No Planes Theories on 9/11

thecommander

murphaph wrote: »

Well I guess I'm another one of the "nutters" who believes the whole thing was a con. The Reichstag here in Berlin was burned down by the Nazis and blamed on the communists in the early 30's. It helped secure Adolf Hitler as leader of this country. Adolf Hitler himself said the "bigger the lie, the more people will believe it". If Adolf Hitler had access to video editing software, would he have used it for propaganda purposes? Hell yes he would. So why do people find it so hard to believe that it could be used to perpetuate a lie in this day and age.

9/11 was and is the biggest lie ever told IMO.

So Hitler lied, therefor 911 is a lie?

Undergod

Q: How do you get millions of people to believe that two of the most iconic buildings were destroyed as a result of a plane fliyng into them?

Please post answers below, correct replies will recieve a thumbs up.

thecommander

Undergod wrote: »

Q: How do you get millions of people to believe that two of the most iconic buildings were destroyed as a result of a plane fliyng into them?

Please post answers below, correct replies will recieve a thumbs up.

Loaded. You're assuming that they weren't destroyed by planes, when all the evidence points that they were. Also 000s of people saw it happen.

Undergod

thecommander wrote: »

Loaded. You're assuming that they weren't destroyed by planes, when all the evidence points that they were. Also 000s of people saw it happen.

Am I? Think about it.

EDIT: To put it another way, I'm not assuming that. The question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

King Mob

Undergod wrote: »

Q: How do you get millions of people to believe that two of the most iconic buildings were destroyed as a result of a plane fliyng into them?

Please post answers below, correct replies will recieve a thumbs up.

I know! I know!

Is it fly planes into the buildings?

murphaph

thecommander wrote: »

So Hitler lied, therefor 911 is a lie?

No.
Hitler lied AND 9/11 is a lie. Thought that was pretty clear from my post.

passive

I support the "no planes in pearl harbour attack" theory too.

Not sure how I feel about the "no boats" one though... That's a bit out there.

Overheal

No Planes in Pearl Harbor. Riiiiight.

The only thing I feel may have been a true conspiracy in 9/11 was the case for Thermite. And possibly the no plane theory at the Pentagon. But Planes were definitely used at the WTC

murphaph

I'm not sure myself about the whole planes/no planes thing at WTC but one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

We are also led to believe that the plane was almost completely vapourised or turned into tiny pieces with all 4 planes. I think most of us have seen what usually happens with a plane crash or bombing-large fragments usually remain and can be pieced together. They managed to find a large proportion of TWA800 at the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct it, but no reconstructions were possible with ANY of the planes on 9/11? Bit odd at the very least.

Suffice to say, there are enough unanswered questions (and why was the 9/11 commission so late in being established and so poorly funded, even compared to enquiries into trivial things like Cinton's blowjob?) to leave me believeing the days events were orchestrated not by a bunch of islamic terrorists who apparently weren't very good pilots, but rather by a domestic source.

Do the people who believe it was Al Qaeda have any doubt in their minds about that? The only people to benefit from 9/11 have been the US military industry, including the likes of Haliburton. Osama Bin Laden was a relatively free man before it, if he's even alive now he's living in a cave somewhere. Hardly a benefit. Sadam Hussein is dead. Did he benefit from 9/11? Who had the real motive?

Undergod

King Mob wrote: »

I know! I know!

Is it fly planes into the buildings?

And the award goes to... Mob!

meglome

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not sure myself about the whole planes/no planes thing at WTC but one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

We are also led to believe that the plane was almost completely vapourised or turned into tiny pieces with all 4 planes. I think most of us have seen what usually happens with a plane crash or bombing-large fragments usually remain and can be pieced together. They managed to find a large proportion of TWA800 at the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct it, but no reconstructions were possible with ANY of the planes on 9/11? Bit odd at the very least.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055532869

You seem to have strong opinions on 911 so take a read of the linked thread and you can explain to us how we're wrong. Most of if is about the Pentagon and goes into the fine details. I'd love to hear your input.

uncleoswald

murphaph wrote: »

one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

I wonder if there was footage of the Pentagon plane would people claim it was faked....

meglome

uncleoswald wrote: »

I wonder if there was footage of the Pentagon plane would people claim it was faked....

You don't have to wonder. Considering there are claiming the twin towers were not hit by planes and thousands of people saw these planes.

thecommander

uncleoswald wrote: »

I wonder if there was footage of the Pentagon plane would people claim it was faked....

Of course. Especially if it was released now, there would be claims it took them this long to fabricate etc and make sure there was no holes in it.

feoil

meglome wrote: »

To inflict a lot of damage?

Indeed, not enough however, to cause the collapse of a steel frame building. One requires other means for that.

thecommander

feoil wrote: »

Indeed, not enough however, to cause the collapse of a steel frame building. One requires other means for that.

Like? Bearing in mind all of the other options that have been discussed.

Penn

feoil wrote: »

Indeed, not enough however, to cause the collapse of a steel frame building. One requires other means for that.

Like a combination of damage from the plane, steel members being damaged and the load transferring to other steel members thereby overloading them, and fire from the jet fuel weakening steel members perhaps?

I don't see why people refuse to acknowledge this. It is entirely possible for the combination of these three factors to cause the collapse of the towers and it is the most logical answer

humanji

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not sure myself about the whole planes/no planes thing at WTC but one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

We are also led to believe that the plane was almost completely vapourised or turned into tiny pieces with all 4 planes. I think most of us have seen what usually happens with a plane crash or bombing-large fragments usually remain and can be pieced together. They managed to find a large proportion of TWA800 at the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct it, but no reconstructions were possible with ANY of the planes on 9/11? Bit odd at the very least.

Suffice to say, there are enough unanswered questions (and why was the 9/11 commission so late in being established and so poorly funded, even compared to enquiries into trivial things like Cinton's blowjob?) to leave me believeing the days events were orchestrated not by a bunch of islamic terrorists who apparently weren't very good pilots, but rather by a domestic source.

Do the people who believe it was Al Qaeda have any doubt in their minds about that? The only people to benefit from 9/11 have been the US military industry, including the likes of Haliburton. Osama Bin Laden was a relatively free man before it, if he's even alive now he's living in a cave somewhere. Hardly a benefit. Sadam Hussein is dead. Did he benefit from 9/11? Who had the real motive?

Out of curiosity, why does the fact that there are unanswered questions lead you automatically to believe that it was a domestic source? I mean, does it not make more sense to say "There are unanswered questions. Therefore I don't have all the information. Therefore I can't come to a valid conclusion."?

That's how I see it, anyway. From the evidence presented it would seem that the most likely culprit was Al Qaeda. And so far I've not really seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

From the other questions you asked, they're a bit leading. There was a war, so of course the US military industry benefited. Does that mean they are behind it? No, it simply means they benefited, like they would from any war (and they still make a hell of a profit during peace time too). Sadam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 except, it would seem, to be an unlucky scape goat when Bush was becoming unpopular.

As for Bin Laden, well of course he benefited. He spread fear around the world. He made people second guess their every move in case they were killed in a terrorist threat. He won the war on terror because the rest of the world is still shìtting itself. He's one of the best known people in modern history and will probably go down in history too. Everyone knows about his organisation. Hell, if he is behind it all, he's even got people second guessing their own governments. He's gained more than anyone else ever will from 9/11.

murphaph

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Like a combination of damage from the plane, steel members being damaged and the load transferring to other steel members thereby overloading them, and fire from the jet fuel weakening steel members perhaps?

I don't see why people refuse to acknowledge this. It is entirely possible for the combination of these three factors to cause the collapse of the towers and it is the most logical answer

NIST changed its own story on what caused the actual collapse because they struggled to find a reasonable explanation.

They struggled because they know the uncontrolled burn temp of jet A1 fuel and they know the melting point of steel. The two are far apart. And that assumes that enough fireproofing was blown off enough steel to even exose it to the full temperature of an uncontrolled jet A1 fuel fire...and the temp is still too low to have an effect.

And then there's WTC 7 which had NO AIRCRAFT FUEL WHATSOEVER inside it yet this 43 storey skyscraper (only looked small because it was beside the twin towers!) collapsed into its own footprint through fire, we are told. Up until that day, no steel framed skyscraper in history had collapsed through fire. On that day, three of them did. Other buildings suffered much worse damage from fallling debris than WTC 7 yet they didn't collapse. WTC 7 is the most damning evidence of all.

King Mob

Wow standard fare this.

murphaph wrote: »

NIST changed its own story on what caused the actual collapse because they struggled to find a reasonable explanation.

Yes I'd imagine it would be because they kept getting evidence.

murphaph wrote: »

They struggled because they know the uncontrolled burn temp of jet A1 fuel and they know the melting point of steel. The two are far apart. And that assumes that enough fireproofing was blown off enough steel to even exose it to the full temperature of an uncontrolled jet A1 fuel fire...and the temp is still too low to have an effect.

No steel wouldn't melt at that temperature. However that's not what the report claims. At the temperature the fires were at steel loses more than 50% of it's strength.
So yea it would have a very large effect.

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

murphaph wrote: »

And then there's WTC 7 which had NO AIRCRAFT FUEL WHATSOEVER inside it yet this 43 storey skyscraper (only looked small because it was beside the twin towers!) collapsed into its own footprint through fire,

But it had lots of combustible materials in the offices.

Also it didn't fall on it's own footprint. several buildings were damaged by it's collapse.
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

murphaph wrote: »

we are told. Up until that day, no steel framed skyscraper in history had collapsed through fire. On that day, three of them did. Other buildings suffered much worse damage from fallling debris than WTC 7 yet they didn't collapse. WTC 7 is the most damning evidence of all.

Actually that's not quite true.
Can you show one example of a similar size building in comparable circumstances that didn't collapse?

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Maybe you look it the discussions here before shooting off the same tired debunked arguments.

polishpaddy

Look how much energy you've all put into this silly theory.
The only thing these absurd theories does is, is it keeps you from the truth.

meglome

polishpaddy wrote: »

Look how much energy you've all put into this silly theory.
The only thing these absurd theories does is, is it keeps you from the truth.

What truth is that?

6th

On topic folks.

murphaph

King Mob wrote: »

But it had lots of combustible materials in the offices.

Also it didn't fall on it's own footprint. several buildings were damaged by it's collapse..

Given the size of this skyscraper, very little damage was done to surrounding buildings. It fell vertically down (implying a near simultaneous collapse of the vertical members) and looked to at least one dutch controlled demolition expert like, erm, a controlled demolition.

King Mob wrote: »

Actually that's not quite true.
Can you show one example of a similar size building in comparable circumstances that didn't collapse?.

Empire State building ablaze after being hit by a Boeing B25 in 1945. Arguably worse than a few desks and chairs in WTC7. In any case, the reason given for the steel losing structural integrity in WTC 1 and 2 was the explosion blowing the fireproofing off the beams and trusses. There was no massive explosion in building 7 because no plane hit it. No massive explosion = little or no fireproofing blown from the steel yet we are to believe that the office furniture burned with such ferocity that it penetrated the fireproofing and all the vertical members gave way within a second of each other?

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you look it the discussions here before shooting off the same tired debunked arguments.

I don't believe they have been even addressed. Why did the 9/11 commission not investigate WTC 7 AT ALL? A 43 storey building worth millions of dollars collapses due to a terrorist attack and it's not even mentioned in this 'investigation'-isn't that a little odd?

Less of the patronism please. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in general, hence I don't visit this forum very often. I ust believe that 9/11 was a big lie perpetuated on the world. You are entitled to believe I am a crackpot lunatic and if I'm wrong I'll be delighted as I don't really want to believe what I believe.

A Primal Nut

If this conspiracy was true, so many people in new york would have to be complicit, and hence know about it, as to nearly make having a conspiracy pointless.:p

Still, at least he didn't try to fold a one dollar note.

polishpaddy

If i put up a site saying something far-fetched and made a nice video on it, I would succeed in waistting many, many hours of your time. Certain curious people like to read outlandish claims and they're the people this type of decoy would satisfy very well.

Keep looking up the likes of "there were no planes" and "it was a missile not a plane" that hit this or that. Facts are what you need not silly childish you tube videos.

6th

paddy, this is a CT discussion forum ... for discussing CTs.

polishpaddy

I'm well aware of that thats why i've been posting in here for many many months....
Ct doesn't give you the go ahead to not be taken seriously.Try being serious and logical for 1 minute. You can still have a ct discussion without sounding like an idiot.

6th

And you can discuss a CT without calling people idiots.

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

Given the size of this skyscraper, very little damage was done to surrounding buildings. It fell vertically down (implying a near simultaneous collapse of the vertical members) and looked to at least one dutch controlled demolition expert like, erm, a controlled demolition.

Except it only superficially looks like a demolition.
It lacks many of the signs of a controlled, like the rapid series of explosions on every floor followed by the immediate collapse of the building.

murphaph wrote: »

Empire State building ablaze after being hit by a Boeing B25 in 1945. Arguably worse than a few desks and chairs in WTC7.

Not the same thing at all.
The Empire state building has a complete different structure than the twin towers and WTC7.
The plane that crashed was also a lot smaller was traveling at a slower speed and had less fuel. And that fuel wasn't jet fuel.
So that example is no where close to comparable.

murphaph wrote: »

In any case, the reason given for the steel losing structural integrity in WTC 1 and 2 was the explosion blowing the fireproofing off the beams and trusses.

The NIST didn't claim the fireproofing was blow off in WTC7

murphaph wrote: »

There was no massive explosion in building 7 because no plane hit it. No massive explosion = little or no fireproofing blown from the steel yet we are to believe that the office furniture burned with such ferocity that it penetrated the fireproofing and all the vertical members gave way within a second of each other?

No a plane didn't hit it. But two huge skyscrapers collapsed right next to it showering the area in debris.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe they have been even addressed. Why did the 9/11 commission not investigate WTC 7 AT ALL? A 43 storey building worth millions of dollars collapses due to a terrorist attack and it's not even mentioned in this 'investigation'-isn't that a little odd?

Less of the patronism please. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in general, hence I don't visit this forum very often. I ust believe that 9/11 was a big lie perpetuated on the world. You are entitled to believe I am a crackpot lunatic and if I'm wrong I'll be delighted as I don't really want to believe what I believe.

I didn't call you a nutjob.
But these exact claims have been discussed before at length on this forum.
You should read them.

polishpaddy

Fact of the matter is, none of these claims are yours, are they?
Someone else made them up for you.

6th

polishpaddy, if you are addressing me then you can Pm me to keep this on topic. In the Pm could you include links to the claims I made.

polishpaddy

I'm addressing anyone thats reading this.

6th

Ok well then if you want to discuss the topic of this thread then fine but any off topic posts will be deleted etc. Read the chater and start a new topic if you like.

feoil

King Mob wrote: »

]


Actually that's not quite true.
Can you show one example of a similar size building in comparable circumstances that didn't collapse?

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Maybe you look it the discussions here before shooting off the same tired debunked arguments.

Empire State Building, July28, 1945

Of course Skyscrapers never catch fire, or rather they don't collapse when they do, in spite of combustible materials.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4262509.stm

The simple fact is that in over a century of steel frame building, only three buildings have ever collapsed due to fire damage, so what are the odds that these three fell in the same location within hours of each other?, astronomical.

polishpaddy

Thats cool.

What evidence do you have that planes hit the towers?
What evidence do you have that planes did not hit the towers?
Do i need to define evidence? The burden of proof is yours.

King Mob

feoil wrote: »

Empire State Building, July28, 1945

Of course Skyscrapers never catch fire, or rather they don't collapse when they do, in spite of combustible materials.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4262509.stm

The simple fact is that in over a century of steel frame building, only three buildings have ever collapsed due to fire damage, so what are the odds that these three fell in the same location within hours of each other?, astronomical.

And how many of these examples had similar construction and were in similar circumstances?

Answer: 0

And how many times this century have jetliners been flown into buildings at high speed?

I'd say the odds of buildings heavily damaged by this collapsing are a lot less than "astronomical".

Penn

feoil wrote: »

Empire State Building, July28, 1945

Of course Skyscrapers never catch fire, or rather they don't collapse when they do, in spite of combustible materials.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4262509.stm

The simple fact is that in over a century of steel frame building, only three buildings have ever collapsed due to fire damage, so what are the odds that these three fell in the same location within hours of each other?, astronomical.

The steel in steel frame buildings is coated in fireproofing materials in order to prevent the fire from weakening the steel for a few hours (depending on size of building, occupancy loading, structural importance etc). This gives the people in the building time to escape and for the fire departments to try and extinguish the fires. But this only works if the fireproofing remains intact. The impact of the planes would have not only damaged the fireproofing on the steel, but would also have significantly damaged some of the structural steel members. If a few of the steel beams and columns were knocked out of place, this places additional weight and forces on the other beams and columns, which were not designed to carry such loads.

IIRC, steel melts at 2000 degrees. Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees. But steel begins to lose its strength at 600 degrees. Even if just a small section of a beam was exposed to those temperatures, the whole beam loses it structural intergrity, thereby forcing other beams to take the load.

Added to this the fact that he maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767 is 395,000 pounds. Again, the building would not have been designed to carry such a load, escpecially as it would have been located on weakened steel members.


And the twin towers were not the only steel frame buildings to collapse because of fire. There have been other, smaller buildings which have, although they weren't hit by planes like the Twin Towers or have 2 skyscrapers collapse next to them, nor the structural design flaw like WTC7.

bonkey

feoil wrote: »

The simple fact is that in over a century of steel frame building, only three buildings have ever collapsed due to fire damage, so what are the odds that these three fell in the same location within hours of each other?, astronomical.

Were that accurate, it would indeed be an astronomical assertion.

Lets look at it though.

Firstly - the attributed causes of collapse for the three buildings you mention:

WTC1: Collapsed due to a combination of structural damage from an airliner crashing into it at speed and the resulting fire.
WTC2: Collapsed due to a combination of structural damage from an airliner crashing into it at speed and the resulting fire.
WTC7: Collapsed due to fire and a previously-unidentified design-weakness which made it susceptible to fire.

So of the three buildings, only one is actually even claimed to have collapsed "due to fire", and even then its due to an identified design flaw which would explain why its not something we see in buildings which don't share this flaw.

The other part of your claim - that these are the only steel-frame buildings to collapse due to fire - is also incorrect.

The Kader Toy Factory, The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are all examples of steel-frame buildings which collapsed due to fire.

There are "hybrid" designs - such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid - where the steel-support part of the structure has failed due to fire, but the reinforced concrete part has stood.

There are literally no end of examples of partial collapse to show that steel can fail in fire - something which should be evidence in the first place from teh simple fact that it is required to be protected with fireproofing.

So lets be accurate here...

There are twpo examples of steel-supported high-rise buildings being severely damaged in the upper third of the structure from impact by high-=speed, mid-size commercial aircraft. In both cases, the buildings behaved similiarly.

There is one example in all of history of a steel-supported high-rise building with the design flaw which WTC7 had suffering from a significant fire capable of exposing said flaw. As there are no other examples, there is nothing to compare to.

There are plenty of examples of steel failing from fire, so the basic physics which led to the collapse in all three cases is not something new.

So...what, exactly, is astronomical here?

murphaph

Bonkey,
I haven't heard about the inherent flaw in WTC7. Could you elaborate a little on that?

Does anyone think the investigation into 9/11 itself was of an acceptable standard? This was one of the world's largest crime scenes yet the evidence (the steel) was hurriedly melted down and not analysed thoroughly IMO.

Weren't buildings 3 and 4 also much more heavily showered with raining debris from WTC1 and 2 than building 7, yet 3 and 4 stood, albeit just their steel frames, pretty much everything else in them was destroyed.

Can anyone clarify this for me: I know the architects and engineers did in fact envisage an attack with at least a single laden Boeing 707 (a smaller jetliner) but did they design it to with stand multiple strikes with such an aircraft?

I actually find it hard to believe an aircraft travelling at app. 200~250mph would entirely penetrate the steel walls of the WTC (I was in and on top of tower 2, I remember how thick the outer columns were). Boeing aircraft engines have a safety bolt arrangement which shears off if the engines are pulled with enough force from the wings. The recent downed Airbus in the Hudson had similar bolts and in that crash the engines were ripped from the wings (as they are designed to do) by water. In the WTC incident they remained affixed to the wings which are made (like the rest of the plane) from lightweight aluminium yet even the skinny wingtips sliced through steel. This for me is simply unbelievable.

Ex boeing engineers have said that this is very difficult to believe. Slamming a 100 tonne aircraft into a 500,000 tonne building at app. 250 mph is physically identical to slamming a 500,000 tonne building into a stationary plane at the same speed. Do you think the steel would completely give way or the aluminium plane would be flattened in the latter action?

Penn

murphaph wrote: »

Slamming a 100 tonne aircraft into a 500,000 tonne building at app. 250 mph is physically identical to slamming a 500,000 tonne building into a stationary plane at the same speed. Do you think the steel would completely give way or the aluminium plane would be flattened in the latter action?

No it isnt. Thats not the same thing at all. Compare it to a bullet and a piece of wood. You fire a bullet at a piece of wood, it will penetrate the wood. Fire a piece of wood at a stationary bullet and the bullet will go flying through the air.

And I'm not sure but I think the plane was travelling faster than that, around 420mph. I'm not sure about that though.

Diogenes

murphaph wrote: »

Bonkey,
I haven't heard about the inherent flaw in WTC7. Could you elaborate a little on that?

The building was built with much of the load bearing weight carried about a single massive column. In addition it was built over a Con-Ed power station and NY underground station.

murphmphah wrote:

Slamming a 100 tonne aircraft into a 500,000 tonne building at app. 250 mph is physically identical to slamming a 500,000 tonne building into a stationary plane at the same speed. Do you think the steel would completely give way or the aluminium plane would be flattened in the latter action?

Apparently someone was asleep during junior cert physics.

Momentum = mass • velocity

How about those road safety ads? "Hit me at 20mph and I'll live, at 30mph I'll die"

Mass is effected by velocity.

6th

Diogenes wrote: »

Apparently someone was asleep during junior cert physics.

Think about it for a second Diogenes.


Thats right, attack the post not the poster.

Diogenes

murphaph wrote: »

Bonkey,
I haven't heard about the inherent flaw in WTC7. Could you elaborate a little on that?

Does anyone think the investigation into 9/11 itself was of an acceptable standard? This was one of the world's largest crime scenes yet the evidence (the steel) was hurriedly melted down and not analysed thoroughly IMO.

The NIST investigation into the collapse of building 7 only concluded last year, thats hardly rushed.

Weren't buildings 3 and 4 also much more heavily showered with raining debris from WTC1 and 2 than building 7, yet 3 and 4 stood, albeit just their steel frames, pretty much everything else in them was destroyed.

None of those buildings would exactly be described as standing.

Can anyone clarify this for me: I know the architects and engineers did in fact envisage an attack with at least a single laden Boeing 707 (a smaller jetliner) but did they design it to with stand multiple strikes with such an aircraft?

No. They didn't.

They worked out whether a slow moving fog bound 707 low on fuel would do if it impacted the towers. But they worked off the assumption no one would aim to destroy them.

I actually find it hard to believe an aircraft travelling at app. 200~250mph would entirely penetrate the steel walls of the WTC (I was in and on top of tower 2, I remember how thick the outer columns were). Boeing aircraft engines have a safety bolt arrangement which shears off if the engines are pulled with enough force from the wings. The recent downed Airbus in the Hudson had similar bolts and in that crash the engines were ripped from the wings (as they are designed to do) by water. In the WTC incident they remained affixed to the wings which are made (like the rest of the plane) from lightweight aluminium yet even the skinny wingtips sliced through steel. This for me is simply unbelievable.

Ex boeing engineers have said that this is very difficult to believe. Slamming a 100 tonne aircraft into a 500,000 tonne building at app. 250 mph is physically identical to slamming a 500,000 tonne building into a stationary plane at the same speed. Do you think the steel would completely give way or the aluminium plane would be flattened in the latter action?

Again to reiterate paddys point, if someone threw a bullet at you, you'd hardly credit it with the ability to pierce skin, beyond perhaps a minor abrasion.

meglome

murphaph wrote: »

Does anyone think the investigation into 9/11 itself was of an acceptable standard? This was one of the world's largest crime scenes yet the evidence (the steel) was hurriedly melted down and not analysed thoroughly IMO.

This is constantly raised as an issue. Firstly we need to establish what the standard or normal amount of material that would be kept in a situation like is. So in how many building collapses was all the material kept? In how many of these cases was the cause obvious, i.e. a big plane slammed into the building? There's only an issue here is we assume conspiracy otherwise it's about what you can expect. And remember this isn't a plane crash where you put the plane into a hanger, this was two 100 story buildings and a 40 story building.

They sold the steel as scrap to the Chinese so if it was hurriedly melted down it had nothing to do with the US.

murphaph wrote: »

Weren't buildings 3 and 4 also much more heavily showered with raining debris from WTC1 and 2 than building 7, yet 3 and 4 stood, albeit just their steel frames, pretty much everything else in them was destroyed.

Buildings around were badly damaged but they also didn't have the same design as WTC 1,2 and 7. Nor were they hit by a plane and/or left burning.

murphaph wrote: »

Can anyone clarify this for me: I know the architects and engineers did in fact envisage an attack with at least a single laden Boeing 707 (a smaller jetliner) but did they design it to with stand multiple strikes with such an aircraft?

Nope no evidence of that. It was all about an accidental crash. So the plane was smaller, there's no evidence they accounted for fuel and they didn't think the plane would be doing around 500mph.

murphaph wrote: »

I actually find it hard to believe an aircraft travelling at app. 200~250mph would entirely penetrate the steel walls of the WTC (I was in and on top of tower 2, I remember how thick the outer columns were). Boeing aircraft engines have a safety bolt arrangement which shears off if the engines are pulled with enough force from the wings. The recent downed Airbus in the Hudson had similar bolts and in that crash the engines were ripped from the wings (as they are designed to do) by water. In the WTC incident they remained affixed to the wings which are made (like the rest of the plane) from lightweight aluminium yet even the skinny wingtips sliced through steel. This for me is simply unbelievable.

Well it think it was near 500mph. If we could compare the WTC collapses to another event then we'd all be able to see what could/should happen. However there is no comparable event so the idea that this shouldn't happen is not based on any fact. We also know that steel framed buildings have collapsed in the past so this would lend credibility to the official account being true.

Not really sure why you're comparing an Airbus landing at under 100mph on the water to a Boeing ploughing into a building at 500mph. I agree that apples are not like oranges.

murphaph wrote: »

Ex boeing engineers have said that this is very difficult to believe. Slamming a 100 tonne aircraft into a 500,000 tonne building at app. 250 mph is physically identical to slamming a 500,000 tonne building into a stationary plane at the same speed. Do you think the steel would completely give way or the aluminium plane would be flattened in the latter action?

