THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanations are lies.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes C_nH_2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) C_nH_2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O₂ => n CO₂ + (n + 1) H₂O

(2) C_nH_2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O₂ => n CO + (n + 1) H₂O

(3) C_nH_2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O₂ => n C + (n + 1) H₂O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form C_nH_2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) C_nH_2n + 3n/2 O₂ => n CO₂ + n H₂O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O₂ + 3.76 N₂.
Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) C_nH_2n + 3n/2(O₂ + 3.76 N₂) => n CO₂ + n H₂O + 5.64n N₂

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of C_nH_2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2	= 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
	= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
	= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
	= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.
This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857	kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429	kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680	kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000	kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000	kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance	Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Concrete	3,300
Steel	450
Nitrogen	1,038
Water Vapor	1,690
Carbon Dioxide	845

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x	1,690 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x	845 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x	1,038 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x	450 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x	3,300 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

What took them down was the fire from the burning jet fuel and aluminum airframe which weakened the central steel loadbearing members

Does this answer your question?

One of the characteristics of conspiracy theories is that they are irrefutable, by virtue of being infinitely flexible. Present a conspiracy theorist with evidence that argues against his theory, and he will explain that it actually confirms the theory. To him, evidence that appears contrary simply illustrates the conspirators' power to manipulate appearances.

"Conspiracy theory" is just a term used to discredit what were previously known as ""covert operations". Mark Zepenzauer has a great little booklet called "The CIA's Greatest Hits" that lists several of these so-called "conspiracies"--maybe some of you non-believers should pick it up; its well documented from sources including the CIA bulletin itself.

The actions of the CIA are not conspiracies, they are sanctioned and non-sanctioned actions (including the overthrow of Salvador Allende, which took place on 9-11-73) by the US government and other entities.
Actually, the real "conspiracy" here--as revealed in a recent article by NEWSWEEK of all places--is the recent efforts by the bush administration to block the release of the findings of the independent investigation of 9-11, including their attempts to reclassify information about US security failures that were already declassified.
The efforts by XXX may seem a stretch, but they at least provoke a dialogue on the subject that needs to be foregrounded to the public, especially after we've violated a whole country in the name of the war on terrorism and the search for weapons of mass destruction that don't exist (a conspiracy theory of its own perpetuated by the bush administration).

...theory is that it can be backed up with valid Mathematics. Such as this one for example.

The OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY does not fit the available facts and has been shown to be Mathematically impossible.

So, what's a troubled Troll to do? Divert, disinform, call names, anything but talk about the facts.

...for a bumblebee to fly, too.

You can prove anything if you pick and choose your data.

I notice XXX did not plug in the figures for burning aluminum. Nor did he take into account the blast furnace effect...combustion gasses leave the burning floors at a high rate, drawing in oxygen-rich air into the fire...and making it burn hotter.

Now, let him plug in those numbers.

...you've made an assertion now let's see your numbers.

You have to make some contradictory facts fit your case though.

If it was a Blast Furnace how come the Firemen who reached the 85th Floor were able to calmly communicate via radio with their seniors to start planning evacuating the survivors?

Caveman: "You see, I believe the Official Explanation. "

Of course you do! You always do...that's your job. It would take brainpower beyond your capability to think for yourself.

...yourself, KFC?

Takes a lot of neurons to buy into every crackpot conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

... to be willing to think outside the box.

Davie lets make clear - you have so far managed to cast a lot of insults and fulminations but have produced not fact one.

Your have no facts, and no case. Each subsequent post makes that more apparent.

All you have is the slavish credulosity of the paid Shill.

Caveman, I haven't made any comments regarding this theory...I've only commented on the fact that you admit that you believe what you are told to believe.

Judging from your brainless barkings, it seems like your neurons are well on their way to complete atrophy...

You were told the earth was round. Do you believe it?

Dio, I haven't seen any facts presented from the tinfoil hat brigade...just a lot of carefully-chosen data used to prop up a preconceived notion. Thinking outside the box is good; thinking so far outside the box you can't see the box anymore verges on insanity. Like I said...you want to disprove the jet fuel theory, you have to use all the data. The bumblebee can't fly.

"All you have is the slavish credulosity of the paid Shill."

You get a little thrill from thinking that, don't you? Makes you feel like a rebel or something. Laughable.

KFC, you're right: I made an assumption about your opinion and then insulted it; I apologize for that. But a concept that you folks seem to have trouble with is this: that someone can look at the same data as you and come up with a totally different conclusion. And if that conclusion happens to coincide with what comes out of D.C., why, then that person HAS to be:

1. Working for the government, or
2. Too stupid to think for him/herself.

It just really bugs you people that not everyone buys into your your little theories, doesn't it? Don't bother to answer; your words have already spoken.

I'm not here to shut you down, take names, spread disinformation, or any of the other things the voices are telling you.

I'm herre to have fun, and you guys are cooperating fabulously.

Thanks!

... to destroying his own arguments. The shape of the Planet can be both empirically deduced from the available physical evidence and Mathematically proven. Demosthenes did it ca. 4th Century B.C.

In the same way we can take the available evidence and eliminate theories based upon that evidence. Thus the supeheated Structural Steel Supports theory does not hold up to rigorous analysis of known physical characteristics and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I would suggest that people look at the original article at the top of the thread as it is long since apparent that frescoid's purpose is to divert you from looking at it.

As always: THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Do not accept anything I, or anyone else says, without examining it for yourself and deciding whether it fits with the facts.

"When all other possibilities are eliminated whatever left, however improbable, is the truth."
Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

...does not hold up to rigorous analysis of known physical characteristics and the Laws of Thermodynamics."

That's right; it doesn't.

When you don't include all the data.

What relevant data was omitted?

Why was it relevant?

I do not expect a civil answer but I figured I would lay bare your paucity of facts.

Caveman, with all your claims of critical thinking, why is it that you still always parrot the official line?

There can be two possible answers - Your critical thinking skills are mighty shallow, or, more likely, you are incapable of independant thought, and therefor just repeat whatever is dumped into that spacious cranium of yours.

I don't claim to know what really happened on 9/11; the idea that Bush and the CIA either planned it or intentionally let it happen is by no means beyond the realm of possibility in my opinion. It certainly gave them the opportunity they were looking for to make grave inroads on the Bill of Rights and to make the kind of blatantly imperialist attacks on third world nations that not even the Booby Twins, Ronnie Reagan and Bush I would have attempted.
However, I am a bit leery about the theory that jet fuel could not have melted enough metal to bring the towers down. Remember, for decades before 1986 engineers had assured the public that the Titanic could not possible have broken in two before it sank, contrary to eye-witness accounts because, we were told, their expert mathematical calculations had proved beyond a doubt that the steel in the hull was too strong to snap under the strain of the ship's stern rising into the air.

Was it the Jews? The Islamists? The Bushies? Hmmmmm maybe it was American Airlines? It was thier planes. My own personal opinion is that the attack was carried out by agents of the Cuban Inteligence Service. Well, it was them or the Chinese....or the NRA.

In all probablity it was carried out by the kind of anti-Marxist, anti-feminist religious fanatics who have been been supported, protected, trained, armed and financed for years by the CIA (bin Laden was only one of many). Whether they did it with or without the knowledge of Bush and the CIA is open to question; I already explained that I don't claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11.

It was definitely the NRA. They wished to precipitate American paranoia which would then in turn lead to the slacking of gun laws.

theres nothing wrong with liking to shoot and shit. but these NRA people - theyre totally fucked up. i mean if you like to shoot thats fine. why dont u go to a shooting range or some shit maybe rent a gun or otherwise store your gun there and use it etc? why do they insist that it is necessary for their safety to carry shotguns in the shirt pockets and purses etc.

fuckin hell.

>Remember, for decades before 1986 engineers had assured the public that the Titanic could not possible have broken in two before it sank, contrary to eye-witness accounts because, we were told, their expert mathematical calculations had proved beyond a doubt that the steel in the hull was too strong to snap under the strain of the ship's stern rising into the air.


The Titanic

What Really Happened?
?
?
?
?

[Do a Google search. The truth about the Titanic has been hidden from all of us for too long now]

>One of the characteristics of a valid theory is that it can be backed up with valid Mathematics. Such as this one for example.

I've seen nothing to suggest this is "valid Mathematics". This is a snapshot of someone's opinion.

>The OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY does not fit the available facts and has been shown to be Mathematically impossible.

That's your opinion. Many others disagree.

>So, what's a troubled Troll to do? Divert, disinform, call names, anything but talk about the facts.

It was pointed out that those who believe in such things like "the towers were brought down by the assistance of explosives" are not likely to accept evidence that refutes what they already believe. To them, any evidence that appears contrary to what they already believe simply illustrates the conspirators' power to manipulate appearances.

So Diogenes, you're correct in that the trolls who believe "the towers were brought down with the assistance of explosives" necessarily must divert, disinform, call names, and do anything but talk about the facts and accept credible evidence.

It's all you got.

I notice XXX did not plug in the figures for burning aluminum. Nor did he take into account the blast furnace effect...combustion gasses leave the burning floors at a high rate, drawing in oxygen-rich air into the fire...and making it burn hotter.

Just a small note to the idiot who wrote the above.

1) The fire was no where near hot enough to ignite aluminum.

2) The aluminum did not burn, aluminum burns very brightly and would have been visible to the news helicopters etc (even through the smoke).

3) Even if the aluminum had burnt, it would not have added all that much to the above figures (these figures already assume that all the 10,000 gallons burnt inside the WTC, which was obviously not true. Probably, less than 2,000 gallons burnt within the South Tower).

4) combustion gasses leave the burning floors at a high rate Well if combustion gasses are leaving at such a rate they are taking away much of heat that could have been used to heat the steel.

5) drawing in oxygen-rich air into the fire The figures already assume that all necessary oxygen was (miraculously) supplied, so we are already assuming better than your drawing in oxygen-rich air into the fire.

Diogenes the point is that we doubt you yourself have proved it. The best proof for the world being round (besides just flying around it) is the fact that that is the shape you would get from gravity without anything really strange happening and then provign gravity. In a similar way somthing "really strange" would have to be happening for the official explination to be "totally wrong".
As to the specifics
"That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise etc etc"
no you dont raise the concreete etc to that temperature you raise the air to that temperature (not too hard) you expose some steel and tghen you heat that bit of the steel to the high temperature. that steel begins to fail and at the same time conducts the heat much more efficiently than the concrete or even the air.
maybe one section of the building begins to fail and then bending and sheering forces start to take over.
Also things arent exactly the same temperature everywhere. temeperatures required to burn aluminium would be possible in some places and of course aluminium gives off a bit of energy....

Like Scottie implied, why does your model (I'm using the word *your* liberally, as you obviously copied it from some conspiracy theory website) insist on all of the materials being heated to the same temperature? Maybe because the author is trying to stack the deck?

The most important area structurally in these buildings were the core.

If you want to read a professional analysis of what happened, there are plenty of links on the Web. But you probably insist that these universities, engineering firms, and government agencies are all part of the conspiracy. How many people were involved in the conspiracy? Does it include the families of the "alleged" hijackers who say that their sons are dead?

why does "your" model insist on all of the materials being heated to the same temperature?

The author has been incredibly generous to the "the fires caused the collapse" camp.

The author assumes there was enough oxygen for the fires to burn efficiently (this was clearly not the case as evidenced by the thick black smoke) which is once again incredibly generous.

If you spread the jet fuel over 4 or 5 floors then the energy available to heat each of these floors is 1/4 or 1/5 that of his estimates.

