What brought down the Twin Towers: Explosives or Jet fuel?

Answer 1

Popular theory says the fires fueled by the jet fuel super-heated the metal framework and the towers collapsed under the weight of the weakened super-structure. Conspiracy theorists might tell you otherwise though.

Answer 2

OMFG! I cant believe people believe that Jet fuel brought down those towers?? It must be embarrassing for the CIA trolls and conservative groups that are encouraged to participate in these forums. The jet fuel theory has been disproved time and time again. To suggest it is an insult to intelligent people liberal or conservative.

The towers fell at near free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance. This is impossible unless the resistance was taken out of the picture.

Building 7 fell the same way with only small sporadic fires from diesel fuel tanks. Building 7 was farther away from 4. 5, 6, yet those buildings structure was still standing after the towers fell on top of them.

All these Jet fuel people need to go back and refresh on some 5th grade science. If Jet fuel burning in open air could do that to steel then why would steel workers have to use oxygen and acetylene torches to heat, bend, cut, steel. How could the Windsor tower in Madrid burn for over 20 hours and not collapse? A gas oven burns hotter than jet fuel its called a controlled burn. Ever seen one collapse or melt while cooking a pizza??

How could Govt. organizations like the NIST make such claims that laughs in the face of science and common sense? How can chunks of the towers bigger (heavier than the plane) Bury them selves in adjacent buildings?

Answer 3

No, The explosion of the plane and jet gas replace into so warm that it melted the top beams making the flooring rather stack upon one yet another first, as quickly as the flooring have been given on the fringe of the floor point replace into while the development caved in. the only surprising factor out of the assaults in long island replace into international commerce center development 7 collapsing. It replace into between the added development and it went down didnt also have a hearth or something. It held alot of CIA and FBI archives curiously. 3 hundred yards removed from the twin Towers, and there replace into even a development in front of it, so architecturally it doesnt make sense for it to have lengthy previous down. i replace into 7 as quickly as I observed all of it ensue, left college early that day reason my mom picked me up. Im from lengthy island long island, in elementary terms a 12 months till now they went down i rather went interior the commerce center. What a great development, and what a foul day it replace into as quickly as I observed them fall. My father labored as an engineer there in the early ninety's so i be attentive to alot concerning the form of the development and such. We knew many people that died that day. Very undesirable.

Answer 4

Arguably, the jet fuel.

The collision of the jet knocked fireproofing off of the girders. Aside from the damage to critical load-bearing columns, the loss of fireproofing increased the exposure of the remaining structure to fire. When the columns gave way the top section collapsed on the rest of the tower, causing the whole structure to fail.

The second tower took longer to fall because the impact point was higher, the jet's impact was slower and had caused less damage, and the fireproofing was better.

Answer 5

To put it as briefly as possible in this forum; The bldgs. were imploded. Jet fuel kerosene can't burn hot enough to melt steel. Even if it could it doesn't explain the vaporization of the whole structure (as in a controlled imploded demolition). Bldg. 7 was the give away. Same implosion yet no crash only fire. No steel structure in the history of warfare or fire has ever collapsed like that UNLESS IT WAS IMPLODED. The motive was greed for money. The insurance claims were in the billions for the structures and for the gold depositories. How nice to have billions in gold and be compensated for it by insurance and see it triple in price within months. I'm past brief Who started me??!!!!

Answer 6

The stairwells and elevator shafts were covered with fire retardent to prevent burning. The problem was the force of the crash blew off all the fire retardent (like spray foam) making the metal burn easier. Add on top of that the higher burning temperature of jet fuel compared to say wood or anything which would catch on fire in the towers and you have a weaken structure. So it was both, because the tower could have withstood either seperately.

Answer 7

What is unfortunate is that our government is so untrustworthy that your question is hard to answer. Clearly, they have lied about things for which they are DIRECTLY responsible that were just as catastrophic for even more people. Iraq (600,000+) Katrina (10's of thousands). I have no idea what the answer to your question is. But is it so far-fetched that it was explosives?

Even if it was jet fuel -- the incompetence of a government who receives 52 warnings and DOES NOT DO ONE THING to stop it, is criminal in itself.

Answer 8

Hello,

I would have to say explosives, but the jet fuel had helped in taking down the TTs.

Hope this helps you......................... :- O

Answer 9

The jet fuel burned at a higher rate than th steel in the structure could bear.

Answer 10

xialou1, you would be better served by getting your facts straight. Steel loses 50% of its strength at around 1100 deg F. Certain areas of the fire at the WTC are thought to have reached over 1800 deg F. You do the math.