| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| A Really Long Analysis of the WTC Collapse |
| 2009-09-18 |
| Skimming, it says there's a lot of unanswered questions and disagreements, and some questions point to explosives. It does NOT say "Jet fuel can't melt steel." Comments say it really well done and balanced, or horribly biased and unfair. It came via a link in the American Society of Civil Engineers newsletter to the Santa Barbara Independent. I didn't look close enough to see if the questioners had any scientific background, or were all Professors of Philosophy. Back to work. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #14 The big question on my mind is this - will the new WTC towers be 747-proof? Will we ever get to find out for sure? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-09-18 22:42 |
| #13 Lumpy's already got a paperclip and a lighter, he just needs to get that toke off before the clip gets too hot. Lump, the firemen were pulled out of WTC7 due to extreme danger, and the fire inside burned unchecked for hours. There was a large quantity of diesel fuel for generators stored several stories up. If you view the collapse video, you can see the hvac systems on the roof dropping into the core before the curtain walls start to give. I read the detailed reports at the time, they are entirely credible. |
| Posted by: KBK 2009-09-18 21:47 |
| #12 Steel or collards? Steel or collards? Perhaps both, since steel is a tuber we can mix them. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2009-09-18 20:55 |
| #11 Thanks for the link, Thing. I had never seen that video of the collapse before. It was amazing. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-09-18 17:45 |
| #10 Unwrap a paperclip, find a lighter, and hold that wire in one hand and see how long you can clasp it while the lighter warms the other end. Ouch! |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-09-18 17:33 |
| #9 Fire can't melt steel, that's why the free-range steel beam farms have to have so many crops (for the different sizes and shapes). Last year was a bumper crop of W14x132's |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-09-18 17:01 |
| #8 So in the face of the ACORN exposes, the withdrawl of Van Jones, the mess in Afghanistan, the fragile state of the economy and this administation's obsequiousness to corrupt tyranical states, the left offers .... empty charges of racism and yet ANOTHER take on a conspiracy for 9/11. Man, y'all this stuff is getting stale. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-09-18 16:22 |
| #7 Pepe Escobar, from Asia Times is also getting into the act. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-09-18 16:05 |
| #6 |
| Posted by: Albert Ebbager8936 2009-09-18 14:24 |
| #5 Even if jet fuel can't melt steel, the rest of the building was in flames, and that would be enough to create all kinds of problems. Fire-resistant safes are rated to protect its contents for an hour or so at something like 1700 degrees or more, which suggests that fire can get about that hot, especially if it starts creating convection currents and draws in a lot of new air like a bellows is designed to do. If steel melts at around 2500 degrees, I wouldn't be too surprised if it were weakened considerably at 1700 degrees. Heck, even blacksmiths take steel out of the furnace long before it reaches that temperature and bend it or pound it into shape with a fraction of the effort required to accomplish the same task at room temperature. When some of the supposts buckle, the remaining weakened posts are suddenly tasked with supporting something that is way out of their league, so they will collapse a tiny fraction of a second later, and the enormous mass above all these remaining supposts doesn't have enough of a push to get it rotating much before it heads straight down to the floor below. By the way, all the remaining supports were not just on one side of the building, they were probably fairly evenly distributed. And even if conditions were such that it was rotating slightly, it will be corrected somewhat by the more uniform resistance below, even though the structure that is resisting the collapse is doomed to collapse itself a few milliseconds later due to the enormous forces of the impact load. The guys doing explosive demolition like to make their work look harder than it is otherwise it wouldn't make good TV. There is a reason they don't have a lot of bad accidents here. All they have to do is blow most of the posts and the rest will take care of itself. Seems to me that one of these days there will be a large building that needs to come down. Just take out a few supports and distribute a bunch of jet fuel across an area of the building like it had been put there by an impact with a jetliner, set the area on fire and see how things go. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-09-18 13:03 |
| #4 Good night Lumpy, whadda line of bullshit. And for a number of reasons. First - First the bong circle conspiracy theory of demo charges. These are 2 very large buildings. And unless a bad guy knew exactly where the planes would hit, each tower, they would have to plant charges in at least the upper half of both buildings at every structural strongpoint. Second, why wait an hour to set them off. It would be stronger propaganda to blow the charges quite soon after the impact(s) to show the weakness of the financial system. A 1 acre grassfire gets hot enough to cause its own localized weather pattern. Interior fires get much, much hotter. In fact, the hottest parts of those fires would not be on the floor of the impact but the next story or two. That is trapped heat, which builds pressure and allows for hotter fire. Time to extinguish the fire are you farking nuts? come out here sometime, I'll take you into a dragon's mouth. Do me a favor. Unwrap a paperclip, find a lighter, and hold that wire in one hand and see how long you can clasp it while the lighter warms the other end. And that is not totally dismissing, its called addressing and pissing on it. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-09-18 11:21 |
| #3 I know this is an incendiary issue, but it makes sense to me that a little thermite could have been hidden by maintenance and cleaning crews as easily as they were photographed and scouted out beforehand. AQ had some engineering experience and 8 years to plan around their previous failure. I DO NOT believe the evil Bush/Cheney team brought them down to give us an excuse to go to war. Building 7 has always perplexed me as it was a distance away and they had more time to extinguish the fire. Totally dismissing their claims without technical proof only adds fuel to the fire, playing the '60's liberal Alinsky game of civil chaos. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-09-18 11:01 |
| #2 One of the article's authors, Jay Levin, was the founder of "LA Weekly". One of his articles for your review. The other author is Tom McKenzie. Some of his other work can be found here. No more need be said. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2009-09-18 10:39 |
| #1 It's an article with 50% truth and 50% conspiracy theories interleaved and both treated with the same credibility. It's inherently deceptive, even if it does pretend to be polite and evenhanded while it does so. I suggest going to Debunking 9/11: Bowed Columns and Sagging Trusses and looking at the pictures there. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-09-18 10:17 |