Twin Towers Collapse on 911 a Controlled Demolition

B

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
12,467
Reaction score
528
I am constantly amazed that people still think that the Twin Towers collapsed from "magical" jet fuel.
Find me one single engineer who would agree with that.
Better yet, look at the pics I submit and decide for yourselves.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-441544.html

The most damning pic in my opinion that conclusively proves it was explosive demolition is:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart04.htm
I wish to goodness I do not need to make this post, but I am a patriot and need to do it.
Thanks for reading this, appreciate it.
 

Attachments

  • Biggart5-24.jpg
    Biggart5-24.jpg
    61.1 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
i do not see it as a "controlled demolition" if there were SO MANY victims in the twin towers that day and 2 hijacked commercial airliners deliberately crashed into the towers KNOWING there are people in the towers
 
well.. i believe its from the fuel.. because the fire is bond to the fuel which makes more heat.. so therefore the heat melts the metal makes it capolise itself.. this is what i heard from one of the engineeers a day after it happens
 
The heat generated from a full plane of fuel on fire burning at temperatures around 4500 degree would melt steel like butter... Add the weight of the structure above the impact site of the building gravity takes over. There is no conspiracy as to how the towers fell we all saw what happened.
 
The picture you posted shows an explosion. Controlled demolition usually uses implosion. I don't see any "proof".

I don't understand the relevance of the picture of the tower under construction. Are you trying to show that the tower was "uncollapsable"?

Remember, the ship builders at that time said that the Titanic was "unsinkable".

Nothing man makes is "destruction-proof".
 
Explosion demolition? O_o

No...since the airplane fuel is flammable (and no doubt the airplane was already filled up and left the airport probably just an hour before the crash), it is pretty reasonable that airplanes went up in huge fireballs as soon as they hit the towers. And fuel burned longer, too...that took nearly two months to put the fire out. And it was all done deliberately to kill as many victims still inside the towers as possible. :/
 
Riviera said:
The heat generated from a full plane of fuel on fire burning at temperatures around 4500 degree would melt steel like butter... Add the weight of the structure above the impact site of the building gravity takes over. There is no conspiracy as to how the towers fell we all saw what happened.
Click to expand...

That is what we were led to believe.
However, to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel buring in air, especially in an enclsed space within a building, where there is smoke and little available oxygen, simply does not do it. The buildings stood for 40 to 90 minutes, respectively after the impacts, before collapsing neatly.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc2.htm
 
Reba said:
The picture you posted shows an explosion. Controlled demolition usually uses implosion. I don't see any "proof".

I don't understand the relevance of the picture of the tower under construction. Are you trying to show that the tower was "uncollapsable"?

Remember, the ship builders at that time said that the Titanic was "unsinkable".

Nothing man makes is "destruction-proof".
Click to expand...

True, controlled demolitions are USUALLY implosions, but not always, particularly when massive structures are involved.
No proof? You can plainly see debris being violently expelled from the building at symmetrical points. If the building was just collapsing, it would not do that.
Are we really that much in denial here?
 
*sigh*

Stuff like this disrepects the 2800+ victims and especially the 343 firefighters who went up the stairs when everyone was going the other way.

I can see why people would say, "but all the fuel burned off quickly so why did they collapse?"

You're forgetting about all the stuff that was in the towers at the time; carpets, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc. Another thing that people forget is that computers and computer equipment are so densely packed with flammable materials that they will burn quite hotly, thank you very much.

The towers were built according to the fire codes of the 1970's which mandated fireproof treatment of the steel structural members. The stuff DOES work. However, it is also quite brittle. The impact of the jet disintegrated the fireproofing which led to the steel expanding until it lost all structural integrity. The weight of the floors above the impact zone pushed down on the weakened steel superstructure until it failed.

The picture you linked to that looked like an explosion is deceptive. It is's closer to the ground than it was up towards the top. AS the building collapses, the downward velocity begins to meet resistance as it gets to the sturdier floors close to the ground and that forces the material to expand outwards, oftentimes giving the appearance of an explosion.

Look at my avatar. Click on this link to find out more about my friend's cousin who was a FDNY firefighter who died on 9/11. Then ask yourself if you need to be spreading crazy-ass conspiracy theories for no reason other than to see your own name in print.

We all saw the planes crash into the towers. We all saw the bodies reach terminal velocity before they impacted with the ground in a spray of blood and crushed bones. We saw fire officers trying to tell their men to get out of the tower before it collapsed.

