9/11 theories

[kenbo]

A new study seems to discourage the planted bomb theories.

http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html

Chain of events When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).

"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.

Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.

This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."

I realize that lots of folks want to believe the worst. And I for one dont like the turn our Government has taken over the last 40 years. But maybe, just maybe this explanation is the truth? Just sayin!

[The Chancellor]

A new study seems to discourage the planted bomb theories.

http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html

Chain of events When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).

"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.

Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.

This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."

I realize that lots of folks want to believe the worst. And I for one dont like the turn our Government has taken over the last 40 years. But maybe, just maybe this explanation is the truth? Just sayin!

The only bombs in those buildings that day were American Flight 11 and United flight 175.

[tyron]

You have to admire the way they keep coming up with more and more complicated and unlikely scenarios of what could have happened when the most obvious explanation is staring them in the face. The 9/11 commission had to confess that they did not find any evidence of explosives because they had NOT looked for such evidence.

[cottn68]

I don't speak for "lot's of folks", so personally I DON'T WANT to believe the worst. But when the obvious smacks you up side the head, again, and again, and again....how long until YOU duck?

[donnydoright]

On another forum we created the Term 'Cidu's Razor" I think this is whats going on with the 9/11 stuff

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cidu's%20Razor

[kenbo]

Yeah, and this new theory is being shot down by engineers who point out that when water is sprayed on molten aluminum it instantly turns to steam. . . vaporizes.

So true but there in lies an issue :

It would appear that the release of steam can cause even greater heat by heating burning oil to a higher temperature..

I was also thinking about what happens when you throw water on a oil fire.

It would seem that the water turning to steam isnt the only thing that happens. It seems to also allow some of the super heated water to break down and release some oxygen and hydrogen (both very flammable gases in their own right). It also allows the heated oil to spray into the atmosphere.

Can you imagine what would happen if some of these gases were in a confined area when a flame ignited them? Exactly, an explosion.

All of the above may not be engineer approved but it is simple physical science.

[lightfighter]

I don't speak for "lot's of folks", so personally I DON'T WANT to believe the worst. But when the obvious smacks you up side the head, again, and again, and again....how long until YOU duck?

Hahaha , so true

[divemaster5734]

So true but there in lies an issue :

It would appear that the release of steam can cause even greater heat by heating burning oil to a higher temperature..

I was also thinking about what happens when you throw water on a oil fire.

It would seem that the water turning to steam isnt the only thing that happens. It seems to also allow some of the super heated water to break down and release some oxygen and hydrogen (both very flammable gases in their own right). It also allows the heated oil to spray into the atmosphere.

Can you imagine what would happen if some of these gases were in a confined area when a flame ignited them? Exactly, an explosion.

All of the above may not be engineer approved but it is simple physical science.

Even though that is a possibility, you need to realize any combustion would only happen in the correct mixture.

natural gas, even though highly volatile, will only ignite in an atmosphere of 7 to 14%. Any oxygen mixture above or below and it wont do anything.

Even IF that mixture miraculously happened, the towers burned for almost what, 2 hours?

The initial heat from that explosion were long gone.

There have been 8 major high rise fires since then, and NOT ONE has come down like the towers or building 7.

I obviously don't know what happened, but just like bo's birth cert, I would like to see a REAL investigation.

[Weapon X]

Even though that is a possibility, you need to realize any combustion would only happen in the correct mixture.

natural gas, even though highly volatile, will only ignite in an atmosphere of 7 to 14%. Any oxygen mixture above or below and it wont do anything.

Even IF that mixture miraculously happened, the towers burned for almost what, 2 hours?

The initial heat from that explosion were long gone.

There have been 8 major high rise fires since then, and NOT ONE has come down like the towers or building 7.

I obviously don't know what happened, but just like bo's birth cert, I would like to see a REAL investigation.

Have you taken in account the way WTC 1 and WTC 2 buildings were built??? These 2 buildings has very unorthodox it is a confirmed fact that most buildfings are 60% concrete 40 percent metal and yet WTC 1 and 2 were 40% concrete and 60% metal.

Have you taken in consideration that WTC 7 had a gaping hole on the north side from when the WTC 1 (if I am not mistaken) fell and that WTC had fires that burned for more than 7 hours??? Tese are questions that you need to ask.

