New pics from 9/11

[Q's 91z28]

Some new pics being released today from Sept. 11. All I can say is "WOW" these pics are insane.

:flag1:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-ABC-News.html

[Iwantone2]

Sad, sad pictures...:(

The comments towards the bottom of the link are priceless though...

[Gabe]

Here's something to think about...

Any of you think it is odd that the building colapsed (imploded) on itself when the building was hit at the top and not the botom. You figure that the damage or collapsing would have only been to the top floors. Usually takes professionals to make buildings implode the way the did.

If you guys want to see a video that will make you guys questions some s**t check out a video called "Loose Change".

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Iwantone2

Sad, sad pictures...:(

The comments towards the bottom of the link are priceless though...

Originally Posted by Gabe

Here's something to think about...

Any of you think it is odd that the building colapsed (imploded) on itself when the building was hit at the top and not the botom. You figure that the damage or collapsing would have only been to the top floors. Usually takes professionals to make buildings implode the way the did.

If you guys want to see a video that will make you guys questions some s**t check out a video called "Loose Change".

Conspiracy theories, heh. found a VERY good scientific answer to that whole 'melting point of steel is higher than jet fuel can burn' point here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0010454AAEhMIJ (labeled as best answer).

To sum: yeah, jet fuel doesn't burn at the temperature that steel melts at. but, the burning jet fuel keeps adding heat to the steel. if the steel isn't able to dissipate this heat faster than more heat gets added, the temp of the steel continues to climb even if the temp of the fire remains the same.

I don't think I did that explanation justice with my very limited understanding of physics, so be sure to read the actual thing and form your own opinions off of that, not my horrible summary of it.

Anyway, back on topic, those are some powerful photos there. But I like how they included the pic of the new tower going up towards the end

[Hemlawk]

I didn't realize helicopters were allowed to fly around NYC at that time.

Incredible images.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Hemlawk

I didn't realize helicopters were allowed to fly around NYC at that time.

Incredible images.

Police helicopters. The link states the photos were taken by police photographers, which is probably why the photos hadn't been released yet (evidence).

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Conspiracy theories, heh. found a VERY good scientific answer to that whole 'melting point of steel is higher than jet fuel can burn' point here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0010454AAEhMIJ (labeled as best answer).

To sum: yeah, jet fuel doesn't burn at the temperature that steel melts at. but, the burning jet fuel keeps adding heat to the steel. if the steel isn't able to dissipate this heat faster than more heat gets added, the temp of the steel continues to climb even if the temp of the fire remains the same.

I don't think I did that explanation justice with my very limited understanding of physics, so be sure to read the actual thing and form your own opinions off of that, not my horrible summary of it.

Anyway, back on topic, those are some powerful photos there. But I like how they included the pic of the new tower going up towards the end

Not to mention that the steel didn't even have to melt. If you've ever worked with steel then you would know that as it gets hot it becomes very, very malleable (as with all metals) - basically the steel kept heating and heating and eventually the reinforcements were able to bend, deform, etc - this initiated the upper levels falling, at which point their cumulative impulse (the measure of force as it is delivered over time - i.e. resting a 20 pound weight on a surface has less impulse than dropping it) was able to overcome the reinforcements of the lower levels.

Also - you don't have to bring a structure down from the bottom, its just easier that way.
- Bryon

[jleinaweaver]

Originally Posted by Gabe

Here's something to think about...
Any of you think it is odd that the building colapsed (imploded) on itself when the building was hit at the top and not the botom. You figure that the damage or collapsing would have only been to the top floors. Usually takes professionals to make buildings implode the way the did.

I don't find it odd in the least, the force of the floors collapsing could not be supported by the lower floors. Toss in a hot fire that reduced the structural strength of the building steel skeleton.

If you studied professional implosions, you would understand that they cut up the structure before hand. For a building the size of the WTC, that would have to be a pretty extensive operation, one that wouldn't go unnoticed by the thousands that work there.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Not to mention that the steel didn't even have to melt. If you've ever worked with steel then you would know that as it gets hot it becomes very, very malleable (as with all metals) - basically the steel kept heating and heating and eventually the reinforcements were able to bend, deform, etc - this initiated the upper levels falling, at which point their cumulative impulse (the measure of force as it is delivered over time - i.e. resting a 20 pound weight on a surface has less impulse than dropping it) was able to overcome the reinforcements of the lower levels.

Also - you don't have to bring a structure down from the bottom, its just easier that way.
- Bryon

Originally Posted by jleinaweaver

I don't find it odd in the least, the force of the floors collapsing could not be supported by the lower floors. Toss in a hot fire that reduced the structural strength of the building steel skeleton.

^ also good points.

[Tal]

Originally Posted by Gabe

Any of you think it is odd that the building colapsed (imploded) on itself when the building was hit at the top and not the botom. You figure that the damage or collapsing would have only been to the top floors. Usually takes professionals to make buildings implode the way the did.

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

[BIG_V_SS]

Regardless of why the buildings fell, it is important to remember why it happened and to get those responsible. Many people lost their lives for absolutely no reason!!

[BlackSS831]

I remember seeing that happen at work, dropped to my knee's - couldn't believe it actually happened. Hoping my family in NY wasn't in the area.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Gabe

Here's something to think about...

Any of you think it is odd that the building colapsed (imploded) on itself when the building was hit at the top and not the botom. You figure that the damage or collapsing would have only been to the top floors. Usually takes professionals to make buildings implode the way the did.

If you guys want to see a video that will make you guys questions some s**t check out a video called "Loose Change".

I understand the physics well enough to know not to listen to the nutt jobs out there that subscribe to these conspriacy theories.

I quit explaining crap to them. I'm not gonna argue when someone says 2+2=7 It's pointless.

[FenwickHockey65]

Tin foil hats all around.