big red bulls eye on the wtc in 9/11
- Thread starter fedr808
- Start date
I wonder when these pre-teens will learn that you begin with evidence and not silly posturing?
WTCControlDemolished is a troll from another forum that pushed the same agenda there also.
a few fun facts for thoes of you who think the fule melted the steel and it fell.. was it a demolition? there was word of an explosion between the towers before the towers fell there is also rumor that ll the gold was gon from the basement of the buildings, are these true? no idea just what iv heard do i believe them? cant really say i do BUT here comes the fun part
~1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
which begs the question if there is 1k degf difference in melting points and a premixture of jetfuel how did the fires bring down the towers... and on top of that why did they come almost stright down on itself.. the oddds of that being coincodence are astronomical
~1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
which begs the question if there is 1k degf difference in melting points and a premixture of jetfuel how did the fires bring down the towers... and on top of that why did they come almost stright down on itself.. the oddds of that being coincodence are astronomical
the fires alone didn't bring down the towers.
it was a combination of the damage, the fires, and the construction.
it's no mystery to bonefide engineers why the buildings fell straight down.
after almost 9 years not a single fireman, policeman, or investigator that was on that pile has come forward stating any type of bomb debris was found.
get a grip, get a clue, and get out.
dong get it twisted did you not read my post when i said i heard that if its true probably not. guess you missed that part.. tell me how unless you constructed a building a certin way how it would fall ontop of it self from a MASSIVE impact where the dmg is only on one side build a small tower out of whatever you can find thats not interlocking and bash one side of it.. does it fall right ontop of itself or does it fall tward the dmg.. im just using logic here and using logic means i must not have a clue so please enlighten me.. and its an open fourm i can post my opinions where i wish.. if you would learn to read a bit better you would realise your last paragraph is a null point as i agree wtih you
The only claims that were made regarding the melting of steel, are, ironically, by conspiracy theorists, oh, sure, there were a few reports in the 'early days' of the investigation that mentioned melted steel, however melting of steel is not a part of the NIST hypothesis, therefore this claim is a strawman (logical fallacy).
Show us again where the top part of the building fell staight down without rotating or tilting?
Explain to me again where the momentum should have come from to cause it to topple over to one side?
Nice spelling troof. Steel doesn't have to melt to fail. Steel begins to soften at 425C, and loses half of it's strength at 650C. Gold in the basement? Geez...that's so 2006. If there was indeed gold in the basement of the WTC...there's alot easier ways to steal it, than drop 110 stories of debris on it. How about presenting some links to back this up.
Why did they come almost straight down? Easy..gravity pulls downward. What other forces would push them any other way?
Steel does not have to melt to fail.
"The buildings failed largely because of the fire" is not the same statement as "The buildings failed because the fire melted the steel".
It is entirely true.
You see three things contributed to the collapse.
The first is that when the planes hit one of the corners the debris tore through the building and tore off the protective coating surrounding the central steel supports, leaving them vulnerable to fire.
The second is that at 650 degrees celsius, the steel began to soften to less than 50% its structural integrity, but even that did not cause it to fall because such a situation had been planned for.
The final factor was heat distortion. You see the planes hit the corners of the buildings or the sides, when the fire engulfed the beams, the beams closest to where the planes hit was significantly hotter than the ones opposite.
When they designed the building to withstand fire, they built it to withstand a standard office fire, one that would not penetrate the protective wall around the beams, and one that was evenly spread out so that even if the protective coating failed, the beams would all expand/distort together so that wouldnt be too much of a problem.
But the fire was not evenly spreed out, the beams closest to the plane were expanding very quickly and the ones opposite were not expanding at all.
So those beams were not only under 50% structural integrity, but they were uneven and were literally destroying themselves.
And also, the beams that hold up the floors are made of steel supports that are much, much lighter and more fragile than the central supports, eventually when the fire weakened those the floors ontop fell, and one the upper floors collapsed, there was no way that the central support beams could take 3 different kinds of stress, it's a miracle they stood for so long.
SiFreak the problem with explosions is that people use the term explosion for loud sounds even when the cause of the noise is not an explosion. A CD involves many explosions. Watch a CD film with audio and listen to the sharp reports from the explosions. There aren't any at WTC. If there are no bangs from explosives, then there were no explosives. No explosives, no CD.
The fuel only started the fire and was probably burnt out in 15mins. It did not weaken the steel. The contents of the buildings did.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
A few questions that still bother me about this...
1. Does anyone remember whether the structural beams failed outright (breaking or falling apart into seperate pieces), or did they deform (twist into shapes no longer capable of providing any support)?
2. If you had to design a scale model that collapses similar to the way those buildings did, how would you do it? Wouldn't it have to be an extremely unstable structure?
3. Has anyone made a computer model of the collapses yet?
1. Does anyone remember whether the structural beams failed outright (breaking or falling apart into seperate pieces), or did they deform (twist into shapes no longer capable of providing any support)?
2. If you had to design a scale model that collapses similar to the way those buildings did, how would you do it? Wouldn't it have to be an extremely unstable structure?
3. Has anyone made a computer model of the collapses yet?
Neddy, for Q3 there have been many computer models. NIST used computer modeling. MIT also did modeling. It is my understanding that other universities also did modeling. Check out the NIST report for information on the computer modeling.
In Q2 I am wondering why you think a scale model would have to be unstable. The building was initially stable. Don't you think that scale model would have to also be initially stable?
In Q2 I am wondering why you think a scale model would have to be unstable. The building was initially stable. Don't you think that scale model would have to also be initially stable?
There are writers, journalists, engineers and others who say it loud and clear that it is impossible for Bin Laden to do such a tragedy and that is an inside job . Unfortunetely the media do not publicize their findings and their thoughts with all the books written on this topic .
I read books, I listened to interviews and I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a CIA and MOSSAD dirty job .
The only thing the government would have had to do for something like this to happen is be incompetent....which for the most part they seemed to be at the time...so.
1. Floor trusses that extended from the perimeter columns to the core columns were stripped of their sprayed on, foam fireproofing in the initial impact from the shreds of the plane. The resulting fires heated these floor trusses until they begin to sag in the middle, pulling on their connection on either end, until the connection failed. These floor trusses not only support the weight of an individual floor, but provide lateral support to the perimeter columns. When enough of these floor trusses failed, the already overstressed perimeter columns lost their lateral support, buckled and failed. Here is a picture that shows the floor trusses and how light of a construct they were:
2. A physical scale model would be difficult, although not impossible, to build because gravitational acceleration is based on time, and doesn't scale directly. You would have to account for this in the design of the structure..plus a model is only as accurate as it data...and we really don't know fully the extent of the damage the planes caused, and could only speculate how many of the core columns were damaged.
3. Stereo answered this one.
Last edited:
Why would it be impossible for AQ to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings? All it takes is a handful of dedicated men and some stanley knifes. What part could they not accomplish?
So what reason would the MOSSAD have to attack America? We're their biggest ally! From what I understand, the evil Jew bankers run the world...why would they fuck with the hen that lay golden eggs? And if was the MOSSAD, why frame a bunch of Saudis based out of Afghanistan? Why not blame Palestinians, and give the US an excuse to help them take over more Palestinian land? Use a little simple common sense and reasoning and 9/11 truth shows it's ridiculousness.
Last edited: