Did anyone predict this election fiasco?

The WTC was made of steel. A 757 is predominately aluminum. An aluminum plane is NOTHING when slamming into a steel-frame building like the WTC, with its 47 column steel core. And nobody can seem to explain what brought down the core of the buildings. The pancake collapse theory doesn't touch upon that.

The idea that fires can be hot enough to weaken the steel and bring an entire building down is a new concept that began with 9/11.

 

Maybe the WTC's were made out of wood painted in metalic colours to give the impression of a very solid steel structure.

Thats the only way a fire could take down the trade centers.

 

lol....

 

Theres also never evidence of a 767 slamming into a building at 500 miles an hour spreading jet fuel and bringing pokets of fire over 1800 degrees, from a building which had the fire proofing removed from it's steel truses. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf)

It's the first time in history all that happened.

Theres the 1967 collapse of the steel truse style McCormick convention center from an electrical fire within 30 minutes.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

The fact that you'd demean the structural damage from the 500 mile an hour 767 ripping into the building because they were composite aluminum, is simply an argument out of desperation. I would post again the NIST models of collapse which demonstrate the probable structural damage from the widebody twinjet airliner.

But any argument which counters your laymans claims is clearly falsified by the masonic kabalists who control all data, and your only intrested in what your intuition tells you.

 

Actualy I posted about 7 pages back how much better wood performs under stress in fires then steel. (4 minutes to collapse under stress vs 7 for wood)

Made of Candy. The government wanted to bring it down because George Bush was cranky in the mornining and they figured they'd need a lot.

 

whats the logic in that though. Put a pop can in a fire all night and it will be intact in the morning. Thats tin, melting large industrial sized beams is a chore for any heat sorce.

 

jet fuel max temp=980 °C, lets round it to 1000

melting steel= 1500 °C

The math just dosnt add up.

 

Yes, it will be intact, but while it is in contact with the heat source it will quickly lose all structural bearing capacity... not that you're building a house out of soda cans.

That's because while steel is much stronger then iron other metals wood obviously, it is much more malleable. It will lose it's strcutural integrity under the strain of the higher heats and warp.

The industral beams were not melted. They were brought up to the temperature of 1800 degrees because of the fires, which made them lose 90% of their strength, and they buckled under the weight of the towers.

 

Right, and the steel didn't melt in the trade centers.

 

People said they found molten steel at the bottem, and i take their word over others who never actually seen the evidence in person.

 

Heres from Popular Mechanics.

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

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."

 

Who are these people?

 

Sure. But the concept i dont understand is that not all support would be weakened in the same timeframe, thus the building should have tumbled to one side, not just fall directly downward.

Ill reference the great game of Jenga.

 

The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten
steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

there is probably a dozen other sources.

 

Steel doesn't stay molten... once the heat is removed it will solidify, I'm sure this puzzled Jones because it wouldn't happen.

Heres a video Steve Jones avioding the issue of the peer review of his materiel.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731

 

Engineers tend to disagree with what's intiutive to you. The idea of all the steel warping and swinging off to the side is fairly silly.

Heres some more peer review denouncing Jones.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3145057&postcount=106

 

Maybe the engineers denouncing jones were Republicans.

 

I can pull up a lot more if your intrested.

But if you claim that peer review isn't important because the opposing views are all government stooges, then you'll eventually go bat shit insane like mister prat.

 

Im very cynical and i dont think it'll ever drive me insane. I think i see things more clearly than others.

 

The WTC towers did tumble to one side initially.

The section above the aircraft impact for the south tower tipped to the east, the side with the observed bowed in wall.

The north tower tipped to the south, the side with a bowed in wall. The tipping to the south when viewed from the north gives the impression that the antenna sank first. If you watch the collapse from the east, you can see the antenna of the north tower tilt to the south.

The sides of the towers that bowed inward were also the sides that had the longest unsupported floors between the core and outside walls, 60 ft. I posted earlier about how long floors with no column support are prone to sagging and pulling in walls during a fire.

.