911 WTC collapse

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
there was no REAL investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Why the coverup? How did a STEEL building collapse from fire? (something that has NEVER happened!)








steel can get weak from intence heat you schmuck! jet fule burns really hot, causeing the steel to get weak. not to mention that the initial blast of the explosions blew away much of the fire proofing material. it was only a matter of time before sir issac newton took over.

[Edited on 12-4-2003 by KrazyIvan]




posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Newton brought the buildings down? Now there's a new conspiracy!


By the way, just how hot does jet fuel burn?

[Edited on 4-12-2003 by Stirfry]



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stirfry
Newton brought the buildings down? Now there's a new conspiracy!


By the way, just how hot does jet fuel burn?

[Edited on 4-12-2003 by Stirfry]


Even an ordinary candle flame can reach a temperature of 2500 F.


The key thing to understand is temperature is not the same as heat. just as in electricity amps are not the same as watts.


jra

posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 10:58 PM
link   

And at any rate, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. I'm not an aircraft expert, never claim to be, but how much bigger can a 747 be?


707

747

but i think it was a 767 that hit the towers. i can't remember.

767



were there any other explosions besides the two planes hitting the towers? nope. ask anyone who was there. it was anything but a controlled demo.


Well said! I don't see how the WTC destruction was a controled demolition. I think some one would have noticed people putting charges in the building. I'd think there would have been evidence of it being there befor it blowing up (IF there were any).

The WTC buildings did take the impact of a jet that was bigger than a 707, but just cause they said it could take the impact doesn't mean it could stay in perfect shape. I'd say those buildings held up very well. considering what happened to them. I mean when you have a big fire burning in a mostly inclosed space for 45 and 90 minutes, it's really going to heat up that metal. It may not have melted the steel into a molten state, but i'm quite sure it got red hot and weaked the metal enough and thus fell because it couldn't support itself any longer.

Regardless if it was the US gov't plan or not to have the WTC buildings destroyed. It was the jets that brought them down in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 7 2003 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Well, I sure don't understand why demo companies spend so much time and money to study the stucture and place explosives in strategic places, when all they need is a few thousand gallons of kerosene or fuel oil.
But that's just me.www.implosionworld.com...

[Edited on 7-12-2003 by Stirfry]

[Edited on 7-12-2003 by Stirfry]



posted on Dec, 7 2003 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I watched a documentary on Discovery Channel (or maybe it was History?), and they showed exactly why they went down as they did. It was not a controlled demolition, but the weakening of beams from intense heat, and the weight of the floors above crashing down at once. While the floors were relatively thin metal reinforced with cement, they were also much of the strength of the entire structures. Had the planes hit higher, they may not have collapsed at all, but burned instead.

[Edited on 12-7-2003 by Satyr]



posted on Dec, 7 2003 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk
We have defeated the IRA - have you Al Queeda ? - I would suggest that a shift in thoughts might be important at this time


No we did not defeat the IRA, we surrended. There killing ways got part of what they wanted. Election, hell we even allowed there leader toaccess to the house of common, not that they have actually gone there.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
What was that "eartquake" 3 seconds before each collepse? With the magnitude of 2.5? Interesting, isn't it? Has anyone seen the North tower collapse ? And that huge spire turning into dust? That is really annoying.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I have to go with the controlled demolition theory as well. There are some pictures out there that plainly show 1/5th of the building breaking off at the top yet it merged with the full collapse and didnt fall away from the main collapse. Perhaps the collapse created a vacum of sorts and sucked that 1/5th into the main collapse.


Another reason I think it might have been a controlled demolition is our friends from www.controlled-demolition.com... Controlled Demolition Inc were there right away to clean up the mess. The very same company that hauled away the Branch Davidian compund wreckage, The Oklahoma City Bombing wreckage and the WTC bombing in the 90s. Thats 1,2, 3 and WTC911 makes 4. At this point we are beyond coincidence.


