The Twin Towers Collapse

[Lewis]

Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11
Engineers Explain the Twin Tower Collapse

http://architecture.about.com/od/disastersandcollapses/a/twintowerfall.htm

 

[JLB]

Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11
Engineers Explain the Twin Tower Collapse

http://architecture.about.com/od/disastersandcollapses/a/twintowerfall.htm

How about an explanation as to why the third building came straight down just like the first two, yet not planes hit it?


JLB

 

[Mike S]

How about an explanation as to why the third building came straight down just like the first two, yet not planes hit it?


JLB

There's an explanation in the Popular Mechanics investigation of the building damages. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/#wtc7

 

[JLB]

There's an explanation in the Popular Mechanics investigation of the building damages. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/#wtc7

It really needs no explanation as the Media, has explained for us that it was heat from the other buildings that caused the collapse.

Any other "explanation" other than what the main stream media says, couldn't possibly hold any merit.


JLB

 

[Mike S]

It really needs no explanation as the Media, has explained for us that it was heat from the other buildings that caused the collapse.

Any other "explanation" other than what the main stream media says, couldn't possibly hold any merit.


JLB

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be skeptical or that no other explanation has merit. But, conspiracy theories really don't make sense to me. That's just my opinion.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Don't want to sound resigning, but I found its best not to speak about that Day to most people as they are in shell shock over it yet. As Linus of peanuts once jokingly remarked, there's 3 things not to talk to people about: religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin. May I add to that 911?

WTC 7 does bother me, and the popular mechanics can pull their knowledgeable wool over people's eyes to make anything sound reasonable, but then again most people are on cholesterol meds and saw that the Emperor had clothes on. The little boy was wrong to call him out on it. After all even Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 that the crowd is right, "Enter through the wide gate. For narrow is the gate and thin is the road that leads to destruction, and a few enter through it. 14 But big is the gate and wide the road that leads to life, and many there be that find it." So there's a few minority people that must be conspiracy theorists, and if they be the few with weird religious doctrine must be cultists.

That sarcasm is enough to me to make my point without discussing any detail about that horrific day. I won't say anything else about it. There's no point.

 

[JLB]

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be skeptical or that no other explanation has merit. But, conspiracy theories really don't make sense to me. That's just my opinion.

What theory have I posted?

Jet fuel burns at its hottest, 900 degrees.

It takes 3500 degrees to make structural steel to melt.

The "heat" from a planes fuel couldn't come close to melting the steel enough to weaken it enough to "free fall" let alone weaken the other building.

That's all anyone really needs to know about that Day, to understand what DIDN''T make the 3 buildings fall.


JLB

 

[Mike S]

What theory have I posted?

Then don't take the comment personally.

 

[Lewis]

How about an explanation as to why the third building came straight down just like the first two, yet not planes hit it?


JLB

Steel structure weakened

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm
It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.

The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

 

[JLB]

Steel structure weakened

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm
It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.

The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

Fire from "burning" may reach temperatures of around 350 degrees which certainly wouldn't weaken any structural steel.

I bar b que and cook at temperatures higher than that.

Any honest examination of the facts from a person who is unbiased, should bring about some concern as to why someone might try to claim that "fires" would sheer off at an exact angle the massive structural beams, and cause the steel to heat to the point of "running like water'.

Have you ever witnessed a Bar B Que pit that melted and ran like water, from cooking with temperatures of even 500 degrees?


JLB

 

[Lewis]

but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

 

[JLB]

but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.


That would be the case for the 2 building associated with the impact of the planes, whose jet fuel, according to FEMA would have ignited and burned off "after a few minutes.

Building 7, with debris burning and no Jet fuel, would be much less.

Again, Bar B Que that is cooked in an enclosed pit made of 1/4" steel, easily reaches temperatures exceeding 500 degrees, which would be higher than that of temperature associated with the third building, don't "melt" and run "like water".


The steel thickness in the pictured support beam is well over 6" thick.

The steel in a Bar B Que pit is 1/4" Thick.

JLB

 

[Lewis]

JLB read this please

7 World Trade Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center



Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to the south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. An ABC News helicopter captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories.

Collapse
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[38] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[7] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[7] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[39][40]

 

[JLB]

JLB read this please

7 World Trade Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center



Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to the south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. An ABC News helicopter captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories.

Collapse
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[38] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[7] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[7] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[39][40]

Do you believe that a fire, created from debris from a building 300 feet away, which would reach temperatures of less that 500 degrees, could cause structural steel 6" thick to melt, when temperatures of a fire in an enclosed Bar B Que causes no damage what so ever to the 1/4" thick steel?

JLB

 

[Lewis]

Did you read my last post up above or not ?

 

[JLB]

Did you read my last post up above or not ?

Yes sir, I read it.

It completely ignores the fact that a fire of less than 500 degrees can cause structural steel 6" thick to melt and run like water.

This building can straight down at free fall speed.

Please tell me you understand these two statements.


It would be much much more realistic to say that supernatural forces caused building 7 to come straight down, than to suggest that a "fire" from across the street brought it down just like the first two.


JLB

 

[Mike S]

Do you believe that a fire, created from debris from a building 300 feet away, which would reach temperatures of less that 500 degrees, could cause structural steel 6" thick to melt, when temperatures of a fire in an enclosed Bar B Que causes no damage what so ever to the 1/4" thick steel?

JLB

The Popular Mechanics investigation included information from various professional sources, including NIST, the American Institute of Steel Construction, a NYC Deputy Fire Chief, structural engineers from the University of California, and others. Their findings provide what I think is compelling testimony. Why should we not believe them?

 

[Edward]

It really needs no explanation as the Media, has explained for us that it was heat from the other buildings that caused the collapse.

Any other "explanation" other than what the main stream media says, couldn't possibly hold any merit.
JLB

All of this stuff is interesting to me so I've pretty much watched all of the vids, both pro and con. The conclusion that I reached is that it's clear-cut and settled as far as physics are concerned. Burning fuel will not make a building collapse. If it would, then we better stop building skyscrapers right now, lol.

Then they ingeniously managed to label a sense of inquisitiveness as being a (gasp) conspiracy theorist, a "bad" thing. But that's the way it is supposed to be! Checks and balances. There must be honesty and truth in government, and it our duty as citizens to ask these questions. Am I right? That's elementary school stuff.

There's quite a few demolition experts (Guys who do it every day, for a living) on youbube which all say the same thing. All three buildings were typical demolition, just another day at work. They even pretty much know what they used in the application. This here is enough to raise instant questions which absolutely require our govt to be accountable for, with full disclosure. It's not happening, and not only that, people who are patriotic enough to ask are being ostracized as kooks. Huh.

Hope I don't get booted or banned for trying to have a patriotic heart like they taught me I should have in elementary school...

 

[Lewis]

Yes sir, I read it.

It completely ignores the fact that a fire of less than 500 degrees can cause structural steel 6" thick to melt and run like water.

This building can straight down at free fall speed.

Please tell me you understand these two statements.


It would be much much more realistic to say that supernatural forces caused building 7 to come straight down, than to suggest that a "fire" from across the street brought it down just like the first two.


JLB

There were a lot of factors including that massive gash, extending approximately 10 stories which you can see in this photo.
Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit

 

[Lewis]

Yes sir, I read it.

It completely ignores the fact that a fire of less than 500 degrees can cause structural steel 6" thick to melt and run like water.

This building can straight down at free fall speed.

Please tell me you understand these two statements.


It would be much much more realistic to say that supernatural forces caused building 7 to come straight down, than to suggest that a "fire" from across the street brought it down just like the first two.


JLB

There were a lot of factors including that massive gash, extending approximately 10 stories which you can see in this photo.
Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit