How could a couple small fires Pulverize the World Trade Centers into a pile of dust ?

Question

And what about building 7.....that wasn't even close.

Answer 1

there were bombs planted.. people heard them going off... and that also explains no plane remains found @ the pentagon not to mention pennsylvania..

i feel bad for all the people that died.. and even worse for the people who still stand behind bush after everything he's done to us...



















What's the melting point of steel?

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Author:

Brian Kross, Chief Detector Engineer (Other answers by Brian Kross)







so NO... 1200 degrees could NOT have melted the towers...

Answer 2

the temp of these so called small fires was @1200centigrade. the steel supporting these 2 massive towers wasn't designed to withstand 1/2 of that. the steel framing that supported the buildings actually melted. once the buildings started to cave in they became victim of a domino type effect. hope this helps.

forgot @7, this building was brought down because of a loss of underground shoring. all the buildings involved "shared" this. typical for inner city building design.

Answer 3

Are you braindead? First, the fires were NOT small. Each plane had tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Now, how about I fill your home with a fraction of that jet fuel and ignite it, and let's see what it does to your home.

As for WTC 7, it is just across the street from the WTC complex. It is hardly remarkable that the intense heat from two collapsed skyscrapers combusted WTC 7.

I realize that your hatred of the US, her president, and her people knows no limits, but I think it's time you and your ilk quit pissing on the graves of the victims and heroes of 9/11.

Answer 4

If you are thinking conspiracy, here is what I have to say:

Ever since the world changing events that occurred on September 11, 2006, a myriad of stories regarding the day have been brought to our attention. Some of these stories define a new way at viewing the events, views that put our government directly in the ‘line of fire’. One of the most profound and popular viewpoints is documented in the video Loose Change. This video puts forth the theory that the proceedings that took place that day were more planned than the average person would have though; it presents the idea that the twin towers fell, in fact, due to controlled demolition explosions. If one looks at the ‘research’ that the video presents, it is clear that video connects random facts into false statements. Sometimes, though, the ‘facts’ are not even correct.
Loose Change’s most prominent statement is that of the controlled demolitions. Yes, when one does observe a video of the towers falling, one can see that there are small explosions. However, contrary to conspiracy thought, the immense air pressure being released as the tower fell, in fact, caused these explosions. Demolition experts also iterate that the amount of explosive that Loose Change is calling for would require approximately 75 people working for a minimum of three months. In addition to the idea that the government planted these explosives, conspiracy theories claim that the planes that struck the towers were, in reality, government planes. Anarchist claims follow the statement of Marc Birnbach; he mentioned that the planes did not appear to be commercial jets due to the lack of windows. Not only were the portholes found in the rubble, but also the entire claim of Birnbach must be disregarded due to his location. Birnbach, in his interview with Popular Science, explained that he was about 3 kilometers away, and at a location where the right side plane’s windows were tilted away from him. Furthermore, these radical theories propose that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile (Harvey, 2006). Once again, the theories do not take into account the evidence that shows that the plane received damage before striking the Pentagon. So why would one want to come up with so many radical ideas? A lecturer of psychology at the Royal Holloway University of London, Patrick Leman, explains that the human mind tends to “associate major events…with major causes”: in other words, “Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it” (Grossman, 2006).

Answer 5

because small fires turn into BIG fires. here in australia we see how much damage "little" fires do ever xmas. they are so bad and ruin km of property.

also a PLANE crashed into the buildings, it wasnt just a fire. and the fire was a chemical fire, one of the worst kinds of fire. they take ages to put out and they were surviving on petrol, not paper. all the flammables inside the buildings would have helped it spread and the wind and force would have pushed the fire along to other buildings.

Answer 6

I think they probably blew up the smaller buildings, I mean they probably got pretty beat up with the big towers falling on them and they just figured whats the point. But it's weird that they didn't tell anyone. It was pretty bad of them to do, because I remember watching the news that day, around 4 or so they said building 7 came down and I remember Asleigh banfield on NBC was interviewing a woman with a baby and it fell down while she was talking to her and she had to shield the baby from all the dust. I'll never forget, they replayed that so many times. They should've told people so the lady and the baby wouldn't be in danger of getting hurt

Answer 7

no it was just 2 small fires caused by million pound planes striking the WTC with 50000 gallons of flammable fuel at 500 mph+. I have no idea how that would destroy a building. As for 7 WTC, It is really crazy that collapsed after 2 1200 foot + buildings collapsed next store

Answer 8

I am a not sure of what you are implying, but, WHAT small fire are you referring to, the airplanes that had hit the WTC were jumbo jets, you frikin conspiracy theorist won't give it a rest. What about this conspiracy theory you can work on, George Bush is he really a man, a woman, or a butchy ? you tell me. LOL

Answer 9

How can you call a huge jet full of fuel slamming into the middle of a building at no telling what speed a "small fire"?

Answer 10

It wasn't just small fires... planes full of fuel hit the towers and burned at very hot temperatures causing the structure to melt and collapse on itself.