It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize Relating to WTC Collapse

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
leveller, you are missing the something.

the conspiracy was 10 years in the making. After Bush and his cronies failed to bring down the buildings in 93, they started to plan the new attack. over the next 8 years their minions would come in and drill and plant explosives and remove walls etc. the process was so slow going, nobody noticed it.

wait till you see what they're working on next. seems they are finishing the "knock over that pisa tower" thing started in the 17th century.




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Frankly this whole offer of $100,000 is a scam. Who is to judge if someone wins the money? the person putting it up, or an independent third party?

That's right. No one will ever win that money, becuase this guy will just keep denying that proof was offered.



Next time, read the article.


Someone is going to win the money in addition to runner-ups. The judges will be a panel of engineers. And the phrasing of this news submission is misleading, it's "To Who Best Proves That...."



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
... becuase this guy will just keep denying that proof was offered.


Boy, that sounds familiar!!

I saw this come up on another site of the non-conspiracy variety. It's funny when one sees engineers explaining how the collapse happened and people actually listening to them -- I'm not used to that sort of wackiness!


As an aside, our very popular thread on the Pentagon came up as a good source of info in the above-mentioned discussion.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

When the planes were built they were designed to withstand a full speed impact from the largest commercial jet flying. It's been thirty years. bigger planes, larger fuel tanks, faster speeds. None of which, were taken into consideration back then.


That is clearly rubbish. The WTC were built to withstand the impact of a 747 jumbo jet. Also, the official explanation attributes the collapse to a fire that melted the steel frame. Not to the stress caused by the collision, which it was suppose to withstand anyhow.


and what was the air force supposed to do? shoot the planes down over new york city and dc? no doubt the gov't and the faa were caught off guard. no doubt nobody thought this was a possibility until the first plane hit. at that point there wasn't much time left to deal with the other 4 planes, especially since two were flying over major populated areas. I do believe the last plane was shot down. only part of any of this 9/11 conspiracy I do believe.


Did you just miss what I said? They are trained for this eventuality. There are protocols for this.


see above


Actually, there is nothing in the above that addresses my point. There have been three airliner attacks, on the same day, hours apart. All hijacked planes. In the heartland of the US military industial complex. An F-16 travelling at Mach 2, could intercept an airliner within minutes.

If I were to take the first as incompetence; the second as stupidity; the third would have to be calculated.


they don't make em like they used to? The fireproof coating on the steel beams was damaged or destroyed in many areas. As mentioned above, the lack of upkeep was a major factor. THe heat generated by the fireball was high enough to weaken the steel. Once weakened, the weight of the buidling was enough of a catalyst to cause the steel to collapse. the top drops down and that weight pushes down on the remaining building with more force than was ever anticipated. Buildings collapse.


According to reports the steel was molten and remained burning for several weeks. So, it did not weaken the steel, it melted it. Which is the official explanation, is it not? Further, if the fire burning on the floor did cause the steel to melt, the thermal energy would have dissipated along the steel frame, and cooled off. That is generally what happens when melting steel in the industry, that is why they use blast-chambers, electric arcs or acetylene torches, because they need to generate a high very temperature to melt the steel, and need an abundance of oxygen to do so.

So again, how is it possible that jet fuel that burns at 220 degrees celsius or so, most of which was consumed in the initial fire ball, which was outside the building, was able to melt steel at 1500 degrees celsius in a limited air environment. Actually the fire fighters testify that the fires they dealt with were not that intense.

I have heard about buildings on fire before, but I've never seen a steel framed building collapse inwards from a fire. Have you? Source please.


The only gray area for me. Heat, flying debris etc. might have played a part. An example of how hot it was: There is another building across the street that is supposed to be torn down. Reason? Mold. The mold grew as a result of the water damage. The water damage came when the sprinklers were set off as a result of the heat from the buildings across the street. That's pretty hot.


In other words, you have no idea, but are prepared to dismiss it without questioning, because otherwise the only other alternative is a conspiracy theory.

There were towers closer to the the WTC buildings. They did not collapse. So why did WTC-7? Also what happened to the automatic sprinkler systems?


You don't need thousands of tons of steel to melt. As was evidenced after the planes hit, the steel was still standing. Was it damaged? Wouldn't you expect it to be after being hit with a plane that is much larger and was moving much faster and was carrying much more fuel than the building was prepared to handle?


See above.


Have you ever been in a fire wrecked building? I have. My parents' house burned to the ground one winter. I went there shortly after it happened. The entire house was gone. Wood door still intact. Everything melted but there was a bicycle frame, with wheels intact in the middle of the fire.


And the bicycle frame was made of steel, correct? It is not that easy to dismiss that steel and humans can be vaporized. If it indeed was. Now, tell me, how did the terrorists passport survive, when the plane disintergrated into a fireball and human bodies were vaporized.


Standard I hate Bush line in almost every one of these conspiracy posts. How does Clinton play in the conspiracy? The WTC was attacked during his terms. I've heard how Bush et al have been planning this for a long time. How does he do that when he is not president? If the two WTC attacks were planned by a jackass from texas, while the current administration had his head in a fat intern's skirt, I'd say it would make Bush out to be much smarter than he is and Clinton would turn out to be the biggest moron, do nothing individual to ever walk the face of this earth.


I did not say I hate Bush. I told you that given the dirty play on the 9/11 investigation and his refusal to investigate. It suggests something is being hidden.

Also the parallel to Hitler is well-founded. Compare:

German parliment attacked -- communists blamed -- fatherland security -- Hitler becomes dictator --- police state

WTC attacked -- terrorists blamed -- homeland security -- Bush becomes dicator -- Police state.

Given the progression of events before and after 9/11, and the 9/11 events itself. It seems very likely(the alernative is stupid) that 9/11 was an inside job. If you think otherwise, then why don't you prove it and claim the $100,000

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
1.
That is clearly rubbish. The WTC were built to withstand the impact of a 747 jumbo jet. Also, the official explanation attributes the collapse to a fire that melted the steel frame. Not to the stress caused by the collision, which it was suppose to withstand anyhow.

2.
check again. The building was designed to withstand a 707. the steel frame weakened from the heat thus allowing one floor to pancake downward.
You really think the gov't flew a plane into the building and then blew up bombs on the same floor? There wasn't any visible smoke or explosive action below the crash site when the buildings collapsed. If bombs were used, there would have been at least a puff of smoke beneath the crash site.

3.

Did you just miss what I said? They are trained for this eventuality. There are protocols for this.

so you're saying the air force is going to blow up a 747 over NYC, allowing flaming debris to reign down on the city over a several mile path? that makes sense. Let's kill 1000's and destroy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the city rather than let this take it's course.

4.

In other words, you have no idea, but are prepared to dismiss it without questioning, because otherwise the only other alternative is a conspiracy theory.

I don't think I said anything near that. I simply gave a few possible expalanations. I left out gov't conspiracy, alien attack and illuminati controlled plot because I don't believe in them.

5.
There were towers closer to the the WTC buildings. They did not collapse. So why did WTC-7? Also what happened to the automatic sprinkler systems?

the debris shower arched outward. Perhaps sparing some. Divine intervention has been used to explain the church at the base of the wtc, which went relatively unscathed. I don't believe in divine intervention so I'll go with my more realistic belief.

6.
And the bicycle frame was made of steel, correct? It is not that easy to dismiss that steel and humans can be vaporized. If it indeed was. Now, tell me, how did the terrorists passport survive, when the plane disintergrated into a fireball and human bodies were vaporized.

How did the front door to my parents' house remain completely uncharred and yet the frame around it was gone?

7.

WTC attacked -- terrorists blamed -- homeland security -- Bush becomes dicator -- Police state.

If I can recall correctly, he was already president when this happened. You're suggesting a coup of sorts, which would make sense if he used this action to take power. I hardly think we live in a police state. Ask someone who lives here now after fleeing that kid of environment. Most are likely to tell you to take your crap and shove it. They know what it's like to live under oppression.


Indigo, rather than go back and forth over the same crap. Answer me this. How on earth did they get the bombs in place to do this? When was it done? You're talking about the planned implosion of two of the largest buildings along with a smaller third building. Please give me something other than "people felt an explosion" or there was a seismic event. Of course the earth shook when the buildigns fell. That a lot of steel coming down in one place.





[edit on 16-12-2004 by Crakeur]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
oops, Crakeur beat me to some of my points.


Oh well here they are anyway:




Oh, goody a new 911 WTC thread, with the same old tired and wron arguments as the last one.

Please do yourself a favor, learn a little bit about science and engineering before you start rehashing the same old drivel



Originally posted by Indigo_Child
That is clearly rubbish. The WTC were built to withstand the impact of a 747 jumbo jet.


No. Please learn a little bit about building design and structural engineering before you post crap like this again.

The towers wer designed to survive the force of an impact from a 707, not a 747. Please read that again, it was designed to withstand the force of the impact, which it did quite well. The force of the impact did not knock the buildings over.

The designers did not design the buildings to withstand the severe structural damage and subsequent fires. If they had the buildings would have never been built, they would have been way to expensive.


Also, the official explanation attributes the collapse to a fire that melted the steel frame. Not to the stress caused by the collision, which it was suppose to withstand anyhow.


The building did withstand the stress from the impact. It did not withstand the significant loss of structural support, coupled with the fire damage.


According to reports the steel was molten and remained burning for several weeks.


The steel remained burning for several weeks? I think you mean the building debris remained burning for several weeks.


So, it did not weaken the steel, it melted it.


The current theory is that the softened beams shortened when the lost their strength, this increased the loads on the already compromised exterior columns.



Further, if the fire burning on the floor did cause the steel to melt, the thermal energy would have dissipated along the steel frame, and cooled off.


Again, the steel did not melt; it looses its strength long before the melting point is reached.

The thermal energy would have dissipated, but the problem was there was still a significant amount of jet fuel on the impact floors, in addition, the impact destroyed the fire wall separations between the floors so that you had a large area affected by the fire.



That is generally what happens when melting steel in the industry, that is why they use blast-chambers, electric arcs or acetylene torches, because they need to generate a high very temperature to melt the steel, and need an abundance of oxygen to do so.


Actually you dont want to make steel in excess oxygen. BTW, those are all modern ways of heating steel. How do you think that they made steel hundreds of years ago?

With charcoal!


So again, how is it possible that jet fuel that burns at 220 degrees celsius or so, most of which was consumed in the initial fire ball, which was outside the building, was able to melt steel at 1500 degrees celsius in a limited air environment. Actually the fire fighters testify that the fires they dealt with were not that intense.


I am not going to waste my time pointing oout just how wrong you are. You obviously have no chemistry or physics background and you simply do not understand how ludicrous your ideas on the energy output of fuel are.


I have heard about buildings on fire before, but I've never seen a steel framed building collapse inwards from a fire. Have you? Source please.


How many steel framed buildings also suffered structural damage as well as fire? None. Apples and Oranges.





[edit on 16-12-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Please do yourself a favor, learn a little bit about science and engineering before you start rehashing the same old drivel


And please do yourself a favour and read what some experts, who are trained in engineering, physics and chemistry are saying.

Sigh, I am not going to repeat what I've said already. So let's summarize:

1. Steel begins to melt at 1500 degrees celsius
2. Jet fuel burns at 220 degrees celcius, more than 1000 degrees lower.
3. Most, if not all, the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball.
4. To melt or weaken steel, you need a concentrated high intensity source and oxygen, or the thermal energy dissipates due to conduction and the area cools off just as rapidly.

The steel did actually melt and left a pool of molten steel that was still burning hot for several weeks:


American Free Press has learned of pools of molten steel found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic spikes at the beginning of each collapse.

These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of literally molten steel were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of literally molten steel at the World Trade Center.


Source: www.americanfreepress.net...

Your science is as sound as me melting a slab of concrete with a lighter.

