For the Pentagon, check out the images in Jack the Tripper's post on this
not convinced of what hit the Pentagon, but that post has just shown me that it could not have been a 757. All this time on ATS posting about the WTC,
and just now have I realized how b.s. the Pentagon story was, too.
For the WTC,
- Fires were not sufficient to cause collapse initiation.
Hydrocarbon fires (like in the WTC -- fueled by jet fuel, plastics, paper etc.) max out around a sustained 800 degrees Celsius. Every now and
then there'll be a flashover, but those aren't sustained and don't last very long, and don't even raise the temperatures that significantly when
The fires did not stay in any one place in the WTC Towers for any length of time. The fires moved from here to there, meaning that no single part of
the burning floors were exposed to fire for the entire time. Further, the fires didn't last long to begin with. Other steel skyscraper fires have
lasted over 1000% longer (13 hour fires if I'm not mistaken) and not suffered any real structural damage at all, and not even local collapses
There was no significant heating to the WTC columns. Critical strength is not lost until steel is heated to 600 degrees Celsius. Steel will begin to
glow in broad daylight at just over 400 degrees Celsius. None of the buildings' columns were glowing before collapse, so therefore none of the
columns were even heated to 400 degrees Celsius. The NIST Report states that, of the columns they tested, none exceeded around 250 C. So the steel in
the towers was definitely below 400 degrees C, and likely even below 250 C. Other tests on steel have shown that steel can generally only be heated to
400 degrees Celsius max anyway, if I remember this correctly.
Steel is an excellent heat sink, meaning when one area of steel is heated, the heat will spread throughout the steel and help the steel stay cool.
There was a lot of steel within the WTC, and the support columns were especially thick, so there would have been a really nice heat sink in the large
amounts of steel.
It has been claimed that the trusses were much thinner and heated and failed, pulling in the exterior columns of the building and initiating collapse.
This is what the NIST Report asserts. Firstly, they offer absolutely no supporting evidence, and don't even show us any photos of trusses, let alone
trusses, and conveniently don't even have to because the trusses were within the buildings under the floors. The evidence they claim
is the buckling of exterior columns, which they present as bent aluminum facades, whereas aluminum is much less resilient to fire than thick steel.
NIST also fails to differentiate where steel has been knocked out-of-place by impact damage, and by fire (but I would say this is simply because they
don't have any good supporting evidence for their theory anyway, and they really don't). The truss theory also fails horribly after collapse has
initiated and global collapse begins.
- The collapse of WTC1 consisted of, allegedly, 13 of the lightest, most weakly-supported floors of the building (the top 13 floors) falling upon and
crushing into dust all 97 floors below, which were much stronger and had thicker columns, not to mention many, many more.
On top of that, most of the debris was being ejected outwards from the building, so it wasn't even falling onto lower floors for the most
part. This should've at least caused a major slow-down in collapse speed from the loss of driving forces. The top 13 floors even disintegrated before
too long into collapse. And yet the building still, and at the same speed.
WTC1 was pretty much falling floor by floor for some reason other than gravity and falling metal beams. Most likely explanation: explosives. This
would also explain the great symmetry of each floor being blown out on all sides at the same time. If parts of the floors were failing from weight
here and there, you would expect lopsiding, and the building would fall over sideways. This is what happens in demolitions that go wrong, and
happens in natural building collapses (of which, for highrises, btw, only earthquakes have ever caused -- no fires, ever, have had the
strength to globally fail a skyscraper).
I could go on, but if you hang around long enough, you'll see about everything in new postings. The info always cycles back around eventually from
the Howard Roark's on here denying it.
was shot down. Getting down to the bare bones, there was debris scattered over miles. I think it was eight miles, if I remember
right. When a plane just crashes into the ground, an engine won't bounce off the ground and land some miles away in a forrest. It just doesn't
happen. The debris being scattered so far, it would've had to have been lost from the plane while the plane was still in the air. The last call from
Flight 93 indicated the plane was smoking and the caller claimed he thought a bomb had gone off on it. A retired military colonel has come out saying
that Flight 93 was shot down, and he personally knew the pilot that did it.
Popular theory is that the reaction time for the first three flights was so painfully slow (more like non-existant), that certain military figures
disobeyed higher figures and took initiative into their own hands to make sure that plane never reached its target. I would not be surprised if
bringing it down was a part of the original 9/11 plot, but it appears there was an explosion on the plane, or it was shot down.
Hope that helps some.