9/11 Attacks

CrackisWhack

like so

Di0genes

CrackisWhack wrote: »

In fairness those pictures are not the best(of the crash site)

Any thoughts on the location and time of day?

Isn't there usually large sections of th plane (i.e tail section & engine) usually found intact? the photos you have posted are tiny pieces.

I posted a photo of the engine. And "Usually" Most plane crashes don't usually involve the pilot intentionally ramming a massive reinforced concrete building at speed.

CrackisWhack

more

CrackisWhack

would it make much of a difference hitting a building at 500mph as opposed to a mountain etc.?

meglome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

In German but this is a test that was done to test what would happen if a plane hit a nuclear power station. Obviously this concrete is thicker but you see the plane is literally shredded.

CrackisWhack wrote: »

would it make much of a difference a huge difference hitting a building at 500mph as opposed to a mountain etc.?

Of course with most buildings the plane will penetrate to some degree, with a mountain that's much less likely. Though it would depend very much on the building and the mountain. And not mention did the plane skim along the side of the mountain or plow straight into it.

Di0genes

CrackisWhack wrote: »

would it make much of a difference a huge difference hitting a building at 500mph as opposed to a mountain etc.?

Yes. The pilot in the plane crashing into the mountain is doing everything in their power to avoid hitting the mountain or to maximise the plane's chance at a soft landing. On 9/11 the pilot was intentionally ramming a building.

Penn

It's more than that. A mountain is an extremely solid surface to crash into, with a lot of weight behind it. A steel frame building is exactly that, a frame. While it is of course a solid frame, the impact of a plane would a) likely knock out or damage steel members, thereby compromising the structural integrity of the steel members surrounding it, and b) while a mountain is a solid surface, a plane hitting a column straight on means that the plane is only meeting resistance from the lines where the steel members are. The rest of the plane would continue with less resistance further into the frame

The two are almost incomparable without knowing several factors and variables

squod

Di0genes wrote: »

1. Intercepts were launched. It takes more than 90 minutes to "scramble" a plane.

2. Steel frames structures have collapsed due to fire.

3. Black smoke doesn't equal a fire going out.

4. As has been pointed out the fire didn't need to melt the steel.

Shall I go on?

Hmmmm, yeah. Fairy tales like the OPs are real convincing. To a five year old:rolleyes:

Di0genes

squod wrote: »

Hmmmm, yeah. Fairy tales like the OPs are real convincing. To a five year old:rolleyes:

Before I go on do you concede on the above points?

1. Fighter Jets


Read
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608 on NORAD and 911.

You can even listen to the conversations between NORAD and the FAA. Do you admit it takes longer than 90 minutes to scramble a fighter?

2. Steel framed building collapse

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

3. Black Smoke

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful.

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

4. Fire melting Steel

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

---

So Squod before I go on do you accept the above? If you don't please explain why.

squod

Meh, this topic has been done to death on these forums. Believe what you will. At the end of the day I'm not bothered.

I would say though that the examples given don't add up to a convincing story.

Di0genes

squod wrote: »

Meh, this topic has been done to death on these forums. Believe what you will. At the end of the day I'm not bothered.

Well thank you for your contribution

I would say though that the examples given don't add up to a convincing story.

What examples? Are you referring to the four I raised? Those are the exact first four points in the pdf you linked to I can go through the entire PDF and point out every single erroneous claim.

However I'm not going to do that if your attitude is just to ignore what I said.

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

However I'm not going to do that if your attitude is just to ignore what I said.

I'm taking things a bit off topic here but what the hell...
I feel that if you were to treat people with respect that they would be a lot more recepetive to holding discussions with you.
No one likes being spoken down to, it is possible for people to hold differing beliefs and still treat each other cordially.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

I'm taking things a bit off topic here but what the hell...
I feel that if you were to treat people with respect that they would be a lot more recepetive to holding discussions with you.
No one likes being spoken down to, it is possible for people to hold differing beliefs and still treat each other cordially.

Thats nice nullzero, but if someone starts mumbling about fairy tales, and someone else points out that what they are claiming is erroneous, and this is greeted with a "meh whatever", is that respectful?

Yitzhak Rabin

nullzero wrote: »

I'm taking things a bit off topic here but what the hell...
I feel that if you were to treat people with respect that they would be a lot more recepetive to holding discussions with you.
No one likes being spoken down to, it is possible for people to hold differing beliefs and still treat each other cordially.

Equally, nobody likes to spend a significant amount of time going through a persons erroneous claims, taking time to find the correct facts and explain why it is wrong, when after a lot of effort the person then glibly says;

"Believe what you want - My mind is made up"

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats nice nullzero, but if someone starts mumbling about fairy tales, and someone else points out that what they are claiming is erroneous, and this is greeted with a "meh whatever", is that respectful?

What do you care what other people think?
Would you like to beat everyone over the head until they agree with you?