You did not account for the rest of the WTC events.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

1. Steel begins to melt at 1500 degrees celsius
2. Jet fuel burns at 220 degrees celcius, more than 1000 degrees lower.
3. Most, if not all, the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball.
4. To melt or weaken steel, you need a concentrated high intensity source and oxygen, or the thermal energy dissipates due to conduction and the area cools off just as rapidly.



Hey, have you ever seen a blacksmith work steel?
You know, bend it into all sorts of interesting shapes for tools, decorations, etc?

He uses a plain ol' wood or coal fire to get the metal hot enough to warp and bend.

Think about it.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
there's no point arguing this. Indigo firmly believes in this conspiracy. No way he/she'll budge. Same as there's no way I'll be convinced that Bush was planning this prior to his being elected.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

It was also known that iron was "trapped" in certain rocks (iron oxide), just as copper and tin were in others, but the technique of extracting it into a pure form remained a mystery. With the lower temperature charcoal fires available via air blowing, between 1100 and 1200 C, iron would remain locked in the oxides. Although the iron does not liquify at these temperatures, it does soften considerably ("goes plastic") allowing it to be worked



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
there's no point arguing this. Indigo firmly believes in this conspiracy. No way he/she'll budge. Same as there's no way I'll be convinced that Bush was planning this prior to his being elected.


Anyone that believes that jet fuel only burns at 200 degrees is not dealing with a full deck.

Indego, there is a diference betwen heat and temperature. They are linked, but they are not the same. that is why you can pass your hand through a candle flame when the temperature of the hottest part of the flame can exceed 1300 degrees C.




Here is an interesting site with fire load tests done on full scale mock ups of steel framed buildings. Note that significant deflection and sagging occurs at about 700 to 800 degrees C, temperatures which are common in normal strucure fires that don't have a couple of thousand gallons of jet fuel burning in them.
www.shef.ac.uk...



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
That is clearly rubbish. The WTC were built to withstand the impact of a 747 jumbo jet.


Ehhhh, try again please. According to news reports of the time as well as interviews with the engineer and architects, Nova did a great show on it, they took into account the biggest fastest commercial plane of the time. A Boeing 707. The 747 was not considered a factor at that time.




TLee Robertson, the project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, last week, Chicago engineer Joseph Burns told the Chicago Tribune. Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing)
707 to hit it."
707



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Ehhhh, try again please. According to news reports of the time as well as interviews with the engineer and architects, Nova did a great show on it, they took into account the biggest fastest commercial plane of the time. A Boeing 707. The 747 was not considered a factor at that time.


The point has already been covered by Howard. I did not think it was worth addressing this moot point. The towers were built to withstand a 707 at 600mph.

There engineers on public record that also say they the towers could have survived a 747. A boeing 707 and a 767(the impact airliners) are only slightly different. The 767 is a little heavier, while the 707 is faster.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767 is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

Here is the physics

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of a 707 at 600 mph is 5,607,720 Kilojoules

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of the 767's that struck the towers are:

AA Flight 11 at 470 mph is 3,950,950 Kilojoules
UA Flight 175 at 590 mph is 6,227,270 Kilojoules

Therefore AA flight 11 had 30% less energy than the towers were built to withstand. And UA Flight 175 was only within 10% more.

So we can rule out that it was the actual impact and stress that caused the towers to fall. The collapse is attributed to the melting of steel and not the stress caused by the impact. And we already know that it not physically possible for jet fuel to melt thousands of tons of steel that's has a specific heat capacity of 700-1000 degrees more.

In other words the towers could not physically collapses due to the airliners attacks. There are obviously more elements involved.

I hope we are not forgetting WTC-7 which was not hit by anything.

The physics of the collapse is only one factor. You have to consider the rest too. Even if it were really the planes that caused the towers to collapse, the rest of the events of 9/11 still cry foul.

Howard,

I am getting sick of your patronizing attitude. I saw one source quote the specific heat capacity of jet fuel as 220 to 550 degrees, either way it is way below the actual melting point of steel. If you think your physics checks out, and I personally believe it a load of rubbish, go for the $100,000 and put your mouth where the money is(pun intended)



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
let's look at the controlled implosion theory alone. For this to work they need to place explosives in different parts of the building. The first explosions are at the BASE of the building, in the center. The second round of explosives are detonated at the BASE of the building on the outer sides. The third round of explosives would be set to go off at the top of the building.

