September 11, 2001

[Dan Rowden]

Ryan asked me:

Do you ever think there are circumstances when violence is justified? For instance: Do you think the nation of Britain was justified in defending against Hitler?

Yes, of course. I am not a pacifist. Try and steal my beer and I'll punch your lights out.

[Dan Rowden]

In the rubble of the twin towers, I read about the workers finding these pools of molten metal - still molten, weeks after the towers fell.

Maybe it was another metal, like aluminium, maybe from the plane or other parts/contents of the building.

The plane's mass in comparison to that of the building per se, is negligible. Aluminium doesn't "burn" orange/yellow when molten, it "burns" white. I don't think it is an option of explanation for the molten material in question. Plus, without a catalyst I don't see why any metal would have remained in that state as long as those pools of molten material did.

Is there any chance that the collapse itself could create enough friction or compression etc to heat steel above its melting point?

I would say no.

[Dan Rowden]

Hehe - here's proof that Bush can keep his mouth shut about advance knowledge of 9/11.
video

Um, I'm not sure what that proves...

edit Here's a video of the pentagon. I didn't think this had been released - can anyone tell if it has been doctored?
.

I believe that is the second piece of footage officially released by the Government. It looks like the original footage to me.

[sschaula]

You aren't an expert, Dan. And even if an "expert" were to comment, as some have in various conspiracy videos, I wouldn't immediately believe them. There are many variables...almost too many to factor in. It would almost need to be replicated in order to say for sure.

The molten material....so the conspiracy theorist's explanation is that it was incendiary devices that went off and collapsed the steel structure? WEEKS later? I wonder what kind of incendiary devices burn for weeks on end...

[Unidian]

Thermite/thermate can melt steel, and so can big-ass bombs in the basement. If such molten steel is fully or partially sealed underground in a pile of rubble, it can stay hot for quite some time.

[sschaula]

So the fact that it stayed in a molten state for weeks had nothing to do with how it was heated, but rather it had to do with the metal being sealed underground?

So what if the force of the building falling upon itself caused some of the steel to melt?

[sschaula]

Oh, and big ass bombs in the basement...the airplanes acted as bombs. I don't see the difference between the two.

[Dan Rowden]

You aren't an expert, Dan.

True enough, but I'm also not stupid. I can read and weigh up evidence/argument. To date there has been no meaningful official explanation for the molten materials and their longevity. They have been almost entirely glossed over. All one is asking for is half decent explanations for the multitude of seeming anomolies of the day's events.

And even if an "expert" were to comment, as some have in various conspiracy videos, I wouldn't immediately believe them.

I would hope not. But the file of unexplained (or poorly or intelligence-insultingly explained) things is as thick as Mike Tyson's cranium.

There are many variables...almost too many to factor in. It would almost need to be replicated in order to say for sure.

That's probably true. However, the events and actions surrounding the building collapses are in and of themselves sufficient cause for alternate theories to arise. When a Government isolates its own investagative bodies from the evidence you know something is deeply wrong. When people know a building is about to collapse without any historical precedent (e.g. Guilliani) you know something is wrong or there are facts not in evidence.

The molten material....so the conspiracy theorist's explanation is that it was incendiary devices that went off and collapsed the steel structure? WEEKS later? I wonder what kind of incendiary devices burn for weeks on end...

As Nat said, thermate does. That is one possible explanation for the molten material. There are other visual clues which suggest thermal cutting of steel not explicitly in the plane strike zone. All one is asking for is a half decent explanation for them.

There are also a multitude of peripheral facts that make it almost impossible to believe that 19 arseholes did it on their own. There are situations pertaining to that day that helped make the whole thing possible that I find too extraordinary to simply put down to coincidence.

[Dan Rowden]

So what if the force of the building falling upon itself caused some of the steel to melt?

I wasn't quite so candid about this with Jason, but I think that notion is clearly absurd.

[Unidian]

So what if the force of the building falling upon itself caused some of the steel to melt?

I don't know enough about structural engineering to say whether that could have happened. It sounds plausible although unlikely. It doesn't strike me as any more likely than the molten steel being caused by demolition.

It would be good if someone who knows a lot about this sort of thing could address it, though.

[sschaula]

I wasn't quite so candid about this with Jason, but I think that notion is clearly absurd.

You know how bombs work right? Heat+pressure. You know friction causes heat, right? You know that heavy floors don't just fall at the same rate and force all the way down, but they are multiplied each time they impact another floor and cause that to fall, right?

I find it more absurd to believe the US government flew airplanes into a building on their own soil, killing a couple thousand people, detonating the building so it would collapse, and covering any evidence of their involvement up by blaming terrorists. Especially when so many people were involved, and so much evidence points to the fact that terrorists did it.

Lets say that the terrorists did do it but the WTC buildings were all set to detonate as a security measure...there would be a lot of people involved in that who would have to cover their tracks.

Really, I find my guess not so absurd.

[sschaula]

Nat,

It doesn't strike me as any more likely than the molten steel being caused by demolition.

Same here. But if it was caused by demolitions, that opens up a huge can of worms. A bunch of "whys" and "hows" start flying all over the place.

[Unidian]

Scott,

I find it more absurd to believe the US government flew airplanes into a building on their own soil, killing a couple thousand people, detonating the building so it would collapse, and covering any evidence of their involvement up by blaming terrorists. Especially when so many people were involved, and so much evidence points to the fact that terrorists did it.

Fair enough, but have you seen Operation Northwoods?

Well worth a look if you haven't, even if you don't consider it relevant to 9/11. Quoting from the article:

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

The scenario you described as "absurd" in the portion of your post I quoted is basically identical to the Northwoods scenario, which was very nearly implemented in 1962. So, absurd or not, we have hard evidence that the US government has seriously considered such actions in the past.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

You know that heavy floors don't just fall at the same rate and force all the way down, but they are multiplied each time they impact another floor and cause that to fall, right?

There would be more force with the weight of each floor added on, but the rate would be slower than if an object were just dropped through the air - and that is one of the arguments for explosives. The building went down at the rate it would if it was just falling through air - not at the rate of even any of the floors encountering resistance on the way down.
.

[Dan Rowden]

I wasn't quite so candid about this with Jason, but I think that notion is clearly absurd.

You know how bombs work right?

Yeah, they go "boom" and shit flies everywhere.

You know friction causes heat, right?

No, never heard of it. Sounds interesting though...

You know that heavy floors don't just fall at the same rate and force all the way down, but they are multiplied each time they impact another floor and cause that to fall, right?

No, I don't know that. At least not in this case. The greater part of the mass of those floors was pulverised and blew/fell outside the area of the floors beneath. Much of the mass claimed to have created the pancake effect wasn't there to create it. Steel doesn't pancake at near free fall speed unless cut/weakened first. As David Hodges pointed out, the cores of the WTC1 and WTC2 were very significant structures.

I find it more absurd to believe the US government flew airplanes into a building on their own soil, killing a couple thousand people, detonating the building so it would collapse, and covering any evidence of their involvement up by blaming terrorists.

Wow, quite the non-sequiter! I don't recall making that argument.

Especially when so many people were involved, and so much evidence points to the fact that terrorists did it.

Really? I think you'll find that if the accused were to face trial posthumously they would quite likely be aquitted. What I find amazing is how quickly all the culprits were identified - and on that same day. The case was closed literally hours after a seemingly unexpected event. My spider sense is tingling over that one.

Lets say that the terrorists did do it but the WTC buildings were all set to detonate as a security measure...there would be a lot of people involved in that who would have to cover their tracks.

I personally think that in a different political environment in the US, which will hopefully occur at the next election, people will begin to come out of the woodwork (i.e. beyond those that actually already have).

[sschaula]

Nat,

Fair enough, but have you seen Operation Northwoods?

Well worth a look if you haven't, even if you don't consider it relevant to 9/11. Quoting from the article:

Quote:
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

The scenario you described as "absurd" in the portion of your post I quoted is basically identical to the Northwoods scenario, which was very nearly implemented in 1962. So, absurd or not, we have hard evidence that the US government has seriously considered such actions in the past.

