WTC demolition - VIDEO proving it to exhaustion - But who's truly behind it?

[dlamberth]

I say you should provide sources, including the supposed temperature steel loses half its integrity and the temperature jet fuels burns at.

Your question is a good one, so after googling around for a little bit, I kept coming up with the same information. Here it is from one site that's a pretty good representation of the rest.

"When constructed, the WTC was built with a safety factor of 600%, easily able to withstand an isolated jet fuel fire. Experts estimate jet fuel could only have reached 360 degrees Celsius, far lower than the temperature needed to weaken the elasticity of the steel columns.

Molten steel was found at the bedrock, seven stories below street level and 80 stories below the point of impact. The melting point of steel is 1500 celsius and burning jet fuel does not produce flame temperature high enough to produce molting." LINK

I'm left wondering where did the molten steel come from if not from Thermite shaped charges...which does melt steel and IS used in building demolition.

.

 

[Vylo]

Good observations, dlamberth. I've wondered about the same things. The towers took the path of most resistance, yet fell at an amazingly fast clip.

The path of least resistance is down. When you have the force of gravity, this is generally the case. The supports had buckled, leaving much of the building attatched to the rest, but not held rigidly. The building trying to move to the side would have had to rip apart the steel as well as overcome considerable air resistance. There was force pushing the building down, but not much pushing it to the sides at all.

I’m also wondering about the weakening of the steal support beams. The reports are that the temperature could not have been hot enough to weaken the steal girders in the WTC enough to bring it down. The argument is that jet fuel does not burn that hot. What say you

I say it provided enough heat. Not only could it have easily caused structural weakening, but uneven heating of the steel will cause it to buckle.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

 

[TheMissus]

Your question is a good one, so after googling around for a little bit, I kept coming up with the same information. Here it is from one site that's a pretty good representation of the rest.

"When constructed, the WTC was built with a safety factor of 600%, easily able to withstand an isolated jet fuel fire. Experts estimate jet fuel could only have reached 360 degrees Celsius, far lower than the temperature needed to weaken the elasticity of the steel columns.

Molten steel was found at the bedrock, seven stories below street level and 80 stories below the point of impact. The melting point of steel is 1500 celsius and burning jet fuel does not produce flame temperature high enough to produce molting." LINK

I'm left wondering where did the molten steel come from if not from Thermite shaped charges...which does melt steel and IS used in building demolition.

.

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.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

[Vylo]

Trust me when I tell you this, I work with jet engines every day, and we can and have burned oil in them. I am sitting literally 3 feet from gas/oil turbine as I am typing this sentence. Jet fuel can reach ~1500 degrees when burned under atmospheric conditions. That will compromise steel. The boiler behind me is made of steel and has 1200+ degree exhaust blowing on it. If the water in the boiler were to run out, and the safeties not function, it would cause structural damage to the boiler. I have heard stories from reputable people in the business of boilers melting like stryofoam cups. Steel is not meant to withstand temperatures of over 1200 degrees for any sustained period of time.

 

[ShawnaAnn]

I think it's rediculous how this information is pieced together like it was a corny sales pitch. "I couldn't sleep for a week" wow, it must be true.

Notice how they show footage of different buildings being demolished and juxtapose that footage with the WTC. Hello? What does a building accidently falling over look like?

We should look at this for what it is. Religious extremeists targeting America. I don't see how impossible that is to think of.

 

[mwb]

I guess Downing Street wasn't alone to "fix the facts" LOL!!

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I wish I could get this link stickied:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

911 morons

 

[Yusuf Evans]

It covers to exhaustion all the aspects of the demolition, leaving no doubts whatsoever about what the majority undestood long ago: the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.

So the majority of the American people believe that the government took down the WTC, blew up the Pentagon as well? I know that Flight 93 was shot down, but c'mon.

 

[k]

Why'd they use planes then? Wouldn't it have been easier to just plant the demolitions and then say terrorists disquised as a demolition company leveled the WTC and launched cruise missiles as the Pentagon?

That's kind of strange....I mean....how would they sell it..."Well, um, Mr. Secretary, there are often demolition experts just roaming about skyscrapers."

Where would the missiles had been launched from?

