The thing I like the most about the GLPers here

5*s

How come nobody talks about the mass damping system in the Trade Towers ?

Or building 7, or flight 93, or where the fuck the plane that hit the pentagon.. the list goes on of things people don't talk about when it comes to 9-11.

The Trade Towers were the very first high-rise buildings in the world to use mass damping system of that type.

Also, the very first high-rise steel building to collapse in such a manor due to "fire". 3 steel buildings collapsed that day because of fire. First and last instance of that ever happening in steel structure buildings.

Well, the damping system was very vulnerable to fire, and also located in a critical area, structurally. I kind of wonder why they used the system they did.

I'm not completely familiar with damping systems, but aren't they usually attached to the substructure of the building, underground? If the plane crashed and caught the top half of the building on fire, I don't understand what difference it would make to the damping system. Have there been any fires in other buildings with the same type of damping system since 9/11?

Mass damping takes place at the top of the structure, usually a large weight to counteract movements from the wind.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

But the Trade Towers didn't have that kind of system.

It was entirely different. They used what's known as " Viscoelastic damping ", which were basically large rubber pads at load-bearing joints.

I see. So, there were a lot of these rubber pads in the towers? Could these failing really cause the collapse of them? Especially at near free-fall speeds? What's the significance of them?

Talk radio yesterday on regular FM was fantastic. They let 1 "conspiracy nut" on asking about the Pentagon and the host let him have it and called him a lunatic, Sean Hannity-style.

The next callers said, "I didn't know those people still existed" and "What a loon! We know who did it! We all watched it together on television."

Yes, see link

[link to www.designcommunity.com]

If they started to melt at the same time the building was being torqued by the wind, it would have caused serious problems, structurally.

The significance of them is that when they are not where they should be, the building is no longer structurally sound.

Bad design , imo.

here's a more in-depth explanation of them

[link to www.designcommunity.com]

North Tower Blueprints

[link to 911research.wtc7.net]

They say never forget.. How in the fuck would someone forgwt something like this? lol seriously. I honestly cant understand how people remain so clueless about such a huge event 11 years after. Is it that they're afraid, or what?

Provided that this is what caused the collapse, I'm still skeptical about the steel columns that have 45 degree "cuts" in them all the way down to the base of the structure.

And all that molten steel.. The fire from the jet fuel couldn't have been hot enough or lasted long enough to melt the steel to make it molten liquid.

"Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700degrees Fahrenheit. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560 degrees. The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500 dF in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750 dF."

It just doesn't add up.. Without something to assist said fires that "melted" the steel.

You're damn right it doesn't add up.

The buildings didn't collapse, they disintegrated! They were reduced to concrete powder and pools of molten steel! It is my belief the scenario we saw could only happen if a combination of factors were set off in a carefully coordinated way. First, the center column can be clearly seen to start falling before the outer structure of the buildings. This means it must have been rigged with explosive charges, and immensely powerful at that, because the center column was massive! And then something like an underground micro nuke must have powdered the collapsing building.

But I guess the media is always telling the truth, so the laws of physics must have been broken that day. Allah himself probably lent the terrorists a helping hand...

I order to accept 911 truth, the sheeple have to acknowledge that everything they believe is a lie. Most are simply afraid to make that jump.

It's time for mama bird to kick the babies out of the nest and force them to fly.

I don't think you could attribute the collapse to one particular cause, but they were part of the problem.

Constant volume adiabatic flame temperature really doesn't have anything to do with it.

What's your opinion on rapid embrittlements of metal ?

Rapid embrittlement causing a structural collapse doesn't make sense to me. You would have to have every pillar in that place be under the exact same conditions in order for it to collapse inward as the towers did. If it were to happen in the second where the plane itself landed and the fires were most intense, it would be understandable. BUT, if there were seconds of the structure that had that happen, the building would collapse on one side, not the entire floor. The tower would have started to bend and lean in one direction and topple over if the break was significant enough, causing the building to tip over and fall from that layer. If the opposite side of the building was still structurally sound which it was along with 99% of the whole thing it would have more than likely tipped the entire building over onto the nearby buildings. The fact that the building imploded and fell down within it's footprint (for the most part) makes it physically
impossible for it to collapse in the way that it did.

The biggest flaw that sticks out like a sore thumb for me that day is the collapse of building 7. That's the first thing I looked into, and is what blew apart the original thoughts I had on 9-11. (In my sheeple mindest) Note I was 12 years old during that event. Building 7 makes absolutely NO sense at all.

Yeah exactly, just watching the video alone is proof enough for me that it was a controlled demolition. Find a youtube video on a controlled demo of a steel structure and watch the towers collapse. If you can't tell that they fall in the same manor by likely the same reasons, you're fucking blind.

hoping for a response from !ssac