Fire did NOT cause the collapse on 911

[Robert]

911, things seemed to have changed after this for the country as a whole, even new laws were put into effect. But what happened that day was never fully investigated and we owe it to the country and the people that died that day to know the truth. A panel of respected people dispelled the idea that fire took the buildings down on 911. Then it took a team of lawyers to get the Grand Jury to take a look at the evidence also, maybe to finally holding accountable the ones who actually did it.


Background:

After conducting comprehensive modeling and studying countless scenarios, the study’s authors, J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., UAF, Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering, concluded the following:

    Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

Also, as TFTP previously reported, a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth took place last December when a United States Attorney agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers. Then, in March, the group behind the submission, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, announced the filing of a “petition supplement” naming persons who may have information related to the use of said explosives.

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the 33-page document contains 15 different categories of persons who may have information material to the investigation, including contractors and security companies that had access to the WTC Towers before 9/11, persons and entities who benefited financially from the WTC demolitions, and persons arrested after being observed celebrating the WTC attacks.

“This Petition Supplement is intended to assist the Special Grand Jury by providing a roadmap for a meaningful investigation into the yet-to-be-prosecuted 9/11 WTC crimes that the Lawyers’ Committee has reported and documented in our Petitions,” Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board of Directors, said.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/tower-7-office-fires-study-collapse/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/major-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-911

[Oss]

The search for truth continues.  All who said there was a 2nd cause are not crazy

We lost so many good people that day and still are losing
firefighters, police and first responders to cancers from the site

I remember watching certain moslem groups in NJ celebrating on TV that day and how the images were quickly taken down.

The pre planting of explosives is consistent with what was done in 93 at the WTC bombing

[Patrick]

I'm thinking it was the fire that caused the failure of the columns, but, what do I know.

Thats a day I'll never forget. The first plane flew right over the top of me just west of Albany.

[98valk]

I'm thinking it was the fire that caused the failure of the columns, but, what do I know.

Thats a day I'll never forget. The first plane flew right over the top of me just west of Albany.

the temp of burning jet fuel is not hot enough to soften steel supports so they would collapse.

[Gryphon Rider]

I'm thinking it was the fire that caused the failure of the columns, but, what do I know.

Thats a day I'll never forget. The first plane flew right over the top of me just west of Albany.

the temp of burning jet fuel is not hot enough to soften steel supports so they would collapse.

It certainly is.

From https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/:

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[Moonshot_1]

Some simple basic observations on the collapse of the towers on 9-11.

The aircraft were fully loaded with passengers and fuel for a cross country flight.
The 767, at max takeoff wgt. is 280.000 lbs. That is over a hundred tons.
Over a hundred tons of steel, people and fuel slams into the buildings at over 300 mph.

The fact the building took such a hit and still stood is in itself amazing.

The fire, which is said to have weakened the supports causing the collapse is, in my opinion likely and obvious. While a case can be made that the temps of burning jet fuel would not raise the temp. to such a degree, there were a lot of things in that building, papers, plastics, furniture, and other combustibles that surely burned along with the massive amount of fuel. And add to that the energy of the explosion of the aircraft and fuel. The concussion alone would have had to damage support structures.

Along with the initial hit of the aircraft AND the added weight of the aircraft (not much of the aircraft seemed to pass through the building but remained inside) plus the raging fire, for hours, the structural integrity of the buildings must have been compromised. Severely. Particularly at the site of impact.

I don't see any grand conspiracy beyond than what obviously happened that day and it seemed pretty consistent with the laws of physics.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm thinking it was the fire that caused the failure of the columns, but, what do I know.

Thats a day I'll never forget. The first plane flew right over the top of me just west of Albany.

the temp of burning jet fuel is not hot enough to soften steel supports so they would collapse.

It certainly is.

From https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/:

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

I’m afraid it will fall on deaf ears.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

[98valk]

lets see. I'll post this again, lets see if it gets pulled again. But its ok for meathead to call me and others and ape.

https://serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

Popular Mechanics states that "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F". Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and kerosene ignites at 444°F (229°C) according to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html). The temperature then reached depends on the combustion rate (which depends on the oxygen supply) and the rate at which the heat generated can be dispersed. Videos of the Twin Towers show that the fires were moderate (certainly not of the "raging inferno" type) and the large volumes of black, sooty, smoke show that the fires were oxygen-deprived, not the sort of combustion that will generate high temperatures. Moreover, the jet fuel burnt itself out in about ten minutes (see below), and both buildings stood for over forty minutes thereafter.

A fire never burns hot enough to melt steel except under exceptional and controlled conditions, such as (i) in a blast furnace, where preheated air is pumped into the fire under pressure, and (ii) in an oxyacetylene torch, where oxygen is mixed with acetylene. This is why you can cook food in a steel pot over a gas flame and why jet engines can be made of steel.

The question of whether the fires provided sufficient explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers was addressed by several people soon after the event, and it was shown that this was not a sufficient explanation, but Popular Mechanics ignored these analyses (if it was ever aware of them). For example, over three years ago, on 2001-11-25 Carol Valentine published J. McMichael's Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics (also available on this website: Part I and Part II). Popular Mechanics' "experts" were apparently unaware of the points to which J. McMichael drew attention (or perhaps they were aware but Popular Mechanics chose to ignore things like this):

    The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire. Oxygen-poor fires do not produce high temperatures.
    The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.
    Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?
    Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
    Fire tests in open sided car parks in four countries revealed that the maximum temperature reached was 680°F (360°C), far below that needed to cause steel to weaken significantly.

goto link to read much more

[Willow]

lets see. I'll post this again, lets see if it gets pulled again. But its ok for meathead to call me and others and ape.
...

Is that in English?  Time for someone to go for a ride.

[Serk]

[Skinhead]

At what floor levels did the Jets hit the towers?  Let's just agree that it was up there a ways.  How windy was it on 9/11, at that altitude?  As the PM article stated, and correctly I might add, it isn't the temperature at which jet fuel burns that results in the heat that weakened the steel.  It is the "blast furnace effect" that resulted in a higher partial pressure of oxygen due to wind and probably some chimney effect that resulted in the high temperatures.  Think of starting a fire and it smolders, so you blow on it.  The increased pressure of the oxygen in the air causes the temperature of the fire to increase.  Next time you're sitting around the campfire, break out your leaf blower and see how hot things get.

I was a melting foreman in an iron foundry for 3 years.  I use to melt 120 tons of iron an hour in a 120" cupola furnace, which is basically a small blast furnace.  We used heated blast with oxygen enrichment in the wind box, but all that does is reduce the amount of coke you use per ton of iron melted.  You can also use these "knobs" to help control the iron chemistry, but that's another story.


With the structural damage that resulted for the planes hitting the building, and the resulting fire, it was inevitable.

[Moonshot_1]

The point is that it was much more than a jet fuel fueled fire.

You have,

The initial impact of 100 tons of aircraft into the building.

The initial explosion of the jet fuel immediately after the impact.

You had the jet fuel fueled fire. This ignited tons of carpet, furniture, computers, plastics, and assorted other combustibles normally found in offices.

The duration of the fire and the weight of 100+ tons of aircraft trapped in upper floors of the building.

Not to mention the combustibles on the aircraft. Seats, plastics, luggage, etc.

It's not just jet fuel.

[98valk]

At what floor levels did the Jets hit the towers?  Let's just agree that it was up there a ways.  How windy was it on 9/11, at that altitude?  As the PM article stated, and correctly I might add, it isn't the temperature at which jet fuel burns that results in the heat that weakened the steel.  It is the "blast furnace effect" that resulted in a higher partial pressure of oxygen due to wind and probably some chimney effect that resulted in the high temperatures.  Think of starting a fire and it smolders, so you blow on it.  The increased pressure of the oxygen in the air causes the temperature of the fire to increase.  Next time you're sitting around the campfire, break out your leaf blower and see how hot things get.

I was a melting foreman in an iron foundry for 3 years.  I use to melt 120 tons of iron an hour in a 120" cupola furnace, which is basically a small blast furnace.  We used heated blast with oxygen enrichment in the wind box, but all that does is reduce the amount of coke you use per ton of iron melted.  You can also use these "knobs" to help control the iron chemistry, but that's another story.


With the structural damage that resulted for the planes hitting the building, and the resulting fire, it was inevitable.

the higher one goes the less O2 there is.  the link I posted talks about furnaces.

[The emperor has no clothes]

lets see. I'll post this again, lets see if it gets pulled again. But its ok for meathead to call me and others and ape.
...

Is that in English?  Time for someone to go for a ride.

There are many benefits to having someone's posts blocked. I wish it worked with quotes also. Anyway....Talking Apes is the name of the pyschologist's blog. The name of his blog is kind of a play on words, I guess. But, it was not aimed at CA (or anyone else) The gist of the article was though. It is helpful (at least for me) to try to understand others motivations for their theories. I figured Gryphon Rider already understood much of the thinking in that article. But, I figured it could be helpful for others also.

(Somebody appears to be a little sensitive about blog titles)

[hubcapsc]

Not to mention the combustibles on the aircraft. Seats, plastics, luggage, etc.

Also... there were many MANY tons of combustibles on each floor of  the buildings.

-Mike

[98valk]

The point is that it was much more than a jet fuel fueled fire.

You have,

The initial impact of 100 tons of aircraft into the building.

The initial explosion of the jet fuel immediately after the impact.

You had the jet fuel fueled fire. This ignited tons of carpet, furniture, computers, plastics, and assorted other combustibles normally found in offices.

The duration of the fire and the weight of 100+ tons of aircraft trapped in upper floors of the building.

Not to mention the combustibles on the aircraft. Seats, plastics, luggage, etc.

It's not just jet fuel.

Plastic Melting Point Ignition Temperature ABS 88°-125° 416° Acrylics 91°-125° 560° Cellulosics 49°-121° 475°-540° Nylons 160°-275° 424°-532° Polycarbonate 140°-150° 580° Polyesters 220°-268° 432°-488° Polyethylene ld 107°-124° 349° Polyethylene hd 122°-137° 349° Polypropylene 158°-168° 570° Polystyrene 100°-120° 488°-496° Polyurethanes 85°-121° 416° PTFE 327° 530° P.vinylideneclor 212° 454° PVC 75°-110° 435°-557° Wool Does not melt 228°-230° Cotton Does not melt 250° Rubber Does not melt 260°-316°

[The emperor has no clothes]

I will refrain from further conspiracy theory analysis.  

[Skinhead]

At what floor levels did the Jets hit the towers?  Let's just agree that it was up there a ways.  How windy was it on 9/11, at that altitude?  As the PM article stated, and correctly I might add, it isn't the temperature at which jet fuel burns that results in the heat that weakened the steel.  It is the "blast furnace effect" that resulted in a higher partial pressure of oxygen due to wind and probably some chimney effect that resulted in the high temperatures.  Think of starting a fire and it smolders, so you blow on it.  The increased pressure of the oxygen in the air causes the temperature of the fire to increase.  Next time you're sitting around the campfire, break out your leaf blower and see how hot things get.

I was a melting foreman in an iron foundry for 3 years.  I use to melt 120 tons of iron an hour in a 120" cupola furnace, which is basically a small blast furnace.  We used heated blast with oxygen enrichment in the wind box, but all that does is reduce the amount of coke you use per ton of iron melted.  You can also use these "knobs" to help control the iron chemistry, but that's another story.


With the structural damage that resulted for the planes hitting the building, and the resulting fire, it was inevitable.

the higher one goes the less O2 there is.  the link I posted talks about furnaces.

Agreed, but the increased wind speed would result in a pretty significant blast.

[Detn8er]

Dear Sweet Goodness.... Huge Heavy Sigh. I have been in the explosives business over 28 years. I have shot thousands of open pit shots(manyover100thousandpoundsofexsplosives) and helped out on a few building and radio tower implosions..... And none of them, NOT ONE of them were silent. There is no such thing as a silent explosion.
Go on the Youtube box and watch all the implosions you can find..... No matter what is going on or how far away the camera is there is lots of sound. Also it's never just a boom. It takes several separate well timed precisely placed explosives to bring down any structure. Now how many HIGH QUALITY cameras were pointed at the Towers before, after and during the entire event? I have over the years watched many of them myself....Never yet heard the separate BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM's..... Time to give it a rest.

