Aerial Photo Shows 9/11 Towers Exploded Out, Did Not Collapse Down
Mini Forklift Ⓥ
The Veganator
- Dec 23, 2012
- 4,313
- 730
P
prime
TID Board Of Directors
- Dec 31, 2011
- 1,178
- 254
The 911 no plane theory seems far fetched. The towers being rigged seems far fetched. But I can totally see them giving terrorists information as to which planes to take etc. The box cutters were put on the plane before the hijackers got there. Nobody has a theory or explanation as to who did that. I did see a picture of a series of girders at the bottom of the trade center on a clip that did "look" like they were cut at a 45 degree thermite burn. I don't know. What is freaky is why did other buildings come falling down as well as if they were demolished? No planes hit those buildings. those buildings supposedly displayed thermite signatures as well.
I don't buy into all the theories but I definitely look at the big gov much differently than I do when I was in my 20s.
S
southernhound
Member
- Mar 3, 2013
- 63
- 2
That's something people don't realize about steel. It loses its structural integrity REALLY quickly when exposed to heat. Faster than a wood beam of similar size. It's stronger overall than wood; just not when exposed to heat.
That's why we fireproof steel members like this:
However the impact and resultant explosion from the planes blew off the fireproofing. So the steel on the affected levels started to melt.
Now here's another thing: Say a man weighs 200 pounds. If he jumps off a chair and hits the ground he has created an impact force that is MANY times greater than 200 lb. Imagine your buddy standing on your chest; uncomfortable but not unbearable. Now imagine him jumping from just 15 or so inches and landing on your chest. Ouch.
So when the affected levels buckled and collapsed they created a MASSIVE impact load on the floor just below, causing it to collapse onto the floor below that, and so on until it hit the ground. That massive repeated impact caused shit to fly out the sides, naturally, which is why conspiracy theorists think there were bombs on every level. There were not. It's just physics.
Wood is not stronger than steel in a fire because it catches. It becomes part of the fuel. Are you really an architect?
You are correct that steel weakens and bends when subjected to very hot, long-burning fires. No one ever said that it didn't.
That is why there have been slow, partial collapses of parts of high-rises like the Windsor in Madrid, in 2005. The Windsor burned white hot for 20 hours and was completely engulfed. But it didn't blow itself apart in seconds and disappear from the skyline.
The Windsor was of a slightly different construction, steel and concrete, which is weaker than the all-steel construction of the towers.
Windsor Madrid fire, burned 20 hours.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Partial collapse damage, upper floors
Beijing Mandirin Hotel
Now we are to believe that small fires which were already going out, and plane hits that were foreseen and that the buildings were designed to withstand, suddenly caused not partial, but full, catastrophic collapse inside of 14 seconds? One tower was just hit across a corner so that there was no real damage to the core. How did that one "collapse" first?
Then there was the third building which "fell," which was not even hit by a plane, WTC7.
We know the fires were small and limited because we can hear Battalion Chief Palmer's radio transmission from the 78th floor of WTC1, seven minutes before the collapse. Chief Palmer said: "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
WTCs just before collapse, black smoke indicates oxygen-starved fires:
We know fires can cause steel to bend. That's why they apply the fireproofing that you show, to inhibit partial collapses.
But all the steel in a 100 story tower does not "bend" all at once, then disappear in seconds. That's impossible.
Steel is much stronger than that. Partial collapses from fires are slow and piecemeal. Here is the timeline of the Windsor partial collapse:
But wait, if the theory is that the steel got soft and bent, why is it all in straight pieces across the entire WTC complex? I thought it "bent."
If it fell downward in a gravitational collapse (gravity does go down still, right?) - then why are huge chunks of it on Church Street, two football fields away? Also, why are windows blown out across the WTC complex? Steel hitting the ground wouldn't do that. Only explosive concussion.
Windows blown out across the trade Center complex
Once again, the final nail in the coffin of the official "collapse" theory is that, even if somehow the towers collapsed as a result of fatal weakening, even if the steel got "soft like clay," clay is still is much denser than air. The upper floors could not "fall' at the speed as they would have fallen through thin air.
Nothing can accelerate to the ground through anything at the same speed as it would accelerate through air. It can only attain that speed through thin air. A demolition cuts steel to pieces so they are falling through air. Energy must be expended. 90 lower floors receiving 15 upper floors absorbs energy.
9/11 research; Other Skyscraper Fires
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
That's cartoon physics. And Wile E. Coyote makes a hole in the ground when he falls of a cliff, because he has lots of kinetic energy. No one ever asks why he isn't squashed flat, since the ground is much harder than Wile E. You are focussing on one force, and ignoring all other forces, like upward static resistance, which was much more MASSIVE than the fall energy of a few floors of concrete.
In this case, you are saying that the kinetic energy of 15 falling floors will crush the upward static resistance of 90 floors beneath it. Not only that, but the falling mass will actually accelerate at the same speed as it would fall through thin air. That's cartoon physics.
What physics says is that energy from the falling mass will be expended each time it hits another floor, until it slows down and stops. Steel towers are not houses of cards. A house of cards doesn't even use glue. In the towers there were 47 vertical, cross-braced, five-foot wide steel box columns.
What is interesting is the drawing put out by FEMA of the towers as they supposedly "collapsed," which made it look as if the buildings were hollow. Below is a true representation, and below that is the FEMA drawing put out to newspapers after 9/11
Twin Tower core
FEMA drawing, where's the core?
Major General Albert Stubblebine
"They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside."
US Military Officers Question 9/11
Last edited:
JackD
Senior Moderators
Staff Member
- Sep 16, 2010
- 6,428
- 1,640
Okay, lets say for just a second that the towers did blow apart. Why would you think the gov. did this? And not the Islamic extremists that smashed planes into the towers? Maybe the bombing of the world trade center in 93 was a test of the structure. If those crazies could bring in bombs into the parking garage and blow them up, why would it be not be a possibility they did this again expect all throughout the building, and then used the planes and Jet fuel to weaken the structure?
bronco
Senior Member
- Jun 22, 2012
- 227
- 31
This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...
What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.
The building totaled 32 story's, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/
CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?articleid=1224&lastestnews=1
The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side walls. The structure above ground was characterized by two transition floors at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services.
The typical floor slab construction was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by reinforced concrete columns on two sides below 17th Floor level.
The transition floors were formed with solid RC slabs and deep beams. The original facade mullions and transoms were fixed to the steel perimeter columns, and a new facade structure had been added to outside of old facade. The perimeter columns in turn were supported by transition structures at 17th and 3rd Floor levels.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.
A thermo-mechanical assessment of this structural design, an understanding of why the structure performed as it did and why total collapse did not occur would provide valuable information for future structural fire analysis in design.
It would assist in the strong move now towards structural fire engineered buildings, and therefore help with the move away from reliance on Building Code based single element testing and associated fire proofing techniques which do not address real and structural behavior in real fires.
http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150
Recently the conspiracy theorist have begun using another building to use as a comparison.
The Parque Central was a 56 storey government office building in Caracas, Venezuela. The fire started on the 34th floor and climbed to the 47th floor. That's not similar to the WTC 7 because the fires were on the lower levels. The building didn't have a tube in a tube design like any of the WTC buildings either.
The single most important difference are in the columns.
The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.
Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.
Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe.
The fire was also aggressively fought for a period of time.:
Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.
At approximately 1:15 a.m., firefighters working with two 1-inch (38-millimeter) hose lines from different locations above the 34th floor were able to slow the upward movement of the fire considerably. By 3 a.m., a second 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, identical to the first one, had been put into service, and firefighters confined the fire to three to four floors above the 34th floor. This approach was successful through the first five or six hours of the fire, when the fire spread vertically at a rate of approximately one floor every three hours. The 27th floor became the main staging area for about 100 firefighters.
At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. It should be noted that the CFD only reported minor injuries among its personnel during this risky operation.
The fire continued to move upwards through the afternoon, at a rate of about 2 1/2 floors per hour. Between 2 and 3 p.m., the Venezuelan government began using helicopters with water buckets, commonly used on forest fires, in an unsuccessful attempt to slow the fire down.
The fire eventually burned itself out at 3 a.m. on Monday morning, after spreading and consuming the contents of some 17 floors, more than 24 hours after it began.
Conclusion
Past history and performance shows that this fire could probably have been controlled quickly by a standard wet-pipe sprinkler system and that the fire department’s chances of controlling the fire at, or a few floors above, the floor of fire origin would have increased if the standpipe system had been working. This fire highlights the importance of periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire protection systems, as well as the importance of strictly following manufacturers’ installation instructions.
This incident once again reminds us of the fire safety challenges high-rise buildings present and demonstrates that no fire department, no matter how large, professional, and well-equipped, can effectively control a fire without properly designed passive and functioning active fire protection systems. The CFD performed admirably in an impossible task, and its commanders made difficult decisions that ultimately proved to be the correct ones.
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.as...arch / April 2005/Cover Story&cookie_test=1#d
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
A challenge to conspiracy theorist:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on it's south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar" back to where it should have started.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.
The building totaled 32 story's, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/
CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?articleid=1224&lastestnews=1
The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side walls. The structure above ground was characterized by two transition floors at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services.
The typical floor slab construction was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by reinforced concrete columns on two sides below 17th Floor level.
The transition floors were formed with solid RC slabs and deep beams. The original facade mullions and transoms were fixed to the steel perimeter columns, and a new facade structure had been added to outside of old facade. The perimeter columns in turn were supported by transition structures at 17th and 3rd Floor levels.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.
A thermo-mechanical assessment of this structural design, an understanding of why the structure performed as it did and why total collapse did not occur would provide valuable information for future structural fire analysis in design.
It would assist in the strong move now towards structural fire engineered buildings, and therefore help with the move away from reliance on Building Code based single element testing and associated fire proofing techniques which do not address real and structural behavior in real fires.
http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150
Recently the conspiracy theorist have begun using another building to use as a comparison.
The Parque Central was a 56 storey government office building in Caracas, Venezuela. The fire started on the 34th floor and climbed to the 47th floor. That's not similar to the WTC 7 because the fires were on the lower levels. The building didn't have a tube in a tube design like any of the WTC buildings either.