There is also a very good possibility it was a new technology for collapsing the buildings. Not the proverbial c4 in all the right places but perhaps a energy weapon of sorts. Brookhaven National Labs are always tinkering with this kind of thing.

"911 The Great Illusion" addresses the weird physics that may have been involved
www.store.yahoo.com...

"This is one of the best 9/11 films I've ever seen. It covers the broad spectrum of facts exposing the globalists' orchestration of 9/11." -- Alex Jones

Yes I realize Alex Jones gets a little hysterical but from what I have gathered and cross referencing his references he seems to be on target. If he could present his material calmly and not get hysterical Alex could reach more folks in legitimate places of power



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Even an ordinary candle flame can reach a temperature of 2500 F.


I don't think this is true.
Candles only get up to about 1400 F unless there is something especially flamable in the wax, but then I don't think it would count as "oridinary."

education.jlab.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Steel's melting point is about 2500 F

And apparently under ideal conditions a hydrocarbon fire (such as jet fuel) cannot burn hotter than 1800 F. Ideal conditions would include a perfect mix of oxygen. The fires in the towers put out a lot of black smoke which is probably due to a less-than perfect mix of oxygen so that the fire would not be burning even at 1800 F. Regardless, there are several hundred degrees different between the temperature of the jet fuel and the melting point of steel, with or without the fire protection.

This is the first time ever that a steel building (not just steel re-inforced) has ever collased because of fire.

And remember, building 7 collapsed and it wasn't even hit by an airplane and was hardly on fire. Does that concern you a little about fires in tall, steel buildings?



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
If there was just any controlled explosion, the first thing would be that we would see massive smoke coming from the building, even if few small detonations occur. Today's technology is yet far away to demolish any building in a controlled manner without detonation. Still, I definately think that it was a controlled demolition.



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The following www link is interesting regarding the controlled demolition theory. It has animations of the "cat tail" blasts that is noticeable in controlled demolitions. You can also play the clip of some new york firefighters talking about the falling WTC buildings and how they sounded as they crumbled to the ground. Here is a quote from one of them, "It's as if they planned to take down a building."


Link



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
It was not a controlled demolition. This is the first time I see this thread, but we have been discussing this same topic on other threads

The explosions sent fuel and burning material to Tower 7, which is why it burned and fell. The difference between the burning of tower 7 and the twin towers is that we saw as the planes hit the buildings, and we could see the source of the fire of the twin towers, which was on the top. In tower 7 the not a lot of burning material was sent by the explosion, but enough to cause internal fires, which is what probably fell the tower.

BTW, it has been said before and even here some members and mods have said it. You don't need to smelt steel for it to give in under the tons of weight because of the buckling effect. The differential in temperatures in the steel bars caused a lot of strees and its what made the buckling happen. i gave more details on another post, but I am too tired to find it. There are a lot of links aorund that explain this.

There were probably also backdrafts from the fire, which could have been the causes of explotions that supposedly were heard.

Skyscrappers like the twin towers are also build so if they collapse they would do so on themselves. in order for a skyscrapper to fall down like a tree, the top of the building would have to sway more than half the width of the building, otherwise, there is no other way for it to fall as if it was a tree. Too tired to explain anymore, just look it up for yourself, there are several sites that have experts nad explain this.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy


Even an ordinary candle flame can reach a temperature of 2500 F.


I don't think this is true.
Candles only get up to about 1400 F unless there is something especially flamable in the wax, but then I don't think it would count as "oridinary."


Read your link again. You have the units mixed up. That should be 1400 Celsius, not Farenheit. 1400 degree Celsius = 2552 degree Fahrenheit.


education.jlab.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Steel's melting point is about 2500 F



You must not have read any of the threads on this. It was not nessessary to heat the steel up to its melting point. Steel looses a significant amount of strength at temperatures above 800 degrees F.

www.corusconstruction.com...


www.grantadesign.com...

www.house.gov...



