snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Spook Central

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05 July 2008, 07:06 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,292
Airplane 9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.




Quote:
"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."
Do these people think there are mystery forces that just push on buildings at random so they fall in "natural" directions?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05 July 2008, 10:53 AM
franjava's Avatar
franjava franjava is offline
 
Join Date: 23 August 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,130
Glasses

Quote:
"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."
Yes, they actually often do. If you have a steel trussed building with hot enough fires, it will cause the trusses to sag making the upper floors fall straight down. That's what happened to the other WTC towers. It wasn't the weight of the planes that caused the collapse, it was the fires heating the trusses resulting in sag. The extra weight made it more likely to fall.

ETA: Guess I should've read the whole article before I replied. They basically said the same thing I did.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05 July 2008, 11:14 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,134
Australia

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Do these people think there are mystery forces that just push on buildings at random so they fall in "natural" directions?

I suspect many people imagine skyscrapers as being like trees - so strong they would fall over rather than collapse.

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05 July 2008, 02:30 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,120
D'oh!

Quote:
"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."
I think you answered your own question here, buddy. There was nothing natural about this collapse; a 110-floor building had fallen virtually on top of WTC7.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05 July 2008, 04:10 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,388
Default

Quote:
Yes, they actually often do. If you have a steel trussed building with hot enough fires, it will cause the trusses to sag making the upper floors fall straight down. That's what happened to the other WTC towers. It wasn't the weight of the planes that caused the collapse, it was the fires heating the trusses resulting in sag. The extra weight made it more likely to fall.
I think the common objections to the fire theory are:

* No non-WTC tall building has ever fallen due to fire, even though they in some cases were on fire for much longer, in a couple of cases over 24 hours.

* The sprinkler system should have handled a fire.

That they fell straight down is not strange, though. One floor falls down, crashes the floor below and so on. This is also why they didn't need to hit the building lower down. A structural failure will destroy the building, regardless of how high up it is.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05 July 2008, 05:16 PM
chillas's Avatar
chillas chillas is offline
 
Join Date: 09 September 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
Shouldn't that be:

9/11 third tower 'mystery' solved?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06 July 2008, 08:14 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 5,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
* No non-WTC tall building has ever fallen due to fire, even though they in some cases were on fire for much longer, in a couple of cases over 24 hours.
Of course that ignores a couple key points. Such as being struck by a massive object moving at a couple hundred miles per hour, which would have blown much of the thermal insulation off the steel.

And, WTS I and II (not sure about VII) were built with an unusual method of joining the floor supports to the main horizontal supports. I know of know other large buildings built using the same technique that has been subjected to a major fire.

All tall buildings are not the same. Techniques, designs, materials have changed over time. No modern steel skyscraper is put together the same way as the Empire State Building. Skyscrapers being built today do not use the same materials and designs of buildings built a decade or two ago.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07 July 2008, 11:54 AM
franjava's Avatar
franjava franjava is offline
 
Join Date: 23 August 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,130
Default

And then there's the whole jet fuel problem. That can make a fire burn hotter... especially whole tanks-full. Sprinklers can only do so much when there's accelerant all over the place. That's why airports use foam instead of plain water. You need to smother it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07 July 2008, 01:50 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,120
Read This!

In addition, wouldn't the sprinkler system have been compromised after a plane crashed into it?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07 July 2008, 01:54 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,388
Default

Quote:
And then there's the whole jet fuel problem. That can make a fire burn hotter... especially whole tanks-full. Sprinklers can only do so much when there's accelerant all over the place. That's why airports use foam instead of plain water. You need to smother it.
Well, that's one explanation I don't really buy. The fuel ignited a lot of stuff, probably most of several floors, but then it was gone. Look at the big fireball, that was the fuel going up in flames, and in a few seconds, it was gone. The kinetic impact bursting the tanks would have sprayed droplets of fuel everywhere and there was plenty of air to feed it, creating the fireball and burning all the fuel very quickly.

The fire that brought down the building may be started by the fuel, but not more. Besides, jet fuel does not burn very hot unless it gets forced aspiration. Even a pulse jet, one of the hottest engines around, only reaches around 1500 C (where is the little degree ring on a keyboard???) and they can be built out of fairly thin ordinary stainless steel and still withstand the violent forces that the pulse cycle subjects them to. Without that extreme forced aspiration and without compression, I would be very surprised if it even reached half that. Add to that that it takes a lot of heat to penetrate a thick beam and steel needs around 800 C (iirc) before getting problematically weak. To generate that amount of heat, solid matter is much more efficient.

I think that what brought down the structures was a lot of stuff ignited at once by the fuel, then an insufficient/damaged sprinkler system unable to cope with that much burning stuff.

Then again, some well placed explosives would not make it easier for the structure to remain standing, but those theories will have to be defended by someone else.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07 July 2008, 02:08 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
I
* No non-WTC tall building has ever fallen due to fire, even though they in some cases were on fire for much longer, in a couple of cases over 24 hours.
How many non-WTC buldings have falled after two 110 story buildings have fallen in the same complex? Could the fall of two 110 story buildings in such close proximity cause structural damage that would weaken the frame to a degree that multiple and massive internal fires could cause a collapse?

Quote:
* The sprinkler system should have handled a fire.
If it was working. After the amount of damage cause by the collapse of buildings 1 & 2, is it possible that power and water were cut off?


Quote:
That they fell straight down is not strange, though. One floor falls down, crashes the floor below and so on. This is also why they didn't need to hit the building lower down. A structural failure will destroy the building, regardless of how high up it is.
My conclusion as well. The destruction of buildings 1 & 2 caused massive internal damage, including damage to fire suppression systems. Intense heat from uncontrolled fires cause the building to collapse.

I don't understand why that is so hard to believe for some people.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07 July 2008, 03:26 PM
rangerdog's Avatar
rangerdog rangerdog is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 6,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Then again, some well placed explosives would not make it easier for the structure to remain standing, but those theories will have to be defended by someone else.
Let us not start that discussion again...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07 July 2008, 07:25 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Well, that's one explanation I don't really buy. The fuel ignited a lot of stuff, probably most of several floors, but then it was gone. Look at the big fireball, that was the fuel going up in flames, and in a few seconds, it was gone.
This is one of those notions you can test for yourself. Buy a couple of liters of gasoline, go out into a very large sandlot, and experiment for yourself. It doesn't work that way. The fuel isn't "gone." It isn't burned all away. Once the fireball has risen and dispersed, the fire will continue to burn for a long time.

Quote:
I think that what brought down the structures was a lot of stuff ignited at once by the fuel, then an insufficient/damaged sprinkler system unable to cope with that much burning stuff.
That's pretty much correct.

Quote:
Then again, some well placed explosives would not make it easier for the structure to remain standing, but those theories will have to be defended by someone else.
Crooked contractors, using second-rate materials while billing for first-rate materials, putting extra sand into the concrete, skipping every fifth weld, etc., would also weaken the structure.

So would the introduction of nanotechnology, microscopic "gobblers" that attack steel, burrowing into it and leaving tunnels and other fractures. No one on earth has this technology, but it might have been introduced by aliens visiting here in spacecraft.

However, since no one has presented any evidence for any of these, they are all rather stupid hypotheses.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07 July 2008, 07:27 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,120
Icon19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
However, since no one has presented any evidence for any of these, they are all rather stupid hypotheses.
Please Silas, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08 July 2008, 04:05 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,388
Default

Quote:
This is one of those notions you can test for yourself. Buy a couple of liters of gasoline, go out into a very large sandlot, and experiment for yourself. It doesn't work that way. The fuel isn't "gone." It isn't burned all away. Once the fireball has risen and dispersed, the fire will continue to burn for a long time.
Aircraft does not run on gasoline, they run on what's basically high quality kerosene. Among the key differences is that jet fuel is far less picky about mixing ratio of fuel to air.

Also, there is a huge difference in just igniting it (where what burns is the vapours off the top) and smashing it at a solid object at several hundred km/h, which will splatter tiny droplets everywhere. Droplets means more surface area and faster burn. Droplets high in the air means even more dispersion and even faster burn, especially since aspiration becomes much less problematic as well.

If the fuel lasted longer, why didn't the fireball reach the ground as the fuel fell?

If you would make a more relevant experiment, such as launching a container of jet fuel at high speed against a rock face, preferably with some air space below it, I believe that the results you would see is a fireball, then some remaining shrubbery fires, but no remaining fuel fires. I don't really know how to set up such an experiment practically here (especially not now, when it's fairly dry and open fire in the nature is frowned upon), otherwise I'd give it a try and post a video.

Edit: Splashing lighter fluid on a burning BBQ would probably be a more relevant example that's easier to replicate. Make sure you splash it from something like a glass, as you don't want the flame to travel back up the stream into a bottle, and stand well back if you want to keep your eyebrows. Make it a good splash not a controlled pour.

Quote:
However, since no one has presented any evidence for any of these, they are all rather stupid hypotheses.
And, as you may see from the last sentence I wrote on that, I'm not taking that hypothesis too serious, at least not until more evidence surface.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08 July 2008, 04:16 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,120
Read This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
If the fuel lasted longer, why didn't the fireball reach the ground as the fuel fell?
In a manner, it did.

Quote:
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08 July 2008, 04:18 PM
Mama Duck's Avatar
Mama Duck Mama Duck is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: South Texas
Posts: 12,152
Default

Is there some great point about WTC7 not collapsing when the other towers collapsed and not in the same manner? It was caused by the same event. People in the same aircraft disaster will die in different ways and at different rates because the forces of the impact are not uniform across space and time. Same thing here.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08 July 2008, 04:23 PM
Ana Ng's Avatar
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,110
Default

That part about the elevators was just horrific. It's like I kind of forgot how much horror was contained in that day, having been caught up in hoping for survivors. I mean, there was so much awfulness, but sometimes little details like that bring you back.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08 July 2008, 04:39 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Gloucester, ON
Posts: 6,869
United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Also, there is a huge difference in just igniting it (where what burns is the vapours off the top) and smashing it at a solid object at several hundred km/h, which will splatter tiny droplets everywhere. Droplets means more surface area and faster burn.
How many hours did the Pentagon burn after the fireball?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08 July 2008, 05:06 PM
rangerdog's Avatar
rangerdog rangerdog is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 6,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
How many hours did the Pentagon burn after the fireball?
She burned for almost a week...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.