[Closed] 9/11 documentary

Ned - two identical buildings fell in the same manner. Their design trumped any other concept. They fell that way because of how they were designed and built, and their size. I am not sure anyone was ever tasked to predict how they would fill, and before this, if asked, they may not have been able to predict this method of collapse. Hindisght is wonderful.

Anyway to replicate the towers being hit by planes and not disturb the occupants much whilst setting it up has gotta be difficult.
They would need to set charges to cot a number of beams and break some concrete.
It will take a long time to set up and be hard to predict.

And WTC 7 housed offices for the CIA and the US Secret Service, think it was the only WTC with them in.

And the SEC, to cover up the records of any insider dealing they might have found that might be connected to the event...

Let's go back to this for a moment...

Frankly, it seems utterly ridiculous~ 'A 30 year conspiracy'

But suspending disbelief for a moment, lets scale it down a bit... rather than 30 years, let's try and work out how long it would take to rig the building by covert means...

Say rather than overt demolition experts, you had covert operatives like removals firms (an orange 5 packed with materials wouldn't hold much... a filing cabinet however), or residential art students, who were in the towers overnight.

Of course, this is conjecture, but for the tower to fall into it's own envelope, when tilting like this is hard to explain

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Out of interest, what would have been an acceptable way for the building to collapse that would signify aircraft impact and out of control fuel enhanced fire?

should it have toppled over like a tree? if so, why?

but for the tower to fall into it's own envelope

when tilting like this is hard to explain

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

And the SEC, to cover up the records of any insider dealing they might have found that might be connected to the event...

Why would they have been so sloppy as to house records there that presumably could have been exposed at any time prior to the event anyway, doubly stupid to just not put the records there if you knew what was going to happen in advance...

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

What exactly do you think the path of least resistance should have been?

massive mass + gravity = downwards

You'd need a stupendously massive force in another direction to deviate that massive mass from anythign other than 'downwards'

500,000,000 kgs is being pulled by the acceleration due to gravity. It would take something equal to the attraction of gravity to make it go sideways.
It tipped because one side failed first, thats where the damage was, the tipping made the other side fail and then gravity took over.

Have you ever played jenga?

jivehoneyjive - Member

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

Ley lines & magnets. Obvz.....

Some people say WTC 7 was 'pulled' but the fire department don't do that :

chamley - Member

I'm not convinced many people have seen a tower block collapse without it being a controlled demolition. You'd be showing them a video of a building falling down. "yes, that looks just like a building falling down"

I think you've cracked it.
It's a fundamental lack of imagination that "these people" share. Flat Earthers can't see the Earth is round so don't believe it.

jivehoneyjive - Member
So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

keep WT7 in mind.

The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from [b]minor damage and office fires[/b].

Keep in mind yourself that WTC7 had 91,000 litres of diesel in the basement. [b]91,000 litres of diesel.[/b] Probably good stuff for creating more than an office fire. In addition to the diesel tanks in the basement it had pumps and fuel lines throughout the first nine floors.

Under normal circumstances you'd imagine fire fighters might have been able to do something to prevent the building burning for five or six hours but maybe, just maybe they were busy on September 11th.

[img] [/img]

[img] https://media.tenor.co/images/719a7b6d54fe98b9933e4f4ab441c412/raw [/img]

In your first shot the CofG of the upper section is obviously still well within the tower's footprint. Because of the angle of the shot I can't tell from the second shot where the CofG would be.

Looking at video of the south tower falling the upper section does lean and increases to lean as the tower collapses. In the later stages of the collapse it's hard to discern what's happening to the upper section but it looks as if with about 30 floors left to drop it finally falls outside the footprint of the tower.

jhj, substitute the jenga for blocks made of the thinnest glass you can imagine.

Have you ever played jenga?

(Rhetorical question, of course you don't)

Have you ever played jenga?

that's your science? entirely solid bits of wood. how do the people walk about inside your crazy jenga building?

What's a Jenga tower got to do with the WTC towers? Entirely different construction techniques as has been pointed out many times.

[img] [/img]

just to show how the towers did [u]not[/u] collapse neatly within their own footprint.

If you'd showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.

In which case why did the demolition guys rig it to collapse in a way that is obviously demolition? Wouldn't they have rigged it to collapse in a way that is not obviously demolition? (Which I'm assuming you consider to be half a million tons of tower falling sideways like a tree?)

there is also the scaling fallacy.
Look at how mass varies with volume. Its cubed..
That's why trees only get to a certain height, humans can only get so big before our bones can't take our own weight, and 110 story buildings are very hard to build.

Well, being as jenga (and the dominoes used earlier) aren't the most stable of structures, there's probably minimal comparison given the twin towers were designed to withstand aircraft impacts exceeding the forces encountered

Oh well since you provide that evidence jamba you must be right. After all it WTC was built exactly like jenga wasn't it?

