Originally posted by TxSecret
I got this from another forum, thought it was an interesting bunch of points I wanted to share with you: Also here is a link to something a lot of folks don't know about.
www.prisonplanet.com...
Point 23
Construction on the towers, north and south began september 11 1971. At 1350 feet they were two of the tallest most famous buildings on earth. A fact most people don't know is they were engineered like proverbial brick outhouses. They were overengineered to withstand major winds and hits from large airliners.
Actually, recent calculations using modern computer analysis techniques have indicated that they were in fact under designed to handle the wind loads they they would have been subjected to.
They were built with 47 enormous steel core columns. Together with 236 large exterior steel columns that were welded and bolted together with steel plates. Further, there were steel trusses which cris-crossed making a mesh that connected every other exterior column. Plus there was diagonal bracing and steel rods connecting the trusses. There were also corrogated pans with poured concrete on every floor and all of this was anchored in a very deep and heavy foundation.
Which means nothing. That doesn't meant that the bolted sections were not too weakly coupled, or the trusses were too long to handle the extreme conditions of 9/11.
Point 24
The buildings were architechturally designed to absorb energy and to sway in storms.
It would be kind of hard to do that if the core core columns were encased in concrete, wouldn't it TX?
According to witnesses in the buildings near where the planes hit, the towers swayed for a few seconds as intended. Other witnesses in the area said that the noise and blast was significant but the tremor felt at the time of contact was minimal.
Wow, I've read eye witness accounts from people who survived from above where the plane hit in the second tower. They reported that the the sway was enormous and that the twisting effect of the impact broke walls, popped doors, and caused the ceilings to fall. That doesn't sound that minimal to me. Also the jet fuel spilled into the building and down the shafts. The resulting explosions caused huge amounts of damage.
Point 25No structure was built the same as the WTC towers. The only close example is the Empire State building, but that is so different, structurally, from the WTC towers that it isn't a valid comparison.
Fact. No steel structure building in new york, the united states or in the world has ever come down due to fire. In the last 100 years, dozens of steel buildings have caught on fire and burned for long periods of time and not come down.
A good example is the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, a 38 story office building that in 1991 had a hot fire. It burned on 8 floors for 19 hours and theee firefighters died but it did not come close to bringing down the building.
Actually it came very close to collapse. Again, not only was it different structurally, but that building was not nearly the size of the WTC towers and had only a fraction of the fire load per floor.
In contrast, the world trade center north tower fire lasted 1 hour and 43 mintues and the world trade center south tower lasted 56 mintues. They both burned significant portions of rubble, sheat rock, carpet, furniture, etc producing lots of black smoke indicating they were burning in efficiently and were relatively cool fires.
I think that is has been demonstrated time and again, that the color of the smoke has nothing to do with the temperature of the fire.
Point 26
A: Steel melts at 2700 degress Farenheit. B: Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with will burn briefly at 1800 degrees farenheit. C: because of the debris, carpeting, sheat rock, furniture, concrete, aluminum, etc and lack of oxygen, the fire at the world trade center probably burned at 1200 to 1300 degrees farenheit.
Once again, the steel would have softened to the point of failure LONG before the melting temperature was reached. This has been stated over and over again. Why does the author keep repeating it?
Point 27
It must also be remebered that a significant portion of the jet fuel exploded outside of the buildings (i.e.south tower).
I disaggree. If you claim that the fuel in the right wing exploded outside the south tower, then half the fuel (the left wing) would have remained in the building.
Do you have any idea how much heat is released by just a few hundred gallons of jet fuel, let alone a couple of thousand? Put it this way, there was enough energy in that fuel to fly the plane 1000 miles across the country.
The exterior columns were exposed to the air on three sides and would dissipate heat at a fast rate. And the beams and columns were coated with fire proofing materials.
The problem is, when the floor trusses began to sag, the direction of the loads on the columns changed from downward to inward. They were not designed to handle that change.
As for the fireproofing, it was a loose friable material, easliy dislodged by hand preasure. The impact would have knocked a large percentage of it off. (or soaked it in jet fuel
) Point 28
The official story is the buildings came down at point of contact because the intensity of the fire caused the trusses to push out the columns. Yet, if one views the wholecreated in the north tower by the plane, there are onlyrelatively small fires. And the fires must not be excessive because you can see two people standing and staring out near the opening.
Actually the trusses sagged, pulling the columns inward. This is clearly visible in a number of the photographs taken just before the collapse.
As for the temperature of the fire, it took time for the fires to progress over the entire floor. The people near the openings were not there for the whole time.
Point 29
The top section of the south tower began to tilt at approx 9:59 am. At this moment, a large cloud of grey dust suddenly puffed out of the building. The 35 stories of the top section continued to tip to 23 degrees past vertical. At this point, the upper segment was hanging over the edge by approx 65 feet. In frame by fame pictures, one can see the concentric and uniform mushrooming grey cloud rapidly expand to envelp the building. As this is happening, one can see debris being blown away from the building with an extremely powerful blast.
Yep, air pressure will do that. The top essentially dropped down inside the building envelope of the lower floors like a giant piston.
The overhanging upper section was then mysteriously shrouded and never seen again.
Then the whole building came straight down. With an incredibly fast 10.4 seconds the once might tower was reduced to a pile of totally pulverized remains.
Gravity, It's the law!
Government story is that this building experienced a compression or a pancake demoltion caused by weakened trusses and weight from above. At first this explanation sounds plausible, especially because this is what the television reports have told us time and time again. But common sense would indicate that the center of gravity of the top section was not centered over the lower section.
Yes it was. The center of gravity (and not just the top of tht top portion) would have had to have moved over 100 feet laterally before it was no longer over the bottom portion.
Thus, if there was a compression demolition, it would not be uniform because the center of gravity was considerably off center. Secondly, the severed top section that was tilting very much over the edge would fall somewhat independently. Third, this section would fall at a fast rate than the anchored lower section because it would not meet the resistance of the intact lower section. Fourth, the top and lower sections would break into pieces, they would not pulverize. None of these four things happened.
I'd really like to see his justification of how the the building would have broken “ into pieces, they would not pulverize.”
Point 30
The complete demolition of the North Tower took only 8.1 seconds. The north tower came neatly down and it's remains were equally powdered.
Since the dust and debris that did fall outside the building envelope would have been in free fall and would have obscured the actual time that it took for the top portion of the building to hit the ground after it started to fall, I would like to know exactly how the author of this came up with those times.
Point 31So, apparently is the author's ignorance.
Facts are very stubborn things.
Again, the dust and debris that did get knocked out of the building during the initial phase of the collapse would have fallen in a free fall outside the structure! Since this debris obscured the building behind it, there is no real way to tell if the fall of that part took 10 seconds or 12 or even 15.
Point 32
Remember the grey could that concentrically blasted out and down the imploding buildings and chased thousands of new yorkers down the street while covering the area with a sand like substance? That substance was cement and other material that was crystalized. Could the blast of jet fuel create this crystalization? No. At full blast jet fuel only expands at 208 ft. per second. Could a compression demolition do this? No because there is not enough latent energy.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
” there is not enough latent energy.”
TX, do you really agree with this statement?
The cement would crack and break but not pulverize.
And what does the author of this tripe offer to suport this contention?
Light weight concrete of the sort used in this building is not the same as the sidewalk slab in front of your house.
The only way the molecular composition of these materials could be so scrambled is if there were small cacle nuclear devices or there were high tech explosives.
Wow, so it was a nuke?
Since there is no reading of radioactive activity that can be confirmed, modern explosives are the logical choice. High tech explosives such as rtx or c4 can expand at over 1000 ft per second and create extremely hot temperatures.
They also create very loud bangs.
Modern explosives could cause the crystalization of the building materials, while creating a vacuum that could pull down the buildings at a faster rate than normal speed and leave a residue of extremely high temperatures.What a vacuum? How does an explosive that expands a 1000 ft per second create a vacuum?
Okay, That is enough. Nothing in that post is even close to reality.