We saw 2,800 people die on live television. Need I say more?
 
NeilMcD said:
*sigh*

Stuff like this disrepects the 2800+ victims and especially the 343 firefighters who went up the stairs when everyone was going the other way.
How am I disrepecting them? I think they would respect the truth, and ultimately justice.
I can see why people would say, "but all the fuel burned off quickly so why did they collapse?"

You're forgetting about all the stuff that was in the towers at the time; carpets, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc. Another thing that people forget is that computers and computer equipment are so densely packed with flammable materials that they will burn quite hotly, thank you very much.
So you are saying that those items magically burn hotter than jet fuel could?
The towers were built according to the fire codes of the 1970's which mandated fireproof treatment of the steel structural members. The stuff DOES work. However, it is also quite brittle. The impact of the jet disintegrated the fireproofing which led to the steel expanding until it lost all structural integrity. The weight of the floors above the impact zone pushed down on the weakened steel superstructure until it failed.
That has been throughly debunked by engineers, physics professors and others, do your research.
The picture you linked to that looked like an explosion is deceptive. It is's closer to the ground than it was up towards the top. AS the building collapses, the downward velocity begins to meet resistance as it gets to the sturdier floors close to the ground and that forces the material to expand outwards, oftentimes giving the appearance of an explosion.
Oftentimes, seemingly, possibly, etc etc does not cut it, look at FACTS. And applied physics which you apparently know nothing about.

Look at my avatar. Click on this link to find out more about my friend's cousin who was a FDNY firefighter who died on 9/11. Then ask yourself if you need to be spreading crazy-ass conspiracy theories for no reason other than to see your own name in print.
I did agonize over posting this, but I feel the truth needs to be told. If you can PROVE me wrong, then do it, instead of doing the knee-jerk action of calling names.

We all saw the planes crash into the towers. We all saw the bodies reach terminal velocity before they impacted with the ground in a spray of blood and crushed bones. We saw fire officers trying to tell their men to get out of the tower before it collapsed.

We saw 2,800 people die on live television. Need I say more?
Click to expand...

You do not need to nor have to. But I am going to.
 
Last edited:
okay okay..

This is a topic I feel passionate about because as I said, I have friends who lost relatives that were trying to save people in the towers.

The "truth" you advocate is a truth that can never be disproven to your satisfaction.

Numerous mainstream and accepted structural engineers have stated in the media that the failure of the fireproofing on the steel structural members and the resulting distortion of the floor joists is the most likely reason for the collapse of the towers. Now, does that exclude the extremely remote possibility that this was a controlled demolition? No, but then the questions have to be asked: "why would the towers be destroyed in a controlled demo while rescue efforts were still underway and who would do it?"

As for the "stuff" in an office building, they don't necessarily burn hotter, but they burn a LOT LONGER than jet fuel. It's the same idea as putting your finger over a propane torch: If you move your hand very fast, you probably will just get a good second-degree burn. If you leave it there, on the other hand, you're not gonna have to worry about the "other hand" because there won't be one.

In a structural fire, the heat source itself may fairly low-level heat (eg. a malfunctiong heater). However, the way today's structures are built, they're very good at keeping heat IN enclosed spaces. In a typical house, a fire can go from simply being a trashcan fire to a very dangerous situation in about 8 minutes. This situation is called a "flashover" where the temperature in a room becomes so hot that everything in a room ignites at the same time without direct exposure to flame. I've seen flashovers in simulators where you look up and all you see is flame over your head because the smoke and gases themselves are now on fire.

This is an excellent analysis of what I'm talking about and professional engineers assessment of the collapse: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Like I said, it probably won't satisfy you but this answers about 98% of all the questions for me. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and poops like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
 
One last thing: I'd like you to tell me where in my original post I called you a name or I posted a knee-jerk reaction?

I'd also like to see links to mainstream mass media coverage of these "engineers, physics professors, and others."

DON'T tell me "do my research." Take a look at my website and you'll see that while I'm not a structural engineer, I have a very good reason for understanding why buildings fail in disasters like these.

I don't think I'm the one posting knee-jerk reactions. I think you're responding defensively to overwhelming evidence that the theory of a controlled demolition belongs in the realm of "conspiracy theory" up there along with aliens landing at Roswell and JFK being assassinated by the CIA.
 
Back
Top