Now, in the case of the WTC, a plane hit the building toward the top of the building. nobody's denying that. Then, the top collapsed downward and gravity did what it did best. I don't recall seeing any smoke or explosions from the bottom. Perhaps I missed that in my gazzillion viewings of the towers coming down. Had Bush set this up himself, it might have been done backwards but nobody saw him coming and going with the explosives so we have to assume he didn't do the dirty work.

An explanation of controlled implosions:
science.howstuffworks.com...

The article talks about bringing down steel structures on page 3 I think. It also talks about needing a much larger "bang" to set it off. The planes could have done that but there wouldn't have been a delay. Also, check out the picture of the steel structure wrapped for detonation. I can't imagine how a crew could have put that in place without anyone noticing. Was everyone on the payroll? I doubt it.

check out the puffs of smoke from the various detonation points. The amount of explosives in the building pictured below was only 200 lbs. That is a 20 story building that is basically just a concrete frame. A steel monstrousity 5 times the height would require a hell of a lot more explosives and, seeing as the building was not demo'd first to clear out the detonation points, the explosives would probably have to be more or less out in the open. Can't see how it would have been overlooked by the tens of thousands of people passing thru each day.





posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Gee, i hope i don,t have to commit suicide Romeo. All these people who suicide seem to end up with multiple bullet wounds to the head. Ouch! As far as melting or even softened steel goes, the official story remains from what i have read that the fires brought down the buildings. Now, in my experience and i have been a fitter machinist / special class welder for 36 years, the heat to soften those beams would have had to be immense. I know what it takes to cut or even slightly bend only a 12 inch I beam. Some time with a pre heat torch before even starting. Aircraft fuel is basically kerosine from my understanding. Nah. I,ve cut thousands of tons of steel. Can,t see it. What a pity that the place was cleaned up so quick & all that frame steel shipped over to Asia & melted down before any Metallurgists could have a look at it. I,m reckoning that they could have shed some light on things. To keep it to the thread Fred, i don,t think anyone is gonna get the hundred grand. Conspiracy theory, i believe, is becoming conspiracy fact. I shall wait for the knock on the door. Best keep the flyscreen locked.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
wombat, perhaps you can give us some insight into how Bush's crones could have put the explosives in place to bring down the buildings without anyone noticing.

Seems to me that is the one area consistantly ignored by all conspiracy theorists.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I can't imagine how a crew could have put that in place without anyone noticing. Was everyone on the payroll? I doubt it.



Can't see how it would have been overlooked by the tens of thousands of people passing thru each day.


Can you imagine that it can be set-up after closing hours? As in during the night?

Further, there are more explanations than bombs in multiple floors. You have to consider that they found molten steel burning hot for several weeks, despite attempts to cool it, and that the heat was so tremendous from whatever caused the towers to collapse, that it somehow melted the steel frames of WTC-7 too. You also have to consider the spikes in the seismographs.

So two other possibilities:

1. An underground nuclear blast: I doubt it. If it was a nuclear blast it would have caused all of the towers in the immediate area to collapse. Further, I don't see how it would have gone unnoticed by the rest of the worlds geologists.

2. A directed energy weapon: This is the most far-fetched of them all, but in fact the only one that works and while it belies belief, the US and Russia actually are documented to have such weapons.

Listen before you dismiss, for it will only be out of ignorance. The WTC towers collapsed and were vaporized into a pile of dust. There are medical examiners on record saying that bodies were vaporized( and a terrorists passport survives
)This has happened in less than an hour. Which suggests that the atomic structure of the tower(including the people) were superheated. In the same way a microwave oven heats foot. It does so by directing microwave energy which excites the atoms and produces heat endothermically.

What a directed energy weapon does is basically direct the energy produced by a powerful magnetron device, onto the target and the target atomic bonds begin to break.

