Was I getting too close to an "unwanted truth"? 30 min ago, I began on a question that involved bldg # 7 WTC,

Question

(my having just seen a History Channel production regarding the
9 11 debacle).

It was a long question, starting with "why was bldg #7 brought down late afternoon, 9/11 when it suffered almost no damage from
#1 and #2 buildings' collapse". And, then was imploded from the bottom floor UP, if true, very unorthadox method. Neverthess, the charges HAD to be already in place for this to occur the same day.

Then I revealed a theory by some, that similar charges had been in place in the Towers that fell. And I theorized then, an example of why I felt this was true:

#1, is the tower had large antenna on top. From films of the beginning of its' collapse, it shows that it began at the
very top, some *10 floors* above where the fire was raging, and

1. Experts in metallugy have stated that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to cause the steel beams to fail from "sagging". Inspection of those beams was not done.

2. The "buffer" of 10 floors, (I'll do later, I'm o/of space...

...Continued==
buffered, (because low intensity, (heat wise) would not have caused so many floors to collapse, enabling the "sinking" of the antenna so perfectly, balanced, level, corner to corner.

BTW, I've read also, (but haven't verified), that at this time, a Bush brother, Marvin, was in the "building demolition" business, in fact, an officer in the company.

I'll try to verify this before I get too much flack. (I'd welcome any help on this by anyone interested).

So, my MAIN POINT IS THIS:

Since, as I was finishing my original question, all of a sudden, my screen changed to some previous screen, and I could find no way to retrieve "where I was" typing the question.

So this was the 3rd time in past 4 years that I've had an unusual occurence when I was on certain subjects re: 9/11.

Thay's why in my ..."too close to an unwanted truth"? was said. Maybe I'm paranoid, but all these "occurrences" involve some theories/facts about the Towers' collapse
NO MORE SPACE!

I need to correct an error I made. I had read that #7 was imploded from the ground floor up;but i think this is an error. It was done probably the conventional way.

I've learned a lot from the answers given; especially by Joe Pardy, a very close 2nd to the winner for his input on the thermite/thermate angle. All of this was new to me. (Now we need to find out if Marvin Bushs' company used that medium at that time for demolition.) We need to pursue that idea, I think.

For those of you that are still close minded on this, I would suggest that you read the citations presented here, then, if you still feel the same way; present a question and your unrefutable truths that I'm wrong...

Answer 1

I am with you on those....

those are exactly the same findings which made me suspicious first a few weeks ago and now almost convinced that something is fishy about the 9/11 story as we were presented with it. I mean - really fishy.

WTC7 - yeah strangest thing. The analysis from Prof. Dr. Steven Jones, and the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 and what the scholars have to say about that. That all is shocking because really well founded. I am a scientist myself and just have to agree to the facts. So....that makes me crazy right now.

Check those videos out on google video, they were my "start the thought process" items:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=9%2F11+cover+up

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Answer 2

An expert I know thought the fire would be hot enough to cause the steel to sag and then bring down 7 - I worked on a team that consulted on a revised version of 7 to go up, and the idea of making it safer came up a lot.

However, I'm not sure my friend really studied the problem - he may have just been guessing.

Answer 3

I'm not sure what you're referring to (I didn't see your previous message), and your "questions" seem rather indirect, but here's my two cents. Bear mind that I have not researched this subject, nor have I seen any of the documentaries, so take it with a grain of salt; this is just my engineering intuition from images on the news 5yrs ago.

1) The jet fuel would have burned off in 30sec-6min, depending on which building you're talking about (and whose combustion models you trust). The prolonged burn was more likely due to the massive amounts of paper in the WTC. (Check the flame temp., not the auto ignition temp, of paper and other related office combustibles.) I seem to remember images of paper falling from the skies for days afterwards. If I had to guess, TWC was quite literally burned by its own bureaucracy

2) Heat rises. The largest perturbation for a buckling failure (pinned-ends) occurs in the center of a beam, slightly higher if one end is cantilevered. Without *really* good insulation (e.g. asbestos, which was probably being phased out about the time the towers were built), the steel above the fire would have been significantly weakened. The load on top and the support from the bottom would have caused the weakened members to buckle above the crash site, rather than merely shear off at the point of entry (if I remember correctly, the WTC had a zig-zagging exoskeleton in a addition to a central column support; the exoskeleton seemed to have survived the shear forces, but the column failed in buckling). Most tall structures are designed to buckle and implode before toppling over to prevent them from wiping out their surroundings, so this failure mode isn't really shocking, and the images I remember seem consistent with this.

Additionally, if memory serves, jet fuel (essentially kerosene) produces temps around 300degC, but can approach 1000degC under the right conditions. (I think 300degC is more than enough to auto ignite paper, but you might want to check me.) I know you get phase changes in steels at 723degC; beyond those temps, dislocation propagation becomes rampant and I guarantee steel will start sagging under load. Also bear in mind that, above 800degC, the oxidation rate of Fe increases dramatically; depending on the environment (oxidizing or reducing), this can become unstable, so even though it doesn't melt, the metal essentially "burns" away (though not in the traditional flame sense). Furthermore, molten slag coming off such an oxidation layer can be very acidic if it contains the proper impurities. In short, things start spiralling quickly, and all of these factors can contribute to catastrophic failure.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories (which, pardon me if I'm wrong, you seem to be promoting). Was there a terrorist plot to bring down the towers? Obviously. Could there have been other explosives planted? It had been done before. But bear in mind for a building of that size, there'd be other mechanical systems below the towers (e.g. the air-conditioning units) which, if catastrophically malfunctioning, were probably capable of bringing down the towers on their own...

Answer 4

Yes "charly" you are getting close, to close !

I have lost data before, while editing my work, it happens: I would not worry about it.

I just spent two weeks researching the tragedy; I felt it necessary to know what really happened.

There is way to much information and evidence to post here. Instead, here are two compelling pieces of evidence.

The first is a picture of a steel beam, from one of the towers, that has been cut using an explosive (Thermate). Click pic. to enlarge.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

The second is a semi clear picture of Osama, taken from "his" confession video, compared and contrasted to his photograph.
http://911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml

I hope you have a strong stomach. When you realize what actually happened, you're going to want to puke.

Answer 5

The "unwanted truth" in this case is the fact that the government did not take down the World Trade Center. It really was those two planes with their very large loads of jet fuel that did the job.

There is nothing worse that people with limited knowledge and questionable facts trying to draw conclusions that fit their preconceived notions.

Answer 6

LOL,Vot! definite i have been at many 'loopy conferences'. it frequently starts with the sound Brother playing the incorrect song and then it merely receives goofier from there and each thing merely looks to make us snigger. merely very last evening the faculty Overseer grow to be merely about about to do the Bible studying himself because he couldn't see the youngster who grow to be assigned to ascertain it. yet then the little boy popped up waiting to do the Bible studying and the Brother cracked up and the little boy did the studying. The little boy had an rather good type of problems with pronunciation. for sure that grow to be what he grow to be engaged on. The Brother kindly inspite of the undeniable fact that counseled him on each and each of the best things he did in the course of the studying. That wasn't too some distance out yet I actually were at many conferences the position all of us ended up guffawing the entire time because no one looked able to get issues proper. we are only imperfect people in spite of everything and commonly it is truly humorous.

Answer 7

Yahoo sucks. Yahoo Answers sucks. The USA Government is murderous. Life is a *****, but guess what? I think it's their turn.

Answer 8

Always a new conspiracy and loyal followers like a mother
duck and ducklings...
Quack Quack Waddle Waddle...
No tale too tall...
No rumer to small...

Answer 9

No, you probably just have a problem using a computer.