I have some questions about 9/11 which have never been answered...?

Please only serious replies, because these are serious question which have never been answered by anyone, and most of all the 9/11 commission.

I would sincerely like to know WHY there was molten steel found in the BASEMENT of the twin towers weeks after they fell.

I also want to know how there was NO toppling from EITHER of the structures falling between a half hour to an hour from each other, they are extremely tall and should have buckled. Structures that have been DAMAGED and continue to fall, fall sideways from point of destruction..NOT STRAIT DOWN...Oh, and there HAVE been studies done PRIOR to the towers going up and the steel which they used melted at TWICE the burning rate of the jet fuel, which debunks the "Popular Mechanics" article.

Another point is WHY are their precise 45 degree cuts made into the steel that you can see in pictures of the rubble of the twin towers?

The most important one is WHY a building no where in the close vicinity of the towers was "Pulled?"

Update:

Art psycho...thank you for NOT answering the questions that I posted.

Update 2:

I love how people automatically call people names and refuse to answer the questions which have been asked. You DO know that this is against Yahoo Answer Community guidelines, do you not?

Update 3:

Jeeper...The WTC were made out of 100% STEEL...not aluminum like you stated.

Update 4:

You do realize calling people names is specifically against Yahoo Answer Community Guidelines, not only that, but it is rude?

20 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You seem like a person who really wants to know the truth about what happened on 9/11 and can handle the details necessary to get the job done. It is complex, but their is plenty of incriminating evidence available for those who can muster the stomach and courage to look at it. The following is a summary of some Internet research I conducted a few months ago. The questions only begin with the WTC buildings, there are many more discrepancies in the Pentagon attack as well as the Flight 93 crash. The who and the whys are even more incredible to research: It's as if we have been living in the "Twilight Zone" and are just beginning to realize it.

    ______________________________...

    WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS

    The World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition after being attacked by aircraft. The only evidence our government provided that Osama confessed to the crime is fake. Most every video, taken of the towers, show explosive squibs just before the towers imploded. Traces of the explosive "Thermate" was also found at ground zero. Need proof of this, see the evidence at:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhFJ1...

    PENTAGON

    There is also strong evidence to support a Douglas A-3 Skywarrior armed with a missile hit the Pentagon. Witnesses say, the U.S. military secretly had Raytheon Co. refit an A-3 Skywarrior with new jet engines, a missile, and a Global Hawk guidance system, just prior to 9/11. Both the jet engine housing as well as a "front end rotor head", found at the crash site, have been identified as belonging to a Pratt & Whitney JT8D jet engine; supporting the witnesses claim. This engine does not fit the commercial Boeing 757 that is said to have hit the Pentagon.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnSrg...

    FLIGHT 93

    United Airlines Flight 93 did not crash as a result of a struggle between the passengers and the alleged hijackers, but in fact was shot down by the North Dakota Air Guards flying F-16's. On orders from Adjutant General Mike Haugen of the State of North Dakota and in opposition to V.P. Cheney's stand down orders, Major Rick Gibney spotted the airline flying by remote control, headed toward Washington D.C. and shot it down. This is why debris, including human remains, rained on areas several miles away from the Shanksville, PA crash site.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhKmC...

  • 1 decade ago

    Structures do not fall side ways. That would be going against the law of gravity. First of all take into account the speeds the plane were flying? Second when a building collapses the weight of each floor adds up to its total weight causing rapid acceleration toward the ground. Also the WTC had a inner core design. By clustering steel columns and beams in the skyscraper's core, engineers create a stiff backbone that can resist tremendous wind forces. The inner core is used as an elevator shaft, and the design allows lots of open space on each floor. The force provided by the wind is resisted by the inner core bringing back the building to its initial position. Therefore even if the building was damaged by the impact of the plane the inner core would not allow the building to sway like you said.

    Also are you saying this is a conspiracy? Who could be behind this? A conspiracy theory for 9/11 was put forward by Muslim in the begining, This would be equivalent of saying Holocaust never occurred.

    Source(s): Civil Engineering student.
  • 1 decade ago

    For you information it's made of 100% steel don't think so. As stated the facade is 100% aluminum the facade is what holds the doors and all the windows. Plus all the offices are framed in wood. Do you wonder where the heat came from? How hot do you think that fire was? Ya I know steel melts at about 2500 degrees molten does not mean melted. Anywhere between 1500 degrees and up it become malleable.

    So now you look at the videos you will see smoke pouring out at the top the building has become a flue. If you know anything about your fireplace if you open the flue the fire gets hotter. Cold air in at the bottom and the heat just sucks in and it up. That’s why you see signs on the emergency doors that tell you to keep them closed. But the stairwell is wide open and acts just like a flue. That fire was hot.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well actually, what melted steel ?

    There were some reports of molten metal found, but since the airliner and the entire fascade of the WTC was made out of aluminium which has a much lower melting point.

    Actually if you watch the vidoes, you will see the top of the buildings, the ponts above where the airliners hit.

    Collapse and fall on top of the rest of the bulding.

    Steel doesn't have to melt to loose its structural strength.

    As to why the pictures of steel beams cut at 45 degree angles.

    That is where the rescue crews and later clean up crews cut remaining beams to remove them. There are plenty of pictures showing welding crews making those cuts.

    WTC was damaged by falling debris from wtc 2, the WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall straight down as you said above.

    WTC 5 was completely wiped out by the falling wtc 2.

    wtc 7 was across the street from wtc 5 and was heavly damaged. In fact the rods on both sides of wtc 7, were completely filled with rubble from wtc 2.

    But it doesn't matter what i say, you will believe what you believe, no matter what the evidence says.

    Just look at all the people who try and say the pentagon wasn't hit by an airliner.

    When there are hundreds of witness's who saw the airliner hit the building, along with 500 or so DC police officers and firemen who say an airliner hit the building.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    First off, I will debunk the conspiracy theories with one simple observation. The fact that the teenager's who made 'loose change' are alive and have not been silenced by our government before they released their video is proof that the government had nothing to do with it. If it was our government's fault, these teens would have been killed or paid off before they could have released the video (and considering that the government can simultaneously listen to every phone call made in the US and record them based on 'trigger words', i doubt that the teens could have kept it that much of a secret).

    To answer your question on why they fell straight down, the towers were contructed differently than a normal skyscraper in that the support system was put on the outside of the building rather than the interior (this was done for cost-effectiveness). The planes themselves did not cause this, the heat from the jet fuel did. The heat was on the interior of the building, weakening the steel. The steel loses 50% of its integrity at 648 degrees Celsius while jet fuel burns at 825 degrees Celsius, more than enough to cause the collapse. As the support was weakened from the inside and the entire support system was on the outside, the towers fell straight down rather than the usual pattern.

    Those aren't precise 45 degree angle cuts, they just appear that way.

    I was not aware that another building a good distance away was 'pulled', and I can't seem to find any references to it other than your's.

    When the rubble fell downward, all of that heat was packed into one area (the ground) thereby creating large amounts of heat and possibly melting the steel (not to mention all the other burnable material in the building was also in that tight spot).

    If you still think its a conspiracy theory, follow the link below.

  • 1 decade ago

    Let's see... Since I have some answers for you I'll try to get this in order.

    1) Molten Steel...you know the jet fuel ignited and burned right? You know the fire was burning even after the collapse and fed on itself for weeks, melting everything inside until it finally collapsed in and cut off the oxygen supply, and is known as smoldering.

    2) contrary to whatever you may have heard, an object in motion continues to stay in motion until acted on by an outside source. Gravity pulls down. Towers damaged in the middle or even off center do NOT fall sideways, unless the wind is stronger than the weight of the tower. Sorry- not much wind that day.

    3) Steel girders are installed at 90 degree and 45 degree angles for extra strength, and if you look again, you'll see both types still together and both types that have come apart.

    4) Other towers went down from the siesmic activity of the immediate area which made the smaller building unsafe in a seismic line from point of impact.

    Please-give up the conspiracy talk. It not only makes people look silly, it dishonors every soldier overseas, and stains the memory of the people who died.

    Now you can't say they've never been answered.

    Jim

  • 1 decade ago

    Anybody capable of rational thought should be able to realize a few things about the collapse of the twin towers:

    1. Structures that tall should have toppled over from an impact at their tops. The only way tall buildings could collapse straight down into their own basement is through controlled demolition.

    2. As you point out, the melting point of steel is well above that of the burning temp of jet fuel. It has to be this way or jet engines would melt in flight. There is no way burning jet fuel can melt structural steel.

    3. No high rise buildings in history have collapsed from fire other than the twin towers, even though some high rise fires have burned for 18 hours or more and the twin towers only burned for 90 minutes.

    4. Building six collapsed in exactly the same manner as the towers and it was never touched by any impact.

    These issues are obvious to anyone that isn't programmed by unfounded patriotism and the mass media.

  • 4 years ago

    II stumbled on your pointless ranting and shorthand very stressful. you're for sure yet another insane conspiracy theorist who won't be in a position to settle for that there are some issues that the government won't be in a position to let us know, and that there are extremely people against the US.those small explosions have been planted by terrorists. it is not like the government reported, "hey, enable's pay Bin laden to explode the twin Towers, kill hundreds of people, and then kill a team of alternative people for oil! that could be a suited plan!" particular, we mandatory oil. yet do you quite think of that oil is worth greater effective than the life of a human? the government may well be idiotic at circumstances, yet they are nevertheless people. they could in no way morally do this. You, like each the different conspiracy theorists, heavily sound such as you're 12 here. improve up.

  • I don't know about a lot of that stuff, but buildings don't fall sideways!

    Skyscrapers are constructed of gazillions of tons of material. When their structural integrity is compromised, physics and gravity dictate what will happen next - those gazillions of tons of material fall toward the Earth - straight down. The only way that much weight could topple over sideways in such an incident is if the jolly green giant were leaning against the structure with all his might.

  • 1 decade ago

    you'll never find those answers in the 9/11 commission, and we will probably never no the complete truth. those towers should have collapsed by tipping, not straight down. i think maybe a combination of the jet fuel and possibly some explosives may have been planted in the buildings. obviously there were terrorists in the planes, but whose to say there may have been some in the buildings that planted explosives.

    As far as why tower 7 collapsed, that's the biggest mystery. I wish i find the answers to that one day.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.