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.

No it would fall OVER, as was illustrated by other buildings that toppled in the video I showed you. This fell straight down much as a controlled demolition would. The two look exactly the same.

And on the explosives, again you can CLEARLY see a fireball indicating an explosion at the point where the building begins to collapse.

Here, you want proof there was an explosion or explosions on 9-11? I DARE you to try and debunk this. You'll hear it CLEAR AS DAY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNhDwgiZMR0

I said there were no explosives not there wasn't an explosion. An explosion is just a loud sound. That could have been an elevator or a single floor collapse. Lots of stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk06ax1SRIM&feature=related

Watch that a real demolition of a building smaller than the WTC. You hear around 20 separate explosions. Lights are clearly visible inside. It goes down from the bottom. Many differences from WTC

Right and it'd be THAT loud? Who are you trying to kid?

There WERE lights visible coming from the trade center towers too, in fact one angle in particular illustrates it. You can see light coming from the tower as each floor comes down. I remembering seeing it very clearly.

Here's another good video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cvjBViV7g

Note in particular 3 things.

1. The part at 1:30 or so where it's mentioned that the support in place would have kept the tower from collapsing in on it itself, had it been just a collapse as you claim it would have fallen over due to this. But it didn't.

2. The portion where the firefighters are shown talking about what they heard as the towers fell, this points to explosions clearly and they'd have little reason to lie. They even mention the idea of detonators being up at the top. There was also the reporter who was there when the first tower fell referring to a huge explosion heard as well.

3. At the end of the clip, Dan Rather is talking about Building 7 going down, and he specifically mentions the comparision between it and a controlled demolition. Pretty damning in and of itself that.

There was an unknown number of people trapped under thousands of tons of steel and debris. The order was given to contract the removal of material as fast as possible. As the material was removed, it was taken to the usual salvage yards and treated as any other salvage. No police order was given to save the building as evidence, nor should there have been.



Why would you possibly think that the core would be strong enough to survive the building collapsing? All the building structural elements work together for strength and stiffness. The core's primary job was to resist shear, and as such, had little ability to stand alone. Some reports got the details backwards and said the steel's job was to resist wind and the core's job was to resist gravity loads. It was actually the other way around, although the core was capable of resisting some gravity loads. A primary reason the core was made of concrete was to give more time for escape to the fire stairs and elevators. This proved true as the steel trusses failed first, as one would expect.



If you looked at the blueprints of the building you would see that the core does not support the floors. The floors, however, provide lateral stability to the core at each floor level. Take a soda straw and place the ends centered on each palm. See how much pressure it takes to compress the straw along it's length to cause the straw to buckle. Cut the straw in half and do it again. It will take FAR more force to buckle the straw. Cut in half again and you may not be able to endure the pain of try to buckle the short straw. As the floors were removed as braces for the core, the core buckled and fell.



I don't know of what "theory" you speak. The mechanics of how the building fell are well understood by me and people like me.



They add up just fine to people with the education to understand the science behind what happened.

Take your "experiment" in your OP. Apply a weight to the center of your piece of steel to simulate the stresses on the building. This will require a bending stress of around 18,000 psi. The design building stress was between 22 and 24,000 psi depending upon the specific member to which we refer.

Then start your fire and do your test. The steel will fail when the temp reaches around 1,000F. It will slowly bend downward to failure.

The fact that no load was placed on the steel in your "test" proves that the designer didn't know anything about what happened or deliberately designed a false test being a jerk who gets his fun by fooling the ignorant.

Neither the US government nor the National Institute of Science nor any other group "decided" what happened. They all relied on people like me to explain it to them.

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.

I think this thread is less about 9/11 and more about the failure of our school system.

They add up just fine to people with the education to understand the science behind what happened.

Still waiting for someone to try and debate why on earth the people around the scene of the crime felt the need to remove much of the evidence from it. That alone is suspicious.

Still waiting for someone to try and debate why on earth the people around the scene of the crime felt the need to remove much of the evidence from it. That alone is suspicious.

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.