Said as only someone who has never bent steel can say it.
At 1350F, austenite forms and the steel becomes pliable.
By 1400, you can easily bend structural steel by hand.
Even at 700° it's a lot softer than it is at room temp.
If you have a propane torch, try it. When your steel turns red that's 1400F. It will bend easily.

There is also confusion about the IGNITION temperature of fuel, the temp at which it lights, versus the COMBUSTION temperature, or the heat of the flame after it lights. The elevator shafts in the buildings' core with a few thousand gallons of jet fuel poured down would make very large blowtorches. Those could reach 3000°, double the temperature need to turn the core support structure to the consistency of taffy.

The design of the supporting core, which held the elevator shafts and was key to structural integrity, caused the buildings to collapse inward. Don't take my word for it though. Go out in your garage with a torch that burns hydrocarbon fuel. Get a piece of steel a little thicker than you can bend with your hands. Get a sour in the middle red hot with that hydrocarbon torch and see how easily you can bend the steel in half. Try it before arguing any more about it.

Don't burn your house down trying it, though. Have a bucket of water handy.

Bush's cousin, Marvin Bush was in charge of the company that provided security to the WTC up until the day it collapsed.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...1security.html

If you fpn't have a torch, here's another way to test for yourself in your kitchen. Get an old pan. Frying pan, cookie sheet whatever. Put on the stove by itself on high heat. Come back 15 minutes later. The pan won't be melted to liquid because it didn't reach 2800°, but it'll be all twisted and warped. Try it.

Decide if you'd like to be in a very tall building in which the main supports were twisted and warped like that, as well as softened.

Good post. That is true except by all accounts no fuel left the very upper floors.

I guess I have to look into further what high carbon building frame steel like the Twin Towers would have. What temp it would melt or sag enough to be weak enough not to suport the INERTIA of the first floors above crashing down say 50 feet at MOST and then pancaking which is what happened.

But since no fuel reached the bottom floors HOW did they sag. I dont believe the lower untouched floor's steel would crumble as it did. It is way stronger than that.

If you seperated a Tower (for sake of argument) at 50 stories and raised the upper 50 stories 100 feet to free fall on the 50 (untouched and structurally sound) stories below, the 50 stories below would NOT crumble or pancake. Would not happen. Maybe the first couple floors only (frames we're talking) would be bent and seriously impacted but the ones under would NOT pancake.

Pancaking is where it ONLY looks like a demolition.

As for the temps, I had heard high carbon building frames can tolerate over 2000 and upwards of 2800 degrees before seriously faulting.

Those buildings were rigged to come down that day. Who was behind it we'll never know.

The plane hit at a lower point of that tower = more weight above the impact area compared to the other tower. Basic physics; not surprising it would fall first.

Steel loses much of its strength well below its melting point. And that matters a lot in regards to why the towers fell due to how they were built ... see my next response below...

The towers were tube-frame construction unlike most, especially older, skyscrapers which are box framed construction. The difference is that box-frame is akin to a grid with each floor being supported by numerous internal columns. Whereas, in tube-frame, there is an inner core and the outer walls with few to no internal columns...

The towers, also including building 7, were tube-frame construction verses box-frame ... as the steel weakened from the heat, the floor supports sagged and pulled at the connections between the core and outer walls ...

Eventually, as the stress built up, portions of affected floors began to fall onto the floor beneath. At some point, the load limit of the floors below was reached, starting a cascade of floors falling onto the floors below; pancaking effect.

Heat up some steel to even half of that for awhile and one sees plainly it loses much of its strength; bends much easier.

Much of the jet fuel was rapidly consumed and hence the temperature it burns at is of little consequence. 1200F is plenty hot enough to ignite materials within the building, which then burned for an extended period of time, weakening the steel, leading to an unstoppable pancaking of floors, and ultimately, the destruction of the buildings.

In short, the difference between tube-frame (Towers 1, 2, and 7), which allowed for large open floor plans, and box-frame (ie. Empire State Building) is ultimately what did the towers in ... lack of structural redundancy / robustness compared to traditional box-frame structures.

Ron

it's not just the "steel melting" you have to take into account that a huge jet just slammed into it

You're talking about a "normal" demolition, engineered to be as safe as possible, protect human life, and wired with conventional explosives.

If the buildings were wired to look like messy attack destruction, those particular rules wouldn't be followed.

Prior to being shut down, the building residents and employees complained of dust/powdery settlements on shelves and desks for weeks. All sorts of "contracts" were being conducted, such as elevator modernization jobs and so on...

