Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?

Originally posted by SMR

The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?

Too bad the building in Caracus didn't have an 80 ton jumbo jet carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel ram into it or else that might have made sense.

Originally posted by SMR

The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?

Comparing different buildings with different structural designs is like comparing apples to oranges.


you did not read my post carefully. MOST buildings are constructed similer to the Meridian plaza building or the Caracas building. This is NOT the same style of construction that was used in the WTC.


[edit on 24-11-2004 by HowardRoark]

Here you go Roark, since you are such an engineering expert, here's a chance to make a buck...
Good Luck.

www.rense.com...
Mega-Millionaire Offers $100,000
Reward For Scientific Proof
WTC Towers Collapsed As
Bush Administration Claims
From Ilene Proctor
Proctor & Associates
11-22-4
www.nytimes.com...
www.nypost.com...
CNN Poll 11-10-04: 90% Believe US Complicity In 911 Attacks
$100,000 REWARD to the first person to deliver a full mathematical, engineering proof of how the impact and/or fires caused any of the WTC buildings to collapse the way the government claims! It must include all the fuel, mass, critical temperatures, likely temperatures and their causes, energy needed to crush concrete into fine powder, force needed to sheer bolts and rivets, time calculations, and all the other relevant data in a detailed analysis to be reviewed by accredited engineers on a team headed by Jeff King 911review.org... engineer and doctor educated at MIT. ...
~ DEADLINE: JUNE 30, 2005 ~

I checked it out outside of Rense, it's legit...

You're a live one, aren't you Howard?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Think about what happened when the planes hit. Thousands of tons of debris slammed into those walls at high speed

Come on man, the 767 fully loaded takeoff weight is only 159,210kg (351,000lb)/Link. If passenger jets weighed thousands of tons they would never get off the ground so you would have to cut their wings off and call them busses.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And it irritates me when people remain willfully ignorant of the principles of chemistry, physics, and engineering.

It doesn't matter how many sides are involved, if the entire column is surrounded by fire. Even under normal conditions, the heat of a fire can cause the columns to shorten and buckle. Add to this the fact that the structure was severely compromised and even a small amount of buckling can have disastrous consequences.

I'm not saying that steel won't bend if heated to the required temperature, but if you had of bothered to do the experiment with the bin, you're "principles of chemistry, physics, and engineering" would be glaring you in the face.

Even when the bin is left to burn for 2 hours(longer than the fires burned at WTC) the RHS never even gets hot enough to change colour,let alone get red hot. In fact, the sides of the bin(which are less than 1mm-roughly 0.0313in) don't even get red hot. The reason for this is burning fuel just can't get it that hot. The simple fact is, the heat of the fire did not cause the structural integrity of the steel to fail.

HOW TOUGH WERE THE TOWERS?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The columns of the WTC towers were restrained from bending by the floor slabs. WHen the floor slabs were wiped out by the impact, those columns were also bent. without the floor slabs to hold them in place, the steel began to creep and deform. Add the high temps from the fire, and the failure was inevitable.

Lets take a look at the design of the WTC. This is a basic diagram of the design.



One of the lead engineer's who worked on the WTC was shocked that the towers collapsed from the planes impact. Lee Robertson, the tower's structural engineer, specifically addressed the problem of an aviation disaster when drawing the plans, claiming he �designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.�



Those 4 cranes you see in the photo, are perched atop the central support core of the tower. This core is built of sheer concrete reinforced by 44 beams of construction grade steel.



Look at the pictures, Howard. There is no way jet fuel is deforming all that steel and concrete. It is just too heavily reinforced.

Now lets look at how the impacts and fires effected the buildings. We will use the first impact as the example as it would tend to substantiate your theory.



As you can see, with the second impact most of the fuel burned up on the outside of the building in the atmosphere. In the first impact most of the fuel burnt inside the building so would obviously generated more heat. With the fire raging it's understandable that the steel would bend and melt, but this is not the case.



This photo was taken of the North Tower well before it collapsed. The jetfuel has finished burning and there are only a few spot fires. This was confirmed in the radio message recieved from the firefightes on the scene in the buiding.

There is also no intense heat as if you look closely you can see a woman standing at the edge of the hole looking out.

So presented with this evidence, it's obvious that the critcal period has passed and if the steel columns were actually heated they would be now already cooling down.

As far as the damage to the floor caused by the impact, only 18% of the total floor area on that level was destroyed. Maybe a normal building would have collapsed but as you stated to SMR, this was not a normal design because this building had been designed to withstand a jetliner hitting it!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
First off who cares who thick the columns were at the base? The collapse did not initiate from the base, it initiated from the impact zone.

Well I was curious as to how you would dismiss this information as irrelavent? Would you care to explain how these beams were sheard from the bedrock and why there were thermal pockets with the molten steel from these thick columns found in the basement area of the WTC weeks after 9/11? I hope your not going to say it was the jet fuel that ran down the elevator shafts.



Notice how there are only hotspots in WTC 1,2 and 7! What a remarkable coincidence. Here is the link to the USG Source.

There was a lot more happening on 9/11 than meets the eye.

Still, no one has bothered to come around and explain how a sub-ground level bomb could collapse the world trade centers at the point of impact by the planes. I will stick to the official reports.

Originally posted by Frosty
Still, no one has bothered to come around and explain how a sub-ground level bomb could collapse the world trade centers at the point of impact by the planes.

I will stick to the official reports.

Which "official" report are you referring to?

What are your conclusions as to why there were thermal pockets?

Originally posted by Psychoses

Originally posted by Frosty
Still, no one has bothered to come around and explain how a sub-ground level bomb could collapse the world trade centers at the point of impact by the planes.

