The evidence is slowly accumulating that the Twin Towers were demolished........

[2ndSight]

I saw that Nova episode.

It was really interesting.

It was also a work of fiction.

 

[Byron In Exile]

It was also a work of fiction.

Eagar: ... The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.

As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.

NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.

"Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT."

His analysis sounds plausible to me, and he has the credentials to make it.

What your credentials are, I don't know, although they seem to be oriented more toward culinary arts. You probably make a killer roast lamb. But are there any actual engineers that are saying that for the towers to collapse from being injected with 10,000 gallons of burning aviation fuel was impossible?

 

[Don K Dyck]

Okay another air head checking in.

Here's a link from a Nova Episode on PBS of one engineers take on what caused the twin towers to collapse. It makes more sense than your theory does Don.

An Engineers Prespective

Interesting post SSK . . . adds some more to the debate, well done . . .

 

[Cutie_Kitty]

"Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT."

His analysis sounds plausible to me, and he has the credentials to make it.

What your credentials are, I don't know, although they seem to be oriented more toward culinary arts. You probably make a killer roast lamb. But are there any actual engineers that are saying that for the towers to collapse from being injected with 10,000 gallons of burning aviation fuel was impossible?

10,000 gallons of aviation fuel in a building that size would make very liittle difference at all. Besides, most of the fuel was already burnt out and gone, and only small easily controlled (almost extinguished on their own) fires remained (that's according to the firemen's radio transcripts).

Are you trying to claim that the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel in each building was heated to 1100-1200 degrees by only the fuel load of a single plane, fuel which by the way had been burnt-out and exhausted only ten minutes or so later. You do realize that your claim is somewhat akin to saying "Magic Did It" because you're making magical claims about mere jet fuel.

You're nuts.

Besides, it really doesn't matter the qualifications of this Thomas Eagar, because as she (2ndSight) pointed out, he made factual mistakes and the theory lacks evidence to support it. The cgi sequences that were based on those errors would obviously be incorrect.

((Remember this bit that she quoted;
NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

But he got the temperatures WRONG! As 2ndSight pointed out.))

If he hasn't got the basic science right, he hasn't got any credibility.

He also makes claims for temperatures that aren't backed by the evidence elesewhere, and are impossible to achieve in those circumstances anyway!

There have been many other engineers who have questioned the official story, btw.

 

[kbate]

In support of DkD's theory, I did see a large number of government employees carrying large pieces of equipment into the WTC immediately after the plane crashes.

 

[Beco]

Well, they do control International banking you know.

I thought they controlled the jewelry business??

 

[Beco]

10,000 gallons of aviation fuel in a building that size would make very liittle difference at all. Besides, most of the fuel was already burnt out and gone, and only small easily controlled (almost extinguished on their own) fires remained (that's according to the firemen's radio transcripts).

Are you trying to claim that the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel in each building was heated to 1100-1200 degrees by only the fuel load of a single plane, fuel which by the way had been burnt-out and exhausted only ten minutes or so later. You do realize that your claim is somewhat akin to saying "Magic Did It" because you're making magical claims about mere jet fuel.

You're nuts.

Besides, it really doesn't matter the qualifications of this Thomas Eagar, because as she (2ndSight) pointed out, he made factual mistakes and the theory lacks evidence to support it. The cgi sequences that were based on those errors would obviously be incorrect.

((Remember this bit that she quoted;
NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

But he got the temperatures WRONG! As 2ndSight pointed out.))

If he hasn't got the basic science right, he hasn't got any credibility.

He also makes claims for temperatures that aren't backed by the evidence elesewhere, and are impossible to achieve in those circumstances anyway!

There have been many other engineers who have questioned the official story, btw.

What about the roast lamb???

 

[Byron In Exile]

10,000 gallons of aviation fuel in a building that size would make very liittle difference at all.

Oh, sure.

I would go on with my business.

 

[Gringao]

In support of DkD's theory, I did see a large number of government employees carrying large pieces of equipment into the WTC immediately after the plane crashes.

Those must have been the explosive charges they were bounding up the steps with, Kbate, against the tide of people coming down. Or perhaps there was a CIA-only stairwell built into the WTC for use in cases like this and The Agency needs to take the place down in a hurry so we can all get about the business of hating the Muslims and enriching Halliburton.

 

[busybody..]

actually the towers never fell

its all Hollywood special effects

Sorta like the "moon landing"

after all, the Towers were owned by a JEW, Silverman, and we all know a JEW wouldnt lose his property

So da JEW, Silverman put a sorta Stealth Cover on da Towers

and is gonna collect da insurance and then

Viola!

Drop da shrouds.....and the Towers are there

He gets the Towers and da money

Typical JEW

At least that is my story!

 

[Elenia26]

Yeah, my cousin's sister's brother lives in the City, and he says the Towers are still standing and it's all just a publicity stunt.

Fucking dumbass.

Why the fuck is this smiley not genuinely angry? I hate fucking shit like this.

 

[Gringao]

Yeah, my cousin's sister's brother lives in the City, and he says the Towers are still standing and it's all just a publicity stunt.

Hey, why not? It's no loopier than Donkey's surreal gibberish.

 

[Ham Murabi]

The tower that was hit second collapsed first, and the plane struck it lower.
I'm no engineer, but that's makes perfectly good sense to me. In addition to the immediate structural damage and the ensuing damage caused by the fire, the tower hit second also had more weight to support above the damage.
All this is secondary, however, to the fact that the Jews, aside from controlling the banks, also control the media. And that's why Donkkkeydickkkhead's theory will never see the light of day in the mainstream media.
That and the fact that he's a total fucktard.

 

[miles]

Woody and Donkey will love this. Uncle Louie Fuckachakakhan suggests the levees were broken intentionally:

"He also revealed to the press a report that he received, from a “very reliable source” he said, that there was a 25-foot hole under one of the levees that broke, which suggested it may have been busted on purpose to destroy the part of the city where Black people lived."

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2197.shtml

 

[sticky_keyboard]

The tower that was hit second collapsed first, and the plane struck it lower.
I'm no engineer, but that's makes perfectly good sense to me. In addition to the immediate structural damage and the ensuing damage caused by the fire, the tower hit second also had more weight to support above the damage.
All this is secondary, however, to the fact that the Jews, aside from controlling the banks, also control the media. And that's why Donkkkeydickkkhead's theory will never see the light of day in the mainstream media.
That and the fact that he's a total fucktard.

And Hollywood, too, you remember. That's why there won't be a made-for-tv movie about it, either.

 

[sticky_keyboard]

Woody and Donkey will love this. Uncle Louie Fuckachakakhan suggests the levees were broken intentionally:

"He also revealed to the press a report that he received, from a “very reliable source” he said, that there was a 25-foot hole under one of the levees that broke, which suggested it may have been busted on purpose to destroy the part of the city where Black people lived."

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2197.shtml

It was another one of those Haliburton contracts, too.

 

[Ishmael]

Those must have been the explosive charges they were bounding up the steps with, Kbate, against the tide of people coming down. Or perhaps there was a CIA-only stairwell built into the WTC for use in cases like this and The Agency needs to take the place down in a hurry so we can all get about the business of hating the Muslims and enriching Halliburton.

Oh BULLOCKS, the explosives were teleported in. Area 51, Roswell, and this:

Teleportation

Yep, it was simple.

Ishmael

 

[DevilishTexan]

This thread needs the following references:

1. The Trilateral Commission

2. The Illuminati

3. Black Helicopters

4. Some dumb ass shit somebody read in the book The Da Vinci Code. Or a book about the book The Da Vinci Code. Or a show about a book that was written about the book The Da Vinci Code.

Or the book, Davinci on 9/11. By L. Divinci.


or was it L. Ron Divinci. Somebody whose last name started with D.

 

[Problem Child]

1) We need pictures of the actual trusses, not the computer generated images of possible trusses, also when you get right down to it, the CGI is just a work of fiction. If there weren't as many trusses as proposed in those pretty (but fictional) graphics, there is a real problem with their theory. I noticed that there was no actual building plan on that site, just pretty pics. That makes it even less credible. Were they just guessing? It seems like it.

Do you think he's lying about the actual construction of the WTC? Don't you think that would be a fairly easy lie to disprove? Why, I'll bet somewhere out there may even be some blueprints *gasp* for the WTC.

2) The temperatures assumed in the theory don't match those recorded in the reality, which were no hotter than 500*F. About what it takes to cook a roast lamb over an hour.

You say the temp never got above 500° F. What are you basing this on? The combustion temperature of kerosene? What about all the carpeting, ceiling tiles, furniture, paper, etc. in the building? What about the amount of air mixed with that fuel? What about the amount of smoke in the building, which tends to trap heat by reducing radiation loss of heat? To say that the fires never got over 500° F based on the combustion temperature of kerosene seems a tad simplistic.

<snip> Gibberish about cooking a roast </snip>

4) The initial jet fuel was consumed after no more than 10 minutes, the 60,000 thousand or more tons of steel would have taken weeks to superheat to weaken steel…

Well, assuming this is true, so what? The lighter fluid I put in my Weber to B-B-Q on weekends gets burned up in ten minutes too, but I can put a piece of steel in it an get it red hot in thirty minutes if I use enough charcoal.

Secondly, we are not talking about “superheating” 60,000 tons of steel. We are talking about heating a good number of the structural members on a few floors, just enough to distort them, yet not even enough for them to lose “50%” of their strength. This allowed them to buckle just enough under the enormous weight of the floor above which caused the angle clips which held each floor up to fail, allowing the floors to pancake down on each other.

