What caused the structure to fail so quickly on the World Trade Center?

did you say “pancake”? yummm…I feel on coming on…

I understand your questions and there is much controversy about the correct answers. I would do your research on line with the knowledge that you will never get to the bottom of this puzzle.

I have one question that troubles me: Why, as some conspiracy theorists claim, if the towers were actually brought down in a controlled demolition was it necessary to fly planes into the buildings?

That’s why there are a ton of conspiracy theories.
A lot of the details are pretty confusing and sketchy.
I’m not sure that we will have all the answers anytime soon.

In answer to question 3, just because the building was designed to withstand the impact of a plane does not mean that in reality it can withstand the impact of a plane. The Titanic was designed not to sink, for example.

Well i believe that Titanic was just called unsinkable not designed not to sink. And i can’t accept that the people who designed WTC had the same engineering knowledge with the people that built Titanic. Don’t even think that the people chosen to design WTC were not the top of the engineers. And we talk about a team of the top of engineers not just one or two

It was the magic bullet.

Well, a couple of enormous planes did hit it…

Jesse Ventura just did a show on this and the conspiracy theories. I found this for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkio6TF0Ufg

When it happened I was fascinated that the building fell straight down, that seemed like a good thing, rather than falling sideways. It has been argued that there were explosions set, that it imploded like a purposeful demolition.

There’s the documentary Loose Change that I saw a while back in school. It’s pretty detailed and talks about the things you mentioned in the question, and raises more questions.

Everyone is going to have different opinions on this.
Everyone is going to defend their side until the FBI releases more information The black boxes perhaps.

I for one, am keeping an open mind about it, but I’m leaning towards the “Our government had something to do with it” theory.

After seeing all the videos. Using what little mind I have.

I can’t understand how people see a conspiracy.

The steel didn’t need to heat up enough to fail, just enough to become not-strong-enough. The upper part of the building was being held up by the hat trusses holding it back to the core, once the fire weakened enough of the structure, the core began to collapse.

In short, the structure of the building above the impact (core and all) fell through the remaining floors. If you think of it as the top of the building “snapped off”. It accelerated down through the rest of the floors at near free-fall speed—were it being significantly slowed down by them, it would have tumbled off, but since the floors below were being loaded (by the falling structure) at much higher than they could withstand, they simply failed.

(This is a good white paper on the subject: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf )

Oh, and the molten metal: Melting point of aluminum is 660C, however can be lower for aircraft alloys, e.g. the very common 6061 melts at 576C. Apparently annealing studies done on steel found in the wreckage found it had been heated to 600C by the fires. (ref article above)

@grumpyfish That makes sense to me.

@Sebulba – Dude you got balls ;-)

@grumpyfish
Does molten aluminium glow bright orange?

This site will probably interest you.

I bet the problem was that engineers did not expect planes to hit the building in the first place. Heck, the government did not concern itself with the possibility until it happened. Now you have to wait an extra hour in line at the airport whenever someone forgets that they left a water bottle in their backpack The random shifts in weight and force caused probably the demise of the structure.

@Pazza Yep!

http://bit.ly/61hayq

Anything heated above 500C will glow as the thermal radiation moved into the visible spectrum.

Or are you talking about the sulfury stuff?

@grumpyfish
Page not found!.....
Though I wasn’t asking because I didn’t know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbaiuK3M3U – Molten Aluminium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjLgzgflCk8 – Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30dP6ld0X-U&feature=related – Actually a thermite debunk video (it did make me laugh)

The fires would not have gotten that hot in an oxygen starved environment, and building seven didn;t get hit by any planes. blar blar blar, we’ve heard both sides of the argument, but Steven Jones has written a paper and anylised droplets in the dust and found tell tale signs of thermate.

So make an informed decision flutherers, theres another question knocking about on why some people have no empathy eg. pedophiles.

My thoughts were what if these people ended up in government, to which on response was look at the enron people, well what do you know, all the enron case files were in building seven.

Thermite is a composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide.

So you are saying there was no metal in the building?

@Pazza what evidence is there that there was thermite in the building?

If you read the Paper I linked to above, it explains a structural failure scenario based on observed conditions that doesn’t require additional explosives.

@Fred931
The designers of the buildings took a fully loaded 707 into consideration.

Loose change final cut. (and before anyone says ‘why did they have re-edit it’ they just took out anything cercumstantial, or gathered more evidence to debunk the debunkers)

Ps. don’t quote me on the 707 bit, but surfice to say it was a big fuckoff plane!...

@ChazMaz
thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and powdered aluminium, when you set it off, the oxigen fuses with the aluminium to produce aluminium oxide and molten iron is the remainder, thus the reaction requires no external oxygen.

I could use a steel colon. I have the runs.

@grumpyfish
I’ll try and find a link

@Pazza Thanks!

Edited to add: that is, most of the folks who seem to be suggesting thermite start with the assumption that the buildings were brought down by explosives, and look for evidence to support that.

A giant airplane flying into it. When nearly 3 of four sides of such a heavy structure are destroyed… it tends to put all that weight on the remaining side.

@pdworkin
;-)

@all
I’m English and I know that Americans are far more patriotic than us limies (we’re so seperatist) So I appologise if I cause any offense, its is not my intension.

@NaturalMineralWater
Try to be more constructive!.....lol

@Crazy I’m talking to an engineer.. I can’t possibly provide more insight, personally, than he already has.

@Pazza – The explains the process.
But does not explain how, with all the varying metallurgy in the building and constant heat and pressure, that there were no other reasons for those compounds to be there.

@grumpyfish
Can’t find the Steven Jones report but you’l find a ream of technical articles on the AE911 web page as per @kevbo‘s contribution:

http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

I think the S.Jones report will be there somewhere.

@Pazza Excellent, thanks!

@ChazMaz
I hear ya, but the buildings safety rating was that high that natural gas wasn’t even aloud in the building ie, all the cookers were electric. besides, there really is no other practicle use for this stuff other that welding rail tracks together. Oh an melting other stuff, like cars.

@pdworkin
haha I just fully read the question ‘colons’ haha.
funny bastard ;-)

He is trying you know….lol

I try not to feed the trolls. The rest of you have fun beating your heads against an unyielding padded cell wall.

@pdworkin – GA!

@pdworkin
I’ll yield if you have any good debunking evidence to the subquestions!

I don’t need any. I saw the planes hit the building, and my girlfriend was downstairs in the lobby when the first one hit. Have fun though.

@pdworkin
I trully hope she got out ok, but I still think thats a cop-out.

My understanding is that it was the thermal expansion leading to extra stress on the critical structural elements that hung the floors from the vertical columns while simultaneously they were weakened by the high temperature. Once one floor let go, it dropped onto the floor below it causing massive overstress and immediate failure of that floor and so on down.

@grumpyfish
“most of the folks who seem to be suggesting thermite start with the assumption that the buildings were brought down by explosives, and look for evidence to support that.”

Evidence of shape charges:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81319

Your probably thinking two things, they had to cut the beams to clear the area, and ‘but David Icke’s a nutter!’, but think about it, so far as I know, these pictures where taken shortly after the towers fell, and if you were gong to cut a beam that big with oxy-acetalene would you spend time cutting it on the piss? Also, with gas cutting, you would not have had the cooled molten residue all around the side of the beam.

Either way, its definately been cut, because it certainly wouldn’t snap like that.

I believe and always have believed, that the WTC attack was planned by the US government. There’s no way what could have happened could have happened if it was under the circumstances given. There must have been explosives attached to the building in order for it to fall exactly like a building does in a demolition. If you look it up, you’ll find a lot more, including video cameras nearby being seized by the US government and having all of the security in the building being cut a week before the attack.

On the opposite side of things, even if it wasn’t by the US, the government knew about it way before it happened, Bush definitely facilitated the attack. His initial reaction wasn’t anything like somebody without a guilty conscious would elicit.

I heard Judge Crater and Amelia Earhart got together with Hugo Chavez to do it. Now I find out it’s Bush? Where did I go wrong?

@pdworkin
where you went wrong, was being so ingnorant ;-p

well hello to everyone. I left my question running and now i am back home happy to see Pazza against all lol! Just want to say when i write colons i mean columns. Sorry. Not everything is spelled as i hear it…μου αρέσει να σας βλέπω να συζητάτε κάτι που έχει αξία επιτέλους! see? i can speak greek! so stop mocking me about my spelling. thanks!

Ahh. I forgot I was so ingnorant.

Όλοι μπορούν να μιλούν ελληνικά, με μεταφραστή. Really.

@pdworkin
Well you can forget to remember, but you can’t remember what you’ve forgotten.

