New theory on 9/11 "Controlled Demolition"

[Anubis]

Wait. That is lumping 3 claims into one result. Not fair. My Father was an architect and a civil engineer, I grew up around demolitions and large-scale building projects. I've seen several controlled demos of tall-ish buildings and I know what I saw on the TV in NYC that day was controlled. The pancake theory is utter non-sense and non-science.

If you concur that the planes hitting the buildings were real and not holograms or mass hallucination, please explain why you would need to use thousands of pounds of C4 or Thermite to level the Twin Towers after you just flew a couple of 767 commercial airliners into them? Why did these alleged conspirators want to ensure all three buildings were levelled to the ground? Why risk detection by initiating a large scale covert operation to place thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings in the weeks prior to the attacks?

Terrorism is about instilling terror into the populace. Flying commercial airliners into the heart of Manhattan achieves that goal. So, seeing that the population would already be terrorized, why the need to use explosives on the target of the attack? Without an answer to that question, there is no motive. Without a motive, this "theory" is no more than a paranoid rant on an internet message board.

 

[pixelsmith]

If you concur that the planes hitting the buildings were real and not holograms or mass hallucination, please explain why you would need to use thousands of pounds of C4 or Thermite to level the Twin Towers after you just flew a couple of 767 commercial airliners into them? Why did these alleged conspirators want to ensure all three buildings were levelled to the ground? Why risk detection by initiating a large scale covert operation to place thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings in the weeks prior to the attacks?

Anubis, it is obvious you understand very very little about this event. the towers were designed to withstand an impact from an airliner. i suggest about 6 more years of research on your part.

 

[Anubis]

Anubis, it is obvious you understand very very little about this event. the towers were designed to withstand an impact from an airliner. i suggest about 6 more years of research on your part.

It is obvious that you cannot answer the question because you do not have an answer. Without an answer to that question (ie. a motive), this idiot's conspiracy falls apart like a badly built house of cards and proves to be nothing more than paranoid lunacy from the tinfoil hat wearing crowd.

God bless the internet.

 

[pixelsmith]

the "idiots" are the people that do not study this event and claim to know it all. like i said, the towers were designed to withstand impacts from airliners. there were ample opportunities to wire the towers for explosives going back 3 years prior to the implosions and right up to the weekend before the attack. as you can see in the videos, most of the jet fuel ignited outside of the buildings. jet fuel does not burn very hot and burns very quickly. the steel components were certified to ASTM E119 specs. this means the steel would have had to be exposed directly to a 2000F fire for over 2 hours before any damage would occur. after the initial blast, the steel would have been exposed to about 500F fires. not even close to what would be needed to implode and pulverize 2- 110 story structures. if you think airliners caused the implosions of the 2 towers then you explain to me how and even stronger building like #7 imploded. lol... you cant.

 

[Anubis]

as you can see in the videos, most of the jet fuel ignited outside of the buildings.

What are you basing this on? It is fairly obvious the fuel tanks were breached when the planes hit the building, but it is logical to assume the majority of the fuel was carried inside the bulding before leaking out. Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon and as such would create a large fireball with very little fumes as a fuel source.

jet fuel does not burn very hot and burns very quickly. the steel components were certified to ASTM E119 specs. this means the steel would have had to be exposed directly to a 2000F fire for over 2 hours before any damage would occur.

First of all, you are correct in that jet fuel openly burns at a temperature around 550F. However, the fires in the Twin Towers were not burning openly, they were enclosed. Once the inside of the buildings caught fire (which would happen rather quickly given the bulding was soaked in burning jet fuel), the internal temperature of the burning floors would have been elevated in excess of 1100F. Additionally, the wind at that height would have fanned the fire and elevated the internal temperature even higher.

As the temperature on these floors rose, the structural steel and concrete that held the bulding together would heat up. Concrete used in buildings does not have the fireproofing used in tunnels, as it is not expected to be exposed to burning hydrocarbons. As such, the concrete holding the bulding would weaken at temperatures exceeding 1000F (which is well below the average internal temperature of a housefire). The structural steel girders have a critical temperature of 2066F. However, this is not the minimum temperature for steel to weaken, it is the temperature in which it begins to melt. Obviously, the steel would expand as it heated and start to lose its structural integrity.

after the initial blast, the steel would have been exposed to about 500F fires. not even close to what would be needed to implode and pulverize 2- 110 story structures. if you think airliners caused the implosions of the 2 towers then you explain to me how and even stronger building like #7 imploded. lol... you cant.

House and building fires do not burn at 500F, they increase to 1100F in approximately 3.5 minutes. Coupled with the wind and burning jet fuel and the structural damaged caused by a 767 crashing into it, the concrete and steel that held the buildings together failed and the tower fell. Once you research the actual properties of these materials, it really isn't rocket science.

It is obvious you have done little to no research on the effects of fire on steel, concrete and buldings, yet continue to make ridiculous claims that there was some type of government conspiracy to explain the towers' collapse. Additionally, you have failed to provide any kind of motive as to why these alleged conspirators felt crashing a plane into the towers would not be enough to terrify the American people. Next time try using Google before parroting out whatever nonsense they claim on your favourite conspiracy website that week. The "facts" you are citing are not based in any type of reality.

 

[pixelsmith]

did you happen to notice the BLACK smoke coming out of the top of the towers? if YOU knew anything about fire you will know that fire was almost out. it was fuel starved. there were PEOPLE standing in the open hole where the plane hit. if the fires were as hot as you say they would be fried to a crisp. you my friend need to put in another 6 years of research.

 

[Anubis]

did you happen to notice the BLACK smoke coming out of the top of the towers? if YOU knew anything about fire you will know that fire was almost out. it was fuel starved.

Black smoke? You mean the kind that typically comes from burning sythnthetics such as carpet, furniture, plastic, rubber and other things typically found in an office building? What a shocker.

there were PEOPLE standing in the open hole where the plane hit. if the fires were as hot as you say they would be fried to a crisp. you my friend need to put in another 6 years of research.

Or 2 seconds on Google:

From: http://www.redcross-cmd.org/Chapter/fireFactsMD.html

In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.

What now? Are you now going to claim the American Red Cross is "in on it" as well? Or are you going to finally admit you have done absolutely no research on this topic and are simply parroting out the same imaginary BS that you can find on any internet conspiracy page?

 

[pixelsmith]

In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.

still not hot enough to melt steel. what now? are you going to claim divine powers melted the steel into pools and rivers of molten iron in the basements?

LOL come back when you have learned something about steel, fire and controlled demolitions.

 

[Anubis]

still not hot enough to melt steel. what now? are you going to claim divine powers melted the steel into pools and rivers of molten iron in the basements?

The basement? Who the hell said anything about the basement? Nice dodge of any question or fact that doesn't fit into your tinfoil hat. You should work for the Republican Party.

LOL come back when you have learned something about steel, fire and controlled demolitions.

Why? So I can educate you some more on the topic?

I have asked you several times to give the motive behind this alleged conspiracy, and all you have provided in return are insults and nonsense. If this fairy tale is even remotely close to the truth, why are you so unable to address even the most basic questions about it?

This theory falls directly in line with what I call The Cockroach Principal. The Cockroach Prinicipal applies when someone has a controversial claim such as this one, but as soon as you shine any kind of objective light upon it the person(s) making said claim scatter like cockroaches rather than answer any questons the fundamentals of the theory itself. Often, responses to such questions are simply childish insults. In this case, you are dodging the question about motive much like a cockroach avoids light. Without a motive you have no theory, so it does not surprise me that you have avoided questions about it like a plague ship run aground.

Seriously, I feel like I lost a couple IQ points just having this idiot conversation with you. It is little wonder why nobody takes you conspiracy nutters seriously.

 

[pixelsmith]

The basement? Who the hell said anything about the basement? Nice dodge of any question or fact that doesn't fit into your tinfoil hat.

nice dodge. if you knew anything about the events that you believe you are an expert in you would know about molten iron in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings. iron, not steel.
iron has no chrome in it. thermite has iron in it. do the math.

motive? duh. do you really have to ask? research false flag operations and get back to me. you have much to learn grasshopper.

 

[Anubis]

nice dodge. if you knew anything about the events that you believe you are an expert in you would know about molten iron in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings. iron, not steel.
iron has no chrome in it. thermite has iron in it. do the math.

Structural steel is mostly comprised of iron as well. Your point?

motive? duh. do you really have to ask? research false flag operations and get back to me. you have much to learn grasshopper.

Yep, it makes perfect sense. Fly some jetliners into the WTC, cause mass panic about terrorism, and then blow up the buildings on national TV because.... Oh wait. You'll have to fill me in on the last part. I used my tinfoil hat to bake some french fries.

The Cockroach Theory proves true again!

 

[pixelsmith]

Structural steel is mostly comprised of iron as well. Your point?

and chromium. no measurable amounts of chromium in the molten iron in the basements. the molten iron was molten for up to 3 months. this is impossible under your expert analysis. office fires 100 stories up cannot produce molten iron lasting 3 months in the basement.

Oh wait. You'll have to fill me in on the last part.

yes it does make sense. because a fear based response to a unjustified war was needed.

 

[Anubis]

Pixelsmith:

As an addendum, I looked up the basic principals of thermite, its composition and uses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

The thought of using a welding medium to bring down the WTC has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have heard yet. Yes, it is possible to cut through large steel beams using this substance, but that is not its most practical use. First of all, lighting the thermite is unpredictable and extremely difficult. It is also primarily a welding medium, so slag inclusions and other tell-tale signs of its use would be difficult, if not impossible, to cover up. Additionally, if iron thermite was used (as you cited as the source of this mythical "liquid iron of the WTC basement"), the iron would need to be pre-melted to 2200F to sustain the reaction long enough to cut through the structural steel. This is why aluminum is the most common metal used for thermite charges. It melts at 1221F and has a boiling point of 4566F, which makes it ideal to quicky create the temperatures required for proper ignition. However, if aluminum was used, you wouldn't have your "puddle of iron" in the basement.

Then there is the fact that igniting hundreds of pounds of a chemical that burns just under 4566F (aluminum) to 5229F (iron), has its own oxygen source and cannot be smothered would cause a great deal more fire damage than the three targets of the 9/11 attack. There are sound reasons why thermite is not used for demolition purposes, and this is only one of them. Creating a large-scale fire in excess of 4000F is going to be felt by everyone at the base of the towers, if not for a 3 block radius surrounding them. I don't even want to think about the implications of a large-scale thermite discharge would have within a congested metropolis like NYC.

Do you even look this stuff up before posting it on here?

 

[Anubis]

yes it does make sense. because a fear based response to a unjustified war was needed.

I'm guessing that for some reason you don't think flying a couple jet airliners into the WTC was enough on its own to achieve that?

 

[pixelsmith]

I'm guessing that for some reason you don't think flying a couple jet airliners into the WTC was enough on its own to achieve that?

not a chance.
btw- one jet hit each tower, no jets hit #7 yet it fell into its own footprint with very little damage.

 

[pixelsmith]

research WTC 4,5 and 6.
4 partially collapsed due to WTC 1 and 2 falling on it yet part if it remained standing. 5 and 6 had more severe damage and fires than 1,2 and 7, yet they did not collapse into their own footprint. they had to be torn down. interesting to note, these building had NO molten iron flowing in them. hmmm.

 

[Anubis]

not a chance.
btw- one jet hit each tower, no jets hit #7 yet it fell into its own footprint with very little damage.

So, in your opinion, a couple skyscrapers collapsing to the street is far more terrifying than the terrorist factions that flew planes into them in the first place?

Unbelievable.

BTW: I suggest researching thermite before making such silly claims like it was used for the towers' collapse. It is obvious at this point that you do not even have a layman's understanding of what thermite is, what it is used for, or even the slightest idea of what kind of devestation igniting several hundered pounds worth at ground level would do to lower Manhattan. Why not just go whole-hog and claim a suitcase nuclear device was used? It is just as fantastic an idea and sounds a lot more terrifying to most people than obscure compounds used for welding purposes.

 

[David Biedny]

Folks,

There's an Ignore function here, it does wonders to bring down your blood pressure and avoid having discussions with overly obsessed people. Seriously.

dB

 

[Anubis]

research WTC 4,5 and 6.
4 partially collapsed due to WTC 1 and 2 falling on it yet part if it remained standing. 5 and 6 had more severe damage and fires than 1,2 and 7, yet they did not collapse into their own footprint. they had to be torn down. interesting to note, these building had NO molten iron flowing in them. hmmm.

Research the melting and boiling point of iron and ask yourself:

If a several hundred pounds of a chemical that burns so hot it can cut through structural steel like a knife through hot butter (and allegedly cause iron to remain in molten form for weeks on end), how did anyone within a couple hundred yards of this fire manage to survive? How did anyone actually dig in the rubble to look for survivors? Why didn't mass fires begin immediately around the base of the tower when the ambient temperature rose by a couple thousand degrees in a matter of seconds?

 

[pixelsmith]

If a several hundred pounds of a chemical that burns so hot it can cut through structural steel like a knife through hot butter (and allegedly cause iron to remain in molten form for weeks on end), how did anyone within a couple hundred yards of this fire manage to survive? How did anyone actually dig in the rubble to look for survivors? Why didn't mass fires begin immediately around the base of the tower when the ambient temperature rose by a couple thousand degrees in a matter of seconds?

LOL, you better stop now. you are showing your true ignorance and lack of knowledge. please. it is very evident you have not watched hours of video showing the workers pulling molten hot and dripping metal from the rubble pile. you havent read or listened to hours of testimony from workers, rescue teams, engineers, etc, that tell of the molten metal flowing like a river... etc etc etc..
really dude... you are now wasting my time. like i said do about 6 more years of research and get back to me.