Take a look at this...
http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/17552/Engineer_s_Remarkable_WTC_Collapse_Simulations
Pretty good stuff.
http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/17552/Engineer_s_Remarkable_WTC_Collapse_Simulations
Pretty good stuff.
WTC Stuff...
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
Very pretty..... but hard to tell anything from his long winded circling of the structure.
The cllapse part was.... Well hard to tell why those support elements in the model were disapearing. But then I'm not an structural engineer.
The cllapse part was.... Well hard to tell why those support elements in the model were disapearing. But then I'm not an structural engineer.
"NIST and FEMA were very careful to only show 2D drawings and illustrations because showing a realistic 3D model would make it even more difficult to explain fires causing the collapses (which after $20 million, is yet to be simulated)."
"The very fact that this is the ONLY 3D model of the collapse is a testament to the obvioiusness of the coverup."
-And another thing to ad to the pile of proofs..
If dubya confessed the whole thing was staged by his closest and that he new of it before it happened, a lot of people would still belive that "it can't be true".
The biggest lie ever sold; waaay to big to fit in anybodys mouth, never mind getting caught in their throat.
"Finally, if it were not for the free exchange of ideas on the internet and for the movie “In Plane Site” and “Loose Change 2nd Edition,” I would have been still one of those that still believes the government’s story which has yet to prove one fact or produce one piece of evidence. "
-"In Plane Site" is one of the best documentaries I've seen about anything. Strongly recomend it!
You can dl it and other documentaries from me using Direct Connect. Look after [BBB]rockwool in either of these hubs:
peoplepower.no-ip.com
vansterhubben.no-ip.com
Documentaries.no-ip.org:789
Downloading "Loose Change 2nd Edition" right now to be watched later tonight.
"The very fact that this is the ONLY 3D model of the collapse is a testament to the obvioiusness of the coverup."
-And another thing to ad to the pile of proofs..
If dubya confessed the whole thing was staged by his closest and that he new of it before it happened, a lot of people would still belive that "it can't be true".
The biggest lie ever sold; waaay to big to fit in anybodys mouth, never mind getting caught in their throat.
"Finally, if it were not for the free exchange of ideas on the internet and for the movie “In Plane Site” and “Loose Change 2nd Edition,” I would have been still one of those that still believes the government’s story which has yet to prove one fact or produce one piece of evidence. "
-"In Plane Site" is one of the best documentaries I've seen about anything. Strongly recomend it!
You can dl it and other documentaries from me using Direct Connect. Look after [BBB]rockwool in either of these hubs:
peoplepower.no-ip.com
vansterhubben.no-ip.com
Documentaries.no-ip.org:789
Downloading "Loose Change 2nd Edition" right now to be watched later tonight.
That does not prove or disprove anything. Even certain statements he made about safety factors and girder (member) layout seem suspect.
BTW
Mechanical engineer does not equal STRUCTURAL engineer
BTW
Mechanical engineer does not equal STRUCTURAL engineer
so what are your credentials to determine that this is "roobish".....SDH said:
Degree in Civil EngineeringMMike said:
Concentration: Structural
15 years in the Commercial Construction
SDH said:
Well ok then
I'm still not convinced it's roobish though....
Ok, so you have established your credentials. What's your take on the whole thing?SDH said:
I watched the 3D image of the towers collapsing this morning. I'm not entirely sure what they are trying to say, it looks like their model shows it happening just like it happened. 
1) maniac flys plane at open throttleRenegadeRick said:
2) Plane (alot of mass) has a shiat load fuel on board hits building
3) big explosion, lots of fire
4) fire burns really hot b/c of jet fuel
5) building not designed to take hit like that (was designed to take a plane hit but not that big of a plane and not at that speed)
6) building falls
Can't get into it more than that I have to run off to a meeting.
said it before I'll say it again....jet fuel doesn't burn that hot when it's not in an engine. Jet fuel basically kerosene.
some people have been throwing around claims that it was planned b/c the fires from the subsequent fuel explosions are not hot enough to melt steel (i think its around 1400*). This is true. However, what many of these conspiracy theorists (and others) fail to realize is that steel loses 50% of its strength around 600, 650 degrees, which, in reality would be enough of a material degradation to allow the collapse. Oh and those temperatures can easily be reached by burning jet fuel too. (the number's are only ball park, @ work and don't have the time to look the exact ones up).
...and a lot of people don't realize that a puddle of jet fuel on the ground does not burn at the same temperature as atomized fuel spray with carefully metered air/fuel mixtures inside a gas generator...
MMike said:
really? wow? who'da thunkit. what about a jet engine operating @ 100% that suddenly explodes? how hot do those get?
Right. Jet fuel could have caused the collapse by weakening the steel. But it could not have produced molten steel which was found in the basement of all three buildings.jonKranked said:
What explains the molten steel?
Not sure by how much, but likely WAY less hot than inside the engine.jonKranked said:really? wow? who'da thunkit. what about a jet engine operating @ 100% that suddenly explodes? how hot do those get?
Grade 10 chemistry: blue flames are much hotter than orange ones.
obviously much less than inside the engine. but how hot? hot enough to degrade the strength of the steel? quite probable. hot enough to melt the steel? much less probable.
last time i checked the pentagon didn't endure anywhere CLOSE to the amount fires/explosions/burning jet fuel as the other 2 buildings. :teacher:RenegadeRick said:
So that's what they meant at church last week when they said, "with Jesus, all things are possible."stevew said:
It sounds as plausible an explanation as any.
I meant the 3 buildings in NY, WTC 1, 2, and 7.jonKranked said:
You know, the one that wasn't hit by a plane...
wow.....jesus is a jerk...
clarify from the get go next time.RenegadeRick said:
oops. my bad. but really...jonKranked said:
Anyone got a better answer for the molten steel... better than Jesus?
Allah?RenegadeRick said:
Ok, please allow me to clarify again...Old Man G Funk said:
An answer to how molten steel was found in WTC 1, 2, and 7... based on SCIENCE?
RenegadeRick said:
the molecular system of the steel gained enough energy from an outside source to weaken the bonds of the atoms, allowing them to move more freely - thus converting it from its solid phase to a liquid phase.
edit i didn't answer the proper question. i answered how the steel melted, not how it was found. there were people looking through the rubble "oh hey molten steel"
Please specify this "outside source" that caused the steel to melt.jonKranked said:the molecular system of the steel gained enough energy from an outside source to weaken the bonds of the atoms, allowing them to move more freely - thus converting it from its solid phase to a liquid phase.
edit i didn't answer the proper question. i answered how the steel melted, not how it was found. there were people looking through the rubble "oh hey molten steel"
unicorns?
Dude, there are a skat load of facts that show 9/11 is staged. But just looking at WTC; take the different statements for example Silverstein (I think it's the guy who owned buildings 1&2&7) who claimed on tape that "we decided to pull the building" (~), but that NIST came up with a totaly different explanation:jonKranked said:
"NIST would have been better off saying the firefighters had the capability to set charges in three hours (to support Silversteins confession) rather than produce a report explaining fires taking out base girders which was the most robust part of the building."
In the documentary In Plane Site, they campare the fires of building 7 with a fire in an other sky scraper that was 10 times worse and nothing happened..
There are fire fighters on tape talking about the collapse of building 1 or 2, and where one of them says in a heavy Italian-American accent ~ "it was like it was full of explosives, they came down like boom, boom, boom, boom" while gestuculating with his hand in a decending way.
Building 1 & 2 were soo oversize built to handle anything mother nature could impossibly throw at them in a place like N.Y. and that was much more **** than an impact from a 757 could do. In this simulation you can clearly see how many steel columns there were just in the middle. Ad them with the surounding outer columns and you'll understand why they only moved a little on the impact and just swayed back to halt. Not like in a mega earth quake were sky scrapers sway some times for minutes...
The fires weren't that hot which is prooved by all them people looking out through the holes from the plane. Go inside a building where the fire just have self died, and touch stuff or even lay down of the floor like some of them did. That can only mean low heat. Ad the massive number of massive steel columns and you'll find it rediculous.
Look at the anatomy of the collapse; We've all seen buildings that have been pulled before. Them two collapses were too perfect;
They fell floor by floor all of the way down;
The scrap columns you saw on the news were all in neat lengths not to big to be put up on a lorry. None of them were bent out like mofo's, which would probably have caused the upper part to fall away from the buiding;
All these columns were protected with a special cover against fire. That coating was gone! which could only be done by wired detonations on them;
The sheer weight of the upper parts could not cause that. They were weakened far from ****in enough. Have you seen "the one inch punch" with Bruce Lee? Well, it is that type of motion energy that is needed for a collapse, or for the top to free fall for a while. Gravity + weight is not enough on them buildings. (This last part is my personal speculation so don't take it to seriously
)The video footatge many of you probably have at home will show you a lot more to prove this is staged. In Plane Site is made up entirely of footage from the different networks and I remember one sceene when the second plane hit the tower where a woman said horrified "that was not an American Airline, that was not an American Airline", and when they zoomed and slowmoed that footage you could see a thingie along the belly of the plane Mmike are you reading this? that could never have been put on there on a commercial plane. When the plane was a few meters from impact something shoot out from that thing which was probably some missile to create a greater damage.
That same thingie could be seen on the first plane that hit, filmed by a French team that was doing a documentary about the firemen of N.Y.
Those things show that this was special military planes that have been worked on!
I'll probably remember some more stuff later.
hey rockwool you probably believe that the moon landings were done in a hollywood studio dont you?
fact is there's not enough evidence to convince me it was staged. however there IS enough to make me question whether or not the story presented by the media and the gov't was/is accurate. also i wouldn't put it past bush and his cronies to do that.
fact is there's not enough evidence to convince me it was staged. however there IS enough to make me question whether or not the story presented by the media and the gov't was/is accurate. also i wouldn't put it past bush and his cronies to do that.
I think some people are wearing their tinfoil hats a little too tight.
We all agree that jet fuel could not melt steel, so again I ask, what "outside source" caused the molten steel?jonKranked said:
If this question cannot be answered scientifically, it lends serious credibility to the idea of a preplanned demolition and staged attack.
Meaning there was no commercial plane that hit the Pentagon. I saw a book that layed on a chair half a metre from where the building collapsed, zoomed in, and it wasn't burnt at all...jonKranked said:
And in the WTC's basement...only explosives get that hot...that **** was smoking for days...
Exactly, fuel don't do that to them metal pylons.jonKranked said:there were people looking through the rubble "oh hey molten steel"
Since Pentagon was mentioned I might as well continue... The rests of the "plane" that layed on the lawn were gathered by pentagon personell (only high ranked). In one footage you see them carry a piece of the planes body. A pretty big piece that only a few lifted. Now, if that was an airliner and not a drone that piece would be a lot heavier and also a lot thicker than the light weight body of a drone.
Check your memorabilia tapes.
YUP, but very entertaining!Westy said:
Also to answer that dudes question about molten steel, or what melts steel, heat, time and pressure. Also keep in mind in those basements had waste lines (flamable) and gas lines. The confined spaces of the basements basically turned those basements into furnaces. Getting hotter and hotter b/c no where for the heat to go (disipate)
Carry a 9 volt battery and some steel wool in your pocket.SDH said:
But have you really seen all the facts that are out there presented in different documentaries and books?jonKranked said:
You are talking about THE one and only moonlanding are you not? As far as I know it hasn't been done again and I find it just a wee bit strange. Is the curiousity of the sientists satismied with that one and only trip? Isn't there like a commercial interest to build a mcdonalds up there or something
that was a joke. The ruskies have said that they couldn't do it even today.There was a lot of prestiege in the race to space. Not only did you loose out to a dog but it was a commie dog too.
Then Kennedy? promised the irrevocable, bu tpromise or not. USA had lost maaaajor face to its enemy that was portrayed as a lesser developed, errr, man. The inferiority complex that had grown because of that dog was not allowed to grow. It could eff up the nation seriously. That was some seriously cold hard times..
Not in a studio, no. That was filmed outside, probably in your desert. Whach the documentary "Did We Land On The Moon". It is really good actually.