@Sebulba
This question has been asked many times, and will many more, so the ‘great question’ was for doing what no one else has the balls to do for fear of being insulted or ostracized. So take the stick mate its still a great question.

Ah i see @rangerr but it looks funny cause if you want to say something a little more complicated the syntax is fucked up.Greek syntax and grammar is way too different than english. i like english though. meanwhile back to the point…in the next few days I’ll give you more “how can this be”. I hope i’ll read more answers from all of you. And no @Pazza i won’t stand by you. I get very angry answering to the responds i get.I admire you for your coolness. I’ll try to continue to approach the matter scientificaly and technicaly. Thanx everyone

@Sebulba Don’t feel badly about your spelling, the collective is always very quick to point out spelling errors.

Reflections on the World Trade Center by Leslie E. Robinson (lead structural engineer for the WTC under architect Minoru Yamasaki).

“The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”

The inpact of the collision knocked loose the heat insulation that had been applied over the structural steel. The burning jet fuel then heated these steel members to the point where they lost most of their strength and were unable to support the weight of the floors above,

@stranger_in_a_strange_land: Bingo! Give that man his choice of prizes from the second shelf!

All of this has been debunked by Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

@stranger_in_a_strange_land, that assertion was neither proven nor disproven by the NIST/FEMA studies. What they did prove was that a shotgun blast would dislodge some fireproofing. Peruse here.

For those still following, “9/11 Press for Truth” is the best video I’ve seen on the subject (and I’ve seen them all). It relies purely on first person testimony and mainstream media and government sources. Google it if you are so inclined.

Here’s another thought… regardless of conspiracy, do you think it likely or possible that the towers were rigged with explosives to prevent them from falling over in any catastrophe? Also, if you watch the first felled tower, do you think it is strange that the leaning segment doesn’t just fall over?

@kevbo The leaning-over part has been long since discussed—the structure below couldn’t continue to hold it up, and essentially “kicked out” from under it, because of the mass & speed involved, the top section landed within the footprint. (This could have happened explosives or no explosives)

I doubt the towers would have been rigged with explosives—that just wasn’t considered a possibility, and the structural fire in 1975 would have set it off.

Heck, if that video is to believed, Bin Laden didn’t even think he’d collapse the whole tower. (Which lends itself to an approach similar to the whole Pearl-Harbor-was-let-happen thing, along with some explosives to make sure the theatrics brought down the building).

I’ve been reading about the papers @Pazza linked to—a lot of them have very very interesting content, and I suggest you read them. Many of them that specifically refute the NIST and Balant papers don’t follow strong lines of reasoning, or offer calculations to support their positions.

There are a few, however, that present really interesting data, with solid conclusions.

I found this paper really interesting: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM Although they don’t explain what “other paint” they compared it to—the color & texture looks like normal Red Oxide Paint to me.

@grumpyfish, I’m going to try to let this discussion go. I have a hard time not commenting on this subject, and I’ve already written a book’s worth of Fluther responses elsewhere. Forgive me for not addressing your points.

No one has yet answered in any technically established way my questions? Some of you just say “it is not a conspiracy”. Well i didn’t say it was a conspiracy i asked some clear questions. And for the last time you say “the jet fuel heated enough the steal to loose its strength” Well there were pools of molten steal…not weak steal.I could bring up more facts that would suggest conspiracy but i choose to keep this strictly technical.Thanks again everyone for your answers

@CaptainHarley
No it hasn’t!

My father was a mechanical engineer and I spent a lot of time when he was alive making blueprints to match what he was working in.

My first thought when I saw the second plane hit is that the building would collapse. I watched the second one actually happen.

@johnpowell Who are you going to believe: @Sebulba, or your own lying eyes?

@pdworkin :: My roommate at the time had a masters in physics and thought the building would collapse too. We went to the bar across from our house to watch. It was obvious what would happen. Especially once we knew where the planes were from. Tons of fuel in them.

@pdworkin what it is from what i said that one needs to think about believing or not?

@johnpowell regardless of what you or your roomate or i myself believe or believed watching the planes crash can you give me a technical established answer on any of my 5 Questions?

@Pazza… as best I can tell, it has. That article in Popular Mechanics systematically rebuts eacn of the points that the conspiracy theorists delight in touting. As far as I’m concerned this is a dead issue.

@CaptainHarley how is Vicky? Thanks for your answers which offered nothing but a display of a closed-mind.You say this is a dead issue.Now i expect you have better thing to talk about so why don’t you press that “stop following button”? You too @pdworkin besides that you used some words for me you shouldn’t (removed by moderators) that show your level of expertise on the matter we try to discuss here also said “I try not to feed the trolls. The rest of you have fun beating your heads against an unyielding padded cell wall.” and also said “I saw the planes hit the building, and my girlfriend was downstairs in the lobby when the first one hit. Have fun though.“So why are you still here @pdworkin? You enjoy beating your head against an unyielding padded cell wall?

Well @Pazza suggested thermite has been used. I am certain about this seeing the way the buildings collapsed and the way the columns were cut as seen in photos…I just didn’t say anything cause i wanted all of you to find a rational and technical established answer to my questions.No need for me to come up with theories. The facts are there. What do YOU see?

I see a train wreck, and I haven’t left because train wrecks are compelling.

@kevbo I’m going to step away too, after this comment.

@Sebulba:
Question 1: Larger pieces were found, e.g. http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-flight175windows-l.jpg —most of the hijackers had relatively common arabic names, so it is no surprise that people with identical names were found alive later. As for the survival of the passport, I haven’t a clue, and yes it could have been planted later by the FBI, it was found away from the site.

Question 2: The plane did not sever the interior columns, but did remove much of the fireproofing from them (some was sprayed on, some was just gyp walls). There is alsosome evidence to support (based on a reaction between gypsum, aluminum, and carbon monoxide at air temperatures above 600C that the gyp walls were literally burning, producing sulfur dioxide which could have also corroded some of the beams). The current non-demolition theory supposes that the core at the fire location was substantially (up to 85% reduction in yield strength) reduced, permitting the core above the damage to fall onto the core below causing the progressive collapse. The energy for all of this is contained in the potential energy of the floors above the damage, as well as the additional potential energy picked up by each additional collapsing floor, as well as the momentum of the falling mass.

Question 3: The initial 707 theory was based on the scenario of the bomber lost in the fog that struck the empire state building, it was a low-speed impact. The 707 has a MTOW of about 120 metric tons. The 767 has an MTOW in the range of 160 mt. Additionally, a low-speed impact (say, 300mph) carries significantly less energy than a high-speed impact (say, 500mph). Momentum is mv^2—a 767 at 500mph carries about four times the energy of a 707 at 300mph. Per the later (now lost) study of a high-speed impact, they expected the building to remain standing, however the building did remain standing for an hour, and only when the fire sufficiently weakened the steel did it finally give way.

Question 4: The free fall speed from that height is 9.225 seconds, not 10.4 seconds. Since the floors failed quickly (within milliseconds), the top essentially fell through the lower floors, which resulted in the near-free-fall speed of the collapse. If you watch certain videos of the North Tower collapse, you’ll see that some of the outer structure is still standing to several hundred feet, since the building fell to one side it spared one corner of the outer frame. Within seconds, that portion collapses.

Question 5: The metal observed falling from the south tower just prior to its collapse was bright orange in color, and flowing freely. I would posit that it was 900C aluminum from the airframe (which largely settled in that corner). The melting point of 6061 is 576C so would be very fluid at 900C. The jet fuel was completely burned off within about 10 minutes, so I would posit that the significant heating effects were from a combination of the large amounts of paper products in the offices coupled with plastic as an accellerant. While wood fires don’t get much above 600C, adding a small percentage of plastic will rapidly increase the temperature above 1000C.

The fires after the collapse were well contained and well insulated from the surrounding air, similar to coal seam fires—hot and slow—if we accept the assumption that fires in the building could reach 1000C, the steel beams could easily be cooking in 1000C fires underground for days. 600–800C hotspots were observed from aerial platforms, so it could be posited that fires were hotter below. I could find no images or videos of actual liquid steel (which would require temperatures closer to 1800C), but plenty of images of beams red-hot at the end they were buried in the fires.

Did I miss anything?

Well you actually do. I have images of actual liquid steel.If you want i can send them to you. Of course they must be fake! But i also have pics that show the beams cut at an angle in the same way the beams of a building for controlled collapse are cut. This is the only way for a building 110 flours to fall exactly in place. You believe all these massive columns fail all at the same moment of that 10 secs?If just one of them wouldn’t the building would have fell sideways.And exactly the same thing happened for tower 2? Can you even imagine how many tons of plastic burning would these massive core beams need to start weaken? For the panel i said i used a video of a firefighter telling this.As for the passport from the 19 highjackers supposedly done 9/11 not even one of them ever proved to be on any plane. Not even one arab name was found on the passenger list of the plane. Not even the name of that passport. What else do you say? Ah the 707 vs 767.Well if the building have fallen down right away with the plane impact then we would be talking about kinetic energy. There is nothing related besides fire and steal damage. There is nothing a plane can do to these columns i say no matter its speed and weight just because of the structure difference and material difference these two things have.And that is the opinion of the architects that talk about “sustaining multiple aircraft impacts”.What else? Ah you say the building stood for one hour. Well if you watch the videos of the collapse you’ll see bomb detonations as it falls.It can be seen clear below the smoke.Got many videos of people and reporters talking about bombs and booms and detonations even before the first plane crashed. I have the videos and i can also give them to you. What else? Ah how many floors did the fire of the plane weakened? The plane was big ok it crashed on some specific floors it heated up a specific part of the core steal structure and the structure in that point got weak and fell apart and the floors caused a chain reaction but the steal columns below the part that was heated and weakened should have stood there no matter what.All floors down i understand. The 47 beams? All of them? Below the heated weakened steal was tons of cold strong good steal.Ask any serious engineer! He’ll tell you this can’t be

I have seen several photos of the diagonally cut beams—e.g., http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpg—but I have not seen evidence that these weren’t part of the cleanup operation. (Happy to accept evidence)

The progressive collapse story states that the momentum of the upper floors was sufficient to fail the columns quickly after a short (some sources say 0.5m) drop. Neither tower fell straight down, both shifted to one side as they went, however they both fell substantially within their footprints, since it was a gravity collapse initiated in the core.

A small amount of plastic (1–2%) added to a wood fire increases the burning temperature. This is easily found in an office building. The fires burned solidly (increasing in severity) for an hour.

The airplane’s impact did not fail the building, however the airplane’s impact did weaken the building & knock fire proofing off. If you simply started a fire in the building, it wouldn’t have fallen (as learned in 1975), however if you slice out large amounts of structure, and then set it on fire, it did fail. And so the amount of kinetic energy (which was converted into damage to the building) does matter, since it relates to how much of the structure was damaged initially.

So you are saying that regardless of the speed and weight, there’s no way an airplane could slice through a steel column?

Architects and engineers can talk all they want, but only one study was done of a high speed impact.

I will not comment on eyewitness testimony—it’s proven unreliable, and not something worth arguing about. (Sorry)

I don’t think the 47 columns failed simultaneously—there’s some clear lateral shifts in the top section as it falls through. Ignoring the outer tube for the moment. One core column fails, and the load from it is transferred to the adjacent columns, which then fail. As those columns fail, the total load on the other columns increase significantly, causing the other columns to fail. The top couldn’t “roll” off the building because the core columns were continuing to fail under it, rather than giving it something to “push” off of. Once it got going, the kinetic energy was enough to fail the steel columns in the lower floors.

Molten steel (not melted and cooled slag, etc.) seems to be consistent with a fire causing the collapse and not with explosives or thermite. Thermite burns rapidly and locally, causing localized heating. It carries its own oxidizer, so it cannot smoulder. That’s why it’s so useful. Finding molten steel five weeks later points to the hotspots being produced by the combustion of other products.

Compacted paper, mixed with fuel and other combustables (there’s estimated to be 5000 gallons of gasoline in each parking garage in addition to diesel fuel) in a confined space could easily burn for weeks in the limited oxygen environment of the rubble pile, again similar to a coal seam fire.

Edited to add: Also, the puffs of smoke in advance of the collapse front aren’t consistent with the demolition theory. That is, you could quite easily sever core columns without producing smoke external to the building, and with the core severed, you would actually want to keep the exterior skin intact as long as possible to keep the structure imploding rather than ballooning out like it did.

Come ON people. Jeeze! Get real! In order for this to be a conspiracy, how many people would have to be involved? How many people would want to expose it? Jeeze! We’re talking about a government that couldn’t even keep “The Pentagon Papers” secret!

@grumpyfish
You missed the squibs.

@Pazza See the “edited to add” above—I was calling the squibs “puffs of smoke”, and I don’t think the quantity or location of them is consistent with controlled demolition.

@CaptainHarley It depends on where you draw the line. If the PTB knew the WTC was going to be attacked, and planted explosives so that they could make sure the buildings collapsed, you only have the half-dozen or so people who actually placed the explosives, and the one person who detonated them. If the whole attack was orchestrated, you have a lot more bodies to clean up.

Well i admire you @grumpyfish for trying to explain the unexplainable with a technical establish opinion at last! You still don’t cover me personaly on almost anything that matters on the collapse and i am looking forward to see what your responses will be on the questions I will post in the next few days. Thanks

@Sebulba Cheers! =)

@grumpyfish
You missed the squibs.
And the meteorite.
And the flight data from the flight that hit the pentagon.
And the building 7 collapse.
And the FBI’s own web site.
And Bush’s connections to the Binladen’s.
And John Oneil’s strange first day as WTC security.
And Jed Bush’s coinsidental move into WTC security.
And the Enron papers.
And the firemans testimony that the first fire could ‘have been knocked down using two or three lines.
And Larry Silversteins coinsidental purchase and insurance of the building.
And the 1990 bombing that has been proven to have been funded by the Fed’s.
And Willy Rodreques’s testimony.
And the obvious ‘crimp’ in building 7
And the fact that for the WTC building that listed over to one side to have listed the way it did that all central core columns would have had to simultaniously catastrophicaly failed.
And the 6 metre beams that were ejected to a distance of at least one full width of the building.
And the massive amount of ‘PULVERISED’ concrete dust.
And the put options, which at its very least was inmoral and unethical.
And all the footage and testimony of explosions.
And the literal cover-up of the pentagon lawn ‘a felony’ tampering with a crime scene.
And the 911 commission testimony that sugested quite clearly that Dick Cheney told his subordinates not to shoot down the approching threat.
And that NIST could not get the test beams to fail.
And the BBC footage from the day in question which very clearly reports the collapse of WTC7 20 mins before it actually collapsed, with the building in the background!
And the footage of police telling people to leave the WTC7 area as ‘it was about to collapse’.

I think I definately missed some!......

But do you know what, all that is complete bullshit compared to the biggest travesty of all, the fact that a very large proportion of the victims family members want a new investigation, ie the ‘Jersey Girls’, if you instruct your government to do something, they should do it with diligance and without question, as these are your ‘servants & representatives’.

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”
“A truth is a truth even if only one person is saying it”

NAFTA is creeping up on the American pubic, and when this ‘corporate merger’ eventually goes ahead, it will effectively nulify your beloved constitution and bill of rights.

So in the words of Bill Hick’s “Go back to sleep America, your government is in control, you are free do as we tell you”.

Ps. 77 was also an inside job. your not the only country this has happened to.

@CaptainHarley
Hitler managed to hide what he was doing from the rest of the world, and he was one man.

But then when you look into how he was funded, you find our good old friends the international bankers, on of these banks had Grampa bush at the helm.

And I think it was standard oil who was supplying the Nazi war machine with the petrol additive it needed to fuel its engines.

And Nazi is short for Neo-concervative, theres a strange coincidence!

@Pazza You left out the Illuminati, the Rosicrucians and the Jew Bankers. What’s the matter, you going soft on us?

@Pazza On the “missed anything” I was actually referring to the (5) questions that Sebulba requested an answer to. =)

There’s many many unanswered questions on the day.

What meteorite? That’s a new one.

@grumpyfish
I was being sarcy, sorry its in my nature + in the office that I work its entirely nesessary.

The meteorite I was refering to is a solidified lump of what looks to be iron. I have no idea if its Aluminium (tho I severely doubt it), but if it is iron and none of the building steel melted, then where did it come from. So far as I know its in some sort of museum or monument.

Youtube Video of the meteorite
Meteorite Image + Website

@Pazza… nevermind

@Sebulba “No one has yet answered in any technically established way my questions?”

The post I gave above address directly your third question. The WTC structure was designed to be able to absorb the IMPACT of a Boeing 707 lying slowly. It was beyond their ability at the time to even know precisely what measures they would need to take against the resulting fire.

@Pazza Brilliant fucking answer on your last post. I was completely unaware of three of those despite hours and hours of research. I want to slap Jeb Bush’s face celan off his skull now. Silly me! Here I was, thinking it was only his brother in on it. Wasn’t it also Rodriguez who swears they DID find all four black boxes, and saw them himself?

I invite you all to answer my new question
http://www.fluther.com/disc/66691/is-it-possible-for-a-plane-get-vaporized-entirely-after-a/

@phillis
I think they found 3 out of four black boxes, the FBI has them and refuses to let them out for scrutiny. If you go here you will find lots of info about the pentigon flight path.

Theres also a video from the pilotsfor911truth crew which explains in details how flight 77 couldn’t have taken the route they say it did. They did a freedom of information request for the raw blackbox data, someone must have slipped up because they got the data.

I can never find it but its available on youtube or googlevideo.
Or you’l probably be able to purchase the DVD from the pilotsfor911truth web site.

Finally the mods decided i will be only allowed to use the chatroom. No more questions for me. Thanks everyone

I’m certain you are free to ask any question you like, just not on this one particular subject, which is still a live thread.

I can’t ask any kind of questions. They tell me “go to the chat room”

Ask for the specific reasons. You may not be able to ask any more questions on Truther issues, but that is because you have more than one open. I have never heard of anyone not being allowed to ask any questions. You come up with a qualified question that follows the guidelines and if the mods don’t allow you to post it I will be the first person to come to your defense.

@Sebulba If you don’t mind, please paste that conversation here, or to @pdworkin in a PM. I’ve not known him to be anything less than fair in his judgements. He won’t steer you wrong.

@Pazza Sorry! I was never notified of your comment. I wasn’t ignoring you, dear! I would LOVE to have a look at that link, and I am grateful that you went through the effort to provide it. Thank you :)

@Dog has already stated in another thread that @Sebulba is free to ask questions, but refuses to cooperate with requests for revision. We are all subject to the same guidelines, so I must postulate, especially knowing how fair and reasonable @Dog is, that @Sebulba may not be telling us everything.

That was my suspicion as well, which is why I asked that the entire conversation be put out in the open for scrutiny. If that is not the case, then we can work on resolution.

good job @grumpyfish esp #3 answer. The towers were designed to take accidental impact from the largest commercial airliner at the time of design (707? 727?). This actually happened to the Empire State building in 1945 when a B-25 smacked into it on a foggy night. In an accidental scenario the aircraft lost in fog would be going slowly looking for an airport and be much lower on fuel having nearly completed its trip. The WTC towers were hit by planes nearly full of fuel having taken off not long before impact (from Boston and Newark) and they were intentionally going top speed, about twice as fast as accident scenario.
#1 ejecta – some of the stuff involved in the impacts just kept flying. An engine of the first plane went all the way through the building and killed a woman on Murray Street a couple blocks away. Well before the towers collapsed, office papers from the floors hit were drifting through the air a mile away some entirely intact some singed or burning.
#2 the twin tower structures were of peculiar construction. Between the central service columns with the elevators etc and the outside skin of the buildings there were No columns. This was a huge feature aesthetically and economically as the sight lines were uninterrupted and more square footage was available for rent. The floors were supported by the infamous steel trusses with massive rivets tying them to the center and the exterior columns. When fire weakened the trusses enough for them to start sagging the extraordinary stresses popped the rivets out of both ends with enough energy released to looks like explosions that conspiracy theorists love to point to in the video footage. Sorry no thermite here just failed trusses and rivets. Les Robertson goes into that in some detail in a documentary I’ve seen online sorry can’t locate at the moment. So that explains the twin towers collapse.
However in the afternoon WTC 7, across the street from WTC1, which was burning from fires caused by impact of burning ejecta came down. That building was normal construction and I have seen no reasonable explanation for that one. Conspiracy theories abound but the best I’ve heard is motivated by mundane matters: the insurance payout for total collapse was advantageous compared to the payout if it were just fire-damaged. No proof either way. Another good twist is that the Mayor Gulliani’s emergency command center was built (against the advice of folks who said it was a vulnerable location) in WTC 7 and it was some embarassment to his office that they couldn’t use it. Not sure how that ties into motivation to bring the building down but interesting nonetheless.
#4 see #2 one of the problems with truss construction is that when they get just a bit overloaded they fail catastophically, any of the floors with the extra weight of the floor above it would give way suddenly.
#5 for emergency generators in the buildings there were thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in tanks in the basement and that smoldered until the end of the year in the confined spaces of the rubble. That kind of kiln conditions could melt lots of stuff and keep it molten for a long time.