Were the World Trade Centers really brought down by the plains or was it a matter of chemical demolition ?

Question

I know im probably gonna bring up a few bad memories for a few people here, but I think I have something important regarding 9/11 and the CHEMICAL DEMOLISION of the WTC. The World Trade Centres could have never collapsed, they were built to withstand the impact of any given aircraft. It is possible that the WTC was litterally melting away being demolished by chemical warfare. If you wanna test my theory please visit this website IMMEDIATELY !
Im not even American, im South African and I found this ! ! !
PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS MATTER !

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

Answer 1

One of the TV specials indicated that the WTC was designed to take the impact of jet plane. However it was smaller one than what hit it.

Obviously each tower was able to absorb an impact above what it was designed for.

The near full load of jet fuel in the plane ignited and with the sprinklers not function due to the impact, the intense heat of the fire soften the structural beams.

Eventually the structure, already damage by the impact, failed because the reaming steel became too weak

Answer 2

The WTC was brought down by intense fires as a result of the plane crashes. The building would have survived the hit if it was not for the fires.

The cause of the collapse was the failure of the attachments holding the floor to the outside wall due to the heat. Structurally, the building was a giant hollow tube, i.e., the outside walls were the main structural supporting element vs an internal skeleton. When one floor failed, the next could take the load and pancaked. This continued until the building collapsed.

Answer 3

There seems to be a few important details missing from the analysis in your link. Occam's razor insists that the simplest explanation is best. There were eye witnesses and cameras that detected planes striking the buildings. The buildings did not come down immediately from explosions but did come down from damage in the areas struck. Why would the purported incendiaries have survived the impact so long? One plane went down in Pa after passengers reported actual terrorist activity. That could have been one of the NYC planes leaving evidence in one building; a big risk to perpertrators. The professor (earning money for his theory?) does not cite peer reviews. Only the building's architect (or structural engineers with all the data) could reconstruct the events in both buildings to assess whether a weakened structure (missing members?) could survive heat and unevenly supported loads from above. Protective insulation was reported stripped from key members by the impact. As at least one individual who answered your question reveals, his beliefs are politically motivated. If ABC, NBC and/or CBS reported that an "expert" has discovered little green men under certain beds (placed there by the opposing party) many people would actually "see" the little green men. It is sometimes better to believe what is proved beyond reasonable doubt than to believe what you wish to believe. Good day.

Answer 4

Americans are obsessed with two levels of explanation for everything: the "official" story and the "real" (usually hidden) story. Sometimes, of course, the real and official stories match (but that's boring) and sometimes they don't (which is more exciting for suspicious minds and conspiracy theorists. Think of JFK's death. There was an official inventigation, and now 33 years later there are still people who think the official story is wrong.

As for 911, the idea is this. Buildings like the WTC are supposed to be built to withstand a plane smashing into them. In addition, the burning point of fuel is supposed to be very low, much lower than that required to burn concrete-and-steel structures. In addition, when something like those planes strike a building like that, they are supposed to burn and destroy a floor or two...Yet, what happened? A plane strikes and the whole darn building collapses into rubble. This indicates for some either engineering mistakes (maybe fraud or incompetence), maybe construction mistakes (fraud or incompetence) or maybe demolition explosives were planted in the building ahead of time (by Israelis, by Arabs, or by the US government itself) and when the plane struck, the explosives detonated, and boom--the whole building collapsed.

Well, no one admits engineering mistakes or construction mistakes. So that leaves explosives. If planted by Israel to frame the Arabs, that would so inflame the public as to lead to Israel's destruction. If planted by Arabs, it needs to be explained who the "other" people involved were and how they managed to plant explosives. If planted by the US government itself, well you can see what problems that would cause.

So, who knows for sure? Who knows. We do know that 911 set the opportunity for a lazy, going nowhere, do-nothing president to suddenly turn into a "leader" and start a war on terror.

Answer 5

When I was a kid, my class got a tour of a fire station. The fire fighters showed us a regular household clothes iron that had melted in a house fire. Structural fires can burn very hot, even without adding thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Next time you’re near a campfire or wood burning fireplace, stick a steel poker in the hot embers for a while. When you pull it out, it will be glowing red. The steel is softer and weaker at this temperature. That’s why black smiths heat steel before hammering it into shape.

Now I’m an engineer and flammable chemicals are used in one of the buildings that I work in. In this building, the structural steel is sprayed with a coating that will DELAY the heating and structural weakening of the steel. But if a fire burns hot and long enough it will weaken the steel regardless of how it is coated.

Answer 6

Not the impact itself, but the gas from the airplanes. The gas melted the steel structering. The planes had barely flown very far before they were turned around towards the towers. Yeah, even to me it doesn't seem that the result should've been as catastrophic as it was, but I guess it goes to show just how powerful fuel is, maybe more so than acid or any other hot liquid.

Answer 7

the ingredient i detect maximum suspicious - greater so than the *seen* squib explosions; greater so than the workplaces being cleared out the weekend previous to the cave in; greater so than the thoughts of all the firemen, policemen and witnesses (or maybe all of it rather is very persuasive) - is that the BBC *pronounced* that WTC 7 had collapsed on an identical time because it advance into nonetheless standig interior the historic past. The stay satellite tv for pc feed very actual vanished interior of a jiffy, and the BBC have in view that claimed they have lost the tape of it - "by way of cock-up, no longer conspiracy." Is that even achievable? thankfully others stored it and uploaded it, so we are in a position to all see it for ourselves. loads of documetaries obtainable; loads of rebuttals and loads of scientists and chemical engineers on the two aspects giving diametrically opposing evaluations on the comparable information... yet there is rather no rebuttal for the certainty that the BBC knew it advance into gonna cave in, an entire 20 minutes until now it did. it rather is the main damning piece of evidence, because of the fact it advance into so unintentional. that's like somebody mis-study the memo, or per threat the ink on the fax have been given smudged, and that they made a huge mistake by accident, panicked, then compounded it by potential of attempting to hide all of it up. So, yeah, i do no longer think of it is so user-friendly as "Dubya is ebil and the gubmint doned it" yet imo they have been controlled demolitions.

Answer 8

Have you been living under a rock? You didn't see those planes inside the building? Go to discovery.com. They did a show explaining why the buildings collapsed....how the infrastructure was compromised and once one floor let loose, it was like dominoes falling over.

Answer 9

DID YOU WATCH THE PLANES HIT THE WTC OR ARE YOU JUST DUMB? THE PLANES HIT THE TOWERS!!!! THERE ARE THINGS ON THE NET THAT ARE NOT TRUE!! DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE THINGS CAN BE PHOTO SHOP MADE. THERE WAS NO MELTING!!!! LOOK YOU HAVE NO CLUE, YOU WERE NOT HERE IN AMERICA SO PLEASE DON'T ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THIS!!!!! DON'T YOU THINK IF WHAT YOU ARE THINKING HAPPEN THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO BY NOW....

Answer 10

the planes alone couldn't have brought the towers down