Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3683 replies to this topic

#1171    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:26 PM

[

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 March 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

Now wait a minute. If you go back to a segment of the video you posted, you will see a bit of orange color as he pours the aluminum, whose silvery droplets match the silvery droplets seen falling from WTC2.
Utter b***ocks!! lol

The video of the NIST trying to create the glowing orange fails and turns silvery the moment it's being poured.

Where as the so called aluminium in the video stay bright orange while it falls for many floors.

And more importantly, the consistency in the WTC2 is not as liquid/watery as the molten aluminium in the video I posted.

Edited by Stundie, 21 March 2013 - 11:26 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1172    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,688 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:27 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 March 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

Oh but it does when you are using a toy factory from a third world country, a building which is constructed out of completely different materials,...

The frames did not have fire protection.

Quote

...a building whose roof collapsed and an overpass to state your case....

Another case where fire weaken the steel to the point of collapse and there was no fire protection for its steel frame either.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 11:28 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1173    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:32 PM

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire are great to use and prove that fires brought down the WTC, even though none of them suffered impact damage.
  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed - No impact damage
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • An overpass - Collapsed - No impact damage
Yet....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that had bigger fires are NOT great to use and disprove that fires brought down the WTC, even though one of them suffered much more impact damage than WTC7,
  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived - No impact damage
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived - No impact damage
  • WTC 5 - Survived - Suffered impact damage
Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all...AGAIN!!! lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1174    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,688 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:41 AM

View PostStundie, on 21 March 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire are great to use and prove that fires brought down the WTC, even though none of them suffered impact damage.
  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed - No impact damage
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • An overpass - Collapsed - No impact damage

You failed to understand the steel structures were unprotected from fire.

Quote

Yet....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that had bigger fires are NOT great to use and disprove that fires brought down the WTC, even though one of them suffered much more impact damage than WTC7,
  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived - No impact damage
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived - No impact damage
  • WTC 5 - Survived - Suffered impact damage
Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all...AGAIN!!! lol

You failed to understand that fire protection remained intact. There was fire protection for the steel structures of the  WTC buildings, but the impacts knocked off fire protection which exposed their steel structures directly to raging fires. As one person put it, had the fire protection of the WTC buildings remained intact, the buildings would have remained standing despite the impacts and fires, but without fire protection, steel is dead meat for fires, which is why steel-framed buildings have fire protection in the fire place.

I should also mention that steel structures of many buildings are encased in concrete.

Quote

ENCASED BEAMS

When a steel beam is encased in cement concrete throughout the entire length, it is called an encased beam. The cased beam is shown in figure below.


Posted Image


What does the following article have to say about fire protection and the WTC buildings?

Quote

Fire  Protection of Structural Steel.....

http://dcstructural...._protection.pdf

And now, the clincher:

Quote

How to Control Fire: Protecting the Structure of the Building

The collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in Manhattan after a terrorist attack was the result of the inability of fireproofing materials to protect steel framing members from very prolonged exposure to the unusually high temperatures of fires fed by jet air plane fuel. It would be almost impossible to construct a tall building to resist such fires. Even if possible, it would not be economical.

http://www.compactdy...cs.com/223.html

Let's do a review.

Quote

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.


http://www.tms.org/p...Eagar-0112.html

Posted Image


THE COLLAPSE



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

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

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.


It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.



To sum it up, if fire protection remained in intact, the WTC buildings would have withstood the impacts and resulting fires, but once again, with no fire protection, the steel structures were at the mercy of fires, which generate temperatures high enough to weaken structural steel under load to the point of structural failure.

A comparison can be made with the space shuttle whose aluminum structure is protected from high temperatures but what happens when that protection fails? You only have to look at the tragedy surrounding the space shuttle Columbia.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 March 2013 - 03:52 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1175    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:57 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 March 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

200kg per occupant seems rather an arbitrary number.  How was it determined?  Some buildings are heavily occupied, others not so much.
How about putting some thought into your posts instead of just the first thing that comes into your head?  Picture an office station - desk, chair, partitions, carpet, cabinets or shelves with lots of paper.  Check out how much wood is in a typical desk, etc.  What's your number for the mass of things that will burn?

Quote

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied.  I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.
Do the maths.  It doesn't take many occupants to bring the burnable mass of the office contents to a higher mass than the jet fuel.  The normally quoted numbers of occupants bring the contents to dozens of times the jet fuel mass.

You're the one claiming molten iron.  All I'm claiming is typical building fire temperatures.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1176    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 191 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:37 PM

foia occupancy list from 1972 to 2001, if you look at the start up dates for each floor it seems that before 1994 , nobody was in their working, these towers were near enough empty shells , and their seems to be a huge uptake in floor space starting around 1999 but until then virtually empty.


http://www.editgrid....y_WTC_1972-2001

Posted Image


#1177    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,688 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:13 PM

View Postpoppet, on 22 March 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

foia occupancy list from 1972 to 2001, if you look at the start up dates for each floor it seems that before 1994 , nobody was in their working, these towers were near enough empty shells , and their seems to be a huge uptake in floor space starting around 1999 but until then virtually empty.


http://www.editgrid....y_WTC_1972-2001

Posted Image

Can you elaborate as to what you are implying?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1178    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,713 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:29 PM

I cannot speak for him, but he just MIGHT be suggesting that the occupancy at the towers was quite low.

I'm no authority on that, but I know many other people have claimed that to be the case.  It seems the bulk of the occupants were players in the conspiracy, like Bremer and a few others.


#1179    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,688 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 22 March 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

I cannot speak for him, but he just MIGHT be suggesting that the occupancy at the towers was quite low.

I'm no authority on that, but I know many other people have claimed that to be the case.  It seems the bulk of the occupants were players in the conspiracy, like Bremer and a few others.

. I don't see how that could have happened.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1180    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:03 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 March 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

You failed to understand the steel structures were unprotected from fire.



You failed to understand that fire protection remained intact. There was fire protection for the steel structures of the  WTC buildings, but the impacts knocked off fire protection which exposed their steel structures directly to raging fires. As one person put it, had the fire protection of the WTC buildings remained intact, the buildings would have remained standing despite the impacts and fires, but without fire protection, steel is dead meat for fires, which is why steel-framed buildings have fire protection in the fire place.
Utter nonsense and NISTIAN belief..

Did the NIST actually examine a piece of steel from the impact area which showed that the fire protection was removed from the impacts?

The answer you are looking for is "No!"....lol

It was assumed by the NIST so there computer model would collapse.

Even if we assume that the fire protection was knocked off from the planes impacts in WTC 1 & 2, which I don't as it's there is no evidence to support this assertion and it's assumed by the NIST, the fire protection in WTC 7 was not knocked off from the impacts and it was covered in Monokote, yet it still collapsed.

Making your entire point moot.

WTC5 had larger fires, suffered more damage than WTC7 as it was much closer to WTC 1&2 and yet it still stood. :yes:

Edited by Stundie, 23 March 2013 - 02:03 AM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1181    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:39 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 22 March 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

I cannot speak for him, but he just MIGHT be suggesting that the occupancy at the towers was quite low.

I'm no authority on that, but I know many other people have claimed that to be the case.  It seems the bulk of the occupants were players in the conspiracy, like Bremer and a few others.
The WTC were "White Elephants".....The Wikipedia WTC link used to refer to them as White Elephants many years ago but it's been edited out.

However, I'll let Ex New York Mayor George Marlin point out why they were considered "White Elephants!"

Quote

I learned first-hand that this poster child for New York's "permanent government" consistently resented the privatization of its facilities — the Vista Hotel, JFK International Arrivals building, the Yonkers Industrial Park. I attribute it to a deep-rooted faith that only PA bureaucrats possess the esoteric mystical knowledge to run things.

If Silverstein bows out, the PA will move to fill the power void. If it succeeds, it will be a dark day for all New Yorkers.

PA construction oversight will be plagued by delays and huge cost overruns. And the result will be a commercial white elephant, just like the original PA-constructed towers.

People forget that when the Twin Towers were first built, to avoid financial failure, the state government became the primary tenant in 2 World Trade Center. Gov. Pataki finally moved the governor's office out of 2 WTC in 1995, publicly complaining it was a poorly-run building.

And a two-volume, 400-page 1994 Deloitte & Touche "Review of the Functional, Operational, Financial and Administrative Activities of the Port Authority World Trade Department" objectively confirmed Pataki's gut assessment. This scathing report documented the incompetence of the Trade Center's PA managers.

From security costs, to cleaning, repair, maintenance, administration and marketing expenses, the PA-managed Trade Center was far more expensive and less effective than its peers in the private sector.

http://skyscrapersaf...e_20050506.html

To further confirm that the towers were losing money, another ex New York Mayor George Pataki was trying to privatise them in a cost cutting exercise..

Quote

Pataki has been a long time advocate of tax cuts during his administration and his time in the state legislature. He signed and sponsored several tax cuts during his first term in office and in addition made spending cuts to the budgets he proposed. This has included a push for privatization of state entities.
During the first years of Pataki’s administration, he began to institute the major spending cuts which he has advocated for most of his career. Among the cost cutting initiatives was a push to privatize of the World Trade Center from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The New York City governor’s office for more than 20 years had been in the center. The privatization effort took effect a few weeks before the September 11 attack when Larry Silverstein assumed a 99-year lease for $3.2 billion. The events and initiatives (or lack thereof) regarding the Center have defined the Pataki governorship.

Another reason for selling the White Elephants was......Taxes.

Quote

"The political environment has changed, and we have significant forces at work asking us to look at privatization," said Barry Weintrob, the agency's chief financial officer.

He said that selling the World Trade Center was one of several options to be studied. Others include retaining title to the vast complex, with 10 million square feet of office and retail space, but transferring the management of office leasing, cleaning, building security and other operations to private companies.

Representatives of Mr. Pataki and Mrs. Whitman said the two Governors were intrigued by a sale.

"The Governor strongly supports efforts to privatize the World Trade Center, so long as they are done intelligently," said Eileen Long, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki. In a meeting before Mr. Marlin's appointment, Mr. Pataki instructed him to find out if the building could be sold.

Rita Manno, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Whitman, said that she "certainly supports privatization in concept."

"If a study determines that selling the World Trade Center would benefit both states, she would happily support it," Ms. Manno added.

Another probable supporter is Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, since a sale would bring an increase of property tax payments. That is because the World Trade Center pays the city$25 million a year in payments in lieu of taxes, based on a formula agreed to when it was built in the 1960's. A private owner would probably pay far more in taxes.
http://query.nytimes...756C0A963958260

Of course, we are all aware that they would have loved to have knocked the towers down before the terrorists did, but they couldn't because no one wanted to pick up the bill for the removal of asbestos in the abatement program. Which the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle to get the insurers to pay for the program.

Quote

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey has lost a 10-year-old court battle to get its insurers to pay more than $600 million for removing asbestos from its properties, including the World Trade Center and New York's airports. The judge ruled that asbestos abatement costs by themselves do not constitute 'physical loss or damage' under the Port Authority's all-risk policies. The agency is considering an appeal

http://www.erisk.com...01-05-11_01.asp
So the terrorists did the job the Port Authority wanted to do for many years, so it was a good job Silverstein purchased the lease and insured the towers specifically in case they were knocked down by terrorists.

Not bad for a $14million pound investment. All very convenient wouldn't you say.

Edited by Stundie, 23 March 2013 - 02:39 AM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1182    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,688 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:40 AM

View PostStundie, on 23 March 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Utter nonsense and NISTIAN belief..

On the contrary, I am right on the mark!

Quote

WTC5 had larger fires, suffered more damage than WTC7 as it was much closer to WTC 1&2 and yet it still stood

Look what fire had done to its steel structure.

Quote


Posted Image

Five World Trade Center (5 WTC) was originally a steel-framed nine-story low-rise office building built in 1970–72 at New York City's World Trade Center and was 118 ft (36 m) tall. It suffered severe damage and partial collapse on its upper floors as a result of the September 11 attacks in 2001. The entire building was demolished by January 2002 to make way for reconstruction.
  

"(WTC)5 had some local collapses in the middle of the building due to fire, but not to the same extent...but then again it was built entirely differently then 7 was."                                        

So much claims that fire cannot weaken steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 March 2013 - 03:05 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1183    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,688 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:42 AM

View PostStundie, on 23 March 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

To further confirm that the towers were losing money, another ex New York Mayor George Pataki was trying to privatise them in a cost cutting exercise..

What does that have to do with the 911 attacks conducted by muslim terrorist?

Answer: Absolutely nothing!

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 March 2013 - 02:59 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1184    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:44 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

On the contrary, I am right on the mark!
So are you suggesting that the NIST actually examined some of this steel which had the fire protection removed?? lol

Yes of course you are, because you have deluded and fantasised they have examined steel with the fire protection removed, even though there is no evidence for it whatsoever!

However, keep pretending in true pantomime fashion......lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1185    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:49 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

What does that have to do with the 911 attacks?

Answer: Absolutely nothing!
Yes, for you, it is absolutely nothing because you fail to grasp simple logic and have the perception skills of a damp dark cold box.

When you are using the worst comparators available to state your case and prove your point but ignore better and much closer comparators which contradict and disprove your points, simple statements and what is being alluded too will fly over your head, like a flock of doves with gastroenteritis...lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.