Melting isn't the only way a building can fall. Simply weakening the structure, as is proposed by this quote from wikipedia, could easily be enough: "The strength of steel drops markedly with heat, losing half its strength at a temperature of 1,202°F (650°C). The heat from the fires quickly began to weaken the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses, and cross trusses."
Also: "On the day of the attack, an explosives expert in New Mexico told the Albuquerque Journal that the collapses of the towers looked "too methodical" to be triggered by the aircraft impacts and fires, suggesting the possibility that there were "explosive devices inside the buildings".[22] Though he quickly retracted his remarks[23], the idea has remained in circulation and the rapid collapse of the World Trade Center has been described as the "grassy knoll" of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[24] Prompted by public inquiries, NIST stated in its final report that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[25] The hypothesis has never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship and its proponents are considered "outsiders".[26]"
And lastly: "The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse. In addition, the report asserts that the towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of 7 WTC will appear in a separate report.[60]" --
I'm not a fan of Bush either, and I'm not saying this is definite proof against it, but I find the idea that explosives were implanted in the building a little far-fetched. Dishonesty and greediness from the government is almost always less direct than that.
I'd be interested in seeing more evidence that the buildings were blown intentionally, though. Got any?
The fact that several other "steel" bulidings have caught fire, justify that and managed to burn much longer that WTC 1 & 2 (The south tower burned for one hour, the north for two)
A satellite image 5 days later showed signs of temperatures on Ground Zero to be around 1300°F. Jet fuel burns between 800° and 1500°F. The temperature would have drasitcally decreased by then. C4 burns at roughly 3000°F, which would have cooled to the 1300°F mark. They also found melted steel in the basement. Regardless of how much jet fuel there might have been, it still wouldn't have melted any steel, even combined with the other things ablaze in the towers.
It's also very odd that only three months before the attack Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC. Silverstein agreed to pay over 99 years a total of 3,2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities: 616 million as an initial payment and then annually 115 million Dollars. The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC. Now it takes anywhere between 2 months and a week to set up a demolition... and in the videos on this page Silverstein ADMITS that he pulled building 6 and 7. "Pulling" is a term that is used in building demolitions. This is how these buildings fell, as opposed to the idea that "fire" made them fall as articulately and systematically as they did.
The Pancake Theory (the sagging floors/bowed exterior columns) that FEMA and the 9/11 Commission proposed during the investigation; either way, that STILL has no relevance as to how/why WTC 7 fell so adequately and seemed so controlled as it toppled to the ground.Here is what ReOpen911.org is calling the "$1 Million Challenge," that includes 23 statements one must prove to be incorrect if indeed, the WTC Buildings collapsed with no explosive aide whatsoever. Also included are videos that help re-enforce the fact that they were used.
1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, ".maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on
9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.
1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (".workers can't even find concrete. 'It's all dust,' [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower's collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). ("Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" by Morgan Reynolds: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )
So there's a brief summary of "evidence." That's some of the best I can give you at the moment.
I'm gonna start with that specific one because it's so...well, conspiracy theory-ish.
1) If the government wanted the public to believe that a plane crashed into a building, what possible incentive would they have to *not* crash a plane into a building? If they wanted the building to go down, they easily could have crashed it AND used the explosives.
2) The whole Optical Camouflage idea is completely implausible, and reeks of conspiracy theory nuts. Sure, they could color the plane to look like the sky...but not from all vantage points. And while it may fool the human eye at first, many video reports would show it.
The other articles on his site have a lot of small holes in them that seem to suggest not being well researched. Like this: "the Pentagon too remained passive as the aircraft performed an acrobatic 270 degree (or 330 degree according to The 9/11 Commission Report) dive from 7,000 feet (an altitude known to the FAA despite the transponder off)" Anyone ever heard of radar? Which he conveniently remembers about when it benefits him.
-- From a page linked off of rense.com (and a common claim I've seen on the other pages): "Under any other circumstances all of these items and those that we didn't see, would have been presented for forensic examination and then to a Grand Jury whereupon a charge would be decided and a suspect would be identified. This is what we call Democracy."
What trial are they wanting exactly? A trial against the government for concealing or planning these attacks? The thing that comes before a criminal trial is an investigation, and that's what happened. A trial comes *after* identifying the criminals. The people happened to not be citizens of the US, which means that they don't have the rights here that we have. Hence, we've not seen a real trial.
Also has a picture of firemen subtitled "Why aren't they trying to put the fire out?" So you're telling me all of those firemen, the workers, and all were in on the secret? Don't ya think that would have leaked? This is also completely implausible. I'd doubt I need to explain why.
--
About the whole pulling remark: I'm not really sure, but wouldn't it be feasible that it'd be better to go ahead and take down the buildings in a controller manner than to let them fall on their own? I could imagine that happening for the smaller buildings, after the other two had already fallen.
Also: "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.'... Uh... And they made that decision to pull... and then we watched the building collapse."
As it's used in this, it certainly sounds more like a controlled demolition, but it could have meant anything. To pull out the firefighters, to evacuate, to stop trying to do anything for it, whatever.
Also: "Controlled demolition experts at ImplosionWorld.com state that they have never heard the term used to describe demolition of a building with use of explosives. [127] Though, the term "pull" can be used to describe the act of weakening and physically pulling down the frame of a building with cables - something that is only possible for small buildings, and physically impossible for such a large building as 7 World Trade Center."
I'll agree wholeheartedly on the "Optic Camoflauge" bit. I didn't read the last link, it was just on the bottom of the list and I failed to read it. That just sounds like some theorists have been playing waaaay too much MGS. The fires in WTC 7 also were to sparse, as well as not NEARLY strong enough to make the entire building collapse. However, I will admit that the C4 theory did cause seismic activity that may have had something to do with WTC 7's collapse. But recently a $15 million dollar renovation had been done on WTC 7, as the 23rd floor was made into a sort of "control bunker" for the mayor if NYC were under a terrorist attack, etc. It had it's own air and water supply systems, as well as bullet/bomb proof windows. They could have utilized this for a safe-zone for everyone in WTC 7, yet evacuated the building instead. More theories state that the so-called "safety bunker" may have been a control center for the demolitions, and possibly even had a tracking device for both the planes to fly towards; both were headed in the direction of WTC 7 if you look at aerial views of the impacts.
Another statement I have to add is about the hijackers. Several of the alleged "hijackers" have been located, not dead, but living in their homelands...
Also, the clean up of ground zero was shady too. All debris in any sort of attack, or something as big as this, are to be kept and studied for extensive periods of time; yet everything has been buried, or sold for scrap metal. What was done in the cleanup was strictly illegal.
The thing about a steel building never collapsing before: "According to experts, no building like WTC7, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire [107], primarily because large fires in such structures are rare, and incidents where those fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled for many hours are so few that no statistical inferences can be drawn about the general ability of these structure to withstand extended fires." --
"The strength of steel drops markedly with heat, losing half its strength at a temperature of 1,202°F (650°C). The heat from the fires quickly began to weaken the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses, and cross trusses."
Also: "On the day of the attack, an explosives expert in New Mexico told the Albuquerque Journal that the collapses of the towers looked "too methodical" to be triggered by the aircraft impacts and fires, suggesting the possibility that there were "explosive devices inside the buildings".[22] Though he quickly retracted his remarks[23], the idea has remained in circulation and the rapid collapse of the World Trade Center has been described as the "grassy knoll" of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[24] Prompted by public inquiries, NIST stated in its final report that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[25] The hypothesis has never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship and its proponents are considered "outsiders".[26]"
And lastly: "The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse. In addition, the report asserts that the towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of 7 WTC will appear in a separate report.[60]"
--
I'm not a fan of Bush either, and I'm not saying this is definite proof against it, but I find the idea that explosives were implanted in the building a little far-fetched. Dishonesty and greediness from the government is almost always less direct than that.
I'd be interested in seeing more evidence that the buildings were blown intentionally, though. Got any?
Reply
A satellite image 5 days later showed signs of temperatures on Ground Zero to be around 1300°F. Jet fuel burns between 800° and 1500°F. The temperature would have drasitcally decreased by then. C4 burns at roughly 3000°F, which would have cooled to the 1300°F mark. They also found melted steel in the basement. Regardless of how much jet fuel there might have been, it still wouldn't have melted any steel, even combined with the other things ablaze in the towers.
It's also very odd that only three months before the attack Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC. Silverstein agreed to pay over 99 years a total of 3,2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities: 616 million as an initial payment and then annually 115 million Dollars. The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC. Now it takes anywhere between 2 months and a week to set up a demolition... and in the videos on this page Silverstein ADMITS that he pulled building 6 and 7. "Pulling" is a term that is used in building demolitions. This is how these buildings fell, as opposed to the idea that "fire" made them fall as articulately and systematically as they did.
The Pancake Theory (the sagging floors/bowed exterior columns) that FEMA and the 9/11 Commission proposed during the investigation; either way, that STILL has no relevance as to how/why WTC 7 fell so adequately and seemed so controlled as it toppled to the ground.Here is what ReOpen911.org is calling the "$1 Million Challenge," that includes 23 statements one must prove to be incorrect if indeed, the WTC Buildings collapsed with no explosive aide whatsoever. Also included are videos that help re-enforce the fact that they were used.
Reply
1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, ".maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on
9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.
1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (".workers can't even find concrete. 'It's all dust,' [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower's collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). ("Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" by Morgan Reynolds: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )
So there's a brief summary of "evidence." That's some of the best I can give you at the moment.
Reply
Anyway, I was looking at that last link you provided (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911). Check out this page: 'How they did the plane trick at WTC2'. (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=plane_trick_wtc2)
I'm gonna start with that specific one because it's so...well, conspiracy theory-ish.
1) If the government wanted the public to believe that a plane crashed into a building, what possible incentive would they have to *not* crash a plane into a building? If they wanted the building to go down, they easily could have crashed it AND used the explosives.
2) The whole Optical Camouflage idea is completely implausible, and reeks of conspiracy theory nuts. Sure, they could color the plane to look like the sky...but not from all vantage points. And while it may fool the human eye at first, many video reports would show it.
The other articles on his site have a lot of small holes in them that seem to suggest not being well researched. Like this:
"the Pentagon too remained passive as the aircraft performed an acrobatic 270 degree (or 330 degree according to The 9/11 Commission Report) dive from 7,000 feet (an altitude known to the FAA despite the transponder off)" Anyone ever heard of radar? Which he conveniently remembers about when it benefits him.
--
From a page linked off of rense.com (and a common claim I've seen on the other pages): "Under any other circumstances all of these items and those that we didn't see, would have been presented for forensic examination and then to a Grand Jury whereupon a charge would be decided and a suspect would be identified. This is what we call Democracy."
What trial are they wanting exactly? A trial against the government for concealing or planning these attacks? The thing that comes before a criminal trial is an investigation, and that's what happened. A trial comes *after* identifying the criminals. The people happened to not be citizens of the US, which means that they don't have the rights here that we have. Hence, we've not seen a real trial.
Also has a picture of firemen subtitled "Why aren't they trying to put the fire out?" So you're telling me all of those firemen, the workers, and all were in on the secret? Don't ya think that would have leaked? This is also completely implausible. I'd doubt I need to explain why.
--
About the whole pulling remark: I'm not really sure, but wouldn't it be feasible that it'd be better to go ahead and take down the buildings in a controller manner than to let them fall on their own? I could imagine that happening for the smaller buildings, after the other two had already fallen.
Also: "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.'... Uh... And they made that decision to pull... and then we watched the building collapse."
As it's used in this, it certainly sounds more like a controlled demolition, but it could have meant anything. To pull out the firefighters, to evacuate, to stop trying to do anything for it, whatever.
Also: "Controlled demolition experts at ImplosionWorld.com state that they have never heard the term used to describe demolition of a building with use of explosives. [127] Though, the term "pull" can be used to describe the act of weakening and physically pulling down the frame of a building with cables - something that is only possible for small buildings, and physically impossible for such a large building as 7 World Trade Center."
Reply
Another statement I have to add is about the hijackers. Several of the alleged "hijackers" have been located, not dead, but living in their homelands...
Also, the clean up of ground zero was shady too. All debris in any sort of attack, or something as big as this, are to be kept and studied for extensive periods of time; yet everything has been buried, or sold for scrap metal. What was done in the cleanup was strictly illegal.
More to come later.
Reply
The thing about a steel building never collapsing before: "According to experts, no building like WTC7, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire [107], primarily because large fires in such structures are rare, and incidents where those fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled for many hours are so few that no statistical inferences can be drawn about the general ability of these structure to withstand extended fires."
--
Okay, that's enough for tonight. More later.
Reply
Leave a comment