Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed

To begin with ,I obviously do not believe that any of the WTC buildings were deliberately demolished. Clearly the towers were mot. To me the collapse of WTC 7 is disturbing, not because I think it was the result of a deliberate conspiracy, but because I am afraid that it may have been the result of a series of design deficiencies, that while relatively innocuous individually, together, they combined with a healthy dose of Murphy�s law that day, leading up to the collapse.

The most disturbing thing appears to have been issued with the building emergency power system and a separate emergency generator system.

What yahoo designed a system with a 6000 gallon diesel tank on the second floor, and the generator located on the 26th floor. Why would you want to pipe that fuel all over the building? It would have been just as easy to have run an electrical conduit as a 4� diesel pipe.

Furthermore, I doesn�t take a genius to figure out that in order to pump the fuel up 26 floors, you need A) a fairly powerful pump, and B) a pump that runs independently of the main power grid. In other words the pump has to be powered off of an independent power source, the emergency system with a battery back up.

I suspect that the majority of the fires that broke out in that building were electrical in origin. The impact of debris into the building caused sufficient breeches in the floors and system to allow the fires to spread, and somewhere along the line there was a fuel leak from the generator system that ignited.

There is always the possibility that hidden design flaws and or substandard construction may have played a part. We can never really know on that one, but is it just as likely as some of the wilder conspiracy theories out there.

Murphy�s law is much more powerful then many people give it credit for. .

And as for the thickness of the steel, are you sure you were not looking at a picture of the foundation sections? They would have been relatively thick. Generally the steel on the upper sections of a building is not that thick. In fact, if it was, then I would consider that to be a serious design flaw.

Originally posted by Satyr


I'll tell you what. You find a piece of steel as thick as the beam in that pic, and I'll challenge you to even soften it with any heat source you can find. Go ahead, get some jet fuel. I'll watch and laugh as you learn something about steel and fire. Good luck!

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Satyr]

Fire and heat is used to bend steel into desired shapes. Why could it not be used to weaken steel?




[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Facefirst]

Satyr....you are not a civil engineer, so your opinion on why or how a skyscraper should fall means "squat", its just another wild allegation with no shred of truth.
You need to know more than just the physics which is taugh in "high school...."

There are many civil engineer websites that have good info on how and why the WTC collapsed.... You don't want to read them and prefer to drown in ignorance? Be my guess. I posted one in this thread, and there are a couple on the old threads regarding this same topic.....


[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Facefirst
Fire and heat is used to bend steel into desired shapes. Why could it not be used to weaken steel?

It can, but you obviously haven't worked with metals, have you? Most anyone who's welded before can tell you that it takes one hell of a heat source to weaken that big of a heat sink. You'd be lucky if you could even get one foot of it hot, with that much surface area and density. A fuel fire of any kind, is never going to heat a beam of that size to any substantial degree of weakness. Imagine an Oxyacetylene torch. Have you ever used one? Have you ever tried to heat something too big for the torch to handle? You'll never be able to melt it. Do you know how much hotter oxy/acet is than jet fuel? It can reach up to 6,300�F or so. You could do anything you want with jet fuel, and there's no way you'd ever melt that huge beam. I've worked with metals most of my life. Oxyacetylene is the only gas mixture that will burn hot enough to cut steel. Sure, some other things can heat steel, but it takes alot of heat to weaken something that large. It is, in effect, one gigantic heatsink, distributing all of the heat to the coldest parts of any connected piece, including the ground itself. The melting point of steel is 2370 - 2640F.

Muaddib, have you ever melted steel before? Be honest.

By the way, when jets crash, the bulk of the fuel burns instantly. That's why you see the huge fire ball. There's no way burning fuel rained into building 7. It burns so fast, there'd be nothing left by the time it got there. All the fuel that escaped the towers could be seen burning at the moment of impact, in the air. That's what the explosion was, in both cases.

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
It can, but you obviously haven't worked with metals, have you? Most anyone who's welded before can tell you that it takes one hell of a heat source to weaken that big of a heat sink.

Since you have worked with steel yourself (so you claim) then you should know that you do not need to heat the entire length of a beam to bend or weaken part of it.

Your whole theory is based on the equal heating of the entire structure, which was not the case.

Originally posted by COOL HANDSince you have worked with steel yourself (so you claim) then you should know that you do not need to heat the entire length of a beam to bend or weaken part of it.

Your whole theory is based on the equal heating of the entire structure, which was not the case.

If not, then you have to have one hot heat source. The heat naturally flows to the coldest parts, unless you can heat it faster than it can sink. That's why the entire piece of metal gets extremely hot, by the time you get even one spot hot enough to bend. You don't seem to have a very clear concept of metal and heat either. My theory is not based on the equal heating of the entire structure, it's based on heat sink principles. Heat wants to flow to the coldest part it can find. It naturally wants to heat as much area as it can, regardless of where you apply it. In other words, if you used a regular oxyacet torch, you'd have one hell of a time even making a small hole in that beam. You'd need to deliver much more heat, in a wider area. In effect, you'd have to heat the surrounding area, just to keep it from being a heat sink and removing all the heat you're trying to concentrate in one area. Does that make sense to you yet?

