9/11: What Really Happened

Fire did what? Turned the largest steel structures in the world into a heap of dust?

 

Yes, yes it did.

 

Well, I'll start by saying that neither office fires nor jetfuel fed fires can weaken steel enough to comprise its strength, jetfuel/kerosene simply does not burn hot enough. And even if by some miracle it was hot enough, there's the fact that there was no debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7:

NIST Appendix L
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

 

The temperatures a kerosene fire can produce are well above the proportional limit of steel, and toward the top of that range the true elastic limit of is less than 50% of what it is at room temperature.

From The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires Susan Lamont, Ph.D

Both assertions in your first statement are demonstrably false. Figure 4.9 shows the damage from an office fire that, according to you, cannot weaken steel enough to compromise its strength. Looks a whole lot like plastic deformation to me.

That link brings me to the WTC disaster study main page. The fire that caused column 79 to buckle was not fuel-fed, but was caused by the fires in the building that had been set earlier in the day by flaming debris from the plane strikes Are you trying to be deliberately deceptive or just missing the point?

 

Never before in the history of steel structured buildings has one collapsed due to fire. So this phenomenon just happened to occur 3 times in one day on 9/11. Not only does our government want us to believe that fire caused the collapse of 3 giants steel skyscrapers, but they want us to believe that fire caused the instantaneous failure of thousands of massive steel joints as the buildings free fell to the ground. It's completely preposterous. It's so preposterous that over 1600 certified professional architects and engineers have come forward to say "it's preposterous." ae911truth.org.

Even though kerosene can burn as hot as 1700 degrees, experts have estimated that the steel frame of the WTC reached sustained temps of 500-600 degrees as it was an oxygen starved fire as could be seen by all the black smoke. The steel used in the WTC was rated to withstand sustained temps of 2000 degrees for 6 hours, according to NIST.

But still, even if by some miracle the kerosene fire compromised the steel frame where the fires where burning, that doesn't even begin to explain how the rest of the building's steel structure failed instantaneously and free fell to the ground.

And lets not forget, WTC 7 had no kerosene fed fire, it was just regular office fires.

If you'd like to watch short video about the steel design of the WTC buildings and the effects of fire on steel:

 

If you enjoy twisting yourself up in knots and squeezing yourself down a rabbit hole, by all means, continue Eddie.

Know one thing though, even if some of the "evidence" you can pull out of the vast internet library has merit, it is to no avail. Even if all that's been done or undone in the name of this tragedy has been based on a grand lie, it doesn't matter to the majority of those who lost loved ones in the tragedy - here and abroad. If there's anything to own up to, no one ever will, and even if they did, it won't reverse what's transpired and it won't solve anything.

It's a selfish pursuit that serves no one but yourself.

 

I have to strongly disagree with you.

As seekers of truth, you have to question what you have been told. Not only does it benefit you to see the complete picture (if you can get that far), it transpires into knowledge for future generations and anyone interested in the topic.

There is no excuse to keep the truth hidden beneath complacency and comfort.

Disclaimer: Couldn't care less about 9/11. Just stating the principle involved.

 

I see you didn't watch the previous video that shows how modern steel structures are designed. And you do realize that NIST retracted their "pancake" theory that the weight of the upper floors caused the collapse of the lower floors, right? You do also know that they found molten steel in the debris, right? Jet fuel does not burn nearly hot enough to create molten steel.

I'm not twisting myself up in knots. I'm simply presenting information that people can either choose to ignore or not. I mean, let's face it, the whole world watched two massive controlled demolitions on 9/11. Everybody that watched knew in the back of their minds that those collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. But because the gubment told us it was airplanes that brought them down...we believe them. Do you trust your gubment? Did you trust a GW run gubment? Don't forget, this is the same guy that said WMD's. And with the fall of the towers the U.S. was justified in beginning their massive international oil grab with multi-billion dollar American contracts. Halliburton anyone?

 

Every conspiracy theory (including this one) boil down to a simple question: Why? What was to be gained by this, and what HAS been gained by this in the last 10 years? Most Truther websites go on about Zionists and the NWO

 

I question everything, especially when it comes to my government and urge others to do so. My comment applied specifically to 9/11. I've been down the road Eddie is on and came to the conclusion that, while it was a good exercise in weighing an "official" version of an event against evidence to the contrary, the result was still the same. Too many people died. If there's something to be gained by continually dragging it all up, I fail to see what it is. The fantasy - The contrary evidence is found to concretely and overwhelmingly disprove the official version, a master plot is revealed, those involved are brought to trial. Even if it were to happen that way, imagine the fallout. I'm not telling Eddie and others so inclined not to question the events of 9/11, I simply saying that, in my opinion, there is no way any evidence disputing the official story will lead to a reversal of the official story.

I've already seen it, and much more. DOA -All of it.

I sympathize with you Eddie and share your suspicions about the event but have moved past the desire to keep researching it. The assassination of JFK should be proof enough that, if the cover-up of the death of one man can be kept secret for almost 50 years, what chance is there that a secret government plot will be uncovered about an event killing thousands, then millions in it's aftermath? Zero.

 

Too many people would have to be involved in this for there to be no whistle lowers 10 years later

 

Here's something else to read:

"Another popular argument is that in any 'vast conspiracy…there's the likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal.' Even this administration - (defenders of the official story argue) - 'could never have acquiesced in so much human slaughter and kept it a secret. Especially when so many people would have to have been involved.' Although this argument may seem strong at first glance, it becomes less impressive under examination.

"This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time.

"A second reason to question this a priori objection is that the details of the 9/11 operation would have been known by only a few individuals in key planning positions. Also, they would have been people with a proven ability to keep their mouths shut. Everyone directly complicit in the operation, moreover, would be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the death penalty. The claim that one of these people would have come forward by now is irrational.

"When people suggest that whistleblowers would have come forward, of course, they usually have in mind people who, without being complicit in the operation, came to know about it afterward, perhaps realizing that some order they had carried out played a part in the overall operation. Many such people could be kept silent merely by the order to do so, along with the knowledge that if they disobeyed the order, they would be sent to prison or at least lose their jobs. (see Kevin Ryan as an example of this) For people for whom that would be insufficient intimidation, there can be threats to their families. How many people who have expressed certainty about whistleblowers would, if they or their families or their jobs would be endangered by coming forward with inside information, do so?

"In any case, the assumption that 'someone would have talked,' being simply an assumption, cannot provide a rational basis for refusing to look directly at the evidence." (From, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, by David Ray Griffin, pg.s 20 - 21, Olive Branch Press, 2007.)

Read more: http://www.thetfp.com/threads/9-11-what-really-happened.2253/page-2#ixzz1dc9ypNZA​

 

Which isn't proof of anything of course, just more psycho-babble justifications.

You think the guys who supposedly rigged the explosive charges were so invested in this conspiracy that they'd keep their mouths shut? Or we're Bush and Rumsfield in there setting the explosives themselves?

 

Well, it's been proposed that foreign operatives were used, perhaps a team of Israeli coverts ops. Even so, would you believe some guy or even several guys who stepped forward and said they rigged the WTC to blow? No, you'd call them wack jobs.

 

If you were going to rig the towers to be a controlled demolition, why would you do it so it looked like a controlled demolition? Seems sloppy. Why not rig them to fall over instead of pancake?

 

If the towers were rigged with explosives, I don't think anyone can know to what level those who might have rigged them might have been invested - not without knowing who they were. It would require the assumption that no one is capable of keeping that kind of secret - which isn't true.

There are arguments to made against the idea but this is not the best one, unfortunately.

 

What could you possibly offer someone to participate in the murder of 3000+ of your fellow citizens? Perhaps they could lied to beforehand, but once the repercussions of your actions were revealed, what could be your motivation to keep quiet?