 

[k]

NIST just revised its position on how the towers came down...first they said the floor trusses snapped off from the columns thus creating the "pancake" theory. Well, since that has been proven ridiculous now it is claiming the trusses remained connected to the outer columns and actually snapped the colums apart thus causing the collapse.

If it is so easy to bring a skyscraper straight down why do demo companies spend millions of dollars every year figuring out how to do it?

Is it possible that pre-planted explosives were part of the original design. The reasoning is this...you have two 110 story buildings surrounded by hundreds of smaller ones. If one of those towers were to suffer damage from a fire and started to collapse to one side or the other it would take out 30 blocks of other buildings. So, as a safety precaution why not plant explosives as a back up plan to make sure they come straight down to cause as little damage as possible?

 

[k]

So the majority of the American people believe that the government took down the WTC, blew up the Pentagon as well? I know that Flight 93 was shot down, but c'mon.

Yes, the majority of Americans do not believe the OV, but this does not mean the majority agree on exactly what happened. I do not know what happened but what I do know is the OV should have its own booth at Disney World.

 

[Alarum]

NIST just revised its position on how the towers came down...first they said the floor trusses snapped off from the columns thus creating the "pancake" theory. Well, since that has been proven ridiculous now it is claiming the trusses remained connected to the outer columns and actually snapped the colums apart thus causing the collapse.

Science reexamines its theories if a different one comes along, and decides which better explains the observed phenomina, and uses that. Conspiracy theorists inevitably say it disproves science - be it the WTC, or evolution, or UFO buffs.

If it is so easy to bring a skyscraper straight down why do demo companies spend millions of dollars every year figuring out how to do it?

Oh, I dunno, so they don't drop support columns all over other buildings, bringing them down too? That seems like a messy result for a planned demolition.

Is it possible that pre-planted explosives were part of the original design. The reasoning is this...you have two 110 story buildings surrounded by hundreds of smaller ones. If one of those towers were to suffer damage from a fire and started to collapse to one side or the other it would take out 30 blocks of other buildings. So, as a safety precaution why not plant explosives as a back up plan to make sure they come straight down to cause as little damage as possible?

If there was, don't you think they'd have arranged it so it didn't fall on other buildings?

 

[peanutbutter12]

Yes, it's all a plan for the US Government to go more into debt as we spend billions on cleanup, funds for families, building a whole new building, go to war across sea (again)... it's all a plan to push this country so far into debt so our money becomes useless! That has to be it!

... some people are in serious need of a clue.

CJ

 

[k]

Yes, it's all a plan for the US Government to go more into debt as we spend billions on cleanup, funds for families, building a whole new building, go to war across sea (again)... it's all a plan to push this country so far into debt so our money becomes useless! That has to be it!

... some people are in serious need of a clue.

CJ

Do you really believe those running the country care one iota about government debt while they and their friends are raking in billions?

Plus, the Bush admin said clearly one year before 9/11 they wanted to invade Iraq whether or not Saddam was in charge and whether or not he posed any threat.

 

[k]

Science reexamines its theories if a different one comes along, and decides which better explains the observed phenomina, and uses that. Conspiracy theorists inevitably say it disproves science - be it the WTC, or evolution, or UFO buffs.

Well, at least it's being admitted the government can only supply "theories" as to why the towers came down.

To believe the OV is to be a conspiracy theorist.

NIST revised its position because the Pancake Theory got laughed out of recognition.

Oh, I dunno, so they don't drop support columns all over other buildings, bringing them down too? That seems like a messy result for a planned demolition.

I was being tongue-in-cheeky.

If there was, don't you think they'd have arranged it so it didn't fall on other buildings?

The towers came straight down.

 

[Alarum]

Well, at least it's being admitted the government can only supply "theories" as to why the towers came down.

Huh? I said science. As in, scientists, engineers, people who, to be frank know what they're talking about. You won't find them with the conspiracy theorists, excepting a few people who have a history of being crackpots (Jesus in America!)

To believe the OV is to be a conspiracy theorist.

Your slogan is getting tattered.

NIST revised its position because the Pancake Theory got laughed out of recognition.

Except the pancaking is still in the theory. Its never left. They reexamined the mechanism of truss breaking based on photographic evidence. Reexaming the photos showed that the floor was clearly still connected to the outside trusses, which were buckled inwards under the weight. Therefore its more likely the interior trusses were busted.

These pictures, among other evidence, convinced people that the floor slab was still connected to the exterior columns, and buckled them inwards.

The towers came straight down.

If they came straight downwards, they had no lateral movement at all. That means that no part of the tower impacted another building. Do you actually mean that? Or do you mean that the general direction of the tower's movement was downward (which is predicted by, I dunno... gravity)?

 

[k]

Huh? I said science. As in, scientists, engineers, people who, to be frank know what they're talking about. You won't find them with the conspiracy theorists, excepting a few people who have a history of being crackpots (Jesus in America!)
Your slogan is getting tattered. Except the pancaking is still in the theory. Its never left. They reexamined the mechanism of truss breaking based on photographic evidence. Reexaming the photos showed that the floor was clearly still connected to the outside trusses, which were buckled inwards under the weight. Therefore its more likely the interior trusses were busted.

These pictures, among other evidence, convinced people that the floor slab was still connected to the exterior columns, and buckled them inwards.

If they came straight downwards, they had no lateral movement at all. That means that no part of the tower impacted another building. Do you actually mean that? Or do you mean that the general direction of the tower's movement was downward (which is predicted by, I dunno... gravity)?

Their original explanation was that the trusses broke from from the outer columns thus causing the "pancake" effect. Now they are claiming the trusses are somehow magically stronger than the columns (even after all the heat they endured?) thus snapping them in two and it was the snapping of the outer columns that brought the towers down. That is not the same explanation given before thus to say it is "still the pancake theory" is a bit to syrupy for my taste.

 

[Alarum]

Their original explanation was that the trusses broke from from the outer columns thus causing the "pancake" effect. Now they are claiming the trusses are somehow magically stronger than the columns (even after all the heat they endured?) thus snapping them in two and it was the snapping of the outer columns that brought the towers down. That is not the same explanation given before thus to say it is "still the pancake theory" is a bit to syrupy for my taste.

No, they're suggesting that the trusses broke from the inner columns due to the expansion stresses. And they're not suggesting it, they're telling it to you. The picture clearly shows the floor hanging from the out columns. Its called examing, and evidence. Something these conspiracies are notably lacking in (which is why they're down to relying on crud like eyewitness testimony).

I'm sorry, but this sounds exactly like the creationists, to a T. "Stephen J. Gould said X, Darwin said Y, so obviously they're both wrong, and this crazy other theory that has no evidence going for it is right!"

Care to answer any of my challenges? They have their own thread now. Despite the number of times I've addressed your claims, they're still open to you!

 

[japhy]

I found Rudi Guliani's quote particularly interesting. He is quoted as saying to ABC news that

"I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse."

Further insight into what took place here is provided by the account of Richard Zarillo,

"As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." (Link)

No one thought these buildings were going to collapse, but apparently someone knew they would.

Anyone have questions yet?

So someone who was able to think clearly despite all the goings-on realized that the towers were going to collapse. He didn't know when, but he knew it would happen. If it was a planned demolition, why not let Rudy get the rest of the NYPD and FDNY heroes out of the buildings?

Watch videos of controlled demolitions, please. Explosions happen in very specific locations in a specific order. Once the top of the WTC buildings fell, it was a chain reaction that destroyed practically every floor. The fire spread up and down, causing the explosions you see on film. Controlled demolitions are called "implosions" (although that is a misnomer) because the building falls into itself; controlled demolitions don't spill outside the walls. That's not control!

This is not the type of thing you can experiment with on the small scale. A chicken-wire box with a couple bricks on it with a burning can of jet fuel beneath it is not the equivalent of a 100+ story building with thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning.

 

[MattMarriott]

From first post:

The interesting thing is that this video is released by the same people that detonated those explosives.

Two main goals could be recognized in the few minutes I saw:
...
2. - to cover-up the unprecedented technique used for the controlled demolition. That's why the audio mentions up to bottom demolition.
To cover-up the fact that the bomb was in fact launched from the bottom. The only kind of bomb that could turn instantly the WTC core into dust.

----- ONE YEAR LATER, the latest upgraded version is broadcasted in the Austrian TV...

http://foru.ms/t6071653-911-mysteries-video-premiere-in-eu-or-us-state-tv-6-september-2007-why.html