What materials were used in World Trade Center, and what was the reason for the collapse during the 9/11 attacks?

Comments

• More appropo is the burn temperatures of jet fuel versus the melting point of the steel used. The fires could STILL be burning, and would never reach the temperatures necessary to weaken, much less cause failure, of any beams and girders. And the surprizing high temperatures found in the pile weeks later can only be attributable to thermite or higher reactions.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 26th, 2007

• Some of the buildings around the twins - without such high temperatures - lost their insulation and collapsed at least partially also.

  • Report
  

  by 2clever on January 26th, 2007

• 'Buildings around the twins...colapsed also.' Which? To what are you refering?

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 27th, 2007

• Because, of course, JP-4 would be the only flammable thing in an office full of papers, wood desks, carpets, all that sort of garbage, you know, stuff that would never, ever catch fire when doused with what amounts to flaming kerosene.

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on May 21st, 2009

Comments

• I have read the NIST report and I fundamentally disagree with this answer. The buildings were supposedly designed to withstand an impact from a large passenger aircraft and it must be that either the design assumptions or the materials and techniques used were flawed in some way.

  • Report
  

  by DavidHume on January 26th, 2007

• Poppycock. No amount of 'holes in buildings' could cause an increase in the burn temperature of jet fuel to cause mild detriment to the steel used to manufacture the girders, much less failure. Your source is 462 pages of subtrifuge in the same tradion as the Warren Commission. Over 4,000 scientists (including 48 Nobel laureates) signed a petition decrying the false science and misconstrued facts in the official explanation.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 26th, 2007

• Right before the collapse of the South Tower, the Firechief onscene requested waterhoses for the 2 isolated fires. Inotherwords, there was no fuel fire at that time-it had all burned up.

  • Report
  

  by kenken on December 30th, 2008

• @DavidHume - The towers were Designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft of the time they were designed - the early 1960s.
  Passenger Aircraft of today are bigger, faster, and heavier by a vast margin over the planes that were common(even the ones that were cutting edge) in 1960.
  .
  Just for one example, a Boeing 747 - not the most modern jet by any standard, but common today - is two and a half times the size of a Boeing 707, the most common "Large Passenger Aircraft" of the day.

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on May 21st, 2009

• And, no doubt, real terrorists would have hijacked 747s. The story, however, uses planes comparable to 707s.
  The towers would have survived a 747 impact-fakeing such an impact may have been problematic, though.

  • Report
  

  by kenken on May 28th, 2009

• I'm not sure what experience you have with aircraft, but have you actually looked at a 707 compared to a 767?
  Let me lay it out for you.
  A 767-200(159 ft 2 in) is 23 feet longer than a 707(136 ft 2 in), 26 feet wider(156 feet compared to 130 feet), 93,000 pounds heavier at Max takeoff weight(and 78,465 pounds heavier absolutely empty) - in fact, the only area where a 707 is in any way comparable to a 767 is speed, where it beats the 767 out by a mere 87 kilometers an hour - peanuts, in airspeed.
  .
  Also - a Real terrorist would use what was available that would leave them with a working plan. The interior Layout of a 747 makes this far less easy, unless all of the terrorists were really swanky, and traveled First class, top deck.
  .
  Lastly, two points if you belive this is a government job.
  A)You're vastly overestimating the competence of the American government - I mean, christ, they couldn't even keep enough people silent to stop Watergate or Clinton's sexual indiscretions getting out, you think they could keep the hundreds upon hundreds of people required for a plan of this scale quiet for any length of time?
  .
  B)Hypothetically, Let's say that the government did do it, and did kill hundreds and hundreds of it's own citizens in a faked terrorist attack. Naturally, they wouldn't want this brought to light. So, Why are the people who are "revealing the truth" on this matter still alive?
  .
  After all, you're ascribing the US government enough competence and secrecy to pull off a stunt of this magnitude, and they've already killed off hundreds of US citizens, so why wouldn't they rather quietly just make people like the creators of Loose change and other such media on the issue just...Vanish, if you get my meaning?
  .
  Surely, if they had managed to pull off an operation of that scale, with such a large amount of casualties of their own flag, surely they are both 1)willing and 2)able to perform such acts, and would do so to protect their secret?

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on July 24th, 2009

Comments

• Well, You'd be right, Except for the Part where you're completely and utterly wrong.
  
  Listen to me carefuly - The World Trade Towers Did not collapse because of Fire.
  They collapsed because of a number of factors that combined into the end result of collapse.
  
  And additionaly - If the charges were placed in the base, Logicly, they would have collapsed from the bottom up, and the towers collapsed from the Top Down.

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on January 26th, 2007

• We can talk till blue in the face. The government has done such a job of misinformation that it likely will be decades for the truth to come out. Churba is majoring in minors, chooses to ignore building 7, and discounts leading scientists and engineers worldwide who dispute the 'official story'. True, controlled demo was not just at the base, but more likely charges placed by the mysterious 'maintainence' crews weeks before throughout the structure.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 26th, 2007

• Look - If you want to do the Conspiracy thing, Then Hey, that is your right.
  I'm just trying give corrections on glaring factual errors.
  
  Another example - The spanish Didn't collapse - but was vastly different from the WTC, and did indeed undergo partial collapse.
  
  The fact is that EVERY SINGLE Conspiracy theory is afflicted with what I call "Conspiracy Syndrome" - Where one Takes your preferred conclusion, and then discards all the evidence that doesn't support it.
  
  In Fact, I'll lay a bet with you. I wager, that every theory you have about trade center conspiracies, I Will be able to either Provide a debunking of said theory.
  The stakes are - If you have one that I cannot debunk - that isn't as silly as an arse full of Smarties, anyway - I will apologise and concede that your theory is valid and probably correct.

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on January 26th, 2007

• You're on! But we need to find a venue without using up 'Anonymous novice' space or file. Any suggestions? It would be great if other Answerbaggers could view the back-and-forth as I grind you to powder. Care to put some dinero on it as well?

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 26th, 2007

• Presuming victory already? I love it. Check back here tomorrow, Where I shall give my findings on a place to conduct this, and we can agree to some terms.
  
  If need be, squirt me an Email at churba At gmail dot com

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on January 27th, 2007

• It will be about a week from now, as I have been called for consultation to south Florida.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 27th, 2007

• it was the first building in history to be intentionally hit by an airplane doing 500+ miles an hour
  as far as that madrid fire
  the core was of a different design than the WTC
  but all the truss supports that held the floors up collapsed to the 17th mechanical floor
  that building was demolished
  
  the fires at the WTC were spread over a very wide area instantly
  
  i do steel work
  you do not have to get steel very hot to be able to bend it
  the temps in the WTC were well within range of weakening the steel 50%
  why do you think they fire proofed it in the first place?? lol
  cause they know that office fires can cause collapses
  
  firemen put out fires or hold them at bay to save lives not to save property

  • Report
  

  by JustinNY74 on May 15th, 2009

Comments

• Other buildings have burned, and NEVER collapsed. Jet fuel can NEVER melt steel. And what about Building 7, which mysteriously pancaked in the same controlled demo fashion, yet was not even hit, nor was burning. Even the governments own whitewash could say nothing on that, but agree it to be a 'mystery'. Mystery indeed.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 26th, 2007

• I never said that the steel melted. There is no mystery about Building 7, it was severely damaged by the collapseof the WTT's and by the fire which raged inside and which firefighters were unable to get to. The structural damage made the building unstable and led directly to it's collapse.

  • Report
  

  by Ben Conover on January 30th, 2007

• Of course the fire could never get hot enough to weaken the steel-but for the sake of argument, suppose it did. Then it would weaken at the point of the fire. The building would topple over from that point: totally not what happened. The pancake theory is absurd because of the time it would take for it to fall, among other reasons. How could the top of the building hit the ground at nearly free-fall speed? Only if it met no resistance when it reached each floor-as that one was already falling.

  • Report
  

  by kenken on December 30th, 2008

• The plane's tore through the superstructure of the WTT's taking out nearly 3/4's of the interiors on the floors that they hit. You also have to understand that the reinforcing and load bearing parts of the WTT's were all on the outside of the building, the skin of the building, not the interior as in most office buildings. This was done to give the maximum amount of usable floor space. I don't know where you're getting this nonsense about the WTT's falling at free fall speed, but it's an out and out lie. The speed of the building falling did increase simply because of the added weight as the entire building smashed down on to each floor below.

  • Report
  

  by Ben Conover on January 6th, 2009

• According to the Pancake theory a floor is not falling until hit by the falling floors from above, right? If we assume each floor falls at freefall speed with no air resistance, and as it reaches the next floor that one falls the same way it would take over a minute and a half for the collapse- which is nothing like what we saw.Of corse you must argue that the speed increased-otherwise it's even more nonsensical. A rock dropped from the top of one of the buildings in a vacuum would take about 9.3 seconds to hit the ground-which indicates they fell at free fall speed.

  • Report
  

  by kenken on January 8th, 2009

• NIST disproved the pancake theory
  "the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

  • Report
  

  by JustinNY74 on May 15th, 2009

• pancake theory was the result of an MIT paper that speculated on the reason for collapse, it came out about a month after 911
  it was the hypothesis that those professors came up with without any evidence at hand (and they start the paper by saying so)
  based purely on the video evidence available to them

  • Report
  

  by JustinNY74 on May 15th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Oh, but you forget - Anyone who disagrees is either a fool, or a stooge for the government and their horrible, horrible lies.
  
  To be honest, If I was the government, I'd be quite complimented by this whole 9/11 conspiracy theory thing. After all, these people think that the government could have pulled the whole thing off, and then covered it up so well with things like "Facts" and "Evidence", and involving keeping thousands upon thousands of people silent about the whole thing for this long - I think they're vastly overestimating the competence of the US government!

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on May 21st, 2009

Comments

• Well, to be fair, it was designed to withstand being hit by airliners....in 1960. The airliners of today are bigger, faster and heavier by quite a large margin.

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on May 21st, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Yep.

  • Report
  

  by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on May 21st, 2009