Now, that is not possible with jet fuel fire. Nor does it seem possible with demolition charges. Also take note that the debris was burning for several weeks as was the puddle of molten steel.

Further, we agree that WTC -7 was somehow superheated to cause it to lose stuctural integrity. Now, no other theory can explain how the thermal energy from WTC-1 and WTC-2 could spread to WTC-7. It's already absurd enough to say WTC-1 and WTC-2 was melted by the jet fuel.

However, there is one way for the thermal energy to transfer to WTC -7: A plasmoid cloud.


The physicist told AFP, "From my experience as a physicist and research scientist with the GRU (Russia's Central Intelligence Agency) I have enough experience to judge that the WTC towers have been burning too quickly, too hot, and too completely to have been caused by the kerosene [jet fuel] fires that resulted from the crashes. Furthermore, the demolished buildings nearby [the 47-story Salomon Bros. Bldg.] are an indication that there was a plasmoid cloud involved, which probably affected the buildings nearby."

A plasmoid cloud is a heated and ionized gas that can be created and projected using far infrared thermal waves. Plasma occurs when a gas is heated so that some electrons have been separated from their atoms or molecules. Ball lightning is considered by experts to be a plasmoid phenomenon.

The physicist told AFP that he believes that a plasmoid may have been projected onto the towers before the planes struck. "The planes may have had a plasmoid in front of them. Just two or three seconds before the planes hit the towers, a plasmoid on the towers would have caused the Faraday cabin effect, like a car being hit by lightning."


Source: Link

Just look at this:



Seriously, have you ever seen a steel building be pulverized into a fine powder like this? What can cause 200 hundred thousand tons of steel and concerete and thousands of humans to be turned into dust? Have terrorists re-invented the laws of physics? And are their passports protected with a divine shield? Or was it really a directed energy weapon deployed by the government to justify the death of "democracy" I am going to go for the latter. It makes the most sense.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Banshee]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Who ever said you need to melt steel for it to buckle under pressure?.....

First of all, the WTC design is totally different from the Empire State building, the WTC towers were mostly air "in comparison" to the Empire State building. You cannot judge what happened to the WTC by what happened to the Empire State building...

Second of all, to the question some people were asking as to why the second tower fell before the first, perhaps you should remember that the second tower was hit lower than the first, thus there was more pressure being exerted on the weakening steel frame. The first tower was hit between floors 94-98, the second was hit between floors 78-84. The difference is that the second tower was under more pressure, by tons, than the first...

Third, someone asked why didn't the towers fell on their side?.... as another member said, buildings are not like trees.....a tree is a solid one piece structure, while buildings are made with a frame which contains millions of different parts. Skyscrapers are built in a manner that they fall on themselves "ALWAYS", in order for a skyscraper to fall on it's side, you need to sway the building over halfway it's center, so it would lose it's balance and fall on one side. There is no force on Earth, except the most horrible earthquake, or some other really major catastrophe, that would make a skyscraper sway that much.

Fourth, as mentioned before, you don't need to melt steel in a building in order to compromise the structure and buckle it. Structural steel begins to soften at 450 C, half of it's strength is lost at 650 C, the maximum temperature that jet fuel burns is more or less 1,000 C. Now, how is it exactly that such a fire can make a skyscraper collapse without melting the steel? The anwser is simple, there is a little problem with structural fires called "yield level residual stress", and this happens when there is a huge fire which has a difference of 150 C temperature from one location to another. This difference in temperature will produce distortions in the steel, and cause a buckling effect.


[edit on 17-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
indigo child....the dust that you see in that picture is not steel being pulverized........ can you post links to these reports that bodies and steel were pulverized at the wtc? Read the supposed report from that German scientist....sorry but that sounds too far fetched, it is possible but what is the proof? dust?......
It is also possible that a giant ghost farted close to the tower and made it collapse, hey ghosts exist you know....


[edit on 17-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Structural steel begins to soften at 450 C, half of it's strength is lost at 650 C


No it doesn't.


the maximum temperature that jet fuel burns is more or less 1,000 C.


No it isn't.



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join