911 Case Closed: Aerial Photo Shows Towers Were Exploded Outward, Did Not "Collapse"

[voodoo101]

Theres is no chance that a consipracy on this level could be succesfully pulled off. No way in hell. Thousands of people would have to be in on the secret. Every single last detail would have to be covered up from the most intense Government, Media and Public coverage.

What is more likely is that crazy muslims fly airplanes into our towers b/c they're crazy people.

Ok OP, using your logic, what happend with the Pentagon flight and the other flight that crashed in Pennsylvania? Why wouldn't this "secret organization" just stick to the World Trade Center demolition? Why add in two whole other conspiracys??

Saying "it would take too many people" does nothing to refute the plain physical evidence that the towers did not collapse down like they said. Second you are not understanding the psychological nature of a coup. Do you think Al Qaeda was able to stand down the air defenses and make Cheney not give the shoot-down order as Flight 77 came at the Pentagon, 50 minutes after 2 towers had already been hit? Could they schedule multiple war games which confused NORAD commanders as to whether or not this was a drill or the real thing? You just need to be the person at the top to schedule the war games, then everyone else falls into place by just doing their job, and help without knowing it.

Here are examples of the confusion which occurred:

(8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.) September 11, 2001: NORAD Personnel Mistake Hijacking for Part of an Exercise

Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001), will later say that initially she and everybody else at NEADS think the call from Boston Center is part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack scenario. [USA Today, 4/18/2004; Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004] The day’s exercise is in fact scheduled to include a simulated hijacking later on. [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

Go to: 911: Venturing a Theory of the Crime
http://busharchives.org/steve.html

Think of the scene in Godfather II when the family is taking over, and people are getting shot across town. In Spanish it is a "golpe" literally a "blow" of the fist. It doesn't take a lot of people. It take a relatively small number, and everyone else in a position of power has to understand that they mean business and shut up. In case you don't understand, they send anthrax letters to every major media outlet and some problem congressmen, just like they did. Key witnesses start to die from "suicide" and brake jobs. By that time everyone gets the message. Fear is the great motivator, just like people are afraid to confront the truth of 911. Powerful people know most people are sheep and afraid of their own shadows. That's why they trot out George Bush to say "I'll protect you."

You think the media is brave and will ask questions? Come on man. The only people asking questions are the 911 truthers like Richard Gage and Dr. David Ray Griffin, and they get death threats every single day. These are your true patriots.

The Pentagon hit just happened to take out a wing of accountants and budget analysts one day after Rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion missing. Don't know if it had anything to do with it. Put Rumsfeld on the witness stand and ask him where he was for 30 minutes when he was supposed to be at his post, directing the air defenses. Ask him where is the Pentagon debris so we can have a look at it.

[rsnnh12]

Why do you keep avoiding this paper, voodoo? It explains how the towers fell and why there were no explosives

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

I can give you a list of the people who collaborated on it if you don't believe that they are experts. This paper has been published in several journals, so it has been peer-reviewed as well.

Your thoughts after reading it?

[voodoo101]

Why do you keep avoiding this paper, voodoo? It explains how the towers fell and why there were no explosives

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

I can give you a list of the people who collaborated on it if you don't believe that they are experts. This paper has been published in several journals, so it has been peer-reviewed as well.

Your thoughts after reading it?

Why don't you just summarize how it explains twenty-ton steel pieces shot out sideways at 70MPH, for 2 football fields distance? I'm listening. Posting a link and saying "here" is not an argument. Use your own words.

[rsnnh12]

Why don't you just summarize how it explains twenty-ton steel pieces shot out sideways at 70MPH, for 2 football fields distance? I'm listening. Posting a link and saying "here" is not an argument. Use your own words.

Actually, it is an argument, because they explain it better than I ever could. Why are you afraid to read the paper?

I'm giving you proof there weren't explosives, and you're whining about having to read the actual source rather than me attempt to explain it? I thought you wanted the truth?

[voodoo101]

Actually, it is an argument, because they explain it better than I ever could. Why are you afraid to read the paper?

I'm giving you proof there weren't explosives, and you're whining about having to read the actual source rather than me attempt to explain it? I thought you wanted the truth?

That just means you don't understand it yourself. Come back when you do and can engage on specific points. I am well-acquainted with the OCt, fires, weakening, and pancaking. It is an insult to every American's intelligence.