Some of these can be verified, some have absolutely no record with the port authority even though the building managers were under the impression that this was going on...

Records misplaced, lost by the disaster, there's just so many little things...

Beyond the fact that all the evidence was simply removed beginning hours after the event, contrary to all fire and air-frame investigation guidelines, including what the FBI referred to as "crime scene" protocols, it's really hard to reconcile things like NIST claiming debris shot horizontally from the WTC towers were what caused such damage to WTC 7 and buildings all around without explaining why such debris was projected this way, especially since their explanation was gravitational collapses which couldn't have shot out such debris.

:D

:D

Im not picking on you Bronco :) I usually agree with u but..

It wasnt the government.. it was the owners of the building.. all 3 buildings. Need I say his name. :) Better not. :)

Govt had nothing to do with it. They are not even needed to pull it off. WHO has the motive? The govt are victims as I see it. (The Pentegon)

As far as wiring the building's size, seems there were guys in dark clothing wandering around for 3-4 months before by some accounts. And I think they could wire it in 3 months. They wired Bldg 7.

BTW was building 7 occupied by people months before? THAT is the Q. If it was, well they had no prob wiring it with whatever private firm did the job.

I think it could be wired. They wired 7 no prob. And (how convenient) had scheduled the demolition for about the same time as the Twin Towers.

Then as i just read (hadnt heard that) IF they evacuated the Towers for two weeks before well..

:thumbsup:thumbsup

just consider the amount of people that would have to be involved in this conspiracy. Has a single person ever said they were involved? ever talked about it to their friends etc? secrets are fucking hard things to keep especially when the secret is shared by thousands.

i dont know what happened and i stopped caring a few years ago. the problem is not the facts, but the will of the American people to believe it was middle eastern terrorists. even if George W came on tv tomorrow and admitted that he and Cheney planned the thing (im not saying they did btw), most Americans would still blame middle eastern terrorists. the thought has been planted in American's minds by the media. it would be nearly impossible to uproot it.
:2 cents:

i like some of your posts man but seriously, guys in dark clothing running around being suspicious?? comeon. thats just beyond funny.

OK, here are some more facts:

The WTC was not just *a* steel building. It was one of the largest/ tallest buildings in the world. As such, it had special/ extra forces on it. A building like that doesn't need to have the steel "cut" or "melted" to demolish it. It only needs to have the heat *weaken* the trusses. When you take 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and burn for a while with lots of flammable debris, and add in a huge initial impact to blow off any insulation --that's exactly what can happen.

Watch the NOVA documentary. In the film, you can actually see the exact moment or frame when the trusses fail.

Who else could have prevented all military intervention or interception of the "hijacked" flights for a couple hours? Cave-bound Arabs with Satellite phones? Commercial property owners with a groan on for re-furbishing their building's asbestos fireproofing?

The A-Bomb had 130,000 people working on it, and about 10 to 15,000 "insiders" - starting in 1938 - and German and Japanese intelligence didn't have "wind" of it until Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and are still to this day not exactly on the public record.

Who in GLADIO were upper-up responsible? Who knows?

These things...

Now the A-Bomb was supposedly a noble effort... many have come forth, been declassified, etc... but if you were involved in a false-flag the size of 9/11, would you be coming out proudly?

:D

I just finished watching World Trade Center movie with Nicolas Cage.

in that movie they show explosions in the bottom of the towers, after the airplanes collapsed, so they show that the collapse was due of the explosions by FBI/CIA secret agents..

if its true or not, we dont know.

Check the green image behind bush, looks like the tower coming down.

The problem is with 9/11 is that it was a huge event in multiple states, witnessed first hand by tens of thousands, millions on live TV, and everyone else since. It's been over analyzed.

It's simple. If you have a three car accident witnessed by ten people, you'll get five different stories about what happened because they all saw it from different angles.

You can take one aspect of 9/11 and try to poke holes in it. "Steel doesn't melt at 600 degrees". But there's some problems with that. We've never build a 100 story building and rammed a huge jet plane full of jet fuel into it. Is the temperature that steel melts at even relevant? The steel got rammed by a fucking huge air plane, didn't need to melt but just bend a little, and failed to support the floors above it.

Buildings don't fall straight down when they collapse? Does that mean they tip over? I mean, when one floor falls on another floor, it's not going to tip over, it's going to collapse.

The little puffs that look like smoke from bombs? This was a pressurized building with hundreds of pressurized lines - everything from air to steam to oil to hydraulic fluid to window washing fluid was carried to the top of the building in pressurized lines. It might have been those lines. Or maybe it was just the fact it was a pressurized building - meaning, the only way air could escape was through the bottom (not likely) or through the hole the airplane punched... But when the floors fell, that air had to go someplace. If you've never been to the WTC when it was standing or a similar building that is pressurized, you understand this.

I also love the argument that "1000 scientists say it can't happen" a certain. Well, I have a degree in electrical engineering but that doesn't really qualify me to wire up a light switch. You have a huge degree but if you believe so firmly that the government did this, that's what your gonna say.

And finally is the lack of a smoking gun. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the people on it? Did they just take them out back and shoot them? How much explosives would have been required to take down those buildings, and how did they get planted without anyone seeing?

The problem is the question, which should not be if the towers were demo'ed or not. This is deflection crap designed to steer away from the real issue of actually who was behind 9/11.
All of these sideline issues become "crazy conspiracies" which make every question about 9/11 seem paranoid, which has been the plan all along.

cummon nobody will ever know

Sam Giancana, Chicago Outfit, Santo Trafficante JR and the Tampa Crime Family? Yea, I'm pretty sure two of those are dead and the other two are close to being defunct.:1orglaugh

conspiracy threads are like train wrecks, i just can't help but slow down and watch them

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

omfg - best post ever

Regardless, an object of lesser mass can't just pulverize an object three times it's mass regardless of the momentume or velocity - the upper portion fell as though through butter....

The towers and many other buildings (such as WTC7) were built in such a way as to take weakened/softened steel into consideration; the weakened steel matrix would actually act as a "spring" to any tendencies to pile-driven gravitational effects.

Not to say that the structure gained strength if any of the steel softened, just to say that *if* the steel somehow managed to soften globally by some mysterious process, it still wouldn't have collapsed, AND if it had somehow it couldn't have softened all steel universally so that a vertical, symmetrical collapse could ensue, it would have fallen asymmetrically, tipping for the most part at it's weakest sections.

Tube-frames have become common because of their exceptional rigidity and flexibility - from earthquake as well as hurricane type forces, Their construction was also designed to resist multiple airliner impacts, let alone one. The "grid" you refer to is much more tensile and resistant to impacts than the classical box grids.

You also make it sound as though there is nothing but air between the core and external support, which is false.

If what you said were true, then the external "shell" would have shredded or been shedded and the core or "spindle" would have remained standing - which didn't happen, it was as though the core was shredded top to bottom, an impossibility considering the localized impoacts of the planes.

Which according to this and NIST's cartoon reconstruction would have pulled the external parts of the building indward (and WTC7 wasn't a tube construct btw) which didn't happen. The towers blew out, laterally, against the suppositions of gravitation driven collapses.

NIST and the government 'experts' dismissed the pancaking years and years ago. Even if you were partially right, it would have taken a second or more for each flloor to "pancake" or resist then give out to the upper weight (what's called the pile-driver effect) - which at one hundred stories would have taken a lot more than 10 seconds for the whole thing to come down - would have taken more like a minute and a half, if all were symmetrical and perfect and slam-resist-slam-resist perfect. Which it warn't.

Pancaking the government already said was not an event.

Jet fuel/turpentine/lighter fluid can't weaken steel to the point you're talking about. If all the fuel burned off and left wood and sheetrock and paper burning for an hour, there's no way that could soften steel. NIST has already stated that it was unlikely any of the fires burned above 650 farenheit. A foundry needs six hours and more at temps of 3000 to begin to liquefy steel, and yet liquid metal was pooled beneath the towers for weeks on end after the destructions...

[QUOTE=Ron Bennett;18413601]In short, the difference between tube-frame (Towers 1, 2, and 7), which allowed for large open floor plans, and box-frame (ie. Empire State Building) is ultimately what did the towers in ... lack of structural redundancy / robustness compared to traditional box-frame structures.
/QUOTE]

This is a familiar myth that was already discredited and in fact would have contributed to the structure actually lasting longer than a traditional construct particularly due to the impacts. However regardless unless the fires were ignited and maintained by accelerants capable of maintaining temperatures above 2000 farenheit minimum for at least 5 hours, the structure should not have suffered, regardless if the steel weakened or rather softened.

Who else but elements of the government could have prevented all air support from engaging? Who but elements in the government could have arranged for all apparently available forces to be engaged in military exercises on the same day at the same time?

So the impacts blew all the insulation off all the beams from top to bottom?

Then wood and office walls burned hot enough to melt steel, forge swords, liquefy man's most tensile alloy in history within minutes?

A building like that as you say was specially constructed to withstand multiples of the very forces apparently applied to it that day, as well as those to which you refer.

The NOVA "documentary" was mistaken because they excluded any core column support in their computer "simulation" cartoon, and they subsequently corrected that or apologized for it...

Don't watch NOVA or listen to NIST unless you're willing to dig....

Good points and nice post. Thanks. I only raise the q's I have and it is nice to see someone answer them. Somewhere between my extremes and your belief lies the truth.

So you believe the lower floors were affected? That is a very important q. You also believe that a sudden burst of inertia like picking up three upper floors for say 20 feet and dropping them could cause the weakened lower floors (if they were weakened) to pancake?

Perhaps if they were weakend but, I thought the lower floors were fairly untouched. Werent fireman going up like 30 floors or such. Sorry for my facts. It's been a while. :)

I just cant see how the bldgs could pancake if the lower floors were mostly untouched.

Some guys agree with that viewpoint. Some don't. :)

maybe julian knows., hes got all the cables . :winkwink:

Again, the steel was *weakened* because of the heat. Whether it actually melted or not is irrelevant. Have a look at the schematics of the trusses. It makes perfect sense that they would collapse with much of their strength depleted. Ask any competent engineer.

The building was designed to withstand the fact that it was the tallest building in the world. That alone puts enormous stress its components. It was probably not designed to withstand a deliberate military type attack with a fully loaded 757 slamming in at 500 MPH.

Good point. Not letting them off the hook and yeah they did gain big.. we went to war.

I guess I meant it was poss it was not only the govt.

Certainly the owners had lots to gain by what happened as well.

Anyhow interesting discussion. I am NOT an Alex Jones guy but I just dont buy the pancaking. Who did what or why it happened I have no idea.

My basic premises:

1) I dont think the lower floors were weakened from fire or impact.

2) The normal frame could hold up under huge sudden inertia if it was sound as it SHOULD have been. (minus poss detonation spots or pre planned weak spots)

There is a lot of verticle strength in those huge IBeams or Mbeams or whatever beams they are. Huge verticle strength.

Engineers have those stresses all fig out. A lil reinforced steel can hold a lot of weight. It was certainly not that easy to pancake. It is hard to pancake an erector set. (remember those :) ) so I dont buy it.

The multiple misperceptions (such as the case of the Pentagon) aren't the issue.

Me and you can look at three similar symmetrical building "collapses" and come away with different conclusions somehow (you think the coincidence is possible, I don't) but you can't in a nut dismiss all the other "coinkydinks" of that day and those events, collectively.

The temperature at which steel melts is a constant, as is the temperature at which steel begins to soften; as is the construction of the buildings taking into account these factors to allow distribution of the building load in the event of steel "softening" in the event of a catastrophic fire.

Multiple airliner impacts were taken into consideration, using older airframes which were heavier due to the fact that they were more steel based versus modern planes which had a lot more aluminum used in their build.

Yes, they should tip. Pancaking was ruled out of the equation very early - NIST was challenged on their science and changed their "theory".

And heat dispersion being what it is, several impacted and burning floors could not have heated and softened every truss, every beam, every support column and joint simultaneously so that spontaneously they surrendered to gravity.

Gravity would also not explain how 20 ton pieces flew 300 to 600 feet away from the event.

The pressurization argument is a fallacy because any hermetic condition in the building was compromized by the impact.

Besides if you look at the videos you see the building corners blasting out - not windows, not squibs, but structural supports blowing out in clouds of destructive energy - I doubt the fax machines or overheated water coolers did this.

[QUOTE=Rochard;18413708]I also love the argument that "1000 scientists say it can't happen" a certain. Well, I have a degree in electrical engineering but that doesn't really qualify me to wire up a light switch. You have a huge degree but if you believe so firmly that the government did this, that's what your gonna say.[/quote[
I don't know about the qualifications of those scientists, but a lot of them are structural engineers, physicists, architects, etc... and their petitiion is signed by more than 15,000 people, they're not the only ones involved - and they don't make any claims other than their evidence points to, and only demand an actual investigation, rather than the 9/11 commission whitewash.

I don't think or talk about the Pentagon. What's unique is that the FBI have all the videos concerning this. I don't point or signify anything about that particular event.

Apparently, the amount of "explosives" if you take the evidence of nano-thermite already pointed to, isn't as tremendous as with a traditional demolition, if that's what they were. And there were reportedly enough blank spots in recent WTC history pre-destruction for strategic destructive agents to be implanted.

I dunno but seems the questions outnumber the "answers" when it comes to this... and that a real investigation is required, with what evidence we have remaining...

:D

You're right - it's irrelevant whether or not the steel could have melted. Which it couldn't have.

It doesn't make "perfect sense" becuase no matter how weak the trusses were in the immediate orbit of the impacts, they were uncompromised above and below that.

If all the trusses were set to give out at once, then maybe you could have your collapse - if you consider the spindle or core columns would remain, which they didn't. They were shredded to 20-foot lengths like much of the building support.

BYQ the WYC towers were designed according to designers, architects etc... to withstand multiple impacts from commercial airliners - there's a quote somewhere on this very fact.

Flying an airliner into the building is not a military type operation btw...

:D

The towers were built with the utmost of economy...

An example of that economizing was plainly evident on 911 to some survivors who were able to punch their way through drywall and escape into the core section. The walls of the core ideally should have been reinforced concrete, but that would have added substantial expense, and taken up a bit more valuable space. And hence, drywall was used instead - one of numerous cost saving moves...

Point is the buildings for as amazing as they were, weren't indestructible - many here who are claiming the towers couldn't fall straight down, fell too fast, etc ignore the power and properties of gravity...

Imagine part of a floor weighing, say a million pounds, falling on to the floor below ... that floor below must support both itself plus that additional weight ... then, imagine a portion of next floor above those two falling on top of them ... and repeat that once or twice more, and the design limit is going to be far exceeded leading to a pancaking effect...

As for why the floors, and ultimately the entire structure, fell straight down instead of tipping over, is, in large part, due to the extreme strength of the outside walls - they were as strong, if not more so, than the core.

With all that said, as another poster above said, all this debating takes away from a more important issue being who was really behind 911 / did the U.S. government, as in Pearl Harbor, know a major attack was imminent, and purposely allow it to happen?...

It's remarkable how quick the PATRIOT Act was written and passed into law, and how quickly the TSA and Homeland Security were created. And then recall the whole Anthrax scare ... who was really behind that, and, importantly, what was that really all about? -an excuse to further control the population / push through unpopular policy? Those are 911 related issues that really need to be investigated and discussed more.

Ron

no surprises a complete idiot would start a thread like this

ye and look were he is hiding know he was ment to relise more on bank of america but nothing has happened

and how would your dumb ass respond if your government was behind it dopey?

according to you you felt no remore after hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese were severly affected by earthquakes, tsunamis and radioactivity because of the actions of their government more than 50 years ago ?

so deadshit if we do find out your government was behind 9-11 what then ?

it's just suck shit to all the innocent americans that died is it ? just like it japan ?

lets hear it

It's amusing that the biggest crackpots are on internet forums. They believe everyone is a sheep and that they're somehow 'different' because they allegedly know something everyone else doesn't, using retarded logic and rationalizations to compensate for their lack of individualism.:1orglaugh

Do I think the government was behind it? No.

Do I believe the official story? No.

:arcadefre This a conspiracy site?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

Very good point! :thumbsup It's time to move on from this and get onto PNAC, Relevant History, The Bankers, The Agenda, Depopulation etc. That way those who still stick with the official story, will start to get an idea of the bigger picture and start to see that 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg; there are dark times coming unless we can win the war of information.

I'll start with Agenda 21, Wikipedia says

"Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment."


Think this can't happen? This is the UN we're talking about, this is the Bankers! They got women out to work which would have seemed incredibly unlikely in the past, these guys are experts and have incredible control and wealth.

hum, looks interesting ... pretty scientific ... ie

i guess all architects agree with this ...

Building 7 was 5 times as tall as deep.

To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously.

Any asymmetry in damage would cause asymmetric collapse:
the building would topple.

No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse.

Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures. :2 cents:

Whatever side you are on with 9/11, please forget about that for a moment. I would like you to keep this in mind for the next few months and to start paying attention to the sky where you live.

You've probably heard of HAARP before, well it's possible you can even see it's effects from where you live.

The video below shows what occurs after the geo-engineering team have been spraying Aluminium. This is the part that the debunkers of geo-engineering never show you, because they know they can't debunk it.


This is what it looks like on RADAR

HAARP is a major part of how they will bring in Agenda 21; it's an incredibly powerful weapon. It will be used to make it seem like nature is out of control, so we all have to move to "Save Havens".

and lolz at the lil campfire that is said to have brought down the towers ...
THIS is a fire!!! and yet, the steel structure did NOT collapse ...
ah well, i guess anything build in america is weak and third choice only? :error