September 11
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
I haven't read any conspiracy theory or anything nor am I interested in it but if a plane flew into a building near the highest point that is one massive structural damage fire or not. Than you've got a fire wouldn't that weaken the structural integrity of the building and add on all the weight from the fallen structures and you're putting more pressure on the structures from the floor below which is already weakened by the intense heat. Than you get the dominoe or falling card stack affect from floors above steel beams falling down onto it.
Besides engineers didn't build buildings taking into account planes flying into them as consideration for their structural integrity just the heat source.
Besides engineers didn't build buildings taking into account planes flying into them as consideration for their structural integrity just the heat source.
Shaman
Well-known member
The twin towers were designed from the beginning to withstand two plane hits. Whether one larger plane (than they had at the time) would be more energy than two 737s or not, is definitely an engineering problem. There was *not* a full-structure weakness from the fire. Just forget about that, because there were crews going up and down the building trying to rescue people - if it was all on fire, they couldn't have done it, nor was the fire hot enough. The domino / stack effect was disproven - by none other than NIST. They clearly said in their investigation that they had proven that it did not happen that way - Popular Mechanics tried it also, then changed the parameters until they had a collapse... in a lab, at least.
So all your theories are debunked, psycho44 - by none other than the official report of NIST.
And none of what you said explains WTC7, even on a conjecture basis. It wasn't hit by a plane, fell into its own footprint in 7 seconds. Third steel and concrete building in history to fall to fire, WTC1 and WTC2 being the first two.
Was anyone else aware that at least three governments - all friends of the U.S. - have done their own investigations into 9/11 and concluded that the offical story is a hoax? Japan, Germany, Italy.
Were you all aware of this group? http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
So all your theories are debunked, psycho44 - by none other than the official report of NIST.
And none of what you said explains WTC7, even on a conjecture basis. It wasn't hit by a plane, fell into its own footprint in 7 seconds. Third steel and concrete building in history to fall to fire, WTC1 and WTC2 being the first two.
Was anyone else aware that at least three governments - all friends of the U.S. - have done their own investigations into 9/11 and concluded that the offical story is a hoax? Japan, Germany, Italy.
Were you all aware of this group? http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Last edited:
I heard JFK got shot by Aliens from a lazzzzzer cannon.
When they were here they said the earth will self destruct on Dec 21, 2012.
( insert evil laughter here)
When they were here they said the earth will self destruct on Dec 21, 2012.
( insert evil laughter here)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
Is this the Popular Mechanics study you're referring to? Am I missing something?
Shaman
Well-known member
That's the one, but they also had an article and a TV short about how they did the testing... and failed. Probably can be found on the 'web somewhere.
When they say "FACT:" in that article, what they really mean is "this is what we think" since they couldn't prove their hypothesis anymore than NIST did.
When they say "FACT:" in that article, what they really mean is "this is what we think" since they couldn't prove their hypothesis anymore than NIST did.
PM says there was significant structural weakness from a fire that burned at roughly 1800F. So... which is it? If you're going to make a claim you should be able to cite your sources.
I think anyone who actually believes anything BUT the airplanes brought those towers down is a complete and utter ****ing moron.
The only thing worth questioning is who really got the wheels moving on those hijackings. All the rest of it was shown on live TV that September 11th.
This talk of engineering and "buildings dont fall that way!!!" is absolutely hilarious. The structure of one floor being weakened and allowing the remaining floors above it to collapse on itself is 1,000,000x the load that the building is ever designed to carry. The momentum of X number of floors falling 12' downwards is enough to crush the rest of the building into fine dust, which is exactly what happened. It's painfully obvious that the two main towers collapsed because they were hit by airliners.
The only thing worth questioning is who really got the wheels moving on those hijackings. All the rest of it was shown on live TV that September 11th.
This talk of engineering and "buildings dont fall that way!!!" is absolutely hilarious. The structure of one floor being weakened and allowing the remaining floors above it to collapse on itself is 1,000,000x the load that the building is ever designed to carry. The momentum of X number of floors falling 12' downwards is enough to crush the rest of the building into fine dust, which is exactly what happened. It's painfully obvious that the two main towers collapsed because they were hit by airliners.
Last edited:
Shaman
Well-known member
I'm sorry, you just called me and a bunch of other people a moron. While making some extremely painfully stupid comments. I'm sure I'm wrong... you're a genius, after all.
Let's do this...
a) who really got the wheels moving on the hijackings - well let's find out who the hijackers actually were, shall we? reported no more than a year after 9/11 were several of the supposed hijackers - alive and well - and wondering why the world thought they flew a plane into a building.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
Note that it has footnotes from the sources. Not your holier-than-thou opinion - news sources.
But, being a super-genius, you knew that. Amirite? So who was actually in control of those planes? Everyone else is a moron, so you must be keeping it to yourself... amirite?
b) All the rest of it was shown on live TV that September 11th.
And this is backed up by what? Not NIST, or the official report. What you saw within hours is them saying that Bin Laden did the whole thing - he was not implicated nor wanted by the authorities for 9/11 right up until his "official" death. So tell me again how accurate that live TV was? Are you talking the same live TV that reported the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually fell... and then never mentioned it again?
c) This talk of engineering and "buildings dont fall that way!!!" is absolutely hilarious.
And you know this because you're 1) a structural engineer, 2) smarter than everyone else, 3) because the government says so (actually, they didn't), 4) $profit?! Thanks for your personal genius opinion rather than any sort of knowledgable source. But I'll get to that. What you need to know is that the towers were designed with load redundancy and multiple load paths, to withstand the impacts of *two* Boeing 707s. Let's see what Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the team that designed the towers has to say:
"Boeing 707 considered by the designers, weighed 263,000 pounds and the Boeing 767s that hit the towers weighed about 274,000 pounds. This is a difference of 4%. ...Incidently, the maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds."
