Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5418 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 1 of 151 (416949)
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


There seemed to be a few questions concerning the 911 commission report. Evidence pointing toward the twin towers and wtc 7 being a controlled demolition:
The time it took for the buildings to collapse. The time was near free fall speed, which means there was little to no resistance in the building. The theory in the 911 commission report said that the pancake effect caused each floor to collapse on the next floors, which created a domino effect. However i find this very hard to believe since the buildings did collapse at near free fall speed.
The large dust clouds of concrete. It does not seem like the concrete can be pulverized to dust just from collapsing.
Chemical evidence showed that thermite was used.
The design of the building showed many steel columns that somehow just got destroyed.
Discuss.
If you want to watch a video, here is one that focuses mainly on the science of it.
September 11th Revisited: Were explosives used?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 8:18 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-18-2007 8:47 PM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-18-2007 8:47 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 7 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2007 8:49 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2007 10:03 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 1:11 AM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Jack, posted 08-20-2007 4:01 PM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 08-23-2007 12:27 PM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 94 by nator, posted 08-26-2007 8:24 AM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 100 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-27-2007 10:47 AM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 109 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 12:09 AM lost-apathy has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 151 (416952)
08-18-2007 8:01 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 151 (416956)
08-18-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


How many people who were in on the conspiracy have been identified so far?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2007 8:23 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 17 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 3:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 151 (416957)
08-18-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
08-18-2007 8:18 PM


It was the Masons. Probably the Jesuits helped.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 8:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 151 (416960)
08-18-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


The real conspiracy revealed!
I will soon be publishing my book in which I prove that the planes flying into the WTC buildings were just a distraction. The actual destruction of the buildings was caused by explosive charges placed at strategic points that were triggered by a third party hiding behind the grassy knoll across from the WTC. This terrorist organization has perpetrated previous crimes against the US. Their one defining characteristic is the grassy knoll that they carry with them wherever they go to do their nefarious deeds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2007 4:12 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 151 (416961)
08-18-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


Of course it was possible.
So far all of the actual scientific studies of the events have supported the position that the collapses were the result of the impact and not controlled explosions.
A good analysis can be found at ImplosionWorld.com.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 3:22 PM jar has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 7 of 151 (416962)
08-18-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


This post is going to be kinda long. I apologize.
I just feel it's necessary to thoroughly debunk this claptrap.
I was in NYC on 9/11. A friend of mine lost his wife in the collapse. The stench of burnt human flesh hung over Brooklyn for two weeks after 9/11. My friend Laurie Anderson (avatar at left) lives mere blocks from Ground Zero and was home on 9/11.
It pisses me off to no end when I hear this horses***.
There are any number of sites that debunk 911 conspiracy theories. This from Popular Mechanics:
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
The next clip is from debunking911.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com
Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:
J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
ImplosionWorld.com
WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia
WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
One World Trade Center - Wikipedia
2 World Trade Center - Wikipedia
So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.
The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives . ” James Santoro - Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
Page Not Found
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 4:43 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 05-17-2008 4:16 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 151 (416973)
08-18-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


The time it took for the buildings to collapse. The time was near free fall speed, which means there was little to no resistance in the building.
Well yes. Buildings are not built to resist half a building falling on them.
The theory in the 911 commission report said that the pancake effect caused each floor to collapse on the next floors, which created a domino effect. However i find this very hard to believe since the buildings did collapse at near free fall speed.
What would you expect to see when a building collapses?
The large dust clouds of concrete. It does not seem like the concrete can be pulverized to dust just from collapsing.
You don't think concrete is pulverised when half a building falls on it?
What would you expect to happen?
Chemical evidence showed that thermite was used.
No, chemical evidence shows that the ingredients of thermite were found at the site.
Do you know what thermite is made of?
The design of the building showed many steel columns that somehow just got destroyed.
What are you talking about?
---
You seem to have pick-and-mixed your conspiracy theories. If a collapsing building cannot collapse at "near free-fall speed", then how can thermite make it do so?
Does thermite pulverise concrete? I think not.
Is thermite used in controlled demolitions? No, they use explosives.
Have you ever seen a video of a real controlled demolition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 9:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 151 (416974)
08-18-2007 10:06 PM


The White House Tapes
Well, Mr President, I think I've come up with the causus belli you wanted. Let's trick the public into thinking that terrorists have flown planes into the Twin Towers.
Great! That'll get the public on our side!
No it won't.
It won't?
No, we did a poll. Apparently the public won't be willing to go to war unless the towers ... 'scuse me, I have this in my notes ... ah yes ... unless the towers "collapse symmetrically into their footprint at near free-fall speeds".
What does that even mean?
We don't know for sure, but we've got the guys at NIST working round the clock to find out.
Okay, so let me get this straight. We hijack the planes, we crash them into the Twin Towers ...
No we don't.
We don't?
We want the public to think that planes have hit the towers. I don't see how planes actually hitting the towers would give them that impression. No, we'll use holograms or missiles disguised as planes or something.
OK, I'm getting the picture now. So, we hijack the planes, we hide them somewhere, we project holograms of planes hitting the towers, we do this "symmetrical collapse" thingy --- how do we do that, by the way?
There are several options. Some people say that we should use some sort of death-ray, but me, I want to use good old-fashioned explosives.
What's wrong with the death-ray?
It doesn't exist. So, I suggest that we inconspicuously wire the buildings with high explosives ...
Inconspicuously?
Yeah. It's OK, I asked Silverstein's permission.
You ... you asked his permission?
I thought it was only polite. Actually, he was very enthusiastic. He says can he personally give the order to blow up WTC 7, he thinks it's ugly.
Sure, why not? Heck, he can have the architect whacked too for all I care.
And he wants to brag about his role in the conspiracy on television.
No problem ... oh, hang on, remind me. The planes are meant to hit WTC 1 and 2, yeah? Why are we blowing up WTC 7?
We did a survey asking people whether the total destruction of two world-famous skyscrapers 110 storeys tall would impress them any, and 57% replied "Not unless a 47-storey building I've never heard of collapses at about the same time".
Fine, democracy is about giving the people what they want. So, to recap: we plant explosives in the Twin Towers, WTC 7, and any other structure that Larry Silverstein has a grudge against, we hijack some planes, we hide them, we project a hologram of the planes hitting the towers, Larry blows up the towers, he might need some firemen to help him, make a note of it ... and then we pin the blame on the Iraqis. Yes?
No, we blame a bunch of Saudis.
Geopolitics always gets me confused. Why do we blame the Saudis?
Well you see ...
[At this point, the tape becomes completely inaudible for about thirty seconds.]
Oh I see! Well, if that don't beat all for cunning. So, we plant the explosives, we hijack the planes, we hide them, we make with the holograms, Larry Silverstein blows up the towers, we pin the blame on some Saudis ... and then we invade Iraq?
No, then we invade Afghanistan. The reason is complex, so I wrote it down on this bit of paper.
Now where are my glasses? ... OK, let's have a look.
[Sound of pages turning.]
Mmm ... mmm-hmm ... my word, I never knew that about camels, good grief, you live and learn ... yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. Afghanistan it is, then. And you're sure no-one will ever find out about this?
With respect, Mr President, I'm sure that lots of people are going to find out about this.
And what are we going to do about that?
We're going to close our eyes and wish real hard that by some wild coincidence no-one who suspects the truth will have the expertise necessary to prove it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Annafan, posted 03-31-2008 9:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 151 (416975)
08-18-2007 10:08 PM


No Reason To Deceive
Imo there would be no logical reason for the Islamic conspirators and the organization behind their incredible victory against the alleged infidel, great satan to give credit for their masterful feat of destroying the world's two tallest buildings to US demolitionists, their only weapons being a few bucks worth of cardboard box cutters.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2007 10:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 151 (416978)
08-18-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
08-18-2007 10:08 PM


Re: No Reason To Deceive
Buz --- I didn't follow that at all. I can't even figure out which side of the argument you're taking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 08-18-2007 10:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 08-19-2007 11:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 151 (416995)
08-18-2007 11:53 PM


Conspiracy theorists
The academic world has given such a negative social stigma to the words "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" that it only requires a simple accusation of one being a conspiracy theorist to discredit the person. I'm not saying that that is the case here. What I am saying is we should not use the words "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" so liberally.
We now return to our regular broadcast.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2007 12:17 AM Taz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 151 (416998)
08-19-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
08-18-2007 11:53 PM


Re: Conspiracy theorists
By way of agreeing with you (and also not commenting on the 9/11 theories), it's instructive to note that the accepted narrative of 9/11 - 19 mostly Saudi hijackers, etc - is itself a conspiracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 08-18-2007 11:53 PM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 151 (417014)
08-19-2007 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


The time it took for the buildings to collapse. The time was near free fall speed, which means there was little to no resistance in the building.
Yeah, that's generally what thousands of gallons of JP-5 jetfuel will do to steel columns.
The theory in the 911 commission report said that the pancake effect caused each floor to collapse on the next floors, which created a domino effect. However i find this very hard to believe since the buildings did collapse at near free fall speed.
Then what do you think it was? Smoke and mirrors? I assume you watched the event unfold.
The large dust clouds of concrete. It does not seem like the concrete can be pulverized to dust just from collapsing.
You're right. Obviously the government amassed tons of dust particles and housed them in the lobby of the Trade Centers, and upon radio-controlled detonation, it deployed plumes of dust in the air to create the illusion of a terrorist attack.
Clearly, Occam's Razor is one your side.
Chemical evidence showed that thermite was used.
quote:
Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances.
I'd like to see a link as well, if possible.
The design of the building showed many steel columns that somehow just got destroyed.
I'm sure that somehow had nothing to do with the fact that a jumbojet came careening into a building at hundreds of miles per hour. Physics says that mass x velocity x thousands of gallons of jet fuel causes catastrophic outcomes.
Penn and Teller has something to say about it.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 08-19-2007 2:01 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 34 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 10:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 15 of 151 (417030)
08-19-2007 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2007 1:11 AM


Yeah, that's generally what thousands of gallons of JP-5 jetfuel will do to steel columns.
It didn't help that the impact of the planes removed the fire resistant material from the support columns.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 1:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024