R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 9093 times)

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2007, 10:40:14 am »

 
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 07:24


steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly


Not true.  The strength and stiffness of most structural steel members are cut in half at temperatures ~ 1,000 F.  Steel doesn't beging to "glow brightly" until 1,500 F or so.  In point of fact, the transition from normal appearance to a dark red glow happens to correlate fairly well to the critical temperature, or the point at which strength and Young's modulus have been reduced to 50% of their room-temperature values.

"Strength" seems to be a buzzword of sorts for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but most don't even appear to possess a rudimentary understanding of its relevance.  Strength (or more correctly "yield strength", "ultimate strength", "fatigue strength", etc.) is a material property against which stresses in a part are compared to determine onset of failure.  (Even that is over-simplifying the issue.)  For the very simple case of an axially-loaded structural member -- a bolt with no lateral shearing loads, for instance -- it is fair to assume that a reduction in strength of 50% correlates to 50% less load-carrying capacity.  Is that the whole story in the case of the Twin Towers?

Certainly not.  For one thing, increased temperatures leads to increased stresses.  This is because all common materials (except water) expand as their temperature increases.  However, a structural member is typically constrained at either end, and perhaps several midpoints.  These constraints disallow physical expansion, and guess what happens -- internal stresses occur.

Furthermore, the localized application of heat leads to temperature gradients within the parts in question, and temperature gradients lead to more complicated stress states.

Higher stresses and lower strengths are a bad combination.

To take this one step further, consider how a column might fail without its stresses exceeding the yield strength of its material.  There is a very real phenomenon known as "elastic buckling", which you can visualize by standing an ordinary measuring ruler on end and pressing down on the top.  Notice how it begins to bulge out in the middle?  What do you think will happen if you continue to add load to the part?  It will "snap", right?  Well, the load at which that happens can often correspond to internal stresses well less than the yield strength of the material from which the part was fabricated!  The simplest explanation is that the critical (elastic) buckling load is not proportional to material strength, but to Young's modulus, which is related to "stiffness".  As I discussed above, Young's modulus of structural steel is also compromised by 50% or more at temperatures around 1,000 F.  

What does all this mean?  For starters, the problem is complicated, and cannot be dismissed with hand-waving arguments about "strength" and "temperature" and "color".  Any discussion about the ability of the WTC towers to withstand impact by a commercial jetliner and its resultant fire is either a discussion of the real engineering issues at hand or it is a waste of time.  

For max and other True Believers, I suppose it could be both.
Logged

ryansteele

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2007, 10:57:48 am »

hey guys, been reading around here for quite a while...of course my first post will be completely non-audio related....

anyways, i've followed these arguments in various forms for years. figured you guys might enjoy this 3 part series on the physics involved in 9/11.

enjoy!

Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer, presents his three separate reports, undertaken for CounterPunch.

   Part One is his report on the Physics of 9/11.
   http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

   Part Two (published here for the first time) is his report on the Thermodynamics of 9/11.
   http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
 
   Part Three, "Dark Fire", is his report on the collapse of the World Trade Center's Building 7.
   http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2007, 11:34:19 am »

Fox, I was thinking about this part of your If/Then proposition:

Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50

how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit?


There's another way to ask this of course and I'm sure it will be just as tiresome to you. How likely is this:

During the Clinton years, a group of people who had come up during various Republican administrations, getting into higher posts each time around, put together something they call the Project for the New American Century. In 97/98 they submit a letter to Clinton calling for the necessity of invading Iraq and disposing of the man the US supported and armed - Saddam Hussein, who had gone rogue on them; who was no longer cooperating with the US. The letter suggests that it might take a "Pearl Harbor-like attack on American soil" to get the public behind them.

Following a highly dubious election, involving massive manipulation of public perception and "facts", and enormous legal wrangling (conducted equally by Republicans and Democrats, but with the Republicans shouting loudest about the Democrats doing it), most of the PNAC folk are now in the highest positions possible. During their first summer in the White House, the US assembles a massive force in the Persian Gulf, poised and ready to strike Afghanistan. The new administration has been trying to strong-arm the Taliban with financial incentives into allowing Halliburton to build a pipeline for Unocal across their sovereign nation.

Now up to this point we are dealing in "fact" or history. These are things which actually happened. They aren't the fantasies of conspiracy theorists who Bill Maher and JJ so love. All this is public record, although like Bush's ignoring the August intelligence report titled "Bin Laden preparing to strike US" in favor of clearing brush, none of this was very well publicized.

Allegedly, and although this seems well-established I haven't seen enough data to say for sure, the week of September 11 2001, the entire northeast military air command goes into an exercise plan, a plan supervised by a Mr. Cheney of the Administration. This may or may not to be true. So I don't yet call it history or conspiracy. However, if true, the northeast isn't very well protected, communications are in a state of non-standard use, and response time is likely impaired.

The Towers are hit - they fall. As it turns out, 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudi citizens. The next day, although there is a nation wide ban on any flying, a large jet travels the country stopping in various cities, picking up Saudi nationals, including many members of the Bin Laden family, who have been in business with key administration figures for 30 years, and whisks them out of the country. Concurrent with this, the administration meets and Rumsfeld and Cheney immediately suggesting connecting this to Iraq. The Saudi connection is ignored.

Against Rumsfeld's wishes, Bush gives the CIA a 30-day head start on going into Afghanistan - counting on the Pentagon for backup. When the time comes, Rumsfeld refuses the back-up, and most of the CIA people in Afghanistan are killed.

Finally the USA invades Iraq - we break it, we buy it, we start building dozens of permanent bases in the territory. The PNAC membership now has what it wants, and an unprecedented transfer of American taxpayer's money into private hands is underway (need it be said, willingly because of the fear the taxpayer is in?) via the military's use of private contractors at unprecedented levels to do a huge portion of the infrastructure and actual manned military work on the ground. The poor get poorer, the rich get richer. The profits are anything but paltry. AND, the pipeline across Afghanistan is built, but it would likely be seen as a wacko conspiracy theory to make anything of the fact that the man the US appoints president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, had been Unocal's lobbyist to the Taliban.

Now Fox, almost all of this is fact, history, so the if/then HAS to be, IF all this happened, THEN how likely is it that:

- these folks were simply so lucky?

- that the son of a family who were in business with the family whose son was now president caused all this by himself? And if so, how did he get so lucky as to have almost all the fighter jets out of the way that day?

- that so many Americans died at such a precisely opportune moment to get the public to support this massive transfer of their money?

- that given all this that the beneficiaries of this disaster were simply poised to exploit it but no in any way involved in it?

The US of A is on a permanent war footing - it has been since WWII, but now it is with public approval, the War Against That Which Cannot Be Fought by War.

How likely is it that the same people who were willing to lie our way into the killing and maiming of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the killing and maiming of thousands of young Americans, didn't have it in them to do the same on domestic soil?

Just asking.

And finally, given the history, given all these If/Then possibilities, how likely is it that the information coming at me about how the towers fell is without manipulation?

DS

PS - I'm not suggesting anything about how the towers collapsed - that's beyond my ability to see or to know. I'm suggesting that there are well-grounded and logical reasons to suspect that things aren't necessarily what we're told.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2007, 12:14:24 pm »

The political people responsible are behaving in the same way that other politicians and men of state and affairs have been doing for centuries.

I am not saying that their behaviour is normal in the human sense or the moral sense, but it is historically and perhaps from a natural point of view.

wars have been fought over the centuries for the same reasons, and to understand war one needs to look back across the thousands of years.

there is a reason why the Lion, who feeds on the weaker, slower animals is considered noble.

a steel beam does not buckle and break vertically, it may bend and lose its shape but it will not buckle verically under normal circumstances.

the steel beams used in construction are not like rulers they are usually H-shaped or t-shaped to make sure they don't buckle.

the amount of force it would take to get the steel beams which were at room temperature in the floors underneath the fire (heat travels upward BTW) to 'buckle' and break into pieces cannot be attributed to gravity.

h-beams which were encapsulated in cement (for rigidy) in the central coloumn would need so much energy to destroy the structure that the weight of the top floors could not possibly do such a clean job of destruction.

