the wtc towers were brought down by fire and weakened steel from the impact of the planes.
I'll say it was more than a fire....because it was more than a fire!
except it wasnt fire alone
9/11 could not be the first or only time that fire alone caused the total collapse of a high rise building because fire alone did not cause the collapse
9/11 was the first time in history where a HIGH-RISE building collapsed during a fire, after large planes had been slammed into them.
It's impossible to compare the WTC collapse to other high rise fires especially when you don't consider the differences in building size and design, and also don't consider the structural damage and compromised fireproofing caused by the plane impact.
That was the first building to ever be struck by a fully fueled passenger jet right?
No, it was not fire alone, and the airplanes that struck the tower caused a significant amount of structural damage. Can we agree on that point?
"Prior to 9/11/2001 there was no DOCUMENTED RECORD of any STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER having COMPLETELY Collapsed Within NINETY MINUTES of the onset of FIRE within it."
most importantly..if the wtc towers had just fire and no structural damage..i would say they probably should not have fallen. but with that amount of structural damage and fire...i find it very easy to believe that they would indeed collapse.
When you poke a hole in the side of a tubular structure and start a fire in that hole you create a convective furnace complete with its own chimney and fresh air intake.
No one knows for sure if they could have eventually brought the fires under control given enough time, or if they would have burned long enough to cause a collapse anyways.
...did you miss the part of that day where jet planes crashed into the buildings?
Oh I don't know, perhaps the fact they were started by fuel laden airplanes traveling at high speed would be one major difference.
Well, for starters, no airliner had ever slammed into a 110 story skyscraper at full speed before.
It's impossible to compare the WTC collapse to other high rise fires especially when you don't consider the differences in building size and design, and also don't consider the structural damage and compromised fireproofing caused by the plane impact.
The fires in The Twins were different from any high-rise fires that came before them because they were preceded and caused by intentional high-speed head-on crashes of fuel-loaded jetliners which not only started the fires with their fuel but also severely damaged numerous exterior support girders and interior core columns while stripping several steel members of their fire resistant insulation.
the unsevered core columns and exterior girders, whose insulation had been knocked off and were, as a result, weakening from exposure to heat, exceeded their load bearing capabilities and collapsed under the weight of everything above them.
the towers did not collapse due to fire alone
the damage from the plane severaly affected the structure of the buildings. all 4 sides are neccessary to hold up all that weight...knock out even 1/8th of the structure and it is in bad shape. structural damage + weakened steel from fire's heat + weight of building above damaged section...is what eventually brought down the buildings.
And yes: "it was the impact of those big jumbo planes + the fires + upper floors bearing down with gravitational force that caused the collapse" is an acceptable, if brief summation of what happened.
1. Severing of many of the exterior and interior Steel Columns via the plane impacts. 2. Removal of a majority of the "spray on" fireproofing from the steel columns and other steel structures.
3. Fires initiated by Jet fuel, then superheated via other contents within the skyscapers including office furniture, carpets, office equipment...the list goes on. These fires covered 8-10 floors each.
you cannot grasp that the external super structure was irreversibly damaged by the impact of the planes. You cannot grasp that the internal supports were badly damaged by the planes.
You cannot grasp the static weight above the damaged area was constant.
You cannot grasp that this constant weight had to redistribute onto the remaining supports.
plane hits building, building burns, building falls
So, I think it's safe to assume, that most of you (including NIST) believe that: Plane impacts + raging fires + energy created by falling mass = Crumbling Buildings. Here is an excerpt from the bible of WTC reports:
"The towers likely would NOT have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST, p. xxxviii
I think what they're saying here is that - ultimately...the key component in this whole equation i.e. Plane impacts + raging fires + energy created by falling mass = Crumbling Buildings - is the fact that the thermal insulation was dislodged from the steel structure of the WTC Towers. Because the NIST clearly states...that the towers LIKELY would NOT have collapsed from the impact and ensuing fires...had the thermal insulation remained intact. Wait, let me do it one better:
"The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires." NIST, p.171-172
Okay - scratch "LIKELY" now they are saying that the two towers WOULD HAVE remained standing if the insulation would have survived the plane impact. So how is the NIST so sure the insulation was even knocked off significantly? Surely, there isn't any evidence to unequivocally prove that the insulation from the floors that suffered the impacts was dislodged...so aren't they completely hypothesizing without a shred of actual proof? If so, does this "expert" theory sound all that solid and/or concrete if at the very foundation...we are working from a complete and utter assumption? Oh yea, I forget they actually set up some reenactments wherein trying to simulate the impacts of the planes on the towers - in hopes of determining what kind of damage it would have done to the insulation. Do you want to know one of the simulations they tried? They took and shot bullets at a small object covered in insulation. The bullets knocked off chips of the insulation so they concluded that the plane impact probably knocked off most of the thermal insulation. Does this sound very scientific and/or conclusive to you? Don't you think they would have spent most of their time on this most critical analysis since, they even admit...that although several events factored into the entire collapse - impacts, fires, upper mass bearing down - that...all of this would have been prevented if the thermal insulation would have remained intact. The brightest minds in the world and the best they can come up with to simulate a plane impacting a building is shooting bullets at a small block sitting in a wood box. One of the most important investigations in the history of the world...and this is what these "experts" come up with?
Now, I would like to address the, "falling mass," part of the equation. Here is another excerpt from NIST's report:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass .... The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that .... Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall .... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." NIST's Final Report
Okay, so according to this theory...once the fire had damaged the structure enough to initiate the collapse...at this point - the falling mass and potential energy it released onto the lowers floors is ultimately what caused the pulverization of the building. I think we can all agree, that without the falling mass (upper floors) above the impact point....the lower floors obviously would NOT have just crumbled to the ground, since there would have been a clear absence of the energy it would have taken to power such an event. So again - NIST's theory is that this falling building mass (upper floors above the impact) smashed down upon the lower floors causing them to pulverize into dust. The problem we have with this theory, is that we lose sight of the entire building about half way through the collapse due to the enormous cloud of dust that engulfs each tower during it's downward descent. So, how can NIST even be all that certain, that the upper mass remained intact during the entire collapse? They can't...and it's just another critical point that is left up to complete speculation. I, for one - will at least present this video, which shows the collapse of WTC 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u_k217RkUo
In this clip, you can clearly see that the critical upper mass of WTC 2 begins to fall over and to the side, just shortly after the collapse begins. A simple lesson in one of the fundamental laws of physics i.e. inertia - states that...A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at a constant speed unless disturbed. So, following...SCIENTIFIC law, the upper mass will not and cannot move itself back to it's original position i.e. directly above the lower floors. (that is - barring an attempt by superman to swoop in and push it back over there) So, what does this tell us? Well, a lot. Since the scientifically measurable force created by the sine qua non (upper floor mass backed with potential energy) of the collapse has now been certifiably shifted, we can easily deduce that according to NIST's theory - there is insufficient data to conclude whether or not the upper floor mass from WTC 2 exerted the potential energy (required in a FULL collapse) down upon the entire lower structure of WTC 2. A car doesn't run without gas, and steel structured floors don't pulverize into the ground without a driving energy. The upper mass on WTC 2 was moving away from the lower floors at the time of its disappearance into the dust cloud, so we can reasonably conclude (backed with the LAW of inertia) that the critical upper mass was NOT a sufficient force in the collapse of WTC 2.
Now, on to much more important evidence. As has been mentioned many times before, there were lots of reports of molten metal at the scene of the WTC Towers. We are all familiar with the pools below the rumble at ground zero, but there was also some molten metal seen pouring from the floors that were damaged during the plane impacts. NIST even confirms that molten metal was, in fact, pouring out of WTC 2 shortly before it's collapse.
