9/11 twin towers?

Question

how did buildings collaspe so easily ,was there a controlled explosion?i was told the steel that made the towers couldnt possibly be melted by the heat off the plane that crashed into it

Answer 1

There are plenty of theories and resources to find the answers to questions you have about this fateful event. This really isn't the place to discuss such things, although I do applaud your attempt at discussing something important. For some of us, it is just too much. Watching people jump to their death, hearing emergency calls, watching video that people had taken, hearing rumours. It's too much. And those were not the only people who perished and suffered, there were others that day, and I can remember every detail of that day, and I will as long as I live. The horror and terror and fear, and the tears of people all over who felt pain. And then to re-live it again on July 7, and again several days ago. Each time I almost lost a loved one, each time, they were just steps away from death. I thank G-d and every positive power that they were not harmed, and for what ever reason, they were delayed from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry to go on like this. One thing I would like to point out is, that among all the destruction at "Ground Zero" there was a part of the structure at one of the buildings that was in the shape of a crucifix. There was a presence there, and it serves as a reminder to myself, at least, not to take live or respect of the lives of others for granted. We should all respect each other and kill those others with kindness.

Answer 2

Whether that other contributor was there or not does not alter the fact that firemen were reporting explosions inside the building well away from the point of impact. Those towers were designed to withstand a direct impact from a Boeing 707, a plane which, in some respects, is bigger than the ones that hit. Never in the one hundred year history of steel framed high rise buildings has a single one collapsed due to fire. On 9/11 3 collapsed. WTC building 7 just collapsed, it wasn't hit by anything! Jet fuel burns at over 1000 degree below the temperature that steel melts at. You could immerse the steel used in those buildings construction in a pool of burning aviation fuel for a year and it still wouldn't melt it. When the aircraft hit, there was an almighty explosion, and that was it, the fuel was gone. I'm quite sure that the burning desks, carpets, files and computers wouldn't have caused three buildings to collapse. And for heaven's sake, both main buildings had a solid concrete core right up the middle, I have a photograph of them being built, had they of fallen over, then they'd have gone over sideways, not straight down!

The only difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is time. Look at every event in history, sooner or later those shouting conspiracy have been proved correct. That, however, is when the story ceases to be newsworthy," and we now go straight to the next ball game."

Answer 3

I don't think it was done through a demolition. I do think the towers went down in the resault of two planes flying into them. Also, I still have the People magazine with the the stuff that happened on 9/11. Basically the heat from the planes crashing and blowing up, made the towers unstable and that's how they collasped. The towers pretty much melted. As for Tower 7, that was done by a demolition. That I head was a secret building, that there were a conspiracy theory. This is just my opinion.

Answer 4

yes, the 47 core columns which held up te structure were severed by thermite/thermate (a thermite compound ) which explains the molten steel is filmed flowing from the south tower before its collapse. The molten steel was filmed under the rubble by satellite images
Each tower was then destroyed by a sequence of explosions from the top down.

Those who quote History Channel or Discover Channel STILL don't seem to understand that the media have been part of this conspiracy from day 1.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3068002046571410986

ALL the exposure has come from non-official sources.

check out Dr David Ray Griffin's books including his latest "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". he debunks ALL the Official excuses which have been quoted here by the likes of NIST and the deeply suspect "Popular Mechanics" magazine.


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781566566865&itm=1

Answer 5

OK i do not know an enormous amount about the melting points of steel only that it depends on many factors such as the composition of the steel etc but its something ive been looking into recently.

I agree that the steel in the structure of the buildings would not have to liquify for a collapse but then how do you explain the molten steel that was found by firefighters in the basement which was still hot weeks after the "attack"?
You are suggesting that the jet fuel could have caused this melting to occur. Ok burning jet fuel, in optimum conditions, burns at 825°C. But the melting point of typical structural steel is 1500°C, so the fuel is not hot enough to melt steel, and the steel can never get hotter than the heat source applied to it.

According to scientific analysis carried out by Dr Steven E. Jones this steel contains traces of Thermate which for those who may not know is thermite mixed with sulphar which lowers the melting points of steel but experts say that most of the fuel would have been lost in the initial fireballs when the plains first hit the buildings.

what about the videos of molten yellow/white-hot liquid flowing from a lower floor from where the plains hit?
the steel in this building could not have been heated to this point therefore making the thermate a very plausable factor.
Or what about the thick black acrid smoke which bellowed from the towers.
Black smoke is from an oxygen starved fire so how could it burn hot enough to even bend the solid tonnes of steel structure?

Perhaps you can explain how the towers just turned to dust before our eyes and crashed to the ground without hardly any remains of the steel core or framing?
or maybe why the steel beams examined at ground zero had an angled cut which is a very common sign of a profesional demolition where explosives would be secured at a "V" shape on the beams to break the beams and cause the buildings to inevitably collapse?

If you have examined video footage of the collapse you can clearly see what could only be explosions from "squibs", which are used in the demolition of many buildings and are placed usually on every second floor and timed to encourage collapse, exploding from lower floors as the buildings collapse these are further evidence of explosives.

Ok maybe you think anybody could have placed bombs in the buildings right?...wrong!
why was there a 36hr power cut in the top half of the building of WTC2 the week before 9/11 which was notified to the workers by the port authority?
The port authority said in a formal notice that it was to re-wire the building.

Why is there reports from surviving workers of loud noises which only sounded like heavy machinery in closed off floors of the buildings?
Why did they notice a large amount of dark greyish powdery dust throughout the building the week before the "attack"??
or in other video footage from news channels why is there a clearly audible rumble which sounds like an explosion heard from new jersey and smoke rising from the base of the buildings?

Maybe debris fell from the elevators...??
Impossible the elevators were automatically sealed in such cases and are air tight meaning that fire couldnt possibly have travelled from the top all the way to the bottom without oxygen.

Firemen who were in the buildings are reported saying, before the towers collapsed, "The lobby looked like the lobby got hit"
how is this possible without explosives in the basement used to weaken the buildings foundations making it collapse easier?

Another thing is why has it been called a pancake collapse when there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that?
for instance in a pancake collapse there is remains of the above floors piled up on top of each other on the ground. This is not the case in the WTC catastrophe because there is no floors remaining it was just pretty much concrete powder left.

Why was parts of the buildings found across and even down the street from the buildings?
could a fire really throw out tonnes of steel with such force?
also if you dropped a billiard ball off the WTC it would have taken approx 9 seconds to hit the ground.
9 seconds was the average time each tower took to fully collapse to the ground aswell.

Now the billiard is travelling through air with no obstacles in its way so what about the buildings?
In physics each floor should have surely slowed down the collapse, were talking about thousands of thick steel beams on each floor how did the towers fall so fluidly?
Almost as if the beams were being blown out with timed explosives in conjunction with the top part collapsing, and as i explained before, in video footage "squib explosions" are clearly visible.

And why did the owner of the buildings make absolutely sure that the buildings were insured against acts of terrorism and why did he make sure he retained the right to rebuild the buildings incase they were destroyed?
there is much more evidence than this also.

I am only laying out some the facts so that people can read them and form their own opinion about what really happened on 9/11

thanks.

Answer 6

You have to consider a few things....
First...those towers were built in the early 60s and while they were designed to take the impact of a plane hitting it, the planes back then weren't as big and fast as the ones that are around now.
Secondly, a jolt like that to the steel columns of that building damaged them structurally. There were probably tons of cracks in those beams for quite a distance.
Third, when those floors started collapsing and coming down on top of each other, that was weight that the steel couldnt handle. Now I know it supported them when the buildings were intact, but you have to remember that as each floor fell on top of one another, the speed that was picked up by each one as it fell but a jolt of several times the original weight of each floor, and as they kept piling up and exerting that impact on steel beams that were already compromised, that made it collapse.

Answer 7

The WTC was designed with all the structural support for the building on the outside to allow for open office spaces. The planes impact simply took out at least 1/4 of the building's support. However, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time. The buildings did withstand the impact of the larger planes, but steel is weaker at higher temperatures. The steel did not melt, but was too weak to hold the weight put on it, and each floor crashing down on the floors below started a chain reaction that toppled the building. They did not collapse easily. It took the impact of a plane loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel burning for hours. The design of the building meant that the weakest points were inside, so it imploded similar to a controlled demolition would.

Answer 8

What happened with the mail anthrax attack after 9/11?

The anthrax was only available from one place - Fort Dettrick Maryland, a high security Government facility. Nowhere else in the world had the airborne anthrax virus - nowhere at all. Yet we were expected to believe that Al Qaeda was responsible. President Bush promised to uncover who did it - until he found out it was your own military playing games at the cost of citizens lives.

You and we in the UK need to uncover the inhumane monsters who control our establishments and stop them getting away with murder not only of their own citizens, but of countless innocents abroad in the hypocritical name of democracy and freedom.

We are all merely pawns in this Great Game and frankly I feel pretty stupid when I think of other atrocities - like the 7/7 bombing in London. The men blamed may have been Muslims but as the ancient Romans asked - Qui bono - who benefitted? Bush and the G8 were meeting in Scotland and a nice little spate of London bombings sure concentrates the minds of world leaders when you are trying to convince them to have a 'war on terrorism.'

Answer 9

How long is it since JFK was assassinated & still we have countless theories about who was responsible , why it happened etc etc
In spite of these theories re 9/11 that abound , the bottom line is the evidence is gone , the images of those planes crashing into the towers is seared into our minds & nothing will bring back the thousands who lost their lives that fateful day !
Let the memory of those who perished continue to remind us of the fragile nature of life , how light a grip we have on it & of the necessity to value our families , friends & fellow man above all the material benefits this world places such a high value on !

Answer 10

How exactly do people know what temperature the fire was in the building? Were they there with a thermometer?

This type of thing had never happened before September 11, so I do not see how people could say with certainty that they know the fire from the plane crash couldn't bend the steel.

If people are so sure that explosives were used,
1. why didn't any survivors from the towers see any explosives
2. why didn't they find any remnants of explosive material in the rubble

Answer 11

Just read the article at http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
and please start talking to rational sane people. The steel doesn't need to melt for it to be weaken enough for the weight of the floors above to be too much. To quote the article I've linked to

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

""Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

EDIT: Sorry to add to an already long post. RE: WTC 7, could conspiracy theorist please answer the evidence listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center without an argument along the line of "I may have sod all expertise but I have seen a youtube video and I reckon...". Also if the CIA/MOSSAD/Little Green Men/The Loch Ness Monster destroy the tower with a "neat vertical plunge" (if they were going to try to cover it up why not make it look really messy)? Unless they knew that a such a collapse was perfectly plausible, but if it is perfectly plausible why jump to the absurd conspiracy theorists conclusion against the weight of he evidence.