Clip from 9/11 Mysteries: Never before and never since 9/11 have buildings collapsed from fire.
July 6, 2010
9/11 Truth: Steel Buildings Don’t Collapse From Fire
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Clip from 9/11 Mysteries: Never before and never since 9/11 have buildings collapsed from fire.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Powered by WordPress
@Vampirodhampir “but the official report does not make since from an physics point of view” – right. an army of world-class scientists and engineers with CENTURIES of combined experience from places like MIT think the official report DOES make sense “from a physics point of view” but for some reason you think you know better.
why do you think you know better than an army of world-class scientists and engineers with CENTURIES of combined experience from places like MIT? care to explain that?
Comment by unclesamsnephew666 — July 6, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
@unclesamsnephew666
I don’t know if 9/11 was and inside job or not, but the official report does not make since from an physics point of view. The goverment needs to come out with a better explanation!
Comment by Vampirodhampir — July 6, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
hey asshole, guess what? discovery channel tested steel against fire and it melted. grow up and get a fucking life. maybe the other buildings didnt collapse because they had a better structure than twin towers, or fireman tackled the fires correctly? fucking assholes seriously believe 9/11 was an inside job? GROW UPPPPPP!!!
Comment by ryanwilliammac — July 6, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
TRUTHTARDS!! answer this: if fire can’t melt steel, why is fireproofing added to steel during construction?
first truthtard who answers correctly gets a cookie.
Comment by unclesamsnephew666 — July 6, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
@scorchedsound – it was also the first time an airplane was rammed into a skyscraper. didn’t think of that, did you truthtard. and two of the flight recorders were found. do more research, truthtard. “they used super thermite” – HAHAHAHA!!!! if only you had the slightest idea how stupid you are. ever check how much would be needed to do the job? of course you haven’t. after all, you’re an idiot.
Comment by unclesamsnephew666 — July 6, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
@MindCrazedBanjo
Of course it does. That isn’t in doubt.
Comment by katey1dog — July 6, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
@katey1dog Regarding Fireproofing. when fire regulations are brought in they apply to ALL buildings, some buildings only have wood and paper and plastics in them such as offices, other buildings may contain highly combustible materials in them such as petrol or other inflammable liquids or cannisters of flammable gas, the regulations are brought in with these buildings in mind but its just that they apply to ALL buildings
Comment by MindCrazedBanjo — July 6, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
Not only was it the first time a steel building was brought down by fire, it was the first 3!!! It was also the first time a flight recorder wasn’t recovered, but there were 4 not recovered! And The Pentagon has 100+ cameras overseeing the building and landscape, yet we are given 1 video of 5 frames showing nothing but an explosion. Something stinks. They used super thermite to take down the WTC towers along with demolition explosives. Why they would deny the use of thermite is fishy.
Comment by scorchedsound — July 6, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
911 was an inside job no doubt end of
Comment by wombweasel222 — July 6, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
@angelica2you,
Will do!, you too eh
Comment by dobberdoss — July 6, 2010 @ 9:30 pm
@dobberdoss It’s so sad that people are so blind.
They need to wake up.stupid elite people(goverment)!!
keep spreading the truth dobberdoss ..the people must hear the truth
Comment by angelica2you — July 6, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
@angelica2you
Not too mention the ‘law of averages’ on the chances of 2 planes bring 3 buildings completely down at close to freefall speed in 3 nice neat piles.! Chance of that happening 1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) to 1
Comment by dobberdoss — July 6, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
@dobberdoss TRUE
Comment by angelica2you — July 6, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
Your own government planned the whole thing, They want YOU dead! And you know what, it’s already being proven. European labs have found “nano thermite” in the dust sample taken from the towers. But you don’t hear about that do you?
Comment by dobberdoss — July 6, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
Did you ever think that the impact of the plane took out some steel supports dumbass?
Comment by mustangmikeca — July 6, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
How did the top section of the south tower convert from: falling at about a 22 degree angle in a complete block of 30 stories, into dust before it reached the ground? This can not be explained using the conservation of angular momentum as it should have fell to the ground in a huge chunk, not pulverized into microscopic dust. Once that section started to fall over the only force acting upon it, according to the “official story” is gravity which doesnt contain the kinetic energy to dustify it.
Comment by babybluesnowden — July 6, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Why do they fire proof steel?
Simple. Structural steel requires external insulation (fireproofing) in order to prevent the steel from weakening in the event of a fire.
Now, before you get anxious to beat me over the head with the aformentioned, remember: No building, before or after that day, has ever suffered a TOTAL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE due to a fire.
Fires previously had been known to seriously damage a building, but never comparable to demolition standards.
Comment by katey1dog — July 7, 2010 @ 12:23 am
Why do they fire proof steel?
Comment by hamace — July 7, 2010 @ 1:12 am
Ok smart asses, why do they protect steel beams with “Fire Protection”?
This whole debate is ridiculous. Its as dumb as saying Bush invaded Iraq to find WMDs.
Comment by hamace — July 7, 2010 @ 1:29 am
steel doesnt have to melt for structural failure to happen. if steel is heated to the temperature that fuel burns at it still loses a lot of its structural integrity. in the twin towers the towers’ support structure lost about half of its strength from the fires, which is more than enough to cause the buildings to collapse.
Comment by InBloom10 — July 7, 2010 @ 2:20 am
Also keep in mind, that after the first plane hit, many people never really knew what had happened, until the 2nd plane hit. Some thought it was a small aircraft. We lost thousands that day, please don’t let them die in vein because of a select few conspipacy theorists want their 15 minutes of fame. I really believe you’re smarter than that…
Comment by elitedentaltech — July 7, 2010 @ 3:00 am
I listened to recordings from WTC that will not be released to the public. The whole scene was chaos, radio communication was ineffective in a lot of instances. And according to one transmission, they could not get above the fire floor, and had no idea the extent of damage or fire involvement. Many didn’t hear the orders to evacuate, many continued up the stairs. A lot has changed in the way Emergency Services communicate since 9-11. Including newer radios, frequencies, and universal termonology
Comment by elitedentaltech — July 7, 2010 @ 3:24 am
I just searched for the idea of “burning smoke.”
Well, I doubt they have the capacity to destroy a building. But from what WIKIPEDIA can teach me about the topic is this.
Smoke maybe hot enough to burn something, but smoke does NOT catch fire. Nor does it have the propensity to catch fire.
Try again.
Comment by katey1dog — July 7, 2010 @ 3:54 am
The heat is almost instantaneous and it is just hot enough to singe or burn off the tips of stray hairs, but mostly damage is mild. The heat produced by the burning substance is rarely hot enough to burn the skin. Normally, in situations where smoke burns are possible, the heat and quantity of smoke needed are rarely produced.
Comment by katey1dog — July 7, 2010 @ 4:30 am
Smoke burns are burns that tend to be caused as a result of flash fires, both in house fires and in small chemical fires. These can be made to be more severe by a large presence of atmospheric humidity. These burns tend to occur at a temperature of about 121 °C / 250 °F.
Comment by katey1dog — July 7, 2010 @ 5:22 am