WTC Demolition Conspiracy

[Anome]

How many steel framed steele cored skyscapers have collapsed from fires ?????

How many steel framed steel cored skyscrapers have had 747s full of fuel crashed into them, starting a fire much hotter than you would expect from a fire started in a more "traditional" way?

 

[NilesCalder]

How many steel framed steele cored skyscapers have collapsed from fires ?????

How many steel framed steel cored skyscrapers have had 747s full of fuel crashed into them, starting a fire much hotter than you would expect from a fire started in a more "traditional" way?

The answer to both those questions is the same: Two; the Word Trade Centre towers.

I'm convinced that the 747's were sufficiently powerfull missles in their own right to destroy the towers. However that doesn't rule out a conspiracy.

 

[Anonymous]

How many steel framed steele cored skyscapers have collapsed from fires ?????

How many steel framed steel cored skyscrapers have had 747s full of fuel crashed into them, starting a fire much hotter than you would expect from a fire started in a more "traditional" way?

The answer to both those questions is the same: Two; the Word Trade Centre towers.

I'm convinced that the 747's were sufficiently powerfull missles in their own right to destroy the towers. However that doesn't rule out a conspiracy.

Off-topic, but Niles, have you seen the Spider Jerusalem glasses being sold on Ebay?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=80&item=6523085412&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

 

[Anome]

How many steel framed steele cored skyscapers have collapsed from fires ?????

How many steel framed steel cored skyscrapers have had 747s full of fuel crashed into them, starting a fire much hotter than you would expect from a fire started in a more "traditional" way?

The answer to both those questions is the same: Two; the Word Trade Centre towers.

I'm convinced that the 747's were sufficiently powerfull missles in their own right to destroy the towers. However that doesn't rule out a conspiracy.

My point, exactly Niles.

Yes they were. The choice of 747s with very few people on them, and with a long haul ahead of them was deliberate to ensure that there would be enough fuel to do the maximum amount of damage.

And there was a conspiracy. The argument is about who was involved.

 

[Jerry_B]

Just to point out - they weren't 747s tho' - there's a lot of difference. But, that said, the aircraft involved, carrying alot of fuel, were capable of inflicting the damage caused to the WTC towers.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't beleive in any of the conspiracy theories about how the towers collapsed. I've seen documentarys and looked at the footage myself and nothing about the collapses look like explosions.

If a bomb went off inside a steel skyscraper, the force of the explosion would bypass the strong steel columns and blow out the weaker glass and temporary walls. When the north tower collapses you see air being forced outwards like an explosion but this is the air that has nowhere else to go when the ceiling collapses onto the floor and the air is forced out.

On the discovery channels you get programs like "worlds best demolitions"about controlled demolitions and you see the explosions and 2 seconds later the building starts to fall. With the WTC the building fell and then there was a cloud of dust like and explosion.

 

[nambo2]

Which one of these State sponsored theorys can you use to excuse the collapse of the third World Trade centre building?

 

[nambo2]

Or how about comparing the views of construction industry professionals with the government explainations. This letter explains itself and its sources

The collapse of the WTC
by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004


The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/10 ... story.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanicala ... fSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStat ... 04WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
urces.

 

[austen27]

I had a look at some of the appended articles. I think it is slightly misleading to talk about the temperature needed to forge steel. The high temperatures needed for forging are to prevent cracking. For a building to collapse the steel doesn't need to become hot enough to forge, just to bend enough to distort the structure, then it might crack and collapse.

 

[Jonfairway]

How Could Fire Make a Steel Building Implode?

Building 7 was the dark sleek building in front of the Twin Towers. It was 300 feet from the nearest tower.
Why should anyone care about Building 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper that imploded? Because, despite the appearance of demolition, we are told that the building collapsed because of fires. Fires have never caused steel frame buildings to collapse, let alone implode and fall neatly into their footprints, as did Building 7. It should have been a huge story. The fires in the building were comparatively small. That a robust steel skyscraper, built to withstand severe fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes, should suddenly collapse for no reason other than fire should have forced a re-evaluation of the safety of all existing skyscrapers and of highrise design in general.

