The great 9/11 magic trick

[Jim88]

I'm just exploring the idea...not necessarily believing it.....but the people at the controls of the planes could have aimed at certain floors?

I suggested the... terrorists with extra planted explosives....idea because of what fluffybunny said about what fire-fighters had said....and so many con. theorists go on, a lot about 'extra explosions'.

By the way Jim88...have you any thoughts on the plane that crashed over NY two weeks after 9/11?

Refresh my memory on that. I don't remember that that well. If I remember it correctly they claimed the plane basically vibrated apart caused by the rudder or something like that. A severe vibration can cause parts to fail. There have been cases were a severe vibration in an engine caused the engine to fall off. But I don't know how such a vibration could be caused the way they say it was caused. I didn't really believe the story they gave us about the crash of that plane.

[bee]

Refresh my memory on that. I don't remember that that well. If I remember it correctly they claimed the plane basically vibrated apart caused by the rudder or something like that. A severe vibration can cause parts to fail. There have been cases were a severe vibration in an engine caused the engine to fall off. But I don't know how such a vibration could be caused the way they say it was caused. I didn't really believe the story they gave us about the crash of that plane.

Can't say much about it at all. I remember hearing on the news that a plane had come down over NY....and areas that were affected were where some fire-fighters lived who had been involved in 9/11. I was shocked, and thought...what the hell's going on now!!!

It was quite quickly dismissed as a 'tragic accident' and I thought.....I don't think so.

Now it's virtually forgotten...and never (to my knowledge) linked to 9/11 in any way...that's all I can really say on the matter...apart from the fact that if it was another terrorist job...imagine the uproar if it had been allowed to happen...so soon after 9/11...the authorities would have been under a very bright spotlight.

[Jim88]

Can't say much about it at all. I remember hearing on the news that a plane had come down over NY....and areas that were affected were where some fire-fighters lived who had been involved in 9/11. I was shocked, and thought...what the hell's going on now!!!

It was quite quickly dismissed as a 'tragic accident' and I thought.....I don't think so.

Now it's virtually forgotten...and never (to my knowledge) linked to 9/11 in any way...that's all I can really say on the matter...apart from the fact that if it was another terrorist job...imagine the uproar if it had been allowed to happen...so soon after 9/11...the authorities would have been under a very bright spotlight.

I don't know what really happened with that plane. I can't even say with any certainty that the story they told us isn't true. Based on my intuition and my mechanical aptitude it doesn't seem to be very likely to me. I haven't done any calculations to confirm that. The only way you could know for certain is to get an aerospace engineer to do some tests. I can't do any tests. I don't have the equipment to do them. I'm not an aerospace engineer anyway, so it is really outside of my field.

That's true. It isn't mentioned. Probably because it was explained away as equipment failure.

[skyeagle409]

Refresh my memory on that. I don't remember that that well. If I remember it correctly they claimed the plane basically vibrated apart caused by the rudder or something like that. A severe vibration can cause parts to fail. There have been cases were a severe vibration in an engine caused the engine to fall off. But I don't know how such a vibration could be caused the way they say it was caused. I didn't really believe the story they gave us about the crash of that plane.

You can find more information on that crash here.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/aa587.htm

[skyeagle409]

Where did the military plane explanation come in???

All one would have to do is to check the scheduled airline flight records, aircraft serial numbers of the airlines involved, radar data tracking tapes, and passenger list to understand that the aircraft involved were not military aircraft of any kind.

[skyeagle409]

I'm just exploring the idea...not necessarily believing it.....but the people at the controls of the planes could have aimed at certain floors?

I suggested the... terrorists with extra planted explosives....idea because of what fluffybunny said about what fire-fighters had said....and so many con. theorists go on, a lot about 'extra explosions'.

By the way Jim88...have you any thoughts on the plane that crashed over NY two weeks after 9/11?

There were no explosives involved and the heat would not have to be hot enough to melt the structural beams in order for them to fail because there was more than enough heat from the burning fuel to anneal (soften) the structural members of the Trade Towers to the point of failure.

[bee]

You can find more information on that crash here.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/aa587.htm

Thanks for that link, skyeagle409,......I had a gut reaction that it was connected to 9/11.....but IF it was co-incidence.....what an unbelievably cruel co-incidence...that the second worse aviation disaster in US history should occur so close to 9/11 and in exactly the same place....it's this circumstantial aspect that creates a question mark, for me.

