Wrong t22...the asbestos insulation was never replaced with a subsitute. And I'm not blaming Carter...except maybe the fact that under his administration there was 21-22% inflation,and interests rates above 15% might have made it difficult for owners to finance replacement

http://architecture.about.com/od/disastersandcollapses/a/twintowerfall_2.htm

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.

What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?

1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.


Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.

I recall seeing more than one documentary about why the towers fell, and insulation blown off steel support structures is always cited. As for Carter, "Arab Oil Embargo" contributed to many of the economic problems of those days. He was right about conservation, but the macho Republicans scoffed at his suggestions and well, here we are.

Popular Mechanics (of all people) debunked all that stuff years ago

it's funny how people know its all false and still keep trotting it out to try to decieve the gullible

me being open watched the video its only about fifteen minuts long and its raining I found it to be great brain candy http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc8_1221123846

you REALLY didnt just say that?

what is up with all the personal crap? my phone rang and I meant to say open minded wow, please leave the comments on topic and not about me eh? people might find that vid interesting if only to see why so many people have suspisions about the events of 911 here is the link again http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc8_1221123846

watch it quiet, he might post another video...lol

Sounds like McCain's campaign strategy...

"The use of asbestos ceased in the 1970s following reports of asbestos workers becoming ill from high exposures to asbestos fibers. The Mt. Sinai School of Medicine’s Irving Selikoff had reported that asbestos workers had higher rates of lung cancer and other diseases. Selikoff then played a key role in the campaign to halt the use of asbestos in construction.

In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Center towers.

Other materials were substituted for asbestos. Though the substitute sprays passed Underwriters Laboratories’ tests, not everyone was convinced they would work as well."

It's from a Faux story, so I know you'll trust it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html

I suppose one would have to watch it to make a comment that was sensible

i watched it and all the other videos and links you posted, does make for good fiction just like santa claus, easter bunny and the tooth fairy

you pretty much ignore any good points that people make because you stuck in your own little fantasy land about these conspiracy theories. your like talking to a tree stump

well what part didnt you find logical?

What, Madisonman, you are slipping at your old age, I figured you would have a warehouse full of youtube videos

its illogical because these terrorist groups are STILL attacking us!!!!!! 7 years later!!

a million other reasons that makes it illogical But i just woke up...this is the first that comes to mind

YOU underestimate the enemy madman.
its kewl...many many smart man have done so over the last 30 years.

"What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?

1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.


Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high. "

OK, I'll just continue to play truthers advocate.

Yes, some Jet fuel made a big fire ball, but if those fires were so hot, then why were people able to stand in the gouges made by the planes? If it was hot enough to "soften" steel, then it should have been sufficiently hot enough to melt people.
If the fires, which by the way, were obviously cooling as is observable by the aforementioned people standing in the gouges, but also by the color of the smoke, as smoke darkens it tends to be an indicator of a cooling blaze.

Jet fuel, by the way is 4/5 kerosene. So by the logic of NIST, who's info you're citing, if I take my Coleman stove out and leave the fire on for a few hours and then set a pot of water on it, I should have to buy a new stove, because it would be too soft to support a pot of water. Lets also not forget that the elevators were hermetically sealed, so any fuel that had made its way down the damaged elevators on those top floors, would not have had any access to the support steel going down the building.
Never mind the fact that the Japanese engineer who designed the towers was shocked that they came down. He stated that he purposely put so much redundancy into the WTC buildings that it should have been able to absorb 2 planes hitting each building.
Now, then, lets address the Soloman bros. building, Building 7. It wasn't hit buy anything, had 2 small fires on 2 floors and it also came down directly into it's footprint, which is odd, considering the only damage to it, was where some debris had torn out a corner, to the south of the building. By simple physics, if I chop a slot in a tree, where ever I notch that tree is the direction its going to fall, but that didn't happen, instead it fell nice and neat right into its own footprint.

If you're going to buy the pancake theory, then you have to ask yourself how from the moment of collapse to the end of the towers, every freaking one of them fell at near free fall speed. If it was "pancaking" as suggested by the Official story, then the each floor would put up it's own resistance before giving way, instead 3 builidings mentioned did not give ANY resistance, they just went down, nice and neat in their own footprint. Which is another problem with this pancake theory, if it starts to pancake, due to weakened steel, then it would stand to reason that only the areas that had been on fire would have the weakened steel, which would/should have caused the buildings to topple in the direction from which the planes had ripped the buildings, but that didn't happen.


Now, Riddle me this, those that want to play the debunkers: Why is it that when NIST engineer Kevin Ryan release his report stating that fire could not have caused that collapse, he was fired the next day? Why is it that the Bin Laden did it excuse has not been pursued as our law dictates? He should have had charges brought against him by the DOJ and 9/11 should be the top of the charges that the FBI has on him on their ten most wanted list, but it's not, the biggest attack on american soil and the guy our government points at for it, isn't actually having the charges for presented? When asked about why the FBI doesn't have 9/11 attributed to Bin Laden, they've stated: "We don't have enough evidence."
Why isn't that odd to everyone?
Bin Laden as the 9/11 mastermind has been used to erode our rights and has been used to take us into 2 wars and might lead to more. Don't we owe it to the family members (most of which want a new independent investigation by the way) and our Soldiers have the right to know why it is they are dying and in harms way, if we're not even going to charge Bin Laden for the crime?

