Explosives in the WTC?

[Solaris]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

Thats a really good video explaining how the WTC was borught

down by explosives and not the planes.Its 20minutes long but if

you have time you should watch it. One of the best points I can

see is that for steel to melt. You need temperatures in excess of

3000 degrees.

The offical stroy is that the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire,

the ones that were hit. But yuo can see 20 mnutes before it

collapsed,

people stood in the gaps the planes created, sureley if the

temperrature was 3000degrees they coud not have survived

that? Also it shows tapes of firefighters within the WTC minutes

before it collapsed, saying that the fires were almost out, but

then they say that there was a secoundary explosion.

Youve got to see it to really understand what I'm saying.

Solaris

 

[X|Rolando]

Didnt they have explosives inside the planes?

 

[Solaris]

Erm, not sure what you mean. The video shows sveral explosions happening right before they collapse. The buildings were designed to withstand 2 jumbojets hitting them and not collapse.

Also the buidings fell just as if they would if they imploded, like in a controlled demolition.

 

[The Mullinator]

Erm, not sure what you mean. The video shows sveral explosions happening right before they collapse. The buildings were designed to withstand 2 jumbojets hitting them and not collapse.

Also the buidings fell just as if they would if they imploded, like in a controlled demolition.

You mean as if the supports melted away from the extreme heat of the burning jet fuel? The buildings could survive the impact of the jets but the support beams couldn't survive the extreme heat that resulted from the burning jet fuel. Thats what brought them down.

 

[Paintballer]

^^^ mullinator is correct

 

[Foxtrot]

OMFG another one of these things, think you finally found the secret answer? Maybe you should continue working on the moon landing, you had some pretty good theories there, just do what you always do, omit important facts and make up stuff.

 

[Solaris]

"You mean as if the supports melted away from the extreme heat of the burning jet fuel? The buildings could survive the impact of the jets but the support beams couldn't survive the extreme heat that resulted from the burning jet fuel. Thats what brought them down."

Then why were people in the 'crater' standing waiting to be rescued, surley they could survive thoose temperatures, look at the video. The people are there! And the firefighters reported that the fires were almost out, and then you can cleary see aload of explosions just before it collapses.

Also OMFG NUB ROXORS TEH BOXORS

If your not going to contribute and flame, do so in a PM so not everyone has to see your whining.

 

[Razor]

You mean as if the supports melted away from the extreme heat of the burning jet fuel? The buildings could survive the impact of the jets but the support beams couldn't survive the extreme heat that resulted from the burning jet fuel. Thats what brought them down.

You should look at the pictures of the Madrid skyscraper that went up in flames in Februay, the entire building was consumed by fire.

 

[short recoil]

"You mean as if the supports melted away from the extreme heat of the burning jet fuel? The buildings could survive the impact of the jets but the support beams couldn't survive the extreme heat that resulted from the burning jet fuel. Thats what brought them down."

Then why were people in the 'crater' standing waiting to be rescued, surley they could survive thoose temperatures, look at the video. The people are there! And the firefighters reported that the fires were almost out, and then you can cleary see aload of explosions just before it collapses.

Also OMFG NUB ROXORS TEH BOXORS

If your not going to contribute and flame, do so in a PM so not everyone has to see your whining.

Ummm, the planes hit 1/2 way up the building.........why would there be any fuel getting all the way down to the bottom?

 

[seinfeldrules]

No matter how many times experts backup the claims, there will always be some wacko claiming he knows more than them.

 

[Solaris]

A wacko, I have put forward valid arguments and you are just saying I am a wacko, without backing it up at all.

Dont belive everything you read, think for yourself dont accept the story thats been given to you. If youre just going to put forward your own belief system without backing it upor giving reasons then you are not going to convince anyone.


"You should look at the pictures of the Madrid skyscraper that went up in flames in Februay, the entire building was consumed by fire."

Yes that burnt for days, and it didnt collapse. The steel stil held as it ahs a very high melting point just like the WTC.

 

[The Mullinator]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Just read that. This is the guy they are interviewing and I have to say I would trust him more than anyone else in such a subject:

"Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT"

 

[CptStern]

OMFG another one of these things, think you finally found the secret answer? Maybe you should continue working on the moon landing, you had some pretty good theories there, just do what you always do, omit important facts and make up stuff.

hehe kinda like bush did before he invaded iraq


I beleive there's a lot of lies and misinformation around 9/11 ...but this is isnt one of those

 

[Foxtrot]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Just read that. This is the guy they are interviewing and I have to say I would trust him more than anyone else in such a subject:

"Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT"

I think you are forgetting that he knows more than an engineering professor.

 

[The Mullinator]

I think you are forgetting that he knows more than an engineering professor.

/me slaps his head

Of course! How could I forget. Its so obviously a conspiracy now that I think about it. Now we just have to figure out how they were able to get all those explosives placed strategically in the buildings without anyone ever finding out. :E

 

[Solaris]

Who does, the engineer backs up my claim.

Ive just spoken to my uncle a scientist, and among other things he daid that steels critical melting point is 800degrees celcius, it apears alex was wrong on that point.

Well at least I did my research.
It still raises important issues, such as how WTC7 was pulled even the fires were under control.

Hmm please could domeone whos seen it comment, stern?

 

[Foxtrot]

/me slaps his head

Of course! How could I forget. Its so obviously a conspiracy now that I think about it. Now we just have to figure out how they were able to get all those explosives placed strategically in the buildings without anyone ever finding out. :E

This is the easy part, if you were to pay close attention to the news on September 10th you would have heard that a flock of unicorns escaped from the zoo, and also a herd of terrorists escaped from their internment camp which can only point to one thing. The terrorists rode the unicorns into the WTC and planted the bombs, all while under the effects of an invisibility spell...quite simple actually.

 

[CptStern]

Who does, the engineer backs up my claim.

Ive just spoken to my uncle a scientist, and among other things he daid that steels critical melting point is 800degrees celcius, it apears alex was wrong on that point.

Well at least I did my research.
It still raises important issues, such as how WTC7 was pulled even the fires were under control.

Hmm please could domeone whos seen it comment, stern?

sorry, I cant watch it till later on tonight, I'm at work

 

[ray_MAN]

Sorry to tell you guys, but the WTC was not built to withstand 3000+ degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, there was no fire testing in the WTC since it was built in the 1970's. The restaurant on the top floor, "Windows on the World", was forced to use electric stoves rather than typical gas stoves because they didn't want fire problems. The WTC was very, very weak. A Cessna with a full amount of fuel could have taken it down if it hit it in the right spot. Now shut up.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Pwned! ^

 

[short recoil]

Who does, the engineer backs up my claim.

Ive just spoken to my uncle a scientist, and among other things he daid that steels critical melting point is 800degrees celcius, it apears alex was wrong on that point.

Well at least I did my research.
It still raises important issues, such as how WTC7 was pulled even the fires were under control.

Hmm please could domeone whos seen it comment, stern?

800 degrees celcius is quite low, it depends on what grade steel they use but the stuff i have worked with usually has a MP of 1000-1300c
A kerosene fire with plenty of oxygen roaring through it (heat pulling air through) could certainly melt or at least severely deform any steel supports.

 

[seinfeldrules]

/me slaps his head

Of course! How could I forget. Its so obviously a conspiracy now that I think about it. Now we just have to figure out how they were able to get all those explosives placed strategically in the buildings without anyone ever finding out.

Exactly. Just another cry for attention from some conspiracy nutjob.

 

[ray_MAN]

I am surprised the that the WTC lasted as long as it did while it was burning. I guess the FDNY, who are wonderful and brave gentlemen, did a good job that day.

 

[Solaris]

"Sorry to tell you guys, but the WTC was not built to withstand 3000+ degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, there was no fire testing in the WTC since it was built in the 1970's. The restaurant on the top floor, "Windows on the World", was forced to use electric stoves rather than typical gas stoves because they didn't want fire problems. The WTC was very, very weak. A Cessna with a full amount of fuel could have taken it down if it hit it in the right spot. Now shut up. "


No thats what they want you to think. Why did NORAD stand down on 911 becuase an identical trainingexercise was schediueld to take place on that day. Hmm coincidence I think not. To some pople this idea sounds completeley crazy to others quite possible.

 

[short recoil]

"Sorry to tell you guys, but the WTC was not built to withstand 3000+ degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, there was no fire testing in the WTC since it was built in the 1970's. The restaurant on the top floor, "Windows on the World", was forced to use electric stoves rather than typical gas stoves because they didn't want fire problems. The WTC was very, very weak. A Cessna with a full amount of fuel could have taken it down if it hit it in the right spot. Now shut up. "


No thats what they want you to think. Why did NORAD stand down on 911 becuase an identical trainingexercise was schediueld to take place on that day. Hmm coincidence I think not. To some pople this idea sounds completeley crazy to others quite possible.

Can you use the quote button plz, that had me confused then and i thought loads of posts had been deleted back to the other guys thing when i read the same words.

 

[wodsoa]

Just an observation...I've noticed several times where members are stating their points, and then saying to shut up and keep quiet from discussing the issues. Sounds allll to familiar.

The Madrid building, if you'll remember, burned for over two weeks and didn't collapse. Doesn't that raise any sort of eyebrows as to how the WTC fell just after a few hours? And if burning jet fuel were the case in bringing the buildings down, how did those people survive the flames?

More importantly, the vice president took control of NORAD just days before the attack, and coincidently, they stood down for the first time in their 50 year history. What about the admitted Northwoods Documents that was created in the 70's talking about how they needed helpful terrorists attacks using remote controlled airline jets for a pretext for War?

Does it really seem that far fetched that the government had prior knowledge and involvement? Read your history books, people...Hitler burned the Reichstag (spelling?) building soon after he was elected, and blamed it on foreign enemies. Then he set up the Fatherland Security (Homeland Security, anyone?). We've moved from one tyranical leader from the next. Why is it so hard to believe that we're getting screwed now?

Just keep waving your flags, America. Go back to sleep.

 

[ray_MAN]

No thats what they want you to think. Why did NORAD stand down on 911 becuase an identical trainingexercise was schediueld to take place on that day. Hmm coincidence I think not. To some pople this idea sounds completeley crazy to others quite possible.

You are probably the worst conspiracy theorist I have ever met. You act as if the world is plotting against you! You really need a dose of reality, and realize that the WTC was weak and there was nothing that could be done once those planes were hijacked!

 

[The Mullinator]

Just an observation...I've noticed several times where members are stating their points, and then saying to shut up and keep quiet from discussing the issues. Sounds allll to familiar.

The Madrid building, if you'll remember, burned for over two weeks and didn't collapse. Doesn't that raise any sort of eyebrows as to how the WTC fell just after a few hours? And if burning jet fuel were the case in bringing the buildings down, how did those people survive the flames?

More importantly, the vice president took control of NORAD just days before the attack, and coincidently, they stood down for the first time in their 50 year history. What about the admitted Northwoods Documents that was created in the 70's talking about how they needed helpful terrorists attacks using remote controlled airline jets for a pretext for War?

Does it really seem that far fetched that the government had prior knowledge and involvement? Read your history books, people...we've moved from one tyranical leader from the next. Why is it so hard to believe that we're getting screwed now?

Just keep waving your flags, America. Go back to sleep.

NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?

Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.

As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

From here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

As for why NORAD withdrew I havn't really looked into it. However even if they didn't could you tell me what they could have done? They didn't realize the planes were going to be used as giant bombs so they wouldn't have shot them down anyway.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The Madrid building, if you'll remember, burned for over two weeks and didn't collapse. Doesn't that raise any sort of eyebrows as to how the WTC fell just after a few hours? And if burning jet fuel were the case in bringing the buildings down, how did those people survive the flames?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Just read that. This is the guy they are interviewing and I have to say I would trust him more than anyone else in such a subject:

"Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT"

Man, reading comprehension must really be a problem for lots of people...

 

[ray_MAN]

Maybe NORAD wasn't ready for this. Maybe NORAD didn't want to start a war on an unknown entity. Maybe NORAD didn't want innocent people to die, while they had no idea what was going to happen to the planes. Maybe NORAD was doing the right thing. I think so.

 

[CptStern]

Just an observation...I've noticed several times where members are stating their points, and then saying to shut up and keep quiet from discussing the issues. Sounds allll to familiar.

The Madrid building, if you'll remember, burned for over two weeks and didn't collapse. Doesn't that raise any sort of eyebrows as to how the WTC fell just after a few hours? And if burning jet fuel were the case in bringing the buildings down, how did those people survive the flames?

.

madrid building? they bombed the subway not a building

 

[Solaris]

Maybe NORAD was ordered to stand down by the administration, so it could be used as a pretext for war.

As wodsoa says, its the reichstag again. There trying to use fear to pass there laws and start there wars. Like they have with the patrioct act, removing your rights does not make you safer your real enemy is your government.

Their is no terrorst threat, I was reading Micheal Moores book and it raises some good points, in 200 the chance of an american in amercia dying from a terrorist attack was 0 in 2002 it was 0 in 2003 it was 0 in 2004 it was 0, in 2001 it was 1 in 100 000. That means you are more liekley to commit suicide than die in a terrorist attack, but no laws are passed to protect you rom yourslef, oh no these make belive terrorists have been an excellant pretext to remove your rights and wage war, for the Bush administration 911 was excellant.

 

[GhostFox]

Hey Solaris....didn't we get probed together once? I thought I recognized another member of the tinfoil hat club...er....ahhh.....ohhhh.....ohhh....the government did it....they blew it up.....don't tell them I said so....ahhhh...they already know.....they are inside my head....why are there so many voices.....HFGSBVS.....DHHDHSHSD....SHHSHFNNBS....WHAT DOES IT MEAN???????????


(sorry to everyone else on the board, I just thought maybe we should try talking to him on his level )

 

[Bodacious]

I was reading Micheal Moores book .

'Nuff said.

Hey, you keep thinking the way you are. No one is going to stop you and I encourage it. Your radical opinions win voters for the GOP, at least I think so.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Solaris]

madrid building? they bombed the subway not a building

Yes, but a skyscraper set on fire, look at the film, its on it.

 

[CptStern]

do you mean the Windsor building? ....but that had nothing to do with the bombing of the subway ..in fact they were almost a year apart


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/13/spain.block.fire/


the fire was ruled an accident

 

[Solaris]

Yes no one made any link to that and a terrorist event, we were just saying how that burnt for ages, and didnt collapse while the WTC did.

 

[CptStern]

ok, now I see where I jumped to conclusions

 

[ray_MAN]

Yes no one made any link to that and a terrorist event, we were just saying how that burnt for ages, and didnt collapse while the WTC did.

Jet fuel fires are really hot. The Madrid fire is not as hot.

 

[bliink]

Hey Solaris....didn't we get probed together once? I thought I recognized another member of the tinfoil hat club...er....ahhh.....ohhhh.....ohhh....the government did it....they blew it up.....don't tell them I said so....ahhhh...they already know.....they are inside my head....why are there so many voices.....HFGSBVS.....DHHDHSHSD....SHHSHFNNBS....WHAT DOES IT MEAN???????????


(sorry to everyone else on the board, I just thought maybe we should try talking to him on his level )

Take apart the argument instead of making fun of him.

I've warned twice about this now.