New Theory Explains Collapse of World Trade Center's Twin Towers

reply to post by myselfaswell


Interesting theory and may account for some of things people saw and photographed that day

Having seen what happens when water hit combustible metals (burning magnesium ) during vehicle fires

It gives a pretty impressive fireworks display

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by thedman

a more plausible theory as to how the explosives were planted is the elevator restoration that occurred in the 9 months prior to 9/11.

it's been shown that from the elevators, it's only a small cut of drywall to the support columns. hire a bogus crew to instead plant explosives, tell them any story, then kill them afterwards.

i advise people who believe in the OS to read "operation northwoods". start on page 7. one of the plans was to stage a hijacking of a plane, say it was full of college students, and remote control pilot it out towards cuba, then detonate it. they even described a switcheroo where the real plane would land at an airport on the scheduled path, and the fake plane would take off from there.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Wouldn't it be easier to just fly the plane with the people into the building?

If you believe the government will kill 3000 people in a premeditated fashion, then why the hell would they spare the people on the plane? It just makes no sense.

You are also speculating so much that it's dripping from my screen (metaphorically). You have decided on a conclusion (demolitions) and are literally making up possibilities for how it happened. This isn't how I, nor anyone should view this. We should observe all the evidence and decide what makes the most sense as supported by facts.

We know:

1. A plane hit the tower.
2. The tower burned.
3. The portion above the impact fell onto the portion below.
4. The entire tower collapsed.

Or as with B. 7:

1. A tower collapsed debris onto it.
2. It burned for around 7 hours.
3. Firefighters clear a collapse area for fear of collapse.
4. The building collapses.

I guess somewhere along the lines, it became acceptable to make up facts that would create the situation for demolitions, but I don't see where. You cannot, I repeat, cannot make up situations to fit your speculation. That's what history channel does when it has a story about a whirlpool, and they manage to turn it into aliens.

Just because you personally think it looked similar to a demolition (because in a demolition, a building collapses, pretty much where the similarities end), it does not mean it was necessarily a demolition. There has to be evidence for a demolition prior to believing in it.

I have evidence for my view.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

a more plausible theory as to how the explosives were planted is the elevator restoration that occurred in the 9 months prior to 9/11.

it's been shown that from the elevators, it's only a small cut of drywall to the support columns. hire a bogus crew to instead plant explosives, tell them any story, then kill them afterwards.

So who they get to do the job?

Considering that there are only a small number of elevator mechanics in NYC. They all know each other, many
for 20 years.

The Port Authority is not going to allow anybody in the WTC to work on the elevator - only licensed mechanics

As I said - every one in the business knows everybody and exactly what they are doing . Something as
big as the WTC would attract a lot of attention....

One of my buiddies is an elevator mechanic/installer. A friend of his was killed in collapse of South Tower -
he was the head elevator guy fot the building

My buddy i currently working for on the new Freedom Tower installing the elevators

So I suppose you will claim is placing explosives there . Right....?

reply to post by Varemia


the plane wouldn't be enough to destroy the building. the collapse we saw was controlled demolition. i'm sure you've seen how the collapse violates newton's third law.

i don't have all the answers pertaining to how or who, but the controlled demolition aspect is clear.

i think i'm done debating this topic. there is more to gain by getting information out to people than arguing with people who can't accept it.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

the plane wouldn't be enough to destroy the building.

Buildings are not designed to have planes fly into them. Do you have any idea how much time and effort went into just designing the building to withstand the wind and a minor earthquake?

The fact those buildings didn't fall immediately after being hit is a testament to their exceptional engineering (even if there were some shortcuts taken in the construction - bolting segments instead of welding them as per the original plans).

the collapse we saw was controlled demolition.

Preclusion on your part.

i'm sure you've seen how the collapse violates newton's third law.

This has been discussed ad-nausiem. If you still buy this explanation, then there's no point in debating it in depth here. Simply put - if you think the collapse violates Newton's third law, you A) don't understand the law to begin with -and- B) don't understand what happened with the WTC.

i don't have all the answers pertaining to how or who, but the controlled demolition aspect is clear.

You have a bunch of precluded nonsense with no support.

We know how the WTC was constructed. The outer mesh support essentially guarantees an in-footprint collapse.

We know there was a large amount of aluminum in the WTC and that the temperatures were hot enough to put that aluminum in a molten state (I can source this again, if you want, like I did in a similar thread - but I'm feeling somewhat merciful and will keep the rape to a minimum). We know there was plenty of water and rust.

Now - I doubt the idea that the explosions would be powerful enough to really cause much damage - the initial impact and temperature of the fire later was the primary factor - but aluminum explosions certainly could contribute to greater destruction of the fire-proofing and the shattering of windows to allow more airflow for the fire.

i think i'm done debating this topic. there is more to gain by getting information out to people than arguing with people who can't accept it.

