Why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on their own taking WTC 7 without explosives

Sounds like one of those outrageous conspiracy theories, doesn't it? If I understood the concept of irony, I might label this thread as ironic. It is an established fact, as everyone is aware, that the twin towers fell because the core of each structure was made, primarily, out of Fur, Polystyrene foam, Glue, and recycled Cardboard.

WTC 7? What do you mean, WTC 7? The wind blew it down... Look over there

No, a conspiracy theory is using thermite and holographic planes to bring them down. thanks for your input, it was most rewarding.

I said that if it was possible to disassociate the sulphur and calcium then hot corrosion could take place between sulphur and steel but sustained temperatures above 970 C are required for this phenomenon to take place.
I will try to remember my source for the figure of 970 C but the external source given by Howard which mentions the blacksmiths weld does seem to ring a bell. It might be in that or something that my head has associated with it.

In order for calcium sulphate to break down into calcium and sulphur (of some kind) there would have to exist a mechanism to allow such a reaction.
Was there an identified mechanism for this reaction?
Is there a theoretical mechanism to allow such a reaction?
Please note that I am not saying that it is impossible to break down calcium and sulphur but only that the temperature range in which these reactions are an issue are generally accepted to be in the area of 1100 C(?). Although the sulphurous reaction is in itself a remarkable and intriguing finding it is these temperatures which are most damaging to the OCT since these should not have been attainable under the conditions related to a fire and gravitational collapse.

If calcium sulfide broke down into calcium and sulphur, the sulphur would be available for reaction with the steel. This would be evidenced by the sulphurous reaction within the steel and by the presence of calcium.
Was there any evidence of calcium?

In the absence of an identified or theoretical mechanism for the process, and especially in the absence of evidence of the products of the reaction, then the only logical conclusion is that this theory needs evidence to give it some authenticity. Until such evidence is presented or excused then the theory remains speculative. If you run out of cream for your coffee, you cannot use chicken supreme instead, even though chicken supreme has definitely got cream in it.



It is generally accepted that the maximum temperature for a hydrocarbon fire at ambient temperatures and atmospheric conditions with stoichiometric oxygen availability is 825 C. Any diversion from stoichiometric conditions(perfect oxygen availability) would result in a reduction in this figure. Higher temperatures can be found in enclosed fires, especially near ceiling temperatures, due to physical rather than purely thermal influences. The fires in the towers were relatively cold fires, evidenced by visual observation of the smoke and flame characteristics, and by limited thermal imagery of the flames.
Debris pile fires would also be lower than these temperatures due to poor oxygen availability. Physical conditions which affect the temperature would include the large amount of cold inert material present at the site of combustion, and the availability of dispersed fuel within the largely inert mass.

Indications that the debris pile or parts thereof reached temperatures of greater than those which should have been expected arose from the +5 and +10 day thermal images taken of the debris pile. These show hot spots rather than generalised high temperatures. The hot spots were identified visually as being steel members within the pile. This precludes a heat transfer from the debris pile to the steel and indicates a heat transfer from the steel to the debris pile. Thus we can see that the steel was not elevated to this temperature by the debris pile fires and it therefore must have had another heat source from which to derive its high temperature.


Turbine blades are not made from mild steel but rather from cobalt or nickel alloys and the conditions of a turbine blade cannot be compared to a piece of steel in a debris pile. I will not be contacting any engineers regarding this because that would be embarassing for me and for them,


Gordon.

Originally posted by esdad71
No, a conspiracy theory is using thermite and holographic planes to bring them down.

I couldn't agree more. We all know the Official story on this subject is the absolute Gospel, I need only refer to it and I'm right, straight away, without question. The Official story is the word of God, who are mere mortals to question it? If you question the Official story of what transpired on September the 11th, 2001, you're an Idiot, or a Terrorist. End of story.

Originally posted by esdad71
thanks for your input, it was most rewarding.

Thanks! As was your input most rewarding! My name is Craig, pleased to meet you! Perhaps we could meet up one day... and you could share with me similar works of fiction as those you have shared here? That what be awesome! We could sing, and dance, and spread falsehoods on conspiracy websites together! It would be so great...

I'll look forward to receiving your contact details via u2u, or email, or something. Hey, maybe we could both bring our wives along, too?

Man, I'm so excited!

Here is some interesting data on the thermal decomposition temperature of calcium sulphate.

www.gold.org...

Another blurb I found:

Plaster (gypsum, alabaster) is calcium sulphate CaSO4 2H2O. It is the crystalline mineral from which plaster is made. Gypsum has three different decomposition cycles, depending on temperature. At 120-200C and 500C water is liberated, at 1000-1100C it decomposes completely.

ceramic-materials.com...


It seems that fireworks manufacturers use calcium sulphate.

Calcium sulphate can be used as a high temperature oxidiser

gamekeeper.deds.nl...

In any case, in the high temperature and combustion environment present in the debris pile, the reduction of the sulfate to sulfide or even to sulfur dioxide gas is not only possible, but probable.

It's quite a bit different, but but a similar concept.

Pretend you have a chair of some sorts, the legs to the chair are the outter support columns. Now pretend you have a 4th leg, in the very center, this leg is really strong, it's hardened rubber though, lets pretend it's really cold outside.

ooops, a large RC plane crashes into our chair, somebody needs lessons. Aww damnit, two legs on one side of it is damaged, and the plane managed to hit the center rubber column, and damage it as well.

Oh no, FIRES. #, it's warming up outside, it's no longer cold. The center rubber column is softening and starting to bend.

Now imagine this entire time, your fat ass beer drinking friend Bubbah is sitting on the chair. As the rubber column starts to bend, more weight is transfered to the outside support columns.

Oh crap, two of them are damaged. Without the center support, all 4 legs are going to break. But wait, the two that are damaged can hold LESS weight, they are going to break first. Now if you don't believe me here, even though it's common sense, try it ourself. Sit someone on a chair, and start sawing away at two legs on the same side. Those two legs will break first, and the chair will TOPPLE OVER TO ONE SIDE. Even if the other two legs break as well, the damaged ones will break first. mass will initially start to fall to the side, and will continue it's sideways movement until it hits the ground.

So help me understand, please, how the WTC buildings fell straight down. Any other collapse in the history of the world...a large building topples over, into fairly large pieces. It doesn't fall straight down.

Now 3 buildings collapse on themselves on the same day, when it's never happened before in modern history. I think i should go play the lotto. YOU LUCKY NUMBERS ARE MOST MANY 9 11 1 2 7. Don't choke on the paper.

Yeh ok, a chair and a building are kind of different, but think about the building you are sitting in right now, look up at the ceiling, lets say an 18 wheeler comes crashing through your wall. there's a door on the left wall, that's still intact, and a door on the right side, both are exists. which are you going to run for? If you run to the left one, you're an idiot, because if the ceiling starts to collapse it'll probably start on the left side.

I'm not saying that explosives definately took out the buildings. But it definately was not due to structural damage/fires/thebuilding swaying, or any combination of those.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]

Originally posted by esdad71
Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were struck on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Video evidence reviewed by NIST showed that the planes struck so hard, that WTC 2 actually shook for four minutes after it was struck. It visibly shook for four minutes.

Shook,,,to move backwards and forwards or up and down in quick, short movements.

Can i see this dramatic shaking video please?

Why was there aluminium powder all over the place?
This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only.

In iran a plane big military plane crashed in one of the concrete blocks , and the 10 story building did not colapse.
I am sure that the 10 story old bilding is no where close to the wtc when it comes to resistance, the building was made most of concrete and reinforced concrete.
Bulidings dont usualy fall after earth quakes, they fall when the earth quake takes place and not after.
Plus the columns should of just been sticking up if it colapsed from that.
So all the sudden columns are made out of dominos?

HERE IS A FACT.
The probelms is that some how(explosives in my view)broke the columns , , if they were to fall they would fall verticaly and intact.
So it does not matter at all because the columns broke and colapsed on each other.

Esad if your theory would be corect the columns would fall from the shock but intact so you should have a vertical fall from the impact, the shock wave was left right not up down, either way the columns cant brake.
It can brake at the top where the impact took place, but the rest shood be sticking up.

Glass , fire , wood, carpet , desks , can not brake metal columns.
A ...In your theory the shock was so grate that the columns broke?
B.... The columns broke because of the things that colapsed on them?
Mettal will not brake like glass, it will bend but it will not brake.

What we should be researching is if this type of columns brake and on what impact.
This brings us to building 7
How did the columns break there?
There was no major impact.







[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Why was there aluminium powder all over the place?
This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only.

Please explain, or clarify what you are trying to say here.

What aluminum powder?

What do you mean by: ”This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only?”

Originally posted by pepsi78

In iran a plane big military plane crashed in one of the concrete blocks , and the 10 story building did not colapse.
I am sure that the 10 story old bilding is no where close to the wtc when it comes to resistance, the building was made most of concrete and reinforced concrete.

How is that supposed to compare with the WTC towers?

Originally posted by pepsi78

Bulidings dont usualy fall after earth quakes, they fall when the earth quake takes place and not after.
Plus the columns should of just been sticking up if it colapsed from that.
So all the sudden columns are made out of dominos?

I seem to recall a picture of a portion of the exterior wall sticking up.. Is that what you are talking about?

Originally posted by pepsi78
HERE IS A FACT.
The probelms is that some how(explosives in my view)broke the columns , , if they were to fall they would fall verticaly and intact.
So it does not matter at all because the columns broke and colapsed on each other.

Esad if your theory would be corect the columns would fall from the shock but intact so you should have a vertical fall from the impact, the shock wave was left right not up down, either way the columns cant brake.
It can brake at the top where the impact took place, but the rest shood be sticking up.

Glass , fire , wood, carpet , desks , can not brake metal columns.
A ...In your theory the shock was so grate that the columns broke?
B.... The columns broke because of the things that colapsed on them?
Mettal will not brake like glass, it will bend but it will not brake.

What we should be researching is if this type of columns brake and on what impact.

I have read and reread that paragraph three times, and I still can’t make head or tails out of it. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by pepsi78
This brings us to building 7
How did the columns break there?
There was no major impact.

If having a portion of WTC 1 fall on WTC 7 and rip out a half the south face of the building is not a major impact, then what is?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by pepsi78
Why was there aluminium powder all over the place?
This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only.

Please explain, or clarify what you are trying to say here.

What aluminum powder?

What do you mean by: ”This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only?”

How do you obtain it howard?
Part my sucky english but I think you know what I mean.
Metal turning in to powder, very fine powder, that's what I mean.

Now acording to esad building 7 colapsed because of the debries from wtc hiting it.


You got to be joking me.
Take a look, that thing is still standing almost burid in dust and objects from wtc.

Esad I dont see you going in to details on building 7.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

If having a portion of WTC 1 fall on WTC 7 and rip out a half the south face of the building is not a major impact, then what is?

So, we are going from 1/3 to half now? I still have yet to see this extensive damage to the building.

If having a portion of WTC 1 fall on WTC 7 and rip out a half the south face of the building is not a major impact, then what is?

So look at that picture howard, wtc felt on it and I see it's standing up.
So hiting building 7 with rocks will cause a colapse?
You do not explain very well why building 7 colapsed.
So what is it?
Make up your mind is it flying objects or fire?

Oh, and Howard. Thanks for the analogy of the ice cube. That is not exactly what would happen to the steel but kinda. Steel is an excelent conductor of heat. Heat as in using the terminology you posted. You see, the heat coming from the fires would have been wisked away to other steel members. Now if there was enough heat to be transferred to over half the columns (core and exterior) to bring their temperature to over 600C is another story. Some say yes, some no. I'm not a thermodynamic expert so I wouldn't know.

Sigh.

One more time:

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.

www.firehouse.com...


There are a bunch more accounts saying essentialy the same thing. The building was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1.

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by pepsi78
Why was there aluminium powder all over the place?
This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only.

Please explain, or clarify what you are trying to say here.

What aluminum powder?

What do you mean by: ”This proccess can be obtained from high explosives only?”

How do you obtain it howard?
Part my sucky english but I think you know what I mean.
Metal turning in to powder, very fine powder, that's what I mean.

What metal and what powder.

Be specific.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

So, there HAD to be a hole 20 stories tall. Hmm...20 out of 47 doesn't add up to half the facade. And I don't see where he actually counted and made that decision. Could it be that it is like a fishing expedition story? Like, my uncles used to tell? It was a 20 story fish I tell ya.

Edit: I'm looking for photographic evidence...not anecdotal.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sigh.

One more time:

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.

www.firehouse.com...


There are a bunch more accounts saying essentialy the same thing. The building was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1.

You know this is just like the pentagon.
But the thing is that we see no hole.
At least at the pentagon we had a few frames.
And all the sudden there is a big whole in it.

Okay here is a question.
The hole was made by first tower, second tower?
I dont see any major objects flying from the towers when they colapse, they just fall down.
We got the video of the towers colapsing and there is no idication that a part of one of the towers has clashed with building 7.
Will you please put up a video of the towers colapsing so you can show me
when does it make conntact with building 7.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]

wtc seven fell in the exact fashion of a controlled demolition.
it fell in 6.5 seconds. 0.5 seconds longer than if it were falling through air.
the assymetrical damage should have cause the building to cascade to one side, if it were to break apart, or tip to one side if it stayed in one piece but still collapsed.

there were reports of a shockwave and explosions from witnesses, and the warning that the building would fall came from the office of emergency management inside tower seven. the office of emergency management was a fifteen million dollar blastproof bomb shelter in the sky. a perfect base of operations for remotely demolishing towers one and two, and then a perfect candidate for erasure from history.

Okay if it's eye witnes testemonys then here we go.

USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

terrorize.dk truck bombs.fbi.jack.kelley.rm
So esad now are you willing to stick with statements made by the fbi?
It's the FBI saying it, not me.
You know it wont surprise me if they say it was an inside job too.

The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

terrorize.dk 911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv