9/11 - Explosive Evidence

[Emc209i]

Experts Speak Out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

[The Dark Side of Will]

Cliff's Notes?

[crzyone]

Awesome video. I'm amazed it has been this long and no real inquiry has happened.

The American government and media are completely corrupt. I'm not saying Canada is better, probably just as bad.

[Indy]

Cliff's Notes?

Small collection of architects and physicists make broad assumptions regarding failure modes of a complex structure, often ignoring evidence opposing their position present in their own video footage.

The experts say that the 5-second "free-fall" collapse of WTC 7 was the smoking gun, because that type of sudden collapse could only have been caused by the sudden removal of every support on the failed floor. Yet the video at 15:50 clearly shows that the main structure stood for at least three seconds after the initial collapse started. The video from this angle is played only once, yet completely contradicts the "free-fall" observation made by the experts.

Quote from video, ~26:00. "Large, multi-ton beams were hurled hundreds of yards laterally. Gravity works vertically, not laterally." The experts imply that some explosive force must have been required to create such a large debris field. The video shown directly following shows large sections of the outer skins folding steadily outwards. The collapsing portion of the building acts like a giant log splitter, forcing the walls outwards. For that matter, if explosive force WAS necessary, what is it about 30 floors worth of falling steel and concrete that would disqualify it from providing that force?

Emc, I want you to consider something. This is just a general thought exercise about failure of a composite structure (like a building). Consider a group of columns in compression, say 10 of them. Loading is applied to each column equally (an optimistic assumption). Once a structural column has buckled and goes out of plane, the load that it resists is generally inconsequential in comparison to the loads it is designed to support. Each column has a random compressive strength, say in between 80 and 100lbs. Attached is an analysis I whipped up in Excel. It shows just how fast a structure can fail.

ElementFailure.jpg (155.94 KiB) Viewed 6864 times

[crzyone]

And your theory on the molten metal, iron microspheres and nano thermite found?

Explosions in the lobbys of both towers before the collapses?

How about this beam in the rubble?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Cliff's Notes?

Small collection of architects and physicists make broad assumptions regarding failure modes of a complex structure, often ignoring evidence opposing their position present in their own video footage.

Thanks.

A few years ago when Howard brought RFT online, Diggity modded this section. He espoused pretty much every conspiracy theory in the book. I did an analysis demonstrating that a building essentially *WILL* free-fall once enough floors are moving.

Example: If 20 floors are falling as a unit, how much reduction in velocity will those floors see when they contact the next floor down and accelerate it to the speed at which the 20 floors are falling?
Answer: The 21 floor mass will retain ~97.5% of the velocity of the 20 floor mass. Add more floors and the retained velocity fraction gets even closer to 100%.

The building *WILL* appear to be in free-fall as it collapses.

What happens to the air in between the floors? It will be squeezed out from between the floors and blow out windows with *explosive force*.
What happens to the air in the elevator shafts? The collapsing structure will push the air in the elevator shafts "ahead" (really below) the collapse and the air will escape wherever it can... which could easily blow out windows many floors below the advance of the structural collapse.

[crzyone]

There are a few other cliff notes from the video.

Steel buildings on fire do not colapse from fire, and the fact 3 of them did with one of them not even being hit from a plane with minor fires did.

Iron spheres and moten iron present in the rubble -impossible from an office fire

All central colums giving away and allowing the building to come down at freefall speed -impossible. Maybe the top floors fall sideways but the collapse that happened can only happen from a controlled demo.

The fire in the WTC were cold fires starved of oxygen. Not nearly hot enough to cause steel to weaken to the point of colapse.

There are about 100 other facts listed in the video. You can's just take a few and say they are wrong.

Will, watch it and make up your own mind. Cliff notes are only as good as the opinion of the people giving them.

[Emc209i]

I truly could care less to reply to this thread, I'd much rather be doing other things. I've been involved in this debate since Sept. 11th, and I've heard many of the arguments for the buildings falling on their own, and that includes the views that Will and Indy are expressing here. The sole reason you're reading this right now, is because Crzyone is thinking along the exact lines I am, and I feel bad leaving him in here making the points I feel should be made.

I posted the video for you all to see and draw your own conclusions from.

Will, I know for a fact you sit around all day and read and post the pettiest of shit, here and elsewhere. To think you don't have the time to watch a 59 minute video is pretty far fetched. You are after all the one who posted the quote, "Those who do not read are no better than those who cannot". You don't have the time/interest to watch it? I don't have the time/interest to break it down for you.

The experts say that the 5-second "free-fall" collapse of WTC 7 was the smoking gun, because that type of sudden collapse could only have been caused by the sudden removal of every support on the failed floor.

Tower 7 collapsing at any speed is evidence enough. A perfectly symmetrical fall, its debris field, and free fall speed are just insult to injury. I understand your excel sheet perfectly, and appreciate the effort. Scattered "office fires" didn't buckle structural columns. I read the official report, I watched the 3D failure model, I don't buy it. There's nano engineered dust all over Manhattan Island.

