Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

There is more than enough video evidence that the towers were on fire. It is known from both tests and previous fires that office fires can easily reach the temperatures required for NIST's theory to work. And you come with plenty of other evidence that the steel reached high temperatures:

barely. as the photo of the woman standing in the plane impact crater shows, there couldn't have been a very big fire if she reached that point. NIST's collapse theory has never happened before, even in buildings completely consumed in fire for hours upon hours. yet we're still told to believe a relatively cold, small fire lasting less than an hour caused all the molten metal? that it brought the whole building down when such a collapse hasn't happened before? where's the evidence for those temperatures? oooh...right...absence of evidence doesn't mean a theory is wrong, lol.

But that isn't evidence of molten steel. Glowing orange is not molten but around 900 degrees Celsius. Witness reports are subjective and they can easily have seen molten aluminum for example. NASA photos do not show molten steel. Additionally, there is no photographic evidence of it.

900C is well above the fire temperatures NIST found at 250C. do you have some evidence NIST doesn't in reguards to fire temperature?

2.bp.blogspot.com...
3.bp.blogspot.com...

from these pictures, it shows the metal dripping from the towers closer to 1200C. that's hotter than jet fuel can burn in the most ideal situations. so what caused those temperatures? i'd like to see some evidence that anything in the OS can account for that. of course, if you had some, you would have already given it.

As for the columns inspected by NIST, if you think they are trying to deceive us

there are plenty of times they did just that. lied about numbers and findings, and ignored other things.

There is plenty of evidence that shows that fires can reach the required temperatures. For example the tests performed by NIST

care to provide some real evidence from the collapse? o yeah...NIST already said they didn't find anything above 250C. lets stick with real facts, and avoid speculation. i thought us "truthers" were supposed to be the wild speculation types. it seems they have it backwards.

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever of this secret unknown substance that defies our current understanding of chemistry.

again. care to show me a fuel source in the OS that accounts for the impossibly high demonstrated temperatures from the pictures i provided? name their quantities and burning temperatures. its more logical that the temperatures came from something besides jet fuel, because it doesn't get that hot! so what else could cause it?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
barely. as the photo of the woman standing in the plane impact crater shows, there couldn't have been a very big fire if she reached that point. NIST's collapse theory has never happened before, even in buildings completely consumed in fire for hours upon hours. yet we're still told to believe a relatively cold, small fire lasting less than an hour caused all the molten metal? that it brought the whole building down when such a collapse hasn't happened before? where's the evidence for those temperatures? oooh...right...absence of evidence doesn't mean a theory is wrong, lol.

If you deny there were very hot fires in the WTC you are denying reality. And when you deny reality, anything can be true.

900C is well above the fire temperatures NIST found at 250C. do you have some evidence NIST doesn't in reguards to fire temperature?

This evidence shows that at least some steel reached a temperature of at least 900 degrees at some point. I don't see how that can be anything but in support of NIST's theory.

2.bp.blogspot.com...
3.bp.blogspot.com...

from these pictures, it shows the metal dripping from the towers closer to 1200C. that's hotter than jet fuel can burn in the most ideal situations. so what caused those temperatures? i'd like to see some evidence that anything in the OS can account for that. of course, if you had some, you would have already given it.

I don't even know what that substance is, so I am unable to determine the temperature from just looking at its color. Even though we may not be able to say with certainty what it is, there have been reasonable explanation for it.

care to provide some real evidence from the collapse? o yeah...NIST already said they didn't find anything above 250C. lets stick with real facts, and avoid speculation. i thought us "truthers" were supposed to be the wild speculation types. it seems they have it backwards.

I find video evidence to be real enough. Office fires reaching the required temperatures is not wild speculation. That is both tested and previously observed.

again. care to show me a fuel source in the OS that accounts for the impossibly high demonstrated temperatures from the pictures i provided? name their quantities and burning temperatures. its more logical that the temperatures came from something besides jet fuel, because it doesn't get that hot! so what else could cause it?

You didn't demonstrate that the temperatures reached 1200 degrees, you asserted it. But even if there was a reaction capable of reaching those temperatures, that does not mean it had to be explosives or thermite. For that to be plausible you need to provide evidence for it.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Asserting that I am being illogical, misinterpreting your arguments, and a government shill does not make it so. It seems to me that you are the one that is being illogical. Your argument goes a bit like this:

NIST claims high temperatures.
NIST does not show satisfying evidence for it.
Therefore NIST has a bad theory.

And then you go:
There was a substance planted in the buildings that caused their collapse.
The evidence for it are the high temperatures.

Don't you realize that the evidence that you put forward (high temperatures) to support your own theory also supports NIST's theory?

Originally posted by Juanxlink

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Juanxlink

 

If it's freefall, then why is the debris moving faster than the building?

Question you should be asking is: Why is there so much debri flying out of the footprint-building if there were no explosives involved? But as said, you minds are already set...

Well if the floors are falling internally what is falling in the picture wall sections you can see that,lots of dust you can see that and lots of aluminium cladding panels, you have to remember you have thounsands of tons of material some of it from well over a thousand feet do you expect it to be a nice stack of rubble and steel an acre in area by x feet high is that what you really expected to see!!!!

reply to post by ANOK

Sorry to have to but this in blunt terms but thats BS!!!! You claim the the 85 floors below provide resistance that's only true for the static load when the building was whole! Using you warped logic as the foundations are securely fixed to the ground its the mass of the earth thats providing resistance.

When the upper floors fell the only floor resisting the load is the floor immediately below that gets effectively squeezed between the falling floors and the floors below, if the dynamic load is too great that floor gives way.

That's the process, like i said before descried what happens if you hold a very heavy weight in your arms an if it is raised even a few inches and then dropped it feels heavier when you catch it.

15 floors dropping even one floor height is to large a dynamic load for the floor it falls on to resist.


You also have to look at the fact that the floors can literally fall inside the steel tube if the connections fail

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Well said been trying to get that through to ANOK on many many 9/11 threads the major selling feature of the Towers was the large open floor space but that was most probably its downfall as the floors could fall internally down the tube if the connections were overloaded.

I think it was ANOK that made the washer model of the WTC. I do give him credit for at least attempting to make an example f what can happen. However, it was flawed from the start.

If he was to make another model, this is how it should have been done:

Make two rectangular tubes about 5 feet high, and scale it so the width is representative of the WTC, as well as the rectangular core inside, from cardboard. Inside the larger tube glue on the tips of toothpicks all around the inside of the tube, in levels about an inch apart in height. On the smaller tube, do the same on the exterior, and have them line up on either side. Place the smaller tube in the bigger tube, taking care not to knock off any of the toothpicks. Then take a square slab of drywall with a square hole in the middle and place it in the tubes, fitting them inside, and resting on the toothpicks, so that its only being supported by the toothpicks. Then stack them an equal distance according to the toothpick tips. These will represent the floors. The toothpicks, the floor truss connections. Then once the tube is filled up with the drywall slabs, take another two or three slabs and then take them and drop them on top of the floor sections below. That will be a far closer representation of the WTC design and what happened with the collapses.

Originally posted by GenRadek

I think it was ANOK that made the washer model of the WTC. I do give him credit for at least attempting to make an example f what can happen. However, it was flawed from the start.

Wasn't me, that was psikeyhackr I believe.

Actually his model demonstrated quite well the equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation principles.



Those laws apply regardless of the size and mass of the falling blocks.

Why don't you build a model that demonstrates that a falling mass is not arrested by the mass it's falling on?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek

I think it was ANOK that made the washer model of the WTC. I do give him credit for at least attempting to make an example f what can happen. However, it was flawed from the start.

Wasn't me, that was psikeyhackr I believe.

Actually his model demonstrated quite well the equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation principles.

Those laws apply regardless of the size and mass of the falling blocks.

Why don't you build a model that demonstrates that a falling mass is not arrested by the mass it's falling on?

Sorry but BS again are the relative mass and strengths the same do you know? I can use the same sheet of paper in 3 different ways and each way will hold a different load so the model is flawed like your knowledge of structures.

The 3 ways to use the paper as a flat sheet spanning a gap lowest load
Folded in a concertina type shape spanning a gap larger load
Or rolled into a tube then a large load can be placed on top try it for yourself!!!!!

That's just one reason psikeyhackr's model is flawed.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

That's just one reason psikeyhackr's model is flawed.

It is a demonstration of the laws of motion, how is it flawed?

It simply proves that a falling mass will be arrested, and can not simply continue to collapse as if there was no resistance.

The one part of the physics you keep ignoring for some reason.

The design of the building really has nothing to do with it, because you could take all the floors without the core or outer mesh, stack them up and then try to get the floors to completely crush themselves. It ain't going to happen, no matter how the floors are held together.

I know and understand very well how the towers were constructed, it's no secret lol, a pretty common mechanical construction used for many things such as towers and cranes. I don't think you realise how massive and overly engineered the building was, especially the core. 47 box (tube) columns that tapered from 5" thick to a quarter inch thick at the top, and you want us to believe the whole thing telescoped down on itself through the increasing path of most resistance? What did that if floors fell because the trusses failed? The floors didn't hold the core up.

reply to post by ANOK


It is a 5th grade demonstration of physics but does not apply to 9/11 as far as how it is constructed. It is not the law that is incorrect as shown but how it applies to the buildings on 9/11. Why can you not see that. You have been explained by my self and another how to make a proper model and you never reply to it.

As far as 'over-engineered', there is no such thing. Also, it was not just the cores that held the building as you state so your admittance of knowing the structure is incorrect.

We are talking about whether a CD was needed to bring down the WTC and it was not. Gravity made sure of it.

reply to post by ANOK


My apologizes for my mistake about who created the video experiment.

The reason its flawed is because it is not representative of the WTC event. Psikey used paper loop rings in between the washers to hold up the structure. That would have been acceptable if the WTC had interior walls and columns holding up the floors in between the interior and exterior columns. But you should already know that it did not.

He should have had the washers supported on the edges by small toothpick tips to represent the floor truss/seat connections on the exterior/interior columns. That would have been far more closer to the WTC design. But again, you should have realized this, since you claim to know so much about it.

This is what happened at the WTC. The welds that connected the main truss seat to the exterior columns were sheared off. When the collapse initiated, the top section that was moving down caused the welds to fail. In fact a paper was written about this as well:

www.aws.org...

It is an excellent study of the failures noted causing the total collapse, and this is exactly what I and esdad1 are trying to explain to you. Psikey's model did not follow the floor truss seat design. Also, better pictures of the connections and the results after collapse can be seen clearly here:

wtc.nist.gov...

A better example using weights and hands would be this:
Take a 5lb steel ball and hold it up only with your fingertips and not your entire hand below. This is an over simplification of the floor truss seat I know, but please bear with me. Now, have another friend come underneath your hands with another 5lb steel ball, held the same way with fingertips only. Now, have one more do the same under both of you. Now, you release the ball in your hands and let it fall on top your friend's ball. What will happen?

What allowed for the collapse to be complete? Sheering forces and overloading coupled with the floor truss seats failing. You keep saying there was resistance, and yes there was, but it was not increasing as it went down. In fact it was getting smaller and smaller, because by the time you get the 20th floor, you have 80 floors of debris moving down as one unit, impacting the floor, shearing those seat connections like they were butter.

As for the core, well, aside for the section that collapsed with the top section, some of it stayed up after the initial collapse. Remember the Spire? But a lot of the core fell by the debris being jumbled together, with columns bending over, snapping at the connections, splitting at the welds, or being crushed by the force. Remember the pictures of the core columns bent over like a pretzel? Now did this happen to all of the core columns? Dont know, as I dont have X-ray vision, and no one will ever know 100% (unless someone has access to a TARDIS and can survive the collapse). But its not that hard to see especially when reviewing the debris. The spire later collapsed as it was damaged and fell down by itself.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


HA, 90°C are you for real? This will give you a rough idea of the temperatures involved during 9/11

Fire temperatures

The building disintegrated in around 10 seconds. Debris fell as quick as the building. I can't believe people can be so sure that it defies physics. Far out. I get angry at all this BS. The official story is a farce. Wake up.

reply to post by MasterAndrew


No, no, it did not. In fact, it took 10 seconds for initial debris to hit the ground, but at 10 seconds, the building was still very much standing. In fact, I dont know where you get this drivel from, but I'm willing to bet its from those dammed fool conspiracy sites that do nothing but lie to you. In fact, the actual times are more like 15-30 seconds if you count the core collapsing.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by MasterAndrew

 

No, no, it did not. In fact, it took 10 seconds for initial debris to hit the ground, but at 10 seconds, the building was still very much standing. In fact, I dont know where you get this drivel from, but I'm willing to bet its from those dammed fool conspiracy sites that do nothing but lie to you. In fact, the actual times are more like 15-30 seconds if you count the core collapsing.

You're wrong don't spread disinformation. You're timing of collapse does not match what happened. Obviously you don't know what an imploded building looks like. The official story defies the laws of physics. Don't be so sure of yourself. Wake up.

reply to post by MasterAndrew

Don't be so sure of yourself. Wake up.

Take your own advice.

Your are going places.

ETA: I need to post something on topic so I do not get docked points for off a topic post.....The problem is, this topic has been beaten into the ground. You keep mentioning defying the laws of physics........

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
The building disintegrated in around 10 seconds. Debris fell as quick as the building. I can't believe people can be so sure that it defies physics. Far out. I get angry at all this BS. The official story is a farce. Wake up.

Watch the videos again then get your eyes tested ! You can see debris falling faster than the building in the buildings !

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Griffo

 

i know. i also know the temperatures didn't get anywhere near 800 degrees C in those towers. someone actually had an infracam, and measured the temperatures 10-15 mins after the planes hit. obviously it won't tell us the whole story, but it showed around 220F (90ishC)

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. [8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 ºC are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 ºC."

911review.com...

"limited exposure if any above 250C" that isn't hot enough to cause the steel to fail. it especially wouldn't cause the top of the towers to come slamming down on the undamaged floors.

Someone had an infra cam did they POST a link then to the video/pictures etc Then I suggest you look at temperatures for office fires or the cardington fire tests

14:59:37.3 676.56 721.52 720.58 770.7 804.63 819.68 959.34 1029.12 1055.56 999.65 1052.77 1081.69

Test was started at 14:07 the temps in degrees C above at 14:59 are for different locations on test structure SO in less than 1 hour a temp of 1081c was reached!!!! (thats the STEEL TEMP)

link here

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Makes your 90 c look kind of STUPID!!!

Tell me these flames are 90 c!!!

reply to post by MasterAndrew


It's funny you should mention that, I posted a pic a couple of pages back showing the debris falling faster than the actual buildings