And yet the people that engineered the buildings have no problem believing it.

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

I actually find it hard to believe an aircraft travelling at app. 200~250mph would entirely penetrate the steel walls of the WTC (I was in and on top of tower 2, I remember how thick the outer columns were). Boeing aircraft engines have a safety bolt arrangement which shears off if the engines are pulled with enough force from the wings. The recent downed Airbus in the Hudson had similar bolts and in that crash the engines were ripped from the wings (as they are designed to do) by water. In the WTC incident they remained affixed to the wings which are made (like the rest of the plane) from lightweight aluminium yet even the skinny wingtips sliced through steel. This for me is simply unbelievable.

That's not quite true. The walls ot WTC weren't just thick slabs of steel.
And Beoing and Airbus are completely different manufacturing companies.
And there's a huge difference in an emergency landing in water and using a plane as a missile.
So if a plane's wing couldn't have "sliced through the walls" how exactly did they make holes in the side of the building consistent with the plane that hit it? All while millions of people were looking at the hole?

murphaph wrote: »

Ex boeing engineers have said that this is very difficult to believe. Slamming a 100 tonne aircraft into a 500,000 tonne building at app. 250 mph is physically identical to slamming a 500,000 tonne building into a stationary plane at the same speed. Do you think the steel would completely give way or the aluminium plane would be flattened in the latter action?

It's not the identical at all.
The planes momentum played a huge part in the damage.

bonkey

murphaph wrote: »

Bonkey,
I haven't heard about the inherent flaw in WTC7. Could you elaborate a little on that?

To quote briefly from NIST:

while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems.” Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations

WTC7 "suffered" from a combination of all of these features.

In laymans terms, the fire caused expansion of horizontal steel supports. These were long enough that the thermal expansion essentially broke the connections by which these supports were anchored. This caused failure of a critical, load-bearing horizontal support...which in turn led to the collapse.

NIST went so far as to say that they believe that none of the damage suffered from falling debris was critical in the collapse, other than that it is what started the fires.

Does anyone think the investigation into 9/11 itself was of an acceptable standard? This was one of the world's largest crime scenes yet the evidence (the steel) was hurriedly melted down and not analysed thoroughly IMO.

It depends what you mean by "hurredly". The materials were removed both as part of the rescue operation which lasted for something like the first 17 days (going from memory), and then as part of the cleanup operation. At all times, the material being removed was guarded, and the vehicles transporting it offsite were tracked using GPS to ensure nothing untoward happened. It was then stored until such times as the investigators said that they had what samples they wanted and needed.

The NIST investigation of WTC7 is a bit of an exception, because it was only requested after the original investigation (led by FEMA) concluded that it couldn't satisfactorily explain things. It is possible that NIST would have wanted more samples then they had, but the same is true of any investigation. Rescue operations generally (always?) take precedence. Then the crime-scene is analysed, until such times as the investigators say they are satisfied. If further investigations are required, they are limited to what evidence was collected originaly.

Weren't buildings 3 and 4 also much more heavily showered with raining debris from WTC1 and 2 than building 7, yet 3 and 4 stood, albeit just their steel frames, pretty much everything else in them was destroyed.

Yes, it isn't claimed that WTC7 collapsed from the damage of falling debris, but rather from the effects of the fires that were started as a result.

Can anyone clarify this for me: I know the architects and engineers did in fact envisage an attack with at least a single laden Boeing 707 (a smaller jetliner) but did they design it to with stand multiple strikes with such an aircraft?

Not entirely true. The architects and engineers envisaged a plane crashing into the building in a manner similar to what happened to the ESB - a slow-travelling plane, lost in fog, impacing the building. As it happens, WTC1 and 2 did withstand a plane crashing into them. What they didn't withstand was the cumulative effect of the ensuing fire on top of the damage.

Given that the modelling techniques for the effects of fire on buildings didn't exist when WTC1 and 2 were designed, nor was the computing power available to run such models, its a reasonably safe bet to say that the towers were not explicitly designed for this.

AFAIK, the people you refer to have confirmed this, and even gone on to say that the behaviour of the towers was better than they expected (in terms of how long they stood, and thus how many people could be safely evacuated).

I actually find it hard to believe an aircraft travelling at app. 200~250mph would entirely penetrate the steel walls of the WTC (I was in and on top of tower 2, I remember how thick the outer columns were).

I find it hard to believe someone would do it in the first place...but its not about what you or I believe. Its about whether or not its possible.

Have a look here for details of how the perimiter columns were constructed. At the top of the tower, the columns were effectively hollow "boxes" with 1/4" steel on each face.

Personally, I don't find it hard to believe that an aircraft travelling at upwards of 500mph could penetrate 2 1/4" steel faces. I'd rather say the opposite...that I'd be amazed if that amount of mass could be stopped by so little.

murphaph

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

No it isnt. Thats not the same thing at all. Compare it to a bullet and a piece of wood. You fire a bullet at a piece of wood, it will penetrate the wood. Fire a piece of wood at a stationary bullet and the bullet will go flying through the air..

Your wrong Paddy. Newton's Third Law of Motion says so. In physics, there is no difference between the force exerted on the bulding by the plane and the force exerted by plane on the building so the same result would occur if you just propelled the 500,000 tonne builng into the 100 odd tonne plane. You seem surprised by that? Do you not think the same outcome would occur if you propelled the building into the plane as the plane into the building? Do you think if the building were propelled at 250mph into the plane that the aluminium bodied plane would entirely penerate the outer skin of structural steel?

(in your example if it were possible to propel your piece of wood at the speed of a bullet and hit a stationary bullet the same damage to bullet and timber would occur. It's jut hard to picture it because it's practically impossible to do it, but it would.)

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

And I'm not sure but I think the plane was travelling faster than that, around 420mph. I'm not sure about that though.

Airliners cruise at those sorts of speeds where the air is thin and consequently drag is low. They are unable to fly at such speeds near to the ground. The wings would be torn off at 420mph.

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

Your wrong Paddy. Newton's Third Law of Motion says so. In physics, there is no difference between the force exerted on the bulding by the plane and the force exerted by plane on the building so the same result would occur if you just propelled the 500,000 tonne builng into the 100 odd tonne plane.

No, that's not how it works.
You're completely ignoring momentum and inertia. Basically you're ignoring Newton's First and Second Laws.

murphaph wrote: »

You seem surprised by that? Do you not think the same outcome would occur if you propelled the building into the plane as the plane into the building? Do you think if the building were propelled at 250mph into the plane that the aluminium bodied plane would entirely penerate the outer skin of structural steel?

Yes it would (at the speed it actually went not the speed you're claiming here). The sides of the WTC weren't solid steel.

murphaph wrote: »

(in your example if it were possible to propel your piece of wood at the speed of a bullet and hit a stationary bullet the same damage to bullet and timber would occur. It's jut hard to picture it because it's practically impossible to do it, but it would.)

Yes it would if the bullet was held in place by a force equal to the momentum it would have if it was traveling.

murphaph wrote: »

Airliners cruise at those sorts of speeds where the air is thin and consequently drag is low. They are unable to fly at such speeds near to the ground. The wings would be torn off at 420mph.

You gonna back that up with something?
Or back up the speed you keep quoting?

Penn

murphaph wrote: »

Your wrong Paddy. Newton's Third Law of Motion says so. In physics, there is no difference between the force exerted on the bulding by the plane and the force exerted by plane on the building so the same result would occur if you just propelled the 500,000 tonne builng into the 100 odd tonne plane. You seem surprised by that? Do you not think the same outcome would occur if you propelled the building into the plane as the plane into the building? Do you think if the building were propelled at 250mph into the plane that the aluminium bodied plane would entirely penerate the outer skin of structural steel?

(in your example if it were possible to propel your piece of wood at the speed of a bullet and hit a stationary bullet the same damage to bullet and timber would occur. It's jut hard to picture it because it's practically impossible to do it, but it would.)

There is a difference. You are not taking into account resistance and momentum. A man tries to push a wall, the force he applies to it is not enough to move it, so his feet start to slide out and he is essentially pushing himself backwards. A wall moves with the same force at a man, he does not have the strength or resistance to stop it, so he is pushed back.

Fire a bullet at a tree, and it penetrates the tree. Fire a tree at a bullet which is standing still, even hypothetically floating in the air, and the tree will move the bullet. Unless the bullet is fixed somehow so it will under no circumstances move, only then will penetrate the tree.

Again, baseball and bat. Baseball travelling at 40mph hits a bat being held by a player who is standing still, bat goes backwards a little bit and the ball falls to the ground. Bat hits stationary baseball with the same force, home run.

Airliners cruise at those sorts of speeds where the air is thin and consequently drag is low. They are unable to fly at such speeds near to the ground. The wings would be torn off at 420mph.

As I said, I wasn't sure. Although you have to remember that the plane wasn't cruising. It was being flown towards the building as fast as it could in order to inflict the most damage possible. But I'm no expert in this field so I rest my case.