And apparently under ideal conditions a hydrocarbon fire (such as jet fuel) cannot burn hotter than 1800 F. Ideal conditions would include a perfect mix of oxygen. The fires in the towers put out a lot of black smoke which is probably due to a less-than perfect mix of oxygen so that the fire would not be burning even at 1800 F. Regardless, there are several hundred degrees different between the temperature of the jet fuel and the melting point of steel, with or without the fire protection.


That is not true. I don't know where that originally came from but the wtc conspiracy theorists have been repeating is like a mantra without ever bothering to check if it is true.


Firemen know that in flashover fire conditions, tempratures can reach in between of 1000 to 1500 Degrees F.


Also, look at this limited test of an office cubicle similar to the ones in the WTC. A temperature 0f 800 degrees was reached, and they didn't add the jet fuel and the aircraft parts to the mix either.



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Who could have put explosive in the WTC Buildings I wonder?



Marvin P. Bush, the presidents younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.

The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider.

The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.

Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.

As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter] more



[edit on 23-9-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
The following is a must read for anyone studying the WTC collapse


www.structuremag.org...


It is a very interesting and thorough evaluation of the prevailing collapse theories (among structural engineers).


Please read this before you post anymore nonsense about explosives in the towers.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by HowardRoark]


kix

posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
From what I see the twin towers were doomed since th eday they were officially inaugurated....

They used steel in its construction FOR GOD SAKES !!!!

The best material EVEr for that kind of buildings is PAPER !!!! ARAB PASSPORT PAPER...

The day they found Mohamed Atta pristine passport on the rubles of WTC and survided the crash the inferno and the colapse, my theory was proven...

ARAB PASSPORT PAPER is the strongest material ever.....



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   
It is amazing how far the cognitive dissonance goes, how many times do people have to show you the Silverstein video, where he says "we are going to pull it," an industry term for demolition. They evacuated the building then Silverstein gave the order to pull it. It was on public television. It is NOT a theory, demolition took building seven.

Now you figure out the twin towers, how they fell at almost the rate of gravity, which is otherwise impossible in and of itself without demolition.

Case closed.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
It is amazing how far the cognitive dissonance goes, how many times do people have to show you the Silverstein video, where he says "we are going to pull it," an industry term for demolition. They evacuated the building then Silverstein gave the order to pull it. It was on public television. It is NOT a theory, demolition took building seven.


Uh, we went over this extensively in another thread. Sillversein was talking to a firefighter not a demolition contractor. The term pull has a totally different meaning to a firefighter then to a demolition contractor, and still another meaning to a skeet shooter.

Hey, thats it, maybe all of the firemen fired shotguns at the building at the same time and caused the collapse. Yeah, thats it.




Now you figure out the twin towers, how they fell at almost the rate of gravity, which is otherwise impossible in and of itself without demolition.

Case closed.


Ill tell you what. You calculate what the live load of the top portion of the building after it fell 15 feet to the floor below. Then calculate what the design limits for the live load on this floor were. Calculate the buckling and stresses put on the various structural components as the collapse started. Prove to me that there was something wrong in how fast the building collapsed. Be prepared to show your work. Then maybe. Just maybe, Ill listen to you. In the meantime, Ill listen to the engineers who see no problems with the speed of the collapse. The only thing closed here is your mind.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
From what I see the twin towers were doomed since th eday they were officially inaugurated....

They used steel in its construction FOR GOD SAKES !!!!

The best material EVEr for that kind of buildings is PAPER !!!! ARAB PASSPORT PAPER...

The day they found Mohamed Atta pristine passport on the rubles of WTC and survided the crash the inferno and the colapse, my theory was proven...

ARAB PASSPORT PAPER is the strongest material ever.....



So, Kix, you dont really understand anything about structural engineering, or materials science, do you?

I know it is a bit long and technical, but you really should read this

It is a pretty good synopsis of the various collapse theories that have been proposed by engineers. You know the guys that spend years in school.

Again, it is an interesting document, quite damning of the design and construction of the towers.


[edit on 24-9-2004 by HowardRoark]






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join