[rsnnh12]

That just means you don't understand it yourself. Come back when you do and can engage on specific points. I don't go down rabbit holes.

Lol. See, everyone, this is what CTers do. They'll watch all the Youtube vids, the multi-hour 9/11 conspiracy "documentaries", they'll read Dr Stephen Jones' papers, because it supports what they believe. But will they actually look at evidence from professors from around the world that disproves them? No, they'd rather argue those points with some anonymous person online, without even reading it for themselves.

So much for "only wanting the truth". This was written by a few dozen experts in the field, from highly regarded universities, and you think its "going down rabbit holes"?

Pathetic

[flairon]

Why don't you just summarize how it explains twenty-ton steel pieces shot out sideways at 70MPH, for 2 football fields distance? I'm listening. Posting a link and saying "here" is not an argument. Use your own words.

Because they were hardened (brittle) steel posts being pushed down by tons of material from above until they finally snapped and force that built up before the break shot them out.

i'd like to know where everyone gets the crap of 'they shot out at 70mph!!!' Did alex jones have a radar gun on the tower debris as it fell?

[voodoo101]

Because they were hardened (brittle) steel posts being pushed down by tons of material from above until they finally snapped and force that built up before the break shot them out.

i'd like to know where everyone gets the crap of 'they shot out at 70mph!!!' Did alex jones have a radar gun on the tower debris as it fell?

WOW! Then how did the towers ever stand in the first place? Isn't engineering about building for load? They were built for 2000 times live load in all directions, including standing up to 150MPH hurricane winds, across millions of square feet of surface.

Those thousands of tons of material are "pushing down" just the same when the towers are just standing there, aren't they? Now you have a problem. The OCT says the fires were making the steel soft, making it lose its strength. Was it brittle so it could "snap," or was it soft? Which is it? Steel is a heat conductor, so it is all going to get soft at the same time, or none of it.

[rsnnh12]

WOW! Then how did the towers ever stand in the first place? Isn't engineering about building for load? They were built for 2000 times live load in all directions, including standing up to 150MPH hurricane winds, across millions of square feet of surface.

Those thousands of tons of material are "pushing down" just the same when the towers are just standing there, aren't they? Now you have a problem. The OCT says the fires were making the steel soft, making it lose its strength. Was it brittle so it could "snap," or was it soft? Which is it?


You don't need a radar gun. You need known distances, a time-line ( a real-time video,) and a tiny bit of math. Distance/time = velocity, remember?


CLICK VIDEO: CHANDLER'S VELOCITY CALCULATIONS

Stop being a tool and read the paper. It explains all of this.

And why couldn't some parts be soft, while others are brittle? It wasn't a uniform temperature in the towers....

[flairon]

WOW! Then how did the towers ever stand in the first place? Isn't engineering about building for load? They were built for 2000 times live load in all directions, including standing up to 150MPH hurricane winds, across millions of square feet of surface.

Those thousands of tons of material are "pushing down" just the same when the towers are just standing there, aren't they? Now you have a problem. The OCT says the fires were making the steel soft, making it lose its strength. Was it brittle so it could "snap," or was it soft? Which is it? Steel is a heat conductor, so it is all going to get soft at the same time, or none of it.

engineering is about building for a load. But there is a symmetry involved.

All of the steel beams didnt snap and shoot out at 70 of miles and hour or whatever. And you can't expect a fraction of the supports to keep in tact when the largest part of the overall supports that have been designed to share the load have been compromised.

[dave.mc]

Why don't you just summarize how it explains twenty-ton steel pieces shot out sideways at 70MPH, for 2 football fields distance? I'm listening. Posting a link and saying "here" is not an argument. Use your own words.

That just means you don't understand it yourself. Come back when you do and can engage on specific points. I am well-acquainted with the OCt, fires, weakening, and pancaking. It is an insult to every American's intelligence.

Going to neg you for blatantly just refusing to read a document that might go against your opinions and prove you wrong. Don't start an argument if you aren't prepared to listen/read evidence from a reliable source.

[voodoo101]

And why couldn't some parts be soft, while others are brittle? ...

Because first, open air hydrocarbon fires don't make steel soft at all, or you had better get rid of your woodstove, or barbeque. Making steel soft requires a mechanically forced air supply (like a forge bellows or a blast furnace), a tightly enclosed chamber to concentrate heat, and high energy-content fuel, like coke or coal. You are never going to make a crowbar soft by putting it in a pizza oven, and sustained, widespread forge-like temperatures cannot be reached in office fires.