The single most important difference are in the columns.
The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.
Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.
Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe.
The fire was also aggressively fought for a period of time.:
Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.
At approximately 1:15 a.m., firefighters working with two 1-inch (38-millimeter) hose lines from different locations above the 34th floor were able to slow the upward movement of the fire considerably. By 3 a.m., a second 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, identical to the first one, had been put into service, and firefighters confined the fire to three to four floors above the 34th floor. This approach was successful through the first five or six hours of the fire, when the fire spread vertically at a rate of approximately one floor every three hours. The 27th floor became the main staging area for about 100 firefighters.
At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. It should be noted that the CFD only reported minor injuries among its personnel during this risky operation.
The fire continued to move upwards through the afternoon, at a rate of about 2 1/2 floors per hour. Between 2 and 3 p.m., the Venezuelan government began using helicopters with water buckets, commonly used on forest fires, in an unsuccessful attempt to slow the fire down.
The fire eventually burned itself out at 3 a.m. on Monday morning, after spreading and consuming the contents of some 17 floors, more than 24 hours after it began.
Conclusion
Past history and performance shows that this fire could probably have been controlled quickly by a standard wet-pipe sprinkler system and that the fire department’s chances of controlling the fire at, or a few floors above, the floor of fire origin would have increased if the standpipe system had been working. This fire highlights the importance of periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire protection systems, as well as the importance of strictly following manufacturers’ installation instructions.
This incident once again reminds us of the fire safety challenges high-rise buildings present and demonstrates that no fire department, no matter how large, professional, and well-equipped, can effectively control a fire without properly designed passive and functioning active fire protection systems. The CFD performed admirably in an impossible task, and its commanders made difficult decisions that ultimately proved to be the correct ones.
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.as...arch / April 2005/Cover Story&cookie_test=1#d
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
A challenge to conspiracy theorist:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on it's south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar" back to where it should have started.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
Braw16
MuscleHead
- Aug 8, 2012
- 719
- 53
About the collapse how was the building put together? The towers outside walls were load bearing and connected to each other by trusses. Spongy had it look into engineering 101. Also the fire proofing they did was a spray on so on impact most of it was blown off. What happens to steel when you heat up that hot it bends and sags. At that point joints fail and if you think if one of those joints fails doesnt sound like an explosion your wrong. Your talking about tons of weight falling. The buildings held for as long as the load bearing walls could hold and the in structure like that they fall outward. Everything can be explained through engineering and the load numbers that were placed on a structure that was never built to handle it. Life sucks and people hurt people for no real reason so stop trying to justify why this tragedy took place it was a horrible moment in us history.
S
southernhound
Member
- Mar 3, 2013
- 63
- 2
Your post is all copy-paste from discredited "debunk" sites like this: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm This raises the interesting question of, if there is nothing to 9/11 skeptics' allegations, why has an entire sub-industry of "debunk" sites sprung up just to try to blow smoke around what they are saying? It was not just the Windsor tower that didn't collapse, as a result of concrete and steel construction, which is actually weaker. NO steel frame high rise has ever collapsed. Then you copy and paste a wall of text about sprinkler systems which is irrelevant. We are not arguing whether the sprinklers in the Windsor performed.
Then you like to label all questioners under your monolithic catch-all, "the conspiracy theorist." That is intellectual laziness at its worst. If conspiracies did not take place then why are there RICO laws?
You need to understand that Jet fuel is only kerosene. It burns no hotter or longer than the stuff you light your barbeque with. It burns off completely in ten minutes in open air. Most of it blew out in the fireballs anyway. You can burn it in a kerosene lantern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
BTW 767s only carry around 24,000 gallons full load, they are about half full because they were only going to California, so that makes about 10,000 gallons, most of which blew out in the fireballs anyway. You keep overlooking, or ignoring, the fact that the towers were designed to take multiple jetliner hits. And 10,000 gallons of anything is nothing compared to a 96,000 tons of steel frame. That is a weight ration of 3-to-10,000. Go here for interviews of the design engineers: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Joints failing don't sound like explosions. Explosions sound like explosions. Explosions have a shock wave you can feel. The favorite tactic of 9/11 disinformation artists are to tell people their senses didn't really see or hear whey saw or heard.
Question: is this an explosion:
If you thought, "yup, that's an explosion alright," you are right. Trust it.
Here is the explosive sequence audible in the North Tower. If they sound like explosions, they are.
So explain it. And what do you mean "justify?" Nothing justifies mass murder. The question is who did it.
Last edited by a moderator:
bronco
Senior Member
- Jun 22, 2012
- 227
- 31
LMAO... OK now I understand, anything that is a rebuttal to your copy and paste is discredited, I could copy and paste links about this all night but i won't, mainly b/c most people here won't read it anyways. I know I don't.
Eitherway , the thing about conspiracies is they are not proven fact, and I do not have to prove myself right you have to prove us wrong
Eitherway , the thing about conspiracies is they are not proven fact, and I do not have to prove myself right you have to prove us wrong
Who is viewing this thread?
There are currently 0 members watching this topic