9/11 - Controlled demolition?

IceBus said:
I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation why the towers fell straight down as opposed to toppling over, when no other building has ever collapsed due to fire, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse of the WTC. Steel's melting point is around 3000*C and IIRC jet fuel burns at a maximum of around 500*C
Click to expand...
Mmmm, not quite. It burns at about 1200*C if it's stoichometric but it wasn't so we can assume the temperature was a fair bit lower. The exhaust gas temperature of a turbine is about 700*C which has a lot of cold air mixed into it.

As a guide for you:

Just visible red 500 to 600*C
Dull cherry red 700 to 750*C
Cherry red 750 to 825*C
Bright cherry red 825 to 875*C
Brightest red 900 to 950*C
Orange 950 to 1000*C
Light orange 1000 to 1050*C
Lemon 1100 to 1200*C
White 1200 to 1300*C

At visible red steel is quite malleable and the weight of the building on top will have buckled the steel at this point. Steel doesn't melt at 3000*C!!! Closer to 1350*C I think you'll find.
 
titchard said:
If there were explosions in the basement, why did they collapse from the top down, rather than fall from a break / explosion at the bottom?

Rich
Click to expand...

It was one explosion, moments before the plane hit, and not big enough to bring the tower down.

Apart from that though, if you watch news footage from when the plane did hit, you will hear news reporters who were close to the building, hearing explosions and reporting this live on the news, don't know if you ever saw any of that footage live as it was happening?
 
IceBus said:
Borris - if someone could show me diagrams of force that conclusively proved that the WTC collapsed because of the impact of the two planes and no other forces I would have no problem agreeing with it.
Click to expand...
Look up Euler buckling load on Google, now go and try and make a building with red licorice stick supports. You'll find it's a *little* unstable.
 
IceBus said:
if someone could show me diagrams of force that conclusively proved that the WTC collapsed because of the impact of the two planes and no other forces I would have no problem agreeing with it.
Click to expand...
As you wish... When the tower with the mast on top fell, it first began to topple and then dropped straight down. This is why, with pictures.
wtcyd6.jpg

Fig.1
Before the plane hits, the weight of the structure acts vertically downwards through the core and exterior.

Fig.2
Plane hits and leaves a big hole in the external structure. As per the design, the remaining uprights take the load and the force is diverted around the hole.

Fig.3
Collapse of internal supports (floors) causes exterior structure to fail at point A. Force on that side of the building is now unsupported and the weight acts downwards under mavity, the top section begins to topple.

Fig.4
As it topples, the structural failiure continues across the building towards point B and the force line of the supported structure moves further towards point B.

Fig.5
Point B fails under the incredible load. The only remaining force acting on the top section of the building is mavity.

Fig.6
The top section no longer topples and falls through the centre of the structure, demolishing the lower section as is falls.
 
The planes caused the towers to fall get over it

BUT

Why were the planes not stopped by the USAF who were automatically scrambled over 60 times the previous year to check out planes that had gone off course?

Who was running war games that day that simulated hijackings and put false blips on the radar screens?

Why are some of the 19 men accused of the hijackings still alive and why has this never been corrected? CCTV will show all the culprits yet this has never been cleared up.

Why were we told a paper passport of one of the hijackers was found in the rubble of WTC, is this likely?

And finally:

Why was money wired into Mohammed Atta's bank account by the the Pakistan Intelligense service the ISI just weeks before 9/11

Guardian Article

Anyone who thinks 9/11 is cut and dried is sadly mistaken.
 
Last edited:
http://www.serendipity.li/w o t/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv

Copy the link above, removing the spaces between the word w-o-t, its just a small video clip. Are they controlled explosions to ensure the building carries on collapsing? hmm
 
IceBus said:
....

What do you guys think? Please try and refrain from bashing this idea on principle if you haven't watched the videos.
Click to expand...
I watched the videos. I've seen nothing in them I haven't seen before.

So far as I'm concerned, I have no doubt at all about what hit the Pentagon. I've said what, and why, before and I can't be bothered to go through it all over again.

I can't see anybody being convinced, in either direction, by a rehash of all this, so I'll leave anyone that's interested to bat it back and forth without further input from me.
 
e36Adz said:
Are they controlled explosions to ensure the building carries on collapsing? hmm
Click to expand...
Perhaps, just perhaps, the plumes of smoke are air, dust and debris being forced out of the building as the pressure builds because of the the floors above collapsing?! Amd I'm sure it's also been answered by someone else in this thread before.
 
molinari said:
Perhaps, just perhaps, the plumes of smoke are air, dust and debris being forced out of the building as the pressure builds because of the the floors above collapsing?! Amd I'm sure it's also been answered by someone else in this thread before.
Click to expand...

Indeed it has, by my good self in post #8. Then by DaveyD in post #20, followed shortly after by Nelson in post #23.
 
MookJong said:
The planes caused the towers to fall get over it

BUT

Why were the planes not stopped by the USAF who were automatically scrambled over 60 times the previous year to check out planes that had gone off course?

Who was running war games that day that simulated hijackings and put false blips on the radar screens?

Why are some of the 19 men accused of the hijackings still alive and why has this never been corrected? CCTV will show all the culprits yet this has never been cleared up.

Why were we told a paper passport of one of the hijackers was found in the rubble of WTC, is this likely?

And finally:

Why was money wired into Mohammed Atta's bank account by the the Pakistan Intelligense service the ISI just weeks before 9/11

Guardian Article

Anyone who thinks 9/11 is cut and dried is sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

So many qustions so litte answers.
 
Hmm, the towers story is BS as its probably the air esaping from the center as it collapses and finding the easiest route out.


But the Pentagon one is interesting... was there any wreckage? I know my mind shouldn't be made up from one film but still, an aircraft wouldn't do that. Engines? Wings? Fuel? :confused: a 757 is quite big...

Oh well :(
 
molinari said:
Perhaps, just perhaps, the plumes of smoke are air, dust and debris being forced out of the building as the pressure builds because of the the floors above collapsing?! Amd I'm sure it's also been answered by someone else in this thread before.
Click to expand...

I suppose it could be the case, definately wouldn't rule it out.


Heres another clip I found, this was before the tower collapsed...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.1.fire.smoke.below.wmv

You can see smoke from an explosion way below where they actual plane hit.
 
Concorde Rules said:
Hmm, the towers story is BS as its probably the air esaping from the center as it collapses and finding the easiest route out.


But the Pentagon one is interesting... was there any wreckage? I know my mind shouldn't be made up from one film but still, an aircraft wouldn't do that. Engines? Wings? Fuel? :confused:

Oh well :(
Click to expand...

Yeah there is wreckage.

Rich_L Posted a very good website and showed parts of the plane like the landing gear and showed something that it had hit and moved to a 90 degree angle and much much more :)
 
I'd be willing to put money on the possibility that most conspiracy theorists have absolutely no engineering training, no understanding of metallurgy, complete ignorance in structural and architectural design and very little grasp of basic mechanics.

Would I be right?

*edit*

Oh, by the way, I work for a large news agency (possibly the most revered for it's independence) and it's pretty impossible for a government to tell a news agency what to do. Therefore it's pretty pointless for a news agency to "lie" to the public, as it serves no purpose whatsoever. They'll go out, talk to witnesses, talk to experts, and report what they said. If someone has something important and respectable to say, they'll report that as well.

Remember, it was a newspaper that uncovered Watergate. Governments don't control the press over this side of the world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom