Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by -PLB-


"the amount it would take is absurdly high"

that isn't a reasonable argument, as the high temperatures obviously existed, and something must have caused them. eyewhilsay i have this friend..and one of his relations is a very skilled chemist. they develop high tech explosives for the military. they said they've made stuff that makes c4 look like a cherry bomb.

it is a logical fallacy to say "i can't fathom the tech to accomplish this, therefore it didn't happen".

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825°C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648°C

Steel doesn't go from normal strength to total liquid in half a degree, it goes through this long period of losing tensile strength as it heats up, it turns into red hot taffy; without the tensile strength of steel supporting the concrete column, it collapses pretty quickly under all that weight.

reply to post by esdad71


i'm not sure. perhaps debris from the towers? i don't have an answer to that, i haven't researched it, but i don't see how it hurts the "inside job" theory. molten steel is molten steel. something jet fuel and friction can't explain.

everything has a limit to how hot it can burn, and i don't think anyone supporting the OS denies that jet fuel was the hottest burning substance in the towers. jet fuel cannot melt steel. we're still left with the question "what did?"

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It is a very reasonable argument. I find it unreasonable to explain a phenomena you do not understand by making up non-existing substances that would shatter our understanding of physics. You will have to come with at least some evidence to make it plausible. Or you could as well argue that god did it. A much more reasonable explanation is that the huge amount of combustible material that was already available in the WTC was responsible. And if you can not imagine how that could be responsible, by your own admission, ignorance is not a valid argument.

reply to post by Griffo


i know. i also know the temperatures didn't get anywhere near 800 degrees C in those towers. someone actually had an infracam, and measured the temperatures 10-15 mins after the planes hit. obviously it won't tell us the whole story, but it showed around 220F (90ishC)

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. [8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 ºC are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC."

911review.com...

"limited exposure if any above 250C" that isn't hot enough to cause the steel to fail. it especially wouldn't cause the top of the towers to come slamming down on the undamaged floors.

reply to post by Juanxlink


Because once the exterior columns have been separated from the building will free fall from gravity

The remaining mass of the building will still encounter resistance from the structure of the building underneath
as it falls slowing the mass of debris

reply to post by -PLB-


you're completely ignoring the point. look at my last post. here, i'll re-quote the important part

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. [8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 ºC are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC."

911review.com...

by NIST's own admission, they didn't see temperatures hot enough to cause collapse. nowhere near hot enough to melt steel. yet steel melted (at this point, i feel a bit like a parrot, but as no one is giving me any crackers...) so the issue remains.

unless you're going to debunk NIST's own admission, or provide a source for the heat (which i'm sure you would have already done if you had an answer), you don't really have anything to present.


the "huge amount of combustible material" doesn't burn hot enough (no where near). volume doesn't change that simple, inconvenient fact.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You are kidding, right? Do you truly believe that those fires did not get hot enough to weaken the steel? I mean, any video I watch of that days shows fires that were so strong that people were jumping to their deaths. if it was not that hot, could they not have all survived?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

You are kidding, right? Do you truly believe that those fires did not get hot enough to weaken the steel? I mean, any video I watch of that days shows fires that were so strong that people were jumping to their deaths. if it was not that hot, could they not have all survived?

no. they didn't. the numbers don't lie. if you want to be technical, yes it was weakened...slightly. not enough for a collapse. i quoted part of the NIST report. they said "very little, if any" evidence of above 250C. you're being duped. "you're kidding, right?" is practically the same question i asked before changing my views on 9/11.

people from the floors above the collision made it down the stairs, to the ground, and survived! a woman was photographed standing where the plane hit! literally in the entry point.

no offense to those who are depressed, but people jump from bridges all the time, does that mean the bridge is about to collapse? i can't imagine the terror those people experienced, and that fear made them do things. all i CAN do is make sure the bastards responsible are brought to justice.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
and the amount of energy released depends on how much there is.

That is the problem basically. The amount required for it to be responsible for those temperature readings is so absurd high that it doesn't make any sense. Not just from a logistic point of view, as in how can you put so much stuff in a building without anyone noticing it, but also from a motive point of view, it has absolutely no function. And then I am not even talking about the complete lack of evidence yet.

Wow I had a smile at that,how can you store enough thermite in a tower as tall as those two girls were? really man? stop for a moment and think that one through...if they had access to the building they could make room...they arranged two commercial size jets to slam into the towers and alot more I'm sure they had a cover and time to prep. besides if they were sent by anyone politically involved in our govnnt then you already know security,maitenance,etc. were compromised. you can tell explosives were used though not because huge blasting caps just found there way through the rubble to some not dirty clean up crew...it was planned-everything. They had access and they had the means to execute it and leave almost no physical evidence of the actual delivery method. they rigged those twins to blow to kingdome come.

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by esdad71

 

Oh no you don't. Tower 7 has been brought up and ignored by your camp in this thread too many times for you to say one liners and nonsense is all your getting in the rebuttals,the drop speed? Silverstein and all the fireman,police,and bystanders hearing explosions? squibs out the windows? Dropping in its own footprint? Not to mention no squadrons being brought to bear....at all?? How about the cell phones on 96 working well above 10000 ft? The lack of engine casings/remnants verified as such for the RR engines that should of punched in the exterior of the pentagon? How come all the poles the plane supposedly hit by the Pent don't line up? Pro experienced pilots,military even, all saying the angles were too hard for amatuers to handle? Soooo much more and yet we are all just playing graba$$ wasting your time with 1liner replies right? come on man read numb nuts....read.

Like I said, you sound like a Alex Jones sound byte and your post above proves it. Now, for your grab ass comments, I think you should calm down just a little bit and re-read what you wrote. There is no type of evidence or explanation, just statements and proclamations.

You should take your own advice and read some of the things the anti OS does not want you too. Like stating that the 9/11 commission was a big facade. Did you ever read it? I have, and it is a very interesting read but at no time does it tell me how to think. It gives fact. Examples. Paper trails.

You got loose change and paint chips....

I love how I give you a list of what you've been avoiding and all you do is avoid it again. Explain to me again (you know because I don't use my brain...being a truther in all...) how you state tower 7 can be legitimately explained via the O.S.? Tower 7,you know the one you don't like to talk about? And just for the fun of it, how would you debunk the IMPOSSIBILITY of making ANY calls at all from 10000+ft? Let alone calls which connected and which people were able to hold long enough to talk to others within?? Yeah just those two are micro examples of how the O.S. doesn't add up. I sound like alex jones? yeah he's a hack,but he's not on the wrong team so, so what? there's so many discrepancies with the story yes even he can take up criticizing them and have a credible say so. I don't like him personally but what's your attempt there? those are valid points of contention....Duhhhhh answer our pleas for you to spit out your t-7 explanations?

reply to post by -PLB-


Pffftt! YEAH,the WTC buildings were keeping all kinds of accelerants everywhere...paper...wood...paper...some fabric.....paper....human flesh...are these the accelerants were looking for? You know,the ones that melted steel...??

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


Don't forget about Barry Jennings, as well as the people (including some ATS members on here) who were eye-witnesses on the day of 9/11, who heard several explosions going off around the time WTC7 collapsed:



You don't need to argue with people who cannot even grasp simple logic that WTC7 went down in a highly suspicious way.

If they so believe something as ludicrous (and heavily altered from '02 to '04) as the Final Official 9/11 Report...& vehemently defend the Government & laugh at those who challenge these, quite frankly, stupid notions, then wouldn't any normal people with the smallest bit of self-esteem laugh it off & move on?

If you really believe 9/11 happened the way it did, with no chance of foul-play from other forces, then you should simply ignore the "crazy" theorists, as it should have no effect on YOU.

reply to post by GenRadek



Well said been trying to get that through to ANOK on many many 9/11 threads the major selling feature of the Towers was the large open floor space but that was most probably its downfall as the floors could fall internally down the tube if the connections were overloaded.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You are making a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Another error in your argument is that you say there is proof that the steel got very hot which is evidence of explosives, and then you claim that NIST theory is wrong because they do not show evidence that the steel got as hot as they claim. So you do believe the steel got very hot, but when you are talking about NIST you reject that notion.

As for combustible materials not burning hot enough, that is your incredulity speaking. It is a logical fallacy to say "I can't fathom combustibles burning that hot, therefore it didn't happen".

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


The problems I laid out with that theory is 1) people that work there tend to notice is when the building is filled with unknown apparatus. 2) It has absolutely no function to fill a building with so much thermite.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


There is no evidence for steel reaching their melting point. The only evidence I know of that shows molten steel is a single instance of some odd mixture of several chemicals significantly lowering the melting point of steel. Ground zero should have been filled with steel that has been molten or cut. It wasn't

I remember reading somewhere, from a fellow ATSer.

"Fire can melt steel..
only on 9/11.
.... ..... look! its raining donuts."

For those who doubt they could manage such a colossal project at WTC, you probly forgot who was in charge of the security.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

so now you're admitting there isn't enough evidence to support NIST's theory? if they don't have the evidence to prove anywhere near the temperatures they claim, its obviously a bad theory. and bad science. thats akin to saying "just because evidence is lacking, doesn't mean the theory is wrong."

Another error in your argument is that you say there is proof that the steel got very hot which is evidence of explosives, and then you claim that NIST theory is wrong because they do not show evidence that the steel got as hot as they claim.

the glowing orange steel, witness reports, and nasa photos all support molten steel. NIST ignored that there was molten steel, and didn't include it in their report. it contradicts the OS and they knew it. the beams NIST inspected were likely cut down to size (getting rid of thermate evidence), and also, it would completely destroy the OS if NIST included evidence of 5000F damage in select spots.

As for combustible materials not burning hot enough, that is your incredulity speaking

i've been asking for you to provide evidence that the combustibles inside the towers could burn hot enough. you haven't responded with anything yet, because you know jet fuel was the hottest burning, and most abundant, substance. for your statement to be valid, you need to provide some evidence.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
so now you're admitting there isn't enough evidence to support NIST's theory? if they don't have the evidence to prove anywhere near the temperatures they claim, its obviously a bad theory. and bad science. thats akin to saying "just because evidence is lacking, doesn't mean the theory is wrong."

There is more than enough video evidence that the towers were on fire. It is known from both tests and previous fires that office fires can easily reach the temperatures required for NIST's theory to work. And you come with plenty of other evidence that the steel reached high temperatures:

the glowing orange steel, witness reports, and nasa photos all support molten steel. NIST ignored that there was molten steel, and didn't include it in their report. it contradicts the OS and they knew it. the beams NIST inspected were likely cut down to size (getting rid of thermate evidence), and also, it would completely destroy the OS if NIST included evidence of 5000F damage in select spots.

But that isn't evidence of molten steel. Glowing orange is not molten but around 900 degrees Celsius. Witness reports are subjective and they can easily have seen molten aluminum for example. NASA photos do not show molten steel. Additionally, there is no photographic evidence of it.

As for the columns inspected by NIST, if you think they are trying to deceive us, they could simply have lied about their findings, or they could easily have created fake columns.

i've been asking for you to provide evidence that the combustibles inside the towers could burn hot enough. you haven't responded with anything yet, because you know jet fuel was the hottest burning, and most abundant, substance. for your statement to be valid, you need to provide some evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that shows that fires can reach the required temperatures. For example the tests performed by NIST, but also tests performed by other parties show similar results. I have personally measured the temperature of a small campfire, it reached at least 800 degrees. You can deform glass in a campfire, suggesting even higher temperatures. Just do a tiny bit of research, your incredulity really is not a valid argument.

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever of this secret unknown substance that defies our current understanding of chemistry.

if they don't have the evidence to prove anywhere near the temperatures they claim, its obviously a bad theory.

If you apply the same standard to a theory that includes explosives, thermite or this secrete unknown substance, what would be your classification for that theory?