why did the wtc's collapse? conclusive proof

[Ski Mask]

I refuse to get sucked back into this thread, but I couldnt pass up the chance to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

[Juan Fuentes]

hey ese,nice insultive video...0 facts....

 

theo that was the first stike yes,it didnt come on tv till next day,i dont know if u are refering that video to my post...also simple physics of human commonsence lets you know the size of the mass that fell on top of the rest 4/5's or more than that,does not have the power to demolish all of it...go to the beach and do a simulation with a wtc tower of sand,let 1/5,1/4,1/3 even,fall on the rest of the tower,see what happens.

 

the other tower had more mass(falling on top) yes,still not enough though,and also,it fell in an angle which means it loses point of impact,but the whole building fell by acceleration,with puffs of pulverized concrete shooting out.

 

 

 

 

here some video,short

9/11 More South Tower Flashes

 

in all the distances u can see the white,bright,flashes...its not glass because the "collapse" pulverized concrete so imagine what would happen to glass,yet if it was glass we would be able to see more glass than a few 20 of the flashes that this video shows.

[Larry Pubes]

wow, theo, that video is fascinating and intense.

[lord_casek]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

[Theo Huxtable.]

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com

 

[Juan Fuentes]

[Theo Huxtable.]

the official explanation doesn't even cite "jet fuel" as being the tower's demise -- why do conspiracy theorists always claim this?

 

it's widely reported that the exploding jet fuel was the ignition source and burned away quickly -- the building itself was the fuel of most of the fire.

[Larry Pubes]

jon stewarts impressions of cheney and bush are fucking awesome..the pic of bush laughing kind of reminds me of stewarts impression of bush laughing.

[lord_casek]

the official explanation doesn't even cite "jet fuel" as being the tower's demise -- why do conspiracy theorists always claim this?

 

it's widely reported that the exploding jet fuel was the ignition source and burned away quickly -- the building itself was the fuel of most of the fire.

 

it takes quite some time to reach 2,800 degrees. (melting point of steel)

 

not 45 minutes as the official story claims.

[Theo Huxtable.]

again, we're going in a merry-go-round.

 

the official explanation also doesn't cite "melted steel," as the reason for collapse, but softened/weakened steel.

 

the softening/weakening point for steel happens much quicker at a much lower temperature than melted steel. and it did fit within the time frame, and the fires were proven to be at a temperature that exceeded the softening point for structural steel.

[lord_casek]

 

 

 

 

 

[lord_casek]

another thing i gotta add:

 

the leftwing conspiracy theorists that want to say the intense heat from the flaming fuel wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel structure (which it was) -- for arguments sake, we'll pretend the thousands of gallons of jet-fuel fire wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel -- now, they also fail to admit that the structure was already weakened at the time impact, when many of the steel supports from all four sides of the building were taken out -- the "impact crater" in the support structure was roughly 9 floors high on each tower, and approximately 100 feet in width. the exterior i-beams on the external skeleton (the main support structure for the towers), as well as the internal central pillar (the secondary support structure), were both severely damaged at the time of impact. by this notion alone, you obviously can conclude support structures were strained, as there were now fewer support beams (at the impact zone) to support the weight of the 35 floors above it.

 

to those that use the argument "no steel skyscraper in history ever collapsed as the result of a fire..." well, no steel skyscraper that was on fire was the result of a plane filled with fuel hitting it. none of those steel skyscrapers actually had major support pillars taken out as the result of a large commercial aircraft traveling 500mph! they were simply on fire. and the fire wasn't thousands of gallons of jet fuel intended to take commercial airliners across the world.

 

another thing -- if there were "controlled explosions" with c-4 -- why would someone plant the explosives right in the same place where the planes were supposed to hit? the planes hitting where the c-4 was "planted," would either a.) destroy the wiring, setup of the explosives, and perhaps dislodge the explosives from the buildings themselves, or b.) the intense fire/heat and explosion from the plane would trigger the explosion of the "planted" c-4 on impact... neither happened. and there is no way c-4 explosives, or any explosive would remain intact, or at least functionally intact after a jet plane hit its location.

 

 

 

????????????????

[WORDISM45]

are you gonig to attempt to explain those photos or just leave them there as if they mean anything

[Juan Fuentes]

yumone!

they speak for themselves,why u like to be told how it is?!?! look at them does that looks like molten steel or orange juice!

please dude,look again,its molten steel,what in the world caused that?

if u havent seen the video where the molten steel (yellow in color means its very hot) ill post it for you.

 

what in this world caused this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj-PDbX1kWI

 

but to not drift away,molten steel its a big factor in the "theories" which havent been "debunked" by the 911 commision monks.

[lord_casek]

i guess juan took care of that one.

 

that's the whole point of this thread. if you read stephen jones report

at the beginning of this thread you'd know why

molten steel is an odd thing to see coming out of the towers.

[lord_casek]

www.CodenameGrillfire.com

 

"Excerpt from The Resistance Manifesto Chapter on 9/11. Please Support The Resistance. Get a copy today. thank you. MarkDice.com

 

Code Name Grill Fire

 

Likely a well crafted hoax, or working as a government disinfo agent, shortly after the attacks, an interesting story started to circulate. In 1976, Tim McNiven claims he took part in a U.S. Military Study to Improve U.S. Air Travel Security while stationed on Strassberg Kasern in Idar-Oberstein, West Germany assigned to C-Battery 2/81st FA, US Army 1975-76.

 

One study he says included drills which were exactly like the events of the September 11th 2001 attacks. He says it involved hijacking aircraft by men using knives and hypothetically using the aircraft to crash into the World Trade Center. Read his testimony on www.CodenameGrillfire.com.

 

In June 2002 he passed a polygraph exam in regards to his claims, but then on May 24, 2005 he appeared on PAX TV’s ‘Lie Detector’ and failed the test, adding to the controversy.

 

McNiven has made public a detailed list of about 40 names of those individuals who he says took part in the mock terrorist plan, including Col. Robert Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero, Sgt. Middleton, Sgt. Arroyo and many others.

 

“I remember Lt. Teague changed the scenario of the supposed study from a 100 story building to the Twin Towers,” recalled McNiven, saying that Lt. Teague was acting on specific orders from unknown superiors. “There were also people from the Defense Department and the CIA who were monitoring the study, but I wasn’t able to get their names,” he added.

 

Tim McNiven’s testimony was cited in a lawsuit filed by 911 widow Ellen Mariani, against members of the Bush Administration blaming them for the attacks, including: President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Aschroft, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Peter G. Peterson (Chair-man of CFR) Condoleezza Rice, and George H.W. Bush.

 

If his claims are false, either McNiven is a disinfo agent offering up another straw-man argument to distract people from the real issues, or an opportunist concocting a horrific lie with ill motives. Whatever the case, Code Name Grill Fire, needs to be acknowledged in the 911 Truth investigations, and more information about McNiven’s claims must be found to discover the truth surrounding these allegations."

[Theo Huxtable.]

 

 

 

First picture -- again, an inaccuracy about jet fuel.

 

The official investigative reports ALL said the jet fuel burned up immediately, but ignited the building on fire. Do you not understand this? There is no disagreement here that jet fuel burns extremely quickly.

 

What we are saying is that huge explosion and the burning jet fuel ignited the fire. The fuel was the building itself. Do you not think jet fuel can do this? If you poured jet fuel in your living room, and set it on fire, do you not think that your living room will continue to burn and spread after all the jet fuel burned away? In fact, there is no debate because we all saw the resulting fire that burned for 56 minutes in the South Tower, and for roughly 1 hour and 40 minutes in the North.

 

 

Second picture -- that picture only strengthens the argument that the steel was severely weakened. You can clearly see that the steel is buckled and protruding outwards above and below that fire. That stuff you see coming out of the buildings are sparks -- that obviously shows the steel was suffering/weakening.

 

Anyone that took metal shop in high school or middle school knows you can make those type of sparks without actually melting the steel.

 

This whole argument you're making that the steel "melted" also contradicts your primary theory -- that explosive devices were used to bring down the towers. Demolition explosives do not "melt" steel, they obliterate/blow-apart steel in the key areas they're planted. Secondly, if you're contesting that the steel did indeed melt, then you're also contesting that demolition explosives were not used/needed.

[Theo Huxtable.]

????????????????

 

i'm gonna ask this in the context of yumone:

 

are you gonig to attempt to explain what those question marks mean and what you're referring to, or just leave them there as if they mean anything

[Theo Huxtable.]

yumone!

they speak for themselves,why u like to be told how it is?!?! look at them does that looks like molten steel or orange juice!

please dude,look again,its molten steel,what in the world caused that?

if u havent seen the video where the molten steel (yellow in color means its very hot) ill post it for you.

 

what in this world caused this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj-PDbX1kWI

 

but to not drift away,molten steel its a big factor in the "theories" which havent been "debunked" by the 911 commision monks.

 

I love how the 9/11 Desecrators take words out of context. People said "explosion" -- because that's what they heard. If I heard a building coming down I would hear explosions too. When the planes hit the buildings they said it "exploded" -- doesn't mean it was because of a bomb. When a building of that size comes down, of course it's going to be loud, rumbling, and exploding. Or do you think it's supposed to come down silently?

 

Kind of like the journalist that was on the freeway and saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and he said it was "like a cruise missle," and conspiracy theorists used that to claim a cruise missle hit hte Pentagon. The funny part was when the journalist quickly debunked the conspiracy theorists' claims, and stated that he did see a plane, but was merely using a metaphor/simile to describe what he saw.

 

And yellow is not "very hot." Red and yellow flames are among the coolest. Indigo and violet are the hottest. The best way to remember is to look at a rainbow ROYGBIV -- coolest to hottest, from left to right.

 

Anyone with a powersander can create orange/yellow sparks on steel.

[lord_casek]

first picture: look at the molten steel.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

 

2nd picture: steel does melt when thermate or thermite is used. it also sends sparks and undeniable white plumes where it burns. had you read dr. jones report, you would know this.

 

just in case you are interested.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

 

thermite and thermate (more powerful version...has sulfur added) are used in what are called "shape-explosives...used commonly in demolitions. i posted several reports and papers on the specifics of shape charges using thermite/thermate to cut through large steel support beams during demolitions of said buildings.

 

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&hl=en

 

 

as for your above (immediately above) post, i put your statement in bold .

that is why all the question marks. read what you said recently about that. it's on this page.

then read what you said on the 2nd page of this thread.

[Theo Huxtable.]

first picture: look at the molten steel.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

 

2nd picture: steel does melt when thermate or thermite is used. it also sends sparks and undeniable white plumes where it burns. had you read dr. jones report, you would know this.

 

just in case you are interested.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

 

thermite and thermate (more powerful version...has sulfur added) are used in what are called "shape-explosives...used commonly in demolitions. i posted several reports and papers on the specifics of shape charges using thermite/thermate to cut through large steel support beams during demolitions of said buildings.

 

All of what you said means nothing. Again, you have no proof that thermite was used in the buildings -- everything you state is speculation. Seeing sparks flying out of a building that is obviously damaged, on fire, and buckling is to be expected. That in no way suggests specifically "thermite" was used. Thermite isn't the only thing on earth that can cause sparks or melted steel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&hl=en

 

as for your above (immediately above) post, i put your statement in bold .

that is why all the question marks. read what you said recently about that. it's on this page.

then read what you said on the 2nd page of this thread.

 

you're still being vague and not explaining what you meant by the question marks. i looked on page 2, and i see one post i made there, and it's along the same lines of what i said in the text of mine that you quoted and re-posted. so again, what are you talking abou?

[lord_casek]

the official explanation doesn't even cite "jet fuel" as being the tower's demise -- why do conspiracy theorists always claim this?

 

it's widely reported that the exploding jet fuel was the ignition source and burned away quickly -- the building itself was the fuel of most of the fire.

 

 

the leftwing conspiracy theorists that want to say the intense heat from the flaming fuel wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel structure (which it was)

 

 

read stephen jones paper, theo.

 

he obtained metal samples from the wtc's. they had sulfur and iron oxide in them.

NIST still can't explain where the sulfur residue came from.

 

 

the two most prominent signs of thermite/thermate being used is the white plumes of smoke and the melting steel pouring out of the windows.

 

the big one is that molten steel was lying under the rubble months after the collapse.

the hot spots are also clear evidence (see USGS pics)

[lord_casek]

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

 

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

 

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

 

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

 

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

seems NIST does cite jet fuel as a cause.

 

seems that they also do not support the "pancake theory"

[Theo Huxtable.]

I've read the objective investigations that debunked those claims of finding "sulfur" and "iron oxide." Don't need to read it. If I have time, I may read it.

[lord_casek]

this is interesting for various reasons...

 

 

 

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

 

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

 

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

 

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

[lord_casek]

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:xh_i7uSaEvIJ:www.wbdg.org/ccb/VA/VAASC/VA05120.doc+%2Bstructural+%2Bsteel+%2Bcertified&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

 

very interesting.

 

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

 

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[WORDISM45]

yumone!

they speak for themselves,why u like to be told how it is?!?! look at them does that looks like molten steel or orange juice!

please dude,look again,its molten steel,what in the world caused that?

if u havent seen the video where the molten steel (yellow in color means its very hot) ill post it for you.

 

what in this world caused this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj-PDbX1kWI

 

but to not drift away,molten steel its a big factor in the "theories" which havent been "debunked" by the 911 commision monks.

 

youre a turkey mate that was the only photo that was actually already explained

[Juan Fuentes]

theo says sooooo much and means sooooo little

simplify it dude!

[Juan Fuentes]

youre a turkey mate that was the only photo that was actually already explained

 

gobble gobble teh pikturs all of dem gobble dey luk lyk molten stil gobble gobble

[lord_casek]

rumsfeld "93 shot down"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFuUGEZ39g8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Fsept11%2Fflight%5F93%5Fslip%5Fof%5Fthe%5Ftongue%5Frumsfeld%5Fadmits%5F93%5Fshot%5Fdown%2Ehtm

 

bbc slip?

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0iGZPKQaeQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Fsept11%2Fwtc%5F7%5Fnew%5Ffootage%5Freignites%5Fcontroversy%2Ehtm