FD,
Just curious. Why would a controlled demolition leave metal molten for five weeks? And why would what actually happened not do this?
Thermite & explosives as to your second question see the first video I posted or this one:
Was the 9/11 Collaspe of the WTC Caused by Controlled Demolition?
by frankiespeakin 77 Replies latest jw friends
-
frankiespeakin
-
oldflame
I recently watched a video called Loose Change. A friend told me about it and my reply to him was I really don't give much thought to conspiracy theorist but that I would watch the video and see. After watching this video I am deeply left with the belief that our own country attacked its own country. I believe that the Bush administration set this up because they knew it was the only way into Iraq. Yes the world trade center buildings were indeed without a doubt set to implode. It was impossible that the airplanes could melt the Steele in those building as jet fuel only burns at 2000 degrees and it is a flash burn unlike car fuel.
The Steele in those building were tested and rated for 3000 degrees. There is so much more evidence to the fact that there are no terrorist as those who were accused are actually alive and working in different places around the world. If you want to see this video yourself do a Google search on Loose Change Documentary. There you can see the video yourselves. These guys did their homework very well and I will say yes they left me believing that Osama did not do this and now I know why Bin Laden has been ignored by the armed forces.
-
frankiespeakin
Old,
I seen that video too, it made good points. In fact their are several well done videos. The smoke indicates that it was a oxygen starved fire and not hot enough, and as said most of the kerosine was burnt the first few moment of impact, and not hot enough or long enough to weaken the steel frame work.
-
funkyderek
Some sites providing counter-claims to the absurd conspiracy theories:
-
Leolaia
No. It's quite simple, really. Once the top few floors fell, they were heavy enough to cause the lower undamaged structure to collapse. The steel in one floor was not meant to hold up 20 floors. Once this floor collapsed, the floor below had to bear the same weight plus one extra floor so it collapsed even more easily, and so on.
Oh, but it's not just that either....you've also got the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy....it no longer was a matter of merely holding up weight but also resisting a kinetic force.
-
minimus
Who killed JFK?
-
Leolaia
The smoke indicates that it was a oxygen starved fire and not hot enough, and as said most of the kerosine was burnt the first few moment of impact, and not hot enough or long enough to weaken the steel frame work.
Smoke color does not by itself indicate that a fire is "oxygen-starved" (see http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html for instance). The WTC towers had big gaping holes from the plane's impact; windows were also broken all over the place, in many cases with flames leaping outside windows, so how could the fire have been oxygen starved?
Neither is it true that the fire did not burn "long enough". Please look at NIST's chronological analysis of the fire locations based on thousands of photos and videos...the fires spread and intensified over time. The fire was not fueled by the kerosene...that was just the kindling. It was fueled by everything that was in the building...furniture, papers, computers, carpets, etc. Just look at the photos and you'll learn that your claim is not correct.
Neither is it true that it wasn't long enough to weaken the steel framework. Again, look at the photos. You can see the outer steel columns of the East Face of WTC2 and the South Face of WTC1 weakening over time. You can see floors sagging through the broken windows, and you can see the perimeter columns buckling gradually inward under the strain. The inward bowing of the columns was visible for at least 38 minutes, getting worse and worse over time, in the case of WTC2. Photographs taken of the South Face of WTC1 less than ten minutes before its collapse also shows the massive deformation of the outer columns. These zones of deformation were exactly where the collapses started. But because of the selective presentation, this obvious evidence of structural failure is omitted in these videos.
-
Leolaia
I believe that the Bush administration set this up because they knew it was the only way into Iraq.
Which is why they went on to attack .... Afghanistan? And when the time came to attack Iraq, if the whole point of 9/11 was to give the justification to attack Iraq, why did they have to rely on the whole WMD case that turned out to be a fiasco? Why didn't they claim on October 2001, "Iraq attacked us on 9/11"? Surely a massive conspiracy to orchestrate the 9/11 fraud would have made sure they got full political use of the event for justifying their escapade into Iraq. And if they were so successful in fooling everyone in 9/11, why the hell couldn't they have gotten their act together to plant false evidence of WMDs in Iraq?
Yes the world trade center buildings were indeed without a doubt set to implode.
If there is no doubt about this, please explain how this could have been done in secret. Have you ever seen a controlled demolition team prepare a high-rise for implosion? I have. I watched the noisy, labor-intensive process for several weeks. Please explain to me how THREE skyscrapers, far taller than any other building brought down by controlled demolition, were prepared for controlled demolition entirely in SECRET without tipping anyone off. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the procedures that are used in controlled demolition to prep the site. Then maybe you might understand why I find the whole idea absurd.
It was impossible that the airplanes could melt the Steele in those building as jet fuel only burns at 2000 degrees and it is a flash burn unlike car fuel.
No one is claiming that the fires were fueled only by the jet fuel or that the steel "melted".
-
RAF
Simple
It's interesting really ... No it's no so simple the physic works both way the gravity with the weigtht but still the resistance (square surface a plus with steel all around outside and inside from the midle also placed in square) all this melting/collapsing and blowing from the top to the bottom ... but why should I arguing ??? ... when you still dont want to take into consideration that it have been blown in peaces stages by stages (if you don't see it blowing I do ) ...
So no you can't convince me with that ... but if you convinced yourself good
-
Uzzah
One of my former clients was an independent lab which was used to test the metal from the Towers after 9-11.
The original fire rating was given based on the fire retardant material that coated the steel beams. Testing showed that this material was blown off/shaken off, likely as a result of the massive impact from the plane crash. This made the steel weaker. IT did not have to melt in order to initiate a collapse. Even weakening sufficent amount of supports would have been enough to trigger the collapse.
I know you just have my say so as I just have the words of the people who did the testing. But I physically saw/touched some of the effected beams and saw where the fire retardant materials was missing, I saw the buckling of metal. Of all the material received by this lab, none of it had evidence of explosives nor any residue of C4 or other common explosives.
Now could the government have done more to prevent this tragedy, most definitely. But I am convinced that the planes' impact, the resulting fire and loss of the fire retardant material, caused the subsequent weakening of the supports thus causing the collapse of both towers.
Uzzah