I wonder whether Jivehoneyjive believes the earth is round or flat... ❓

I'd hope it had far more structural integrity than a jenga tower...

Earth is round, flat earthers are nucking futz

Have you ever played jenga?

yes, and its entirely nothing like a actual tower block 🙄

Are you suggesting that you think the building should have 'toppled' over?

The only force acting on the building is gravity, so the only direction is down. Toppling is still falling 'down' but with a constrained point of rotation, of which there was none and could not be one in those towers. Any such point would have to have resisted the horizontal component of the reaction force about the pivot, this wouldn't have been possible. And all of that relies on the upper half being a solid coherent/rigid object, which it wasn't.

That building was only ever goign to collapse downwards, tehre was no external force in any other direction to influence it's path, and insufficient lateral strength to have anything but an inconsequential level of resistance.

Toppling could only happen if there were a constrained pivot about which the rigid structure could rotate, There wasn't so it didn't.

That's a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

this just appeared on my feed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

Under normal circumstances you'd imagine fire fighters might have been able to do something to prevent the building burning for five or six hours but maybe, just maybe they were busy on September 11th.

Yet they had enough time to evaluate the structure, to foretell of its collapse.... there is plenty of video prior to collapse of people walking around in there,....this building was not seriously on fire...

curiously a CIA guy was walking around in there, just making sure no one was in there, just before they blew it up.

757 mtow 200,000kg
wtc 450,000,000kg
450,000,000/200,000 = 2250. So one plane is a 2250th of the mass of the towers.

Mans fist 1kg. Them big jenga blocks, maybe 10kg? Totally comparable.

Equivalent is 10/2250 = 4 grams. flick a sugar cube at your big jenga and see what happens.

That's a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

It did, that has been explained many times.

here's another explanation.

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

homework question: which bits do you disagree with and why? show reasoning

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

+1 Jonnyboi

That's a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

They do explain it, but for you, in fewer words 'It did', because the path it followed was in the direction of the force acting on it and there were no forces significant enough to deviate it.

What path exactly do you think it should have taken?

Why don't you tell us what you think should have happened and we'll discuss it, instead of you just saying "yeah, but" to everything.

yeah plus 500,000,000 jonnyboi, super succinct

Why should it?

That's how stuff works...

Explain? How do things follow the path of least resistance? What path were you expecting?

If I fire a bullet at a melon, do you agree that the air around the melon and past it has a lower resistance to objects passing through it than the melon?
Will the bullet arrive at the melon and get its calculator out and decide that conspiracy fysics says I should follow the path of least resistance, I am going to go around the melon.
No the vector is into the melon, and in I shall go.
The bullet has such energy that the melon just gets destroyed.

Why should it?

That's how stuff works...

answer the points that have been put to you

waits for -

I’m busy, I’ve a load of work to do and, to be honest, considering pointless examples of incomplete equations is pretty much bottom of my list of priorities.

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

Why should it?

That's how stuff works...

No it isn't, this is literally what Newtons Laws are all about.

If I fire a bullet at a melon, do you agree that the air around the melon and past it has a lower resistance to objects passing through it than the melon?
Will the bullet arrive at the melon and get its calculator out and decide that conspiracy fysics says I should follow the path of least resistance, I am going to go around the melon.
No the vector is into the melon, and in I shall go.
The bullet has such energy that the melon just gets destroyed.

That's reasonable...

And this whilst reasonable:

It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5).

Is still conjecture

Yeah. I have looked at your account. You are are trolling fruitoop, I'm done responding to you. Threefish at least seemed like he was interested in a discussion for a while.

Go to the section headed "[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Fires ]Mechanism of Twin Towers' Collapse[/url]" then please explain what you think is incorrect about it along with the engineering and physics to back up your assertions.

just making sure no one was in there, just before they blew it u

…with magic explosives that don’t make any sound. Aye. Right.

Conjecture

Meaning based on incomplete data/evidence, which is true, nobody has 'complete' data. But they're filling in the blanks based on knowledge of the building construction and an understanding of the engineering/physics/mechanics involved.

Other theories [i]reject[/i] that knowledge and understanding and put forward alternative ideas based on "It looks funny", not so much incomplete as wilfully ignorant. It's still based on incomplete information but the bits they're missing are an understanding of the situation.

They may both be conjecture, but they do not carry equal weight.

"Ghosts did it" is also conjecture, but I do not expect that theory to stand up to any scrutiny.

Keep in mind yourself that WTC7 had 91,000 litres of diesel in the basement. 91,000 litres of diesel. Probably good stuff for creating more than an office fire. In addition to the diesel tanks in the basement it had pumps and fuel lines throughout the first nine floors.

It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5).