Much of the fuel never entered the buildings or was blown out of the building by the fireball. The author has assumed that all of the fuel entered the building.

But the main reason a uniform temperature is assumed is because of an effect called conduction. Conduction means that after an hour or so, all cold areas have become hotter and all hotter areas have become cooler and an almost uniform temperature has evolved. Remember, all the jet fuel would have burnt within 5 minutes of the impacts.

Bravo Einstein! Go stick your head in the toliet......Ha

almost uniform temperature?
hmm that assumption makes all fire impossible it is not surprising that it would also make this one impossible
one would assume that concrete which does not conduct heat very well would maintain quite a large heat differential between various areas. besides that once the metal is damaged the job is done it doesnt have to happen everywhere instantainiously 1hr after the impact.

HAVE YOUR SAY CONCERNING 9-11.

The following is a list of Talk Boards and some threads where you can discuss 9-11.

WWW.LIBERTYFORUM.ORG

I have never heard of anyone being banned from this Talk Board.

U.S. MEDIA RELEASES FAKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF 9-11 PENTAGON EXPLOSION.
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767, SO WHY DIDN'T IT?
THE OFFICIAL LIE (THE "TRUSS THEORY") IS LUDICROUS.
SIXTY STATE STREET (BOSTON) AND THE WTC TOWERS: A COMPARISON.
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DELIBERATELY DEMOLISHED.
EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES.
BENJAMIN FREEDMAN PREDICTED 9-11 IN 1961, PRESCIENT EH?
MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS COLLAPSE AS AN ENORMOUS INSURANCE SCAM.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECRET PROBE OF STOCK DEALINGS BEFORE 9/11
CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO FROM HUFSCHMID'S BOOK ON 9-11: PAINFUL QUESTIONS
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
INVESTIGATION SHOWS CELL-PHONES CALLS FROM 9-11 "HIJACKED" PLANES, NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE.
THE FEMA REPORT ON WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 COLLAPSE IS A TOTAL JOKE. The whole FEMA report.
THEY LIED TO YOU ABOUT WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN. The short version.
DOWNLOAD 16 MEGABYTES OF PICTURES AND INFORMATION ON 9-11.

911PI.COM

911pi.com is a hoax. It is more about hiding the truth about 9-11, than finding it.
You will have to read this farcical site to decide for yourself.
The people running the site feel that they can change or delete posts at will.
This site is a very sad JOKE and an insult to those killed on September 11, 2001.

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS COLLAPSE AS AN ENORMOUS INSURANCE SCAM.
EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES.
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FOR THE WTC COLLAPSE IS A LIE
PROOF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DELIBERATELY DEMOLISHED.
THE FEMA REPORT ON THE WTC 7 COLLAPSE IS A TOTAL JOKE.
CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO FROM HUFSCHMID'S BOOK ON 9-11: PAINFUL QUESTIONS
32,000 TONS OF STEEL OF STEEL MISSING FROM EACH OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS?
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) REPORT ON WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE.
THE FULL FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) REPORT ON THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN.
MEDIA RELEASES FAKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXPLOSION AT PENTAGON.
GRAPHICAL EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM AT THE PENTAGON.

WWW.DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM

Expect to be banned from this Talk Board.

FEMA REPORT ON THE WTC7
MANY OF THE 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.
PROOF THE WTC WAS DEMOLISHED.
THE TRUSS THEORY OF COLLAPSE.
EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE WTC COLLAPSE.


LIST OF ARTICLES ON 9-11.
Download the entire www.nerdcities.com/guardian site as one 16 MB file.

Click Here to download the file. Click Here if the first link is down.

Then open it with WinZip (Microsoft) tar -zxf (Unix) or Stuffit (Apple). Click Here For Help.

September the Eleventh 2001.

The World Trade Center.

The World Trade Center Demolition or Here 740 KB
Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse or Here or en Español 300 KB
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment) or Here 850 KB
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment) or Here 1.8 MB
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment) or Here 1.3 MB
Microsoft Software used to simulate the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Center.
University of California, Berkeley Professor, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Testifies.
Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
Chapter 3 of the WTC Report: WTC 3.
Chapter 6 of the WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building.
Appendix B of the WTC-Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections.
Appendix D of the WTC-Report: WTC Steel Data Collection.
The World Trade Center 7 Explosion Myth.
Photographic Evidence that they Lied About the Trusses or Here
The Jet Fuel; How hot did it heat the World Trade Center? or Here
Proof the Twin Towers were Deliberately Demolished or Here
Sixty State Street and the World Trade Center towers: A Comparison or Here

The Pentagon.

A Detailed Analysis of whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon or Here 1.4 MB
Photos of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon are a Complete and Utter Fabrication or Here
The Bijlmer Crash - Joe Vialls - Caught in a Lie.
Carol A. Valentine Article Completely Wrong.
The Strange Case of the Sports Utility Vehicle at the Pentagon.
How the size of the plane in the "explosion" photo was calculated.
The Essence of the Problem or Here

Other.

Stranger Than Fiction (from www.whatreallyhappened.com) 600 KB
Evidence that the Arabs are Not to blame for the WTC attack.
Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at the WTC or Here
Seismic Observations during the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack or Here
Many 9-11 "Hijackers" are Still Alive and Well or Here
Israelis arrested on suspicion of 9-11 involvement.
Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions By MalcontentX.
Collection of Eric Hufschmid's early articles.

Clouds of Concrete
WTC Fireballs
Crummy Buildings
American Pride
Pentagon Plane Crash
Who blew up WTC?
Revenge
Manipulation
Censorship

Chapters One and Two from Eric Hufschmid's book Painful Questions (with comment) or Here
Investigation shows Cellphone Calls from 9-11 "Hijacked" Planes are next to Impossible or Here
The World Trade Center Towers collapse as an Enormous Insurance Scam or Here
Benjamin Freedman predicted the present push for WWW III in 1961, prescient eh? or Here

The Response, Or Rather, Lack Of It.

