What if I told you that fires could not have brought down the Twin Towers?

Question

The temperature at which steel melts is too high for either jet fuel or office fires to reach. So, given that the towers could not have come down without some kind of "help", and given that eyewitnesses and news crews kept talking about "secondary explosions", then what do you think this will mean for you?

Will it change you stance on anything else?

Now, what if I told you that WTC building 7 also fell down on 9/11 at roughly 5:30pm. It was not hit by any plane. It was not hit by any major debris. It had only small fires that the sprinklers should have deal with fine. It fell straight down at free fall speed, yet it was asymmetrically built.

What if I told you that crews of men were scheduled to do network "rewiring" in the World Trade Center buildings in the weeks before 9/11. They were seen going in with backpacks and cable spools.

Put on your thinking cap!

Answer 1

ive already seen a youtube of somethin like this

Answer 2

Firstly, I'd ask if you'd ever seen red hot steel being bent? You don't need to reach melting point to weaken steel. It just had to get weak enough so that it could no longer support the weight of the building above it.
If, by bringing up the 'rewiring', you're referring to the theories that the towers were brought down by explosives planted inside, like those controlled explosive demolitions, I'd ask -- do you know how many teams there are around the world that can handle a job close to that magnitude? And have you seen how much preparation goes into those controlled demolitions -- do you suppose that could have been done without a single one of the thousands in the tower noticing?
There's the question of motivation -- if the towers were brought down by explosives and not the jet fuel fires, why bother crashing the planes into the towers in the first place? Do you suppose it would have been less effective, from a propaganda standpoint, to destroy the towers with explosives alone? Would the public outcry and support for of government's measures been any less?

Answer 3

Since my dad was a worker in the Towers during initial construction he pretty much knew the insides when there were no walls. It's not that the steel "melted" during the fires, but there were joints everywhere. The Towers were built to withstand fires (remember the fires in I believe 1998 - no damage done) they were built to withstand "normal condition" damages from wind & storms and even airplane mishaps (not typically a full size jet going in head on). But the joints can weaken considerably under those circumstances. Then consider the weight of one floor collapsing ... adding it's weight to the second - and there's no way to stop it. It's easy to think more of it ... but logically speaking it does make sense that it's a lot of weight on very little infrastructure. Think of the tons of business equipment on every floor. I've been there before it was occuppied by anyone other than construction crews ... Saw Operation Sail in 1977 from the 106th floor - to me it was a part of my history - and a part of our lives. So whatever the reason it came down it's down and nothing will ever replace it for what it was.

Answer 4

You are woefully misinformed, and your arrogance appears to be inversely proportional to your knowledge base. Jet fuel can burn as hot as 4000 deg F. It reaches these temperatures in jet engines on a daily basis. In this case, it probably did not get much higher than 3000 deg F. Normal steel cannot be used as a structural member above 1000 deg F. In fact, it's very soft by 800 deg F. It does not turn into a liquid until 2000 - 3000 deg F, depending on the grade of steel, but it will certainly not hold up a building. Both the elastic modulus and the strength are very low long before you get to the temperatures seen in all of the buildings that you are referring to.

I suggest that you obtain some engineering experience before you make such statements.

Answer 5

The Towers did not collapse because steel melted, nor is anyone claiming that.

The towers mainly collapsed due to the large number of supports being knocked out by the jets.

As NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) says:
"About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. “

The remaining supports had to hold up about 200,000 tons and were near the failure point. Meanwhile, the raging fire started weakening these remaining supports. (Steel loses half its strength at 600 deg C. Melting is not necessary nor did it occur)

The horizontal supports sagged downward & slowly pulled in the perimeter columns.

Many photographs of the towers show the exterior columns bending inward, a sign that the towers were doomed & also excellent proof that, without question, the jets alone caused the collapse.

The exterior columns then snapped inward & collapse ensued.

See the lead investigator from NIST explain how the buildings collapsed at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
(Click on “Impact to collapse” )
======================
THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7

The fact that WTC7 collapsed even though it wasn’t hit by the planes is not surprising.

Even though they were NOT hit by the jets, numerous buildings over a wide area were hit by debris from the collapsing towers and were destroyed.

This includes: The Marriott World Trade Center , 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (which wasn’t even in the WTC complex). The Deutsche Bank Building was also outside the WTC complex & was massively damaged, and was declared a total loss in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#Damage

As for WTC 7:
According to NIST "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." See http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

WTC7 was only 400 feet from WTC1. Since WTC1 is over 1300 feet tall, as they pealed away, the large perimeter columns from WTC1 struck WTC7 & many other buildings with terrific force due to their high starting position. Archival photos shows perimeter columns lying on the ground up to WTC7. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Answer 6

What if I told you that the WTC was built with the exo skeleton of the building being the load bearing support of the building? When the structural integrity of the exo skeleton of the building was comprimised, additional weight of an airplane inside the building, and intense heat from aircraft fuel fires, there was certianly cause to believe the towers collpased from the airplane crash and all the damage that had resulted from that. If the buildings were wired with bombs as you say then why would the terrorists even need to hi jack planes?

Answer 7

i agree with the first answer stating that structural damage occurs before melting starts. Steel buckles and does not provide the designed force when exposed to temperatures such as the uncontrolled combustion of aicraft fuel

Im guessing you just saw the conspiracy dvd and are quoting many of their 'selling points'

make sure you are careful not to offend anyone, although im against the foreign occupation of Iraq, or the possibility of an invasion of iran, i am against those who orcistrated the 9/11 attacks and do not believe that there was any conspiracy, it was an extremely important building....., i also think that many people may take offense to you saying your own government had a hand in killing your citizens.

Answer 8

You need to do a bit more homework.

Steel does not need to melt to cause structural failure. A blacksmith puts steel into a coal fire and gets it hot enough to bend it into any shape he likes. It is not even remotely near melting but it would sure not hold up a building.

In fact, kerosense fires burn hot enough for steel to lose are 80% of its structural strength. This is fully 30% more than is required to exceed the 100% building safety margin.

Answer 9

The steel did not melt, it got weak. That argument is done. But, you are right in thinking it was all a set up. The plan is to prove it without tossing in wrong information as in the M Moore movie.

Answer 10

Marvin is trees youthful brother and molten metallic became into chanced on at floor 0. "Jake: effective attempt yet your tries to respire some credibility into your "theories" will not make it. And neither is you "professor" from BYU." Uh i think of it merely did and who pronounced something some concept? here is yet another actuality you are going to be able to of ignored, dont difficulty you may watch it on PBS. John O'Neil, Deputy Director to the FBI became into the main appropriate authority on terrorist communities. After his investigations have been close down on the pentagon he provide up his interest. He became into provided a activity as head of protection on the WTC, his first day on the interest the construction got here down. I dont think of you opt for to hearken to my concept on that project or maybe if if I informed you it may be met with yet another effective attempt. Does that artwork with maximum folk merely asserting effective attempt? One sec, enable me attempt it actual quickly and notice if it works. effective attempt!!

Answer 11

Comspiracy theories. Why don't you look at the video of the collapse again? And look carefully at where the collapse started. It was at the floors where the fire was burning. There are no inconsistencies.