[skyeagle409]

Thanks for that link, skyeagle409,......I had a gut reaction that it was connected to 9/11.....but IF it was co-incidence.....what an unbelievably cruel co-incidence...that the second worse aviation disaster in US history should occur so close to 9/11 and in exactly the same place....it's this circumstantial aspect that creates a question mark, for me.

You're welcome!

Look at the preparation and materials involved in building demolition and try to imagine carrying all of that equipment up many floors and preparing the charges and not be noticed

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

[el midgetron]

Here's a thought for you...what if extra exlosives were planted by terrorists in the Twin Towers and wct7...to ensure the buildings went down....unless the plane that crashed into fields was destined for wtc7....perhaps there was a jihad terrorist determined to 'do the business'...not let his 'brothers'.. down....and he managed somehow to create the 2 week later air disaster...

I think its very unlikely that "terrorists" would have been able to plant explosives in the towers. However, if there was a conspiracy involving elements of the government, I think explosives having been used is a possibility. For one thing, if it were just terrorists, there would have been no reason to conceal the explosions under the guise of structural failure. Having clearly visible explosions wouldn't have conflicted with the terrorist agenda.

I tend to agree with you about the co-incidence of the plane that came down two weeks later. Like I said, I really don't know much about that incident. However, there was also the shoe bomber after 911, so it seems that there was more happening besides the one attack. There are also other "co-icidences" during 911 that I find even harder to believe in the context of the official story.

If there were demolition charges planted in the World Trade Center they would have to have been planted on the floors where the planes crashed. The video of the towers collapsing shows they collapsed starting at the floors where the planes crashed. How did they know in advance which floors the planes were going to crash into?

If explosives were used they would have found evidence of explosives during the clean up operation. All the people involved with the clean up operation would have had to have been in on the conspiracy.

I can totaly understand how they "might" have done this. If there were explosives and if they were only on the floors where the plane crashed, there is certianly the technology to have orchastrated such an opperation. We have the technology to fly missiles into open windows of buildings. The technology to fly airliners via remote control has been around for at least 40 years.

I am not sure that I agree with you about the evidence of explosives would have been found during clean up. What does debris from a bomb look like in a pile of debris which allready contains a vast assortment of materials? How would an emergency responder recognize a part of a bomb amongst the rubble which was made up of thousands of types of items? Also, there are those who claim evidence of explosives was found in the form of moltent metal, ect.

I have never even heard of operation northwoods so you will have fill me in on it. I'm not even that familar with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As I understand it the government's version of that is that the North Vietnamese sank one of our ships. What evidence is there that they lied about that?

The Gulf of Tonkin was the incident which lead to us entering the Vietnam war. There are meny who think the government allowed or even facilitated the incident which involved the attack on a US ship. I believe alot of the evidence comes fromt he sailors who were aboard the ship which was attacked. What they experiance wasnt what the public was told about the attacks. I believe there are still at least one vertern group the sailors who is lobbying for an investgation into the gulf of tonkin attacks.

Opperation Northwoods is a declassified plan by the government to carry out terrorist attacks and blame them on Cuba. Part of the plans included faking a hijacking, then substituting the hijacked plane with a empty remote controlled plane and crashing it into the ocean, claiming it was full of collage students on vacation. The plan was supported by the joint chiefs of staff and made it all the way to the desk of the president. Kennedy rejected the plan.

The attack on the World Trade Center was not the first attack on Americans linked to Al Qaeda. Why didn't they go to war with Afghanistan when the USS Cole was bombed or when they blew up US embassies in Africa? If the government was just looking for an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan they had plenty of excuses already.

911 did alot more than give us a reason to attack Afganistan and Iraq. It has also brought about meny changes in domestic and foreign policy as well, including the formation of Homeland Security. I don't think the attack on the USS Cole would have given the pretext to do all the things the government has after 911.

I'm just exploring the idea...not necessarily believing it.....but the people at the controls of the planes could have aimed at certain floors?

If it was an inside job and if the attacks needed to target speific floors of the wtc, the technology is there to facilitate such a plan. Operation Northwoods illustrates that over 40 years ago they were considering using remote control planes to fake terrorist attacks. The guidance systems they have today are far superior to that of 40 years ago.

Edited April 23, 2007 by el midgetron

[bee]

[i think its very unlikely that "terrorists" would have been able to plant explosives in the towers. However, if there was a conspiracy involving elements of the government, I think explosives having been used is a possibility. For one thing, if it were just terrorists, there would have been no reason to conceal the explosions under the guise of structural failure. Having clearly visible explosions wouldn't have conflicted with the terrorist agenda.

The only reason I chucked in the idea of terrorists POSSIBLY using explosives within the buildings was because so many people go on about there being extra explosions....staying with this possibility for a moment...the goverment might have wanted to play down (conceal) lax security within WTC prior to attack.

Regarding the 'inside job' view that elements within the Govt. might have used explosives within the buildings...this doesn't make sense to me.....the planes themselves crashing into the WTC must surely have been enough? Without adding further complications.

But from the terrorists point of view...making sure the buildings came DOWN could have been their main aim.

Flipping heck....all this lot does your head in! I just got drawn into the whole sorry business again after reading the article that SaRuMan posted.

[Jim88]

There were no explosives involved and the heat would not have to be hot enough to melt the structural beams in order for them to fail because there was more than enough heat from the burning fuel to anneal (soften) the structural members of the Trade Towers to the point of failure.

I know that. I already tried to explain that to them. I even linked to a site that confirms it. I don't know why people still don't believe the fire brought down the twin towers.

There are actually a couple of things that happen when you heat structural steel above the critical temperature. One all the alloying metals dissolve into the iron. Second the crystalline structure of the steel changes. Both result in a weaker material. It isn't actually annealing it. That's just the first step of the process to anneal steel. You have to slowly cool the steel before it is considered to have been annealed.

I am not sure that I agree with you about the evidence of explosives would have been found during clean up. What does debris from a bomb look like in a pile of debris which allready contains a vast assortment of materials?

Bombs don't incinery the parts. Investigators have found bomb parts in debrie before. There would be evidence of explosives.

How were they able to go into the world trade center and plant demolition charges without anybody noticing? A lot of people worked in the World Trade Center. Somebody would have noticed people planting explosives.

[Fluffybunny]

I don't know why people still don't believe the fire brought down the twin towers.

Because fire does not burn hot enough to do so considering the heat insulation on the heavy steel supports that held the building up.

There was not enough fuel(kerosene and office building contents) to create hot enough, long enough flames to do what you are claiming.

[Unlimited]

Because fire does not burn hot enough to do so considering the heat insulation on the heavy steel supports that held the building up.

There was not enough fuel(kerosene and office building contents) to create hot enough, long enough flames to do what you are claiming.

Agreed the fire wasnt hot enough...we need an independent investigation yesterday!.....

[skyeagle409]

I know that. I already tried to explain that to them. I even linked to a site that confirms it. I don't know why people still don't believe the fire brought down the twin towers.

There are actually a couple of things that happen when you heat structural steel above the critical temperature. One all the alloying metals dissolve into the iron. Second the crystalline structure of the steel changes. Both result in a weaker material. It isn't actually annealing it. That's just the first step of the process to anneal steel. You have to slowly cool the steel before it is considered to have been annealed.

Bombs don't incinery the parts. Investigators have found bomb parts in debrie before. There would be evidence of explosives.

How were they able to go into the world trade center and plant demolition charges without anybody noticing? A lot of people worked in the World Trade Center. Somebody would have noticed people planting explosives.

I've seen what an aircraft (DC-8) that caught fire had done to vehicles that were parked nearby, so I know there was more than enough heat to weaken the steel structures of those buildings. The steel would only have to be annealed by the heat from the burning jet fuel and gravity will do the rest. The smoke plumes in the 911 World Trade photos reminded me of a tunnel fire near Oakland, CA years ago and how the wind flowing through the tunnel created a very hot and massive firestorm.

Extent of Damage

The fire burned for between twenty-eight and forty minutes and in this time most of the 8,700 gallons (33,000 litres) of gasoline carried by the truck were consumed. About 250 gallons (1,000 litres) were either discharged into the drainage or recovered from the tanker.

All the heat and smoke from the fire went uphill towards the entry portal, 1720 feet (525 m) away. There was no fire damage west of the fire site.

Brass vehicle components at the tanker melted, indicating that temperatures were slightly over 1800 °F (1000 °C). However, no examples of melted copper (melting point 1981 °F/1083 °C) were found during the clear-up operations, which indicates that the temperatures did not exceed 1800 °F (1000 °C) by much.

The tiles and grout on the walls of the tunnel were damaged and spalled all the way to the entrance portal, 1720 feet (525 m) away.

Over the first 750 feet (230 m) east of the fire site there was spalling of the concrete false ceiling and of the concrete walls behind the tiles. Spalling stopped at the steel reinforcement, approximately 3" (75 mm) below the concrete surface.

Over the first 675 feet (205 m), the steel blanking plates over the ventilation flues in the false ceiling (these blanking plates are used to balance the air supply and extract rates) were buckled by heat and had to be replaced

Edited April 23, 2007 by skyeagle409

[Jim88]

Because fire does not burn hot enough to do so considering the heat insulation on the heavy steel supports that held the building up.

There was not enough fuel(kerosene and office building contents) to create hot enough, long enough flames to do what you are claiming.

Some of the insulation could have been knocked off by the impact of the planes crashing. I posted a link to Popular Mechanics. According them that is what happened. According to the experts who studied it there was enough fuel and office contents to make the fires hot enough to weaken the steel. What evidence is there that the experts are wrong?

[Princess Serenity]

I wanna say one thing before/if this thread gets closed.

I believe we were attacked by terrorists. And nothing/body else. I don't think we were attacked by our own government. Because I saw no missile just airplanes going into the WTC Towers.

And I don't think there were any "devices" that caused The Towers to collapse. I believe it was the fuel in the planes that also made the towers collapse. When the planes crushed, it blew the fireproof inside the towers which made the steel vulable to the fire. Thus, caused by the fuel. I've watched a lot/planty of programs about The Twin Towers & 9/11, where they have explained things like that over & over again.

[bee]

I wanna say one thing before/if this thread gets closed.

I believe we were attacked by terrorists. And nothing/body else. I don't think we were attacked by our own government. Because I saw no missile just airplanes going into the WTC Towers.

And I don't think there were any "devices" that caused The Towers to collapse. I believe it was the fuel in the planes that also made the towers collapse. When the planes crushed, it blew the fireproof inside the towers which made the steel vulable to the fire. Thus, caused by the fuel. I've watched a lot/planty of programs about The Twin Towers & 9/11, where they have explained things like that over & over again.

I agree

[Fluffybunny]

Some of the insulation could have been knocked off by the impact of the planes crashing. I posted a link to Popular Mechanics. According them that is what happened. According to the experts who studied it there was enough fuel and office contents to make the fires hot enough to weaken the steel. What evidence is there that the experts are wrong?

Again, I am not an engineer of buildings, but I know fire.

The evidence is, that there was not enough fuel(kerosene or otherwise) to get the fire hot enough to even effect untreated steel...let me explain a couple of things. Untreated average grade steel looses half of it's strength at a bit over 1000 degrees...that is the cheap steel that you find in low dollar industrial type buildings with type 4 contruction(open beam type stuff you'd find in big machine shops and low dollar buildings like Home Depots). The steel used in high rise buildings is a far cry from low grade steel; it reacts differently than does lower grade steel to heat; its' 50% weakening point is higher, and it does not lengthen under heat as does the cheap stuff.

The steel in high rise buildings is incredibly resilient to fire compared to other kinds of steel that you would find at the local Home Depot. On top of that this steel was treated to resist fire; the coatings used to do that are not like delicate china tableware.

Fire burns in a relatively predictable fashion from a firefighting standpoint and although there are many factors to a fire, we do our best to calculate fire load, available oxygen via every source(natural venting as if the fire had burned through a roof of a home, or in this case the venting in the shape of a 767 going through the walls.) and the building contruction to help figure out where the fire is going and plan ahead of the fire.

Again from a firefighting standpoint, office buildings are a relatively light fuel load; far less than the average home, and far far less than the average retail business. I have been in that building; those firefighters had spent a lot of time in that building. What was in there was not a high fuel load; very little material that burned hot. kerose itself does not burn hot.

The building was ventilated via the airplane. It of course lets oxygen in to burn the fuel in the building but it also lets heat out, which is really important to remember. In the areas that were ventilated the burning was faster but so much heat escaped that the fires were relatively cool and easy to fight. In the areas that were more closed up on the inner portion of the building the fires had to burn slower as the oxygen was getting sucked up by the faster burning(but ventilated-heat released) fires near the outside. When fuel has less oxygen the burning process is very incomplete and it leaves a lot of black smoke. Black smoke means the fire is burning slow and relatively cool. Also in the building were some of the best fire doors available. Fire doors are heavy metal doors that are meant to close when power is kicked off, or any fire alarm goes off. Fire doors not only keep oxygen from flowing from room to room but also keep fire from spreading past the door for quite a while. The fires that were burning could not have gotten much oxygen from inside the non-ventilated portion of the building as the doors close automatically.

On top of this, consider that the firefighter that were ON the fire floors radio'd down that they could take care of the fires with handlines. That is important. A Handline is a 1 and 3/4 inch hoseline that delivers about 100 or so gallons a minute, in the fire service that is the smaller hoses we use to fight car fires and smaller house fires. If these firefighters(who died btw in the collapse) felt they could fight the fires with handlines, felt that the fires were either cool enough, or ventilated enough to get close to to fight, then the fires were not that hot.

Keep in mind that our turnout gear protects us at 500 degrees for 5 minutes; that is all they are rated for and they begin to breakdown after that point. At lower temps we can go longer, but my point is that the gear we wear is not indestructable. They were on the floors that were on fire, and in some cases got close to the seat of the fire wearing that gear and were there for some time, so it could not have been the incredibly hot fire that was the official cause; it simply could not have been that hot.

Like I said, there are a lot of things about this that I cannot vouch for, but the hot fire story is not true, and you can ask firefighters that were there, they will tell you; the radio communication before the collapse will tell you that the fire was not hot enough to weaken the steel like was claimed; even regular untreated steel, let alone the super huge heat insulated beams in those buildings.

The official story is bunk.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Fluffybunny

[Jim88]

Again, I am not an engineer of buildings, but I know fire.

The evidence is, that there was not enough fuel(kerosene or otherwise) to get the fire hot enough to even effect untreated steel...let me explain a couple of things. Untreated average grade steel looses half of it's strength at a bit over 1000 degrees...that is the cheap steel that you find in low dollar industrial type buildings with type 4 contruction(open beam type stuff you'd find in big machine shops and low dollar buildings like Home Depots). The steel used in high rise buildings is a far cry from low grade steel; it reacts differently than does lower grade steel to heat; its' 50% weakening point is higher, and it does not lengthen under heat as does the cheap stuff.

The steel in high rise buildings is incredibly resilient to fire compared to other kinds of steel that you would find at the local Home Depot. On top of that this steel was treated to resist fire; the coatings used to do that are not like delicate china tableware.

It is true that the temperature that steel undergoes metallurgical changes varies from one grade to the next. On the popular mechanics website I linked to they give the temperature for the grade of steel the twin towers were made of. It isn't that high.

The planes hit those buildings at hundreds of miles per hour. As I remember one of them was traveling at about 500 mph. It doesn't have to be delicate china for it to be knocked loose by that kind of an impact.

On top of this, consider that the firefighter that were ON the fire floors radio'd down that they could take care of the fires with handlines. That is important. A Handline is a 1 and 3/4 inch hoseline that delivers about 100 or so gallons a minute, in the fire service that is the smaller hoses we use to fight car fires and smaller house fires. If these firefighters(who died btw in the collapse) felt they could fight the fires with handlines, felt that the fires were either cool enough, or ventilated enough to get close to to fight, then the fires were not that hot.

If this is true then why haven't the firefighters come forward? Why do they just keep it to themselves? They know were all being lied to and they don't say anything.

The fire theory is at least reasonable.

The demolition charge theory has too many problems with it. They would have had to crash the planes at the exact floor the charges were placed. For them to use a guidance system to guide the planes the mechanics at the airlines would have to have been in on the conspiracy. They would have had to have installed the guidance system at some point. Something happened to all those passengers. If those weren't the planes that were hijacked that crashed into the world trade center then what happened to the planes that were hijacked? It would be difficult to plant explosives in the world trade center without being noticed. They would have found evidence of explosives during the clean up. Explosives don't incenerate things. They blow things to pieces but the pieces would be there. Explosives leave tell tail signs. A support that has been blown apart by explosives doesn't look like one that failed due to overloading. People would have noticed supports that looked like they had been blown apart. So everybody involved in the clean up effort and everybody who studied the world trade center collapse would have had to have been in on the conspiracy.

[Fluffybunny]

If this is true then why haven't the firefighters come forward? Why do they just keep it to themselves? They know were all being lied to and they don't say anything.

The fire theory is at least reasonable.

A few have and I have seen youtube videos with firefighters saying so, but that was shortly afterwards. The firefighters I have talked to about it are afraid for their jobs and feel that there is an unspoken rule of sorts that to step forward and stir up a debate would not be a good idea, although they never told me how they came to this opinion, so I am can't be sure. I don't work with them so I can't speak to the reasoning behind the fear or the lack of willingness to step forward but in the firehouse it is discussed fairly openly among firefighters.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Fluffybunny

[skyeagle409]

The demolition charge theory has too many problems with it. They would have had to crash the planes at the exact floor the charges were placed.

I totally agree! In fact, why crash aircraft into the towers at all if there were explosives attached to the structural members? If anything, any explosives attached would have detonated soon after impact. There are those who think the government was behind 9/11, but apparently, a government building was struck as well! It was the Pentagon! Either the White House or the Capital building were next on the list so it was not likely that the government would have picked those government buildings as targets had this truly been a government conspiracy.

Besides, the government didn't need to make any excuses to bomb bin Laden in Afghanistan. After all, President Clinton first struck Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which was well before 9/11 in 2001.

Clinton: I was right to bomb bin Laden

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintoni.htm

Edited April 23, 2007 by skyeagle409

[Princess Serenity]

I agree

Thank you. That's the first time anybody agreed with me. But there is a first for everyone.

Sorry for being off topic.

[Jim88]

I totally agree! In fact, why crash aircraft into the towers at all if there were explosives attached to the structural members? If anything, any explosives attached would would have detonated soon after impact. There are those who think the government was behind 911, but apparently, a government building was struck as well! It was the Pentagon! Either the White House or the Capital building were next on the list so was not likely that the government would have picked those government buildings as targets had this truly been a government conspiracy.

Besides, the government didn't need to make any excuses to bomb bin Laden in Afghanistan. After all, President Clinton first struck Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which was well before 9/11 in 2001.

Good point. Why did they attack the Pentagon if it was a government conspiracy?

They have Osama Bin Laden on video bragging about the attack. Al Qaeda has accepted responsiblity for it.

That depends on what type of explosives they used. My understanding is some explosives would have exploded on the impact of the planes and some explosives wouldn't.

Fluffy Bunny, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying I have no way of verifying anything you told me. I don't know if it is true or just a rumor somebody started. I don't know if the person who told you that was actually at the World Trade Center that day. Until one of those firefighters goes to the media and tells them I have no way of knowing if any of it is true. I'm not going to believe there were demolition charges planted in the World Trade Center until I hear it from somebody who witnessed it. The demolition charge theory isn't supported by any evidence that I can verify. The theory isn't reasonable as far as I can tell.

[Shalott]

Hi people, I'm new here so sorry if someone has already pointed this out. I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death and most people are sick of it, but I couldn't help responding to the whole fire argument. This link here http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/index.htm actually shows someone (identified as Edna Cintron by family) standing and waving at the mouth of the plane entrance hole where the fires are burning. If they were strong enough to melt the tower structures, wouldn't they have (for lack of a better word) melted that lady? apparently she was standing there for a long time.

[Jim88]

Hi people, I'm new here so sorry if someone has already pointed this out. I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death and most people are sick of it, but I couldn't help responding to the whole fire argument. This link here http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/index.htm actually shows someone (identified as Edna Cintron by family) standing and waving at the mouth of the plane entrance hole where the fires are burning. If they were strong enough to melt the tower structures, wouldn't they have (for lack of a better word) melted that lady? apparently she was standing there for a long time.

Nobody is claiming the fires were hot enough to melt the tower structures. They're saying the fires were hot enough to cause metallurgical changes to occur in the steel. Steel becomes weaker when heated above a certain temperature due to metallurgical changes that occur. They're saying the fires were hot enough to heat the steel above that temperature.

You can't even tell there is a person in most of the pictures on that website. The one that does show something that could be a person is so blurry you can't tell if it is a person or something blowing in the wind. I don't know how anybody could identify the person from those pictures.