the building if it were to have fallen under structural failure would have resisted to the fall of the uppermost floors.

the resistance would not have been linear across the building: some areas of the floor, such as the real-estate areas which were designed to hold only the floors and the load on the floors, would fail before the central coloumn and the debris would fall through the floors, leaving the central coloumn alone, for example..

the outer shell would have sheared off in bigger chunks at different times etc. etc.

instead we have what the media calls 'pancake effect'.. a term coined and repeated enough times as to seem official.. most americans eat pancakes in the morning at one time or another..

the building falls down steadily and predictably..

but only a building with a cellular structure, identical density/mass and resistance across the whole surface area of the cross/section of the building COULD fall so steadily and predictably UNDER GRAVITY's effect..

it is EASY to do this on the other hand by blowing out each floor underneath at a specific timed interval.

to quote NY firemen on the scene 'boom-boom-boom-boom'.

this is purely a technical consideration.. and not tied to political issues of any kind.


Logged

ryansteele

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2007, 12:19:05 pm »

max,

i highly suggest you take the time to read the three articles posted above.
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2007, 12:24:48 pm »

I did.

I strongly suggest that you read other articles..

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5272/

the above talks about mr garcia, his connections with the government, and his inability to explain WTC7's collapse

Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #66 on: September 15, 2007, 01:09:20 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:14


a steel beam does not buckle and break vertically, it may bend and lose its shape but it will not buckle verically under normal circumstances.


This is unreal.  I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Do you really consider these "normal circumstances", max?  Of course a properly-designed structural member will not buckle under normal loads (gravity, wind, snow, etc.).  The loads presented to the WTC during and following jet impact were NOT normal and were NOT accounted for in the design process (nor should they have been).  Add fire to the mix and you have a situation in which buckling and other failure modes are not only understandable but highly likely.

Tell me, max:  what engineers are you relying on for your information?  Does the overwhelmingly large majority of expert opinion mean NOTHING to you?  If you felt a lump in your neck, and visited 100 doctors, 99 of which told you that biopsy results indicate you have Hodgkin's disease, but one said he thought you you have a cold, would you really put your health in that single doctor's opinion?  I'm telling you, that's probably higher odds than you'll get on your WTC theories.

Quote:

the steel beams used in construction are not like rulers they are usually H-shaped or t-shaped to make sure they don't buckle.


The different cross-sectional geometries of beams no doubt change the critical buckling loads for a given length, but that's a simple function of something called "radius of gyration", or the square root of moment of inertia to cross-sectional area.  What's your point?

Quote:

the amount of force it would take to get the steel beams which were at room temperature in the floors underneath the fire (heat travels upward BTW) to 'buckle' and break into pieces cannot be attributed to gravity.


Oh, poppycock.  First of all, heat CONDUCTS up and down in a steel member equally well.  Heat transfer due to CONVECTION may be stronger "up" than "down", but CONDUCTION dominates CONVECTION in a steel beam.  Give me a fucking break, max.  I'm rapidly losing any patience I tried to muster up with you.

Furthermore, the forces associated with momentum transfer from a falling object to a stationary object below can well exceed the static gravity load (mass*gravitational acceleration) those floors would normally possess.


Quote:

h-beams which were encapsulated in cement (for rigidy) in the central coloumn would need so much energy to destroy the structure that the weight of the top floors could not possibly do such a clean job of destruction.


Cement (actually concrete) doesn't add much rigidity to a steel beam -- a steel beam adds rigidity to the concrete structure, not to mention orders-of-magnitude more tensile load capacity.  Again, you're out of your mind.

Once again, I find myself disappointed in the fact that I have entertained your bullshit, and so now I will take my leave and limit my replies as much as humanly possible to those who actually care to discusss the issues at hand with an open mind.  You, max, possess no such thing.
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #67 on: September 15, 2007, 01:10:07 pm »

OTOH, Alexander Cockburn has great credibility with me, owing to his journalistic track record.

Now, if you want to talk conspiracy theories, here's the real shit:
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bluebeam.html

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

ryansteele

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #68 on: September 15, 2007, 01:26:29 pm »

thanks for the link.

good to know that we can just disregard mr. garcia, as it turns out he's just another goverment misinformation agent on the case.

along the same lines, i figured that you would be interested to know that noam chomsky is really just a "controlled asset of the new world order".

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05. shtml

but in all seriousness, lets say that the "government", or some segment thereof did, in fact, engineer the most technically complicated stunt in history in the middle of the most populated area of the country.

there are still far, far more serious crimes this government is guilty of.

the problem with most 9/11 theories is that they seem to regard 3,000 americans killed as a priority over the 655,000 iraqis killed since 9/11, and in that regard, serve as a great distraction and divider of a serious, effective "left".
Logged

ryansteele

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #69 on: September 15, 2007, 01:28:51 pm »

ok, cool...you regard cockburn as credible.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #70 on: September 15, 2007, 02:15:26 pm »

Yes, I read it.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2007, 02:17:05 pm »

mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 16:34


PS - I'm not suggesting anything about how the towers collapsed - that's beyond my ability to see or to know. I'm suggesting that there are well-grounded and logical reasons to suspect that things aren't necessarily what we're told.


You'll get no argument from me on this.

There are people in positions of power who had motive to instigate, encourage or simply ignore the events leading up to 911.

There are also people who had motive to abuse the public's reaction to those events... and a fair bit of evidence to say that they did.

However when it comes to the specifics of the events on 9/11 the conspiracy theories involving explosive demolition just fall apart on so many levels. Not only do you have an insurmountable problem of how you actually place all those explosives (all over the building if you believe the "squib" theories) in buildings that have 20,000 people using them, and the problem of how collapse started at the floors that had fires for an hour (explosives are not fireproof), and then the hundreds of professionals who worked directly at ground zero (including demolitions experts) or with the wreckage who would all have to be either stupid or corrupt, but then you come to an interesting point... it would be completely unneccessary.

The initiation of the collapse is a complex thing to work out, and the specifics of the complete collapse are too, but if you want to think about it intuitively... how many buildings, already robbed of their structural integrity would survive having a 15 floor building dropped on top of them? Basically once the collapse had started and progressed a couple of floors, the only way was down. Any demolitions expert would have known this, so why would they increase their risk of exposure by putting explosives many floors down?

So you couldn't use any explosive that the demolitions experts at implosionworld.com know about (or that I have been able to find information on) at the impact point due to fire, and there would be no point in putting any below the impact point since they would make no difference to the final result, makes for a really silly plan from where I'm standing.

When it comes down to it, if you wanted to bring down the twin towers in a way that made it look like two airliners were flown into them by terrorists... the best way would probably be to fly two airliners into them!

There are a number of ways that people involved in government could have been involved in 9/11, I'm not accusing anyone, but for example I don't find it inconceivable that someone got wind of what was being planned and decided to obfuscate or hide the information because they thought America needed a shakeup (the "Pearl Harbour" style incident), hell I wouldn't be all that shocked if someone showed video footage of Donald Rumsfeld handing the terrorists their plane tickets, but the stuff Max puts forward is just pushing probability to the limit.
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2007, 02:33:17 pm »

So then, what we can come to is: the simplest solution is the likeliest. But it seems to me the problem is there are a number of ways to perceive what the simplest solution might be.

For one thing - let's assume for a second that there was PNAC complicity in these acts - that doesn't necessarily lead us to controlled demolition. Two planes flying into the towers, killing the passengers and near occupants, would probably be sufficient to horrify the nation. One interpretation of events might be that the towers falling was unexpected.

I saw an interview my brother gave in a South African paper shortly after this all occurred. He was asked why no one had anticipated this event. His reply was that this was the most anticipated event in history, or something like that - that our intelligence has known since 1985 that "the terrorists" were training for exactly something like this - using hijacked planes as bombs - as early as 1985, in Iran.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2007, 03:02:47 pm »

To be honest I never understood the apparant surprise at the very idea of crashing a plane into a building. Doesn't anybody at the FBI or CIA read Tom Clancy novels?
Logged

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2007, 03:18:23 pm »

A B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945.  It's not a novel idea, although that one was an accident.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up