Someone posted about the B-25 that hit the Empire State Bulding, and that the building didn't collaps, and I have information on this, The GTW of a B-25 is 33,150lb, Max. Speed is 230mph, a 767 GTW is 345,000lb, and a Max. Speed of 560mph, wich makes for a massive difference in kenitic energy, the fuel load alone would have approached 74 tons, 2400 gallons of high grade JP-5, and that would have been dumped into the building on the crash, and saturate the floors below the impact site, starting fires on several floors, and with the inside of the building exposed to winds a tunnel effect the temprtures would have been driven much higher than just burning fuel, the Japanese were making steel with wood fires in the 13 century fanned by bellows, the moment you add air flow to a fire you drive the tempratures up tremendously so the collaps of the towers were not exclusively due to the impact of the aircraft but many factors that all contributed. And these stories about molten steel days after the crash there would have had to been some heat source, and any heat source that would have kept steel molten would have generated massive fires that would have consumed the wreckage, thermite burns up very quickly and once burnt delivers no additional heat and the object it was used on cool fairly quickly, no residuale energy.
Found some more information on the steel problem: Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 ... Boeing 737s, military aircraft such as the KC-767 fuel tanker, cruise missiles, ... The 'Power Down' Condition at the WTC on the Weekend Preceding 9/11. ... http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But why was the steel red hot weeks after the collapse? Another point I'd like to bring up Buffalo, why were people previously warned not to be around in the towers that day? Sounds like some one knew what was going to be happening... There was so much fore-warning for this that it is kind of "crazy"....
What explanation can someone come up with for the explosions seen in the video, the ones that look like what you see in a professonally imploded building?
That was an awesome article! What I still don't get is how the collapse of each tower could have occurred in ten seconds. I guess I'll return to this thread if I can somehow explain or model that.
Why wouldn't it? Objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass (discounting air resistance). DJ Erock, dust and debris, steel beams bending and collapsing, air and smoke forced outwards.
there are only 2 explainations for what i saw 1. bombs or explosives of some kind or 2. compressed air expelled during collapse lets look at the bomb issue. these bombs were exploding for a reason they had to be doing something to bring the building down. the only thing i can think of would be to cut the interior columns if that is indeed the case then why are the puffs only coming out of one window at a time?
Because it was a progressive collapse. The structures fell from the top down. Even if the steel beams offered no resistance but only offered enough support to hold up the floors, momentum would be conserved in the collision between the falling and standing parts of the tower and the collapse would be slowed.
I think the weakened steel bit pretty much says it all. Look, I like conspiracy theories too - I like to think about them, and roll them around in my head, and it fires areas I don't use at the job - but ultimately they're probably all crap. Out. Geoff
OK, I took a look at the video, and there is something lacking at WTC that was present in the previous videos of controlled demolitions. There were no bright flashes of light, presumably detonators. The only thing I see were puffs of smoke, which could be from windows breaking (glass is brittle you known) and the smoke from fires inside coming out. Where are the flashes?
The resistance could have occurred but be too subtle for human eyes to detect. Note that as each floor failed, it added it's accelerating mass to the force coming down, making any resistance progressively less effective.
Sounds like jet fuel would be the perfect ignitor to also enhance its effects. Has almost no flame so you won't see any explosions all the while it can cut away at main support beams. Video clip of WTC showing what looks to be a thermite reaction: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk - N
That's right. The resistance had to be there - I watched a video and saw that the collapse was indeed from the top down - I'm just now trying to satisfy my curiosity about how much resistance the structure could have offered. According to the article Buffalo Roam provided, the collapses finished about two seconds after the freefall time.
I have spent the afternoon looking at videos of controaled building collapes, and the WTC collape, and the clean up, the pictures puporting to show demolition charges going off, the charges are in the wrong place to be effective, their are on the outer walls, and there is no flash with the puffs, and there are no detonation flashes in the inner core that would be visable if there were explosive detonations, every controaled demolition of a building that I watched on video the flashes are visable, and the charges are in the inner core of the building, this is what piles them up so neatley, as for the red hot steel weeks after the collapes, it allway seems to be in areas that cutting toarches are being used, as I have pointed out before, if the steel was red hot with all the combustable material around there would have been a massive fire in the debris and no sucessful rescues of trapped people would have been possable, I don't care how hot you heat steel the moment the heat source is taken away the steel starts to cool so it not possable for steel to hold a red hot temprature for more than a few minutes. Go watch a blacksmith and ask him about heating and forming steel it will be very informative.
Hey Heretic, Unlike ,seemingly, most of these replies I watched your link(number 32 in goggles top 100 btw). I think the documentary can stand on its own merits. Powerful arguments and footage. I see you've drank a bit of the kool-aid, defender of freedom and domocracy. Look out kid, they keep it all hid. You'd better stop questioning what you're told, if you want to live in an orderly world. If you take this red pill, you just may see how far down the rabbit hole goes. ....into the basement, smoking weed.
I have watched the video and there is one problem about it that stand out and makes the comparison apple and oranges, lets start with the Empire State crash, there were different construction technic's between the Empire State bulding and the WTC, the GTW of a B-25 is 15 1/2 tons, cruse speed 200mph, max. speed 270 mph, the fuel load alone on a 767 is 74 tons, and GTW is 150 tons 300,000lb, 136000kg, and the cruse speed is 540mph, 870k/h so we have two very different sets of data, and there is no compairsion, as for all the other building that caught fire and didn't collaps the missing factor in the compairisons is the kinetic energy damage that the impact of 150 ton at over 540mph causes to the WTC, or is my logic to simple for you.
A explanition for the explosions heard from the WTC on 9/11, over pressure as the floors collapse blowing out the windows, just like stomping on a paper cup, a very loud bang and no explosive involuved, again there is no explosive light flash that you get with detonation of explosives.