"The events of September 11 are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone." As NIST would also conclude.
But you know better. Cuz you're the smartestest.
d) The structure of one floor being weakened and allowing the remaining floors above it to collapse on itself is 1,000,000x the load that the building is ever designed to carry.
This is where you jump off the cliff. So what you're saying is this: the building wasn't designed to hold the load of ... the building. So where did this 1,000,000 extra buildings come from that magically landed on top of the ... building? Do you realise how worm-brained this argument is? This is early grade-school getting-to-know-physics kind of stuff. You're a genius, so you must have skipped physics class.
Repeat with me: matter cannot be created or destroyed.
OK, after that you say that out loud 10 times, consider this: an airplane is made of aluminum. That makes it relatively light, what of the plane ended up in the building. The building was designed to withstand the impact and weight of two 707s. It was also built to take approximately twice the load of its own structure, insurance in case of an earthquake and high winds - or, specifically, an attack by an airplane. So putting a 767 into the building would have been *far* below the design load of the building. An 767 doesn't weigh as much as one extra floor, and the design specs on these buildings would have allowed them much more than one extra floor - albeit this would have skewed their design goals.
But you don't have to believe me. Consider that it took hours before the buildings fell. If it was the weight alone that felled the buildings, they would have gone down immediately. But they didn't... they instead burnt off all the fuel, as well as tonnes of combustables that went out the impact holes in giant plumes of black smoke - shedding weight within the building for that whole time period. Or did you think that smoke is just coloured air?
Getting the picture yet? Probably not. Your superior intellect surely has found a hole in my message! I wait with bated breath for you scholarly "omg screw your tinfoil cap on tighter" reply. Hey, I even saved you the time.
d) The momentum of X number of floors falling 12' downwards is enough to crush the rest of the building into fine dust
Nope! That's what NIST thought (or wanted to think, at least). So they modelled it, and nothing of the sort happened. In fact, nothing even LIKE that happened. They proved to the best of their ability that this could NOT have happened. It's in the official report, you can read about it. But hey... you're the genius here. So you should call them up and tell them where they went wrong... they must have missed something!
e) It's painfully obvious that the two main towers collapsed because they were hit by airliners.
Except that it isn't. The official report, the lead engineer of the towers and many architects and engineers disagree. The official report says that none of their mathematics or their test modelling could prove conclusively how the towers fell in the way that they did. You should correct them before they keep spouting off about how they know better than you. The nerve of those idiots. Er, sorry, that would be "complete and utter ****ing moron(s)."
Anything more that you can teach us? Perhaps you could tell us how jet fuel burns so hot that it melts steel in an oxygen-starved building?
(PS: I am holding back a TORRENT of information that is available, mostly because I don't feel like sitting here all night typing.)
Last edited:
The more you type the more you look like an idiot.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Shaman
Well-known member
What impressive debating tactic. You can't disprove what I'm saying, or even argue it... because I used qualified sources. Clearly, you haven't got a clue about any of this, or you'd at least try to raise an argument.
So instead, you attack my person.
Who's the idiot again?
Last edited:
The sources you reference contradict the point you're trying to make. And you're criticising MY debating tactics?
The PM report that YOU cite as a source disproves several of your points. Excellent work.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Some of you clearly need tin foil hats, and already have WAYYYYYYY too much time on your hands.
Shaman
Well-known member
Definitely. When making such arguments, it's customary to QUOTE YOUR SOURCE. Which you've failed to do.
You must have been a terror in grade-school debate class.
uhhh... PM report? Do you mean Popular Mechanics? I quoted them because their "proof" is junk science. How did you miss that? What I said was that they tried to model the building collapse - just like the official report did - and failed to do it... but that didn't stop them from quoting it as "fact" that they still think it happened the way that the official report said that they couldn't reproduce, nor could they. Confused? Yes, you are.
Sorry, I said to quote... so here it is:
So to recap and clarify, what I said is that NIST could not recreate their hypothesis of (several) collapse methodology, and Popular Mechanics couldn't either - so "PM" kept changing parameters until they got something like a collapse out of their physical model. What I didn't say is that those parameters were not present during the event, and could not occur naturally. But just like the government, they said "this is how it happened" despite proving that it didn't happen that way, to the best of their ability.
Got it? Reading comprehension. I'll just say it clearly: NIST and Popular Mechanics proved to their own satisfaction that they don't know why the towers fell the way they did. Better?
Shaman
Well-known member
The train is currently running over you. You're too thick to realize it.
Really? That's your hypothesis? That's ridiculous.
Having started quite a few fires myself in labs I have no problems seeing how a massive amount of kerosene could burn that hot....especially if any of you have ever opened a window or stood on the top of a scyscraper or tall building....it's a tad windy. Add to that outside air rushing in to the vacuum caused by the initial fires burning interior air inside a sealed building. Some aspects of that day are not straightforward, Bin Laden family flying out etc, but I don't believe that the actual event was a conspiracy seeing as how there was a record of the loonies trying various other things up to then.
As an aside...I always wanted to chat to one of those nice NORAID people to ask what they thought about terrorism being committed on their soil and whether or not they might reconsider anything they did in the past.
As an aside...I always wanted to chat to one of those nice NORAID people to ask what they thought about terrorism being committed on their soil and whether or not they might reconsider anything they did in the past.
Trust me guys, I've made a career of studying 767 airliner impacts on skyscrapers and they DEFINITELY do not collapse like WTC 1 & 2 did. We haven't been able to recreate the collapse in a lab using legos.
