A possible truth of the 911!

[Tim_Lou]

i know, i know, its old.... but you guys might be interested in it.

the structures of the towers in 911 are mainly made by steels, but steel melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F), it wouldnt be possible that it is caused by the fire.

 

here is a website explaining the 911:

http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

 

you can go straight ahead to the website... if you wanna have some idea of what its talking about, take a look below.

 

[from the website above]

the towers collapse after a certain period of time after the crashes, it is for certain that it was not caused by the immediate result of the heat of explosion.

 

the flame in the tower only reached 800 degrees C, not enough to melt steels.

 

"Dozens of hot spots were mapped. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, showed a temperature of 1377° F (747° C). This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement."

thermite reaction might be the reason of molten steels, but where did it get rust and aluminum?

(molten steel was found in the basement!)

 

"It has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here."

 

 

 

below is something you must read and consider.....the best part of that article.

"Listen to this PBS interview with Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC, describing how he had Building #7 demolished!

 

MP3 of Silverstein “Pull It”

 

(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse

 

In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with explosives.

 

Silverman is talking about how a decision was made between him and the New York Fire Department to 'Pull' the building. And there is no doubt the meanings of his words, captured in context. He is admitting on public TV that a decision was made between him and the NYFD to use a controlled demolition to fell WTC 7 on 911. And all of this AFTER the official FEMA report, costing millions said otherwise, and they had all the experts.

 

In order to appreciate the severity of this evidence, you must first understand that demolishing a building is not something you can do in a few minutes by tossing explosives into a basement. It actually takes days of planning. First you have to pinpoint all the load-bearing structures, then you have to wire everything and set the cutting charges so they all go off in a pre-destined order. Which means that this demolition was planned long before 9-11! "

well, is it true? i doubt it.

 

and another quote:

"The towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

 

The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished. "

yeah... i had wondered about how the heck could those towers fall straight down and quickly!

 

and the video of firefighters in the website is a must watch:

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

 

 

now! you guys are the judgement!!!!!!!!

[BlameTheEx]

Tim

 

Why on earth would they "pull" the towers? From the looks there was no particular reason to expect the flames to spread to other buildings. They were too far away. For proof, no other building did catch fire, and there was certainly time. Furthermore. If I remember the pictures correctly, the collapse STARTED from the middle, not the basement.

 

Had the towers stayed up, then the emergency workers who entered would have lived. Moreover the possibility of saving those above the flames must have been considered. I can't believe that all possibilities of helicopters or delivering absailing ropes was abandoned so soon. What justification could the fire department have had? I am not talking about hindsight, I am talking about reasons for trained and experienced men to make such a decision then.

 

I do not draw the same conclusions as you over the speed of the collapse. In effect you are arguing that the towers were not broken at one point, but rather at ALL points, or at least at all points towards the lower end. You argue if there was structural strength in the tower towards the bottom, it would have fallen more slowly. Had this been the result of "pulling" in this scenario the explosives, placed by the Fire Department, were on several levels of the building. Far more than necessary.

 

There is a more sensible alternative, which is to recognise that the towers were very high, and made full use of the properties of the materials they were constructed from. Such use means high strength ONLY when the load is as planned for. Perhaps a single floor collapsed in the middle of the tower, where the fire was at its worst. The higher floors dropped as a unit, and when they hit the floor below, things just snapped. Stressed in an unexpected manner the materials were brittle, and broke without appreciable time delay. This is precisely the method used in normal controlled demolition. If my memory is correct, about 2/3 up is considered to be the best place. The higher the tower, the more effective it is. The difference here is that it was the terrorists who did the controlling.

[Tim_Lou]

well, i doubt that the people demonished the tower as well....

 

anyway, how would you explain the hot spots on the pictures, which is considered as molten steel?

[Tim_Lou]

another quote from another article:

"WTC-1 was hit at 8:46am and collapsed at 10:28am (1 hour and 45 minutes

later). WTC-2 was hit at 9:03am and collapsed at 9:59 (56 minutes

later). Why did WTC-2 collapse twenty-nine minutes sooner than WTC-1?

Jet fuel is capable of igniting fires at a maximum of 1,600-1,700°F.

To melt steel, temperatures of 2,770°F are required. That fires from

jet fuel could have ignited fires capable of collapsing WTC buildings is

impossible according to science."

 

1 hours 45 minutes, and 56 minutes.

if the thermite theory isnt right, that means that it was the fire that caused the steel to melt and the world trade centers to collapse.

 

but the fire caused by fuel can only go up to 1600-1700 as stated in the article (also the one before), how is it possible?

 

the crash of the plane must not be the immediate reason of why they collapse, since both towers collapsed about 1 hour later! which means that the fire was generating heat, but the heat wasnt enough!

 

well, although i doubt that the WTCs are demonished, but the flame must not be the only reason.

 

"According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the towers were “complex and substantially more redundant than typical.” The quality of the steel in the towers exceeded standard requirements. Within seconds of impact both towers were stable."

yeah, the towers were stable for 1 hour.....

 

"Further evidence pointing to a controlled demolition is the reduction of over 100,000 tons of concrete in each tower to fine dust and powder. Neither fire nor the collapse itself could have caused the powderization of that much concrete."

the concrete are crushed to powder, well, one can argue that it was caused by the falling of the top parts. but shouldnt the concrete remain in pieces?

 

"Why was debris and steel, including all the columns, beams and trusses, removed so quickly and sold to foreign countries for recyclin"

well, did they really do it for money?

 

(website i got the quotes from: http://www.911truth.org/media/wrh.pdf)

[karlfreak]

i say it was all a stoge and the towers were blown up

[Stargazer]

Isn't it more likely that the crash demolished much of the general structure? Also, I don't know much about metallurgy, but is it not possible that it's not at all necessary to melt the steel, that it would lose strength in the heat even if it's not melting? Combine those two things with the weight of the aeroplane, as well as the weight of the now largely unsupported sections above the crash area... and I can easily see how this brought the towers down.

[TeleMad]

Isn't it more likely that the crash demolished much of the general structure? Also... it's not at all necessary to melt the steel, that it would lose strength in the heat even if it's not melting Combine those two things with the weight of the aeroplane, as well as the weight of the now largely unsupported sections above the crash area... and I can easily see how this brought the towers down.

 

Yep, that's the basic explanation that destoys yet another ill-thought-out conspiracy theory.

[Biochemist]

i know, i know, its old.... but you guys might be interested in it.

the structures of the towers in 911 are mainly made by steels, but steel melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F), it wouldnt be possible that it is caused by the fire....

This is an odd argument. This has all of the conspiracy-theory flavor that we might expect from a major unanticipated disaster like the 9/11 attacks.

 

1) The towers burned more from combustion of office material than from aircraft fuel.

2) The towers exceeded ther expected fire specification: They were just not built to expect 80,000 gallons of accelerant injected into an upper storey.

3) Steel fails long before it melts. The building standards are (currently) expected to anticipate a tempreatur of over 1200 degrees F (I think) but steel will fail (depending on its load) before that.

 

Steel fails during a fire. It is also true that steel structure buildings fail before wooden beam structures do (because charred wood self-insulates) but 1) you cannot build 100 story structures out of wood, 2) wood is also a fuel, steel is not, and 3) steel is smaller for the same tensile strength.

 

There are several other noteworthy large building fires with similar characteristics to the WTC failures on 9/11, notably the Windsor Torre in Madrid.

 

We are certainly learning more about the limits of steel construction during these calamities. But it is a stretch to suggest that ther destruction of the towers was intended, since most of the casualities were thought to be alive when the buildings collapsed.

[[email protected]]

This is an odd argument. This has all of the conspiracy-theory flavor that we might expect from a major unanticipated disaster like the 9/11 attacks.

 

1) The towers burned more from combustion of office material than from aircraft fuel.

2) The towers exceeded ther expected fire specification: They were just not built to expect 80,000 gallons of accelerant injected into an upper storey.

3) Steel fails long before it melts. The building standards are (currently) expected to anticipate a tempreatur of over 1200 degrees F (I think) but steel will fail (depending on its load) before that.

 

Steel fails during a fire. It is also true that steel structure buildings fail before wooden beam structures do (because charred wood self-insulates) but 1) you cannot build 100 story structures out of wood, 2) wood is also a fuel, steel is not, and 3) steel is smaller for the same tensile strength.

 

There are several other noteworthy large building fires with similar characteristics to the WTC failures on 9/11, notably the Windsor Torre in Madrid.

 

We are certainly learning more about the limits of steel construction during these calamities. But it is a stretch to suggest that ther destruction of the towers was intended, since most of the casualities were thought to be alive when the buildings collapsed.

 

Yes, but you're forgetting that the Windsor burned all night long and didn't collapse. Which similar 'failures' occurred at the Windsor in Madrid that mirror those of the WTC?

[zadojla]

Yes, but you're forgetting that the Windsor burned all night long and didn't collapse.

I would think that the difference in overall size (Windsor Torres was 32 stories tall), and, more importantly, the lack of thousands of gallons jet fuel as an accelerant, would make the collapse of Windsor Torres and the World Trade Center not strictly comparable.