search this site: search the web:
Welcome to our New Server! Stronger, faster, and now with Lutein!

WOULD YOU SUPPORT AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES?

user ballots

advice : political :

WOULD YOU SUPPORT AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES?


[+] serious ballot by blackcat06
created Thu Oct 26, 06

prison planet. com/ articles/ October2006/ 211006 Deception. htm

(Remove the spaces above)

We all know that the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports practically avoided all the serious questions about September 11, like how steel could melt and how concrete can become pulverised into fine powder, just from air fires, to cause super strong buildings to collapse vertically and at free-fall accelerating speeds into themselves (as if the lower materials displayed no strength and were not even there!)


Why Investigate 9/11 ?
911truth. org/ article.php? story=200 6081709 4039227

9/11 Mysteries
video. google. com/ videoplay? docid= -67081900 71483512003

Alex Jones' Terror Storm
video. google. com/ videoplay? docid=-70 4857275 7566726569

Loose Change ver 2
seeloose change. com

Improbable collapse
video. google.com /videoplay? docid=40260 73566596731782

Good videos
belowground surface. org
truth911 . net
plaguepuppy. net / public_html /collapse %20update/

Scientific research

prison planet. com/ articles/ October2006/ 211006 Deception. htm

scholarsfor 911truth. org /WhyIndeed DidtheWorld TradeCenter Buildings Completely Collapse. pdf

(Requires Adobe PDF Reader, download and install it from adobe . com )

st911 . org

911research. wtc7.net /wtc / analysis /fires /steel . html

911research . com / sept11 / evidence . html

911research . com / wtc / evidence / rubblefires . html

911research . com / wtc / evidence / moltensteel . html


SO WOULD YOU SUPPORT A NEW, HONEST, OPEN, INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION TO ANSWER THE STILL IMPORTANT BUT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT 9/11 ?

FACT 1: Melting point of iron (steel) : 1532 C.

FACT 2: Burning temperature of hydrocarbon fuels in air: 250 C

FACT 3: At 250 C, steel does not lose any of its strength. At
600 C, steel is around 50% of its maximum room temperature
strength, but these temperatures cannot be reached by air
fires simply because there is not enough oxygen in 101.3 kPa
or 1 atmosphere normal air pressure. (oxygen makes up only
about 19% of the air we breathe, inert gas nitrogen 80%)

911research . wtc7 .net/ wtc/ analysis/ fires/ steel. html

FACT 4: Most of us drive in cars that use internal combustion
engines which contain high pressure explosions and raging
hot fires; even the pistons are made of iron. The same
kind of material used for barbeque grills! We all use steel
cooking pots and frying pans, constantly exposed to gas stove
fires, to cook our food every day. What about steam engine
boilers exposed to fires! Do they fail, or go all soft and
mushy due to air fire alone? NO! Also, why is it that air-cooled
motorcycle engines made of iron DO NOT GO SOFT & MELT?

Have you ever been able to melt solid aluminium into molten
liquid metal using fire? Go on and try it. If you can, you
have proven that your flame temperatures can exceed 660 C, the
melting point of aluminium. If not, then there is NO WAY THAT
AIR FIRE CAN REACH 1532 C and create giant pools of molten
metal in all the basements of all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed
on 9/11... which stayed sizzling hot at red to orange hot
temperatures (between 700 C to 1100 C) for up to 6-WEEKS after
the collapses, despite a lot of water being pumped into the hot
oven-like basements to try to cool down the once-molten steel.
Even the rubber boots of clean up crews were MELTING due to the
intense heat under the WTC rubble, several weeks after 9/11...

Can air fires make solid concrete explode into fine powder after a 1 hour delay period?

FACT 5: Concrete has a tensile yield strength over 4000 psi (around 27 MPa to 42 MPa) and is much stronger

in compression.

FACT 6: Air fires burn at around 250 C, much much lower than the melting point of concrete (between 1800C -

2500 C)

FACT 7: When a solid concrete column or pillar fails under intense
vertical loading stress, it will crack and try to slide along a
45 degree angle fracture plane, known in "Solid Mechanics" studies
as the "Plane of Maximum Shear Stress". This fracture surface is
at 45 degrees to the direction of loading and appear fairly flat
and planar, because brittle materials tend to fail catastrophically
by rapid crack propagation and the 45 degree angle offers the highest
shear stress direction for cracking to occur. Concrete will NOT FAIL
by exploding into a giant cloud of fine dust particles. This has NEVER
been observed in any fire experiments, or in any hydraulic compression
failure tests. In fact, very little crushed powder is actually found,
and the failed test pieces still appear as strong solid pieces, like
2 halves of the original specimen, still intact. If the WTC Twin Towers
did fail due to vertical loading caused by gravity, where are the large
concrete boulders? Where are all the large floor slabs? Where are all
the "pancakes" of solid floors that should be left over sitting one on
top of each other, like McDonald's pancakes? Why are there NO solid
concrete floor slabs remaining? How did ALL THE SUPER STRONG building
materials turn into molten iron and giant clouds of concrete powder?

How could so much concrete powder be created as the WTC Twin Towers were falling, if they stood strong and

stable for over 56 minutes to about 80 minutes after jet plane impacts? Also, how did Building 7 just

collapse into itself 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed, when it was not hit by any plane? How could

all the explosions of concrete powder appear, even before the collapses started?

ANSWER: Pre-planted controlled demolition explosives being triggered sequentially, so that all the support

steel could be sliced quickly with cutter charges (like thermite) and any concrete columns could be blasted

away by explosives, to allow a free-fall (zero resistance) vertical collapse.

DEPROGRAM YOUR BRAIN & TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLED AND LIED TO BY YOUR MASS MEDIA & THE US

GOVERNMENT



Think about this for one moment...

Air-cooled Motorcycle engines, especially the cylinder walls and pistons, are constantly exposed to fuel

fire, explosions, even when idling and when the engine is not being cooled by moving air... right?

How come these iron components DO NOT SOFTEN, BECOME RUBBERY & WEAKEN DUE TO FIRES & EXPLOSIONS?

Even 2-stroke lawn mower combustion engines are made of the same type of materials.

The same goes for steel barbeque grills, hotplates, frying pans and steam engines, constantly exposed to

fire...

Can you also explain how Building 7 could just COLLAPSE RIGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND LEVEL, INTO ITSELF, about 7

hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, when it was NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE & DID NOT SUFFER ANY MAJOR

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE? How can 2 small fires do that to a huge 47-storey sky scraper!!! And how did so much

molten metal end up in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings, which means temperatures must have exceeded

1532 C in order to melt all that steel, which stayed hot at temperatures between 700 C to 1100 C up to 6

weeks after 9/11 !!! 6 WEEKS! Have you ever seen Jet fuel make a plane fly for over 6 WEEKS WITHOUT

REFUELLING!?? ESPECIALLY A JET PLANE THAT EXPLODED IN A GIANT FIREBALL FIRST?

WHY DON'T THEY ALL GO WEAK AND SOFT AND RUBBERY?

YES, we need to investigate who really demolished those 3 WTC buildings & find the REAL terrorists
NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!

Ballot #104180 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
130733. If The U.S. And The World Economies Collapses...
130436. Another bank collapses... all hail capitalism
105145. Did air fire weaken 3 WTC buildings on 9/11 to cause 3 complete collapses?
125701. It's official. Yes it's very official people.
101994. Are you looking forward to the final investigation report regarding 7 WTC?
89516. The Army is launching a criminal investigation into the death of Pat Tillman. What do you think?
89518. Will conservatives now claim that the criminal investigation into Pat Tillman's death gives aid and comfort to the enemy?
62280. Support Our Troops and Freedom Isn't Free: I agree, so how can I show my support?
94484. No Longer The Minority: 82% Plus Support Charlie Sheen, who do you support?
55226. Why was the budget for investigation Clinton blow job higher then the 9/11 commisions budget?


COMMENTS:
Voted : NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!
NO, you are an idiot
by jenny17 on Thu Oct 26, 06 9:58pm [+]

I havent gotten involved in this whole 9/11 conspiracy craze thats been sweeping the site, and to be honest I dont really plan to.

Having said that, Im fairly sure the "air fires" would have reached higher temperatures than 250c..
by lil_ape on Thu Oct 26, 06 10:02pm [+]

Nah, who cares?
by skylab on Thu Oct 26, 06 10:23pm [+]

LOOK AT THE 45 TO 60 DEGREE SLICED STEEL COLUMNS!

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF STEEL CUTTING CHARGES USED ON WTC STEEL

(remove spaces below)

what really happened . com / wtc2_ cutter . html
by blackcat06 on Thu Oct 26, 06 10:44pm [+]

Voted : NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!
Do you EVER think of ANYTHING else? IC_zzz
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Oct 26, 06 11:08pm [+]

Oh, it's just another silly boring 9/11 conspiracy ballot. IC_zzz shhhh! We're going back to sleep. IC_shhh
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Thu Oct 26, 06 11:16pm [+]

"We all know that the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports practically avoided all the serious questions about September 11"

this sounds interesting...

"like how steel could melt"

oh dear. It didn't melt and no one says it did. It weakened. BIG difference.

"and how concrete can become pulverised into fine powder, just from air fires"

Shame no one is making this claim except conspiracy theorists. The concrete was pulverized by millions of pounds of concrete falling on it.

"to cause super strong buildings"

wow, SUPER strong? Like a superhero? Or just a building susceptible to catastrophic jetliner impacts and subsequent fires?

"to collapse vertically"

Why, would expect them to fall horizontally?

"and at free-fall accelerating speeds into themselves"

things tend to accelerate when they fall. Look at a video clip of debris falling faster than the dust cloud. THAT'S freefall.


"as if the lower materials displayed no strength and were not even there!"

If that was the case there wouldn't have been a progressive collapse from the impact region downwards to the base. It would have folded up just like a real controlled demolition.

And these are the SERIOUS questions? Dude, you have a problem.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Oct 26, 06 11:35pm [+]

IC_gb ^ ...the usual garbage from Widehead', and the usual brilliance from Black Cat.... lol
by Ken_from_Dublin on Fri Oct 27, 06 12:01am [+]

Voted : NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!
Jesus Christ, just sign on as guest on "Coast to Coast AM" or buy air time on a commercial shortwave station ("The Big Twin Tower Conspiracy Hour") and stop boring the living f*ck out of the rest of us. If there had been a provable conspiracy, this would have been all over the world press by now, much of which is not overly fond of the current neocon administration in the U.S. AL JAZEERA or THE INDEPENDENT or, hell, for that matter, Pacifica Radio or the like in the U.S. would have been all over that like ugly on an ape. ...But, all they can dredge up, despite their sheer onanistic pleasure at the thought, are a few off-the-rails lunatics who would shame a von Daniken with their bullshit.
by Felix on Fri Oct 27, 06 1:00am [+]

"the usual garbage from Widehead', and the usual brilliance from Black Cat"

Well done, Ken. And now just point out for us all just why my points are 'garbage'. Throwing insults is great but it seems almost like a cop out.
by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Oct 27, 06 2:08am [+]

Any investigation still wouldn't satisfy the conspiracy theorists.

If they call non-profit indepedent aerospace experts, government shills, then they clearly aren't going to except any explanation unless it comes from prisonplanet.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Fri Oct 27, 06 5:10am [+]

It will never happen. All evidence is gone. Now the stage is set to build Solomon's Temple and enslave the world. Mwwwhahaha! MAG_rofl
by _Beelzebubba on Fri Oct 27, 06 1:16pm [+]

"the usual garbage from Widehead', and the usual brilliance from Black Cat"

Well done, Ken. And now just point out for us all just why my points are 'garbage'. Throwing insults is great but it seems almost like a cop out.

by wideheadofknowledge

"oh dear. It didn't melt and no one says it did. It weakened. BIG difference." -
by wideheadofknowledge

Big row-back - so you admit the steel didn't melt? - you are going against a lot of the OCT's arguments there because many claim it did.rnrnBesides it didn't even come near enough to weakening it to the point of collapse, gradual weakening of the steel would not have resulted in the sudden explosive demolition we all witnessed.rnrnTo see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. rnrnIn 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). rnrnIn 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “beams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991).rnrnIn Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004).

And unlike the fires in the towers, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows!

Shame no one is making this claim except conspiracy theorists. The concrete was pulverized by millions of pounds of concrete falling on it.
by wideheadofknowledge

-Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”rnrnThis fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.rnrnDust Clouds

wow, SUPER strong? Like a superhero? Or just a building susceptible to catastrophic jetliner impacts and subsequent fires?
by wideheadofknowledge

They WERE super strong - and WTC7 WASN'T hit by an airliner - the towers were overengineered to withstand multiple jet crashes from planes the size of the ones that hit on 9/11.

Why, would expect them to fall horizontally?
by wideheadofknowledge

Yes, the damage was off centre and should not have resulted in the perfectly controlled 'straight down into their own footprint' collapses.

If that was the case there wouldn't have been a progressive collapse from the impact region downwards to the base. It would have folded up just like a real controlled demolition.
by wideheadofknowledge

It DID fold just like a real demolition, exactly as one would expect in in a real demolition.

And all the floors above the impact points were all pulverised before they reached the ground, instead of following the demolition point completely intact, this is were the fantasy 'pnaccake' pancake theory falls flat on it's face and is proven to be made up nonsense.

And these were SERIOUS answers to Blackcat's posts Widehead? - well they WERE and ARE garbage just like I said, and you have a serious problem dealing with reality and the facts. lol
by Ken_from_Dublin on Fri Oct 27, 06 2:28pm [+]


Take a look at ballot:

104239

Look at the photo of the damage done to WTC 5 and 6 which were much closer to WTC 1... then look at the site of WTC 7...

EXPLAIN HOW ALL THE BUILDINGS AROUND WTC 7 DID NOT COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND?

by blackcat06 on Sat Oct 28, 06 2:29am [+]

"It DID fold just like a real demolition, exactly as one would expect in in a real demolition."

What? Did I miss the thousand of bright flashes and hundreds of loud explosions PRECEDING
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sat Oct 28, 06 6:03am [+]

"It DID fold just like a real demolition, exactly as one would expect in in a real demolition."

What? Did I miss the thousand of bright flashes and hundreds of loud explosions PRECEDING the collapse? PRECEDING!!

There was nothing about the twin tower collapses that resembled a controlled demolition.

They peeled outwards for a start, damaging surrounding buildings, each building creating debris field 5 times the original tower area.

The simply fact is, you had roughly 200 million pounds of debris, falling as one large 20-30 story block. Do you really think that block would just topple completely to the side like toppling a tree? Leaving what was below it perfectly intact?

Of course not, the 200 million pounds would destroy what was basically an air filled tube below it - the path of least resistance.

And what do you think a 200 million pound, thirty storey, wrecking ball would do to 3 inch floor slabs, partition walls, desks, carpet and people?

It would pulverise them.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sat Oct 28, 06 6:12am [+]

"To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires..."

Well done. Your list includes no buildings that received catastrophic structural damage beforehand - so no comparison then.

"Hoffman (2003) reports...."

Hoffman is a Conspiracy Theorist who claims to be able to 'prove' that the wtc towers were brought down with controlled demolition. He is wrong.

"the towers were overengineered to withstand multiple jet crashes from planes the size of the ones that hit on 9/11."

No they weren't, Ken. That's a bare-faced lie.

"the damage...should not have resulted in the perfectly controlled 'straight down into their own footprint' collapses."

What part of the debris field would you call the 'footprint', Ken? The bit that crushed the surroinding buildings or the bit that hit buildings 350 yards away?

"It DID fold just like a real demolition"

So buildings that are demolished destroy themselves from the top down, collapsing in a huge debris cloud that destroys nearby buildings? Or perhaps in a controlled demolition the lower portion remains intact until it is crushed by the falling floors from above?

The twin towers collapse looks absolutely NOTHING like a controlled demolition (See the link on my user page for one of those).

Like I said, these are supposed to be serious claims and objections?
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Nov 02, 06 6:45am [+]

"EXPLAIN HOW ALL THE BUILDINGS AROUND WTC 7 DID NOT COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND?"

They didn't suffer from raging infernos that compromised the structural integrity of the building.

See how easy it is when you try?
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Nov 02, 06 6:48am [+]

Time for me to do some cutting and pasting.

Wideahead

1) Step away from those crazy people.

2) Dont make eye contact.

3) Walk away.

4) Dont look back.

5) I have.
by Searchlight on Thu Dec 14, 06 2:07am [+]

(They didn't suffer from raging infernos that compromised the structural integrity of the building.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Nov 02, 06 6:48am)

WTC 5 and WTC 6 suffered real raging infernos. Quite visible and easily photographed. So, you're wrong.

WTC 7's fires on the other hand were only on two floors and only show as a few fires in any of the pictures. They were not infernos.
by Guest User from [58.70.74.7] on Sat Mar 31, 07 8:55pm [+]

(They didn't suffer from raging infernos that compromised the structural integrity of the building.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Nov 02, 06 6:48am)

The guest user is correct.

WTC 5 and 6 had real infernos, WTC 7 didn't.

his is WTC 5 on the left with raging fires, WTC 7 is on the right


Here is another picture of WTC 5


So the two buildings which really had very visible infernos - yet did not collapse. Unlike the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7.

These small fires on only two floors of WTC 7 are most definitely NOT huge raging infernos.
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Tue Aug 21, 07 5:09am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |
© 2002-2009 BEST AND WORST dot com All Rights Reserved