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/b7.html

Yep what happened to building 7 ??

 

[Jonfairway]

Although WTC 6 appears to have been destroyed by an explosion from within, it is the manner in which WTC 7 was destroyed that constitutes one of the proofs that 9/11 was an inside job. Videos of its destruction clearly show that it came down exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. This cannot have been the work of 19 Arab hijackers, nor of Osama bin Laden supervising events from his cave in Afghanistan. The destruction of WTC 7 was brought about by demolition experts — American demolition experts.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm

If they lied about Building 7 did they also lie about the two biguns ?

 

[Jonfairway]

The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.

As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html

some Intersting points on this site !

 

[Jonfairway]

While I,m on the 911 subject

Why did none of the 8 yes 8 black boxes survive ?

The Black Box is designed to withstand an impact of 3,400 G's.

Why did all the boxes yeild no info ?

I,ll ask you this too

Has there ever been another plane crash that both lack boxes have been destroyed ?

Quote:
BLACK BOX COVER-UP


Rescue workers silenced after exposing 9-11 whitewash



By Greg Szymanski



A 9-11 rescue worker recently came forward to say he was told by FBI agents to “keep my mouth shut” about one of the “black boxes” a fellow firefighter helped locate at ground zero, contradicting the official story that none of the flight and cockpit data recorders were ever recovered in the wreckage of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.



http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html


Theres that many holes in the whole affair it make my socks look good

 

[Jerry_B]

The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.

As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html

some Intersting points on this site !

But that building is alot smaller than the WTC - not a good comparison at all.

WRT the black boxes, IIRC it's not a given that they'll survive or survive intact enough to be useable. Being flown into a building isn't probably one of their design survival parameters.

 

[Jonfairway]

WRT the black boxes, IIRC it's not a given that they'll survive or survive intact enough to be useable. Being flown into a building isn't probably one of their design survival parameters.

Maybe not !!

But that flimsy paper passport faired very well from its impact with the skyscapers and scorching heat.

 

[Jerry_B]

What survives and doesn't survive a crash (including people) is many and varied - don't read too much into that.

 

[Anome]

Besides the black boxes probably did survive, but now they're under two tower blocks.

 

[Jonfairway]

I would say without a doubt they survived

and were taken by the feds as part of the global coverup.

 

[Heckler]

I would say without a doubt they survived

and were taken by the feds as part of the global coverup.

Covering up what though?

 

[Jonfairway]

hey up another what question !

That the Secret US goverment within the current US government wanted a big excuse to initiate draconian changes to human rights.
And changes to laws that they would have struggled to get thro if it hadn't taken place.

Well maybe

 

[Jonfairway]

What do you think of my Avatar Heckler ?

 

[Heckler]

What do you think of my Avatar Heckler ?

A bit offtopic mate but yeah an Alsation dog crosstitch, it's so you. Your own work?

 

[Jonfairway]

Yep handy hey !!!

Whats your view on the WTC then ?

Think it was all above board ?

 

[Jerry_B]

If you keep winking after making comments, it's difficult to tell if those comments are in fact serious.

If you think that 'without doubt', the black boxes survived, please provide evidence for this apparent certainty.

 

[ENTIANONMULTI]

with the assertion that the black boxes survived does their specification cover being burried under tonnes of rubble?

 

[Jonfairway]

FBI officials at the crash scene near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, had initially been very hopeful of gaining clues into how the hijackers took over United Airlines Flight 93, saying the recorder had come out of the ground in "fairly good — condition."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/ ... 1011.shtml

In addition to the points made before the data storage chips are coated in a jelly that makes them mouch more shock and fire resistant. Also, the way data is written is very important. Modern "Black boxes" record the data in such a way that even if some of the chips are destroyed, the information for a particular time sequence is not completely destroyed. Think of it like this - normally, each data storage chip would be a separate "chapter" of the flight. Hence, if a chip was damaged or destroyed, then the entire chapter would be lost. Nowadays consider the "sentences" are stored on different chips, i.e. sentence 1 is stored on chip 1 etc, till the number of chips runs out, and the next sentence is written to chip 1 again. This means that if any of the data chips are destroyed, the chances are that the sequence of events before and after the events on that chip are still decipherable, hence the events can be reconstructed with quite some accuracy.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/How_it_W ... on587.html

If it so well protected and it looked ok when it came out the ground

how did we end up with no data at all ??

 

[wembley8]

"If you think that 'without doubt', the black boxes survived, please provide evidence for this apparent certainty."

Certainly at least the boxes in the Pittsburgh plane were recovered -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1543564.stm -
but it was not possible to extract any data.
It would be interesting to know what the 'normal' % survival rate of among black boxes is, but certainly running into a skyscraper which burns and then collapses does sound a little challenging.

In any case, what dark secret is supposed to be concealed? That the planes were hijacked by terrorists?

 

[Jonfairway]

Nah

I think the dark secret is that they wern't hijacked at all Wembley

why else would they say they were unable to get the data off them all.

Of course there was no plane hitting the pentagon at all !! so I understand their failure to find any boxes !!!

They don't fit black boxes to Missiles

 

[Heckler]

Testing a CSMU
To ensure the quality and survivability of black boxes, manufacturers thoroughly test the CSMUs. Remember, only the CSMU has to survive a crash -- if accident investigators have that, they can retrieve the information they need. In order to test the unit, engineers load data onto the memory boards inside the CSMU. L-3 Communications uses a random pattern to put data onto every memory board. This pattern is reviewed on readout to determine if any of the data has been damaged by crash impact, fires or pressure.
There are several tests that make up the crash-survival sequence:

Crash impact - Researchers shoot the CSMU down an air cannon to create an impact of 3,400 Gs (1 G is the force of Earth's gravity, which determines how much something weighs). At 3,400 Gs, the CSMU hits an aluminum, honeycomb target at a force equal to 3,400 times its weight. This impact force is equal to or in excess of what a recorder might experience in an actual crash.
Pin drop - To test the unit's penetration resistance, researchers drop a 500-pound (227-kg) weight with a 0.25-inch steel pin protruding from the bottom onto the CSMU from a height of 10 feet (3 m). This pin, with 500-pounds behind it, impacts the CSMU cylinder's most vulnerable axis.
Static crush - For five minutes, researchers apply 5,000 pounds per square-inch (psi) of crush force to each of the unit's six major axis points.
Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature.
Deep-sea submersion - The CSMU is placed into a pressurized tank of salt water for 24 hours.
Salt-water submersion - The CSMU must survive in a salt water tank for 30 days.
Fluid immersion - Various CSMU components are placed into a variety of aviation fluids, including jet fuel, lubricants and fire-extinguisher chemicals.
During the fire test, the memory interface cable that attaches the memory boards to the circuit board is burned away. After the unit cools down, researchers take it apart and pull the memory module out. They restack the memory boards, install a new memory interface cable and attach the unit to a readout system to verify that all of the preloaded data is accounted for.

Source

But the attacks were an unprecedented survival test for the misnamed ``black boxes.'' The two wide-bodied jets, carrying a total of 157 people including 10 hijackers, were mostly destroyed by the fires and collapsing towers.

``So little (airplane) debris has been recovered that there's really no way to quantify it,'' FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said. The only pieces on display at the landfill were a piece of United 175's fuselage and several pieces of landing gear.

Source

I think to be fair we are talking about exceptional circumstances, unfortunately I can't produce stats from the net about the survival percentages of Black Boxes from other crashes to definitively prove one way or the other. Most of the websites seem to be a circle jerk of one another and repeat the assumption that "Well it should've survived because it's a black box and the fact that it didn't is a conspiracy" with no definite facts to prove this.

Any aviation posters out there care to supply us with a statistic of survival rates of black boxes.

 

[Jerry_B]

Nah

I think the dark secret is that they wern't hijacked at all Wembley

why else would they say they were unable to get the data off them all.

Of course there was no plane hitting the pentagon at all !! so I understand their failure to find any boxes !!!

They don't fit black boxes to Missiles

Evidence please. We may have already discussed the somewhat bogus missile theory.