I may have missed it - have we already discussed Charlie Sheen?

[Hillbeans]

Before I read this thread I thought for sure the controversy would be the line of designer kiddie clothing he's designing and marketing????

No offense, but this guy has lost custody of his own kids - I just see this whole "kiddie clothing" thing as very ironic.

 

[Laurajean1014]

It just shows you how "out of touch" celebs can be (as well as, gullable).

Two and 1/2 men all sharing one brain!

 

[toto2]

No burning building in history has ever collapsed , exept the 3 buildings at the WTC. Some of them burned for up to 17 hours , and never collapsed.

The fuel from the planes was almost all burned at the moment of impact and most of the material from the offices were fire resistant. The temperature of burning plane fuel is much lower than the temparature of melting metal.

The core of the buildings were made of 47 steal towers. If the floors would have pancaked one on top of the other , those steel pillard would still be standing , damadged , but standing. An analyse of these steel pillar would have given a good insight at what went on, but it was all promptly send to asia to be melted. There is no mention of the 47 pillars in the 9/11 commission report.

If you watch the news reports from that day , most reporters report of numerous explosions before the buidings collapsed , and when you watch the videos , you can see things that lookes like explosion present in a controle demolition.

A Lot of very serious engeniers are at lost to understand how it was possible for these buildings collapsed. One building: bad luck. Two: disturbing.
three: unthinkable!


Does it prove anything. No. But it does raises some questions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

( Now I know I am starting something)

 

[HayGan]

You might find this interesting...

BTW, there were only 2 buildings, hence the name twin towers

Where do you get that no burning building has ever collapsed?

As for Charlie Sheen, I would tend to believe Martin Sheen before I believed anything that came out of his obviously disturbed mind

No burning building in history has ever collapsed , exept the 3 buildings at the WTC. Some of them burned for up to 17 hours , and never collapsed.

The fuel from the planes was almost all burned at the moment of impact and most of the material from the offices were fire resistant. The temperature of burning plane fuel is much lower than the temparature of melting metal.

The core of the buildings were made of 47 steal towers. If the floors would have pancaked one on top of the other , those steel pillard would still be standing , damadged , but standing. An analyse of these steel pillar would have given a good insight at what went on, but it was all promptly send to asia to be melted. There is no mention of the 47 pillars in the 9/11 commission report.

If you watch the news reports from that day , most reporters report of numerous explosions before the buidings collapsed , and when you watch the videos , you can see things that lookes like explosion present in a controle demolition.

A Lot of very serious engeniers are at lost to understand how it was possible for these buildings collapsed. One building: bad luck. Two: disturbing.
three: unthinkable!


Does it prove anything. No. But it does raises some questions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

( Now I know I am starting something)

 

[HayGan]

Just in case thee were more questions....

The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.

However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

 

[tiff211]

What is the reasoning behind this being a conspiracy? Why would the gov't be behind something like this?

 

[jgmklmhem]

Just to further Haygan's points. Explosions could have come from anything from stockpiles of cleaning products to industrial solvents to someone's oxygen tank going up to just closed containers building up pressure in the near by heat and finally blowing. Another thing to remember is that a great deal of Asbestos had been removed due to environmental codes which would have protected the main structures longer than the current substitutes.

 

[toto2]

"Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. 7

Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters

The Windsor Building Fire
The Windsor Building fire

The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires."


From: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

[toto2]

BTW, there were only 2 buildings, hence the name twin towers

:

In New-York , on 9/11 , 3 buildings collapsed WTC 1 , WTC 2 and WTC 7 , wich was not hit by any plane.

"Building 7 underwent a total structural collapse at 5:20 PM. 2 Although there were few people in the area to witness its destruction, several videos captured the event. Like the collapses of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7 commenced suddenly and was over in seconds. At first the penthouse, which rests on central columns, began to drop. Within a second the entire building began to drop as a whole, falling into its footprint in a precisely vertical fashion. The destruction of Building 7, which is not explained by the official theory, looked exactly like a standard controlled demolition.
In under seven seconds Building 7 was transformed from a skyscraper to a tidy rubble pile.

It is commonly believed that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of WTC 7. In fact Building 7 was separated from the North Tower by Building 6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken. "

 

[HayGan]

toto2,

Your examples are all of fires not of collision plus fire. The information I provided certainly demonstrates that the actual collisions were a serious contributor to the collapse of the buildings. These were not ordinary fires!

Believe what you like but as someone who works in the steel industry, I understand why those buildings collapsed!

 

[Disney Doll]

I don't mind riducule per se but sometimes, here, and not in this thread unless Mr. Sheen reads the DISBoards and that would shock me, people call names and laugh as a form of shutting people up. They call people with complaints whiners or worse. It's a form of control and it has always really bothered me.

It's only a form of control if you allow yourself to be controlled.

 

[toto2]

toto2,

Your examples are all of fires not of collision plus fire. The information I provided certainly demonstrates that the actual collisions were a serious contributor to the collapse of the buildings. These were not ordinary fires!

Believe what you like but as someone who works in the steel industry, I understand why those buildings collapsed!

"Actual Conditions

Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual structural damage and fires in the Twin Towers precludes those conditions.
FEMA diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They show about 13 percent of the North Tower's perimeter columns broken, and 10 percent of the South Tower's broken.
The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the South Tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure.
Structural Damage

The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage.

* People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms.
* The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns.
* The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane's trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage.

Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core. Each of the impact holes were confined to five floors. The North Tower's impact was so high -- just 15 lightweight stories from the top -- that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall."

 

[Disney Doll]

I also recall hearing that jet fuel burns much hotter than "regular" fire, which was a contributing factor.

In a documentary about the WTC towers after 9/11, the designer of the buidlings was actually lauded for how well the buildings withstood the huge impact of a 747 hitting them, and stayed up for as long as they did, with the higher temperature jet fuel fire raging within.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

"Actual Conditions

Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual structural damage and fires in the Twin Towers precludes those conditions.
FEMA diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They show about 13 percent of the North Tower's perimeter columns broken, and 10 percent of the South Tower's broken.
The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the South Tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure.
Structural Damage

The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage.

* People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms.
* The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns.
* The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane's trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage.

Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core. Each of the impact holes were confined to five floors. The North Tower's impact was so high -- just 15 lightweight stories from the top -- that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall."

I agree with earlier posters on why the towers fell.

Charlie Sheen is either a moron or has read way too many inane Hollywood scripts.

 

[RitaZ.]

whatever floats their boat (which btw I have strategically placed a hole in--so in a bit--it will suddenly sink).

The guy is an idiot; always has been, always will be.

Oh dear Charlie, no more ice cream for you, it's freezing your brain!

 

[Taylor]

I think that Charlie Sheen should take advantage of the freedoms allowed to him by the USA and leave the country as soon as possible.

 

[Charade]

No burning building in history has ever collapsed ,

I stopped reading after this.

That is completely false.

 

[toto2]

I stopped reading after this.

That is completely false.

Because of a fire, never !

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Because of a fire, never !

Any firemen care to comment?

 

[disneynutt1225]

This article is very interesting regarding the myths of 9/11. It's called "Debunking the Myths" and it was written in Popular Mechanics magazine. I'd copy and paste, but it's a pretty long article. I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one just doesn't make sense to me. It's an awfully disgusting allegation to make.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

ETA: I wanted to particularly emphasize this point:

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."