Originally posted by WHY AYENewspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.
The fact that friends of mine wouldn't even consider the option of it been a controlled explosion, spurred me on to see just what this community of what I would call a generally 'informed bunch'-compared to the average Joe thinks on the subject. When I really really really thought about it, I reckon that the two towers would of withstood 3 planes crashing ...[text shortened]... wn with explosives os just too much for me.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Tell me, What do you think did cause it to go down? The plane hits, It falls, common sense tells me the planes did it, if it was a controlled explosion, it would have to be bigger then the the Jet that ran into it. and from all the videos of it, I see no explosion
Originally posted by flyUnityhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
[b]Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, ...[text shortened]... ve to be bigger then the the Jet that ran into it. and from all the videos of it, I see no explosion
Please read with as open a mind as possible.
* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
Heavier debris thrown clear of the dust cloud just before collapse.
Windows upto 400 feet away shattered.
The way in which it fell in its own footprint.
And many more cannot be explained with the thoeries put forward.
Simple physics, related to weight distribution, make 'the heat from the jet fuel' explanation self-canceling.
Assuming the heat was sufficient to burn the metal structure, the weights at and above the strikes were far surpassed by the weights below the strikes.
Anything melting above the critical mass points could not force either structure to fall.
Additionally, the nature of both falls scream implosion.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSurely if jet fuel were causing the steel supports to weaken, it would weaken the collision side more than the other side. That would lead to the top of the tower tipping over - which it didn't do...
Simple physics, related to weight distribution, make 'the heat from the jet fuel' explanation self-canceling.
Assuming the heat was sufficient to burn the metal structure, the weights at and above the strikes were far surpassed by the weights below the strikes.
Anything melting above the critical mass points could not force either structure to fall.
Additionally, the nature of both falls scream implosion.
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually it did somewhat, look at the video, you'll see one side started to go, and then it all callapsed
Surely if jet fuel were causing the steel supports to weaken, it would weaken the collision side more than the other side. That would lead to the top of the tower tipping over - which it didn't do...
1 edit
Originally posted by WHY AYEIts not just the melting, its the expansion, look at one of my previous post with the links, you'll see somewhere where where it says that. also, metal could weaken with out actually melting
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
Please read with as open a mind as possible.
* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel ...[text shortened]... it fell in its own footprint.
And many more cannot be explained with the thoeries put forward.
Also I read that the airconditioner probaly supplied the Oxygen to the flames, however, I kindve doubt that
Windows broken 400 feet away is no evidence, them skyscraper are designed to sway, I heard of some of them during earthquakes swaying up to 24 feet each way, windows could be breaking from anything inside.
Heavier debris thrown clear of the dust cloud just before collapse? Whats that mean?
Originally posted by flyUnitytheres some that believe that the moon landings are a hoax
sasquatch672, I really cant believe that somone with the intregity you got actually believe this. And Yes PHD's are wrong sometimes, theres some that believe that the moon landings are a hoax, there are educated wackos out there. It people like you that come up with all these conspiracy's, and your simulations are a joke, Amature simulations always are.
...[text shortened]... would be if they believed your "simulation"
If the Jets didnt cause the callaspe, what did?
There's a lot of conspiracy theories out there. And they're interesting mental exercises if nothing else. If enough of us potheads were interested, I can see a new forum starting: conspiracy theories.
That could be like the non-chrisitian-christian debates in the spirituality forum. I like it. Let's start threads discussing conspiracy theories, shall we? Uh? What do say, people?.. Anyone?.. Hello?..
Originally posted by WHY AYECan I assume therefore that you believe the US did not go to the
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
Please read with as open a mind as possible.
* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel ...[text shortened]... it fell in its own footprint.
And many more cannot be explained with the thoeries put forward.
moon? You seem to be adamant in switching blame.
Are you suggesting the american government actually approved of
two jets hitting the towers and further, knew they would never come
down with just a load of kerosene so planted bombs inside to
detonate at exactly the time the planes went through?
You must have seen buildings demolished is such a way.
They didn't last for upwards of thirty minutes, they came down
within seconds. Think about THAT with an open mind.
Originally posted by WHY AYESo a physics teacher is an expert on psychology now?!
Does the majority of americans still blame Osama Bin Laden for this heinous deceit, or have they awoke from their sleepy ignorance and accepted that it was obviously an inside job and as one physics professor stated 'The most ambitious psychological operation of all time.'
How can the world be duped as it has been with so little resistance?
www.911truth.org/
Originally posted by flyUnityHow about some other crazy .org's?
WHY AYE, There are many sites like that, that give you crap, just because it has a ".org" domain name dont make it true, there are allot of wackos, someday your learn that hopefully.
I'll start the list:
www.answersingenesis.org/
www.discovery.org/
THE TOWERS WERE DESIGNED TO FALL INSIDE THERE FOUNDATIONS TO PREVENT DAMAGE FROM THE SCHOOLS AND OTHER BUILDINGS NEARBY, TO SAY THAT OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD DO SUCH AND EVIL AND SADDISTIC THING IS NOT ONLY AN IGNORRANT THING TO SAY, BUT IT IS ALSO DISRESPECTING THE THOUSOUNDS OF PEOPLE WHO DIED IN THOSE ATTACKS AND IN THE WAR. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF, ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT HAS TO BE THE MOST INCOMPITANT PERSON ON THE PLANET.
YOUR A LUNATIC
Originally posted by sasquatch672you miscalculated, or have no idea what your talking about, the amount of engineering that went into the building of those towers was so imense that you couldnt possibly begin to comprehend it
[b]I have to tell you, I find it very, very strange that both towers dropped inside their foundations - the definition of a "precision drop" - when the force that everybody says brought them down hit from one side and at the upper half for the South Tower and in the upper two-thirds for the North Tower.
I'm not saying that there's a vast governmen ...[text shortened]... t get the buildings to fall the way they did. Not until we moved the impact to the first floor.[/b>
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FALL LIKE THAT TO PROTECT PEOPLE IN THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, SHOW ME YOUR MASTERS DEGREE IN ENGINEERING AND THEN I MAY RESPECT YOUR OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by DarkWatcherSorry, but I don't think that testing things out and searching for the truth is disrespecting anyone. I have to say that I believe scepicism of the government is an entirely healthy thing. Now I'm not saying that the towers were destroyed intentionally, but let's face it, the government could have done more pre-emptively to prevent it. There were reports published upto 18 months before the attacks detailing what these terrorist groups were planning BUT NO-ONE DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
THE TOWERS WERE DESIGNED TO FALL INSIDE THERE FOUNDATIONS TO PREVENT DAMAGE FROM THE SCHOOLS AND OTHER BUILDINGS NEARBY, TO SAY THAT OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD DO SUCH AND EVIL AND SADDISTIC THING IS NOT ONLY AN IGNORRANT THING TO SAY, BUT IT IS ALSO DISRESPECTING THE THOUSOUNDS OF PEOPLE WHO DIED IN THOSE ATTACKS AND IN THE WAR. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOU ...[text shortened]... ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT HAS TO BE THE MOST INCOMPITANT PERSON ON THE PLANET.
YOUR A LUNATIC
The US government may not have planned it, or even willing helped it to happen, but they have done awfully well at exploiting it.