"It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC 2. The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)
Here is a great video and pic...clearly showing this molten metal at the towers:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg
NIST wants to ASSUME it's aluminum. (from the planes) The problem here is that molten aluminum doesn't look like that. Molten aluminum looks clear almost water-like. Here is a pic and a video demonstrating this:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/aluminium.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gge5NyqoNIQ
Now, before some of you say, that molten aluminum can also be red or yellow-orangish/red...well, yes - you are absolutely right. See, any molten metal can glow red or yellow-orangish/red if heated to a hot enough temperature...and that would be around 2400°C. So while a jet-fuel fire, which has a maximum burning temperature at around 1100°C - has the ability to liquefy aluminum (which has a melting point of only 660°C) the problem here is that it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for a jet-fuel based fire to create yellow-orangish/red molten aluminum, because as I have stated you need extreme heat in order to give the clear molten aluminum a yellow-orangish/red glow. The only way to really accomplish this (turning molten aluminum - red) would be to heat it in some type of furnace.
"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires." NIST FAQ
Really, okay...well, something doesn't add up, because the NIST has already addressed the fact that molten metal can be seen pouring from WTC 2. So, what is this melted metal substance?
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is NO VISUAL INDICATION that the material flowing from the tower was burning."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." NIST FAQ
Hey, while we're at it...why don't we just claim that unicorns are likely to have collapsed floors 28-45 due to excessive gallivanting. Anyway, let's just assume for a second that since NIST even admits molten aluminum is silvery and NOT red or yellow-orangish/red, that the molten metal isn't the aluminum from the plane...well, by process of elimination it surely has to be the steel from the WTC structure, right? Well, not according to the NIST report. So...what else could it possibly be? We know the molten metal exists, because NIST even admits it - so once again...if it's not the aluminum from the plane and it's not the steel from the WTC 2, than what else is there? This is where thermite comes into play. We've all heard about thermite, yes - but do most of us even know what it is? Have we all seen it in action, and/or tried to mentally conceive of it's appearance and/or properties? Well, here is a video of a thermite reaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmHJORTlqk
Does this look very familiar? See, the thing is (are you ready?) that once ignited (via spark, fuse or flame) thermite actually...get this...thermite actually turns INTO MOLTEN METAL! Yes, you read that right. Thermite is a chemical compound containing metal elements...and the really cool thing, is that once it's ignited by a simple flame...a chemical reaction goes off, and it can actually burn up to 2500°C - so you see - since the reaction gives off such extreme heat...the metal contained in this compound instantly turns into molten metal. This is why it's used to cut steel, because at these high tempatures i.e. 2500°C - thermite can slice through just about anything. And, just so there is no confusion here...the product of a thermite reaction (COMPLETELY isolated and independent from any other metal or steel) is actually molten metal. Now playback this video again:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774
And you will clearly see, that this pouring molten metal is NOT aluminum from the plane...it's NOT steel from the WTC structure...but rather - WELL placed THERMITE burning from the fire that was set off from the impact. And, this is all the more evident by the way this flowing liquid metal is giving off sparks which is a CLEAR VISIBLE INDICATION THAT THIS FLOWING MATERIAL IS BURNING! (Sparks are also a classic characterstic of a thermite reaction - as visible in the above linked video) And this is all backed with pure scientific evidence....NOT some harebrained assumption or guess. There is nothing in those buildings - including the jet fuel - that could have burned hot enough to turn steel and/or aluminum into an yellow-orangish/red liquid. But, a simple fire igniting some well placed thermite could easily turn into yellow-orangish/red molten metal. I think most people were envisioning...thermite as some kind of liquid or powder, that turned other metal into a liquid...they didn't know that...thermite by itself - PRODUCES MOLTEN METAL once ignited!
So going back to my opening statement...what do plane impacts, thermal insulation dislodging and potential energy generated by falling building masses all have in common? THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Open your eyes.