[HopefulTxn]

It needs to be taken into consideration that the jet fuel was burnt up in a huge surge of fire which wrapped up the outside of the building reaching from out from the inside and was entirely used up in but a few seconds. All that jet fuel, a form of oil (not at all like gasoline), was flash ignited (all of it) and immediately dissipated and the majority of the heat rose into the sky and effected the building hardly at all, that is, in relation to how much flame there was.

Have you seen jet fuel burn? I have. It is not something that happens in "an instant" as you state. Is it volatile? Yes - but does but burn that fast? Oh no. It will burn for quite some time, especially if there is large amounts of it, as would have been the case of the planes that crashed into the WTC.

Immediately dissipated by behind. Ask any racer that used high octane fuel if the fuel that they use 'immediately dissipates' and only 'flash burns'. That is all airplane fuel is is VERY high octane gasoline. I used to run the low grade airplane fuel in my car for street races. It is not something that just vanishes in an instant. Sorry - seen it, know how it burns - not buying that story.

[HopefulTxn]

I wasn't dishing out theory. I was talking about what happened at the time I saw it occur. Here is a short clip of the fire. . . which is mostly over in a few seconds, and outside the building.

My bad. I thought you were trying to state that jet fuel would burn itself out in a matter of a few moments. I was just pointing out that jet fuel is similar to kerosene, where once ignited it will continue to burn until it is gone. And considering the amount of fuel that would have been in the planes that were used, there would have been plenty of fuel to burn for quite a while.

Whether the ensuing fire was captured on video that was taken outside the building or not I am not sure. I would watch the video in the link you provided if I did not have personal reasons for not doing so.

[bigrickyga]

Buch **** um we smeled it and O cleaned it up, and said it was chochlet! We would eat a poo diper if they said it was made by jelo.

[HopefulTxn]

The video I provide is short. It show the plane crashing into the building and an opening in the wall to the right suddenly spews out much flame. This also occurs where the plane went into the building. And the fire immediately flairs up the two sides of the building. There is a lot of it. BUT, then it is soon gone, like in less than three seconds or so, then there is only a lot of smoke. Oh, sure, there is still fire inside the building, but the jet fuel is mainly gone. It burned up outside the building. So the idea that the burning jet fuel softened the steel doesn't jibe with what can be seen on that short video.

I understand what you are stating. I am simply pointing out that both planes were cross country flights from Boston to Los Angeles - so it would have had plenty of fuel on it. It's possible that what was captured in the video was simply the effects of a ruptured fuel line and fuel in the engine that caught the cameras attention, and not the the full fuel fire from all the fuel on board. Jet fuel simply does not burn that fast.

Both UA 175 and AA 11 were both intercontinental flights from Logan (Boston, Mass.) to LAX (Los Angeles, CA) - so the time they spent in the air to reach NY would have been very minimal.

I am not trying to give support to any of the theories, conspiracy or otherwise, but that amount of fuel does not ignite - burn - and diminish that fast.

Imagine a kerosene lamp that is lit and drops on the ground. Does it put itself out in an instant? No. Kerosene burns at a high temperature, but does not extinguish itself in a short amount of time.

Like you stated in your previous post, jet fuel is not 'gasoline'. It is more like kerosene. Kerosene and once it is ignited it burns until it is gone. I've seen these fires, they are not easy to put out unless you have the proper equipment, and they do not burn themselves out that fast. IMO, that is why things talk about the superstructure of the building being super heated to the levels they were because the fuel was burning inside the building. Which would make sense, considering that the fuel is stored primarily in the wings, which would have entered the building as well as the fuselage of the plane.

The main components of the buildings that would have torn the plane apart are not the windows and such, but the interior core of the structure. All that was captured on the videos was the planes basically breaking glass and passing into the building. Once inside the building, the columns and architecture (superstructure) would have probably torn the the wings (holding the fuel) from the fuselage. But the most dramatic effects of that happening would probably not be caught on cameras that were outside of the building. Especially at the speed they were travelling.

That is what I am getting at. People are making assumptions based on what they saw on a camera that was based outside the of the building, but the plane and the velocity would have put everything (fuselage and all) inside the building that was combustible.

[tyron]

I understand what you are stating. I am simply pointing out that both planes were cross country flights from Boston to Los Angeles - so it would have had plenty of fuel on it. It's possible that what was captured in the video was simply the effects of a ruptured fuel line and fuel in the engine that caught the cameras attention, and not the the full fuel fire from all the fuel on board. Jet fuel simply does not burn that fast.

Both UA 175 and AA 11 were both intercontinental flights from Logan (Boston, Mass.) to LAX (Los Angeles, CA) - so the time they spent in the air to reach NY would have been very minimal.

I am not trying to give support to any of the theories, conspiracy or otherwise, but that amount of fuel does not ignite - burn - and diminish that fast.

Imagine a kerosene lamp that is lit and drops on the ground. Does it put itself out in an instant? No. Kerosene burns at a high temperature, but does not extinguish itself in a short amount of time.

Like you stated in your previous post, jet fuel is not 'gasoline'. It is more like kerosene. Kerosene and once it is ignited it burns until it is gone. I've seen these fires, they are not easy to put out unless you have the proper equipment, and they do not burn themselves out that fast. IMO, that is why things talk about the superstructure of the building being super heated to the levels they were because the fuel was burning inside the building. Which would make sense, considering that the fuel is stored primarily in the wings, which would have entered the building as well as the fuselage of the plane.

The main components of the buildings that would have torn the plane apart are not the windows and such, but the interior core of the structure. All that was captured on the videos was the planes basically breaking glass and passing into the building. Once inside the building, the columns and architecture (superstructure) would have probably torn the the wings (holding the fuel) from the fuselage. But the most dramatic effects of that happening would probably not be caught on cameras that were outside of the building. Especially at the speed they were travelling.

That is what I am getting at. People are making assumptions based on what they saw on a camera that was based outside the of the building, but the plane and the velocity would have put everything (fuselage and all) inside the building that was combustible.

Something for you to bear in mind, Hopeful.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

[HopefulTxn]

Something for you to bear in mind, Hopeful.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

One thing you should also realize is that both planes were 767's, not 707's.

The difference might seem slight, but it is about 60,000 pounds of weight difference, 10 feet of wingspan, 6 feet of length and almost 1,000 gallons more fuel. The 707 did seem to have a higher top speed.

They rated the towers for the planes that were in service at the time. That time had passed and newer, more modern planes were in service. They were larger, heavier and carried more fuel.

I do wonder if that was taken into account by the engineers.

[kenbo]

Even though that is a possibility, you need to realize any combustion would only happen in the correct mixture.

natural gas, even though highly volatile, will only ignite in an atmosphere of 7 to 14%. Any oxygen mixture above or below and it wont do anything.

Even IF that mixture miraculously happened, the towers burned for almost what, 2 hours?

The initial heat from that explosion were long gone.

There have been 8 major high rise fires since then, and NOT ONE has come down like the towers or building 7.

I obviously don't know what happened, but just like bo's birth cert, I would like to see a REAL investigation.

I am sure that you are probably correct about the percentage required for ignition of oxygen under certain conditions. However we are talking about heated gases and that makes a world of difference. I am speaking from experience and nothing more. I have no formal education is either engineering or science.

As a matter of fact, I have even seen the damage just a cup of heated deisel fuel can cause as an explosion. I was knocked to my backside when but a youth due to a small amount of heated diesel exploding, but thats a different story.

Another thing that most people do not realize is that "jet fuel" is much different than airplane fuel. While airplane may be high octaine, jet fuel is not much different that diesel fuel or kerosene. The reason that jet fuel works, is that the fuel is misted into heated turbines in the presence of the air flow creating the jet effect. Diesel in vehicles only combust due to the pressure in the piston, not sparks.

My opinion is that it is highly likely that the explosion seen by the video did not consume very much of the fuel on board at all. But after being heated, now thats when jet fuel becomes extremely combustable.

Like you, I dont know what happened in those towers and would love to see an unbiased investigation into that and several other things. Unfortunately, most of us look into things with preconceived ideas and find evidence to back that up. Then there are those that can bend the evidence to speak for their agenda. When we can find someone that doesnt have self serving emotions, a political agenda or an ego, we might find the truth. JMHO

[tyron]

One thing you should also realize is that both planes were 767's, not 707's.

The difference might seem slight, but it is about 60,000 pounds of weight difference, 10 feet of wingspan, 6 feet of length and almost 1,000 gallons more fuel. The 707 did seem to have a higher top speed.

They rated the towers for the planes that were in service at the time. That time had passed and newer, more modern planes were in service. They were larger, heavier and carried more fuel.

I do wonder if that was taken into account by the engineers.

Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons

max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs

empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs

wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft

wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2

length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft

cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

***

Besides Hopeful NIST recognised that the fire burned out in 10 minutes. And the engineers did concede that 707s were smaller, but they also maintain that the building would could stand multiple hits from planes because of their mosquito net design. The concept that a plane of any known size could make a steel reinforced building like that turn into dust as it free falls is without precedent in the history of aviation or architecture.

[Weapon X]

I found this scientific explanation from the Scientific American web page. this is an exerpt of why they fell

Why the Towers Fell

With all of its structural redundancies, "the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures," McNamara said, adding that "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." His statement is bolstered by the fact that the support structures of both twin towers withstood the initial hits of the two kamikaze airliners despite the breaching of many levels of framing. After the deletion of key structural members from about the 90th to 96th floors on the north face of the north tower, One WTC, and from about the 75th to the 84th floors of the south, east and north faces of the south tower, Two WTC, the buildings' skeletons found alternative paths to take the loads. Each impact and following explosion imparted first a large local lateral force and then an omnidirectional force to the structures, together causing massive initial damage to the columns and floor systems at the elevation of the crash.

Despite shocks and explosions estimated to be equivalent to that of the 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (about 400 tons of TNT), the towers remained upright. "The buildings displayed a tremendous capacity to stand there despite the damage to a major portion of the gravity system, and for an hour or so they did stand there," McNamara said. "The lateral truss systems redistributed the load when other critical members were lost. It's a testament to the system that they lasted so long."

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707​. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next�a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building�paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.

Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing.

Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.

Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older model�about 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel. "Most certainly," he continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire." The sprinkler system, which was probably compromised, would have been are useless against this kind of fire, he said, adding, "The World Trade Center towers performed admirably; they stood long enough for the majority of the people to be successfully evacuated."

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."

Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation​ has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure. W. Gene Corley​, senior vice president of the Construction Technology Laboratory in Skokie, Ill., is said to be heading the ASSE study team through its initial phase of data gathering, and then William Baker, a structural engineer at the Chicago-based firm of Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, will lead the following analysis phase. The Structural Engineering Institute is to partner with the American Institute of Steel Construction, the National Fire Protection Association and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. The Federal Emergency Management Agency​ has been invited to join as well.

You shold also read this article that comes from the Minerals,Metals and Materials society wich is backed up by the article mentioned above

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Edited September 24, 2011 by Weapon X

[tyron]

I found this scientific explanation from the Scientific American web page. this is an exerpt of why they fell

You shold also read this article that comes from the Minerals,Metals and Materials society wich is backed up by the article mentioned above

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Sorry Weapon, There is nothing in this article which explains why these buildings defied the laws of physics and free fell while simultaneously turning into pyroclastic dust and liquid metal that stayed molten for weeks even months later! The aluminium plane melted is ridiculous. The firemen described it as being in a foundry. Like lava they said. Although, it would interesting to see them scramble around for a different scientific theory of why building 7 without any kerosene fuel decided to mimic a perfectly executed demotion style, free fall. Like I said before the more outlandish and complicated the possible scenarios suggested, the more I want to say, why not try the explosives theory? But they won't because then everything would fit like a custom made glove.

[kenbo]

Although, it would interesting to see them scramble around for a different scientific theory of why building 7 without any kerosene fuel decided to mimic a perfectly executed demotion style, free fall.

Already done :

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Actually interesting if you really read their info. But then, I guess I kinda like the flavor of Kool Aid..

[tyron]

Already done :

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Actually interesting if you really read their info. But then, I guess I kinda like the flavor of Kool Aid..

You are right, it is interesting and rather cute the way the crocodile Silverstein is portrayed as a caring saint, all he was concerned about was the firemen's lives. Was this the same man who then filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount (7.1 billion) on the insurance policy on the WTCs - based on two, in his view, separate attacks! Poor thing only received 4.55 billion.

Even more hilarious was the explanation that when Silverstein said 'pull it' he meant the teams of firemen. I know he is Jewish and perhaps speaks hebrew as his native language, but really, who ever would say 'pull it' when they mean 'pull out'.

As for everything else, what are these people trying to say - that this building came down on its own footprint in a totally symmetrical way in just over free-fall time without the help of ANY explosives? Come on Kenbo.

[colt32]

You are right, it is interesting and rather cute the way the crocodile Silverstein is portrayed as a caring saint, all he was concerned about was the firemen's lives. Was this the same man who then filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount (7.1 billion) on the insurance policy on the WTCs - based on two, in his view, separate attacks! Poor thing only received 4.55 billion.

Even more hilarious was the explanation that when Silverstein said 'pull it' he meant the teams of firemen. I know he is Jewish and perhaps speaks hebrew as his native language, but really, who ever would say 'pull it' when they mean 'pull out'.

As for everything else, what are these people trying to say - that this building came down on its own footprint in a totally symmetrical way in just over free-fall time without the help of ANY explosives? Come on Kenbo.

Exactly. Should WTC 7 have collapsed from the damage on it's corner it would have fallen over. No other senario makes any physics sense. Buildings do not behave this way on their own. The floors below and above the damaged sections would have resisted this freefall collapse. The fact that the NIST investigation did not look for explosives is not consistent with their primary protocols, one of them being to look for explosive evidence. I'm a building engineer by trade and what happened to WTC7 doesn't make any physics sense.

[kenbo]

Thanks for all of your input. As I said before, I have no real knowledge of what happened on that terrible day. Some of you have had great and informed comments while others have simply stated things not bothering to read the reports. I do that sometimes, if I believe something, I choose not to really look at opposing info. The reason I say that is some of your responses were addressed in the links and you acted as if no one had given any answers about your statements.

But for the most part, I saw lots of good informed feedback on both sides of the conspiracy issue (and will probably hear more). I am still undecided because I see both sides very well. For example, I know very well that the term pull means to pull cable. But I also realize that demo crews use the term differently. And I see what appears ro be lies on both sides of the fence. Some people will do and say most anything to prove their point.

I wont make a decision based on conjecture or what should have been. Those murdered souls and their families deserve the truth, not what you or I believe.

It is a shame that due to a preconceived idea, some folks just won't look further. I for one will keep looking.

Thanks for an interesting couple of days.

AND GO RV!

[Weapon X]

Sorry Weapon, There is nothing in this article which explains why these buildings defied the laws of physics and free fell while simultaneously turning into pyroclastic dust and liquid metal that stayed molten for weeks even months later! The aluminium plane melted is ridiculous. The firemen described it as being in a foundry. Like lava they said. Although, it would interesting to see them scramble around for a different scientific theory of why building 7 without any kerosene fuel decided to mimic a perfectly executed demotion style, free fall. Like I said before the more outlandish and complicated the possible scenarios suggested, the more I want to say, why not try the explosives theory? But they won't because then everything would fit like a custom made glove.

I wish you would look up what you truthers claim as true.

Pyroclastic flow from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2??? Do you even know hat a pyroclastic flow is??? nothig off of WTC 1 or 2 even came close to pyroclatic flow

To tell you more here is the definition of pyroclastic flow directly from USGS

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/PyroFlows/description_pyro_flows.html

Pyroclastic Flow: sHigh-speed avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments, and gas move down the sides of a volcano during explosive eruption or when the steep edge of a dome breaks apart and collapses. These pyroclastic flows, which can reach 1500 degrees F and move at 100-150 miles per hour, are capable of knocking down and burning everything in their paths.

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.

When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.

Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.

It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.

Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.

So please read up on what you read and hear and learn critical thinking,

[chas32]

By:Mark Roberts from World TradeCenter Building 7

and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

I recently kept track of NY911 truth’s statements at Ground Zero over a 3 ½ hour period. During that time I didn’t hear any of the 10 of them make a single true claim to the public. Recently they spent an hour arguing with an Air Force morgue technician who processed the remains from the Pentagon. Remember, this group claims that there were no remains of flight 77 passengers at the Pentagon, because that plane never crashed there. It takes a special kind of person to make that argument to the face of someone who personally handled those charred remains.

Abby Scott and Ray Rivera made a funny video based on some of the seen counters, which captures a bit of the lunacy of the “Truthers:” http://tinyurl.com/jrhk8. When I’m around the Truthers I often have the refrain of the old song “She’s More to be Pitied Than Censured” running around in my head:

She is more to be pitied than censured,

She is more to be helped than despised.

She is only a lassie who ventured

On life's stormy path, ill-advised.

Then I snap out of it and remember that these people give absolution to terrorists while accusing innocent people of mass murder, all without a shred of evidence. And they do this at Ground Zero.They are the most delusional people I have ever met, and their delusions are dangerous.

http://www.911myths....itiqueMay06.pdf

http://www.jod911.com/ - Peer-Reviewed Papers