Did airplanes bring down the WTC?

[282Mikado]

Yes' date=' but the point is every single structural engineer talked to immeditately after 9-11 proclaimed the burning jet fuel could not have caused the collapse. It wasn't until some time later that they got all those guys off the air and then they started bringing in others who would all say the opposite. Doesn't that sound fishy?

There are several witnesses who saw what looked like a missle being fired at the jet over PA. There were also witnesses who saw the jet explode before it hit the ground.

Something isn't right about the Pentagon issue but I never bothered to study it out to decide what I really think about it.

"Every single structural Enginneer"? Really? Someone counted?

Many witnesses see UFOs all the time too. TWA Flight 800 had witnesses that saw missles as well, but investigation found that the reports didn't really jibe with a missile firing.

Also, why would they allow the WTC and Pentagon planes to hit and not the one over PA?

I am not 100% certain there was no conspiracy, but a lot lines up against it. You can find a lot of educated people in the area (like Jonathan, above) that can give sound factual info on how the planes could have caused that damage based upon the construction used in the buildings.

[HappyChristian]

I distinctly remember hearing about the vulnerability of the buildings - right after the collapse. Here's an article from Dec. 2001.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2 ... c-125.html

Vulnerabilities in the design of New York's World Trade Center (WTC) are likely to have contributed to the collapse of its two main towers and adjacent buildings, according to Ronald O. Hamburger, a structural engineer currently investigating the Sept. 11 disaster.

As chief structural engineer and senior vice president of ABS Consulting Inc. in Oakland, Calif., Hamburger is a member of an engineering team commissioned by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to assess the performance of the WTC and surrounding buildings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

He pointed out that four buildings were immediately destroyed in the WTC assault, and three others suffered irreparable damage and are in the process of being razed. Another half-dozen buildings were harmed structurally but can be repaired, and more than 50 others were damaged by the enormous debris cloud and the burning material that followed the collapse of the twin towers.

Personally, I think if those buildings had been simply imploded, there wouldn't have been so much collateral damage to other buildings. But there was.

"Steel is born of fire," Hamburger explained. "As it's reheated, it expands and loses its rigidity. Above 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, it loses a significant amount of its strength."

Another article, dated 09/17/01
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... dings.html

Jet fuel fires burn unusually hot, and engineers believe the fire may have led to temperatures as high as 1,600 degrees Celsius (2,900 degrees Fahrenheit).

At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses its strength and "turns to Play-doh," said engineer Ted Krauthammer, of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania.

As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes. "I was surprised and horrified to see them collapse," said Brooklyn-born physicist Frank Moscatelli of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.

In an effort to understand why the upper 20 stories that were instantly damaged didn't just "peel away," Moscatelli did some calculations. He estimated that the combined amount of energy released from the impact of the planes hitting the towers, the jet fuel explosions, and the collapse of both buildings was roughly equivalent to exploding 200 tons of TNT?about 2 percent to 4 percent of the explosive energy of the bomb detonated at Hiroshima.

Together, the energy from the force of the planes hitting the towers and the subsequent fuel explosion wasn't great enough alone to immediately knock down the towers, Moscatelli believes. What caused the buildings to collapse entirely, he said, was the combined weight and momentum of the falling floors.

As you can see, John, not every single engineer claimed it couldn't happen...this article came out 6 days after the tragedy.

[John81]

I'm not saying there was a grand, massive conspiracy; although that's possible too.

All I'm saying is the facts don't all add up.

The planes that hit the towers did so before the PA plane made it to DC. Prior to the planes going into the towers, the common mode of hijackings was for the planes to be diverted somewhere, demands made, negotiations taking place, a deal made and people going free. Until those planes hit the towers, that was what was expected here. Once the planes hit the towers it became clear the PA plane was now not just a hijacking, but a probable flying missle. Jets were scrambled to intercept that plane. Wasn't it Cheney who was caught saying the fighter jets had shot down the PA plane but then later recanted? It was one of the big boys who made such a statement.

The thing is, the government lies even when it doesn't have to and in times of war, the government lies extensively.

The facts just don't add up which makes it seem clear that some of what's been put forth about 9-11 is lies and that the whole truth still hasn't been told.

[John81]

Six days is several days after the others made their statements and then were pushed off the air.

There was talk the terrorists may have planted explosives in the buildings immediately following 9-11 but that talk was pushed away at the same time the new theories for the collapse came out.

Does anyone recall all the lies the government put out about Ruby Ridge and Waco? They were laughed at and called conspiracy theory until finally enough proof came to light most of it's accepted now.

It's possible everything happened just the way the government now claims, but I've yet to see convincing proof of that.

[TheBibleSender]

Don't forget that the massive amount of smoke proves that the fire was not burning hot but smoldering. The news claimed the fire was so hot it metled the beams and that cause the building to collapse. If that was the case why are there video clips out there of people standing right where they could be seen. They must have had some major sunblock on. God bless. :)

[speerjp1]

Yes' date=' but the point is every single structural engineer talked to immeditately after 9-11 proclaimed the burning jet fuel could not have caused the collapse. It wasn't until some time later that they got all those guys off the air and then they started bringing in others who would all say the opposite. Doesn't that sound fishy?[/quote']

I'm a structural steel designer. Steel melts and extreme heat will cause catostrophic failure such as was witnessed on 9/11. The "experts" who proclaimed otherwise early after the attacks were not well informed or were lying to acheive their own political ends.

[HappyChristian]

Several of the engineers have stated that it wasn't the heat that caused the collapse = it was the weight of the floors as gravity took over. But the flames from the jet fuel weakened the steel on the floors the jets hit (note that in one of the articles, the man studied the way the jets hit - hitting as many floors as they could...don't kid yourself that those terrorists didn't study how to do this!!)

Here's another article, also done in 2001

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

The "experts" who proclaimed otherwise early after the attacks were not well informed or were lying to acheive their own political ends.

I agree Jonathan - and I have to say that I don't recall "experts" coming out right after the fact stating that it was from explosions from within (maybe it's just my faulty memory). I remember that they came out a while later, but not as soon as it happened. Does anyone have any articles that can be referenced that came out immediately after 9/11?

[BlessedChristianlady8]

Some wicked people that was envious of the USA :lol

[TheBibleSender]

Don't forget that the massive amount of smoke proves that the fire was not burning hot but smoldering. The news claimed the fire was so hot it metled the beams and that cause the building to collapse. If that was the case why are there video clips out there of people standing right where they could be seen. They must have had some major sunblock on. God bless.

Oh and the massive fireballs show that the majority of the fuel was burned up on impact

[tube]IE82r4ycQs4[/tube]

Don't have volume on this small clip has a few swear words. God bless. :)

[speerjp1]

Don't forget that 'part' of what was put forth as the holocaust was untrue. During the war and immediately following the war a great deal of misinformation was put forth in an attempt to make the holocaust appear far worse.

This seems to be the natural order of things, even when dealing with something large and obvious and bad enough to need to exageration.

I don't recall the original numbers, but I think they originally were proclaiming something like 20 some million had been killed in the holocaust. So we see that the holocaust happened, but the actual truth of the holocuast took some time to come forth as all the lies had to be weeded out.

If you look at the Holocaust on Wikipedia, you will find that the number of Jews killed during the holocaust was nearly 6,000,000. They were the primary, but not the only, group persecuted during the Holocaust. If you add up all the other groups who were killed purposely by the Nazis, the number is still close to 20,000,000. Seems they didn't bloat the stats for sympathy after all.

[speerjp1]

Oh and the massive fireballs show that the majority of the fuel was burned up on impact.

I am sure a lot of fuel was burned up on impact, but you nor any other "truther" can prove how much remained in the buildings. If you can provide weight charts of how much fuel was consumed on impact and how much remained in the building, then you may have some solid footing for such a claim.

Assumptions and conjecture are what keep these ridiculous and baseless assertions alive.
A lot of oxygen was also burned on impact. Also, a lot of building materials we burned on impact. And that brings us back to the structure that was supporting these massive buildings: it was not designed to withstand an airplane the size of a 747 full of jet fuel slamming into it.

As far as the size of the fireball, I can cause a fireball the size of my torso by shooting a Bic cigarette lighter with a pellet gun. It doesn't take much of a combustible material to cause an enormous looking explosion. They do it all the time for movies.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Just an FYI:

The poll has turned into a discussion anyway and since we don't need two threads discussing the exact same thing, I have merged them. The thread that was posted first takes precedent when merging. Continue discussing here.

Because of the merging and moving, the poll disappeared but it is back now. Jerry#s, you can select the correct option this time. :Green

[HappyChristian]

I am sure a lot of fuel was burned up on impact, but you nor any other "truther" can prove how much remained in the buildings. If you can provide weight charts of how much fuel was consumed on impact and how much remained in the building, then you may have some solid footing for such a claim.

Assumptions and conjecture are what keep these ridiculous and baseless assertions alive.
A lot of oxygen was also burned on impact. Also, a lot of building materials we burned on impact. And that brings us back to the structure that was supporting these massive buildings: it was not designed to withstand an airplane the size of a 747 full of jet fuel slamming into it.

As far as the size of the fireball, I can cause a fireball the size of my torso by shooting a Bic cigarette lighter with a pellet gun. It doesn't take much of a combustible material to cause an enormous looking explosion. They do it all the time for movies.

And there were 90,000 TONS of fuel...

[Colin Stolzer]

And there were 90,000 TONS of fuel...

I think you have your numbers confused or you have a bad source of information. 90,000 tons at 2000 pounds to the short ton is 180,000,000 pounds, the maximum take-off weight of a Boeing 747-8 is 970,000-lbs. I know for sure they don't fly when they are 179,030,000 pounds overloaded.

C

[qwerty guy]

Don't forget that the massive amount of smoke proves that the fire was not burning hot but smoldering. The news claimed the fire was so hot it metled the beams and that cause the building to collapse. If that was the case why are there video clips out there of people standing right where they could be seen. They must have had some major sunblock on. God bless.

You mean the the same people who jumped 100 stories to their death, the backs of their bodies horribly burnt, to escape this "smoldering"

Massive amount of smoke proves a fire is not hot, but smoldering? Seriously? Ok, how would you like to be rich? Just to warn you, I'm a fire systems engineer certified by the NFPA. I will make a fire so smoky it can be seen for 5 miles. Ok? Then, I want you to stand 50 yards from it. Smoke means not hot right? 50 yards, that's half a football field. You stand that close, for just 1 min, and I will give you all my assets. If you do not survive, I keep my assets. I can assure you, I can make lots and lots of smoke, and still cause hundreds of degrees 50 yards away in open air.

Trade towers became a giant woodstove, with all 3 stages of fire happening at the same time. This would create lots of smoke, lots of flame, and lots and lots of heat.