Yes I've heard of it. It wasn't nearly implemented. AFAIK, it was suggested by one guy who was then removed from his position. The US govt didn't seriously consider it...as is seen by its rejection.

E,

There would be more force with the weight of each floor added on, but the rate would be slower than if an object were just dropped through the air - and that is one of the arguments for explosives. The building went down at the rate it would if it was just falling through air - not at the rate of even any of the floors encountering resistance on the way down.

Yes, the building went down as if it was just falling through air precisely because with each added floor's weight the entire structure falls faster. If weight wasn't a factor and there was simply resistance at each floor, you'd have seen the structure fall SLOWER than if it were just dropped through the air. The fact is that as it went down, its speed increased somewhat exponentially.

[sschaula]

Dan,

Yeah, they go "boom" and shit flies everywhere.

Yes and what causes that is heat and pressure.

No, never heard of it. Sounds interesting though...

Perhaps you should learn a little more about it.

No, I don't know that. At least not in this case. The greater part of the mass of those floors was pulverised and blew/fell outside the area of the floors beneath.

Really?

Much of the mass claimed to have created the pancake effect wasn't there to create it.

Really?

Steel doesn't pancake at near free fall speed unless cut/weakened first.

Really?

As David Hodges pointed out, the cores of the WTC1 and WTC2 were very significant structures.

I don't know about how they were designed. Perhaps that is true. I'm not going to take his word for it.

Wow, quite the non-sequiter! I don't recall making that argument.

I do recall you making it, but not in this thread. :)

Really? I think you'll find that if the accused were to face trial posthumously they would quite likely be aquitted. What I find amazing is how quickly all the culprits were identified - and on that same day. The case was closed literally hours after a seemingly unexpected event. My spider sense is tingling over that one.

Yes, it should have taken the agencies dedicated to figuring those things out three weeks...that would have made much more sense to you.

I personally think that in a different political environment in the US, which will hopefully occur at the next election, people will begin to come out of the woodwork (i.e. beyond those that actually already have).

We'll see if it happens.

[Unidian]

Yes, the building went down as if it was just falling through air precisely because with each added floor's weight the entire structure falls faster. If weight wasn't a factor and there was simply resistance at each floor, you'd have seen the structure fall SLOWER than if it were just dropped through the air.

Yeah. There have been calculations done that suggest the sort of "pancake collapse" proposed by NIST and FEMA would require 90 seconds or more. While I question this conclusion to some degree, I do think that the extreme speed of the collapses (10-15 seconds) raises serious questions. How could the collapses occur at a rate consistent with no structural resistance whatsoever? While I could possibly accept the lower floors being destroyed this quickly due to the enormous weight falling on them from above, I think this offers no insight into why the first 30 or 40 floors fell so rapidly, or why there was apparently no variation in the speed of collapse throughout.

It also fails to explain why the top floors were pulverized to dust rather than being found in the pancake-like pile of rubble associated with other "pancake" collapses (thus the name). If they encountered structural resistance on the way down, they should have been slowed and prevented from being totally pulverized as a result of free-fall impact from an enormous height. And if they didn't encounter structural resistance, why not?

Edited: Attributed the quote wrongly.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yes, the building went down as if it was just falling through air precisely because with each added floor's weight the entire structure falls faster. If weight wasn't a factor and there was simply resistance at each floor, you'd have seen the structure fall SLOWER than if it were just dropped through the air. The fact is that as it went down, its speed increased somewhat exponentially.

Ever hear of this guy called Galileo? He proved that objects of different weights fall at the same speed. It does not matter how heavy it got, it only was going to fall so fast or slower if it encountered any resistance at all, and at least the first 30 floors or so would have encountered enough resistance to make it fall slower - as evidenced by timing the falls of demolished buildings of that height. Actually, it was said that the more floors, the slower it falls because of resistance. I'm even granting extra leeway because these were the tallest buildings to go down. It should have gone down at least a little slower than total free-fall due to the resistance of the first 30 floors or so.
.

[sschaula]

There have been calculations done that suggest the sort of "pancake collapse" proposed by NIST and FEMA would require 90 seconds or more. While I question this conclusion to some degree, I do think that the extreme speed of the collapses (10-15 seconds) raises serious questions. How could the collapses occur at a rate consistent with no structural resistance whatsoever? While I could possibly accept the lower floors being destroyed this quickly due to the enormous weight falling on them from above, I think this offers no insight into why the first 30 or 40 floors fell so rapidly, or why there was apparently no variation in the speed of collapse throughout.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kv4s3fn8jDc

When I review the falling of the structures in this horribly exploitative video, I see the breaks happen right where the planes hit. That tells me that the planes would've had to fly precisely into the area the bombs were in order for the detonation theory to be plausible. I see the structures in those areas gradually weaken, and finally give way to the weight of the upper part of the building. Then I see the buildings start to fall, and increase in both speed and destruction on the way down.

About the calculations: rarely in real life does math work the way it should.

It also fails to explain why the top floors were pulverized to dust rather than being found in the pancake-like pile of rubble associated with other "pancake" collapses (thus the name). If they encountered structural resistance on the way down, they should have been slowed and prevented from being totally pulverized as a result of free-fall impact from an enormous height. And if they didn't encounter structural resistance, why not?

The floors below them broke apart when they encountered the resistance, which wasn't much bearing in mind the weight and the speed. I don't know why you're saying the top floors were pulverized to dust. I'm sure there was rubble.

[Dan Rowden]

Scott,

Yeah, they go "boom" and shit flies everywhere.

Yes and what causes that is heat and pressure.

You don't think it's kind of odd that you're arguing with me about what bombs do? Are you saying there might have been bombs in the buildings? If so, I'm not going to argue with that postulation.

No, never heard of it. Sounds interesting though...

Perhaps you should learn a little more about it.

Nah, it's not that interesting and I feel no need to return to primary school science.

No, I don't know that. At least not in this case. The greater part of the mass of those floors was pulverised and blew/fell outside the area of the floors beneath.

Really?

Seen the footage? One of the reasons that it's hard to determine the physics of the collapse is because of the huge amount of material falling and expanding around the periphery of the building. I'd argue this is a non-trivial point.

Steel doesn't pancake at near free fall speed unless cut/weakened first.

Really?

Well, I just made that one up as there's no real precedent from which to judge. But, if steel stuctures in highrise buildings could pancake as has been suggested then we'd have rather different feeling about the safety and structural integrity of them all.

As David Hodges pointed out, the cores of the WTC1 and WTC2 were very significant structures.

I don't know about how they were designed. Perhaps that is true. I'm not going to take his word for it.

Nor should you. However, you damn well should take mine! :)

WTC Cores

Really? I think you'll find that if the accused were to face trial posthumously they would quite likely be aquitted. What I find amazing is how quickly all the culprits were identified - and on that same day. The case was closed literally hours after a seemingly unexpected event. My spider sense is tingling over that one.

Yes, it should have taken the agencies dedicated to figuring those things out three weeks...that would have made much more sense to you.

Yes, actually, it would have. For them to have solved it almost completely within mere hours is ludicrous to me, given their complete and utter incapacity to predict or prevent it. Got their act together pretty quick, didn't they?

I personally think that in a different political environment in the US, which will hopefully occur at the next election, people will begin to come out of the woodwork (i.e. beyond those that actually already have).

We'll see if it happens.

It took 30 yars for the truth about the USS Liberty to come out and lots of people from more than one nation knew about it.

[sschaula]

It does not matter how heavy it got

It does when we're talking about resistance.

it only was going to fall so fast or slower if it encountered any resistance at all, and at least the first 30 floors or so would have encountered enough resistance to make it fall slower - as evidenced by timing the falls of demolished buildings of that height.

I don't know why you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking about here.

Actually, it was said that the more floors, the slower it falls because of resistance.

Yes, that's why weight was an important factor!

I'm even granting extra leeway because these were the tallest buildings to go down. It should have gone down at least a little slower than total free-fall due to the resistance of the first 30 floors or so.

Read my reply to Nat, above this one.

[sschaula]

Dan,

You don't think it's kind of odd that you're arguing with me about what bombs do? Are you saying there might have been bombs in the buildings? If so, I'm not going to argue with that postulation.

Did you not understand the point? I was trying to explain to you the physics of how the building simply could have collapsed, rather than have been detonated from the inside.

Nah, it's not that interesting and I feel no need to return to primary school science.

I see a need there.

Seen the footage? One of the reasons that it's hard to determine the physics of the collapse is because of the huge amount of material falling and expanding around the periphery of the building. I'd argue this is a non-trivial point.

Yes, but I wouldn't say that the greater part of the mass of the floors blew outside of the area of the floors beneath. You may want to watch the video again.

Well, I just made that one up as there's no real precedent from which to judge. But, if steel stuctures in highrise buildings could pancake as has been suggested then we'd have rather different feeling about the safety and structural integrity of them all.

I definitely don't feel as safe as I do on solid ground, while in a skyscraper. They sway in the wind.

Nor should you. However, you damn well should take mine! :)

WTC Cores

I looked at the website and don't see your point. I also don't trust info from websites like that, but that's beside the point.

Yes, actually, it would have. For them to have solved it almost completely within mere hours is ludicrous to me, given their complete and utter incapacity to predict or prevent it. Got their act together pretty quick, didn't they?

The airport has records of everyone going on the airplanes...also I don't remember them solving it that very day, but I'm willing to go along with you here. If they did actually, I can easily see how it'd be possible. The agencies in our country are quite efficient at things like that.

It took 30 yars for the truth about the USS Liberty to come out and lots of people from more than one nation knew about it.

I have no idea about that incident, being a youngin who only recently started paying attention to the world.

[Jason]

The plane's mass in comparison to that of the building per se, is negligible.

How does that make a difference? There could very well be enough aluminium in the plane or in the building to create puddles of it on the ground, and I thought that was what we were discussing. Or did someone work out the volume of the molten metal and the volume of aluminium on the plane and figure it didn't match up?

Aluminium doesn't "burn" orange/yellow when molten, it "burns" white. I don't think it is an option of explanation for the molten material in question. Plus, without a catalyst I don't see why any metal would have remained in that state as long as those pools of molten material did.

I work with metal, but I usually do brazing with copper and brass. I have worked with aluminium a little before, but just to be certain, after I read your response I went out into my shed, and used my torch to heat up some aluminium. Result: it turns to liquid without any noticeable colour change at all, further heating whilst it is liquid turned it a deep orange, then it turned yellow. I stopped after that.

I assume further heating would eventually turn it white, but that doesn't matter, it was molten when it was yellow or orange. My understanding is that that the glowing colour of heated metals is generally related to their heat, and aluminium melts at around 600C from memory(wikipedia says 660C), which is below visible light emission temperature, which means that whilst in the molten state it would probably traverse the spectrum from red, organge, yellow, white.

Anyway, my five minute, first-hand experiment, appears to have debunked one bit of your "evidence". That seems quite problematic no?

Plus, without a catalyst I don't see why any metal would have remained in that state as long as those pools of molten material did.

I have no idea what that means, do you?

Is there any chance that the collapse itself could create enough friction or compression etc to heat steel above its melting point?

I would say no.

Why would you say that? Because you did a computerized simulation using the most likely variable values, followed by real experiments, all backed up by a degree in material science with twenty years experience in metallurgy fields, in collaboration with a large team of structural engineers, architects, physicists etc? Didn't think so.

That's one of the problems I have with a lot of this: a considerable amount of these claims really relate to very specialized and technical fields of knowledge(probably even interdisciplinary) that most people know little or nothing about. I agree that intuitively some of the arguments do seem to make sense, the point about how the buildings should fall sideways or buckle under localized assymetric damage seems intuitively correct, but intuition isn't enough for me in answering such questions.

[Unidian]

Anyway, my five minute, first-hand experiment, appears to have debunked one bit of your "evidence". That seems quite problematic no?

No, not necessarily. Molten aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, meaning that although it will luminesce faintly across the standard red-yellow continuum, it appears silvery-gray in highly illuminated daylight conditions. Physics professor Steven E. Jones, among others, has shown this to be the case. What sort of lighting conditions were used in your experiment?