Conspiracies

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by seany65

I know little about the steel of the twin towers, so I won't comment on what anyone says about it. However weak the steel became because of the temperature of the fire, this still doesn't explain the pulverisation of the 'concrete' into powder, even as they started to fall, let alone when they hit the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcRABenTBE#t=43

http://www.concreteconstruction.net/...peratures.aspx

What is there even to explain? The concrete of the twin towers behaved exactly as concrete behaves when subjected to weights beyond its yield point; and the yield point can be reduced by up to 80% in sustained temperatures in excess of 1,000F (538C). I don't understand the basis of your scepticism here.

[barbiedolls]

is elvis still alive . i belive he facked death in 77.. but still alive ?

[haroldeye]

Alive! He gave the bride away when she married the Kiddie Fiddler for the second time.,

[Motorboater]

If it wasn't for 9/11. The NE Patriots wouldn't have won the super bowl.

[seany65]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcRABenTBE#t=43

http://www.concreteconstruction.net/...peratures.aspx

What is there even to explain? The concrete of the twin towers behaved exactly as concrete behaves when subjected to weights beyond its yield point; and the yield point can be reduced by up to 80% in sustained temperatures in excess of 1,000F (538C). I don't understand the basis of your scepticism here.

Fair enough, scoundrel, but the fires could not have weakened the concrete below the level that the fires reached, and the towers above the fires were practically, for want of a better word, 'ejected' away from the towers.

So how could the pulverisation of the concrete of the towers have continued all the way down, considering the concrete that low had not been weaked by the fires and the weight of the towers above any particular point of collapse was lessening all the time, by the concrete above being 'ejected' away from the towers?

[fordprefect739]

Because it was getting smashed by thousands of tons of concrete, steel, glass, furniture and other crap? The forces involved had to be enormous.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by seany65

Fair enough, scoundrel, but the fires could not have weakened the concrete below the level that the fires reached, and the towers above the fires were practically, for want of a better word, 'ejected' away from the towers.

So how could the pulverisation of the concrete of the towers have continued all the way down, considering the concrete that low had not been weaked by the fires and the weight of the towers above any particular point of collapse was lessening all the time, by the concrete above being 'ejected' away from the towers?

Why do you think this? The towers did not topple over; both of them collapsed downwards. Certainly a lot of debris was shed over the surrounding area but as each floor fell it fell downwards, carrying with it all the floors above, and the force would surely have been increasing, not lessening.

I heard a surviving NY fireman give an interview on BBC Radio Four a few years after the event. He has been inside the North Tower and miraculously the bit of stairwell at one corner and close to the base of the tower where he and his team were was the only bit of the tower which was left after the collapse, which was why he made it. He has ascended the stairs as high as he could go, calling out for survivors and directing everyone he found still there to GTF out. The the radio told him the South Tower was gone and he must leave immediately. On the way down, he enountered a women who had multiple broken bones and, when she heard him calling out on the way up, had realised he was her last chance to live. She had somehow found the willpower to make the agonising crawl out of her office and into the stairwell, hoping she could intercept him on the way back, and had managed to get there in time. He was quite frank about how tempted he was to abandon her, knowing how little time he had left; but he thought about trying to live with himself afterwards, and decided to put her on the stretcher and take the chance on her slowing him down. That moment saved his life because if he had abandoned her he would have been clear of the building and underneath the rubble it shed when it collapsed, rather than inside the only bit of the building which remained intact.

Uniquely, he was inside during the collapse and he described the process. There was a succession of impact noises: boom; boom; boom; boom. That was each concrete floor hitting the one below. There was the noise of the steel building skeleton twisting and crumpling under the weight of the falling concrete. He heard this and his thought was that he was about to die and that it was going to really, really hurt. Then, when he realised he and his men and the casualty were still there but entombed and in pitch darkness, he tried his radio and mercifully could still talk to his controller. The controller was ecstatic to hear from him and said Roger, you're in North Tower, we'll come and get you. But then he heard someone else in the control room saying: Yeah, but where the Hell is the North Tower?

But the relevance here is that this man actually heard the floors hitting each other, each once tearing out the floor below as it fell down.

[seany65]

Scoundrel, I know the towers didn't topple over, and that they collapsed on their own footprint.

As far as I understood the points you made in post 2152, the pulversization of the concrete could be explained by the heat of the fires weakening it and causing it to be pulverised and 'ejected' out of the sides during the collapse of the floors above it.

I accept that the floors above any part of the the towers collapsed down onto each floor below the point of collapse, (which I always accepted explains the boom, boom, boom), but the pulverisation of the concrete seems to have happened all the way down, even to below where the fires would've weakened the concrete by upto 80%, which means the concrete below the fires was not weakened by the fires, and with quite a lot of concrete above each floor being 'ejected', I don't believe that the concrete in the bottom half of either tower would be pulverised in the same way or to the same degree as that near the fires.

I think it's possible that neither tower was built with 'correct' concrete, and perhaps steel that also wasn't quite 'correct'.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by seany65

As far as I understood the points you made in post 2152, the pulversization of the concrete could be explained by the heat of the fires weakening it and causing it to be pulverised and 'ejected' out of the sides during the collapse of the floors above it.

I accept that the floors above any part of the the towers collapsed down onto each floor below the point of collapse, (which I always accepted explains the boom, boom, boom), but the pulverisation of the concrete seems to have happened all the way down, even to below where the fires would've weakened the concrete by upto 80%, which means the concrete below the fires was not weakened by the fires, and with quite a lot of concrete above each floor being 'ejected', I don't believe that the concrete in the bottom half of either tower would be pulverised in the same way or to the same degree as that near the fires.

I think it's possible that neither tower was built with 'correct' concrete, and perhaps steel that also wasn't quite 'correct'.

As I see it, the initial collapse started at the weakened point, which was about half way up the South Tower and a bit higher up on the North Tower. But as soon as one floor gave way it also brought down the whole of the tower above it in a very severe impact on the floor beneath. Naturally the weakened concrete gave way first; but once the collapse started the forces were so powerful that the concrete anywhere in the building was not able to support such pressure and had to behave as concrete behaves when the pressure exerted upon it is too much for it. It was crushed, and the whole tower was pulverised by its own weight. This was a horrid process but one which civil engineers have known to be possible for centuries: it happens with stone as well. It happened to numerous stone buildings during air raids in WW2.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by peach64

what about Building # 7? Nothing struck it, yet it came down exactly like the twin towers? IXXI very occultic date, both Pentagon and Twin Towers set their corner stones on the same date, 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Worl...1_and_collapse

1) Building 7 was hit by debris as the North Tower collapsed.
2) It did not come down exactly like the twin towers.

Building 7 collapsed because of out of control fires on multiple floors.