How did the World Trade Center collapse?

@parados,

Quote:

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. As the rubble is removed, oxygen causes the fires still smoldering to strengthen, making the task more difficult.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_recovery010918.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm?q=thermite.htm

There's a picture of a Hyhoe pulling a glowing piece of metal out from the rubble.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

What forensic analysis wasn't done before the rubble was carted off?

Be specific.

MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related

2 Replies

@JTT,

MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&NR=1

0 Replies

@JTT,

Your video is an obvious lie.

They only saved 240 pieces from the WTC site? That is complete and utter nonsense. They moved more than that to the Steel Museum.

The slide show I presented is pretty clear evidence they saved more than 240 pieces.

The pieces were NOT retrieved from landfills. They were taken to a specific site for examination. My slide show again shows your video is lying.

As for any forensic analysis that wasn't done. Your video presented nothing addressing that question. It is a series of one man's opinion with no forensic analysis and a lot of wrong facts.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Glowing steel is NOT molten steel JTT. Steel turns red at about 800 degrees. If the metal was molten then it would not hold it's shape. It would be a liquid and would pool until it cools.

If you can't get simple facts correct JTT, why should I believe you about anything more complex?

Here is a pretty extensive debunking of the "molten steel" myth.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

This page shows the lie in the one picture on the page you posted. The picture where the firefighters are supposedly finding glowing metal is part of a video that has a still taken out of it and then altered slightly. The video shows that glow is actually lights being used by the firefighters. I find it amazing how you think the government is lying JTT but you don't check anything about the sources you are using. They are clearly presenting fake evidence.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Glowing steel is NOT molten steel JTT. Steel turns red at about 800 degrees. If the metal was molten then it would not hold it's shape. It would be a liquid and would pool until it cools.

If you can't get simple facts correct JTT, why should I believe you about anything more complex?

Nice diversion, again, Parados. What I said was, and I quote, hoping that it at least aids you in the reading process if not the comprehension process;

"There's a picture of a Hyhoe pulling a glowing piece of metal out from the rubble."

I notice, once again, that you avoid all the complexities. You focus in on, like MM or okie, the most inane portion you can find and you hold on to that like a dog with a bone.

3 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

"There's a picture of a Hyhoe pulling a glowing piece of metal out from the rubble."

Yeah.. and no one ever said there wasn't glowing metal. In fact, glowing metal would support the NIST report since metal weakens when it is heated.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

. You focus in on, like MM or okie, the most inane portion you can find and you hold on to that like a dog with a bone.

oh, you mean like when you argue that only 240 pieces of steel were saved and examined from the WTC?

You are the one that is supporting inanity JTT.

1. You claimed there was molten steel. I said you had no evidence. You provide a picture of glowing SOLID metal. I point it is NOT molten. You claim I am being inane.

Are you agreeing you have NO EVIDENCE of molten steel JTT? Or are you simply trying to change the topic from what you claimed because if you don't it shows you don't know what you are talking about?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Let me remind you of what you said JTT

JTT wrote:

They failed to discuss obvious, not to mention strange, facts, eg. molten steel under the rubble of the towers.

parados" wrote:

Can you provide solid evidence of the molten steel?

JTT wrote:

There's a picture of a Hyhoe pulling a glowing piece of metal out from the rubble.

parados wrote:

Glowing steel is NOT molten steel JTT.

JTT wrote:

Nice diversion, again, Parados.

You failed to provide evidence to support your statement JTT. I am not the one attempting to create a diversion when you are the one providing evidence of solid steel to support your statement of molten steel. You are clearly the one attempting to create a diversion.

0 Replies

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

I just wanted a place to put this so I'd remember it when some 911-truth nut starts talking to me about how steel couldn't melt at those temperatures and how that means it was an inside job. or how the buildings wouldn't fall straight down like they did unless it was an inside job. This link explains exactly how and why the buildings collapsed in the way they did.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

WTC collapsed in a "progressive collaps" due to initial weak structure, very similar to the forbidden flat slap structure. However all these roumers about explosives and what not is circumstacial evidence, but what is evident is the quick clear up of all the dirbish that should have been used for research and evidence similar to any crime scene, that's what awakes my suspecion.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

What do you think was done with the debri Hex?

Were you aware it was moved to a site and examined? Or did you buy into the claim that it went to a land fill and wasn't examined?

3 Replies

@parados,

Have they released any findings?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

What do you think was done with the debri Hex?

Were you aware it was moved to a site and examined? Or did you buy into the claim that it went to a land fill and wasn't examined?

Yearh, please enlighten us about any findings in all the evidence.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

2 Replies

@parados,

Thanks most kindly.

0 Replies

@parados,

It looks like an after thought with sketchy samples rather than a thorough investigation.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

And what exactly is required for a thorough investigation in your professional opinion?

1 Reply

@parados,

Lot more than this skimpy bikini, titillating but not full disclosure - even an MIT engineering professor found it inadequate. Let the MIT do it; but it would be too late as they have all been melted.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

So, you can't list a single thing that should have been tested?
You just know without any evidence that something wasn't tested.

Hell.. they didn't test for alien life forms either. Does that mean aliens brought down the towers?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you can't list a single thing that should have been tested?
You just know without any evidence that something wasn't tested.

Hell.. they didn't test for alien life forms either. Does that mean aliens brought down the towers?

It's a silly and unserious claim that we should have the knowledge of construction engineers and experienced investigators to demand answers. You are just pushing the subject aside.

1 Reply

How did the World Trade Center collapse?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know