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Satyr]

I have worked on construction and then I worked as a mapper researching legal descriptions, plats, replats, mapping the properties when needed, etc, of government and public properties. I have done legal descriptions of multimillion dollar properties, making sure the measurements of the maps for the county were right compared to the measurements of the buildings/properties. I was responsible for the paperwork, maps, etc, of many of the properties of Dade and Broward. Althou I am not a civil engineer, I can wager I learnt a thing or two. Phoenix seems to know his/her stuff too.

You don't need to melt the steel for a skyscraper to lose its structural integrity and fall down, just weaken the steel. The stress on the steel caused because the fire was not uniform and the difference of 150c or more, from location to location, would distort the columns and the subsequent buckling effect brought down the buildings.


[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Muaddib]

For example, take a Bic lighter (The temperature at the blue tip is approximately 2000� F and the yellow tip 1500� F) and try to soften a rod of substantial diameter. Let's say a 2" x 10' steel rod. Let me know when it's hot enough to bend easily. Actually, let me know if you can get the center of it hot enough (with a Bic lighter) to even burn yourself. You'll find that the heat generally goes to the end of the rod quicker than you can heat it. If you don't have one, climb under your car and try it on the stabilizer bar. I'd be very surprised if you can even get it hot enough to burn to the touch. Even if you manage to get it to an uncomfortable temperature, you're not going to get it anywhere near softening temps.

Considering all the strange research our Laboratorys do (Brookhaven National Labs etc) and DARPA leads me to believe some sort of energy weapon destroyed the WTCs. Think about it,,,everything was almost turned to DUST. not even c4 or c5 can do that nor a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitionists want enough chunks of the building around to clean up(not too big and not too small)...kinda hard to do when there is hardly anything left.


yeah yeah....Im chasing the black helicopters and my tv is set on the X files

Originally posted by Satyr
If not, then you have to have one hot heat source. The heat naturally flows to the coldest parts, unless you can heat it faster than it can sink. That's why the entire piece of metal gets extremely hot, by the time you get even one spot hot enough to bend. You don't seem to have a very clear concept of metal and heat either.

The entire piece does not have to reach the same termperature in order to deform a part of it.

In effect, you'd have to heat the surrounding area, just to keep it from being a heat sink and removing all the heat you're trying to concentrate in one area. Does that make sense to you yet?

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Satyr]

Isn't that what happened in this case? The whole are was heated and certain parts reached higher temps than others. Those were the parts that failed first, the rest of the metal was weakened by the heat and could not take the load.

Dude....you don't know what you are talking about...the tons and tons of weight a skyscraper has is more than the force you can apply with your bare hands..... Are you on some sort of medication right now?

Energy weapons......*shakes head*
Well, i think I'll leave you with your dellusions in this topic...laters.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Muaddib]

What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750�F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500�F).

Standard Protocol of FireFighters engaging a high rise fire. If the fire is super hot you dont go in. Dark smoke implies its a cool fire and can be worked with. Thats why they all went up. Cool fires are containable. Jet fuel doesnt burn but at around 1200-1500 degrees F for obvious reasons(safety in aviation)

education.jlab.org...

Dude....you don't know what you are talking about...the tons and tons of weight a skyscraper has is more than the force you can apply with your bare hands..... Are you on some sort of medication right now?

posted by Muaddib. always references to medication

I see we have a pancake theorist? Outstanding!!! Carry on Soldier.


Note: Guess thats why one of the towers defied gravity and broke Galileo's �Law of Falling Bodies�
distance (S) is proportional to time (T) squared
www.ac.wwu.edu...

Forget it. Not many people understand the concept of metals, much less the mechanics. Yes, you do have to have heated/welded steel before to understand. Specifically, try to heat a piece of steel that's too large for the heat source. Then, you might understand what I'm talking about. The larger and thicker the steel, the more of a heat sink it becomes, the more it transfers heat, instead of concentrating it in one area. In that case, knowing that heat travels, even if the fire was immensely hot for a building fire, not one section of the beams would be hot enough to topple, much less all of them at once. The hottest portion of any one spot would be much less than the temp of the heat source, since it's quickly distributed throughout the length of the beams. The more metal, the more distributed the heat is, the less heat you have concentrated in all areas.

Here's a nice little investigation of how jet fuel could have possibly been so hot. Remember, this is talking about the towers, which were supposedly drenched in jet fuel...not building 7.

members.fortunecity.com...

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
Here's a nice little investigation of how jet fuel could have possibly been so hot. Remember, this is talking about the towers, which were supposedly drenched in jet fuel...not building 7.

members.fortunecity.com...

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Satyr]

Too bad his facts were wrong. Look into Jet Fuel for yourself if you do not believe me. There is plenty of credible information on the web about that. His temp figures are wrong.

I'm making one post in this thread, and that's it.

Okay...

IF the government DID bring down the towers, WHY?

The top theory is that they staged the attacks so they could launch a 'war for oil'...

Well, let's have a look at this, shall we?

If the war was for oil, why did we go to Afghanistan first, and beat the living daylights out of the Taliban? We've already got what we want from their oil... y'see, in 1994, years before it was cool to say things like "No blood for oil!", Bill Clinton oversaw the stabilization of the Afghani government and secured his share of the 'pipeline project', a large-scale undertaking to cart oil from Kazakhstan to a port capable of shipping it off. While the pipeline was originally intended to run through Iran, political difficulties saw it routed through Afghanistan instead. In '94, American and Pakistani forces 'pacified' the tumultuous Afghani civil war and, in doing so, put the government that controlled a large bit of that oil right into Uncle Sam's pocket. Your war for oil happened ten years ago, under a Democrat, and you never said a word.

And Iraq... good ol' Iraq. From the passing of UN Resolution 661 in 1990 to its removal under Resolution 1483 in 2003, all imports and exports from the nation of Iraq, excluding humanitarian goods, were prohibited; they were only able to sell oil under the (badly corrupted) Oil-for-Food program.

The US's actions in Iraq have been focused on removing the current Baathist totalitarian regime and installing a new, democratic government, one that, in time, might be free to trade with the rest of the world as it sees fit. The removal of the Baath party from power has already taken place. The installation of the new government is already underway. We're leaving shortly. And, once they get their proverbial sh!t together, they will be selling us oil... at their price. I can't say the same for their transactions with those UN member nations that were benefitting from O-f-F kickbacks until we stepped in and ruined the show.

Originally posted by project_pisces

posted by Muaddib.

always references to medication

I see we have a pancake theorist? Outstanding!!! Carry on Soldier.


Note: Guess thats why one of the towers defied gravity and broke Galileo's �Law of Falling Bodies�
distance (S) is proportional to time (T) squared
www.ac.wwu.edu...

Yeah, when someone posts saying to bend a piece of heated metal rod "with your bare hands" to see that the steel of a skyscraper, which would have a lot more force exerted on the weakening steel due to the tons and tons of weight of it, could not have made it lost its structural integrity.....it does makes you wonder if the person that makes this analogy is on medication. You cannot present reliable evidence making a wild theory like this one.

The physics involved in such a huge fire and a huge skyscraper is a lot different than "using a bic lighter to heat a metal rod and trying to bend it with your hands"..................

About the "energy weapon" theory.....present "reliable" links to this theory "son."

And son, I don't fall in line for anything. I present reliable information, the physics involved in "skyscrapers," and data to present my case., and not on how "a small piece of metal rod being heated with a Bic lighter and forced to bend with your bare hands" tells us the integrity of a building could not be compromised. This is just another wild theory with complete disregard to what we know about the physics behind a skyscraper's structural design and integrity.


[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by project_pisces


Note: Guess thats why one of the towers defied gravity and broke Galileo's �Law of Falling Bodies�
distance (S) is proportional to time (T) squared
www.ac.wwu.edu...

I would really love to hear your other wild theory explaining exactly what you meant with the above. How did one of the towers defied the law of falling bodies? Was Bush pointing his magical wand and made the tower defy the laws of physics?

I have been a visitor to this board for quite some time but have signed up especially to reply to this post, Xenographer, you should feel special!

Originally posted by Xenographer

IF the government DID bring down the towers, WHY?

If the war was for oil, why did we go to Afghanistan first, and beat the living daylights out of the Taliban?

And Iraq... The US's actions in Iraq have been focused on removing the current Baathist totalitarian regime and installing a new, democratic government, one that, in time, might be free to trade with the rest of the world as it sees fit. The removal of the Baath party from power has already taken place. The installation of the new government is already underway. We're leaving shortly. And, once they get their proverbial sh!t together, they will be selling us oil... at their price. I can't say the same for their transactions with those UN member nations that were benefitting from O-f-F kickbacks until we stepped in and ruined the show.

Firstly, the US went to Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to play ball and allow the US to build the oil pipeline, I think it is common knowledge now that the Afghani invasion was planned well before 911.

Secondly, you said in your own post that the US will be INSTALLING a new government in Iraq � the key word here being �install�. My question is how free will this government be to decide the price of their oil exports? I fear not very.

Thirdly, why demolish the WTC? An attack on something that symbolises everything America represents - Freedom, Capitalism, prosperity, was sure to invoke a reaction from the populous strong enough to allow the government to justify their war. Desperate acts call for desperate measures.

I personally don�t believe GWB was in on 911, he is too stupid. I do believe though that �they� waited until someone like him (warmongering, rash, dense as a tonne of lead) came into power before executing their plan.

As to who �they� are���well that�s a completely different thread!

I posted this in another thread.

In today's NY Daily News, the article mentions some statements made by Sheik Abu Hamza al-Masri.

One statement was that "Osama did not take down the trade center with planes, it was professional strategic placement of explosives that took it down". Is it really possible that they were able to plant more explosives under the trade center even after the 1993 WTC bombing? I just don't understand if the statement was made to make people think the US was in on it or if the real reason the towers went down was a combined effort of planes and explosives planned by the terrorists.