HOW HOT DID THE JET FUEL HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? : Hawai'i IMC

Mad Max
by Would some kind soul check the calculations. Friday, Jul. 18, 2003 at 10:54 PM

Would some kind soul check the calculations. THANKS.

This is like a grad student engineer "proving" through calculations that bees can't actually fly.

The steel didn't have to melt. All that had to happen is for the steel floor trusses to heat up, expand, and buckle. They were held to the central concrete elevator core by 2- 5/8" bolts at each end per truss. Not much when you are talking about the impact of jet airliner which blew much of the fireproofing off the steel.
Once the floor trusses started to buckle and individual sections of the floor gave way, it was only a matter of time. The outer columns effectively got longer and longer as the support at the floors was removed.

I really think that you people who buy into this anti-Jewish conspiracy crap ought to see a doctor. You have a piece of your soul missing- not to mention most of your brain.

Hey at least he has a soul. You are soulless robot, spewing hatred and lies.

Mad Max
by jbusch: You FREAK, you MORON, you uneducated Saturday, Jul. 19, 2003 at 4:14 PM

They were held to the central concrete elevator core by 2-5/8" bolts at each end per truss.

I laugh at your stupidity. Do you really believe that the floors were held up by

Truly, I laugh at your stupidity. Do you believe in any other absurdities (like Santa Claus and Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer).

apparrently the poster above does, jbusch, does that answer your question?

jbusch
by Oh, my questions have been answered Saturday, Aug. 02, 2003 at 11:45 AM

No doubt, somedude.
I have watched this "debate" and posted to in more times than it warrants. The pieces of human slime who post this crap in the hope of propagandizing Indy readers into believing that the JEWS and their own Government killed thousands of innocent New Yorkers for Israel is the single worst conspiracy theory I have ever seen. The pornographic idiocy they spew is beneath contempt, or comment.

Everytime I visit this disgusting site, I feel like I am lansing a boil. I need a shower. You anti-semitic dung piles can go strait to your own personal hell.

JB -- Jews did 911. End of story.

Yes, I know, the Jews are descended from monkeys, and are the children of Satan. I have heard it all on extremist Right wing websites similar to this one. All you cloistered self-loathing miscreants seem to come to the same conclusions.

I know it makes you lefties feel better to atribute everythign you don't like to "rightists", but this is an anti-jew conspiracy theory...nothing to do with political ideology. Made still more ridiculous by the overwhelming support from conservatives for Israel etc etc.

Forget the pure physics.

How did so much jet fuel manage to stay in the one spot for so long when it's way, way up in the air in a building now full of holes as well as lift shafts, stairwells and broken windows??

Once most of the the fuel was burnt off in the initial impact and rupture of fuel tanks, the rest would have complied with the laws of gravity leaving paper, carpet, desks, etc... to burn. Not hot enough to melt steel sorry.....

This is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel.

I think it is intriguing that JBusch did not reply to Mad Max's observations. It is also intriguing to me that the discussion started with what at least appears to be a very dispassionate, technical, thorough theoretical accounting of what happened; yet the comments degenerate into name calling. I can understand why a Jewish person would get nervous about "conspiracy talk" considering that the idea of an "International Jewish Conspiracy" is prevalent among hate groups. The comment "Jews did it. Period" seems unhelpful, and, again, a long way from the considered article that starts the discussion. Perhaps there were Jews or Israelis involved -- that's a far cry from saying Jews collectively did it. JBusch, I think you are just as hysterical -- calling anyone who questions the official story Nazis, or whatever. There's more to life than Nazi's and Jews. I'm skeptical of the "tresses buckling" theory. It is an explanation. But it seems to me it does not account for how the explosion looks on all the videos. There does not appear to me to be any "buckling" involved. On the contrary, it is a smooth, controlled motion, spewing huge clouds of dust. Where are the slabs or pieces of slabs? It seems to me beyond dispute that the main supports of the building were NOT the tresses, but the inner steel rods. It also seems beyond dispute that the melting point of steel simply was not reached. From what I can gather, jet fuel does not produce the temperature required to liquefy those thick, inner steel rods, at least not to the extent that would cause the kind of collapse that is obvious on the video. JBusch, I think you are in denial. A significant ontological shock is caused by hard evidence that such a destructive event could be caused by people in goverment (USA, Israeli, British, or whatever). The shock is made even worse by the monolithic press position on this. How could it be?--we are left to wonder. Denial is a perfect natural response to this. I just happen to be of the opinion that denial is dangerous, and could lead to seriously negative consequences.

If you accept the fact that
the jet fuel alone was not of
sufficient temperature, then
other, higher temperature,
explosives would have to be
planted in the buildings.
I'm sure that the Saudis and
the Israeli Mossad would
help with the operation, if
they were strongly requested.

this is for you jbusch ... ok if all it took was the plane to crash into the WTC to make them fall and not the fire then WHY DID TOWER 7 FALL ? no plane hit it but there was a small fire in it and it was no where near as big as the WTC fire's and the steel beams in TOWER 7 was some of the strongest in the world .. and they wasnt the steel T beams they were THICK !! When Tower 7 fell, it caved in from the roof but there was no fire on the roof .. thats strange ... and it collapsed so clean just like if they blow it up ..hhmmmm .... A STEEL STRUCTURED BUILDING HAS NEVER COLLAPSED FROM A FIRE !!

Hi, the original temperature calculations in this article seem to be based on some flawed assumptions. The main one being that the whole floor was heated to a uniform temperature. Within the area where fires were burning, there would have been wide variations in temperature. Within the flames there would certainly be temperatures in excess of 600 C and probably localised temperatures around 1000 C or more. Bear in mind that even a candle will produce temperatures in excess of 1000 C and will make a steel wire glow red.
Within the steel structure also there will have been large variations in temperature. When welding, the flame only heats a local area to the melting point. Thermal mass and the resistance to heat flow allow the surrounding metal to have a temperature that decreases with distance from the flame.

In the structures of the twin towers, it would not have been necessary for the temperatures to have reached melting point or anywhere near it. In a structure loaded in compression, like the towers, the way that failure happens is by buckling. Due to the impact damage to many columns and some floors, the building would have been seriously weakened causing the remaining columns to carry a much greater load, particularly those closest to the ones damaged by impact. It is these neighbouring columns which would also have been closer to fires.

All in all, the aircraft collisions and sebsequent fires are a pretty reasonable explanation for the collapse of the twin towers.

RB

I think you hit a nerve with this guy. Probobly because you're so dead on right. He sounds pretty schrill to me. He's sure contradictory in reference to his "kind soul" retoric. Who ever he's speaking of is certainly not himself. Now watch, he'll call me names, too just because his propaganda doesn't cut the mustard with some of us.

Well... while i don't agree with this completely, i'm not gonna bash it at all. I think you definitely took a lot of big assumptions with your calculations, but i can't refute them.

Still, i must congratulate you on going through so much work.

I know this is 2 years late, but i found it while searching.

Well, the steel wouldn't have to become "molten to be weak enough to collapse. What the article demonstrates is the the fire under the most perfect conditions, doesn't even come close to the point at which steel (in general) loses half its strength. Now couple that with the knowledge that when megastructures such as the WTC are engineered to withstand forces from 3x upwards to 10x as great as they would encounter in the real world, and then the official explanation for the collapse=impossible

Skeptic
by Conspiracies don't usually work. Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 10:13 AM

Interesting analysis. Would't get you into graduate engineering school however, at least not a good one. The problem is more mechanical engineering in nature, the planes knocked out key supports, forcing the tower loads to be redistributed. The heat from the jet fuel, which you incorrectly assumed would be perfectly distributed on all the steel in the floor would easily force enough softening on enough of the remaining supports that the building would collapse. They might have even collapsed without the fire, given the way the truss structure was designed.

I don't get the whole conspiracy thing here. People saw the planes hit the buildings, later the buildings fell. I knew someone in one of the planes and they most certainly weren't a part of a grand international conspiracy. And if the government can't keep secrets like illegal wiretapping, they certainly couldn't keep a conspiracy at this level a secret where thousands of peope were killed.

Get a life!

If you actually believe any of the stories that the government would have you believe, then I have a bridge to sell you. Watch "loose change" and if you still aren't a believer that it was all a government plot, then you are truly a "sheep".

Sure, the temperature wouldn't have been uniform on that floor, as some are arguing. But bear in mind it wasn't just one floor! It was over 4 or 5 floors!

Anyway, even if all that were true, try watching the video "loose change" which clearly shows explosions occuring BELOW the fall wave (the cloud that was engulfing the tower as it fell) throughout the building.

IE - a demolition setup. I'm sorry people, but there is a LOT of shit that goes on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of.

But, don't take my word for it, again, watch the damn video. There's almost an hour and a half of evidence that CANNOT be argued with.

I'm not sure of assumptions, I'm not sure that concrete can be heated in the little time the fire burned and concrete was the key of the calculation.

And you can't answer to doubt about uniform heat talking about the numbers of floors involved, because you will lose the precision you need.

I tend to think that terrorists (whoever they are) put explosives in WTC 1 & 2 before 9/11, but I don't find evidence in this calculation.

(I apologize if my english was uncorrect)

the problem with your analysis - any mathematical errors aside, is that it is based entirely on thermodynamics, without any consideration to physical transport of energy. very, very strong temperature gradients would have existed, centered about the center of the fire.

a little learning is a dangerous thing - learn where, when, and how to apply science before drawing conclusions based on it. every scientific disciplne has limitations and an appropriate scope of application.

Yes, a lot of things do go on behind the scenes. Especially in a falling building.

You ridiculous jackass . . . what you are calling 'explosions' below, are the floor supports being traumatized by the weight coming down on them. With every floors failure above, the weight gets dropped on the floor below. Within very little time, the weight and kinetic energy becomes so unbearable, that the supports are blown apart like tinker toys under a human foot. Naive idiots . . .

Am I the only person in the world who realizes that controlled demolitions don't start in the middle of buildings? The 'control' comes into it because it is CONTROLLED by explosions at the base which CONTROL the center of balance and tipping of the building.

For anyone who says that their 'evidence cannot be argued with', believes that because they don't read more than the surface explanations for any one aspect of this entire tragedy.

Dumbasses . . .

Most of the people on this site are just so amazingly... stupid. That's the only way I can put it. Jews "did" 9/11? I highly doubt that Jews would attack the World Trade Centers. If you didn't know, Jews worship the Christian God. The same God that tells people not to be violent. You act like they are worshiping the devil. I also saw someone say that they are evolved from monkeys. WOW. That's just so amazing. I never knew someone could be so stupid. God created us all as equals. If you still think that Jews should rot in hell because of their religious beliefs, than you will basically find yourself rotting in hell. Not to be disrespectful, but it's true. I think you should try and study up on the Jews before you chose to dis them.

Have you every been in a real fire in a real building? Do you have a degree in Fire science? Why don't you put your "Equations" to the test and tell me just how hot a standard 1 floor home will get from just one (1) gallon of gasoline and about 30 minutes to burn. Assume what ever you want about other contents, structural components etc. If you get a number less than 600C then I will tell you that you are way out to lunch. Why don't you learn a little something about a subject before you spout off your mouth. The Towers got much of their structural strength from the exterior steel components that were obliterated by the plane flying into them. Also, the "insulation" (asbestos) of the steel frames etc. did not go up past about the 60th floor, instead a much inferior substance was used that would have been blasted off during the initial impact. Lastly, it is common construction for steel fram buildings, such as the towers, to use a "floating floor' system, in essence, each floor is bolted to the uprights to allow for swing and sway in high winds. Get a clue Engineer and quit taking out of your textbook that doesn't apply here. See the URL for more info. Good luck and God Bless!

I'm not an engineer, and don't particularly like math. I do, however, like logical, reasoned thought.

It is logical and reasonable to presume that 2 huge airliners with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on board, slamming at incredible speeds into the the Twin Towers could cause one story of the buildings, perhaps one part of one story to collapse, bringing down the entire structures. literally like a house of cards.

I watched the "Loose Change" video and I'm still unconvinced that there was any great "conspiracy".

As far as the "pools of liquified steel" that the firefighters found in the collapsed structure, try this experiment. Put your hands together and rub them real hard. Feel the heat. Now imagine half a million tons of steel and concrete collapsing in on itself. It is reasonable to think that that would generate such an intense heat to liquify steel.

Read the articles about the details of ValuJet Flight 592 crashing into limestone nearly vertically and how intense the crash was and how the plane "disintegrated" on impact.

As far as eyewitnesses go, ask any police officer how widely eyewitness accounts of anything can vary. How many shots were fired? What did the person look like? Ask 10 people you get 5 different answers.

One thing in the "Loose Change" video that did seem irrefutable. How did a paper passport survive such a crash? Sounds like the JFK conspiracy theorists "magic bullet" found intact on a gurney. It just deosn't make sense.

I found the rest of the video to be anecdotal, self conflicting, and coincidental.

Finally, the anti-simitic remarks on this page are so ignorant as to be laughable if they weren't so ugly and full of hate.

9/11 was a malevolent ruse with government complicity at the highest levels - the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, but the devil deals his hand and it is deceit. The truth is so frightening that we would rather coddle a flimsy excuse and let people die than to defy the mighty empire - the collapse was NOT spontaneous, it was a controlled demolition.

- reopen911.org
(V)

Now that 9/11 got us into Iraq, what exactly are we looking for over there? We have been searching that part of the world for something that truely threatens us, more then Sadam. What is it that the U.S. is looking for, and way is it taking this much time to find it. Must continue to mask the fact and pretend that we are at war. which only serves us as a way to continue searching for what we are looking for. maybe a true zero point engergy device........

Je suis professeur de mathématiques et possède un deug de sciences physiques. Ces calculs me semblent corrects et j'étais parvenu moi-meme à des résultats voisins. La seule objection est que la chaleur a pu se concentrer en certains points privilégiés mais cela contredit le fait d'un effondrement symétrique. Il ne faut pas oublier en outre que les colonnes extérieures, régulièrement espacées et exposées en plein air ont la structure idéale pour former un gigantesque radiateur capable de diffuser d'importantes quantités de chaleur dans l'air ambiant. Enfin, quand bien même les structures centrales auraient cédé du fait de l'incendie, il est invraisemblable que les quelques trois cent mètres d'acier renforcé et sain qui se trouvaient aux étages inférieurs aient pu se volatiliser aussi régulièrement et aussi rapidement d'autant qu'ils étaient soumis à un effort en compression!

Ok, on the surface the official story seems plausible however ponder on this. Jet fuel or as my brother who is a port authority officer calls it, "Jet A" (http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html) is a kerosene based fuel that "flash burns" meaning that once it ignites it converts into a gas and burns off very quickly. It does not continuously burn like solid materials burn since the liquid depletes a source very quickly unlike solids. This is why the fire balls that exploded when the planes impacted only lasted a few seconds. The only way this fuel continues to burn with flame is when it is continually and proportionally fed with a fuel source and along with that there must be a balanced ratio of oxygen feed to keep it burning efficiently. This is what is required (by specs) for this fuel to burn at the rated +/-1800 F heat and the byproduct should produce little to no visual smoke (much like gas grills and gas stoves do). Even if there was enough fuel in the building to burn, I want someone to explain how this hydrocarbon based fuel was able to produce enough sustained heat to penetrate through and cause 47 vertical rectangular columns of steel that is nearly 3-4 inches thick in density (core columns) to loose its load strength and fail in less than an hour? How is this able to do this and not dissipate heat energy away from the heated area like a heatsink to the connecting members? Especially when realistically this fuel would be depleted within an hour and along with that would not have been fed the correct fuel to oxygen ratio to burn efficiently to create temperatures to melt steel. The black smoke was NOT from the jet fuel burn. People really don't know what kind of heat energy is required to make steel weaken or melt, You need heat sources equivalent to a blast furnace (blast = forced oxygen fed)

Secondly..The collapse itself. Lets take the north tower for example. How it is possible for all the core columns (47 or so, give or take if some were damaged) were able to all fail simultaneously to cause the tower to fall vertically and symmetrically. This is an amazing event to have the heat energy all around the interior to be sustained and heat precise enough to cause the steel members to fail in the exact time whether it be trusses or columns. Not even positioned large blow torches can create this event. Heat distribution would be different for each column due to the density of the materials and what is in contact with it. This is not even accounting for the variations of fire burning in an area. Realistically I am sure all the core columns and trusses were not exposed like a skeleton. There had to be intact areas of drywall and other structure as well as debris build up in others. The floors could not have possible fallen like a pancake. In reality only sections would buckle and give way but would likely fall sideways while other areas would stay intact. Photographs do not show evenly distributed fires all around the tower so this helps illustrate my point here. The official collapse theory with fire is not very plausible in this event.

Thirdly. The collapse and progression. How is it possible that the Potential energy of the 18 floors of structure above the collapse point when it became kinetic energy was able to destroy 92 or so stories of building in less than 12 seconds? If the 18 stories of building was crashing into the floors below and was able to convert it's kinetic energy into the energy to destroy all the joints of the core columns and pulverize the concrete into fine dust and eject it out in all directions hundreds of feet away from the footprint area of the building. How is it possible that the collapse was able to continue once it depleted itself of mass? Why did it at least not slow down as the mass amounts lessened (besides the resistance factor)? Consider these facts:

All the concrete was pulverized into dust. The largest pieces of concrete found were about the size of a baseball. The rest coated the streets around the city like volcanic ash.

The materials being pulverized inside the building were being ejected out of the building footprint area in some cases horizontally and as far as +/-150 feet out all around the structure.

All the core columns and most of the perimeter walls were shattered at their joints.

All the congregated steel floor sheets along with the trusses and office contents was pulverized on every floor.

All the windows were shattered into fine particles almost to the point of silica

All this occurred at the rate of +/-10 floors a second. It would take roughly 6 tenths of a second for a floor to be pulverized.

The entire building was destroyed at this level in 10-12 seconds.

Physics challenge: Calculate the energy levels necessary to do the described above and whether or not the kind of mass structure provided (potential energy) would be able to do this and be able to overcome the dissipative forces (resistance) of the mass below without the use of any other catalyst?

How is it possible for these 18 floors to destroy 92 floors without the 18 floors depleting themselves of material? How was the mass able to overcome resistance so methodically? If the floors were being destroyed at a rate of 10 floors a second the area mass of falling building would have depleted itself of mass in less than 2 seconds. Since they are of the same composition they must have the same ability to loose their integrity equally. Since the majority of mass was being ejected out (this started as soon as it made contact with eachother) what was left to cause the collapse to continue? The mass could not have collected on top of each floor in large amounts since this would have resulted in a large centralized debris pile in the footprint area. This did not occur. The photos show it was spread out everywhere. The debris pile in the footprint areas was about 60 feet high or so.

Size of this mass is irrelevant in this equation because they are equal when making contact. I do want to note however that the core columns density became thicker as they went down the tower. It was designed this way because of the load bearing requirements. This should have played into the collapse equation.

In physics energy can only be transferred when a change occurs. In this case, If potential energy is converted into Kinetic energy but then converted again into the energy to pulverize the concrete and eject it out, how is the mass able to maintain it's kinetic energy? This goes against the laws of physics. Kinetic energy is slowed down by dissipative forces and that is exactly what should have taken place. The 18 floors should have depleted and the collapse should have halted. This is pure physics. This has nothing to do with conspiracy.

Perpetual motion cannot be applied here because with perpetual motion, no energy is wasted. With the WTC all of the energy was wasted because the concrete was pulverized and energy was wasted ejecting it out. Energy was also wasted shattering the joints of the huge steel core column members and energy was wasted in the basement levels where pools of molten steel were found (meaning that kinetic energy would have had to be converted into heat energy) In reality however due to dissipative forces the kinetic energy would have depleted far sooner before it got this far down. This is just to illustrate that perpetual motion is not applicable.

We have determined that the buildings collapse progression was at free fall speeds. This calculation determines how long it would take for an object to fall if you were to drop it off the roof of the tower and let it fall to the ground without touching anything on the way down.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2 seconds

(I must note that this calculation is based on falling objects in a perfect vacuum, it does not account for air resistance which greatly slows down an objects fall)

Since the building fell in 10-12 seconds, this would imply that the collapse proceeded at free fall speeds. This is impossible.

The same dynamics applies to the WTC 2 and the WTC 7 that collapsed that day as well.

Could there have possibly been another catalyst involved that was not revealed?

Absolutely.

Similar topics are available here: http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

This video further explains these dynamics and also shows video to the claims above.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

I want you to ponder on just this if anything.. not whether it was a missile or government. The laws of physics is not conspiracy. If it was we would still be living like the time of Columbus and we all would think the world was flat. Ponder on these hard core facts of physics and take it from there.

Hi guys, found this site after watching a few conspiracy videos.

If there is conspiracy, wich is unlikely but possible, look not to evidence at the crime scene, but rather to motive.

who would it profit to it and why.

I am from quebec and wathing this from a distance, i dont believe in either the official theory or the conpiracy one, but i'l tell you what, if u need an excuse to start an energy war, ''MOTIVE'', the conpiracy theory makes some sense.

The only problem whit it is its scale, to many people involved, if u look at the reinstad fire, hitler, goebels and 3 or 4 ss agents probly knew, a coup like that is easy compare to this hit.

Now if, a big ''if'', they did this, they missed, they missed the capitol, which would'ev crippled your government and give bush and co an easy to install martial law and take over the world yatiyatiyata. Now the question is: sinced they missed, what do they need to do now, to finish the job, and give all of america a reason to give the radicals all the power they want...

All theoredical, and realy far fetched, but history is full of power eating megalomaniacs, so i say sure, could be terrorists, but realy i say: hope it was.

P.S. sry for the bad english.

The biggest scam is all the money we pay the so called demolishion experts to take down buildings when all you need is a little jet fuel - I mean look you had perfect demolishion of the two towers and building seven all with jet fuel and heating oil why should we ever pay another demolishion company big bucks to take down a building.

I am far from understanding any of the equations listed for I am just a dumb Boilermaker,what I do know is that if you try to cut steel with aceteylene gas and no oxygen your going to have a real hard time. Besides plasma gas, I think this is about the hottest burning fuels known.I think it burns at around 4100 deg in open atmosphere and as i said you will have a very hard time cutting through any thing subsantial,at least my boss wont let me do it. Jet fuel at perfect burn is around 500 deg.just use your common sence and stop with the religiuos bull

Listen online:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/audio/PopMechShow7.mp3

Here is an article debunking 9-11 theories from the same site.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

The idea that the temperature of the jet fuel was not hot enough to "melt" the steel does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. It was hot enough for the steel to lose its load bearing capacity, which when combined with the structural damage of the aircraft taking out parts of the structures was enough to bring the buildings down.

Here is an excerpt from a Znet article by Paul Street on the weakness and naivete of these theories:
First, it is incredibly unlikely that the necessary network of players and operatives would or could have undertaken such a complicated and insanely risky enterprises as conducting the attacks or even of covering up evidence of their likely occurrence. Even on the incredibly dubious assumption that the required high-level players were so uneasy in their very privileged pre-September lives that they felt compelled to concoct such schemes of mass murder on American soil, the likelihood of discovery would have made it
prohibitively dangerous.

Second, conspiracy theorists of the hard version forget that the likely perpetrators - the bin-Laden network - had both the independent means and
(un-controversially) the motive(s) to conduct the operation. There's something practically racist in the notion that only people of European ancestry could have carried out something on 9-11's scale. The operation, moreover, is deeply consistent with threats made and targets marked by the likely culprits for quite some time.

Third, the idea that the elitist consequences of 9-11 - more wealth and power for the few and less of both for the many - somehow prove that 9-11 was the product of an elite US conspiracy is incredibly naïve. Conspiracy theorists of the sort who sneered at me fail to understand that aristocratic outcomes from crises are basically written into America's economic and sociopolitical structure. Democracy is a political system where each person has an equal vote and equal policy influence. It cannot meaningfully exist in a society structured along the lines of the contemporary US, where 1 percent of the population owns 47 percent of the nation's wealth and considerably more of its politicians, policymakers, and media. It cannot exist where ordinary people lacking cohesive organization, meaningful institutions of autonomous power, popular expression, and democratic organization, and even a sense of common interests face off against highly organized and extremely class-conscious wealthy interests. It cannot exist where such people are worked, commuted, and shopped to the point of exhaustion and must rely on a highly concentrated privately owned media for basic information. It is especially absent from the making of foreign policy, which is even more insulated from popular influence than domestic policy and whose largely hidden conception and execution carries vast consequences for the entire planet without anything but the slightest input from world citizens.

From a Noam Chomsky interview:
E-mail question: What do you make of the various conspiracies that have flourished online since the terror attacks?

On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly. I really am rushed, so I hope you won't mind if I just paste in [see below] one of the 100s of letters I've written about this, in response to a deluge of queries: it really is an industry. I should say, however, that I never become publicly involved in these matters, if I can help it.

I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence. You can find the details in an excellent book by British political scientist Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand (p. 7), the best study by far of British intelligence (with a lot about US intelligence too, for one reason, because the British were of course spying on the Americans, just as conversely).

[Comment pasted in by Noam Chomsky from an e-mail response to a query:]

There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.

One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as they all did -- one of the easiest predictions. So that shows nothing.

http://WWW.WIFEYSWORLD.COM

For the people who accept the conspiracy theories. View the video "Loose Change" on google videos. Then, after, visit screwloosechange.blogspot.com. You'll find (no doubt to your dismay), the "evidence" picked through bit by bit, and dismantled into what it really is. FACTS made to support the theory.

I am exhausted reading, But I want our VOTERS to stand up and Be COUNTED !!!!!!!!!!!

It was embarassing to see the video of the Towers coming down and then have the Monday Night Football style stop action with the yellow pen circling of debris coming out of a floor as the floors above it fell with that annoying teenage voice going on about how it was "proof" of charges being detonated. They should have got the guy who does the Smuckers commercials, or maybe the Pepperidge Farms guy for a more persuasive set of lungs to back the imagery. I still wouldn't have been swayed, but at least it would have added an intentional comic element to this anti-intellectual piece of liberal fluff.
These conspiracy theories miss the point that there is no need for the U.S. government to carry out such attacks on their own infrastructure to carry on the "war on terror". They've been doing it for years. Also, the people who carried out 9-11 had plenty of motive,over a hundred years of modern "Western" imperialism and meddling, and the tactical ability to carry out the attacks.
This is not about trying to catch the bad apples in the U.S. who "went against our interests" so they could control us all. Our government has never had our interests at heart. We're all already limited and controlled in our everyday lives, answering to our bosses, and the narrow range of normality in a system that tells us we have to compete against each other and that this will somehow magically be the best for everyone involved.
A lot of these lame ass conspiracy films try to tell us that "anti-patriots" like Bush and Cheney just don't get what America "really" stands for. But come on folks, what "America" and every other nation state stands for is organizing capitalist production to maximize surplus value and squeeze the workers for all they're worth to maintain the system of production for those few who benefit. In the Soviet Union, it was the bureaucracy, the state capitalists. In the U.S. it is the private capitalists. If things are going to change, reform isn't going to do it. People will have to take control of their own lives, their production, and their consumption, as well as their modes of expression and living and get these leaders and parasites off our backs. That includes the capitalists and all the vanguard parties who want to implement the revolution FOR the workers from above. As Karl Marx said, it's the workers who will have to carry out the revolution for themselves.
In summation. 9-11 was not about the U.S. temporarily losing it's way under some evil conspiracy. It was the entirely predictable outcome of global capitalism creating huge classes of exploited people, and the way nation states play us all against one another.Put whatever religious or conspiracy dressing you want over it. Of course the government will use the attacks to their advantage, but they didn't need to kill off large segments of their own to do that, a move which loses them the trust of their own class allies. "Yeah we're protecting the interests of global capital and of property, but we're just gonna fly a few jumbo jets into the main command center of our World Economy so we can have a war." Like they couldn't have drummed up a fake WMD story without that? Think of all the ways it hurt the U.S. economy that were predictable. Is that what Bush wanted? Highly doubtful folks.
Just my opinion.

The question of the motive is just as important as the actual collapse. Usama Bin Laden doesn't seem to have much of a motive for destroying the World Trade Centres. Sure he got to kill three thousand Americans but look at what has happened to his Arab countries. He has given the Americans the perfect excuse to invade the Middle-East. If he was brilliant enough to take down the Towers, why would he be so blind to the reality of America's retaliation?

The scenario painted above, although impressive looking with it's multitude of math and use of elemental symbols is faulty. Here are a couple quick points:

1. The author states that "the quantity of oxygen in the building was limited". That is true, however given the fact that the plane left a huge f**king hole in said building, wouldn't that make the outside air also available to support combustion?

2. Although I appreciate the breakdown of the molecular structure of steel and jet fuel, the author omits every other substance in the environment of the plane and office towers. (Paper, people, wood, plastic, ballasts, electrical wiring) and the eruption of secondary fires from the combustion of these materials.

One would do well to remember that man was forging steel in the mid 1500's with only wood and a bellows.

John Ryan:
Usama Bin Laden doesn't seem to have much of a motive for destroying the World Trade Centres. ... look at what has happened to his Arab countries. He has given the Americans the perfect excuse to invade the Middle-East.

Comrade Motopu: First of all, the presence of U.S. military power, bases, and meddling in the Middle East provide motive for a terroristic response.
Secondly there is the theory that al-Qaeda was baiting the U.S. into a quagmire, which if it were true, seems to have worked well. These situations seem to help the Islamist movements who are more radical than the nation state leaders. I am in no way an expert, but it seems baseless to say there was "no motive" for an attack. That discounts al-Qaeda as having any agency. But if the reasoning of such groups was minimizing carnage, why the bloody resistance we see now? Again that doesn't correlate to the idea that groups would not attack a superpower simply to avoid retaliation.
I do agree that making such an attack is guaranteed to bring harsh retaliation, and I'm not one to "support the resistance" uncritically, as many of the groups involved would happily slay and imprison Leftists too. But the effects of U.S. policy had already seen a million dead Iraqis through sanctions, the crushing of Arab nationalism and attempts at self rule, and the ongoing humiliation of the occupation of Palestinian areas (not to mention the ethnic cleansing that created the situation).
Do you really think it is more likely the U.S. capitalist elites would wreak devestation on their own interests in the global economy just to get sucked into a hot war, than it is that after a hundred years of colonialism and meddling, an attack would succeed on U.S. soil? Also, if a shadow government wanted to create a pretext for invading Iraq, would it have been necessary to carry out such a hugely destructive attack such as 911? Why not a string of attacks on U.S. embassies and troops, combined with hardcore propagandizing about WMDs? No one denies that 9-11 presented brilliant opportunities for the neocons, but the idea that they orchestrated the attack doesn't add up for many reasons.

I work in Iraq and have seen dozens of tanker trucks hit by IEDs while fully laden with JP8, diesel fuel, similar to jet fuel. Everything burns to a crisp - the tires, paint, plastic, everything except THE STEEL.

The fuel to steel ratio is much greater in a burning tanker full of fuel than in the Twin Tower fires (not to mention WTC7). Yet I have never seen any melted steel. In some cases the heat crinkles the thin sheet steel from which the tank and tractor cab are made, slightly!

Don't believe it? I'll send you a photo.

Wait a minute
by Get over the steel canard Saturday, Sep. 09, 2006 at 2:18 AM

If you're convinced 9-11 was an inside job, why are you working in Iraq right now, so you can help enforce the results? How do we know where you're posting from? It doesn't seem like someone who believed that the attack was carried out by the U.S. or Mossad would then rush to Iraq to help with the illegal occupation. Or are you from there, and if so why only say you work there? If there is a conspiracy here it is your cover story.

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Questions to consider:
1. If the Steel did not have to melt, therefore I infer that you're saying it did not, why was there pools of melted steel found at the site? Either the fire was hot enough to create these pools, or it was not. Which was it?
2. Why has no other steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire?
3. Why did the towers fall at near free-fall speeds and in such a way as to mimic buildings being intentionally imploded?
I do not suggest that you see a doctor... only that you look at the facts - if you still choose not to believe, then that's you're choice... but know that it is a choice that you made.

Yes you need to show that Steel indeed needs to melt
because melted steel was at the base of the towers when they collapse

A fire in your backyard can get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of failure. If you think the government is covering up any research, then do your own. Start a fire in your backyard, put a steel bird cage around it, and put a couple of bricks on top. See how long it lasts. Although this will be enough to melt the cage after a few hours, you should know this is much less extreme than conditions would have been in the WTC.

At 1000 feet up there is quite a bit of wind supplying oxygen to fires. The jet fuel would have burned fast enough and hot enough to ignite things that wouldn't normally burn in an office fire. Fire resistant materials like carpet, and plastics are only resistant because they don't normaly get hot enough to ignite. But once they do, they burn at a much higher temperatures than hydrocarbons.

The steel birdcage won't have to melt. But it will weaken enough to bring down those brinks. Steel is forged at under 1200 degrees. The steel is very week in this state and can be bent and folded, but it is nowhere close to melting into a liquid.

What about WTC Building #7 the third steel framed building in the history of earth to fall because of a fire, the north and south tower being the first two. You can't blame that one on jets or jet feul. there are MANY examples of steel framed buildings catching on fire and burning for hours or even days most with absolutely no damage to the underlying steel structure. But hey, start a fire in your backyard and do your own experiment, that sounds very intelligent.

What will your revolution look like? What will change to safeguard against the U.S. government attacking us like this again? What is your critique of the system aside from "Reichstag Fire"? Do you have one? Is it just knowledge for knowledge's sake, or is there some plan or body of theory or practice waiting to act when it is finally proven that our own government flew the planes into the towers while simultaneously demolishing the buildings with charges? Why did they do it? What has it allowed them to do which they could not have done otherwise? That's not your bag, I know, because you could care less about actually changing anything. You just want to be right. And are we all supposed to be enlightened to discover "our" government is against us?
Here is what Popular Mechanics had to say on your slam dunk theory of the demolition of WTC 7.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

It's kinda sad that this forum bogs down in fake surrealists hocking their t-shirts and conspiracy theorists when it could be about class war and critiquing our every day lives in this system. What would happen if these phony surrealists took up a real revolutionary critique, and the 9-11 fetishists started reading Marx? More radicals, less cranks.
People should start planning actions that challenge the underlying assumptions about capitalism being the natural state of things, and about the supposed goodness of the system which is only harmful to people when "bad apples" hijack it.
Here are some things others have done:
1.City wide rent strikes against the landlords to protest shitty living conditions and over priced rents.
2.Fare strikes against high prices for public transportation which should be free.
3. General strikes against unfair working conditions or wars.
4."Really Really Free Markets" where people bring books, cds, odds and ends, or their services like giving haircuts, reading poetry etc. to a public place and mutually give things away to undermine the commodity system and offer mutual support to one another.
5. Putting on free or low price public gigs where anyone who wants to participate is allowed so long as they contact the people putting on the show. This undermines band hierarchies and rock star attitudes while encouraging everyone to participate.
6. Doing critical reading groups of important texts over a period of weeks or months and when people feel ready, organizing actions that reflect what they have talked about.
7. Organizing flash mobs to go disrupt everyday capitalist social relations and reclaim public space from corporations.
Just a hand full of ideas there, and I lump myself in with the doing nothing crowd by the way, because I'm just as alienated as many others. And no I don't want to be a leader. I'm just looking for liberation from the SPECTACLE.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.-Fire Engineering Magazine

Go and read The collapse of the WTC by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories, and then tell me who's the moron!

ricko, you've determined 9-11 was not carried out by opponents of the U.S. state, but by insiders. Good for you buddy. What are you doing now that you've become enlightened?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

AMERICA EDUCATE YOURSELF....INCLUDING MADMAX.....

signed
TRUTHWORKS
SEPT 20 2006

PROOF THAT 1 ATMOSPHERE AIR PRESSURE (OR STILL AIR) FIRES CANNOT WEAKEN STEEL SIGNIFICANTLY

Get yourself a thin piece of aluminium foil (melting point 500-700 degrees C, usually around 650 C ), and hold it for as long as you like in a candle flame.

The thin piece of aluminium foil is usually heated up most in the blue sections (hottest parts) of the flame, and may change shape or warp thermally, and it may glow yellow a little bit.

Go ahead and try this!

Hold it there for as long as you like, and I guarantee you that you will not get drops of molten Aluminium dripping and falling off the thin piece of solid aluminium. You cannot even melt Aluminium foil in a candle flame!!! So if the melting point of Aluminium is only 650 C, what does that tell you about the flame temperature of the candle flame, if it cannot even melt aluminium? THE FLAME TEMPERATURE MUST BE MUCH LOWER THAN 650 C! Typically ranging from 250 C to 400 C, depending on the amount of breeze.

So that's why I don't believe the Wikipedia data, or perhaps that information must have been set up for different experimental conditions???

Go ahead and try that steel bridge experiment too, using as much kerosene or petrol as you like to heat up the bridge until failure. The steel beam could be a thin 5 mm thick piece of solid bar, supporting several bricks at the centre... Load up the bridge until the beam deflects a lot, say, 1 cm, due to the centre load... so that it is bouncy and seems on the verge of collapse (assuming that the steel is barely able to hold up the brick load, just like the steel supports which were allegedly badly damaged during the plane crashes)... now apply as much fire as you like, using as much kerosene or fuel as you like, for as long as you like, and see if the steel beam collapses... GO ON AND TRY THIS... and if the steel collapses due to atmospheric air pressure flames, let me know.

Remember that the melting point of steel is about 1600 C, but it does weaken with increasing temperature.

Look at this Strength vs. Temperature graph for steel:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

Even when it reaches still air flame temperatures of 250 C, steel hardly loses any strength. That is why your barbeque grills and cooking pots do not glow white hot and go all soft, when exposed to flames or fire.

Other excellent sites:

http://www.seeloosechange.com

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

http://www.prisonplanet.com

http://www.st911.com

http://www.serendipity.li

http://www.bestandworst.com/v/?id=93275

Some more:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705controlleddemolition.htm

http://www.911weknow.com/911mysteries.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

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

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

http://www.911review.com

http://911research.wtc7.net

http://www.serendipity.li

http://www.larouchepub.com

http://www.infowars.com

http://www.prisonplanet.com

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/attacks/harassment.html

truck

Great Deals on Trucks Fill out our simple form and get hassle-free price quotes on the car of your dreams. Also save on mortgage, auto insurance, hotels and more at the NexTag comparison shopping guide.