The big problem in this forum is the attitude from certain people that this is place to make people agree with you.

nullzero

yekahs wrote: »

Equally, nobody likes to spend a significant amount of time going through a persons erroneous claims, taking time to find the correct facts and explain why it is wrong, when after a lot of effort the person then glibly says;

"Believe what you want - My mind is made up"

To be fair you taking the time to research something isn't the responsibilty of anyone else.

There has never been a single thread on this forum where anyone from either of the opposing sides has come out at the end and said "you've changed my mind completly".
This isn't a revelation, it's always been the case.
I can guarantee you that no one ever will either, and I'm sure you and all the other scpetics are aware of this, so therefor the only reason for anyone being here (other than a genuine interest in the topics) is to argue with people that they know will disagree with them.
You're all chasing your tails and the only ones that can't see it is yourselves because you're so busy being "right".

If you've got a bellyache about someone not changing their minds to agree with you here, it's nobody's fault but your own.

squod

The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material

So you're comparing an office building to a theatre (packed full of maybe hundreds of foam filled seats close together). You can't blame me for my ''attitude'' to your fairy tales.

squod

nullzero wrote: »

To be fair you taking the time to research something isn't the responsibilty of anyone else.

There has never been a single thread on this forum where anyone from either of the opposing sides has come out at the end and said "you've changed my mind completly".
This isn't a revelation, it's always been the case.
I can guarantee you that no one ever will either, and I'm sure you and all the other scpetics are aware of this, so therefor the only reason for anyone being here (other than a genuine interest in the topics) is to argue with people that they know will disagree with them.
You're all chasing your tails and the only ones that can't see it is yourselves because you're so busy being "right".

If you've got a bellyache about someone not changing their minds to agree with you here, it's nobody's fault but your own.

A good point well made. I'll leave it here.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

What do you care what other people think?
Would you like to beat everyone over the head until they agree with you?

Woa? I didn't realise that was an option. Here's me postings links to papers and sources, and facts, but you're telling me I can literally beat the stupid out of people? Brilliant! I think I may need some kind of padding for my hands, because some people are really stupid. Or can I use a bat?

The big problem in this forum is the attitude from certain people that this is place to make people agree with you.

No the big problem on the forum appears to be most people don't like it when people point out that they're wrong.

Yitzhak Rabin

nullzero wrote: »

To be fair you taking the time to research something isn't the responsibilty of anyone else.

There has never been a single thread on this forum where anyone from either of the opposing sides has come out at the end and said "you've changed my mind completly".
This isn't a revelation, it's always been the case.
I can guarantee you that no one ever will either, and I'm sure you and all the other scpetics are aware of this, so therefor the only reason for anyone being here (other than a genuine interest in the topics) is to argue with people that they know will disagree with them.
You're all chasing your tails and the only ones that can't see it is yourselves because you're so busy being "right".

If you've got a bellyache about someone not changing their minds to agree with you here, it's nobody's fault but your own.

My mind has been changed about many topics since beginning discussions on this forum.

Take this post for example. I think it shows, that once shown evidence, I am willing to change my mind.

You may prefer a forum where people agree with each other, and those that don't just say "Ah well, each to their own". I prefer a discussion forum, not a mutual masturbation forum.

Apart, from enjoying discussion and debate, I think it is important. If the thread was about say 9/11, and only people who subscribed to the inside job notion posted, then to an undecided, and unfamiliar reader, it would look like a strong case. But if they see someone, like Di0genes countering every erroneous claim with actual evidence, they have a better chance of making an informed decision on where they stand.

Finally, you give out about, how the sceptics are so disruptive. At least, they discuss the topic at hand, and don't come on and derail a thread by saying "You know, you're not a very nice person...."

Jeboa Safari

squod wrote: »

Meh, this topic has been done to death on these forums. Believe what you will. At the end of the day I'm not bothered.

I would say though that the examples given don't add up to a convincing story.

So basically you know you can't come up with an alternative that makes sense, or even debunk anything in the ops theory.
Glad you've seen sense

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

Woa? I didn't realise that was an option. Here's me postings links to papers and sources, and facts, but you're telling me I can literally beat the stupid out of people? Brilliant! I think I may need some kind of padding for my hands, because some people are really stupid. Or can I use a bat?
No the big problem on the forum appears to be most people don't like it when people point out that they're wrong.

You're missing the point in fine style I must say.
This is a discusison forum, if you want people to discuss things with you it's best to not assume that they are stupid becasue of one topic they have an interest in.
I don't think anyone hare is stupid even if I disagree with them.
You've clearly got a lot of contempt for those who's views differ from your own.
All Im trying to say is that it might be a good idea to be nice to people even if you don't agree with them, so then you might be able to make your points to people who don't already hate you for assuming they're all stupid.
Kind of like real life, where you'd have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Di0genes

squod wrote: »

So you're comparing an office building to a theatre (packed full of maybe hundreds of foam filled seats close together). You can't blame me for my ''attitude'' to your fairy tales.

No the article stated that no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire I listed a selection of buildings that were steel framed and collapsed due to fire.

But yes a theatre isn't the same as the WTC. You are correct. And yes the Theatre does have hundred of foam seats that would be very combustible. Again Correct. Do you know what is also highly combustible? Thousands and thousands of gallons of Jet fuel.

It is difficult to compare the WTC to any other building fire, because it is unique.

However the premise of one of your claims, is that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, therefore making the world trade centre collapse absolutely unique in the terms of steel framed structural fires, when it not unique. It happens frequently.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

You're missing the point in fine style I must say.
This is a discusison forum, if you want people to discuss things with you it's best to not assume that they are stupid becasue of one topic they have an interest in.

No I don't, its that I think people are stupid if they don't research both sides of a story before coming up with an opinion.

I don't think anyone hare is stupid even if I disagree with them.

Thats where you and I differ.

You've clearly got a lot of contempt for those who's views differ from your own.

No I have contempt for people who have contemptible views and opinions.

Kind of like real life, where you'd have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Why do I feel like I've just read that saccharine piece to camera at the end of every he-man. Why am I thinking about He-man anyway? Oh thats right Brown Bomber's first contribution to this thread was a childish he man reference.

This "lets all be mature and polite" attitude of yours would be nice, if you lectured all the postures on this forum equally. But you tend to save your posturing for posters like me.

nullzero

yekahs wrote: »

My mind has been changed about many topics since beginning discussions on this forum.

Take this post for example. I think it shows, that once shown evidence, I am willing to change my mind.

You may prefer a forum where people agree with each other, and those that don't just say "Ah well, each to their own". I prefer a discussion forum, not a mutual masturbation forum.

Apart, from enjoying discussion and debate, I think it is important. If the thread was about say 9/11, and only people who subscribed to the inside job notion posted, then to an undecided, and unfamiliar reader, it would look like a strong case. But if they see someone, like Di0genes countering every erroneous claim with actual evidence, they have a better chance of making an informed decision on where they stand.

Finally, you give out about, how the sceptics are so disruptive. At least, they discuss the topic at hand, and don't come on and derail a thread by saying "You know, you're not a very nice person...."

You're going a bit of a distance there saying I want a "mutual masturbation forum", I'm not sure you were paying attention to what I was saying.

I made the point that insinuating that people are stupid kills any chance of discussion.
Do you really think Diogenes is someone who adds to this forum?
The guy is surly and abusive to people. If he were a CTer I'd take offence to his attitude also.
For the most parts the lines are drawn on each topic and they stay that way. So if people aren't civil to each other you've got no chance of any sort of discussion taking place.
It seems to be happening a lot more recently, people are sick of being abused and choose to ignore people.
It is possible to make a point and not be superior about it, thats all I was saying. Those who behave that way do themselves and by extension their arguments no favours.

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

No I don't, its that I think people are stupid if they don't research both sides of a story before coming up with an opinion.



Thats where you and I differ.



No I have contempt for people who have contemptible views and opinions.




Why do I feel like I've just read that saccharine piece to camera at the end of every he-man. Why am I thinking about He-man anyway? Oh thats right Brown Bomber's first contribution to this thread was a childish he man reference.

This "lets all be mature and polite" attitude of yours would be nice, if you lectured all the postures on this forum equally. But you tend to save your posturing for posters like me.

I feel everyone here should treat each other with respect regardless of their opinions, so you're making a big asssumption there and getting me all wrong by some distance.

You've admitted that you feel some people here are stupid, that says a lot.
If you made an effort to be respectful of people you'd probably make strides in having your opinions taken to heart by those "stupid people" you're so hell bent on converting.

Jeboa Safari

nullzero wrote: »

Do you really think Diogenes is someone who adds to this forum?
The guy is surly and abusive to people. If he were a CTer I'd take offence to his attitude also.

He can come on a bit strong, but he debunks alot of nonsense, which is useful

nullzero

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

He can come on a bit strong, but he debunks alot of nonsense, which is useful

Useful to who?
As I said, the divide here is obvious, no one has had a Diogenes assisted epiphany.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

Useful to who?
As I said, the divide here is obvious, no one has had a Diogenes assisted epiphany.

No sorry not true. Poster by the name of Nick Olivri (or something) went from gun ho pro 9/11 nutjob, too on the fence, to admitting he was wrong thanks to one of my posts.

I can go, find his post, show it, show you up as wrong. But you know how much I like doing that, and I don't think you want to give me the satisfaction.

Jeboa Safari

nullzero wrote: »

Useful to who?
As I said, the divide here is obvious, no one has had a Diogenes assisted epiphany.

Useful to anyone trying to get both sides of the story, you don't know that, plenty of people read but don't post. Some of his links help me clarify things quicker without having to go looking for them myself. It's alot better than just reading one side of the argument, and getting nothing from the other side.