Re: Dr. Truth..........could you wipe the piss off your torso and please explain this
YinYangSoul said:
I'll try your technique:
""Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." "
Now go get started on that life.
meeeeeh, you failed miserably like usual.....failures who exhibit loser like tendacies usually care out those tendacies for an entire life time. Not sure if it passes in genetics but who knows, may skip a generation.
Here is my counter argument against your lego set argument
smokedacane said:
Do believe that the plane was the sole reason for the collapse of the building???
The fuel buring within the towers were far lower than the melting point required to melt steel. And it would of taken way longer for the building to give out considering the twin towers were constructed to LAST.
EXAMPLE
in 2005, A 32-story building in Madrid Spain burned for more
than 24 hours and guess what........it did not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete (Just like the Towers), despite what we are all
led to believe, Skyscrapers do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid.
In fact before September 11th, 2001,
no building constructed in the MODERN ERA has EVER collapsed as a result of fire alone........
EVER. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as
six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.
Isn’t it STRANGE, the wtc collapsed after
an hour, and the
black smoke indicates that fire wasn’t even burning hot. Now compare- this is the Madrid Fire, it burned for
10 hours and still has not collapsed.
video link page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4261315.stm
THE FUCKERY CONTINUES....
In Dennis Smith's book, "Report from Ground Zero" he writes about first account from a group of firefigher survivors. Lieutenant Mickey Croft of Engine Company Sixteen was around the second floor in Stairway B when the building began to collapse.
He described the wind as being "fierce" and that it almost lifted his body. He notes that he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off. A downward wind would not have caused him to lose his helmet. In fact an EXPLOSION from ground level would cause him to lose his helmet,
the pancake theory does not explain how his helmet would of came of in all the air would of come from above.
ALSO
Jim McLean from Engine 39 was between the 1st and 2nd floors when the building began to fall. He also described a "rush of air going up".
An upward wind would be consistent with the demolition model of collapse, in which demolition charges are pre-positioned on support structures in the building’s interior. Their triggering and explosive reaction would tend to consume oxygen within the structure, sucking more air inward from the stairwells, while forcibly ejecting solid matter outward.
ALSO more quotes from his book
more eye witness a professional testimony said:
Pasquale Buzzelli, a structural engineer at the Port Authority, and Genelle Guzman McMillan, a secretary at the Port Authority, were together in Stairway B on the 13th floor of the North Tower when it collapsed. After losing consciousness, Buzzelli awoke on the surface, on top of a pile of rubble, and was carried away with minor injuries. McMillan survived in an air pocket for 27 hours before she was rescued. She is famous for being the last person pulled alive from the rubble.
The pancake model of collapse would have an increasing mass of kinetically charged objects piling down, burying everything beneath it, arguing against any survival from any lower floors, let alone objects from the lower floors emerging at or near the top of the heap. However, this observed fact is consistent with the demolition model in which the upper floors are reduced to powder from the demolition charges, and the falling debris, while substantial, could spare a stairwell below, falling around it, rather than crushing it.
Each tower had three stairways labeled A, B and C. On most floors, the stairways were about 30 feet apart in the core with the plumbing, elevators and other infrastructure. Stairway B of the North tower was the only one to yield survivors. One possible explanation for these survivors, in the demolition model, is that explosives that were placed in the vicinity of this stairwell section failed to go off.
Additional facts regarding the collaspe of the twin towers
* The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.
*
Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.
* Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.
* Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics.
*
The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.
*
Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.
* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.
* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.
*
WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11. A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras. Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure. Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.
* It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.
*
The 911 Commission report says that there were no central support columns, which is a lie. The WTC had the most robust central support columns in the world at the time it was built, and was designed to be centrally supported.
Why is it that explosive ejections of Dust and Pieces are shown in the collapse of the two towers????
leeeeeeeets seeeee
# Thick dust clouds spewed from towers in all directions, at around 50 feet/second.
# Solid objects were thrown ahead of the dust.
a feature of explosive demolition.
# The steel was thoroughly cleansed of its spray-on insulation.
#
Some pieces of the perimeter wall were thrown laterally 500 feet.
#
Energetic ejections of dust occurred below the rapidly descending demolition wave in each tower.
#
Squib velocities exceeded 200 feet/second.
# Aluminum cladding was blown 500 feet in all directions.
All of the highlighted points are indicative of a explostion as a result of a
controlled DEMOLITION
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings fell to quickly, nearly at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
The explanations you presented cannot and do not begin to explain any kind of total collapse. If damage due to the impacts and fires were sufficient to cause some kind of collapse,
it would have caused the tops to toppole like trees, leaving the structure below the impact zone standing....
In esscence, only half of the tower would still be erect while the top half would be on the ground!
Some Proofs of Demolition
Jim Hoffman said:
# The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.
# The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.
# The volume of the dust clouds produced by the collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitation energy.
# The South Tower's top shattered before falling into intact structure.
Go back to work my nig, this is to complicated for you
Have you ever been to the twin towers.
Most of the times the info comes from persons trying to get fools like you to buy more videos or books. They say shit like "I'm professor" this or that or they say "I spent" so many years in this or that military or government service and you fall for it.
911 happen cause ,NORMAL PEOPLE, people that do security at the airports and sea ports:FAA Cost Guard, Airline Security and the FBI, never thought for one second people would hijack jets and ram them into buildings.
