Interesting September 11 video

ArphaRima · 16-02-2006 07:03AM

First of all mobile phones. Analogue mobile phones have a greater range than digital phones. They can be used at higher speeds and higher altitudes. They can log onto multiple cells at once. Digital GSM phones can only log onto one or two cells at once, and have a lower range. Thus analogue phones as still common in the states WILL work better than digital. A GSM phone will only work at around 3000ft and 240mph or less (because as stated by somebody else, it will go between cells too quickly to work). As for analogue I dont really know specifics but I know that they used to work at 20,000 feet at speed. They are basically an unencrypted weakly powered radio so it depends from model to model.
America is mixed analogue and digital.

The onboard phones that were used at that time can only be used under 5000 feet and at slow speeds, to other operators.

Im not sure where you get your information, but what the hell good is a phone that only works below 5000 feet in a transcontinental aircraft that spends approximately 15 minutes per 12 hour flight at those heights? Trust me they worked then and work now at high altitude. They are satellite phones. The antenna is on the aircraft hull.

Also a light wieght fighter jet and a passenger jet (although the turn and dive preformed to hit the Pentagon seem like a fighter jet! Talk about auto-pilot!) weighing over 60 tons would differ quite allot! Fighter jet crafts have thin metals as thier hull whilst passenger airlines have 5+ inch thick aluminium hulls. There is NO WAY you can compare the too.

F4-II Jet: Max T-O weight: 28,030 kg / Weight empty: 13,757 kg
Boeing 767: Approx Max T-O weight: 180,000 kg/ Weight empty: 80,000 kg

The aircraft that day were empty but for a few seats, though loaded with fuel. Lets use facts here. And I would never want to fly in an aircraft with a 5 inch aluminium hull. The skin of any commercial airliner is layered SHEET aluminium. with a frame supporting it. The ribs and spars are the load bearer so the skin is millimetres thick.
Also there were no 747s used that day. There were 2 767s and two 757s. Neither are as big as a 747. Also a passenger aircraft can be manoeuvred like any other jet. It just wouldnt be very comfortable, nor good for it. And the autopilot would not have been engaged. It wouldnt be precise enough to hit a building at 350 knots. It takes extremely basic training to manoeuvre an aircraft in flight. Nobody should be surprised by that.

Not to mention that every single item in those buildings was up to code for fire retardancy, so after the plane fuel burnt, there was nothing in the buildings to fuel the fire.
Fire engineers, architects and structural engineers all agree that something very very strange happened that day.

Up to code for fire retardency. Yes it was. It was a design flaw. The building WAS designed to survive an aircraft crash. It was designed to survive a sustained fire. It was not designed to withstand both. Have you actually done any research on this topic? Here: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
The impact of the jet removed the fire retardant from the critical joints. The fuel created the fire, and the heat caused the collapse. Read it.

1 - Look at the circumference of the engine part in the pic. That can't be any part of a 757 engine. It's only about 2-3 ft in diametre - same engine diameter as the GH.

2 - Look at the picture of the landing wheel found and the particular tear-shaped pattern of holes around the edge. Now look at a picture of the landing wheel of a Global Hawk.

As stated before an engine is actually quite small anyway. Look at a Boeing 777. The engine appears as large as the fuselage of a 737. The actual physical engine is quite small. The housing is large to accomodate the fan. It has a large bypass area which is just that. empty space.
Look yourself. Its a Turbofan engine.
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Propulsion/advanced/types-01.html

As for the landing gear. I dont think the spoke pattern of a wheel is evidence of anything. The same model of aircraft will have dozens of different wheel manufacturers, tyre manufacturers and engine manufacturers. There is no common wheel. Besides I think you'll find that the global hawk itself shares its landing gear with other aircraft. In the same way that ferraris used to use Buses brake lights.

