9/11 Lie?

[CleanAzzE30z]

There was something on the structural failure on the History Channel. The trade Towers were built diffrently than your contemporary buildings of the time, with an exo-skeleton and steel trusses inside that had fire retardant on them. Over time the reatrdant slowly disintegrated and with the force of the planes hitting the building, the rest was taken off, therefore leving the metal exposed to the absolutely insane temperatures of the planes full of fuel. Once one truss fell, it was just a matter of time before the rest would give and it would simply be a domino effect. Anyone correct me if any part of this is wrong. I tried to summarize it as best I could.

Mariano

[Charlie]

There was something on the structural failure on the History Channel. The trade Towers were built diffrently than your contemporary buildings of the time, with an exo-skeleton and steel trusses inside that had fire retardant on them. Over time the reatrdant slowly disintegrated and with the force of the planes hitting the building, the rest was taken off, therefore leving the metal exposed to the absolutely insane temperatures of the planes full of fuel. Once one truss fell, it was just a matter of time before the rest would give and it would simply be a domino effect. Anyone correct me if any part of this is wrong. I tried to summarize it as best I could.

Mariano

You pretty much nailed it.

These buildings were products of late 50's, early 60's era engineering, designed to withstand a hit from a much smaller, lighter jetliner traveling at a speed 100mph slower than what the planes hit them at. These were cross country flights fully loaded with fuel, so the fire that resulted was incredible. These were not random hits on the building, and the domino effect was what brought them down.

-Charlie

[Old'n'Slow]

There was something on the structural failure on the History Channel. The trade Towers were built diffrently than your contemporary buildings of the time, with an exo-skeleton and steel trusses inside that had fire retardant on them. Over time the reatrdant slowly disintegrated and with the force of the planes hitting the building, the rest was taken off, therefore leving the metal exposed to the absolutely insane temperatures of the planes full of fuel. Once one truss fell, it was just a matter of time before the rest would give and it would simply be a domino effect. Anyone correct me if any part of this is wrong. I tried to summarize it as best I could.

Mariano

Hmmmm....

Jet fuel produces only about a 500F fire. The steel components in those buildings were certified to ASTM E119 which requires samples be exposed to temperatures of 2000F for several hours. Even non-fireproofed steel will not melt until glowing red at nearly 3000F. The central core, which fell first, was built with approximately 600% structural redundancy. The fact that only a fraction of the available jet fuel remained in the building-the majority of it vaporized into a fireball from the @400MPH impact-means that the steel in the building was likely not greatly affected by the heat. Look at the color of the smoke-those fires were oxygen starved-smoldering. Besides, if jet fuel could melt steel, then why aren't planes made of aluminum melted into puddles when they catch fire? AL melts at 1220.66F. Still twice as high as the temps jet fuel can produce. Jet fuel didn't have the ability to melt the steel in the WTCs.

Even if....by some bizarre turn of events a 500F or even 1000F fire melted something that is supposed to melt at 3000F, it still does not explain WTC7. I read the official 9/11 report. There's not a single word about the collapse of WTC7. I find that a little odd to say the least.

Charlie, it's difficult for me to concede that a "domino effect" as you described, could bring about the descent at near free fall speed of a 100+ story building, not to mention two of them, which despite two very different impacts, fell in exactly the same fashion. On 9/11, it happened three times in one day. It doesn't take a Master's in Engineering to smell something fishy. How does this domino effect apply to WTC7? Not trying to pick a fight...just want to know how you make the ends meet, logically.

[h0lmes]

Hmmmm....

Jet fuel produces only about a 500F fire. The steel components in those buildings were certified to ASTM E119 which requires samples be exposed to temperatures of 2000F for several hours. Even non-fireproofed steel will not melt until glowing red at nearly 3000F. The central core, which fell first, was built with approximately 600% structural redundancy. The fact that only a fraction of the available jet fuel remained in the building-the majority of it vaporized into a fireball from the @400MPH impact-means that the steel in the building was likely not greatly affected by the heat. Look at the color of the smoke-those fires were oxygen starved-smoldering. Besides, if jet fuel could melt steel, then why aren't planes made of aluminum melted into puddles when they catch fire? AL melts at 1220.66F. Still twice as high as the temps jet fuel can produce. Jet fuel didn't have the ability to melt the steel in the WTCs.

Even if....by some bizarre turn of events a 500F or even 1000F fire melted something that is supposed to melt at 3000F, it still does not explain WTC7. I read the official 9/11 report. There's not a single word about the collapse of WTC7. I find that a little odd to say the least.

Charlie, it's difficult for me to concede that a "domino effect" as you described, could bring about the descent at near free fall speed of a 100+ story building, not to mention two of them, which despite two very different impacts, fell in exactly the same fashion. On 9/11, it happened three times in one day. It doesn't take a Master's in Engineering to smell something fishy. How does this domino effect apply to WTC7? Not trying to pick a fight...just want to know how you make the ends meet, logically.

Yeah, the owner of the building was interviewed for a PBS special and he said that he told the fire fighters to "pull it", in other words demolish the building. How could the building be demolished unless there were explosives planted prior to 9/11? I also find it really fishy that he took out a multi billion dollar insurance policy on the whole WTC complex just months before 9/11. There is a lot of really suspicious stuff surrounding the events of 9/11. It's really obvious why Bush wouldn't allow a private commision to investigate.

[Charlie]

Logic is easy, why do you seem to think that there is a shadow-man conspiracy behind this?

Everyone seems to come up with all sorts of nutzo cuckoo theories, but no one can answer the simple question of "why"?

I watched both towers get rammed by heavily loaded jets at 500+ MPH, I watched the resulting shockwaves and fires. I saw the massive shockwave and debris cloud that resulted when the towers fell. Seeing as WTC7 was right next to both of those shockwaves, and had sustained fire damage as well, it is not surprising to me that it could have fallen.

I've read numerous papers by structural engineers that have studied the crash, and they all tend to agree with the analysis that the weakened support structures that began to give way, resulting in domino effect. Personally, give the history behind the construction of the towers and the fact that a lot of corners appeared to have been cut, I would not assume that everything was to code to begin with. This opinion is shared by many, that the steel beams' failures were caused by other deficiencies as well. I'm sure you're familiar with Kevin Ryan of the UL's piece on the structure, suggesting that there were substandard fasteners used which melted at less than 250 degrees celsius, a temperature easily obtainable with burning jet fuel.

-Charlie

[Charlie]

Yeah, for some reason the owner of the building was caught on tape telling the fire fighters to "pull it".

Bullshit. Give me proof on that. Every claim you have made on this thread so far you are unable to back up, and is nothing but pure, unsubstantiated bullshit.

-Charlie

[h0lmes]

Bullshit. Give me proof on that. Every claim you have made on this thread so far you are unable to back up, and is nothing but pure, unsubstantiated bullshit.

-Charlie

What have you backed up? Whenever somebody disagrees with you in any thread you start insulting them. Here is the first result that came up on google http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm. Here is an audio file of the building owner http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3, and if you want to watch the PBS documentary you can buy it here http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index...ductId=1404489. I would also like to point out that in every high rise fire prior to 9/11, none has ever collapsed. Yet somehow both towers collapsed along with WTC 7 which wasnt even hit.

[rwh11385]

you gullible morons are the reason hilter was able to convince germans to kill so many jews

christ, you forgo all the stories and programs on the history channel, tlc, and the networks because some guy on the internet has some "Secret, Underground" beliefs? not to mention actual articles and studies done on paper and not for enmass audiences.

here's a hint, that hippie online is a liberal arts major who knows nothing but how to make a bong, and doesn't know much about thermal dynamics, static or dynamic stresses, nor the building construction.

[Charlie]

What have you backed up? Whenever somebody disagrees with you in any thread you start insulting them. Here is the first result that came up on google http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm. Here is an audio file of the building owner http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3, and if you want to watch the PBS documentary you can buy it here http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index...ductId=1404489.

The fact that the only "sources" you can quote are unverified websites you found off of google blows any "argument" you thought you had straight to hell.

Put your tinfoil hat back on kiddo.

-Charlie

[Charlie]

Everyone seems to come up with all sorts of nutzo cuckoo theories, but no one can answer the simple question of "why"?

I'll repeat myself for emphasis.

Why? Why would the government do this? Why would George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, etc, etc, etc do anything like this? Why would a government murder 3000 of its own citizens? How would a government that allegedly can't even clean up a hurricane area be able to string together such a tight conspiracy such as this? Where's the motive, where's the gain? Why would a government send its economy into a nose dive? You want to try and tie this to Iraq? Bullshit, this had nothing to do with Iraq.

Here's a newsflash: We were going into Iraq no matter what. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Reagan-era Neo-cons have been wanting to finish off the job in Iraq since 1991. Most of those in that camp were dismayed that we pulled out as quickly as we did.

I don't see any hard evidence of any "shadowman" conspiracy or any other nonsense. You don't either, as you can't produce a single bit of hard fact.

-Charlie

[h0lmes]

The fact that the only "sources" you can quote are unverified websites you found off of google blows any "argument" you thought you had straight to hell.

Put your tinfoil hat back on kiddo.

-Charlie

If you don't believe me then watch the fucking PBS documentary. You can witness, for yourself, the owner of the building saying that he told fire fighters to "pull it". The information is right there for you to consume into your little pea brain.

[CleanAzzE30z]

The steel didnt melt.....it was weakened by the temperature and softened, slowly bending with thw eight of the building until it was too great and the attaching pieces gave out and the truss gave out. This is what I saw on the History Channel. Im just saying what I saw by people who would know and studied the piss out of this. Its obvious that this isnt enough. I cant believe Im actually the one thats not yelling conspiracy on this one. This is rediculous.

Mariano.

[Charlie]

If you don't believe me then watch the fucking PBS documentary. You can witness, for yourself, the owner of the building saying that he told fire fighters to "pull it". The information is right there for you to consume into your little pea brain.

I actually have seen that documentary, and never heard what you're attempting to reference.

Even if that did occur, which it didn't, you're suggesting that a property owner telling a fire/recovery crew to knock down a damaged building is somehow indicitave of a conspiracy?

Put your bong down.

-Charlie

[rwh11385]

Conspiracy theorists = dumbasses

only someone truly moronic would give up all logic and reasoning, and support of evidence and understanding for the true explanation, to make up some off-the-wall mumbo-jumbo

put down the weed and step away from the computer hippie

[Charlie]

The steel didnt melt.....it was weakened by the temperature and softened, slowly bending with thw eight of the building until it was too great and the attaching pieces gave out and the truss gave out. This is what I saw on the History Channel. Im just saying what I saw by people who would know and studied the piss out of this. Its obvious that this isnt enough. I cant believe Im actually the one thats not yelling conspiracy on this one. This is rediculous.

Mariano.

Mariano, just remember: Everything is BOOOSHES FAU'T.

It all makes sense after that.

-Charlie