structural beams need to be before the whole thing comes crashing? I heard it was designed to collapse in on itself (WTC) but I don't know about fuel causing that kind of a collapse.

from an engineering trade journal article 12/01:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso


The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.

Their conclusions were that the steel did not melt, but the intense heat on one side of the beams only, caused distortion that released the floor joists from the outside vertical column support brackets (think: lousy plastic pegs holding your WalMart bookshelf "floors"), within three floor collapses, the design strength of the lower floors was overwhelmed.
Plausible. I am not a conspiracy nutcase who can't listen to good engineering explanations. . . but what about Building 7??
Colin

[glasseye]

Uh, but didn't we see most of the jet fuel burn off in a huge, five second fireball? What's left to burn? Office furniture?

As for melting the trusses connecting the perimeter, what about the core? The core of WTC was colossal, an example of engineering overkill. The core consisted of huge 30" steel columns surrounded by concrete. How did they melt and fail simultaneously? On all three buildings? Preposterous.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... N%26sa%3DG

[Spezialist]

Those are good questions too. What temperature would the fuel burn at if spilled out that way? And how hot do steel structural beams need to be before the whole thing comes crashing? I heard it was designed to collapse in on itself (WTC) but I don't know about fuel causing that kind of a collapse.

from an engineering trade journal article 12/01:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso


The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.

Their conclusions were that the steel did not melt, but the intense heat on one side of the beams only, caused distortion that released the floor joists from the outside vertical column support brackets (think: lousy plastic pegs holding your WalMart bookshelf "floors"), within three floor collapses, the design strength of the lower floors was overwhelmed.
Plausible. I am not a conspiracy nutcase who can't listen to good engineering explanations. . . but what about Building 7??
Colin

Regular old iron not high strength steel mind you melts at 1,535 °C

Jet Fuel burns in an open air enviroment at 260–315 °C

Jet Fuel burns at a maxium 980 °C

[steve74baywin]

Good way of summing it all up Colin........

I have said this to some people..If there was just one of those many "don't make sense" things I could write it off...But not with that many...Something just is not right.....
There also was reports that those pilot's couldn't fly..
The other plane that crashed in a field, but no plane parts.....
And the Patriot Act was written about a year before 911.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC a Think Tank) wrote over a year before all of the following, not in one sentence like I writing it, but all in one document, stuff like, now that the cold war is over, what to do to stay in power, if a country has stuff we need we should take them out, countries like Iraq....Oh and I almost forgot the most important part, it also says this is a revolutionary idea and will be hard to sell, short of a catastrophic event like another Pearl Harbor.

Oh, and also don't forget what Aaron Russo said towards the end of his film. He said this was told to him by his friend Nicholas Rockafella "There's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order."
-Nicholas Rockafellar, Member of CFR and Infamous Rockafellar Family, Grandson of David Rockafellar, Said to Aaron Russo 11months prior to 9/11.

[RussellK]

It'll help if we use Tinyurl on these long URLs. I only have a 15" screen.

[Amskeptic]

Regular old iron not high strength steel mind you melts at 1,535 °C

Jet Fuel burns in an open air enviroment at 260–315 °C

Jet Fuel burns at a maxium 980 °C

As I try to wrap my mind around all of this, the paper discussed not just temperature but heat (quantity of temperature) and apparently 90,000 litres of jet fuel causes a lot of heat that did not soften but did expand the inner steel column surfaces. It was this thermal expansion that bowed the outer columns enough to release the "lousy plastic bookshelf pegs" . However, what about the inner columns now that you bring it up? Building 7?? Motives aplenty?? Sheer fucking evilness? Not so much of the crazed terrorists but of their masters?
Colin
(that is why I am more "lenient" with pissed-off murderers than state-sanctioned executioners)

[glasseye]

However, what about the inner columns now that you bring it up? Building 7?? Motives aplenty?? Sheer fucking evilness?

Exactly. Sheer fucking evilness. I've seen a locked-off camera shot of the top of one of the two towers as it collapsed. The antenna structure in the center of the building clearly begins its descent before the perimeter begins to fail. The center failed first. Think about it.

[Spezialist]

As long as there are questions that cannot be answered, I will not conclude anything. I do not understand why Building 7 collapsed so many hours later so perfectly without any of the jet fuel heat trauma attributed to the collapse of the towers. I do not understand why both World Trade Towers fell so neatly and so quickly. I do not understand why the air traffic controller logs disappeared as did the black boxes from both aircraft, I do not understand why these planes were able to deviate from their flight paths for so long without notice, I do not understand why Clinton Administration officials' warnings of potentially impending air terrorist attacks were treateed so cavalierly by Bush officials before 9-11, I do not understand why there is so little in the way of airplane parts at the Pentagon, never saw an engine or a landing gear or a tail section, I do not understand why the bin Laden family was given express exits from the U.S. within 48 hours.

With these questions left unanswered to my satisfaction (like saying it was the heat of the jet fuel that collapsed those steel columns when it was pretty clear that the "fuel mixture" was running chokingly rich which is a bit cooler than the limits provided by the protective insulation on the main structural beams), and with a skeptical intuition against the Bush Dynasty which has always found war a useful boost (Desert Storm for Pappy and 9-11 for Shrub who was just about to get nailed with the Enron and Energy Gaming of the southwest debacles), I remain skeptical. Not concluding anything. . . but I am skeptical of current official explanations.
Colin

Very nice post, and I am in total agreement with what you have stated.

[Amskeptic]

Exactly. Sheer fucking evilness. I've seen a locked-off camera shot of the top of one of the two towers as it collapsed. The antenna structure in the center of the building clearly begins its descent before the perimeter begins to fail. The center failed first. Think about it.

See, I get totally irritated with conspiracy nuts who then build up steam about black helicopters and One World Governments when we are discussing questions that linger about 9/11, but you bring up a real worthy new question. If the engineering papers describe a plausible pancake scenario, how do the heavily reinforced central columns elevator shafts go down first? So I need to see with my own eyes . . got a link to that footage?
Colin