See other 9/11 Articles
Title: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
Source:
www.serendipity
URL Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm
Published: Oct 22, 2006
Author: anonymous Finn
Post Date: 2006-10-22 12:30:26 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 2827
Comments: 275
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped. The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards. Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen. In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave). More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations. As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins. Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally. In the upper picture the explosion is in theory 100 times stronger than in the picture below, but in practice the difference is only four times due to the capability of direction of the small hydrogen bomb. In the picture at the right, the brown shades caused by a hydrogen bomb are seen, while the top of the tower that is already collapsing is breaking down and the posture straightens up as the hydrogen bomb pulverized the core and it lost all its resistance. The piles point the blasts of the cutting charges. (Gehue plate 12) Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods. For comparison, pictures of subterranean nuclear explosions where the explosion is blasting onto surface and into the air: Ess1.2 Kt WTC 2 Banberry 10 Kt underground Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.) This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA. Poster Comment: For the rest of this: Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Written in spring 2005, a modestly language-corrected version Corrected by another person than the original author. The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them. Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous. And a glance at some of what he's fighting for (to keep it fair and balanced): 
Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground
Steel pillars are turned into dust. 
The author has chosen to remain anonymous so I'll post this photo of a Finnish soldier. Why? Well because I like looking at Finns, even with green faces.
/9_11/$FILE/9_11.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 180.
#1. To: robin (#0)
Uhhhhhhhhhh...
Hey, he might be. What do you find wrong with his conclusions? BTW, there are other links I listed above the silly photos.
Uhhhhhhhhh.
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
Well, Uhhhh is about the most intelligent offering I have. I failed structural engineering but I do not buy that there was extensive termite damage. I could have just given you a ping but there is no humor in that.
Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics. Have you viewed any of the 9/11 videos?
Have you viewed any of the 9/11 videos? Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics. Here I am trying to be helpful and am chastised for my effort. I believe NOTHING the government tells me but I did do rather well in physics. For instance, the law of gravity as discerned by Sir Isaac ruled at 9/11. Videos??? Many.. Have listened to endless "experts" from all sides of the argument. When anyone finally drags some poor soul in front of the cameras and he says, "I did it", I will be eager to listen.
Okay, so what do you believe, if you don't believe the govt and you did well in physics? Let's just take the speed at which the buildings fell. Well documented from a variety of sources. I mean no disrespect, I hope you know that. BTW, there are a few new 9/11 videos that are better at explaining this than others. If you should want those links, I can post them.
What do I believe??? I saw what others saw. Aircraft hit the towers, resulting in a breaching of structural integrity, the law of gravity took over and down they came. One structural engineer posed the following question. "Considering that the buildings fell very nearly within their own footprints, why would anyone intent on destruction and slaughter be so careful, why not arrange to have the building topple so as to kill thousands more and cause widespread destruction"... There was no rebuttal.
I believe the belief in impossible conspiracies is a poison, one that will damage people for the rest of their lives. I know people out there who have been obsessed for almost 45 years over the Kennedy murder. So what if they prove there were three shooters, or his own driver shot him? What will they live for after that? What kind of life is that?
What kind of life is there in swallowing everything the govt tells you, without question? What kind of life is there for someone to deny the Laws of Physics because the govt tells them they don't matter anymore? That what they saw is not what they saw on 9/11? To paraphrase Burkeman1 this morning, If Tony Snow got up and said the sun now rises in the west and sets in the east, there are people who would just accept it.
What kind of life is there for someone to deny the Laws of Physics because the govt tells them they don't matter anymore? I don't believe anything the government tells me. You have used "the Laws of Physics" so often, and capitalized it every time, that it is clear to me you know nothing about them.
Are you of the "wet noodle" theory that Destro holds to? http://srikant.org/core/phy11sep.html Laws of Physics : A Primer Belal E. Baaquie Core Curriculum National University of Singapore (corbeb@nus.edu.sg)
I was raised in a steel mill town and understand steel a lot better then you do. Heat doesn't turn steel into wet noodles. It just weakens it. I'll give you another hint as to what happened. Steel joints in buildings aren't welded; they're riveted. And those joints pop loose. I've seen medium-sized tornadoes bend steel I-beams and pop the joints loose. Wind, not 20 tons of flying metal, going over 300 mph, loaded with over 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
According to one of the design engineers of the towers, their joints were both bolted AND welded together - those buildings were engineered to take two hits, simultaneously, from the largest civilian plane of the day, Boeing 707's.
Stop trying to confuse him with the facts or the "Laws of Physics". lol. He's good for a laugh and an insight into a shill, but he's not intelligent enough for a good waste of time.
It would not matter - just 400-500 degrees F would reduce the strength of steel by half. "Laws of Physics".
In your world they would, but not in reality.
It is my world - I work for a steel beam maker.
Well then, hush my mouth. All those qualifications and I'm arguing. Who do I think I am?
Not a case of who you are - but where do you get the notion that you can say the heat of a fire at such and such degrees does not weaken steel? It is a fact that around 500degrees C steel loses a majority of its strength. This was denied. I call out the person - where is your cred to say such a thing?
#68. To: angle, lodwick (#66) It would not matter - just 400-500 degrees F would reduce the strength of steel by half. Now you say: It is a fact that around 500degrees C steel loses a majority of its strength. You're a lousy shill, but in case there may be one person out there considering that you may have any credibility, this post's for them.
Excuse me for mistyping F when I should have written C - in any case you tell me at what temperature steel loses strength in? Can you tell me a temperature by temperature analysis of the lowering of steel strength till failure?
You're the one trying to discredit the fact that the towers were demo'ed. The onus is on you, shill.
#184. To: angle (#180)
You are nothing but a CIA/MI6/NATO ball licker.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestView of a Military Expert:
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: robin (#2)
What do you find wrong with his conclusions?
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
#5. To: robin (#4)
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
#7. To: robin (#6)
Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics.
#9. To: Cynicom (#7)
#12. To: robin (#9)
Okay, so what do you believe, if you don't believe the govt and you did well in physics?
#14. To: Cynicom (#12)
I saw what others saw. Aircraft hit the towers, resulting in a breaching of structural integrity, the law of gravity took over and down they came.
#20. To: YertleTurtle, Burkeman1 (#14)
#39. To: robin (#20)
(Edited)
What kind of life is there in swallowing everything the govt tells you, without question?
#40. To: YertleTurtle (#39)
(Edited)
#41. To: robin (#40)
(Edited)
Are you of the "wet noodle" theory that Destro holds to?
#44. To: YertleTurtle (#41)
Steel joints in buildings aren't welded; they're riveted. And those joints pop loose.
#66. To: lodwick (#44)
their joints were both bolted AND welded together
#68. To: angle, lodwick (#66)
their joints were both bolted AND welded together
#103. To: Destro (#68)
It would not matter - just 400-500 degrees F would reduce the strength of steel by half.
#110. To: RickyJ (#103)
In your world they would, but not in reality.
#156. To: Destro (#110)
I work for a steel beam maker.
#158. To: angle (#156)
Well then, hush my mouth. All those qualifications and I'm arguing. Who do I think I am?
#161. To: Destro (#158)
First you say:
#169. To: angle (#161)
First you say:
#180. To: Destro (#169)
Can you tell me a temperature by temperature analysis
Replies to Comment # 180. You're the one trying to discredit the fact that the towers were demo'ed. The onus is on you, shill.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 180.