March 10, 2015
Pretty compelling that one of the biggest arguments thrown at me (as I am NOT a believer in the 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy) that jet fuel can not melt steel - is so easily dismissed. And finally, someone made a video proving it.
January 11, 2013
Love the video. Back after 9-11 happened, A&E did a show explaining how the towers collapsed where it was similarly explained. The heat weakened the structure enough that the floor collapsed, causing the floor to collapse, which basically set off a chain reaction. Not a building engineer, but it made sense to me.
September 1, 2013
Sorry to bump such an old thread but I always wondered why no one was pointing this out. You don't have to melt steel to make it fail as a structural element. Isn't that obvious? And in the WTC towers once one floor fails the ones below it must fail due to the weight of the floor above it, because the floors were not designed to support the weight of 2 floors. Obvious.
May 11, 2018
This proves nothing and in no way translates to anything that occurred that day. For starters, the individual in the video places a piece of 1/2 inch steel in a BLAST FURNACE and subjected it to temperatures that will in fact compromise it's structural integrity. That alone does not translate simply because the construction of the towers called for the use of columns which were thicker than 1/2 inch and the fact that there was not a blast furnace present on September 11, 2001 in either tower.
What you also fail to acknowledge is that there is a difference between combustion and explosion and that difference was present after the planes impacted. I'll elaborate, instead of an explosion with concussive force, the jet fuel was combusted and expanded outward, it wasn't a concussive explosion like you think it was. There is a distinct difference and it is highly relevant due to the fact that since most of the jet fuel was consumed at that moment it left little jet fuel inside, and thanks to the impact it would have dispersed it throughout leaving it to combust while contributing no energy to the overall fire(s) due to how fast it burns up. What would be left would be akin to an office fire, which the North Tower has been subjected to in the past and withstood it.
Are you naive enough to assume a building in a city such as NY wouldn't be required to update it's fire code and replace all materials with more fire retardant materials after such an event? I hope you're not.
One last thing, you need to brush up on at the very least, classical mechanics. Your understanding of classical motion is appalling, whether or not the floors were designed to hold one another isn't relevant due to the fact that gravity will consider the moving upper section as a moving body and will accelerate the upper section, all of it, at the same time. Under certain conditions this may occur differently but since that one floor beneath the upper section gave way all at once (I dispute that floor but we'll get to that later), the upper section would have been accelerated towards the ground all at once, that is until it impacted the lower section and Newton's 3rd law manifested. (the effects from it anyway) It certainly wouldn't have pancaked like some think.
About that floor, are you going to try to claim that the intact core columns were weakened by office fires when they weren't in 1975, when the same sprinkler system failed as it did on 9/11? Each tower had about half of it's core intact and with the strength put into the core of each tower the load would have held, yet it didn't......with office fires being the culprit.
As for the planes, if you bring it up after that, they would have not been travelling at 450/500 mph at 1000 ft above the ground, the drag generated would be too much, MAYBE not for a master pilot but a novice wouldn't be able to handle it. At best they were travelling at 180-200 mph. Besides, the basis for the 450/500 mph claim comes from eyewitnesses which isn't reliable.
April 9, 2009
March 10, 2015
February 27, 2017
September 15, 2017
I believe we'll always have contention regarding the towers. I'm not any sort of expert and therefore rely on those that claim they are - engineers architects and airline pilots.
Floors falling at free fall speed
Towers falling within in their own footprint - the same with building 7. And despite that '7' looked as though it wasn't damaged that severely … it too collapses … again within it's own footprint.
Planes flying outside their design parameters
Lateral ejection of massive girders
Sparse debris fields at the Pentagon and 93's impact site
Where are the engines? - don't think they could survive? - look at the wreckage of the Ukrainian shoot-down - those engines fell over 20,000 feet
Police and firefighters stating they heard explosions
Rapid removal of tower debris before a thorough investigation could be performed
Supposedly one of the best air defense networks in the world (our tax dollars at work) yet we couldn't get a fighter close to an intercept
A terrorist, who, based on his instructor, couldn't fly a single engine plane, an instructor that had reservations on the terrorist's ability to fly at all - suddenly take over a 'state of the art' multi jet engine airliner and fly that thing like he's a Blue Angel at an airshow. Seasoned pilots had difficulty repeating the terrorist's maneuvers, not to mention he was able to impact the wing of the Pentagon without even gouging the grass. Why would one risk missing the target by executing a difficult maneuver? Wouldn't it have been easier to dive the plane onto the top of the Pentagon? Think of it another way: You're a proud Japanese pilot in the later stages of WWII, and your mission is to sacrifice yourself and dive your plane into a carrier. Instead you elect to dodge murderous anti aircraft fire and fly your plane into the smaller opening of the carrier's hanger deck thus risking total failure. Does that make sense?
FBI confiscation of security camera footage from around the Pentagon. I want to see a slice of film showing a jet liner impacting the wall, not that blurred indecipherable piece from the gate.
Look at the impact sites of the towers - one can see where the fuselage and wings impacted. The Pentagon? One big hole - what happened to the wings? Narrative says they 'folded' back along side the fuselage as it impacted.
Just a few of the things that bother me about the 'story.'
While civilizations live, they may still aspire, and hope--as long as their legions can hold the far frontier.
April 9, 2009
Welcome, this subject of 911 has many many posts in many forums about these subjects, if you search, it will keep you busy reading them. The biggest misconception is that the steel had to melt, and the pancaking of how it fell is very well explained, as are most theories debunked.
The message with this blacksmith sums a lot up simpley.
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 2
Newest Members:Dreckz de Majid, Boadicea, hoangnganvy1993, D S, PDonnelly, Viatorem, Sharon, mack robine, Observer
Administrators: John Greenewald: 579, blackvault: 1776