Questions for 9/11 Debunkers Re: Twin Towers' Destruction.

The Complete Destruction of the Twin Towers Commercial High-Rise Office Buildings of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 - What really happened?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa6ea9832bcd.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a566cafeafae.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08f4e75ba0ce.jpg[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9caa12066dfa.jpg[/atsimg]

======================================================================

In this topic, I would like to see if the truth about what really happened there, whether a progressive collapse destruction due to fire weakened steel as a sole result of the plane impacts, or, the crime of the willful and intentional, military precision, controlled demolition of the twin towers, with explosives.

It's an either/or proposition, either the buildings fell naturally, like a series of dominoes progressively impacting each successive floor below due solely and simply, to the weakening of certain steel supports in the impact area where office and building fire had ensued - or, they were intentionally demolished and destroyed via the use of explosives. One or the other.

But can this be proven?

I do not see why not, why this cannot be settled, in a relatively objective way for the reader to evaluate carefully, and then decide for himself, who here is telling the truth, and who is supporting a lie.

It is an equally risky proposition I might add, for either party. Because if the accusations levelled by the so-called 9/11 Truthers or more formally, the 9/11 Truth Movement, are false, and have no basis in either fact or reality and are indeed the ramblings of a bunch of Conspiracy Theorist wackos, then the degree of their own self delusion, hypocrisy, and bearing false witness toward the US Government and even the President and Vice President of the USA, is equally boundless, as that which would exist on the other side in terms of the those who support and defend the official story as being largely factual and accurate - if such a record of events were proven to be flat out false, and a lie, a lie on the back of which was waged two wars and employed as point of leverage for a complete transformation and overhaul, in both military and domestic surveilance policy.

And we cannot both be right. One is right - and the other must clearly be wrong, and this is true no matter which side of the fence you may find yourself, and thus the supremely contentious nature, of this debate.

Question One (to debunkers):

First of all, given all the talk about the HEAT from the fires at the area of plane impact causing the all the steel to weaken and bend precipitating a sequential and successive global "collapse" of the buildings, into a smoldering pile of rubble, which burned at excessively high temperatures for days, weeks, even months - my first question for all 9/11 debunkers who read this board, is:

How do you explain the EXCESSIVE HEAT recorded, such that micro-spheres of iron were found in plentiful supply in dust samples from the destruction, a destruction which also completely pulverized the entire building, uncluding just about every cubic meter of concrete used in its construction - how do you explain what amounts to the atomization (spraying) of steel, or the presence, in other words of molten steel, absent the kind of termperatures which would be present if various explosives and firing elements such a thermite or nano-thermite, and how do you explain the presence of extremely hot metals in the pit of destruction?

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Question Two:

Furthermore, how do you explain, not the collapse initation, but the ACTUAL occurance and the manner of, the complete global collapse and destruction of the buildings, in light of the fact that the buildings basically ERUPTED in an explosive cascading fountain of debris, pouring forth the pulverized building material, including everything in the building, while plummeting to the group in little more than 4-6 seconds, of the time it would take for a car or a large steel safe or a grand piano, to teverse the same distance if dropped from the height of the twin towers, in nothing but air.

Here's how I described it in another post.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Each level of the structure was designed to uphold everything above it, and more, for the lifetime of the building.

Once initiated, the destruction resulted in a pulverized ejection of building material which formed a cascading fountain of debris, so once part way down, there was nothing "falling" on the remaining structure. Half way through the progression of destruction, there was about half less building above the remaining half, yet the pulverization continued, unabated, without any appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground.

I think that those who defend the official story, are insane.

Of course we'll discuss many other ascepts in this thread, aspects of destruction as would occur via controlled demolition with explosives vs. what would occur via a progressive pancake collapse from the levels of the plane impacts.

And on that note - how is it that the very same dyanmics of "collapse" were observed in both cases, when the buildings were impacted at different levels and areas in each building? I find that rather odd.

I also invite comment on the multitude of eyewitness accounts of explosions, recorded during the interviews with the firemen at the scene, as well as by the media when reporting the event, but never played again after that day for some reason.

In that regard, I would like to, submit for consideration, two other pieces of evidence which support the hypothesis that EXPLOSIVES were used to the bring down the towers, as opposed to a natural collapse caused by the weakening of steel at around the impact areas.

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

9/11 Revisted, were explosives used?

Google Video Link

Videos of Destruction

All Civil comment is welcome in this thread.

Best Regards,

Rob
OmegaPoint


[edit on 21-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

I purport that the Twin Tower of the World Trade Center EXPLODED, from the top down via the use of explosives, and am prepared to back that contention up with supportable evidence, which, if you were to take the position of the official story about what happened, must be refuted and shown to be entirely false.

So far I have presented three principal observations and three questions.

Welcome your comments, either for or against.

Regards,

OP

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

And when and if you do reply, please bring strong evidence to support your position, while attempting to refute and demonstrating as false the evidence and interpretations that I am presenting. This is very serious stuff, and it warrent more than an off the cuff comment or an ad hominem attack.

Personally, I go by the very well written document by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, who gives visuals and easy to understand explanations that support his statements-

MIT materials engineering report

I have yet to encounter one conspiracy theorist who can even come close to refuting any of this material. THAT pretty much says it all.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I go by the very well written document by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, who gives visuals and easy to understand explanations that support his statements-

MIT materials engineering report

I have yet to encounter one conspiracy theorist who can even come close to refuting any of this material. THAT pretty much says it all.

Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

This contradicts the NIST report. There wasn't 90,000 L of jet fuel in the towers burning. The majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the explosion at impact.

Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available.

There wasn't 90,000 L of jet fuel available.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips.

What 10 floors? Did he just randomly pick that number. Why 10? Why not 30? How did all these floors join together into one large mass?

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds

Really? Where'd he get that number?

First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.

Uhhh...hmmm. Isn't he contradicting himself here? He just went from 10 full floors (see above) smacking down in unison against a lower floor to "it's not solid" "95 percent air". I can't rectify those two statements.

No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.

Luckily there wasn't one. As stated now three times, there was not 90,000 L available to burn in the fire.

This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature).

This statement is based on the assumption it is a fire fueled by 90,000 L of jet fuel. As stated - it was not.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire.

As the NIST states - this was not a jet fueled fire.

While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

Except it was not fuel-rich and as he states in his own words is not a solid mass but 90% air....so I don't see where the "weight of the stories above" can come crashing down on any given floor.

It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner.

Agreed, but irrevelant to this discussion.



[edit on 9-22-2009 by Valhall]

Also there is no mention of the tilt of WTC 2 which contradicts his hypothesis.

A tilting top, with angular momentum falling into the path of least resistance, is not going to suddenly decide to take the path of most resistance. The undamaged building bellow the top had to have failed independent of the top section.

Edit; oh yeah and where does that leave WTC7, no jet fuel?

[edit on 9/22/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have yet to encounter one conspiracy theorist who can even come close to refuting any of this material. THAT pretty much says it all.

P.S. And are you being cheeky here? I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this subject, but I'd think if I gave my 20 year old daughter one week to read the NIST report and then handed her this she'd be able to pick it apart in fairly short order.

The problem here is - like so many other documents that get referenced (on both sides of the 911 debate) - this guy is a metallurgist and he stepped way outside his specialty (which is apparently not reading reports well because he didn't). Doesn't matter if he's at MIT or University of Podunk - this is another example of an expert in one area getting in way over their head in another area and coming out looking like a silly-billy.

[edit on 9-22-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Sometimes a picture tells a 1000 words..

I think it's self evident what happened, but that we have yet to overcome the power of the myth that's all, which in time will fall, and then most everyone will come to know the truth, that it was a ruse, given that the plane strikes and fires were NOT the cause of the destruction of the twin towers, but were intended to appear as such, to the whole world, that everyone would ASSUME they were the sole cause ala Occam's Razor or should I say Allah Occam's Razor..

Basically, I don't need any self-pressed expert who's bent on defending the OS to sell me a reality that is completely at odds with what actually occured and with what I can see clearly, and observe, with my own eyes.

And it's rare in history for such a barbaric act of mass murder to be captured on film, but it's not rare that people can be convinced by the sheer magnitude of the evil and the lie, to accept something as true, which is blatantly false and patently absurd on the face of it.

But I am convinced that, in the larger long-term historical context, because it was recorded in real time, that "they" are nailed, whoever "they" are, and that is the only question now remaining imo, the WHO - Who had the motive, and the opportunity and the resources to pull this off, to bypass security and lace these buildings with explosives.

As with JFK, I think this deed points at the CIA as the principal instigator, in collusion with elements in the Executive Branch, the Pentagon, and the Military Industrial establishment, working in cahoots with other shadowy operators within the global intelligence community, such as the ISI, Mossad, etc.

One is reminded of the "dancing Isrealis" and the Israeli art student story when considering who might have done the dirty work.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

This is roughly how the core columns were destroyed.

This tower is almost the same height as the wtc. Notice you dont need explosions on ever floor?

One big boom!

This tower was brought down by Controlled Demolitions Inc. The very same company that was hired to clean up the Oklahoma city bombing building. Alfred P. Murrah and the World trade Center Complex.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


So you are saying that CDI bought down the WTC?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

 

So you are saying that CDI bought down the WTC?

I don't think that's what he's saying, but that IS the only question remaining. Who?

More ominous and deafening silence form the gallary of debunkers.

I'm not posting about my theory because it doesnt really matter in this board. What I am posting though is the whole trying to convince each side isnt going to work. There is never going to be one story of what happened. Nobody will ever fully believe the whole truth no matter what is published. They'll credit the source as contradictory to their own source or wont even look at the evidence because it's made by someone strongly on a certain side. It is now common knowledge about the steel. As soon as it happened everybody didn't believe that story, then the facts about the strength when introduced to that amount of heat came out then there was suddenly another problem with that. You'll never be satisfied. Lets say they opened a new investigation, if it came back with anything other then it was an inside job you wouldn't validate it at all. Thats why there are so many 'here's proof' boards because the people who don't believe that it was taken down by explosives dont have to proove anything. You dont have to proove that either, you just have to poke enough little holes in the story to bring up doubt.

Fine, for your heat problem:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

[mod edit: clipped quoted content, added Required EX tags]
Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

continued......

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

I love this article because it brings up the things your saying, then tells you why.



[mod edit: clipped quoted content, added Required EX tags]
Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Valhall

First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.

Uhhh...hmmm. Isn't he contradicting himself here? He just went from 10 full floors (see above) smacking down in unison against a lower floor to "it's not solid" "95 percent air". I can't rectify those two statements.

Not to mention stating that the buildings were "not solid" and were "95 percent air" is extremely misleading, borderline lying. I don't even know what saying the buildings were "not solid" is supposed to mean, because if they weren't solid, I don't understand why everyone has treated them as solids in all loading analyses, etc.

Saying 95% of the building was air is talking about volume, not mass or anything to do with loading or anything else relevant to establishing a collapse mechanism. Air was doing about 0% of holding the building up, and outside of the building was 100% open, empty air to fall through. The path of most resistance is still through the underlying intact building itself.

reply to post by bsbray11


The whole 'the building is not solid' goes to how it was built:

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.
To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.

same source, really a wonderful article



[mod edit: clipped quoted content, added Required EX tags]
Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

[removed excessive quoting from external source]
Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by VintageEnvy


I'm aware of how the buildings were constructed, but they were more like steel meshes than they were hollow tubes. There was plenty of bracing. They had History Channel shows immediately after 9/11 that I watched, that basically said the core structure was just for housing elevators, and the outer walls were holding the buildings up. Not true. Even the photo you linked me to doesn't show any of the bracing within the core structure. People said the buildings were "hollow tubes" at the same time "experts" were saying the fires melted the steel (yes, professionals DID say that at the time) or that no jews went to work that day. So a lot has been rectified since then, for those who have kept up anyway.

"Hollow tubes" was really referring to the open floor space between the core (which was standard steel frame, mesh-type construction, plenty of bracing, relatively close columns, etc.) and the perimeter columns. The trusses were pretty much the only thing spanning the gap between them on many/most floors. The only reason that would be important to collapse is if you are pushing pancake theory, which was popular EXACTLY when people were saying the buildings were hollow tubes (go figure; the "prover" proves what the "thinker" thinks ). Pancake theory has even been debunked by federal authorities now, ie NIST. So like I said, in even these few short years ideas have changed a good deal with all the back-and-forth. Subtly maybe, but enough to make a big difference in the nitty gritty, and we are still learning more, and the original structural documentation is still out of public hands.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by bsbray11]