During 9-11-2001 as you watched the twin towers&building7 fall did you think it was possible for fire to ?

bring them all down into piles of dust and molten liquid metal?

In the 1990,s the CIA was loss lipped as they attended hollywood writers party's and where advisers on a few shows Files LONE GUNMAN and others,,,,,,if you want to still believe the GOV lies they sold you on about 9-11-2001 do not watch this video,,,,,if you do watch the video take note to the details http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpTuOpnt70

Youtube thumbnail

11 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I never watched building 7 collpase on 9/11. I had to wait 9 years before I stumbled across some YouTube footage of building 7 collapsing. EVERY TV station had it's programmes cancelled and replace with coverage of the attacks on 9/11, yet NONE of this coverage mentioned or showed buliding 7.


    Let's do some thermodynamics!

    enthalpy of combustion of aviation fuel = 43.5 MJ/kg

    90,000 litres of aviation fuel

    density of fuel = 0.8 kg/l

    72 tons of aviation fuel MAXIMUM

    Total heat of combustion = 72,000 x 43.5 = 3,132,000 MJ

    Specific heat capacity of steel = 420 J/kg C

    100,000 TONS of steel

    change in Temperature = 3,132,000 x 1,000,000 / (420 x 100,000 x 1,000)

    = 74.6 Celsius

    This is a massive OVERESTIMATE.

    It does NOT take into account:

    1. all the glass and aluminium acting as an additional massive heat sink.

    2. massive heat dissipation into the atmosphere by convection.

    3. very inefficient combustion of the fuel.

    4. MOST of the fuel combusted outside of the building in the initial impact.

    It OVERESTIMATES the quantity of aviation fuel.



    CLEARLY the theory that aviation fuel caused the steel to melt is DISPROVEN.

    Perhaps it was all that THERMITE that they painted on to the steel girders?

    The workers employed to clear up the evidence reported that the steel was MELTED.

    I think the buildings collapsed after burning for about 1 hour. The vast majority of the fuel would have combusted after about 2 minutes. Maximum localised heating would have occured after about 5 minutes. Any failure SHOULD have occured, locally, after 5 minutes. After 5 minutes, the heat simply conducts into the 100,000 tons of steel. Heat conduction takes TIME. It is a process that is driven by the difference in temperature and the thermal diffusivity of the conducting material. (Thermal diffusivity is a construct of thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity. Thermal conductivity only really applies under steady state conditions. What happened to the twin towers was "dynamic" NOT "steady state".) The vast majority of the fuel combusted so fast that the local, exposed steel would barely have any TIME to conduct any of that heat. Do a proper Finite Element Analysis. There's NO logical explanation for the building collapsing after 1 hour and not something like 5 minutes. If it was structural timber it might have collapsed after 1 hour, but it wasn't timber!

    After 2 minutes, most of the burning would probably be from furniture (wood or plastic?) and plastics (carpets?). At any rate, some of that plastic might have been PVC? PVC is kinda self extinguishing. It emits Cl2 which hinders burning. It kinda smoulders rather than "burns". There was thick black smoke coming from the fire. That means lots of soot or non combusted carbon. That means the carbon never had enough TIME and Oxygen to burn. It was a very INEFFICIENT fire.

    I even find it unlikely that the steel would suffer catastrophic failure on heating. The strength of the steel would not change much. It might suffer some mild deformation but that's about it. The mild deformation would be local and NOT global. Steel has a mainly crystalline structure that only really changes when it melts. It does NOT behave like a viscoelastic plastic. The Ultimate Tensile Strength of the steel actually INCREASES between 150 - 350C. The UTS is the one that matters NOT the Yield Strength.

    http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/bsi/87-fire-... (bottom 1/4 of the page)


    I think it is entirely plausible that the CIA, or any other intelligence organisation, would want to blur the line between fact and fiction. Planting some of their plans in Hollywood movies would do that. It would make "plausible deniability" easier. Think about it, the news containing fiction and the movies containing facts! It becomes so much easier to hide the facts when you mix them up with Hollywood movies.

    I think it also kinda habituates our subconscious to what the CIA is up to. It kinda makes us feel more helpless and more resigned to what is happening to us - subconsciously!

    Source(s): BSc Hons in Chemistry and BEng Hons in Mechanical Engineering and NOT about to fall for some ridiculous, FAKE science coming from the government.
  • 1 decade ago

    Um...you're getting your information from a Hollywood movie? So you don't buy the reports by the 9-11 Commission and countless other government organizations but some stoned Hollywood writer comes up with a good script and you believe it 100%? Wow.

    You probably believe Oliver Stone over the Warren Commission too. Still looking for the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll? LOL.

  • 1 decade ago

    OMG Dude!! look I can come up with a conspiracy theory in the makings of a ham sandwich if I wanted too.Are you ever going to stop with this crap? I mean every year this crap comes out and every year less of the crap you were spouting follows you,ever wonder why?,its cause it gets dis-proven debunked,and I don,t buy this crap at all let me tell you one word why....HOLLYWOOD! nuff said,

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    no but it think they have plans to put up a huge hi tech building as a memorial in the future on one of the wts sites

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

    At the time, I surely did not think that some many nutjobs would use the tragedy to make up asinine conspiracy theories.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    All the buildings were brought down by conspiracy theorists who were running out of cottage industries.

    Source(s): You know who my sources are....
  • 1 decade ago

    And everything posted on the web is 100% accurate too.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The only thing I thought is that I wanted those responsible dead.

  • rrm38
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Yes. It wasn't just fire. It was hundreds of gallons of jet fuel as well.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.