Is still conjecture

you mean the opinion of qualified experts?

again, explain why you disagree with this qualified opinion and the other logical points put to you. show your reasoning

Yeah it was ghosts, you want proof? That's how stuff works. Or maybe it was the flat earthers, from so high up you could see the curvature of the earth so they wanted it gone. It would be funny if people didn't genuinely believe some of this nonsense.

Yeah it was ghosts

I knew it! thank you for confirming this for me, can I now quote you as additional 'evidence' in future discussions?

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials...

That's long before you look into the bigger picture of events on the day and the people involved.

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials...

That's long before you look into the bigger picture of events on the day and the people involved.

Again, these have all been answered with detailed and logical responses. You've failed to give any reasoning why you disagree with these explanations or highlighted factual errors in the rebuttals. You just make the same unsupported assertions. why is this?

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials...

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire

Again, these have all been answered with detailed and logical responses. You've failed to give any reasoning why you disagree with these explanations or highlighted factual errors in the rebuttals. You just make the same unsupported assertions. why is this?

That's nonsense... everyone is focusing on the collapse of the towers (with conjecture, admittedly from both camps), as if it's the be all and end all of the situation, without taking into account any of the additional factors.

It's hard, nobody has said otherwise. The fact that the Towers collapsed in the way they did doesn't mean it would be easy to replicate, and it certainly wasn't 'controlled' in terms of outcome compared to an actual controlled demolition.

So, in trying to understand this... The collapse would not be easy to replicate, so the towers in fact collapsed in quite an unpredictable way?

what were the chances of them collapsing like that? This is not rhetorical, can you make an estimate of the likelihood?

Not that i'm suggesting that because they collapsed in an unpredictable way it means that there was a controlled explosion.

But it would help with constructing the Bayesian equations

[quote="jivehoneyjive"]account any of the additional factors.You're a troll?
You don't understand physics?

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

What do you actually mean by this 'designed for' and 'forces exceeding'? Do you mean they were designed not to collapse from the force of a plane hitting them, cos they didn't do that...

They collapsed not from the force of impact, but due to structural failure from the fire [i]and [/i]contributory cumulative damage.

Plane hits != collapse
Fire != collapse

Plane hits + fire + cumulative damage = collapse.

Also 'designed for' is all well and good, but it wasn't exactly possible to test it was it? Even when people do their best to 'design for things' it doesn't mean they get it right, or that something unexpected didn't happen, or a factor that wasn't anticipated or thought of.

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials...

Hasn't this been debunked already numerous times over?

That's nonsense... everyone is focusing on the collapse of the towers (with conjecture, admittedly from both camps), as if it's the be all and end all of the situation, without taking into account any of the additional factors.

there are no additional factors that are supported by a single shred of hard evidence. It makes our 'conjecture' seem like certain fact in comparison.

You're just ignoring factual evidence that has been put before you, without any form of logical rebuttal, again, why?

Okaaaaaay...

So, remember this guy?

amedias - Member

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

What do you actually mean by this 'designed for' and 'forces exceeding'? Do you mean they were designed not to collapse from the force of a plane hitting them, cos they didn't do that...

They collapsed not from the force of impact, but due to structural failure from the fire and contributory cumulative damage.

Plane hits != collapse
Fire != collapse

Plane hits + fire + cumulative damage = collapse.

Also 'designed for' is all well and good, but it wasn't exactly possible to test it was it? Even when people do their best to 'design for things' it doesn't mean they get it right, or that something unexpected didn't happen, or a factor that wasn't anticipated or thought of.

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials...

Hasn't this been debunked already numerous times over?

indeed, no one is suggesting the plan impact alone caused the collapse.

The building was designed to structurally survive for 3hr in the event of sprinkler failure. It survived for around half that with a fire that was fueled by 90,000 litres of jet fuel spread over a wide area in one impact.

Apparently the buildings were designed to collapse in exactly the way they did in such an event. This was explained to a guy who was in a meeting in one of the buildings the day before the attack. Makes sense that they would be designed in this way to avoid taking out all the surrounding buildings, no?

Okaaaaaay...

So, remember this guy?

nope, I'm not clicking on crazy you tube links.

Write your own replies supported by evidence

I've read somewhere that the worst case scenario was for a misty day and for a Boeing 707 coming in to land at JFK striking the building. But this was coming in to land with a low fuel load not having taken off fully laden which is why the hijackers chose to use planes leaving New York on long distance flights.

The original 707 had a maximum take-off weight of 117t and a fuel capacity of 65,000 litres, the 767-200er has a MTOW of 179t and a fuel capacity of 91,000 litres.

homework question: which bits do you disagree with and why? show reasoning

As far as “things that will never happen” go, I’m really looking forward to Jivebunny’s homework question answer.

I can't believe I fell for JHJ. I can normally spot a troll a mile off.
People there are many good reasons to just ignore him/her. DISENGAGE.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll
http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657
[img] [/img]

I have one question that I would love to be answered by the conspiracy theorists.

If this was a controlled explosion, or anything else, other than a bunch of maniacs crashing planes into a building, then why bother with the planes?

Surely if you were going to use a bomb to down buildings, then a terrorist with a bomb is more plausable?

My homework question is why he edited the post, adding that bit afterward... Not that I can be bothered to reply if he won't watch valid youtube links.

[url= http://www.mintpressnews.com/saudi-deep-state-prince-bandar-among-arrested-purge-report/234364/ ]Expanding a little further[/url] from earlier this week:

According to a new report by [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-senior-figures-tortured-and-beaten-saudi-purge-1489501498 ]Middle East Eye[/url], Prince Bandar bin Sultan – Saudi Arabia’s most famous arms dealer, longtime former ambassador to the US, and recent head of Saudi intelligence – was among those detained as part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) so-called “corruption purge” that started with the initial arrests of up to a dozen princes and other top officials last weekend.

If confirmed, the arrest and detention of Bandar would constitute the most significant and high profile figure caught up in the purge – even above that of high profile billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal – given Bandar’s closeness to multiple US administrations and involvement in events ranging from Reagan’s Nicaraguan Contra program (including direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal), to making the case for the Iraq War as a trusted friend of Bush and Cheney, to directing US-Saudi covert operations overseeing the arming of jihadists in Syria.

So, in trying to understand this... The collapse would not be easy to replicate, so the towers in fact collapsed in quite an unpredictable way?

Not saying that all. It would be hard to replicate, because you'd need to do an awful lot of work to make it happen, this isn't the same as meaning that the way it collapsed was unpredictable.

I'm saying, as others are, that after investigation the mechanisms and reasons for collapse are broadly speaking, now known. But the direction and nature of collapse (ie: downwards pretty much into a defined area) was a certainty given the situation. I'm not saying collapse was certain, but that the manner of collapse was...ie: it was never going to topple over, which means the fact that it didn't doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition.

what were the chances of them collapsing like that? This is not rhetorical, can you make an estimate of the likelihood?

No I can't as I'm not a structural engineer, I don't have a complete enough understanding to throw figures/probabilities around and I doubt anyone could prior to the event due to not being able to test the very specific nature of the event.

All we can say with any degree of certainty is that they did collapse in such a manner, and it was always going to be 'downwards'.

If this was a controlled explosion, or anything else, other than a bunch of maniacs crashing planes into a building, then why bother with the planes?

...and given that you'd rigged three WTC buildings for demolition, wouldn't you make sure you had arranged a plane for each building, since that's your cover story? Seems a bit of a half hearted to organize planes for two buildings and then blow up WTC7 without bothering to fly a plane into it.

Not that I can be bothered to reply......

Well. What a complete shock.

Honestly, I just can’t believe you’ve come up with a shite reason not to answer a really straightforward question.

It’s so out of character and unlike you, To ignore simple questions and rush of on another tangent to avoid getting pinned down talking bollocks.

Are you feeling ok ?

All we can say with any degree of certainty is that they did collapse in such a manner, and it was always going to be 'downwards'.

I think we can all agree that downward is the direction of gravity and that we are all amused at how often this is repeated. The issue is that there appeared to be minimal lateral forces.

I can't believe I fell for JHJ. I can normally spot a troll a mile off.
People there are many good reasons to just ignore him/her. DISENGAGE.

He’s not a troll he seriously believes it.

I'd hope it had far more structural integrity than a jenga tower...

valid youtube links

What does the link have to do with the collapse of the towers?
Prince Bandar some sort of structural engineering expert? 😆

You've been called out on your tosh so are switching to some different sloblocks.

Not saying that all. It would be hard to replicate, because you'd need to do an awful lot of work to make it happen, this isn't the same as meaning that the way it collapsed was unpredictable.

So... it was predictable? One would expect that given all possible collapse scenarios, the one that occurred was quite likely?

I think we can all agree that downward is the direction of gravity and that we are all amused at how often this is repeate

What amusing is that some people still seem not to be able to grasp this fact.

The issue is that there appeared to be minimal lateral forces.

That's not an 'issue' at all, the reason there appeared to be minimal lateral forces is that there [i]were minimal lateral forces[/i].

Unless you're aware of some significant lateraa force that we've all missed?

Unless you're aware of some significant lateraa force that we've all missed?

Ghosts.

And unicorns.

CharlieMungus - Member

The issue is that there appeared to be minimal lateral forces.

There were huge lateral forces when the plane hit the building; shook the whole tower. Took the resultant fire to take it down though.