A small collection of architects and physicists make broad assumptions? I saw quite a few more titles when I watched it, Indy. Engineers from many different background if nothing else. The video is a case for why a formal - Non government backed - investigation needs to be conducted. And I for one am all for that.

[Detroit427]

Understanding the mechanics of materials you have to look at the yield strength retention of structural steel vs temperature. At 800-1000 degrees F the yield strength retention for structural steel is about a factor of 0.5. Jet fuel burns anywhere between 400-1500 degrees F. So the strength of the steel was reduced at least by half or more. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. You don't have to melt steel (~2500 degrees F) in order for it to lose it's structural integrity. It was practically impossible to control the fires in the buildings and those jets crashed with almost a full load of fuel onboard. I knew it wasn't a question of if they would collapse it was a question of when. I remember literally shaking knowing there was a great danger they would collapse not knowing exactly how or when.

[Emc209i]

I guess nobody's going to watch the clip, everyone's going to come in here and bring up seven year old arguments (which are all addressed in the clip)...

[crzyone]

Understanding the mechanics of materials you have to look at the yield strength retention of structural steel vs temperature. At 800-1000 degrees F the yield strength retention for structural steel is about a factor of 0.5. Jet fuel burns anywhere between 400-1500 degrees F. So the strength of the steel was reduced at least by half or more. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. You don't have to melt steel (~2500 degrees F) in order for it to lose it's structural integrity. It was practically impossible to control the fires in the buildings and those jets crashed with almost a full load of fuel onboard. I knew it wasn't a question of if they would collapse it was a question of when. I remember literally shaking knowing there was a great danger they would collapse not knowing exactly how or when.

As the video says, and you can see with your own eyes, the jet fuel was pretty much all burned in the initial fireball. There was no lasting jet fuel burning away in the towers. What was left was office debris starved of oxygen, hense the dark black smoke. Incomplete combustion.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Network's down at work today, so I'll bite.

Here's one of the previous RFT threads on the topic: http://realfierotech.com/phpBB/viewtopi ... inside+job

My experience with videos like this has been that people make these videos because they can't put a credible argument together in print.
Also, typically, the density of substantive material in a video is much lower than it is in print. I can usually get through something in 10-15 minutes in print that takes an hour to present in video.

The question being asked is not whether the towers came down from the attacks or not.

The question being asked is impossible to state in language but relates to the entirety of the human experience. That's why there *ARE* so many, many conspiracy theories.

The question being asked relates to the ability of people to control their environment and, thereby, ultimately, their fate.

Like The Joker said "No one panics when everything's going according to plan, even when the plan is horrifying"

[Detroit427]

Popular Mechanics-Debunking the 9/11 Myths

Mechanics of progressive collapse

We all saw with our naked eyes airliners slam into those buildings at 500mph or more. The damage to the structures of the buildings was significant and infernos raged until they collapsed. 250C isn't enough to bend a beam or column of steel. Now load that beam, likely damaged (perhaps by the impact of a 500mph airliner) and with the load of tens of stories of building above it.

[The Dark Side of Will]

And don't forget *WIND LOADING* on the structure. If the structure remaining after the impact were barely adequate to support the weight of the building above it, a couple of MPH increase in the wind speed could easily load it such that it fails and collapses.

Edit: Obviously wind speed doesn't show up in video...

[Emc209i]

We all saw with our naked eyes airliners slam into those buildings at 500mph or more. The damage to the structures of the buildings was significant and infernos raged until they collapsed. 250C isn't enough to bend a beam or column of steel. Now load that beam, likely damaged (perhaps by the impact of a 500mph airliner) and with the load of tens of stories of building above it.

Popular Science is a joke, which is why I stopped my subscription ten years ago. I saw a passenger jet plow into both towers. Neither tower should have collapsed from a jetliner slamming into it.

WTC 7 did not withstand an airliner impact, it fell also.

People got RICH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

America.

I don't expect anyone who would own a Fiero or post on a Fiero forum to understand anything but blind patriotism.

[Series8217]

I don't expect anyone who would own a Fiero or post on a Fiero forum to understand anything but blind patriotism.

What's that supposed to mean? You are posting on a Fiero forum, and had (have?) a Fiero. Did selling your Fiero cause you to undergo some sort of political transformation?

[crzyone]

From the outside looking in (Canada) I can't believe the blind patriotism.

If people still believe jet fuel took down the towers and randon minor fires took down building 7 then the world will be continually led by the corupt elite in the USA.

[The Dark Side of Will]

People got RICH.

Yes, government contractors, and financial institutions participating in the Federal Reserve recorded windfall profits from the war effort. That means they were in the right place at the right time to record windfall profits. That doesn't mean they planned, funded or supported the attacks.