.

Eh. I can never believe this stuff. I still think I might pursue a job at the FBI or CIA.

Damn, you called my bluff. Okay, I guess I gotta actually write some stuff about it then.

So, first things first, why did the building collapse?



One reason, with several causes: failure of structural columns due to unmitigated fire. Causes? Debris from WTC 1 that ignited fires on numerous floors which were allowed to spread because of the failure of the fire suppression system on several floors.

But fire can't melt steel, can it?

No, it generally can't, and in this case, it didn't. Steel doesn't need to melt to fail, just like water doesn't need to boil to cause burns. Normally, steel is fairly resistant to heat (after all, extreme heat is what helps make structural steel strong). But the issue is that when metal is heat-treated, it becomes progressively weaker when heat is reapplied to it. The fires throughout the building were allowed to burn for several hours, and this caused expansion in all of the supports. Expansion is bad because that weakens the integrity of the steel and makes them more prone to failure. Another critical problem was the massive damage that was caused by the debris from WTC 1. A building is designed to overlap support, meaning each part of the building helps keep up the rest; you can't have one part be destroyed and expect the rest to not be damaged.

Isn't WTC the only steel highrise building to ever collapse from fire?

Yes, but there has never been a disaster like WTC 7. In typical cases, fires start from one point and slowly burn throughout the building, being stopped or delayed by fire suppression systems. That wasn't the case here. The fire began simultaneously on several floors with significant ventilation, lending itself to the spread of the fire.

How do you explain that WTC 7 fell in a free-fall pattern?

Simply put: it didn't free-fall. It fell nearly 50% slower than free-fall, and the interior of the building did suffer from a progressive fall, which means that when one part began to collapse, adjacent sections began as well. The exterior only appeared to fall symmetrically because it happened after the interior had almost entirely collapsed.

Is it even remotely possible that any of 9/11 was a controlled demolition?

No, it's simply not feasible for that to be the explanation. A controlled demolition would have taken weeks of setup with dozens of people working extensively throughout the building. It could not be done quietly or quickly. In addition, there's no video or audio evidence of blasts or explosions occurring in the buildings.

What about thermite?

Nope. Thermite isn't a demolition tool because it makes really sloppy holes and is extremely inefficient. There's also zero evidence of its use.




I'd be happy to address any specific concerns. I also appreciate the skepticism; if there's something you don't understand, you should definitely not just accept what the news tells you, and uncover it yourself or remain ambivalent. What really sold the debunking articles for me was my experience in a materials engineering course specifically about the behavior of metals (particularly steel).

Yeah, the world trade center towers were all "plane proof". But there's really no way to make any building "plane proof". Though, I personally think that the buildings didn't fail at all. I think they succeeded to an astounding degree. The planes took out the central ring (square, actually) of support columns 2/3 of the way up the building, and it didn't immediately collapse? Holy shit! That's some remarkable engineering. The fact that the towers stood up long enough for 15,000 people to evacuate from inside the buildings? A miracle of modern architecture and engineering.

To add to turkey's infobomb, Jet A is some pretty nasty stuff, with a 450* autoignition temp, a typical 600* fully open dirty burn temp, and a potential 1,900* controlled burn temperature. The Boeing 767 took a 10,000 gallon fuel load for it's short flight. That's close to 65k lbs of fuel (this aircraft has a 315,000 max gross weight, mind you). When Jet A is properly atomized, it burns pretty god damn quick. That's why  the GPH rating on small turbine aircraft is so much higher than even the absurdly large piston twins. When it's not atomized, and you've managed to ignite it, it's going to be a slow burn, because it's the vapors that are igniting and Jet A evaporates very slowly*. Definitely slow enough to damage the structural integrity of steel.


*the scent of it also lingers on clothing for days, potentially weeks if untreated. Ask me how I know...

how do you know

Quote from: Lemy the Lizerd on December 30, 2014, 08:45:25 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 30, 2014, 08:37:02 PM

To add to turkey's infobomb, Jet A is some pretty nasty stuff, with a 450* autoignition temp, a typical 600* fully open dirty burn temp, and a potential 1,900* controlled burn temperature. The Boeing 767 took a 10,000 gallon fuel load for it's short flight. That's close to 65k lbs of fuel (this aircraft has a 315,000 max gross weight, mind you). When Jet A is properly atomized, it burns pretty god damn quick. That's why  the GPH rating on small turbine aircraft is so much higher than even the absurdly large piston twins. When it's not atomized, and you've managed to ignite it, it's going to be a slow burn, because it's the vapors that are igniting and Jet A evaporates very slowly*. Definitely slow enough to damage the structural integrity of steel.


*the scent of it also lingers on clothing for days, potentially weeks if untreated. Ask me how I know...

how do you know

I've tried sumping our jet truck before I get my morning coffee.

sumping?