You want a theory that sounds ridiculous? 19 hijackers with boxcutters defeated our multibillion dollar air defense system,by following orders from some guy hiding in a cave.
Explain why some of those charged with the 9/11 hijackings are alive and well?
Also, since when is it wrong to question the government?

Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism"

Hermann Göring said "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

builder talking....

steel is tempered with cobalt.

heat causes steel to lose its temper.

wind affects softened steel and building sway is designed in the "moment" with diapragms and shear.

weight is also a factor.

soft, malleable steel, weight from floors above, built in sway to resist rigidity against wind shear, firestorms craving oxygen and making more wind than usual all wreak havoc on the superstructure.

it moves enough and collapses under the weight and inability to resist the sway.

down it comes like a house of cards.

Ask engineers and architects, and there you go.

Even the idiot osama bin Ladin didn't want them to fall, nor was it intended for them to fall, but be a problem for decades.

It has long been explained why they fell, but emotionally distraught looney liberals just have no patience for competent facts.

typical.

no wonder more than half of this country is lost and can't find their way home. Conservatives got this.

send them to scholl, but all they do is eat their lunch.

no free lunches anymore?

good.

get a life.

there are jobs in India, I hear. China , too!!!

Wow, Looney Liberals... too bad you fit a flip side of that coin as a NeoCon. I promise, I am far more conservative than 90% of those pretending to be.

Ask engineers and Architects... okay, I will.

Aug 29, 2008
Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report

Respondents include architect Richard Gage, AIA; mechanical engineer Anthony Szamboti; structural engineer Kamal Obeid, S.E.; remodel contractor and WTC7 researcher Chris Sarns; Michael Donly, P.E.; chemist and certified quality engineer Kevin Ryan.


For the first time in history, normal office fires have created a total progressive collapse if the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be believed, said Richard Gage, AIA. Office fires can not melt steel, Gage claims, and NIST has neither explained the mystery of molten iron at the World Trade Center site nor considered other evidence that also suggests the use of thermate incendiary charges to cut the steel framework of 47-story Building 7.
NIST's vaguely worded presentation was "absurd on its face," contended Kevin Ryan, and differed completely from the story they had previously told Popular Mechanics. Though NIST claimed to hold scientific attitudes about alternative theories, they never responded to multiple invitations to discuss them, Ryan complained. NIST's disregard for chemical evidence of explosive nanothermate must be considered in the light of Ryan's findings that NIST has been studying these materials for almost ten years, and several of NIST's WTC investigators are experts in them.
NIST's only discussion of incendiaries was to dimiss them, observed Tony Szamboti, and they ignored tiny iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust by the USGS and by Dr. Steven Jones. These can only have been generated from molten metal, Szamboti argues. British fire resistance tests show steel framing to be far more enduring than NIST's collapse theories maintain, Szamboti adds, and while steel samples from the British Cardington test were preserved, the WTC steel was destroyed. We should ask "severe questions," Szamboti said.
The unfireproofed Cardington structure survived temperatures twice those that NIST claims, reported Chris Sarns. NIST's fire model shows fires burning much longer than photos show, Sarns adds, and NIST assumes much while explaining little--not even how one failing column can pull down the neighboring ones.
NIST's solution appears to have been crafted to please its client, said Kamal Obeid, and independent structural engineers will find problems with every step of NIST's complicated theoretical collapse mechanism. Obeid believes that connections would fail before collapsing sections could pull down heavy core columns. While NIST's computer models show dramatic collapse distortions of the smaller perimeter columns, videos of the actual building show no pulling of the exterior by the floors NIST claims are collapsing invisibly inside, Obeid and Szamboti noted.
In contrast to natural, organic effects of fires cited by Gage (gradual deformations, and asymmetrical collapses following the path of least
resistance) the visible WTC collapse, Donly noted, proceeded at near freefall speed with no apparent resistance from the steel framework. Many columns must be cut simultaneously to drop a building straight down, he pointed out. FEMA report 403, Appendix C, recommended further study of evidence of liquid steel that could be related to the cause of the collapse, Donly comented, but NIST ignores this information.
Gage asked that NIST release to independent researchers the thousands of photos and videos in its WTC archives.


Whats next?

Oh and not to worry, those jobs in China and India aren't coming back anytime soon, the Globalists you seem to trust so much will see to that. Never mind we are practicing our own hybrid version of socialism/facsism right here in this country.

this isn't an example of a normal office fire, my friend.

I had a barn fall in a fire that had a steel roof structure.

it collapsed before the wooden posts and beams did.

the steel corrugated roofing acted like a dutch oven.

I watched it melt and collapse. Sunday, Easter Sunday, April 4, 1999.


same as that which we know already.


normal office fire, my a$$.