Why did the World Trade Center towers fall on 9/11? Another chance to find out!?

Question

Put some of these questions asked before to a new light and read each one carefully. See if what they say and ask make sense to you.


Liz P

Level 1

Why did the World Trade Center towers fall on 9/11?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/ener...
http://www.st911.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/jun...

Steven Jones, professor of Physics at BYU has now found conclusive evidence of the presence of thermate in steel recovered from the WTC buildings.

Any questions?
Additional Details

2 months ago
From the first 11 answers, it is obvious that no one bothered to check out the links I included. I would challenge anyone of you to refute the analysis done by Dr. Steven Jones. This guy is a PROFESSOR of PHYSICS. Also, a former German Defense Minister, Andres Von Buelow states that 9/11 was an inside job. So does the father of Reaganomics.

Liz P also wrote..

Forgot to mention that Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman (pictured) , the former head of the Star Wars weapons defense system and Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Cal Tech, also gave a powerful presentation on the NORAD 9/11 stand down. He also believes 9/11 was an inside job.
We live in a strange world when the explanation given by a committee of politicians is accepted by the masses as fact, yet rigorous scientific analysis by an expert professor in his primary field of study is dismissed as conspiracy theory.

Which is more likely? Three steel buildings become the first in history to collapse by fire, or they were brought down by controlled demolition that included the use of thermate to cut through the steel?

Are you aware that the Windsor building in Madrid burned for 18 hours, but it did not collapse?

Are you aware that Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the buildings in the WTC complex, stated "Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it."

And the answers to her question were...


webpence.com

Level 2

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
Authorized Version (with references & notes)

In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.

But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.

In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.

I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.





Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of scien

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).

Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300˚F” (Eagar, 2002).

Two Brinks trucks were at ground zero on Wednesday to start hauling away the $200 million in gold and silver that the Bank of Nova Scotia had stored in a vault under the trade center ... A team of 30 firefighters and police officers are helping to move the metals, a task that can be measured practically down to the flake but that has been rounded off at 379,036 ounces of gold and 29,942,619 ounces of silver ..
* Comex metals trading - 3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million
* Comex clients - 800,000 ounces of gold with a value of about $220 million
* Comex clients - 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million
* Bank of Nova Scotia - $200 million of gold

Answer 1

On Answers: At least once a hour I am remiinded what the term, "Lunatic Fringe" means.

Thank you for this hours reminder.

PS: The term your looking for was "Thermite" not Thermate.
Thermite is aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, this mix is common in welding.



Yours: Grumpy

Answer 2

Um....yeah. After all that, I think I forgot the question. Good question though.....I think. If you'd just made it a bit shorter. : ) There are a lot of unanswered questions about that day. The government at the very least had some sort of information that let them know ahead of time what was going to happen. Watch the video Loose Change. That tells it all. Then you can go look around the web and read it all for yourself. We shouldn't blindly follow whatever the government and the media want us to believe. We are a democracy, people! We have the power to change our government if we don't like it. All it takes is enough people getting together.
Of course it's hard to believe that our own government would do this to us. But it's not all that surprising when you consider the other things they've done to us over the years.

Answer 3

Engineers were brought in to determine why the buildings went down.. there answer has been recorded...Is a shame so many fall prey to the conspiracy theory.. shows a bit of lack in the ability, to think for ones self. But, there will always be pessimists in the crowd.

Answer 4

Even though I mourn at how many people died on that day. I would still like it if people would drop the subject and move on (but still keep 9/11 day where we mourn the loss of lives)

Answer 5

Holy cow ... is that a question or a book? You seem to have all the bases covered, so in your infinite wisdom, now can you please get to work on that pesky global warming, why the sky is blue, and the final resting place of Jimmy Hoffa?

Answer 6

This is more clear than water:

First the fuel on the planes couldnt smelt the Iron (needs >1500C)

Second: Bush needed something to attack Irak and get oil, put his own Companies to restructure the country and gain a lot of money (NOT CARING ABOUT HIS OWN PEOPLE).

Answer 7

My prediction about the twin towers being destroyed during Tuesday morning of September 11th is this (note that this idea might seem odd, and crazy, but it's my theory) maybe God was giving us some type of message that other countries are in danger of plotting a war against us. So Bush needed to go overseas and help out.

Answer 8

I have no idea what you are saying but for the first part they fell because two plains went through them not because the metal is chemically weird

Answer 9

Man!. You conspiracy nutcakes are a hoot!.

Gee, why did the buildings fall, you ask?. Well the answer is gonna shock you so you better sit down: Because 2 airliners flying with thousands of galons of fuel crashed into them at around 500MPH. The result: Buildings going down.

Answer 10

Yes, Bush spent all week drilling holes and putting TNT in them. I also hear that Chaney was seen running wire on the 81st and 82sd floors. Condi Rice was seen carrying a box marked < DANGER> but every one though it was just her lunch. Now we know.l