What's the Truth -- How Indeed did the Twin Towers Collapse?

Question

We shouldn't need to ask these questions, we should know the truth. The Twin Towers and Building 7 might have been brought down, not by fire, but by controlled demolition.

Answer 1

They were brought down cos two massive jets crashed into them, piloted by men with a warped sense of right and wrong.

Answer 2

I agree. When the tapes from 9/11 and days surrounding are reviewed, they talk of "pulling" building 7 which is construction terminology for controlled demolition. Also, the facts on steel and the facts of 9/11 simply don't match. From the color of the flames seen on 9/11 the fire wasn't nearly hot enough to melt steel. Other comparable structures around the world have blazed for days without collapsing. Even if it had collapsed they way they say it, the internal metal core should have still been standing and it wasn't. Silverstein bought and insured those buildings six months before they came down. The only buildings he owned in the area were the only ones that came down even though other, closer buildings that actually sustained damage did not. Silverstein now also owns the Sears Tower. Another potential target.
Also on tapes from 9/11 rescue workers speak of hearing up to three explosions up to an hour after the last plane hit. . . on floors where there were no planes.

Answer 3

The 'truth' is unclear. But ask yourself these questions, then go to loosechange.com for more details:
a) Why did the towers collapse by imploding on themselves, as is the case in every professional demolition project that occurs in this country?
b) Why were demolition crews inside the twin towers just days before 9-11, and several floors were evacuated at that time?
c) How did it happen that George W. Bush's younger brother just happened to be hed of security for the twin towers at the time of the disaster?
d) Why did Larry Silverstein, the buildings' owner, take out a new insurance policy just before the accident that specifically covered the buildings in the event of terrorist attacks - and earned Larry a handsome return on his original investment (whihc, by the way, wasn't doing real well)?
e) Why was the scrap so quickly disposed of, much of it being used in the construction of a new U.S. battleship?
f) Why do so many engineers, demolition experts, and construction professionals question the veracity of how the buildings were unable to withstand such structural damage?
g) Why was 'Building 7' torn down - a building that suffered little peripheral damage, and that contained highly sensitive U.S. government documents that the Bush administration didn't want made public?
h) Why was George W. Bush so 'calm' when he was told of the attacks, almost as if he was somewhat aware of the event, but - at the same time - didn't know how to react since his handlers intentionally kept him the dark about what to say, or how to respond?
i) How could an 'investigation' of one of the world's worst disasters be concluded so quickly?
j) Could this 'terrorist attack' have been staged by the U.S. government to be used as an excuse to invade Iraq - a goal that the Bush administration was adamant about attaining since its first day in office??? -RKO- 04/25/07

Answer 4

They were brought down by virtue of the impact of two fully fueled jetliners slamming into the towers at 500-600 miles per hour causing a tremendous explosion and incinerating the airplanes and a good portion of the two towers. This weakened the structure considerably. Weakening of the structure continued as the flaming jet-fuel and other combustibles raised the temperature tremendously and weakened the structural integrity of some of the floors surrounding the impacts. This ultimately caused some of the floors to collapse. Once some of the floors collapsed the structure became incapable of bearing the weight of the floors above the collapse and the buildings pancaked floor by floor.

If there was a "controlled demolition" there would be evidence of that in the rubble of the trade center. No such evidence has been found. Further, a large number of people would have had to be involved in order to plan, coordinate, set and detonate a controlled demolition of the twin towers. Not one person has spoken out - not one. The Bush Administration has yet to be able to keep one thing quiet - and you think they could orchestrate the grandest conspiracy in world history involving the destruction of the center of US commerce, a direct attack on the center of US defense, the faked downing of another airplane over pennsylvania and fake plan for it to hit the white house or capitol building, and the murder of 3,000 Americans? And nobody involved in this thing would leak one iota of proof? Nobody would leave an anonymous package of tapes and documents somewhere? Nobody would tell the New York Times where to look in the rubble for the holes drilled for explosives? Not a peep?

Please adjust your tinfoil hat. It may be on too tight.

Answer 5

Why do people keep on talking about steel melting. I see we had one here.

The facts are this. Steel melts at about 2700 degrees depending on the exact composition of the alloy. (Steel is an alloy for those who don't know). It loses about 50% of its strength at 1000 degrees. The integrity of the steel core of the building would be destroyed at as little as 600 degrees.

Aviation fuel burns at about 1500 degrees. A lot hotter than a normal fire, so a building fire without the accelerant of aviation fuel could burn for days without destroying the integrity of the core. The intense heat generated by the aviation fuel would reduce the strength of the steel to such an extent that the core would no longer support the weight of the concrete but just add more weight to the very predictable collapse.

It is no mystery, no great understanding of structural engineering required to come to the obvious conclusion. A commercial airliner with full fuel tanks hitting the WTC at over 500 mph would bring the towers down.

The aircraft resistance calculated when the towers were put up were for a slow moving plane, not one being used as a guided missile at full speed. The steel core was not protected by tile which would have been the only possibility to stop the 1500 degree temperatures destroying the core's strength.

Answer 6

for sure they collapsed! warmth does that to metallic. Ever seen a welder doing paintings? Jet gasoline is kerosene! i have seen it set hearth to and melt metallic warships. construction 7 replaced into hit via burning embers from both towers and it went via a similar melting of metallic procedure which presented down both towers. the protection chief of the WTC replaced into an worker with the Port Authority of long island and New Jersey. That replaced into the quasi-governmental entity which equipped and owned the complicated. there is in straightforward words 2 curious issues. the first attack on the WTC in 1993 happened on the 2d anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait from invading Iraqi forces. yet, we push aside out of hand anyplace Saddam Hussein would have performed in that attack. the 2d attack got here about on the anniversary of the date even as a Christian military stopped the ahead boost of a Turkish Muslim military into the middle of correct Europe outdoors the gates of Vienna. from that element on, Islam retreated out of correct Europe into its modern geographic barriers. It replaced into Sep 11, 1684. We desperately favor to start up reading the enemy's calendar and stay far flung from giving any credence to the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and the different movie star luminaries who vogue themselves as specialists in metallurgy.

Answer 7

off the top of my head i'd guess it was the two huge gas filled planes that hit them at a few hundred miles per hour. i'd imagine 10 tons of steel hitting something at 500 mph packs a wallop.

BUT . . . . i know the phrase "conspiracy theory" is usually attributed to wack jobs, but if there is hard evidence that foul play was involved, and if someone could produce for me some real engineers and demolition experts that support the theory, i'd consider the possibility.

Answer 8

I saw with my own eyes velocity stacks melt on a carburetor...the engine was running on jet fuel, the engine miss fired within minutes the metal was melting...

Answer 9

It was controlled,by those two jets full of fuel that slammed into them.Just like the one that slammed the Pentagon,and the field in PA.

Answer 10

Uhh hmm lets think here for a second... A god damn plane flew into it and it went KABOOOM!!!! it was loaded with jet fuel. The frame of the building and all the stuff on the inside was sprayed with fire retardent stuff but it was done poorly.