http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm

Check it out. All you who say that a conspiracy theory behind the 9/11 attacks can't deny the temperature at which steel melts, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, and the specifications to which the twin towers were built.

Another conspiracy theorist is heard from. There is seemingly no end of them.

The conspiracy theorists like to say that the laws of physics disallow this or mandate that, but they have no previous events against which to compare their theories. Obviously, no one has ever before slammed a loaded jumbo jet into a skyscraper. They therefore hypothesize without a scientific basis.

If J. McMichael really believes his material, then let him submit it for peer review in scientific journals rather than posting it on a website.

What a load of pretentious crap. The article is a field full of straw men.

The contention is not that the fire melted the structural steel. Only that the heat made the steel weaker and more malleable at the higher temperatures. Steel becomes weaker as its temperature increases. The fire is not isothermal, some parts would have reached higher temperatures than others.

The author mentions the amount of structural steel in the buildings as if implying that the planes would need to melt all or a significant proportion of it to collapse. All that was required was that the steel supports were sufficiently weakened in a few small, but critical, areas and then the building would come down.

Fine. Explain how the second tower fell down uniformly even though it was leaning to one side. Explain where the steel supports went.

And yes, the heat did not need to melt the steel, but to weaken it in a few critical structural areas. However, the WTC was built to very special specifications. And to weaken that much metal in that short of time with jet fuel does not make sense. Especially when considering that buildings have to be built to withstand up to six times the specified load as a safety precaution.

But hey, who am I to talk? I just think that the best conspiracies are the ones you people dismiss automatically.

There's a lot going on behind the scenes that you don't know about. Look around, you'll find it. Some of it's even declassified.

Someone who will reject the conclusions of every qualified structural engineer who has commented on this topic in favour of some conspiracy theorist with no expertise in the matter.

The truth is not kind…had the terrorist just marched around the towers seven times and shouted, they would have had the same effect. Joshua and the Israelites did… to the walls of the great city Jericho. Oh… but they had the Ark of the Covenant.
The planes were a diversion, just a light show. If anyone had seen the movie Ocean’s 11 then you know what I’m talking about. Now here is interesting reading:

A PERFECT DEMOLITION OF WTC 1 & 2

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
The Palisades seismic record shows that as the collapses began a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

THANK YOU. And some experts have come forward and said the towers looked like there being imploded, as if demolished.

The fact is, boys and girls, were any "expert" to speak out against what the government wants us to believe, he or she would be ostracized from their community and would pretty much have no life left.

Also, you still didn't tell me where the structural supports went. They were pretty big, you'd think they woulda been left standing or fell over and hit something. You also didn't tell me why it fell uniformly down when before the south tower fell, the top was falling to the side. No matter what you say about straw men, the laws of physics still apply.

Also, eyewitnesses say the jets didn't have windows, and one video (a video that was shown on news networks across the globe, so it ain't fake) shows a flare of light emitting from one of the jets seconds before it hit the tower, and a projectice is clearly seen making a small hole in the tower as it enters.

Who are these experts? What are their credentials? What was their testimony? I have spoken to people with expertise who say that this looked nothing like a controlled demolition.



Especially if they're claiming it without basis. It would be primarily because the accepted version makes sense to these people, whereas the ramblings of conspiracy theorists don't.



I assume you are referring to this section of the article:

"I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell — has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor."

The answer is that they were pulverised. Concrete is very brittle, so when you have large, heavy pieces of it being dropped from a great height on top of one another, they break apart into tiny pieces. You haven't given any justification for why we should expect to see them on the ground. You've only expressed disbelief at the accepted version of events.



By 'uniformly,' I assume you mean straight down. The structure acting as the 'hinge' of the initial rotation of the upper portion of the tower will quickly buckle after the structure on top of it has performed only a small amount of rotation. This will slow the rotation rate of the upper portion and the tower will then go from toppling over to simply falling down.



Yes, and you have failed to demonstrate where they have been violated by the accepted explanation. You have relied only on misrepresentations of the accepted version of events, appeals to your intuition and repeated expressions of disbelief at that commonly held version of what happened.

No, I was referring to the long steel columns reinforced with concrete that ran up each of the two towers.





That would be true if the top of the tower hadn't already come off by this much.



The thing about the WTC towers was that they were built to survive even if the interior or exterior supports were destroyed. The impact of the jet and the burning jet fuel would have caused extensive damage to the exterior supports, but it wouldn't have destroyed it. So, the jets would have had to almost completely destroy the interior supports—which I don't think is reasonable. I don't even think burning jet fuel would be able to weaken the interior supports enough to cause it to collapse. Buildings are required to withstand a lot more punishment than what it says the limit is on paper.

Also, the WTC towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 airliner. A Boeing 707 weights about 336,000 lbs. A 767, oddly, weighs 312,000 lbs. http://www.flyaow.com/planes/767aircraftspecifications.htm
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

The accepted version of events is just that: accepted. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it accurate. There are many questions regarding 9/11, and I think the fact that they aren't being answered is a sure sign that there is something more going on.

Experts come forward and testify against the Federal Government?
Hell...No...I wouldn't recommend it. If it was me I would never dream of it. NASA and the Federal Government are my bread and butter. They take good care of me and my expensive hobbies.

They were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 (which was the largest airliner at the start of construction) that was about to land, i.e. minimum fuel loading and low speed. As opposed to the situation on 9/11 with a nearly-full fuel load and travelling at very high speed. Irrespective of this, the towers survived the impact of the airliners on 9/11, it was the resulting fires that caused their collapse.



Irrelevant. A 707 on approach is travelling at less than 200 knots, a 767 at over 400 has a much greater kinetic energy, which increases with velocity as a square multiplier. The difference in weight between the two then becomes insignificant.

This is the problem. People believe everything on the internet. You're learning physics from a website which is run by a man who doesn't even post his credentials.

Even so, what stops the terrorists planting bombs in the buildings on September 10th. This wasn't a spur of the moment attack.

Good point EHoffman. The "REAL TERRORIST" planted the bombs in the basement of the towers during the mass confusion, disguising themselves as policeman or fireman...ah...most likely something like that. Second thought this probably never happened. Forget the whole idea.

The collapses of both towers visibly started at the points at which the airliners impacted.

I'd like to hear comments on the flare coming from the jet just before hitting the tower (note that it was seen from two different angles so it is not a reflection).

You can view the videos here: http://www.letsroll911.org/

I'm just using the site for the video footage. I don't necessarily subscribe to the claims they're making.

How do you account for it? Why is it suspicious to you?

Responding to some stuff from earlier in the thread:



I think you mean concrete re-inforced with steel. But anyway, did your search for evidence of their remains end in failure? How do you account for their absence?



What is the basis for this pronoucement? Assuming this was a Zionist plot to bring down the two towers, how did the conspirators manage to get the building to fall straight down after the top had started to topple over? How do you account for this supposedly suspicious observation?



This is based solely on your judgement. Why should we trust your judgement? You don't appear to have the necessary expertise in engineering to be making these kinds of pronouncements that go against the weight of the engineering community's commentary on this matter.

Partly because jetliners don't have a standard armament, and partly because no one else has commented on the flares (it's only visible for about three frames, and it's pretty small, I can see how millions of people could miss it on T.V.)



I misinterpreted what was said about the structure of the building. The guy was indeed talking about the concrete platters, not about some long running steal columns that I guess don't exist...



The top of the tower should have kept falling in the direction it was unless the entire tower's structure started to fail.



Yes, it is based solely on my judgement. I don't have a degree in any sort of engineering. But I do know that jet fuel doesn't burn that hot, that heat diffuses fairly quickly in steel, that much of the fuel from the jets spewed out the other side of the buildings, and that the steel and concrete would have to have been weakened a very considerable amount to fail.

Hodge...Remember they are always watching. You have made a good point. To present concrete reliable sources would make your post legimate and not a conspiracy theory. That...leads to danger.

So you believe that what we're seeing is a missile of some kind being fired from the plane?



This is merely your opinion. Other people who are qualified to comment disagree. It will only keep rotating as long as the structure immediately beneath that section acting as a hinge will permit it. Once it buckles, it will slow the rotation of the upper section and it will fall.

You're being very ad hoc now. For the buiding to collapse in the manner observed, there must have been a simultaneous failure of all the structure beneath the toppling section? Why not a failure only of the structure immediately beneath the toppling section?

So you're contending that there were a series of explosions all throughout the lower building at that point? Who rigged these explosives? The World Trade Center was a very busy place, how did they manage to wire the building up for demolition under everyone's noses?



How do you know that the fire would not have reached temperatures high enough to increase the plasticity of the steel truss members enough that they would fail under load, if you've already admitted that you have no engineering expertise? How do you know that heat diffuses very quickly in steel? What experience do you have working with steel? How are people able to cut steel with oxy-acetylene torches by melting the steel in very small areas if heat diffuses rapidly thoughtout the steel? This is simply a rehash of the claims of the unqualified Serendipity author.

The concrete is irrelevant in this case, no one is claiming that the concrete failed as direct result of heating from the resulting fires. Is this like in the other thread where you claimed to be an expert in observational astronomy with no experience in observing?