Air National Guard Mission And Vision Statement or Here
An example of Air National Guard efficency.
Where was NORAD on September Eleven?

Palestine.

Some Facts About Palestine or Here
Listing and Map of Land Ownership in Palestine in 1947.
Listing and Map of Towns and Villages Ethnically Cleansed/Destroyed by the Jews.
More on the Towns and Villages Ethnically Cleansed/Destroyed by the Jews or Here 570 KB
Time line of the Israeli aggression against the Palestinians in the 1948 war or Here
Brief articles on the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars started by Israel or Here
Brief descriptions of some of the many massacres perpetrated by the Jews/Israelis or Here
Brief article on the Israeli attempt to ignite a civil war in Lebanon.
Arafat calls for democratic elections in the United States.
The Amazing Cost of Israel to the United States or Here
America should fight minorities and aliens the way Israel does!
The Day Israel Deliberately Killed 34 American Sailors.
Brief article on Israeli apartheid.
Israel wins Huge Victory.
Is Israel a Democracy?
Some Israeli War Criminals.
Some articles on the War Criminal Sharon.
The War Criminal Sharon. The Long Version.
The Chinese claim California as a Confucian Homeland.
God gave the Jews New York.
The Genocidal God of the Jews.
Some Zionist Fairy Tales.
Israel mugs the Palestinians.
Muslims base their claim to Palestine on History.
Jewish Terrorism.
Jewish Terrorism targeting the British.
Online Books about Palestine and the Jews.
What you can do if you care.

Other.

Why did the US develop the Space Shuttle when the Saturn 5 is so much better?
Why is the US developing the Delta rockets when the Saturn 5 is so much better?
Why is no one allowed to question the Holocaust?

TOO MUCH INFORMATION. YOU ALSO GO TO BED...

TOO MUCH INFORMATION. YOU ALSO GO TO BED...

...facts. They just give him a headache.

Why? Because I stand out above the rest. Go rest your brain for the evening.. Your tired!!!

I could really use a golden shower right about now. Are you interested, daveman?

Good article.

nerdcities.com will not connect.
Is it down?
I've attempted to use a few of the listed links and they
fail.
FYI

Nerdcities was too close to the Truth.

Either that, or there's a Star Trek convention in town and nobody's minding the shop.

I just lynched a nigger.

Found it.

This explains why the jet fuel could not have caused the WTC collapses (even when combined with the aircraft strikes).

I'm going to offer this one to my chem class and see what they think.

...can be boiled down into 2 positions.

1. "I believe whatever the Government says without question and anyone who doesn't is a crazy "Conspiracy Theorist".

2. What do the known physcial characteristics of the materials and the available energy to change those characterisitics show? If this is contrary to the Official "Conspiracy Theory" then the Theory needs to be revised to accomodate the facts; not revise the facts to fit the Theory.

"What do the known physcial characteristics of the materials and the available energy to change those characterisitics show?"

Clearly, what they show is that all the speculation and scientific hypotheses in the world mean nothing if they are shown to be incorrect.

Point is this. You can jabber on all you want about science you know nothing about but any engineer will tell you this. If you want to jnow for sure how a system will react, look back on what it did.

Two hijacked jets, PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been hijacked by ARAB terrorists slammed into the WTC. Subsequently, the damage and ensuing fire led to their collapse.

Did you not see this about a billion times for yourself over the last year and a half?

I suppose you'll next tell me that the Angels did NOT beat the Yankees in the playoffs last year because on paper there was no way they could have.

Oh wait a minute, those were actors PLAYING the Angeles on TV.
HMMMMMMM. Fascist bastards.

LOL.

Gotcha again rupert.

...bumblebees can't fly, either.

Can't argue with figures.

"First, let's look at the physics behind the story. The lift equations for rigid wings are straightforward enough. Bumble-bees are fairly big, weighing almost a gram, and have a wing area of about a square centimetre.Tot up all the figures and you find that bees cannot generate enough lift at their typical flying speed of about 1 ms."

See?

I know it's not a worthy and respected source like rense.com, but we work with what we have. http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm

...plying their trade. Occupation: Fooles.

Notice frescoid keeps hammering on every 911 thread the Kooky Conspiracy Theory that 19 Arabs who could not competently fly a single engine, 4 Seat, Propeller driven Plane (Cessna 180) were beyond a shadow of a doubt able to commandeer 4 top of the line Jet Airliners, fly them around for 2 hours, learning as they go, without the Air Force being able to do anything about it and then crash them into major buildings. One of them was so good that he was able to do a rapid spiral descent 7000 feet in 2 minutes, level off at treetop height, and hit a 71 foot high wall (the Pentagon). Next you are going to say they were all graduates of "Top Gun". The Movie perhaps. ROFL!

Not once has frescoid offered one piece of hard data to support it's contentions. Not one piece, nada, zero, zip. We're supposed to take your word for it? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

This is a cute one.
try it on for size.....
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

...you THE MAN er Dog? I wish I had thought of that article. It's a goodun'.

"19 Arabs who could not competently fly a single engine, 4 Seat, Propeller driven Plane (Cessna 180) were beyond a shadow of a doubt able to commandeer 4 top of the line Jet Airliners, fly them around for 2 hours, learning as they go, without the Air Force being able to do anything about it and then crash them into major buildings. "

And yet they obviously did it.
And by the way, how is it you know how well they could pilot seeing as how you don't even believe they exist?

Gotcha again dummy. You need to proof read your gibberish. I can drive a truck through the holes you leave.

And I'll never waste my time duplicating the reams of evidence which even you know to be true.

Dio you are becoming way too easy to shoot down.

wow
with what
fresca?
wow

simple common knowledge seems to do the trick.

you've got a never ending series of hang fires.

...can be boiled down into 2 positions.

1. "I believe there is a big conspiricy (because I don't like the government) and I wil believe anyone who also agrees that there is a big conspiricy whether this relates to 911 or the angels (UI am just waiting on how this would benifit bush or neocons).."

2. "I believe that a conspiricy theory is incredibly unlikely if it relates to somthing with as much information in the public domain as 911 or the angels game"

3rd option:
you may have convinced fresca.
maybe daveman......
Public venue? Please.
maybe Kissenger would tell us all about it.....
nah, we’ll just believe any thing you tell us.
AS long as it agrees with the 19 super terrorists and
indestructible passports therory.

"indestructable passport.."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

that's what I was inferring.
It's a fantasy of taped together BS.
It's ALL unsubstantiated allegation.
High Five.

I posted the fake "debate coach" comment. Aren't I clever? My mommy thinks so!

www.kobehq.com

KOBE SBM = MORON

...what does that have to do with lighter fluid being able to:
weaken/fuse/melt the concrete reenforced steel of the
WTC structures?

Errrr, nothing, but KOBE SBM is a MORON

fresca: thick as a brick.

Jethro Tull

...what does that have to do with lighter fluid being able to:
weaken/fuse/melt the concrete reenforced steel of the
WTC structures?

Anyone here been in the Air Force? Worked at Norad. While I was there a Cuban MiG flew into florida undetected. Contrary to all the gibberish out there, armed jet fighters don't sit on runways outside NYC awaiting for errant UA and AA flights. It just doesn't happen. The most credible thing about all of 911 is that the Air Force did not respond.

In three years at Norad I can't remember a conversation about looking at internal flights. Just flights coming in over the borders or, most common, heading for the borders. Sub launches are watched mostly from space and sometimes from maritime air patrols.
AND if anyone things for one minute that someone could shut up the airmen working the consoles to make them cover something like this up...... actually I can't complete this sentence as it seems people tend to believe a lot of kooky 911 theories on IMC: missile launches from Harlem or Terrytown, electronic can opener ray guns, robot planes, secret phone calls to Freemasons or Jews or Isrealis or Pizza Delivery men or whatever.

Its too bad because important questions like reaction to any warning sign of general trouble or terrorism is lost with this Jerry Springer crap.

wow
$13 trillion
twinky defence.
wow.

...spent time and money watching internal flights, you yo-yos would be hollering "police state" and complaining about your freedoms being infringed upon.

wow
whiner defence
wow.

Hmm I think we have delt with all of the aspects of the conspiricy theory now.. which is quite impressive.

Hmm I was just wondering what sort of strategy the US would have to have been following to have all civilian flights monitored for interception by fighters in the "pre terrorist plane bombers" period.
how often have US fighters been needed to scramble within a few minutes in order to destroy a civilian plane..

The only thing I can think of is.. you want to kill someone before they can get to saftey of some sort.

Even in the case of a hijack wanting to go to iran or whatever there is usually many hours to get there. and you would almost never need to shoot them.

Steve Canyon: While I was there a Cuban MiG flew into florida undetected. Contrary to all the gibberish out there, armed jet fighters don't sit on runways outside NYC awaiting for errant UA and AA flights

Well Steve Canyon is a lying bastard.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/60001.php

Norad detected that plane within miniutes of being off course....
What gives?
Three planes off course.....
Hmm......

Ahhh.....
Brainwashed are we (yoda's voice)

actually, four big, commercial jets with radios and
everything.
Just flying around, you know, over and through the most restricted air space on earth. For an hour and a half.

I looked at your referenced website:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/60001.php

You are quite wrong:

1) the DC website is still up and that message is still there. So you are wrong. I guess that being wrong makes you a lying bastard, right?

2) where does it say that it keeps planes on the runway at combat alert? Highest state of combat readiness for a guard unit like the 113th Fighter is not necessarily runway alert. Do you know ANYTHING AT ALL about the military? Or about the concept of the Guard?

The Minnesota 34th ID National Guard Band is lists there mission as being ready to deploy. Are they sitting at home wiht their tubas waiting for the phone to ring so they can march to repel attacks from Canada? By your reasoning they are.

http://www.dma.state.mn.us/redbull/DIVSEP/Band/mission.html

3) Even were this marching band or the air guard on strip alert that doesn't mean they are aiming at domestic flights.

Take a chill pill and relax in anycase. You're a bit overwrought.

Oh, and do some reading or even better, get some experience in life.

In 1993 a cuban air force pilot landed a MiG at Key West Naval Air Station - neither the Navy nor the Air Force reacted to this landing - no scrambled planes, no missiles shot. This happened in a heavily monitored and heavily armed corridor. The jet fighter flew out of air bases towards which our radars and defenses were directed. It was the exact type of threat the Air Defense Command in Florida was keyed to. No response. This was not the first time this happened and, although I'm not sure of this last part - not the last as I believe a MiG made it even further inland to Homestead AFB after this incident.

Just two years before the 1993 incident a MiG 17 landed at Key West NAS and many senior officers were relieved of duty as a result. There was a strong incentive to keep it from happening again, but it did.

A vague gung-ho 'mission' statement - as opposed to mission orders, for the Air National Guard in DC is by no means evidence that the AF was monitoring the Boston to New York Air Corridor nor that they had assets prepared to rapidly respond to planes deviating from the path.

All of these dubious formulas assume a perfect system. That is, fuel burning on a floor of a building UNDAMAGED by a jet airliner crashing into it.


Now, even if I didn't have a physics degree, I could tell you that adding that into the system changes things dramatically and SEVERELY lessens the impact of the burning fuel on the final state of the system.

None of these equations or theories even remotely take into account the catastrophic effect of such a colision and the resulting degredation of the building's structural integrity.

so, tell me, what about that theory has you convinced?

...convieniently ignore is that:

A. Air Traffic Control is REQUIRED to notify NORAD immediately if any Plane deviates from course and does not respond to Radio Communication.

This was true in the case of all four Jets.
NORAD has been trying to avoid addressing this point.
The Air Traffic Controllers have been forbidden to talk to the Press. That holds true even to this moment. Why?
Can you say Cover-Up? See, I knew you could.

B. We do have a valid comparison to this event in the case of Golfer Payne Stewarts ill-fated flight. NORAD HAD TWO F-15s alongside and investigating TEN MINUTES after Air Traffic Control Notified them.

This Thread is getting Repetitive. It is obvious that the Shills, like frescaw, are not going to give the FACTS and honest hearing because that is not what they are paid to do. Their job is to obscure and obfuscate.

The facts, and the Math, are really quite clear. There was insufficient fuel for the fire to stay hot enough, long enough, to result in significant structural degradation.
The Building was designed to withstand an impact by a Boeing 707 which is roughly of the same mass as the plane that did hit, and carries a larger fuel load because it's engines are less efficient.

frescaw claims to be a Physics Major and yet seems blithely unaware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, by it's application to this case, would tend to suggest that once the initial fuel load had burned the building would tend to cool and stabilize barring introduction of additional fuel or force.

The fuel burn would appear to have been insufficient to cause the buildings collapse, particularly as it occurred in a uniform, linear, progression, which is indicative of a controlled demolition not catastrophic failure.

Sorry, but I'm much too simpleminded to understand your post. I'm a conservative.

As soon as the Shills PR line is convincingly shredded there is a Spam attack to bury it.


Sore losers.

Spam is all we have.

What the "Radar coulda' missed them" crowd convieniently ignores is that:

A. Air Traffic Control is REQUIRED to notify NORAD immediately if any Plane deviates from course and does not respond to Radio Communication.

This was true in the case of all four Jets.
NORAD has been trying to avoid addressing this point.
The Air Traffic Controllers have been forbidden to talk to the Press. That holds true even to this moment. Why?
Can you say Cover-Up? See, I knew you could.

B. We do have a valid comparison to this event in the case of Golfer Payne Stewarts ill-fated flight. NORAD HAD TWO F-15s alongside and investigating TEN MINUTES after Air Traffic Control Notified them.

This Thread is getting Repetitive. It is obvious that the Shills, like frescaw, are not going to give the FACTS an honest hearing because that is not what they are paid to do. Their job is to obscure and obfuscate.

The facts, and the Math, are really quite clear. There was insufficient fuel for the fire to stay hot enough, long enough, to result in significant structural degradation.
The Building was designed to withstand an impact by a Boeing 707 which is roughly of the same mass as the plane that did hit, and carries a larger fuel load because it's engines are less efficient.

frescaw claims to be a Physics Major and yet seems blithely unaware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, by it's application to this case, would tend to suggest that once the initial fuel load had burned the building would tend to cool and stabilize barring introduction of additional fuel or force.

The fuel burn would appear to have been insufficient to cause the buildings collapse, particularly as it occurred in a uniform, linear, progression, which is indicative of a controlled demolition not catastrophic failure.

I know that it's imperative for you to try and find a way to pin the blame for this on anything other than the obvious perpetrators (because that would mean that the mainstream media WAS telling the truth) but your arguments are simply inane.


"frescaw claims to be a Physics Major and yet seems blithely unaware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, by it's application to this case, would tend to suggest that once the initial fuel load had burned the building would tend to cool and stabilize barring introduction of additional fuel or force. "

Wrong. First of all, the 2nd LAw refers to the fact that systems will always tend towards entropy or disorder. regardless, of that interesting aside, the fact remains that once steel or really any building material which is subject to stress and damage and internal deformation due to extremely high heats , it's altered for good. Expecting it to go back to it's original form once cooled is like waiting for a pickle to turn back into a cucumber.
I would hope that Dio was intelligent enough to know this. Obfuscation #1.

"The facts, and the Math, are really quite clear. There was insufficient fuel for the fire to stay hot enough, long enough, to result in significant structural degradation.
The Building was designed to withstand an impact by a Boeing 707 which is roughly of the same mass as the plane that did hit, and carries a larger fuel load because it's engines are less efficient.

The fuel burn would appear to have been insufficient to cause the buildings collapse, particularly as it occurred in a uniform, linear, progression, which is indicative of a controlled demolition not catastrophic failure."


First you say there was innsufficient fuel.
A. you don't know how much was on the plane.
Just because it was a short flight means nothing.
Planes regularly make stops and continue on.
You know that. Obfuscation number #1.
Secondly, "testing" a building for the event of a catastrophic plane crash is simply IMPOSSIBLE without carshing a jet into a building.. Theorizing and postulating is possible and that's all you have.
Furthermore, the original engineers have admitted that tests for catastrophic fire were not even done on the WTC. They are definelty catching hell on that one.

http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_firetest.html

All in all Dio, you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You believe the theory because some jackass used fancy HTML tags in his post so you assume it's got to be correct, even though the entire premise rests on huge assumptions and gaping holes.

mild steel ( the material that comprises the structural
material of the WTC) DOES go back to its former strength after it cools.
Damage would occur if shear or tensile stresses actually
deformed the steel, producing fatigue.

Give me some links.
Sounds interesting.

...you are going to ruin your reputation by making a valid counter argument.

However, The 2nd Law does apply to the extent that once the intial fuel burn was complete - in a matter of minutes the structure would begin tending toward entropy i.e., begin cooling off.

Without a proper Forensic analysis we cannot know how much damage the fire did to the Support Members. However, as the calculations above would tend to suggest the heat was insufficient to cause significant deformation.

Unfortunately we will never get a proper Forensic Engineering Report as the structure was carted off, cut up, and quickly sold for scrap. Incompetence or Intent? If a high level Cabal was capable of pulling off the Crime of the New Century they would also have the power to be able to try to bury the evidence of their Crime. A dilemma. The rational counter is of course to argue that all was above board and that no Cabal could have the power to do this. However that founders up all of the strange occurrences surrounding the event of that morning, and the lies that followed. It leaves a very large question mark. While I cannot rule out with mathematical certainty that the towers did not all collapse, linearly, and uniformly, thus not hitting other buildings, from structural degradation by pure chance emulating a controlled demolition I find it of vanishing probability.

You can't have it both ways: Either the fuel burned upon initial impact (remember the big fire ball?) or continued on in a sustained burn.

The Smoke was black. This indicates an Oxygen Starved Fire i.e., burns at less than max temperature.

And we do know, or can reasonably estimate, the amount of fuel on board due to standard and customary practices good economy in operating commercial aircraft. The author of the original argument at the top of this thread used a reasonable, and conservative that is generous, assumption for the quantity of fuel. Barring a confirmation one way or the other it provides a reasonable working assumption. No, not exact, or even verifiable without access to aircraft records, but reasonable under the circumstances.

As for the effect of fire on a Steel Framed structure we can look at other instances and draw a reasoable inferance. Again not perfect but this is the real world not the "Ivory Tower". Take for example the MGM Grand fire. A Steel Framed structure which, while arguably smaller, is a reasonable simile. Despite Hot Fires over an extended period of time the structure was not weakened enough to cause catastrophic collapse. Of course you might counter with "but it was not hit by an Airliner". Which, while valid, does not again matter when discussing the effectsof the heat on the Steel Support Members. Other buildings have suffered major fires, hotter, and of longer duration without collapsing.

And again the manner in which the collapse progressed is a significant datum. That is, in a Catastrophic Failure there will be one point at which the structure first fails. The failure will be Non-Linear not Linear and will not result in a uniform failure at all four corners of the structure i.e., it will tend to topple not implode. Implosion of a structure, such as the WTC Towers, is most like a controlled demolition.

It trips me out how you guys can write a 500 word essay and say practically nothing. Your opinions on what happened in the WTC towers are utter speculation. Why not just write a thesis on "I went to the bathroom and took a piss." It would certainly contain more facts and less speculation than your twin towers analysis.

...a speculation upon observed facts. It is an attempt to provide a coherent explanation.

I do not consider my hypothesis proven. I just find the Official "Conspiracy Theory" a less complete explanation of the KNOWN AND OBSERVED phenomena.

If you have a better one present it.

However, be advised that for it to be valid it must account for all of the observed phenomena. Selective exclusion of data, as in the "Official" "Theory" will be buckshotted.

Where I got MY degree in metalurgy.

Metallurgy. Typing is not my long suit. Sorry...
Only high carbon steel undergoes significant changes
with heat as it can acquire or lose temper by the cooling
speed of the metal as in a molecular body or center faced
carbon structure.

Some radical islamic fundamentalists hijacked some planes, because they hate America, our culture, and our way of life. Subsequently, said terrorists crashed said planes at a high velocity into said towers. Momentum ( =M*V ) and high heat caused massive towers to fall under force of gravity. Debris fell at ~9.8 m/sec/sec (~32 ft/sec/sec) (where g = Gm1 / r^2 and F = mg) at a vector directed towards the center of mass of the planet Earth (straight down). In the cataclysm of said attack, roughly 3000+ innocent lives were claimed. Subsequent to said attack, America kicked some ass, and continues to do so until this day...

"Some radical islamic fundamentalists hijacked some planes, because they hate
America, our culture, and our way of life."

If I needed to see that, I would watch Fox news, right after
my PFL so I would believe it also.

What insight, not.

Only a fool would believe that if a 767 crashed into the WTC at a high rate of speed, that it would be incapable of bringing down a skyscrapper.

I doubt there's a tower in existence that could withstand such an attack...

Please answer just this one question:

Why do you continue to disregard the effect of the plane crashing into the building?
Everything you say rests on assumptions about how hot the fire was and theoretical effects that had on the structure, which was never tested by the way.
The one thing that is for certain and is verified emperically is the crash of the jets.
Why will you not factor this in?

-that designed the WTCs to withstand such an incident
was clever to be able to pass the engineering specs
off on the building code regulators. Must have been
an AL Quada plot. Right.

No conspiracy there. Engineers sign off on designs all the time without independently performing calculations or scrutinizing the specs. I can't say as I blame them either, in this case. No one can reasonably prove them negligent, as it is quite near impossible to determine the effects a 767 traveling at high velocity might have on a skyskrapper.

I'd say, they're in the clear.

say what?
"No one can reasonably prove them negligent, as
it is quite near impossible to determine the effects a 767 traveling at high
velocity might have on a skyskrapper."
But they do have to sign off on skyscrapers.
Now you're saying the regulators AND architect
were in on the plot or as NORAD would say, 'I claim
the twinky defence.'

I'm a moron who has no idea what I'm talking about. I'm a conservative.

"But they do have to sign off on skyscrapers."

No shit, Einstein.

Now prove them negligent. We're all waiting to witness the impressive calculations and swells of chalk dust. C'mon, entertain us!

Remeber, they're all innocent until proven guilty. And the burden of the proof of guilt rests squarely upon your shoulders. Not likely that your conspiracy theories, conjecture, and hearsay will convince a jury. You better get busy and hit the Physics books!

I don't need to. You do, in order for your rational to make sense.

"You do"

unsubstantiated allegation

"Not likely that your conspiracy theories, conjecture, and hearsay will convince a jury."

Unsubstantiated Allegation.

"Unsubstantiated Allegation."

illogical fallacy.

"illogical fallacy."

Unsubstantiated Allegation.

"Unsubstantiated Allegation."