Helios airways flight recently crashed into a hill side in Greece and every part of the plane was found intact. Chairs, cockpit, rudders, tail-fin section, bodies and blood yet not ONE body, or indeed ANY SIGNIFICANT part of the planes were found at the crash site in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon

Helios crashed when it ran out of fuel over land, at low speed under the control of a person with about 10 hours flying experience because the pilots were dead. The WTC and Pentagon aircraft smashed into populated buildings at over 350 knots.

The stealthy nature of Global Hawk could be a reason why ATC didn't pick it up". Now, I could be wrong on this one, but my understanding is that ATC doesn't work off the traditional radar principle, but instead on transponder returns. Turn off the aircraft's transponder, and ATC can't see it.

Correct. Though they may have some indications, it will be much more difficult to track.

This conspiracy theory is just that. A theory. Easily rebuked by researching any number of the facts. Read the engineers report on the collapse. Look at interviews with witnesses. Look at pictures of 767s and 757s. Dont be so desperate to disbelieve the truth in favour of the more exotic theories.

any comments welcome

DublinWriter · 16-02-2006 07:50AM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That experiment was carried out at close to Mach 1.

*plus* explain the almost intact gear wheel and engine disc found at the crash site?

Manic Moran · 16-02-2006 08:16AM

DublinWriter wrote:

That experiment was carried out at close to Mach 1.

*plus* explain the almost intact gear wheel and engine disc found at the crash site?

Didn't the conspiracy video give a figure of 400kts impact speed for the Boeing? That's 740km/h, only 60km/h less than that F-4 video showed.

767's normal cruising speed is on the order of 450kts, it'll do 490kts if it's in a hurry.

NTM

ArphaRima · 16-02-2006 08:49AM

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103

Wibbs · 16-02-2006 11:14AM

fluffer wrote:

First of all mobile phones. Analogue mobile phones have a greater range than digital phones.

I did see where one guy repeated the experiment with various phones(analogue and digital) and found that above 5000 ft the digital wouldn't work at all and the analogue worked 1 out of 5 times but kept dropping the signal. If I can find the link I'll post it.

They are satellite phones. The antenna is on the aircraft hull.

Correctamundo

Also a passenger aircraft can be manoeuvred like any other jet. It just wouldnt be very comfortable, nor good for it.

Well, I wouldn't say that. Considering the wingloading and capabilites of any even vaguely high G manoeuvres, a modern airliner would be very unwieldy indeed. That's like comparing the capabilities of a lancaster bomber and a spitfire. Apples and oranges tbh. The last airliner that could even do a simple full roll was the 707. The loads on the engine mounts alone would preclude anything beyond very light(by comparison) acrobatics.

It takes extremely basic training to manoeuvre an aircraft in flight.

Partially true, but to fly an unfamiliar aircraft, under extreme stress, the distance the Pentagon one did through cloud cover for a lot of the way and with no assistance from ground control, takes some navigation skills. Add to that, the high alert of the authorities at the time, the fact that the airliner was flying towards and into some if the most protected airspace in the world. To then make a hard 270 degree low altitude turn, then to fly at a very very low altitude precisely into the side of said building, in an airliner, takes way more than basic training. The ground effect buffetting at that speed would alone make the aircraft buck all over the place. For a start, why make that 270 degree turn at all? He was lined up on the target. Why not dive from altitude straight into the center of the building? Much easier option. All this is even more impressive, given the very people who trained this pilot, reckoned he was a danger to shipping.

The fuel created the fire, and the heat caused the collapse. Read it.

I have read it and while it lays out a somewhat plausible explanation, some questions remain. 1. most of the fuel was burnt off at the initial impact. 2. If the heat was strong enough to melt or weaken steel, why is unburnt paper falling from the hole and can people be seen waving from the actual impact site(the subsequent discovery of a fragile paper passport belonging to one of the "hijackers" beggars belief). 3. Why is the smoke black, a sign that the fire is starved of oxygen? 4. How have other skyscrapers burned in high temperature glowing red hot fires for days and not even partially collapsed, certainly not total failure in a matter of hours. 5. Firemen on the spot reckoned that they could get it under control and even today raise doubts and questions as to why the collapse happened. 6. Why the total collapse(again within hours) of the third buliding at the site. A building that wasn't hit by an aircraft, had little evidence of fire and was of a design completely different to the twin towers?

Its a Turbofan engine.

True, but the small quantity of engine parts that can be seen at the site are of the wrong type and size for the engines on a 757. Plus there's only one.

As for the landing gear. I dont think the spoke pattern of a wheel is evidence of anything.

Agreed again, but again the size is the problem.

The WTC and Pentagon aircraft smashed into populated buildings at over 350 knots.

There is a difference, but if you read the NTSB reports on aircraft that have ploughed into the ground at high speed fro high altitude, you still find more wreckage than appears in the pentagon site (or the pennsylvania site for that matter). The engines nearly always remain in large obvious lumps. Likewise flight data recorders are nearly always found and yield vital information. Where are either in that crash?

Look at interviews with witnesses.

Well witness reports are sometimes dodgy, but I remember the pentagon one very clearly on the day and at first everyone was saying it was a truck bomb and I distinctly heard one police bloke say it was a missile. The aircraft idea only started to fire up half an hour later. The fact that no footage of the planes approach exists in the most protected airspace in the world, in an area with more security cameras in the world, is unusual to say the least. While I won't be wearing my tinfoil hat anytime soon, there is enough weirdness afoot in some aspects of this whole thing to keep me a bit interested.

pat kenny · 16-02-2006 11:47AM

You guys should be more concerned that ceiling cat is watching you masturbate. That fact worried me the most.

Archeron · 16-02-2006 11:50AM

pat kenny wrote:

You guys should be more concerned that ceiling cat is watching you masturbate. That fact worried me the most.

Really? That fact made me masturbate more. I have a thing for cats that hide in ceiling panels.

civdef · 16-02-2006 12:08PM

Fire engineers, architects and structural engineers all agree that something very very strange happened that day.

I'm a fire engineer, this is news to me...

civdef · 16-02-2006 12:17PM

Let me try some of the gimmes:

If the heat was strong enough to melt or weaken steel, why is unburnt paper falling from the hole and can people be seen waving from the actual impact site

Very hot fires produce huge amounts of very hot buoyant air - this carries stuff up with it. Next time you see a bonfire observe this amazing phenomenon.

Why is the smoke black, a sign that the fire is starved of oxygen?
How have other skyscrapers burned in high temperature glowing red hot fires for days and not even partially collapsed, certainly not total failure in a matter of hours.

Black smoke is not necessarily a sign of an air-starved fire.Anyway, a fully involved fire in a building is usually ventilation limited - nothing strange there. I'm not aware of a multi-floor fully involved skyscraper fire using similar construction methods to the WTC - are you?

Firemen on the spot reckoned that they could get it under control and even today raise doubts and questions as to why the collapse happened.

Which firemen? It's been known for decades that a fully involved multi-floor fire on the upper levels of a skyscraper is an unwinnable situation.

Why the total collapse(again within hours) of the third buliding at the site. A building that wasn't hit by an aircraft, had little evidence of fire and was of a design completely different to the twin towers?

The weight of debis that landed on it played a part..

daveirl · 16-02-2006 12:23PM

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs · 16-02-2006 03:22PM

civdef wrote:

Very hot fires produce huge amounts of very hot buoyant air - this carries stuff up with it. Next time you see a bonfire observe this amazing phenomenon.

I'm aware of the fundementals of thermodynamics, ta very much. Still doesn't explain the people standing yards away from a very hot fire that was apparently capable of causing catastrophic failure in steel and reinforced concrete in less than two hours. It doesn't explain the intact hijackers passport. It doesn't explain the scenario whereby there was extensive damage to the gound floor and basement that apparently was a result of the impact, yet the same impact didn't blow out all or any windows outside of the entry impact itself.

