The gigantic elephant in the room, the fairy-tale of 9/11

[Andrew2382]

Thermite and Sulfer- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf


linked again for you

have a nice day

 

[dilloduck]

That's ridiculous

If you don't want to compare the evidence it's just the waste of time I knew it would be.

I'm real comfortable with whatever you choose to believe.

no I would love to compare evidence---you just have no evidence as to who and how you think 9/11 occurred. You spend all your time trying to debunk evidence instead of presenting ANY of your own.

 

[del]

My oh my .. what happened to all the people anxious to come here and beat me up about 9/11?

i'll be with you as soon as i finish alphabetizing my socks.

priorities, you know.

 

[Sunni Man]

9/11 was a set up by Z.O.G. and Israel to force the U.S. to invade the Middle East and fight Israel's enemies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My oh my .. what happened to all the people anxious to come here and beat me up about 9/11?

You are just another deluded fool. You have no evidence and no theory that stands the scrutiny of the public. I bet you thought that plane that blew up leaving New York some years ago was shot down too, didn't ya?

 

[Andrew2382]

TWA flight 800

 

[CrimsonWhite]

My oh my .. what happened to all the people anxious to come here and beat me up about 9/11?

You haven't presented any facts. Merely theory and conjecture. If that is what you want to base your position on then that is your problem. Just don't assume that everyone around you is a dumbass for believeing what they saw with there own eye.

Incredulity is the wisdom of the fool.

 

[Ravi]

I've always wondered, how do seemingly intelligent people buy these asinine conspiracy theories?

 

[Care4all]

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than what melts steel.

Of course, jet fuel combined with other combustables might burn hot enough to melt steel and this plays a part...but jet fuel itself alone does not, is what i have read on it...

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than what melts steel.

Of course, jet fuel combined with other combustables might burn hot enough to melt steel and this plays a part...but jet fuel itself alone does not, is what i have read on it...

Where did you read this?

 

[Care4all]

Where did you read this?

Let me see if i can find it for you, it was several years back when i read it....give me a few minutes Crimson...

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where did you read this?

The supports did not have to melt anyway, the claim is they lost strength due to the fire and WARPED. The way the building was built the floors rested on the supports and when they warped or bowed this allowed the floors above to drop on to the floors below. That was the twin towers, with building 7 the problem was similar in that the damage to one side compromised the tatal support and this lead to a collapse because of structural failure from the stressed supports, weakened also by fire and ovver loaded by lose of other supports.

 

[Andrew2382]

Yeah, it had nothing to do with steel melting, however the steel lost approx 60% of it's strength and could not hold the weight anymore.

No one ever claims the fire melted the steel

 

[Care4all]

Where did you read this?

here is one link on it....

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

 

[BlackAsCoal]

no I would love to compare evidence---you just have no evidence as to who and how you think 9/11 occurred. You spend all your time trying to debunk evidence instead of presenting ANY of your own.

First let me clear in saying that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

The 9/11 story is so insanely convoluted and so obviously false that I don't really give a damn what anyone believes. History will tell this truth .. just as history tells the truth of the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, the Spanish/American War, and many other deceptions of war right down to the invasion of Iraq. Don't tell me you ever believed Saddam had WMD and "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes" .. how many fell for that obvious as fuck bullshit?

How many dummies still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11?

Please, all of you save your self-righteous bullshit because there is an entire history of war deceptions by our government that cost the lives of innocent people that most people were too dumb to figure out even though the truth stood staring them right in the face.

I'm posting what I believe to be evidence that the official story is false and impossible .. and requires one to be a moron to believe it. You're looking for names and phone numbers .. which is ridiculous

If you can believe that a scientific and engineering anomaly that has never before happened ever .. can occur three times on the same day to different structured buildings and they all collapse exactly the same, uniformly at free fall speeds .. into their own footprints .. in manners that defy all science, engineering, and physics .. and be satisfied with a report from Popular Mechanics .. concucted by an adminsitration covered in lies and deceptions ..

.. then God be with you brother.

There's nothing I can post that can break through that bullshit .. and that's just one of hundreds of piles of bullshit surrounding 9/11.

But hey .. don't take my word for it .. ask Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD
Flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam
Former Head of Star Wars Program
Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech
President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
Retired Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church
Recipient of Six Air Medals
Recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
George F. Kennan Peace Prize
President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace
Society of Military Engineers' ROTC Award of Merit (twice)
Chaired 8 major international conferences
One of the country’s foremost experts on National Security

I think he knows something about flying and engineeering and national security ..
The Impossibility of the the Official Story
Dr. Robert Bowman: the impossibility of the official government story

Or .. believe whatever you choose

 

[Care4all]

That could explain the twin towers but it does not really explain what happened to world trade center 7, building 7 imho.

I'm not certain, but i do feel they imploded building 7....this is where the CIA had a secret office on the same floor as the irs....

i think it was "pulled" to probably protect classified information....but hey, i never claimed to not be a tinfoil hat wearer!

Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC, May Have Been Agency's Largest Domestic Station Outside DC - CBS News

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Where did you read this?

If you need proof that jet fuel/kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel then you haven't studied any aspect of this, you simply swallowed what they told you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That could explain the twin towers but it does not really explain what happened to world trade center 7, building 7 imho.

I'm not certain, but i do feel they imploded building 7....this is where the CIA had a secret office on the same floor as the irs....

i think it was "pulled" to probably protect classified information....but hey, i never claimed to not be a tinfoil hat wearer!

Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC, May Have Been Agency's Largest Domestic Station Outside DC - CBS News

Wrong, the damage to the side facing the twin towers was seriously damaged. It took out columns meant to support the whole building, bringing more stress on those left. The unabatted 8 hour fire further weakened the remaining supports and columns and lead to the collapse.

 

[Andrew2382]

If you need proof that jet fuel/kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel then you haven't studied any aspect of this, you simply swallowed what they told you.

How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.




7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions


Must be annoying to have everything you spew out of your mouth be wrong

 

[Paulie]

Wrong, the damage to the side facing the twin towers was seriously damaged. It took out columns meant to support the whole building, bringing more stress on those left. The unabatted 8 hour fire further weakened the remaining supports and columns and lead to the collapse.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this just what you read about?

Because to this day, there are no clear pictures of the south side of building 7. NO ONE knows for sure what exactly the extent of the damage was, beyond assumption and conjecture.

But your post does not even begin to explain how it would be possible for a steel reinforced building to collapse in the manner that building 7 did. In fact, it's laughable. I've yet to see anyone adequately explain how, if the damage was so concentrated on the bottom of the building from collateral fallout from the towers, the penthouse was the first thing to begin collapsing before the tell-tale "crease" even started down the building.

I'm all ears, RGS. Because building 7 has always remained a questionable aspect of 9/11 in my opinion. Without it, I don't see much of a case for calling the official story a cover-up, or calling the events of the day a conspiracy. Building 7 was, and always will be, the anomoly.