4) The initial jet fuel was consumed after no more than 10 minutes, and there are numerous indicators of relative coolness in the Twin Towers on 9-11-1 such as:
- jumpers (not scalded, no more than 200 Fahrenheit)
- survivors who placed emergency calls from the top floors (up till collapse, detailed)
- thermogram of WTC2 facade at 9:18 a.m. (100 Celsius - water boiling point only)
- firemen nearly at collapse time above 70th floor of WTC2: no major fires
- over 400 computer hard drives recovered (Convar, a German company - not over 250 Celsius)
- computers recorded financial transactions seconds before each collapse
- dark smoldering smoke color
- no air flicker
- hardly any fires visible from outside until collapse time (very graphic)
- hundreds of people who managed to flee from the Twin Towers - no major fires
- not one shroud of "weakened steel" is ever presented despite clear crystal structure
- 1.5 million tons of tell-tale debris from the WTC bombing were stolen & destroyed (before any of the official investigators could actually examine the steel)

I won’t waste everyone’s time by going through these proofs one by one; most of them are too ridiculous to address, i.e. “{hundreds of people who managed to flee from the Twin Towers - no major fires”

Huh? I saw some fairly major fires. Does the fact that the people on the floors below the fires got out mean they weren’t major? That’s plain stupid, just like all the rest of those “examples”.

5) On not a single occassion, before 9-11-2001, and since 9-11-2001, have steel hi-rise buildings ever collapsed due to fire. Yet, we are expected to blithely accept that the rules of physics took a holiday that day and that there is nothing even remotely suspicious that a whole bunch of buildings collapsed on the same day when it has never happened before - or since.

If true (and I’m not conceding that it is) this could be due to several factors:

Never before has there been a building the size of the WTC that had sustained not only structural damage from the impact of a plane while simultaneously suffering the effects of fires on multiple floors. When the fires started on several floors at once, the fire system may have been overwhelmed, or else the plane may have taken out the fire sytem, causing the fires to raged unchecked. Had this been a simple fire beginning in a localized area, the fire system could probably have handled it. In Fact, I believe they’ve had localized fires in the WTC many times in the past without the building burning or falling down.

In addition, the combination of the angle brackets and the sheer weight of the floors above the fires had a deadly effect. I’m not sure any other building ever built had this particular combination in its construction.

6)That site of yours made an error that reveals that isn't scientifically researched or valid in any way at all;
They state; NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F...

Unfortunately this statement is untrue. Consulting the graph (labeled "High Temperature Steel Properties") given by the Corus Construction Centre it is easy to find that steel loses about 50% of its strength, not at 1200°F, but rather at about 1470°F (c. 800°C) [/I]

I believe you are reading your own graph incorrectly. If this is it (and I believe it is) then the steel they (Corus) is referring to in figure 28 loses 50% of it’s strength at around 600°C or 1112°F, which is HEY! around 1200°F and actually much lower than the 1470°F you are crowing about. In fact, according to your own source, at 1470°F the strength of the steel would be down around 15% as compared to unheated steel.

BTW, that Corus link came from here which is where I think you’re probably getting the rest of this bullshit.

 

[sweet soft kiss]

Interesting post SSK . . . adds some more to the debate, well done . . .

I've said all I want.... I'll let everyone else make up their own minds.

 

[Fagin]

Those must have been the explosive charges they were bounding up the steps with, Kbate, against the tide of people coming down. Or perhaps there was a CIA-only stairwell built into the WTC for use in cases like this and The Agency needs to take the place down in a hurry so we can all get about the business of hating the Muslims and enriching Halliburton.

Those explosive charges were shaped in long white tubes, flattened and rolled up.

 

[Mischka]

Could someone state the conspiracy theory in a nutshell? Are they saying that the planes alone did not cause the collapse the WTC, or that a completely independent reason (explosives on multiple floors?) caused the collapse? Why would the terrorists go through the risk and hassle of flying planes into the buildings if the buildings could collapse without them?

 

[crysede]

Could someone state the conspiracy theory in a nutshell? Are they saying that the planes alone did not cause the collapse the WTC, or that a completely independent reason (explosives on multiple floors?) caused the collapse? Why would the terrorists go through the risk and hassle of flying planes into the buildings if the buildings could collapse without them?

Isn’t it obvious?

The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings to cover up the fact that they bombed them.

 

[ma_guy]

Could someone state the conspiracy theory in a nutshell? Are they saying that the planes alone did not cause the collapse the WTC, or that a completely independent reason (explosives on multiple floors?) caused the collapse? Why would the terrorists go through the risk and hassle of flying planes into the buildings if the buildings could collapse without them?

No no no.. You are missing the "big picture" here.

The planes never hit the WTC. That was all a massive cover story. The planes were diverted* mid-air and bombs planted by the U.S. Goobermint did all the damage to the WTC.

*The planes themselves were flown to New Orleans and everyone on-board was assigned a new identity. A few of them were becoming dissatisfied with their new lives so the goobermint had to come in here a few weeks ago and fake a hurricane so they could "drown" all of the 9/11 passengers without attracting undue suspicion.

Strap those tinfoil hats on tight kids! It's gonna be a bumpy ride!

 

[DevilishTexan]

I know somebody that knows somebody who works with a guy thats married to a woman whose sister knew someone that worked in the Trade Center and they said it was the Acme Demolition Company. Same crew that somebody that knows somebody that met somebody at a bbq in Texas said did the job in New Orleans.



But thats hearsay.