Second, even if you could produce sustained forge-like temperatures, steel is a nearly perfect heat conductor, and heat would dissipate evenly throughout the well-connected steel. Steel is a heat sink. You wouldn't have parts soft and parts brittle. Take a crowbar and put the end of it into a fire. You'll feel the heat on the other end right away. This principle holds true whether you are talking about crow bars or I-beams. Only a 5000F point-flame of a blow torch will outrun steel's ability to dissipate heat, and you had nowhere near that.

[DocHol1day]

Because first, open air hydrocarbon fires don't make steel soft at all, or you had better get rid of your woodstove, or barbeque. Making steel soft requires a mechanically forced air supply (like a forge bellows or a blast furnace), a tightly enclosed chamber to concentrate heat, and high energy-content fuel, like coke or coal. You are never going to make a crowbar soft by putting it in a pizza oven, and sustained, widespread forge-like temperatures cannot be reached in office fires.

Second, even if you could produce sustained forge-like temperatures, steel is a nearly perfect heat conductor, and heat would dissipate evenly throughout the well-connected steel. Steel is a heat sink. You wouldn't have parts soft and parts brittle. Take a crowbar and put the end of it into a fire. You'll feel the heat on the other end right away. This principle holds true whether you are talking about crow bars or I-beams. Only a 5000F point-flame of a blow torch will outrun steel's ability to dissipate heat, and you had nowhere near that.

as someone who works with various metals for a living i felt compelled to state that this entire post is 100% false.

carry on.

[voodoo101]

Going to neg you for blatantly just refusing to read a document that might go against your opinions and prove you wrong. Don't start an argument if you aren't prepared to listen/read evidence from a reliable source.

LOL! Did you read it? Tell me what it says which refutes the post and argue with me. Don't say "here read this, what it says, that's what I say! (whatever that is!)" : )

[voodoo101]

as someone who works with various metals for a living i felt compelled to state that this entire post is 100% false.

carry on.

coming from you doc that's not a problem, source considered. But could you be more specific? Did you melt a crowbar in a pizza oven in your distinguished career? Which is about as hot as the 911 fires were likely to get?

[NeoginCF]

The real question is: will it change something if it was an actual set-up?

[voodoo101]

engineering is about building for a load. But there is a symmetry involved.

All of the steel beams didnt snap and shoot out at 70 of miles and hour or whatever. And you can't expect a fraction of the supports to keep in tact when the largest part of the overall supports that have been designed to share the load have been compromised.

The towers were built to remain standing with half the vertical columns (47 of them) completely cut, through load shifting. No main columns were cut, because the light aluminum planes were shredded like they were going through a cheese grater.

This was extremely strong, design award-winning structure. The idea was to "bundle" the core beams toward the middle, so you could have more open office space. The towers falling as described would be like a record player spindle (on one of those old, record stack players) just suddenly rolling down on itself. That's the kind of magic they expect Americans to believe.

[rsnnh12]

LOL! Did you read it? Tell me what it says which refutes the post and argue with me. Don't say "here read this, what it says, that's what I say" Grow the f up.

As opposed to you saying "here watch this video, what it says, that's what I say"??

Why are you incapable of reading that evidence and refuting it on your own? Reading the paper itself is a much better way to understand what they're saying than have a middle man relay it for you, is it not?

But you don't want to do that, because you know you won't have any semblance of a response to them, whereas you can find flaws in any abbreviated summary I give and claim that you are correct.

Summary- read the paper or shut the fukk up. You're losing what little credibility you had as someone who actually wants the truth, the more you ignore this peer reviewed paper done by a panel of experts from around the world

[voodoo101]

As opposed to you saying "here watch this video, what it says, that's what I say"??

Why are you incapable of reading that evidence and refuting it on your own? Reading the paper itself is a much better way to understand what they're saying than have a middle man relay it for you, is it not?

But you don't want to do that, because you know you won't have any semblance of a response to them, whereas you can find flaws in any abbreviated summary I give and claim that you are correct.

Summary- read the paper or shut the fukk up. You're losing what little credibility you had as someone who actually wants the truth, the more you ignore this peer reviewed paper done by a panel of experts from around the world

Tell me which video and I'll summarize what it says, then you can watch it and get more details. That's how it works. Throwing links back and forth without being able to put the main points in your own words is not discussion.

The NIST report was a "panel of experts" too, and it is pure horse sh&t. So now we have two sides with experts. Now you have to think for yourself.

Now, which video?

[DocHol1day]

coming from you doc that's not a problem, source considered. But could you be more specific? Did you melt a crowbar in a pizza oven in your distinguished career? Which is about as hot as the 911 fires were likely to get?

i'm a professional welder. i use electric current to melt weld metal and base metal with the purpose of fusing to pieces of base metal together. the temperatures routinely get to atleast 3000 degrees at the point where the electric current gaps out from the weld metal to the base metal. you can weld long passes over the course of several minutes and touch the metal 1-2 feet away without gloves on. depending on the thickness of the metal of course. given that we are talking about structural steel (meaning thick), you can probably touch it closer than that. i dont generally work on metal much thicker than 1/4" plate. however like i said, you can touch 1/4'' plate 2 feet away from a 3000 degree weld pool without gloves.

true story.


however, and you already know this, steel loses half its strength at those temperatures. that combined with the structural damage caused by the planes caused the towers to start collapsing at that spot. sorry kiddo.

[voodoo101]

i'm a professional welder. i use electric current to melt weld metal and base metal with the purpose of fusing to pieces of base metal together. the temperatures routinely get to atleast 3000 degrees at the point where the electric current gaps out from the weld metal to the base metal. you can weld long passes over the course of several minutes and touch the metal 1-2 feet away without gloves on. depending on the thickness of the metal of course. given that we are talking about structural steel (meaning thick), you can probably touch it closer than that. i dont generally work on metal much thicker than 1/4" plate. however like i said, you can touch 1/4'' plate 2 feet away from a 3000 degree weld pool without gloves.

true story.


however, and you already know this, steel loses half its strength at those temperatures. that combined with the structural damage caused by the planes caused the towers to start collapsing at that spot. sorry kiddo.

Uh, steel loses all it's strength at those temperatures. Melting point of steel is 2800F.

But what does welding have to do with the fact that a few floors of open air office fires could not have achieved anywhere near those kinds of temperatures, nevermind for a sustained period and over a broad area? You are comparing apples to oranges.

Read this: Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible

[DocHol1day]

Um, steel loses all it's strength at those temperatures. Melting point of steel is 2800F.

But what does welding have to do with the fact that a few floors of open air office fires could not have achieved anywhere near those kinds of temperatures, nevermind for a sustained period and over a broad area? You are comparing apples to oranges.

you totally missed the point kid. the post i was commenting on was this.

Because first, open air hydrocarbon fires don't make steel soft at all, or you had better get rid of your woodstove, or barbeque. Making steel soft requires a mechanically forced air supply (like a forge bellows or a blast furnace), a tightly enclosed chamber to concentrate heat, and high energy-content fuel, like coke or coal. You are never going to make a crowbar soft by putting it in a pizza oven, and sustained, widespread forge-like temperatures cannot be reached in office fires.

Second, even if you could produce sustained forge-like temperatures, steel is a nearly perfect heat conductor, and heat would dissipate evenly throughout the well-connected steel. Steel is a heat sink. You wouldn't have parts soft and parts brittle. Take a crowbar and put the end of it into a fire. You'll feel the heat on the other end right away. This principle holds true whether you are talking about crow bars or I-beams. Only a 5000F point-flame of a blow torch will outrun steel's ability to dissipate heat, and you had nowhere near that.

i was using a real life example to show that both of these points are incorrect. heat doesnt dissipate evenly through steel and you do not need a blast furnace to make a fire hot enough to weaken steel. the welding example was purely to demonstrate that steel can be literally molten in one spot and cool enough to touch just a couple of feet away. the rest, well we all know that steel loses over half its strength in fire that reaches temps reached in the towers.

this post is very misinformed.

[Tha big kahoona]

While i can see how many might consider Voodoo's threads to be polarising, i don't get why he gets negged by some posters.

It's not like he's not trying to back up his claims.

Seriously, you might disagree with a lot of what he says, but you're a idiot if you think he's a troll

[foreverSNAFU]

So no one noticed anyone carrying in all these explosives in and setting them up for weeks prior to the blast? No security guards saw anything? Everyone was just too busy in every single one of the buildings to even take a second look at all the guys continuously bringing in explosives and wiring and whatever else is needed for the entire month of August and first week and a half of Sept?

You can show all the photos with circles on them you want and show all the pictures of steel you want. Blowing the buildings up from the inside is REALLY hard to believe. Goes against common sense.

you don't have to bring in a lot at one time.

and also, the towers were busy 24/7. no one would really notice a janitor type person planting things.

[voodoo101]

you totally missed the point kid. the post i was commenting on was this.



i was using a real life example to show that both of these points are incorrect. heat doesnt dissipate evenly through steel and you do not need a blast furnace to make a fire hot enough to weaken steel. the welding example was purely to demonstrate that steel can be literally molten in one spot and cool enough to touch just a couple of feet away. the rest, well we all know that steel loses over half its strength in fire that reaches temps reached in the towers.

this post is very misinformed.

Are you really that confused or are you assuming readers are stupid? Of course a point flame of 3000- 5000F is going to melt steel in one point, but you had nowhere near that in the towers. That is because the heat being transferred to the steel is greater than the heat conductivity of the steel, at those temperatures, with sufficient fuel. You keep ignoring the fact that these temperatures were not nearly present, and even get the melting point of steel wrong. The kind of heat coming from office fires will dissipate easily throughout lots of steel, which is why high-rises don't fall down from fires. The plane damage was negligible, except in the hocus-pocus watch-this-Americans of the official magic show. That was the shock. The towers going down was the awe.

But let's say it did just as you said, I'll even grant you your scenario. So the steel is soft in the upper stories but strong enough to "snap in the lower 80 stories. That would mean it retains all it's strength throughout most of the building. How do the lightest upper stories "push down" the structure which has been supporting those same stories all along?

You've got a problem because the official story hinged on all the steel getting soft, not needing to be hard enough to "snap," the ridiculous explanation for how it flew two football fields away. That is why the aerial photo is so damning. Why not just say the one thing which would explain all of it? Demolition explosives? Oh right, then we'd have to prosecute someone instead of dumping our hard-earned trillions into Afghanistan and getting everyone to hate Muslims. Kiddo.

[voodoo101]

y
this post is very misinformed.

here, maybe this article will help.
------

http://www.dailypaul.com/152794/simp...-is-impossible

Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible: An explanation for the intelligent layman.

The impossibility of the official story of the WTC tower collapses on 911 can be shown by a relatively simple set of calculations. These will show that the fuel required for the steel structures to reach temperatures necessary for them to weaken to the point of catastrophic failure was simply not present. Discussions over the temperatures which the fires may have reached misunderstands the concept of heat transfer. Not only must the fuel, in this case office synthetics and kerosene, burn hot enough; it must burn hot enough, long enough, and over a wide enough area to heat the steel frame to the point of failure. Steel is an excellent heat conductor. The steel frames were well-connected with extensive cross-bracing and gusset plates, allowing for efficient conduction. Thus the heat applied to the steel would have dissipated throughout the entire structure, which consisted of about 96,000 tons of steel, according to most estimates. This is similar to how if you stick one end of a crowbar into a fireplace, you will quickly feel the heat on the other end. This is heat conduction. This well-known property of steel applies regardless of scale, whether we are talking about a crowbar or the end of an I-beam over a bonfire.

Every material has a property called a specific heat, which is the energy required to raise one gram or other weight unit of that substance by one degree. Whether it is water, wood, aluminum, steel, or any other metal, these are well-known and established scientific values. Heat energy is measured in calories, joules, or BTU, which like feet and meters, are simply different ways of measuring the same thing. By definition, the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree is called a calorie.

Some specific heats, in British Thermal Units (BTUs required to raise one pound of substance by one degree F):

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sp...t-metals-d_152...

Another well-established fact of science is that different fuels have different heat contents, that is, amounts of heat energy, measured in calories, joules or BTUs which a weight unit of that fuel can deliver.

Some heat-energy content values:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

How much heat is actually delivered depends on how "clean" the burn is, meaning how well-supplied with oxygen and how thoroughly it combusts. The kerosene in a jet engine is atomized, that is, sprayed into the combustion chamber as an aerosol and mixed with heated, compressed air, which fires a very efficient, clean burn into carbon and water. The role of oxygen in a burn is important. Open air fires are often described as taking place under "atmospheric" or "ambient" conditions, which means the air supply consists of only what is available in the surrounding environment. This is in contrast to combustion under a forced air supply which causes any fuel to burn much hotter and faster.