Illogical fallacy.

"Illogical fallacy."

Unsubstantiated Allegation.

...the damage that the aircraft did. However, the building was designed to survive a direct impact from a 707 which is very close in mass to a 767 and carries a heavier fuel load.

The impact on the second Tower was on the corner of the building - the central load bearing members of the tower are in the central column. Ipso facto while you could conceivably argue direct Damage on the first Tower impact, as it was more central, that does not hold true for the second Tower impact.

And again the "dog that did not bark in the night". The towers collapsed in a uniform linear implosion and collapsed at a near Free-Fall rate. The only way you could thus violate the laws of inertia is if the supporting structure undeneath was severed - as by well placed demolition charges. As well Catastrophic collapse would not normally be so clean. By sheer chance I will allow it could have happened with one tower but when you take the second tower in then it becomes questionable. I am a hardboiled skeptic.

To Eric - please explain if they were such fanatical Muslims that they would Martyr themselves for Allah that they would go out drinking and whoring the night before - try to be seen, and convieniently leave a Koran in one of the bars. Actions strictly forbidden to an observant Muslim. And the Arabs of the Middle East do not hate our freedoms - they hate our foreign policy which favors Crony Capitalism and is overweighted in Israel's favor. And then the day of the attack the car in in the airport parking lot with flight manuals etc..... Does not add up. Looks all the world like a planted trail to pin the crime on a patsy. I don't buy the "Official Conspiracy Theory" it has more holes than the proverbial Swiss Cheese.

I never said "Arabs of the Middle East hate our freedoms". It's pretty dishonest of you to put racist words like those in the mouths of others. Doesn't surprise me that you'd resort to such tactics though.

Secondly, I've lived in the Middle East for extended periods (in Pakistan primarily), and I think I'm qualified to generalize somewhat on how islamic fundamentalists (not "Arabs of the Middle East") tend to think and feel about Americans. What are your qualifications on the subject.

Thirdly, what do you know about what the terrorists were doing the night before? State your source.

Fourthly, all the evidence found in the parking lot and elsewhere adds up perfectly as far as I can see. If I were going to comit a horrendous, murderous act such as that, and kill myself in the process, I'd not want to remain anonymous. I'd want everyone to know exactly who I was and why I did it. I'd leave lots of hints everywhere. And I wouldn't care too much about the conclusions people came to, as I'd be living the good life with Allah and 72 virgins.

And lastly, no one seems to care whether or not YOU buy the official story or not. America has already used the "official story" to liberate two nations, and all without you being on board with what supposedly went down.

Face it. Your opinion on this one means squat.

...the amazing fonts of wisdom known as rense.com and whatreallyhappened.com say, the buildings collapsed from the site of the planes' impacts. Nor did they fall straight down; they leaned over toward the impact points...as would be expected; that's where the greatest structural damage was.

Diogones, I too am a diehard skeptic. Yet to disbelive the obvious in favor of the ridiculous is foolish.

"And the Arabs of the Middle East do not hate our freedoms - they hate our foreign policy which favors Crony Capitalism and is overweighted in Israel's favor."

Only partly. What they hate the most is the fact that we're not Muslims of their particular brand. That's one thing the apologists and supporters of Palestine and the other terrorist outfits don't realize...the bad guys want them dead, too, despite their rabid support.

Religious fanatics come in all varieties, sects, and denominations, and cults. These guys were just as couckoo for cocoa puffs as was Timothy McVey.

Insanity is an Equal Opportunity Employer (tm).

need to get a room.

...are a typical IndyMedion, insulting anyone who disagrees with the l(efty) a(narchist)-imc party line.

Typical indeed.

I'm mentally unstable.

Don't you care?

Another one!!!!

I checked the calculation.

It seems to be correct. What are the implications?

"I checked the calculation.
It seems to be correct. What are the implications?"

The implication is that the fire couldn't have brought down the buildings. Therefore, the buildings are still standing. Thank goodness. That whole 9/11 thing must have been nothing more than a bad dream.

What are the implications?

I ask a simple question and some fuckwit answers. Piss off idiot.

If you are finding this discussion anything but purely entertaining click here:
LINK

I would just like to add that in my world, the sky is green.

if the fires didn't bring down the buildings - which they didn't - ;

and if the plane impacts didn'st bring down the buildings - which they didn't -;

then bombs did,in a massmurderous controlled demolition to which the plane impacts were only a diversionary tactic.

....since the impact of two jumbo jet planes and thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel couldn't bring down those towers than neither could conventional bombs. The implications of this are 1) the towers were made out of a special alloy and could have only been built by extraterrestials and 2) it took alien weapons to destroy them. So unless you are a complete idiot you can see that the victims of the World Trade Center attack were really caught up in some sort of intragalactic war, and not the work of some "terrorist" like the media wants you to believe,

I believe it was either aliens or done on the back lot of some Hollwood production studio. Whichever it was, it opened the door for Bush to take over the world.

Nader 2004

I believe it was whomever Bush says it was. He does all of my thinking for me. I'm a conservative.

Bush 2004

<>

and bush is one thick dude. It explains a lot

As a math major I am interested only in your calculation. Jet fuel produces 120,200 BTU per gallon, or 114 J/Gallon , hence your calculations are just off by a tad. 10,000 gallons would produce 1.14MJ amount of heat. So the numbers you use 44MJ should be adjusted.
Thanks

It dosen't matter how hot jet fuel burns, a object weighing about 400,000lbs going .8 Mach can do some damage u guys need to take in that it wasn't just a fire that made the towers collape but a 757-767 smashing into the building also helps to bring a building down.

Didn't you know (if you had read the entire thread ) that the WTCs were built to withstand a collision at max speed (did you know that a 757 will break up at .8 speed of sound @ sea level? ) and why did you climb on this old thread to make a fool of yourself?

Because we are all FUCKING crazy