"Nah, I've got no answers for you. Just this idea that the government is out to get us!"

No #. Why don't you go tell people about the Federal Reserve system or the Federal Housing Act and how it contributed to the housing market burst?

That's a 'conspiracy.' And it's being used to push further programs that mimic the Federal Reserve ("ObamaCare" - it is, essentially, the Federal Reserve for Health Insurance... and we all see how that worked out so well).

This, however, is so much more important... this idea that the government (or someone other than the leader of a terrorist organization) was behind the events of 9/11.

Sometimes, I wonder if the whole "truth" movement is "Look! A distraction!" from the obvious issues.

Buildings are not designed to have planes fly into them.

both wtc 1 and 2 were designed to withstand a 707 plane impact, and possibly multiple impacts. the 767 is larger by a 10 foot wingspan, which is negligible. the 707 actually has a higher top speed.

This has been discussed ad-nausiem. If you still buy this explanation, then there's no point in debating it in depth here. Simply put - if you think the collapse violates Newton's third law, you A) don't understand the law to begin with -and- B) don't understand what happened with the WTC.

it's very simple. it has been done to death, which makes it sad that you don't understand yet. an equal and opposite reaction is had by the colliding object. you hit something, it resists you with the same force you impart. ergo, assuming the same resistance, materials, and surface area of impact, the one with more mass will win. that is newton's third law, and how it pertains to the wtc collapse. how could the lower mass upper floors destroy more than their weight without themselves being destroyed? you'd either have to increase their durability beyond what is possible, or remove resistance for the math to work out.

The outer mesh support essentially guarantees an in-footprint collapse.

that isn't what we saw, as the outer walls were destroyed too, and therefore offered less resistance than what was needed. can you provide any examples of a collapse that stayed within it's footprint when it wasn't controlled demolition?

We know there was a large amount of aluminum in the WTC and that the temperatures were hot enough to put that aluminum in a molten state

actually the temperatures were hot enough to turn metal yellow. a temperature beyond what jet fuel can achieve. metal color=temperature.

Why don't you go tell people about the Federal Reserve system or the Federal Housing Act and how it contributed to the housing market burst?

i have, but i think the government murdering it's own citizens for the gain of a few elites and the justification for war is a much bigger issue.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I thought you were done.

I'm not sure if I should chastise your lack of integrity, or praise your willingness to debate. Unfortunately, this is going exactly as predicted. I'd hoped for a bit of a surprise.

both wtc 1 and 2 were designed to withstand a 707 plane impact, and possibly multiple impacts. the 767 is larger by a 10 foot wingspan, which is negligible. the 707 actually has a higher top speed.

No building is designed to withstand an intentional impact. There is, mind you, a difference. An aircraft experiencing instrument failure and reduced visibility due to fog is not going to be heavy on the throttle.

Further, the 767 has a 75% increase in empty weight (for all comparable models) over the 707 and a 50% improvement in maximum takeoff weight (or better, depending upon the model).

You are not, seriously, going to suggest that the WTC was designed to survive an impact of a 100-160 ton airliner (the range of available 707 models... which one was it designed to withstand? the 100 ton or 160 ton variety?) at over 500 knots.

it's very simple. it has been done to death, which makes it sad that you don't understand yet. an equal and opposite reaction is had by the colliding object. you hit something, it resists you with the same force you impart.

The debate generally involves people who know what they are talking about versus people who have no clue what they are talking about. The problem is that the ignorant are ignorant of their own ignorance.

It resists you up to the maximum its material characteristics allow. Don't try to sound smart, here.

ergo, assuming the same resistance, materials, and surface area of impact, the one with more mass will win. that is newton's third law, and how it pertains to the wtc collapse. how could the lower mass upper floors destroy more than their weight without themselves being destroyed? you'd either have to increase their durability beyond what is possible, or remove resistance for the math to work out.

.... Oh.

I have been out of this segment of the forum for a while. I thought we were going to start having issues with how fast the WTC fell, again (and how it seemingly defied gravity). Thanks - I have been surprised. I had simply over-estimated the intelligence used to form your argument.

Have you ever seen a house of cards fall, son? You slip up placing a few cards on top, then they fall and slam into the 'floor' (ceiling of the layer below it) and cause the entire works to come crashing down as the layers below begin to crumble under the shock of having to suddenly support a dynamic load.

that isn't what we saw, as the outer walls were destroyed too, and therefore offered less resistance than what was needed. can you provide any examples of a collapse that stayed within it's footprint when it wasn't controlled demolition?

The outer walls were pulled inward by the mass falling through the center. This can clearly be seen in the videos of the collapse. What we see collapsing on the outside is actually lagging the material falling on the inside by a few floors.