Anyone who has tended a fire knows that even if a fire is dying out, if you put a new logs into the coals and stoke them with a bellows or a newspaper, the coals will glow red hot and the new log will burst into flames. This same principle is how a blast furnace generates so much heat, so named because air is "blasted" through coal or coke, in order to melt iron ore or steel. Convection currents are still considered atmospheric pressure. The idea that convection currents can provide the kind of mechanically forced air supply needed to bring steel to high temperatures is nonsense. However, we will grant the assumption in the official story that convection currents somehow "sucked" air in from the gashes in the buildings and replicated the mechanically forced air supply of a blast furnace.

Using the specific heat of steel, let us calculate the amount of energy it would require to heat the steel in the towers to 1800F, a significant temperature increase even though steel does not melt until it reaches 2700F. Again, specific heat is the energy required to raise a weight unit of a substance, like water or steel, by one degree, and steel is an excellent heat conductor. The towers contained 96,000 short tons of steel, about 35,000 of those in the strong central core, and most of the rest in the perimeter columns. The specific heat of carbon steel is .12 BTUs per pound. Doing a weight conversion from tons to pounds of steel, this means the energy required to bring this much steel to 1800F would be approximately:

1800 degrees F x .12 BTU/lb. x 192,000,000 lbs of steel = 41.5 billion BTU of energy

Much of the energy of the fuel in a blast furnace is lost to the atmosphere or heating of the interior walls of the melting chamber. The proportion of the energy in a burning fuel which is actually transferred to the target ore or scrap metal is called heat transfer efficiency. In the steel business, in a typical blast furnace, heat transfer efficiency is about 30 percent.

Burning office synthetics, acrylic carpet, composite upholstery, partitions, and computer plastics, yields a maximum of 38 million BTUs of energy per ton in an efficient, forced air burn. Therefore, if the total energy required to bring one tower's 96,000 tons of steel to 1800F is 41.5 billion BTU, and one ton of office synthetics potentially delivers 38 million BTUs, then making the very generous assumption that heat transfer efficiency in the towers approached that found inside a blast furnace, the number of tons of the office fuels needed to raise the temperature of the steel in a tower to 1800F would be:

41.5 billion BTU/(38 million BTU per ton of fuel x .30) = 3333 tons

Some of the burning material would have been paper, but paper contains less energy than plastic, about 13 million BTU/ton, versus 38 million/ton for plastic. Therefore, by assuming all the burning material was plastics, we are continuing to err on the side favorable to the official story.

The maximum amount of kerosene jet fuel which could have spilled into the buildings was about 30 tons, which was the fuel load for each flight. It is clear now that this amount of kerosene present, which also delivers a maximum of 38 million BTU/ton, comes nowhere near the more than 3000 tons of burning fuel required to raise the temperature of the steel frames this much, which is why the jet fuel is rightly dismissed as insignificant. This is also assuming every drop was retained in the buildings and none was lost in the fireballs, another generous assumption.

The fires in the WTCs were confined to a small number of floors, according to extensive survivor testimony and simple observation. However, in order to grant the assumptions most favorable to the official collapse theory, we will posit that fires were rampant across the top thirty stories of each building, the upper quarter of each. Tower One was hit at the 78th floor and Tower Two at the 92nd. Given our known energy requirement, and knowing that each floor of the Towers provided office space for an average of 136 workers, this means that the carpet etc. burning in the engulfed floors would amount to nearly 1 ton per worker of paper, computer plastic, carpet and cubicle partition, all burning in an oxygen rich, blast furnace environment, or over 120 tons of burning carpet etc. per floor.

Making the assumption fires were burning on every floor of the towers, then each of the 15,000 workers in each tower would have to account for over 400 lbs. of carpet, upholstery, and paper, all burning at maximum efficiency under a forced air supply. This would exclude the metal parts of computers like metal chassis, as well as metal file cabinets and server racks.

It is unlikely that heat was transferred from fuel to steel with anywhere near the heat transfer efficiency of a blast furnace designed for such a process, so the values arrived at here would most likely have to be doubled, tripled, or more under more realistic assumptions.

It is hard to imagine how each worker in an office can account for one ton of combustible office synthetics (again, excluding metal.) This is the weight equivalent of a Nissan Maxima parked next to every other worker. That's a lot of carpet.

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the "momentum" from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

Keep in mind 1800F is far short, by about a thousand degrees, of the melting point of steel of about 2700F. Much more fuel would have been needed to raise the temperature of the frames to the melting point. Even if the steel had weakened appreciably at this temperature, and we have seen that it is unlikely that this much fuel was even available, never mind burning, on the floors on which there were fires, chief WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

In order to focus the argument, speculation over how the towers did come down has been deliberately placed outside the scope of this essay. Our purpose is to establish once and for all, according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, how they could not have.

[rsnnh12]

Tell me which video and I'll summarize what it says, then you can watch it and get more details. That's how it works. Throwing links back and forth without being able to put the main points in your own words is not discussion.

The NIST report was a "panel of experts" too, and it is pure horse sh&t. So now we have two sides with experts. Now you have to think for yourself.

Now, which video?

It was creep buckling of perimeter of the structure, the part that transmits the vertical load to the ground.

Now, if you'd like to actually read what they say and respond to it with actual science, I will be more than happy to debate with you. The fact that you're ignoring it tells me everything I need to know though. You can post links and tell people to read it (as you just did a few posts above), but no one else can. Gotcha.

Your entire argument relies on bad comparisons and assumptions rather than actual science. Why were there no traces of explosives found in the rubble? No wires, no detonators, no explosive residue? And don't bother bringing up thermite, that has already been thoroughly debunked. What he found had the same makeup as paint chips, and he refuses to get his samples independently tested. He has the same problem you do... making assumptions, rather than looking at facts.

Edit- lol you're not serious with that article, are you? It implies all of the steel in the entire 110 story building reached 1800 degrees... that's absolutely ridiculous.

Why did the collapse start at the impact points???

[voodoo101]

It was creep buckling of perimeter of the structure, the part that transmits the vertical load to the ground.

Now, if you'd like to actually read what they say and respond to it with actual science, I will be more than happy to debate with you. The fact that you're ignoring it tells me everything I need to know though. You can post links and tell people to read it (as you just did a few posts above), but no one else can. Gotcha.

Your entire argument relies on bad comparisons and assumptions rather than actual science. Why were there no traces of explosives found in the rubble? No wires, no detonators, no explosive residue? And don't bother bringing up thermite, that has already been thoroughly debunked. What he found had the same makeup as paint chips, and he refuses to get his samples independently tested. He has the same problem you do... making assumptions, rather than looking at facts.

Now everything you post can be dismissed, you are not interested in honest discussion you are disinfo. The presence of thermite residue is firmly established from many independently gathered dust samples, along with molten steel which would have been caused by this incendiary. You are like a used car salesman saying "never mind that oil puddle under the car folks" (thermite and molten steel) "just look over here at the shiny chrome" (how the perimeter columns bow.)

You declaring something has been thoroughly debunked doesn't make it so ("folks, now come on, we've debunked that silly oil puddle! Lookee over here!")

Of course they were buckling. We now know that thermite was melting through the center core columns, thus transferring load to the perimeter columns. We even saw molten steel running out sides of the buildings ("We'll just tell them it was molten aluminum, these idiots will believe anything!")

Then you trigger the final demolition sequence. 3000 people are murdered in cold blood. Sorry, your magic trick has been ruined. Someone will pay someday.

how thermite works, demonstration
VIDEO: Example of a thermite reaction (kids do not try this at home!)

[BeefyMcNasty]

Riddle me this you CT phaggots...

Since the towers collapsed at the point of impact, How did the explosives survive the impact, explosion, and intense heat from the planes hitting?

[voodoo101]

Riddle me this you CT phaggots...

Since the towers collapsed at the point of impact, How did the explosives survive the impact, explosion, and intense heat from the planes hitting?

Riddle how a carpet of 20-ton steel beams got thrown out for two or three times the width of the towers at explosive speeds, you denier phaggot.

Your question is easy. You slap the explosive charges on the inside of the core box columns in steel casings similar to airplane black boxes, nearly indestructible. The temperatures of the airplane hits were not that high, only in your caveman mind (BIG BIG PLANE HOT HOT! which is how you guys talk to Americans, like they are stupid. That was JET FUEL, MORON! It's only kerosene.)

The casings will survive, and you need 5000F to ignite the thermite reaction.

Read this: "A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario: A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means"