Black smoke is not necessarily a sign of an air-starved fire.Anyway, a fully involved fire in a building is usually ventilation limited - nothing strange there.

Exactly, ventilation limited. That would suggest lack of oxygen. The south tower impact resulted in a huge fireball which consumed more fuel that the north tower. In this case you would expect the south tower would fall last. It didn't, it fell first. Also, neither towers were raging infernos. The amount of visible fire was much much less than on other skyscraper fires and for a far shorter time.

I'm not aware of a multi-floor fully involved skyscraper fire using similar construction methods to the WTC - are you?

http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm
18 hour multi floor fire

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
This one burnt for 17 hours over 26 floors and still stood standing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
This building in Madrid burnt solidly for two days, engulfed the entire steel structure in flames, a few floors collapsed and yet it stood standing.

Regardless of consturction methods if a fire is capable of immediate catastrophic failure in one building in under an hour, how can another building survive two days at far higher temps for far longer and yet remain upright?

Which firemen? It's been known for decades that a fully involved multi-floor fire on the upper levels of a skyscraper is an unwinnable situation.

See above. There have been quite a few multi floor fires that were ultimately contained and none of the buildings collapsed.

The weight of debis that landed on it played a part..

Played a part in a a total vertical collapse many hours later? Hardly.

civdef · 16-02-2006 03:30PM

Don't even bother, just like people won't listen to the Civil Engineers RE: The Port Tunnel, they ain't going to listen to you on your area of expertise.

You have a very good point there.

Wibbs - go ahead, believe whatever you like

InFront · 16-02-2006 03:41PM

You have to be very critical of what you read or see on the internet, if all of the physics and engineering that video quotes is true, why have academics not spoken out on the collapse? Apart from the University of Sheffield of course :rolleyes:

Bush didnt bomb the wto, it was a tragedy involving hijackers in large aeroplanes

Sam Vimes · 16-02-2006 03:49PM

Spacedog wrote:

Is it true that Bin Laidens family were flown out of the states during the blanket grounding of flights after 9-11?

they were picked up and brought together while all flights were grunded. they were flown out of the US after domestic flights were allowed but before international flights

maybe everything in the documentary wasn't accurate but there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions about it. you have to wonder why the government tried to hinder the investigation. the most dodgy things to me are:

building 7 had to be "pulled". this means that in the course of 7 hours engineers did three weeks worth of calculations, brought in explosives and had untrained firefighters plant them in a bulding that was still on fire. and they did it even though there are buildings still standing today that were much closer to the main two. also, i've never seen firefighters make the decision that a building was in such a bad state that it had to be immediately demolished.

most importantly: "no steel building has ever been destroyed by fire". it just doesn't get hot enough. fact. it took two hours to do what hadn't been managed previously in 96 hours, or in human history for that matter. as i watched it happen years ago i wondered why smoke seemed to be propelled very fast from just below the point that was falling. explosives? and it fell so fast and so straight. things only fall that fast with no resistance, whereas the twin towers apparently had to break through 110 floors of steel. also, buildings only fall in on themselves after weeks of careful calculations of where to put explosives.

this is an example of what can happen even with explosives:
http://www.guzer.com/videos/building_does_not_fall.php

something not mentioned in that video that was mentioned in one i saw before was that apparently a few weeks before the attacks, just after the new guy bought it, took out a 7 billion dollar insurance policy and replaced the head of secuirty, the whole building was cleared out, all security was turned off and "engineers" were brought in. after that regular sniffer dog inspections were stopped

Binomate · 16-02-2006 03:57PM

civdef wrote:

You have a very good point there.

Wibbs - go ahead, believe whatever you like

Why don't you answer to his observations instead of ignoring them?

civdef · 16-02-2006 04:02PM

The same reason I don't stick a scissors in my eye - I know the outcome in advance.

Binomate · 16-02-2006 04:08PM

Fact is only an acceptable explanation untill it can be proven other wise. Don't be so sure of yourself. Remember the world was considered flat at one stage in history. Question everything.

ArphaRima · 16-02-2006 04:33PM

>>I'm a fire engineer, this is news to me...

Well they didnt listen to an airline pilot either. I tried.

Ill give a better answer later. Right now Im off to drink. (Its 2230 where I am)

Manic Moran · 16-02-2006 05:25PM

The last airliner that could even do a simple full roll was the 707.

I believe that any aircraft is capable of performing an aerleron roll. However, no airliner pilot, to my knowledge, has done one since the 707 test pilot, who got reamed for it afterwards. The bit about the engine mounts not taking it doesn't wash for me, considering the stresses that they have to take in buffeting. A roll doesn't add that many Gs to an aircraft.

NTM

Wibbs · 16-02-2006 06:14PM

civdef wrote:

The same reason I don't stick a scissors in my eye - I know the outcome in advance.

Psychic now. Anyway, I didn't at any time suggest that Bush ordered or was anything to do with the attacks. Tinfoil hats do not a good look make

. I merely asked some questions and replied to some of your answers. Nothing more, nothing less. Simply telling anyone to merely "believe whatever you like" does not a cogent argument make. many points do bear further examination. While I don't think there's a huge conspiracy going on, I do think that the whole story hasn't been told. The destruction in the lobby and the twisted steel found by firefighters in the basement, before the collapse is another. The third building collapse is very unusual to say the least. As others have pointed out, closer buildings were affected and it didn't have the same construction as the twin towers, wasn't affected by fire or an aircraft hitting it. How did it collapse?

fluffer wrote:

Well they didnt listen to an airline pilot either. I tried.

Don't get me wrong, I agreed with many of your points. I'm just impressed with any "amateur" pilot that with a few hours under his belt could fly an aircraft of that size at 400 knots 20 odd foot off the ground at the edge of ground effect, when the largest plane he flew before was a light aircraft, where the pilot is far closer to the ground and can judge heights a lot better. Experienced pilots when learning to fly C130s for example often make very hard landings initially, due to the extra height from the ground and difficulties in judging same. This guy makes a perfect approach in difficult circumstances and doesn't even hit the grass outside the building. Add to the fact that he made a very hard turn at low altitude, when he was already lined up on the building and then attempted a far riskier approach, from the point of view of success, on the other side. PS I also second your motion drinkwise, though as it's early here, I've some time to go yet...

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe that any aircraft is capable of performing an aerleron roll. However, no airliner pilot, to my knowledge, has done one since the 707 test pilot, who got reamed for it afterwards. The bit about the engine mounts not taking it doesn't wash for me, considering the stresses that they have to take in buffeting. A roll doesn't add that many Gs to an aircraft.

No I agree with you. It's probable that a modern airliner could make a slow roll(though as the airframe is not expressly designed for inverted flight, issues might arise). I was just responding to fluffer's oversimplification that a "passenger aircraft can be manoeuvred like any other jet. It just wouldnt be very comfortable, nor good for it." While it can perform similar manoeuvers, the envelope is far more constrained. BTW Have you ever seen the video of that 707 roll? Very impressive.

Manic Moran · 16-02-2006 06:19PM

I did indeed. Nice, slow, graceful roll... I wonder if the fuel pumps are designed to work upside down? Otherwise, he'd have to do a barrel in order to maintain some 'G' to keep the fuel flowing.

Doesn't riding the ground effect actually make it easier to fly low? There have been several WIG aircraft which use it to provide lift, and it was a technique used by bomber pilots in WWII who needed to stay aloft a little longer.

Personally, I think the Pentagon pilot just got lucky. For all we know, he discovered he had aimed his dive short, pulled up at the last second, and barely bottomed out in time, resulting in an accidental low-level approach.

NTM

Cianos · 16-02-2006 07:39PM

The way in which the buildings collapsed looked way too suspicious in my opinion.

True, the failing structures of the upper floors could with the force of the fall make the middle floors give way. But remember, the middle floors had been supporting the upper floors intact for years...ie, they were very very strong in order to support all the weight above them.

If the support structures gave way on the upper floors, then the floors below it would not give way as if it were made of paper. There would be at least some resistance from the hundreds of tons of steel. The buildings support structures should not have failed at the speed of gravity. There would be some kind of delay as the lower floors absorbed the force before giving way. Again remember, the upper middle floors had been supporting the same weight for decades. Just because it is falling doesnt mean any floor below it would instantly crumble as if it were made of paper maché.

Also, the buildings support structures would be symmetrical in design..ie, equal amount of strength throughout the cirumference. Suggesting that if there is a weakening at one side (where the plane struck), it should only effect it from that side.

Thus, the building should give way on one side first like the way a tree is felled, rather than a full-floor collapse at almost the exact same time.

Manic Moran · 16-02-2006 07:52PM

Cianos wrote:

True, the failing structures of the upper floors could with the force of the fall make the middle floors give way. But remember, the middle floors had been supporting the upper floors intact for years...ie, they were very very strong in order to support all the weight above them.

You're ignoring the effect of inertia. A similar argument came up on a naval forum I frequent, which basically pointed out that the hull of a submarine was strong enough to hold the weight of a battleship if it were resting balanced on top. Lift the battleship a half inch, and let it drop onto the hull of the sub, and the sub would be crushed like a can.

More scientifically, the second-from-top floor is designed to hold the weight of the top floor when it's static: i.e. to withstand a force of the mass of that floor (let's say 100 tonnes) by 9.8m/s2. (About 9.6million Newtons in this example.)

If the top floor drops one storey, say, 3 meters, you now have to add the force of that inertia to the equation. In 3m the floor is dropping at 7.6m/s, which, at 100 tonnes, gives us an inertia of 760kN. As a result, the second from top floor will suddenly be assaulted with about 10.3mN hitting it. This may not seem so bad, only an 8% increase, but if you figure what happens when you suddenly have the top, what, 30 floors coming down on the 31st-from-top floor, you're suddenly talking about some serious inertia

Also, the buildings support structures would be symmetrical in design..ie, equal amount of strength throughout the cirumference. Suggesting that if there is a weakening at one side (where the plane struck), it should only effect it from that side.

The main loadbearing structure of the WTC was a central core. When that one central core went, that was that.

NTM

Wibbs · 16-02-2006 08:08PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Doesn't riding the ground effect actually make it easier to fly low? There have been several WIG aircraft which use it to provide lift, and it was a technique used by bomber pilots in WWII who needed to stay aloft a little longer.

In ground effect there's a lot of buffeting and the wings and fuselage have to be specially designed for same. Also it only has a hope of success over a smooth surface like water. I never heard of the bomber pilots using it. They would want to be flying damn low to get away with it. Cool of they did though

Personally, I think the Pentagon pilot just got lucky. For all we know, he discovered he had aimed his dive short, pulled up at the last second, and barely bottomed out in time, resulting in an accidental low-level approach.

Very possible. His navigation skills were pretty good too though.

NTM

Manic Moran · 16-02-2006 08:17PM

Wibbs wrote:

I never heard of the bomber pilots using it. They would want to be flying damn low to get away with it. Cool of they did though

Apparently a common practise amongst multi-engined aircraft such as bombers which had an engine or two shot out.

NTM

So Glad · 16-02-2006 08:42PM

The Twin Towers cores are made to distribute stress and I believe every few floors the cores change around. I cannot find a picture of the core plans. Maybe I am talking about shafts but it has it on the videos. The buildings were designed to withstand winds in excess of gale force (which are stronger that the plane collisions) with which the towers have experienced before.

