This might make a great science project for a high school science class.

This is just is a rough idea for an interesting but educational science project, a demonstration or maybe a challenge experiment - perhaps with real money involved - to prove a small but significant point about 9/11.

1. Take an ordinary kerosene burning lamp like the kind our grandparents used to light their homes. Fill it with kerosene - or jet fuel if you can get some, but what's the diff.?

2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'.

3. Place a clock in the background.

4. Mount your camera on a tripod & aim it at the lamp and the rebar and take regular periodic exposures or time-lapse video if you are so inclined to DOCUMENT the activity of the flame & steel.

5. Light the wick and go get a sandwich... This may take a while.

6. When your steel melts (yeah right!) send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple!

GOOD LUCK! You'll need it.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_experiment.html

Jeeze man, how many times are you going to recycle this?

We don't claim it melted the steal. Its called yield strength. Also metalwing made plenty of points saying it wasn't the columns it was the trusses.

Its also like saying lets light a match and see how long it takes to burn this 2x4 to say how long it should take a house to burn down.

I read a report and no I don't have a link, that each floor weighed 13,000 tons a piece. Don't you think there is a chance that weakening the trusses to the beams supporting those floors may topple it? That 3,330,000 lbs of weight for 110 floors. But no, explosives did it.

As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home.

For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read:

2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'.


6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple!


Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please.

So those people that CLEARLY heard explosions coming from inside the towers are just hearing things then?

Lots of causes for explosion sounds other than actual explosive devices. Like the elevator shafts falling. Like internal collapses before the the final collapse. There were no demolition charge explosive sounds. They would have been heard for miles. The building would have collapsed from the bottom had it been a demolition. You always ignore that fact.

How do you know it didn't? The way the thing collapsed it sure as hell appeared to collapse from the inside falling straight down like it did, and at the rate it did. There's hardly any difference between how that looked and a standard controlled demolition. You wanna talk about ignoring facts? That's one that those who believe the official story always ignore.

Watch this and then try and tell me it wasn't a controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptvvbaR0-U

Note also the fire eruption that can be very CLEARLY seen on some videos as the tower is coming down. That in itself right there would debunk the idea that there were no explosives used in this. Where else would such fire come from at that point?

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ claim that’s what gives them the right to override our Constitution and all other laws guaranteeing our liberties and privacy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what ‘they’ claim as justification for every one of our many wars.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what ‘they’ say is the reason for us having to be violated, humiliated, groped and fondled for the ‘privilege’ of travel.

Why 9/11? Because that’s when ‘they’ began the illegal eavesdropping of all our communications.

Why 9/11? Because that’s how ‘they’ legitimize excessive secrecy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the excuse ‘they’ use to implement torture and severe human right violations and escape all liabilities.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the rationalization ‘they’ use to expand ‘their’ size and power.

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ have successfully made it a means to justify many unjustifiable ends.

Why 9/11? Because that holds answers to many questions ‘they’ don’t want you to ask.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the question ‘they’ don’t want ever answered.

Why 9/11? Because maybe that is what ‘they’ really wanted.

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ should not get away with it.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

Amen, and just to finish that I'd say 3 things: Problem.....reaction.......solution. One would be wise to learn it. They use it all the time to get what they want.

There were survivors standing in the hole were the plane impacted if these fires were so intense as to weaken all the truses simutaniously accross the whole building how did these folks stand in the impact hole? Its simply laughable that people buy the official version of 911.

It really is. There's also the fact that to even be able to fly a plane at the speed they were said to have been flown so low would have been an impossibility by way of physics. There's just so many things that point to a conspiracy here.

I understand it though, it's really hard to see reality when you're on the other end of it. I've been there and done that.

if you look at the videos you can see thermite pouring out of the side of the building

people are still arguing about jfk. why? because the made up story doesnt make sense.

just like 911

jfk became a christian 90 days before he was killed.also he said the conspirators had to be stopped


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfa7WnLlCU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMYrzSGJKik&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7jSmYidx0c&feature=related

And was actively trying to dismantle the federal reserve and it's hold on the money.

You know what gets me too? There are people here LP being one of em that will admit there was some type of a conspiracy at play in the assassination of President Kennedy, yet even knowing that fact still believe something like 911 couldn't be staged. That kinda amazes me, I mean if they're capable of pulling off a murder of the commander in chief of the United States, the question ought to be asked just what else could they be capable of? Do people think that if they can get away with something once they'll just stop there? That logic makes no sense.

the whole inner building was solid concrete and the outer shell was 4 inch thick steel tubes(straws)

just like when you cut a tree down it implodes lol

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

This is so tiresome. One thread gets debunked and he just starts another one, over and over, in order to hide the evidence presented in the other threads that the fire brought the building down. The fire was plenty hot enough to weaken the steel sufficiently to cause the building to fail.

Here is a simple test along the lines of the one presented above.


Get a couple of steel wire coat hangers like the ones we used to hold hot dogs over a fire camping.

Build a campfire or use a gas grill.

Take one of the coat hangers and bend it a couple of times so you can get a good idea of how much effort it takes to bend the steel.

Take the other coat hanger and straighten it out, then bend it into the shape of a "VEE". This is to give you two long handles so you don't burn yourself.

Place the point of the "vee" into the fire and wait a couple of minutes (it really doesn't take very long). You will actually see the metal start to glow if you are in the dark.

Remove the hanger from the fire and see how much effort it takes to bend the steel that was in the fire. You will see that it takes less than half the effort than the cold hanger.

Steel loses half it's strength at 1,100F and the jet fuel fire was approximately 1,800F. Less than 1,000F would be sufficient to cause the building to fail.

Tell me something, if all this could be so easily explained by that, why did they go through all the trouble of pretty much destroying ALL of the evidence (which is illegal I might add) from the site in the immediate aftermath? The National Institute of Science and Technology is on record as having said that only about 200 pieces of evidence were actually recovered for investigation, the rest was destroyed. Now why would they do that unless they had something to hide??

Furthermore, why did the core collapse? The core one would think would be strong enough to survive the building collapsing, being it was there to support it. But yet it was all but gone once the towers came down.

Speaking of the core, in all of the so called evidence put forth to suggest the pancake theory, meaning the floors simply collapsed on top of each other, the core was left out. Why is that? Could it be that if the core was left in, the pancake theory wouldn't be possible?

Also as far as that theory, the National Institute of Science and Technology even rejected it. You wanna tell them they don't know what they're talking about? Somehow I think they have a better idea than a normal person would.

There are so many things that just do not add up here at all.

Yes watch WTC collapse. There are not explosive sounds prior to the fall on any video. Not a single one that sounds like demolition explosions. There would have been dozens upon dozens. If they were close enough to hear the collapsing sounds then there were plenty close to hear explosions. Also a demolition starts from the bottom. WTC started from the point of impact.

Dude do you understand physics? Where else is the building gonna fall but down? You think its gonna fall up? Its call inertia and the path of least resistance. That my friend is straight down.

There was only 1 place with fire at all and that was when the collapse reached the fire.

That dude who made that i dumb. Yea a building may fall over if you just damage its foundation. WTC didn't have a foundation issue. He tries to use the path of least resistance and apparently doesn't understand that or inertia.