I will stick to the official reports.

Which "official" report are you referring to?

What are your conclusions as to why there were thermal pockets?

The report claimed by this man, I assume that it has some degree of officialness to it if someone is willing to give 100 grand to someone to verify it. www.rense.com...


My conclusion as to why there were thermal pockets comes from the fact that there was jet fuel strewn about the building and emitted smoke from the building suggest they were there. I mean, I guess, not sure where else smoke comes from but from a thermal source.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Frosty]

Residual hot spots in the rubble pile are a common occurance in controlled demolitions, thermite and other compounds are capable of melting steel and once buried under the rubble they retain an enormous amount of heat. These thermal hot spots did not come from fires in oxygen poor rubble piles, they came from pools of molten steel found at the base of the towers. This has been addressed in this thread already as well.


Edit: Nice post Psychoses


[edit on 25-11-2004 by twitchy]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR

The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?

Comparing different buildings with different structural designs is like comparing apples to oranges.


you did not read my post carefully. MOST buildings are constructed similer to the Meridian plaza building or the Caracas building. This is NOT the same style of construction that was used in the WTC.


[edit on 24-11-2004 by HowardRoark]

Apples and oranges again...........why does that analogy always come up in these discussions?
Look,the buildings may not have been exact in construction,but very close.
If your trying to say that WTC was built better,then that supports my theory even more.If it was stronger,then any of the two other buildings should have been demolished.But they werent.They stood standings as should have the WTC.
If WTC was weaker in construction than the other two,which I doubt,then I can understand.But the fact that they were either very similar or equal supports that they (WTC) did not fall from fire weakening.

There is no way in hell that a few SMALL fires weakened the steel making it collapse.I dont care how much fuel was used.That fuel burned up almost instantly.Look at video and images.You can see the color of smoke indicating that the fuel burned rather quickly.Most of it was shot OUT of the buildings when they hit.It wasnt like the fuel was thrown into one spot and stayed there to burn.MOST,and I figure from images and video,that 70-80% of the fuel was thrown outward at impact.What was left quickly set fire evaporatings.

As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.
What fuel was left to burn was like campfire hot and although it burned for a bit,was not hot enough to weaken the steel.

Fire did NOT cause the steel to weaken causing the towers to fall.

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.

No it wasn't rubble and large debris in the initial blast, had it been a true collapse caused either by instability of the frame, or by structural weakening due to fire, there would most certainly have been rubble and large debris, however the concrete being ejected by the initial collapse of the structure was literally pulverized, even a large amount was atomized. Professional demolitions companies do this as a norm to minimize the clean up involved with large debris and rubble... Companies like CDI. Collapses by fire or imapct do not.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.

must have been melted to some degree. that's scientific. exactly how many degrees to melt steel?

my favourite leap in logic is, 'does not need to be liquified(AKA molten), in order to lose it's strength.' and then, next sentence, 'there was evidence of molten steel'. so if it didn't need to be molten to lose it's strength, which is the logic behind it falling like that without the melting point of steel being reached, then HOW DID THE STEEL MELT? it was molten WEEKS later. that means it was a BIG POOL OF MOLTEN STEEL. the law of thermodynamics DEMANDS that there be enough potential energy to turn that much steel into liquid, good luck with that one disinfo pros.

but wait! how much molten steel was there? how many tons? where are all the beams that weren't melted? where are the beams that were?
#ing disappeared, that's where.
perhaps there is still enough SOLID evidence to prove that the official house of cards is about to pancake.
it really is a case of fairly simple physics.

Watch the movie 911 in plane site, there are som CNN-pictures that shows a large smokestack rising fr�n the WTC-ground while both towers are still standing. That indicates that there were an explosion in the bottom segments before the collapse.

www.thepowerhour.com...

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.

must have been melted to some degree. that's scientific. exactly how many degrees to melt steel?

my favourite leap in logic is, 'does not need to be liquified(AKA molten), in order to lose it's strength.' and then, next sentence, 'there was evidence of molten steel'. so if it didn't need to be molten to lose it's strength, which is the logic behind it falling like that without the melting point of steel being reached, then HOW DID THE STEEL MELT? it was molten WEEKS later. that means it was a BIG POOL OF MOLTEN STEEL. the law of thermodynamics DEMANDS that there be enough potential energy to turn that much steel into liquid, good luck with that one disinfo pros.

but wait! how much molten steel was there? how many tons? where are all the beams that weren't melted? where are the beams that were?
#ing disappeared, that's where.
perhaps there is still enough SOLID evidence to prove that the official house of cards is about to pancake.
it really is a case of fairly simple physics.

I'm not saying it didn't melt, I'm saying it didn't needed to be melted. For all we now it could have been an isolated beam that was melted that had very little to do with the collapse of the strucuture, maybe it melted after it fell, who knows for sure? There has also been no evidence of a bomb going off in the subground level of the building itself (which to me makes very little to no sense) or anywhere else.

Originally posted by DrSpeedo
Watch the movie 911 in plane site, there are som CNN-pictures that shows a large smokestack rising fr�n the WTC-ground while both towers are still standing. That indicates that there were an explosion in the bottom segments before the collapse.

www.thepowerhour.com...

Originally posted by Frosty
I'm not saying it didn't melt, I'm saying it didn't needed to be melted........
(snip) ..... maybe it melted after it fell, who knows for sure?

melted after it fell?
i'm just not answering you in particular anymore. you have no sense of logic.
you're melted to me, frosty.

i'm going to continue to monitor your scattered thoughts, though, because it amazes me that anyone can make such bizarre leaps in illogic.