It was proven the Twin Towers were stable after the collision and most fuel was evidently burn on impact (as is usual). I think the most prevellant fact is that fuel fire does not burn over 1500 or 2000 degrees (and that is in controlled conditions) and it takes 3000+ to melt steel. It is also proven that even if the steel had melted it would have only been a small portion and would not have caused major damage. It did after all have dozens of cores and each one would have to be melted to a point of severe melting not to mention every bit of thier fire protection be destroyed.

The towers were not just held up by many think cores in the center but they had outer steel frames to. Even if the inner cores melted the outer frames would still give considerable hold. Consider this. The planes hit one side yet the building falls DIRECTLY virtical. Every single beam would have to be melted or broken at the very same time for it not to fall to the side (as the previous video shows). Also, the north tower was hit first and burned maybe an hour before the south tower was hit, yet the south tower falls first. More fuel was burned outside the building of the south tower on impact too. Not only is this the first steel framed buildings EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MAN to have collapsed from fire, it is also in record time. Other less carefully constructed buildings have burned for hours, some days, without falling. Some burning to thier frame work and still standing!

Videos of the plane hitting the south have revealed a black package on the under belly of the craft (there is only 1 video of the north tower crash so it cannot be made out). Also, just before the craft hits the building a flash can be seen. A possible explosion? Maybe to weaken the walls? Or to increase the size of the impact. Either way this flash was detected on BOTH videos so it cannot be a anomoly. It cannot be a glare because a glare can only be recieved in one place (thier are 5 videos, all at different angles).

I would very much like to see more therories on why the towers collapsed and where the planes in Pittbourgh and the Pentagon are. Because thier are none.

So Glad · 16-02-2006 08:50PM

Proof the plane explosion could not have travel down the collosal distance it was said to and wrecked the ground floor and basement foundations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation2.html

There is not a shaft that travels all the way to the bottom.

The towers had 47 (!) steel cores. All of them melted and gave way evenly?

About the cores.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

47 of them melted evenly? Look at the size of them!

Manic Moran · 16-02-2006 08:58PM

Take another look at the footage of the towers going down.

http://deoxy.org/w3t/uploads/9-592-WTC.JPG

You can plainly see that the tower did collapse a little bit off-kilter.

NTM

So Glad · 16-02-2006 09:00PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Take another look at the footage of the towers going down.

http://deoxy.org/w3t/uploads/9-592-WTC.JPG

You can plainly see that the tower did collapse a little bit off-kilter.

NTM

True, true. But why left of the fire?

Cianos · 16-02-2006 09:01PM

Manic Moran wrote:

You're ignoring the effect of inertia. A similar argument came up on a naval forum I frequent, which basically pointed out that the hull of a submarine was strong enough to hold the weight of a battleship if it were resting balanced on top. Lift the battleship a half inch, and let it drop onto the hull of the sub, and the sub would be crushed like a can.

More scientifically, the second-from-top floor is designed to hold the weight of the top floor when it's static: i.e. to withstand a force of the mass of that floor (let's say 100 tonnes) by 9.8m/s2. (About 9.6million Newtons in this example.)

If the top floor drops one storey, say, 3 meters, you now have to add the force of that inertia to the equation. In 3m the floor is dropping at 7.6m/s, which, at 100 tonnes, gives us an inertia of 760kN. As a result, the second from top floor will suddenly be assaulted with about 10.3mN hitting it. This may not seem so bad, only an 8% increase, but if you figure what happens when you suddenly have the top, what, 30 floors coming down on the 31st-from-top floor, you're suddenly talking about some serious inertia

The main loadbearing structure of the WTC was a central core. When that one central core went, that was that.

NTM

Interesting post. But I still seriously doubt the support would give way that easily. Remember, the structure went from intact, to apparently non-existent almost instantly. Even if inertia was a factor, it is not like the upper floors suddenly became a free-falling mass. The upper floors had to barge through a support structure that had been supporting it for years. The speed of descent should not be comparable to the speed of gravity as nothing was travelling at that speed to begin with.

Interesting September 11 video

Comments