 
Modified to add this. As far as me this is The End. If you want to argue about it you'll have to do it with someone else.... I am a well trained, extremely experienced explosives technician. Doubt and guess if you will. I aint in the guessing business.   
  

[scooperhsd]

At what floor levels did the Jets hit the towers?  Let's just agree that it was up there a ways.  How windy was it on 9/11, at that altitude?  As the PM article stated, and correctly I might add, it isn't the temperature at which jet fuel burns that results in the heat that weakened the steel.  It is the "blast furnace effect" that resulted in a higher partial pressure of oxygen due to wind and probably some chimney effect that resulted in the high temperatures.  Think of starting a fire and it smolders, so you blow on it.  The increased pressure of the oxygen in the air causes the temperature of the fire to increase.  Next time you're sitting around the campfire, break out your leaf blower and see how hot things get.

I was a melting foreman in an iron foundry for 3 years.  I use to melt 120 tons of iron an hour in a 120" cupola furnace, which is basically a small blast furnace.  We used heated blast with oxygen enrichment in the wind box, but all that does is reduce the amount of coke you use per ton of iron melted.  You can also use these "knobs" to help control the iron chemistry, but that's another story.


With the structural damage that resulted for the planes hitting the building, and the resulting fire, it was inevitable.

the higher one goes the less O2 there is.  the link I posted talks about furnaces.

Not that much less. 1000 feet AGL is practically the same as ground level. Military doesn't require O2 masks in an unpressurized plane until 10000 feet (civilian is more like 13000 feet). The tallest buildings in the world are hardly above 1000 feet (almost certainly below 2000 feet).

[Jess from VA]

The point is that it was much more than a jet fuel fueled fire.

You have,

The initial impact of 100 tons of aircraft into the building.

The initial explosion of the jet fuel immediately after the impact.

You had the jet fuel fueled fire. This ignited tons of carpet, furniture, computers, plastics, and assorted other combustibles normally found in offices.

The duration of the fire and the weight of 100+ tons of aircraft trapped in upper floors of the building.

Not to mention the combustibles on the aircraft. Seats, plastics, luggage, etc.

It's not just jet fuel.

This.   (at a certain temp, humans burn hot too)

Add to this that once the collapse started, it rapidly progressed to a chain reaction as story upon story combined weight to collapse floors below that weren't on fire at all.

I walked out of my Federal Bldg to see the Pentagon rolling smoke.  Shortly after, the Fed gave us the rest of the day off.  So did everyone else. That was the worst quitting time in a major city you ever saw.  It took me over 4 hours to get home (about 17 miles as the crow flies).  I should have stayed at my desk.  I knew that at the one hour point, but there was no getting back.  

[scooperhsd]

The point is that it was much more than a jet fuel fueled fire.

You have,

The initial impact of 100 tons of aircraft into the building.

The initial explosion of the jet fuel immediately after the impact.

You had the jet fuel fueled fire. This ignited tons of carpet, furniture, computers, plastics, and assorted other combustibles normally found in offices.

The duration of the fire and the weight of 100+ tons of aircraft trapped in upper floors of the building.

Not to mention the combustibles on the aircraft. Seats, plastics, luggage, etc.

It's not just jet fuel.

This.   (at a certain temp, humans burn hot too)

Add to this that once the collapse started, it rapidly progressed to a chain reaction as story upon story combined weight to collapse floors below that weren't on fire at all.

I walked out of my Federal Bldg to see the Pentagon rolling smoke.  Shortly after, the Fed gave us the rest of the day off.  So did everyone else. That was the worst quitting time in a major city you ever saw.  It took me over 4 hours to get home (about 17 miles as the crow flies).  I should have stayed at my desk.  I knew that at the one hour point, but there was no getting back.   

I would have stayed at work until AT LEAST after lunch (knowing how bad DC is) - probably just finish off the day and go home at my "normal" time....

[Jess from VA]

I would have stayed at work until AT LEAST after lunch (knowing how bad DC is) - probably just finish off the day and go home at my "normal" time....

Given the multiple hits that day, there was some thought of a dirty bomb (or some other similar fun) going off downtown, so there was a reasonable urge to leave town.  In addition to the ordinary urge I always had to leave that town.   

For instance, after 10 years of retirement, I've only been down there again once (for a Tea Party).  I've had a few family and friends visit me, to visit DC.  I loan them my Metro smart passes and my car, and tell them to have fun (I won't do tour guide down there). 

I served a full 18yr sentence at this institution.  Going back gives me PTSD.

[Patrick]

An Airliner full of fuel hitting an object at 300 kts is one big-ass fuel injector.  Atomized fuel was sprayed throughout that buildings upper floors. The structure was weakened enough from damage and heat to come down. I don't think it takes that much to take the temper out of that steel.

[..]

Dear Sweet Goodness.... Huge Heavy Sigh. I have been in the explosives business over 28 years. I have shot thousands of open pit shots(manyover100thousandpoundsofexsplosives) and helped out on a few building and radio tower implosions..... And none of them, NOT ONE of them were silent. There is no such thing as a silent explosion.
Go on the Youtube box and watch all the implosions you can find..... No matter what is going on or how far away the camera is there is lots of sound. Also it's never just a boom. It takes several separate well timed precisely placed explosives to bring down any structure. Now how many HIGH QUALITY cameras were pointed at the Towers before, after and during the entire event? I have over the years watched many of them myself....Never yet heard the separate BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM's..... Time to give it a rest.

 
Modified to add this. As far as me this is The End. If you want to argue about it you'll have to do it with someone else.... I am a well trained, extremely experienced explosives technician. Doubt and guess if you will. I aint in the guessing business.   
  

Facts Mark! Facts? We don't need no steenkin facts.

How do they figure ALL THE PEOPLE involved in placing ALL THE EXPLOSIVES in EACH tower were able to do the work unnoticed and have since kept quiet about MURDERING thousands of people.

Sometimes logic is just stomped on.

 

I'm going for a ride.

[Robert]

There are some here with expertise in areas, there are some that claim conspiracy theory claims but some very knowledgeable people along with a Grand Jury seem to think that there may be some merit to these ideas. I also give you the 93 bombing of the WTC. It almost brought down the buildings but look at the composition of the bomb and look at what people thought about the noise of the explosion, also dont forget until the plane hit the towers there was no real camera footage of the initial attack.

Regardless of what your personal opinion is, the truth that we can all agree on, is there are too many unanswered questions. Answer the questions by a through investigation of ALL the information by legitimate trusted sources would go a long way to quieting any talk.


On Sept. 11 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans, who was in the second tower when it was hit.

“I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” Evans said. “There was an explosion—I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake . . . then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. . . . We can only wonder at the kind of damage—the kind of human damage—which was caused by those explosions—those series of explosions,” he said.

Evans is a professional journalist and although his observations of explosions in the second tower should be taken into account, they are not. Numerous eyewitnesses reported also seeing or hearing explosions.

The report names two of the firefighters who were at the crash site: Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, who was organizing the evacuation of injured people, and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. Both were among the 343 firefighters who perished.

The voices of the firefighters “showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control,” the Times wrote. “At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.”

The fact that veteran firefighters had “a coherent plan for putting out” the “two pockets of fire” indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.



If you forgot there were 2 attacks on the towers:

Read the detail that went into making the bomb
 
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

 The tower did not collapse, but the garage was severely damaged in the explosion. Had the van been parked closer to the WTC's poured concrete foundations, Yousef's plan might have succeeded. Yousef escaped to Pakistan several hours after the bombing.

Though the cause of the blast was not immediately known, with some suspecting a transformer explosion,


Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin, who helped assemble the complex 1,310-pound (590 kg) bomb, which was made of a urea nitrate main charge with aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide particles surrounding the explosive. The charge used nitroglycerine, ammonium nitrate dynamite, smokeless powder and fuse as booster explosives. Three tanks of bottled hydrogen were also placed in a circular configuration around the main charge, to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the solid metal particles. The use of compressed gas cylinders in this type of attack closely resembles the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing 10 years earlier. Both of these attacks used compressed gas cylinders to create fuel-air and thermobaric bombs that release more energy than conventional high explosives. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate. The Ryder van used in the bombing had 295 cubic feet (8.4 m3) of space, which would hold up to 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of explosives. However, the van was not filled to capacity. Yousef used four 20 ft (6 m) long fuses, all covered in surgical tubing. Yasin calculated that the fuse would trigger the bomb in twelve minutes after he had used a cigarette lighter to light the fuse.


118 Witnesses to Explosions in the FDNY Oral Histories of 9/11

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/090116-118Witnesses.pdf

1) Banaciski, Richard (oral histories num-ber 9110253) In respect to the South Tower: “We were there I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then  I  just  remember  there  was  just  an  explosion.  It  seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It  seemed  like  it  was  going  all  the  way  around  like  a  belt, all these explosions...Not thinking that this build-ing  is  coming  down.  We  just  thought  there  was  going  to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down.”

2) Becker, Brian (9110019)  South  Tower  [as  experienced  from  inside  the  North  Tower]:  “I’d say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or some-thing like that, and a few of the guys were lying wiped out  on  the  floor,  you  know,  taking  a  break  with  their  masks  off  and  lying  in  the  hallway  when  there  was  a  very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the  —  it  felt  like  there  was  an  explosion  above  us...”

6) Cachia, Edward (9110251)South Tower: “As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there  was  like  an  internal  detonation  explosives  be-cause it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” [p. 5

Firemen Explosion Testimony:

Very moving testimony of these men:

The 9/11 debunkers have repeatedly claimed that low-temperature burning jet fuel could weaken steel support columns enough to cause the pancake-style collapse of the twin towers, ignoring the plethora of eyewitness testimony to incendiary devices having caused the implosion of the World Trade Center structure. The new tape is as clear cut as it comes – the firefighters, who were inside the lobby of one of the towers, unequivocally state that secondary explosions which occurred after the planes hit were responsible for causing the towers to collapse.

https://youtu.be/IO1ps1mzU8o

[98valk]

and then there is the third building, lets not forget. look into what was in that building

https://washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/the-third-building-which-collapsed-on-911-was-not-hit-by-a-plane.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm

[Jess from VA]

I have not read all these articles (sorry).

Here's my question.  If there were a whole bunch of strategically and expertly placed and prepositioned explosives all over the towers, sufficient to take them down, then why infiltrate a whole bunch of ragheads into the US (risk), have them move all around and get licenses and other indicia of legitimacy (risk), take airplane driving lessons, but didn't need to learn to land (risk), infiltrate multiple airports/airlines and take over planes (risk), and then waste a dozen or so good raghead terrorists, when none of that was necessary to bring down the towers?

Admittedly, the image of airliners crashing into the towers was the pinnacle of raghead sensationalism (one hopes never to be surpassed).  But if any of those guys had been caught and appropriately waterboarded and electrocuted and provided all of his (likely compartmentalized) intelligence, it might have compromised the entire operation.  Though it seems unlikely that the raghead airplane hijackers/drivers would have been told that their operation was actually unnecessary to bringing down the towers, and was only for terrorist eyewash.  It might have seriously reduced their raghead commitment and motivation.

Simplicity is the key and hallmark of all good military operations, and this redundant plan would have been far from simple.   And even if true does not alter the fact that it was entirely raghead planned and executed.  

And precipitated a decades long US war in the Middle East that has killed tens of thousands of ..... you know.  

 

[Robert]

I have not read all these articles (sorry).

Here's my question.  If there were a whole bunch of strategically and expertly placed and prepositioned  explosives all over the towers, sufficient to take them down, then why infiltrate a whole bunch of ragheads into the US (risk), have them move all around and get licenses and other indicia of legitimacy (risk), take airplane driving lessons, but didn't need to learn to land (risk), infiltrate multiple airports/airlines and take over planes (risk), and then waste a dozen or so good raghead terrorists, when none of that was necessary to bring down the towers?
 

Who do we blame?

So you remember the words never let a crisis go to waste?

Nothing unites people more than when attacked by a third party, but a crime who cares.

Just some of the things that came out of 911, including a double payout for acts of terror on the Towers, and the Port Authority selling the Towers just one year before the attacks.


Developer Sues to Win $12.3 Billion in 9/11 Attack

The Patriot Act:
What Is the Proper Balance Between National Security and Individual Rights?
Congress passed the Patriot Act shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Did this law go too far in the name of national security?

Terrorists struck America on September 11, 2001. Highjacking four planes, they flew two of them into the World Trade Center towers in New York and another into the Pentagon in Washington. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania before it reached its target in Washington. Within two hours, both of the massive 110-story twin towers had collapsed. A wing of the Pentagon was severely damaged. More than 3,000 people died in the attacks. Two days later, the White House identified the culprits as members of Al Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group based in Afghanistan but with terrorist cells throughout the world. The hijackers had worked out of Al Qaeda terrorist cells operating in the United States. No one knew whether more terrorist attacks were coming.

• Sept. 12, 2001: Bush addresses the nation, declaring war and stating: “The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be patient. We’ll be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination. This battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win.”

In July 2002, the Justice Department unveiled plans for Operation TIPS — the Terrorism Information and Prevention System.


Questions for TSA after reports of laptop and phone searches on domestic flights

Now you can be denied a flight out of the country for back taxes.

9/11 & The Road To America's Orwellian Hell

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-06/911-road-americas-orwellian-hell

[3fan4life]

The point is that it was much more than a jet fuel fueled fire.

You have,

The initial impact of 100 tons of aircraft into the building.

The initial explosion of the jet fuel immediately after the impact.

You had the jet fuel fueled fire. This ignited tons of carpet, furniture, computers, plastics, and assorted other combustibles normally found in offices.

The duration of the fire and the weight of 100+ tons of aircraft trapped in upper floors of the building.

Not to mention the combustibles on the aircraft. Seats, plastics, luggage, etc.

It's not just jet fuel.

Plastic Melting Point Ignition Temperature ABS 88°-125° 416° Acrylics 91°-125° 560° Cellulosics 49°-121° 475°-540° Nylons 160°-275° 424°-532° Polycarbonate 140°-150° 580° Polyesters 220°-268° 432°-488° Polyethylene ld 107°-124° 349° Polyethylene hd 122°-137° 349° Polypropylene 158°-168° 570° Polystyrene 100°-120° 488°-496° Polyurethanes 85°-121° 416° PTFE 327° 530° P.vinylideneclor 212° 454° PVC 75°-110° 435°-557° Wool Does not melt 228°-230° Cotton Does not melt 250° Rubber Does not melt 260°-316°

What you're not taking into account is that all of this adds up.

I have seen  nothing but hay and wooden pallets in a burn building raise the overall temp to 1400 F.


The reason that the second tower fell first was that it was hit lower, meaning that more weight was on top of the steel.

The steel didn't have to melt, it just had to weaken to the point that it couldn't support the weight any longer.

Once the beams supporting one floor gave away it resulted in a pancake effect that brought down the entire building.


Personally, I like a good conspiracy theory.

No-one will ever convince me that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "only" shooter in Dallas.


I can tell you that the rules for fighting fires in high rise buildings were rewritten after 911.

Prior to that no-one believed that a fire could could topple a building of that size, now we know different.

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, But I was a firefighter for 20 years.

[Willow]

...
Regardless of what your personal opinion is, the truth that we can all agree on, is there are too many unanswered questions.
...

No. No, actually we can't all agree on that.   

[scooperhsd]

It takes shaped charges to blow out steel support beams, and what Robert is suggesting is that they would have been placed while the Towers were being built. That fact, along with Jess's comments about the terrorists going through all that unneccesary risks, makes this impossible.

I believe that the fires started by the planes collision with the towers, along with all the usual flammable stuff found in a modern office, provided all the fuel necessary to heat the columns up enough to weaken them to collapse with the weight from above. Once the first floor up high collapsed, you would get a cascading failure of all the floors below, and eventually the ones above due to momentum and gravity.

[..]

Let's not forget the structural  skeleton was on the outside of the building.

[scooperhsd]

Let's not forget the structural  skeleton was on the outside of the building.

Actually - no.

You're partly right - there was quite a bit of steel on the outside edge of the buildings (which would have been severely impacted by the plane collision). But there was also a central core with the fire exits in the centers of the buildings as well.

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I did view the programs on TV on this.

[..]

Let's not forget the structural  skeleton was on the outside of the building.

Actually - no.

You're partly right - there was quite a bit of steel on the outside edge of the buildings (which would have been severely impacted by the plane collision). But there was also a central core with the fire exits in the centers of the buildings as well.

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I did view the programs on TV on this.

You made me look.

Interesting.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc1.htm

[Oss]

People who want americans dead did this

Hopefully they will rot in hell being abused by 40 virginians like it says in their book

I said way in the beginning of this thread that what happened is also consistent with what they did in 93 and have heard of the many stories of booms that were not well known outside nyc and certainly not picked up by the news....  Certainly nobody should discount the fire, but was it only the fire?  We do not know

A terrorist may use multiple methods ( like a belt and suspenders )  doesnt matter to me it just matters to me that they did this terrible thing that has taken away some of our rights and that there are those who do not take this war seriously
For the record I do not subscribe to the govmt conspiracy theory but do believe it is not only possible but consistent with prior plans that more than one method was in play by terrorists on that day

What matters to me is we do not forget who wants us dead and make sure they pass away first   And for crying out loud we are on the same team USA.  Lets keep our eye on the ball here

[The emperor has no clothes]

Them cursed Virginians. 

[Robert]

I can remember as a kid when they were constructing the Twin Towers and the engineer applauded the fact that it could be hit by a 707 and not come down.

 At the time I  was watching cartoons and turned to a engineering show and was shocked at the claim and thought that was a strange and kind of morbid prediction.

It was kind of like that moment you say something is off, but you cant really say what it is. Well years later how puzzling that this came to be true.

I find life sometimes kind of strange that the one prominent endorsement for the building, a claim that was a shocker for then and even now comes true.  

I watched in amazement at the towers being built and watched in horror when they came down.  

 Building 7 was the key for me and the time I started to ask questions, when it came down.

A few facts on Building 7, It was not hit by the plane, had relatively light damage, and was the command center for NYC government in case of emergency. It also came straight down many hours later, yet no one can really answer why.

I do not like it when there are so many unanswered questions and really there is no reason for it. Motives are many times clouded and hardly ever truthfully revealed. There is no reason to have so many unanswered questions, if there was honest complete investigation.

The US as a whole and the economy changed that day, the loss of life was tragic on that day and could have been so much worse, but what about the loss of life going forward and money spent? I hope that one day these questions will get answered for those that gave their life and the for the citizens that trust the government to do their job.

You see its not only the questions from that day but the lives and cost of the decisions that came out of that day and the reasons for them.

Were these followings decisions based on truth or a lie or plan?
This is the true cost shouldn't we know the truth before committing these acts and lives going forward?

You see each persons life is important and should be held with the utmost value and respect. Conspiracy theories for themselves are irrelevant but when the decisions of a government are based on decisions that the common citizen can see that all the questions have not been answered then why should the average joe commit his life? Why should we commit our money, lives, time, relationships without knowing every stone has been turned over and trust our officials to do this? 5.9 trillion, 480k lives, 3k lives on the day the towers went down, money spent since on medical and rebuild cost, the loss of freedom from that day forward, when you start adding the cost, I think it was WAY to much not to know and make sure the real truth for all these decsions.

We wont let them take our guns, but we will allow all of this from a maybe false truth?

United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 WarsThrough FY2019:$5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Crawford_Costs%20of%20War%20Estimates%20Through%20FY2019.pdf

The US was then and technically still is in a state of war.

https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

The cost of post 9/11 wars hit $5.9 trillion, 480,000 lives lost, study says
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/the-cost-of-post-9-11-wars-hit-5-9-trillion-480-000-lives-lost-study-says-1.556646

https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/3323.pdf

  


World Trade Center structural engineers:

 World Trade Center structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.

Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes

Article NY Times:

The New York Police Department produced a detailed analysis in 1998 opposing plans by the city to locate its emergency command center at the World Trade Center

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/politics/26emergency.html

[hubcapsc]

A few facts on Building 7

It was not hit by the plane

agree.

had relatively light damage

The North Tower of the World Trade Center fell on it and it caught on fire and burned all day.

-Mike
 

[fudgie]

You and my tattoo artist would get along great. He love conspiracies. He's burnt out on drugs and stares at the wall and drools on himself.