Further - show me a building that is designed like the WTC. It was a unique construction done to support the extremes of engineering.

Controlled demolitions require hundreds to -thousands- of individually placed and timed explosives. A building the size of the WTC would -never- have been brought down using sequenced explosives. It would have been dismantled piece-by-piece, for the obvious reasons involved with collapsing such a large building, but also because the standard practices for bringing down buildings with explosives is time-consuming. Each pillar is pre-cut to ensure a shaped charge shears the support as intended, when it is intended, and in a safe direction (so people a mile away don't get hit with a chunk of steel).

You don't have the slightest clue what goes into a controlled demolition, yet persist with this theory on the WTC based on your inability to conceive of how a plane flying into one of the world's largest towers is sufficient to bring it down.

actually the temperatures were hot enough to turn metal yellow. a temperature beyond what jet fuel can achieve. metal color=temperature.

Just about any hydrocarbon fuel can reach temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees Celsius. That's why we use titanium and high-temperature metals in jet engines with active cooling systems in the turbines - jet engines will melt without cool air being forced out of the blades.

Further - all metals do not melt at the same temperature. Aluminum will melt long before steel will.

i have, but i think the government murdering it's own citizens for the gain of a few elites and the justification for war is a much bigger issue.

Right... we needed 9/11 for that.

reply to post by Aim64C


Hum, trying to smear the quoted poster, check. Putting "facts" as real facts: hydrocarbon fires can reach 2000º... Yes they can, in a controlled environment, not in the open, on that you even have the guts to call people ignorants. A house of cards? Son? Really? What results really amazing is the fact that fairytalers like you try to ridicule the other side, instead of really putting facts forth, as you have none. Your denial of the core structure, another point on the retard-o-meter, lagging the material by a few floors? Guess your ignorance has not allowed you to calculate what a real pancake collapse would have taken huh.

To sum it up, are you a demolitions expert? As I assume you are not (same as you did), maybe you should keep the hole closed, in this case keep the fingers quiet, and not try to discredit people for the sake of it, had enough of it already.

Adding, your name is nice tho, too bad its you...

reply to post by Saltarello

Putting "facts" as real facts: hydrocarbon fires can reach 2000º... Yes they can, in a controlled environment, not in the open, on that you even have the guts to call people ignorants.

Speaking of controlled environments... this has already been addressed.

Fire creates a low pressure zone that rises and is replaced by cooler air that brings with it more oxygen. This oxygen is then used to oxidize the fuel and create more fire... the fire's temperature is only limited to the adiabatic temperature of the fuel and the amount of oxygen that can be mixed with gaseous fuel.

A bed of wood coals can be used to melt steel. Has been for centuries.

Your denial of the core structure, another point on the retard-o-meter, lagging the material by a few floors? Guess your ignorance has not allowed you to calculate what a real pancake collapse would have taken huh.

Perhaps you could spend a few moments and reorganize this into some kind of point.

The central core was designed to work in concert with the external mesh. It would have been pulled out-and-down as the tower collapsed (since the core was hollow for elevator and stairwell use).

Computer models used within the industry for the design of modern structures agree with the events that unfolded following the beginning of the collapse. Separate models agree with the sagging caused by heating of the metal and predict structural failure similar to what was seen.

To sum it up, are you a demolitions expert?

Have you ever seen she show: "The Pretender"?

That's something of an exaggerated documentary of people such as myself.

As I assume you are not (same as you did), maybe you should keep the hole closed, in this case keep the fingers quiet, and not try to discredit people for the sake of it, had enough of it already.

We're all big egos around here. If one cannot rise to meet the challenge of a question regarding their mastery of a subject or requirement to demonstrate it - then they really don't have much ground to stand on, now do they?

What you lack in form, you certainly make up for with passion and a sharp tongue. I'm curious to see if your mind holds the same edge.

Originally posted by BigBruddah
reply to post by myselfaswell

 

What brought down building Seven then?

The same "Direct Energy Weapon" that dustified WTC1 and WTC2.

Dr. Judy Wood, read her book and look at the photos of WTC7 "lathering up".

OP, unless you're a structural engineer, and identify yourself as such in the post, your post really has no merit.

I'm all for the fact that we've been lied to about the real version of events that happened on 9/11, but come on, let's make some sense here.

There are so many ridiculous theories out there backed up by colorful "facts" that make no sense at all and have no backing in reality that hard research done by people to really find out what went on goes missing in the fray.

reply to post by EvanJP


Science doesn't work that way bud. It takes time to figure things out.

www.cracked.com... ended

www.cracked.com...

So now the molten conspiracy theory has an explanation by a team of science and suddenly it just doesn't count. Bullsh*t.