rockwool said: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.
This is called pancaking. One floor lands on another floor and the connections of the bottom floor go or explode with energy...boom. This can also happen on a concrete structure. Floors are not made to withstand the dynamic load of another floor. Buildings are not designed that way. They would be way to expensive.
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...
Apples and Oranges, or rather point load vvs distributed load. Most mother nature forces rain, wind and snow are in design terms called distributed load. A plane hitting a building is considered a point load. Keep in mind core members are primarily designed to take compressive load or down loads not MASSIVE lateral point loads.
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.
Fires were not that hot? Most buildings are designed for a burn time of 2 hours. Most materials are rated for a 2 hour burn. But keep in mind what type of fires are we talking about with regular office fires, paper, wood, fabrics. Fuel fires burn much hotter plus on the 82 floor the fire had an unlimited amount of O2 to keep it raging, due to the 2 big holes in the building and up that high it is unconfined.
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;
Yup, see my pancake response. Once a floor goes the rest will follow.The scrap columns you saw on the news were all in neat lengths not to big to be put up on a lorry.
Not the ones I saw. Maybe they were the ones they cut up so they can put them on the truck?
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;
Nope that is called spray on fireproofing and I can kick it off with my shoe. It only has a burn time of 2 hours under normal conditions (see my fire response above)
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)
Yes it can! think pancake
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.
My wife was 4 blocks away and saw the second plane hit from her office window. As did a number of my friends, one who worked in one of the buildings. It was a commercial plan. Or maybe my wife is in the CIA...........cool
WTC Stuff...
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
Heat and pressure, eh? Have you actually read Dr. Jones paper on the subject? He describes the temperatures of molten metal:SDH said:
This site http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm has video that compares a thermite reaction to footage from the WTC.
In simple terms, presented here is evidence of molten steel without the necessary heat or pressure.
rockwool 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
I think there were 5 or 6 missions that landed on the moon and a few others that just orbited
Do you have any idea what was under the TT. A baby city.rockwool said:
Pressure, heat and time
Turns coal into diamonds I sure it can melt a few steel members.
My uncle was in WTC 1 and the plane basically landed on his desk. He was blown to smithereens. He was identfied from a bone fragment.SDH said:
There are many things that people claim to have seen and much of it is simply noise that proves nothing. While my above statement is entirely true, it doesn't mean squat when discussing the science of the collapse.
Again, please focus on the science. Explain how molten steel can be present without the necessary heat or pressure.
A couple of supplemental members (pipe supports, metal decking etc) melted before the building came crashing down.......so? They are easier to melt given the material and size?RenegadeRick said:
SDH said:
I always like to refer back some building codes in this situation. When steel floor beams were first being used with brick walls it was found that the building would collapse during fires. It was found that in the heat of a fire the beams would sag an the ends would pry the walls up and in. Codes were passed that required the brick to have opening around the beams and the ends of the beams be cut at angles.
You mean there was a fire and it melted some steel floor joists????Westy said:
Fire can't melt steel...............
SDH, I am intersted in the Pancake theory, but it falls down in two major ways for me:
1) The speed of collapse - The towers collapsed in 12 and 14 seconds (approx). Ignoring the near perfect vertical collapse as suspicious for a moment, these towers have stood for many years. The structure and floors of the lower levels have been holding up those upper levels for years. The material which comprises the first floor of the building is holding above it the entire weight of the building. And I'm sure it is not 'just' supporting the weight either. There is normally a 4x strength redundancy in civil engineering is there not? Now, when the building began to collapse, especially in the case of the second collapse, all this strength which had held those floors up so well for all these years suddenly offered nearly zero resistance to the collapse. I find that very hard to accept. Yes there was a significant amount of damage where the plane impacted, and maybe the remaining structure of those floors did fail in the unlikely perfect manner it would have had to to ensure the near perfect "vertical only" motion that resulted, but the lovely vertical columns holding the building up for so long, suddenly offering virtually no resistance to the speed of the fall? According to the FEAM and NIST reports there was virtually zero damage to the lower floors. This simply doesn't add up for me.
2) The perfection of the falls and the amount of people who have reported multiple secondary (and even primary) explosions in other parts of the building. It's just too shady.
1) The speed of collapse - The towers collapsed in 12 and 14 seconds (approx). Ignoring the near perfect vertical collapse as suspicious for a moment, these towers have stood for many years. The structure and floors of the lower levels have been holding up those upper levels for years. The material which comprises the first floor of the building is holding above it the entire weight of the building. And I'm sure it is not 'just' supporting the weight either. There is normally a 4x strength redundancy in civil engineering is there not? Now, when the building began to collapse, especially in the case of the second collapse, all this strength which had held those floors up so well for all these years suddenly offered nearly zero resistance to the collapse. I find that very hard to accept. Yes there was a significant amount of damage where the plane impacted, and maybe the remaining structure of those floors did fail in the unlikely perfect manner it would have had to to ensure the near perfect "vertical only" motion that resulted, but the lovely vertical columns holding the building up for so long, suddenly offering virtually no resistance to the speed of the fall? According to the FEAM and NIST reports there was virtually zero damage to the lower floors. This simply doesn't add up for me.
2) The perfection of the falls and the amount of people who have reported multiple secondary (and even primary) explosions in other parts of the building. It's just too shady.
But if the heat wasn't sufficient to melt steel, then how can this be?SDH said:
Are you suggesting that it is a metal other than steel?
Dr. Jones paper addresses this. Did you actually READ his paper (and not just skim it)?
Have you ever been rock climbing?
Notice how if you have your buddy in tension on the rope and he falls it is not that big of a tug. But let a little slack in the line and wham you get a nice little tug or get lifted off the ground. Perfect example of F=MA. Your buddy does not weight more the second go around but now he is accelerating.
Most building are designed for static loading with a little deflection build in, not dynamic loading. Certainly not dynamic point loading
Test #2: sit gently on a kids plastic scooter (that is not rated to hold your weight). Holds you up. Now hold yourself over it 8" and let yourself drop. Do you crush the scooter. Same principle but now you have roughly an acre sq. of people, equipment and steel/concrete falling 13+ feet. F=MA
The booming people heard was probaly from from structural members and connections failing and utilily lines blowing as the building came down. We demo's a concrete member by over loading it in a lab once at school the boom was pretty damn loud!
Pancakes usually happen when you demo a building from the top down. Toppling, like a tree is when the base is destroyed the top has no where to go.
Plus, the design of the building (core and out rigger) I believe lended itself to more of drop than a topple.
Good questions...............
Besides everyone say JWB is sooo stupid you think he could have pulled this off?
Notice how if you have your buddy in tension on the rope and he falls it is not that big of a tug. But let a little slack in the line and wham you get a nice little tug or get lifted off the ground. Perfect example of F=MA. Your buddy does not weight more the second go around but now he is accelerating.
Most building are designed for static loading with a little deflection build in, not dynamic loading. Certainly not dynamic point loading
Test #2: sit gently on a kids plastic scooter (that is not rated to hold your weight). Holds you up. Now hold yourself over it 8" and let yourself drop. Do you crush the scooter. Same principle but now you have roughly an acre sq. of people, equipment and steel/concrete falling 13+ feet. F=MA
The booming people heard was probaly from from structural members and connections failing and utilily lines blowing as the building came down. We demo's a concrete member by over loading it in a lab once at school the boom was pretty damn loud!
Pancakes usually happen when you demo a building from the top down. Toppling, like a tree is when the base is destroyed the top has no where to go.
Plus, the design of the building (core and out rigger) I believe lended itself to more of drop than a topple.
Good questions...............
Besides everyone say JWB is sooo stupid you think he could have pulled this off?
Irrelevant. Please stick to the science.SDH said:
Is he stupid enough to melt steel in abscence of the proper conditions?
RenegadeRick said:
In building construction, you use steel (for structure), iron (some pipes), AL(large fixtures and office equipment etc) and various metals for stud, file cabinets and raised flooring.
Nope did not read his paper.........
So you are now saying the WTC was demo'ed?SDH said:
Another thought to ponder..........RenegadeRick said:Irrelevant. Please stick to the science.
Is he stupid enough to melt steel in abscence of the proper conditions?
Heat is a by product of a release of massive kenetic energy (even absent of a flamable). A bombs work on this principal. You think there may have been a little heat release due to the impact?
by a crazy dude and a 757!RenegadeRick said:
Obviously.SDH said:
What it says is that you can tell the type of metal by the temperature of the color. If I understand it correctly, to produce that color it would have had to be iron or steel.
Yes I do, but again, we all agree... not enough heat to MELT steel.SDH said:
This is a dead horse. There are some who see it for what it is, and some who won't let themself see it any other way.
I have looked at everything I can get my hands on and asked, studied, questioned a lot of crap. Do I think a plane hit WTC 1 & 2? Yes. Did the impact bring them down? No. Don't even get me started on WTC 7, that was just a bonus.
I have looked at everything I can get my hands on and asked, studied, questioned a lot of crap. Do I think a plane hit WTC 1 & 2? Yes. Did the impact bring them down? No. Don't even get me started on WTC 7, that was just a bonus.
Thanks Jimmy. You should be nominated as the new voice of reason.jimmydean said:
Interesting on what basis did you form that opinion?jimmydean said:
All of what I said can be substantiated by any qualified structural engineer. I am sure there is a lot on the board.
Keep in mind demo'ing a building with explosives is no easy task. Ya just don't put charges somewhere and blow it. It is very specialized and takes ALOT of coordination. At least, I do not think the CIA firemen did it in a few hours etc
Dead on right. Hence all those "crazy conspiracy theorists" saying that it was preplanned...SDH said:
That is not cool.SDH said:
Them guys fill the world with firearms and drugs, including your country.Second plane that hit was of commercial origin but was a "special plane" as them cargo planes that are same exterior but different interior. It wasn't striped as an AA and as I recolect it had no passanger windows. Get a memorabilia disk and check it out or/and watch 911 In Plane Site.
This has been largely discredited. Even if true, it is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE at the heart of this debate. Who gives a funk if the plane had windows or not? So funking what if a "pod" on the underbelly of the plane fired a missile into the WTC? A plane IS a missile for all practical purposes.rockwool said:
Like I said before, a lot of this carp is simply noise indended to distract from the core of the debate. Carp that is easily discredited, thereby "poisoning the well" for the legitimate science that exists.
If we all agree that the fires could not melt steel, and I have provided evidence of melted steel in absence of the pressure and heat SDH suggests is necessary to melt steel....
Oh just funk it...
Nobody can answer this question according to the "official" story anyhow. :mumble:
Ohh, c'mon do you belive he writes his own speaches too? He is a puppet, a frontal, there are a lot of people who have benefited from 911, not just dubya. The US would never have had a military budget of world conquest proportioins if it wasn't for 911.SDH said:
And dubya him selfe was mocked by the whole world ever since the supreme court ruled in his favour. The whole world, for every thing he did, all political views gathered in the mocking!!! There has never been a collective horrasment of such proportions. Ever!
So therefor somthing drastic had to be done...
The pancake theory is solid, but based on another engineers take on the footage, it would not have come down that fast, or that soon after impact, nor would it have gone clear to the sub-floor levels, it would have slowed and possibly stopped on the way down.SDH said:
WTC 7 was not tall enough to pancake, nor did it have ANY plane impact it. If debris from 1 and 2 caused it, other buildings would have also been affected.
I agree that if it was a demo job, it would have taken a lot of organization, but I also know that it's not impossible. I haven't seen anything that explains 2 buildings imploding at near free-fall rate from a fire. Until I have seen or read something that explains it, I will continue to have reasonable doubt.
Yes, I understand that, but even the plastic scooter slows you down a little. The very process of your kinetic energy being converted to sound and kinetic energies in other directions, fracture energies and so on removes direct kinetic energy from the situation. Now you have to fall through floors and floors of plastic scooters. And yet none of them slow the decent at all?SDH said:
Also the WTC were built to allow for a small percentage of dynamic loading, as are most buildings, although I think this is largely besides the point. Just imagine the vertical strength of the central core, it acts in exactly the right direction to slow the collapse. Yet lower down this supposedly undamaged core did almost nothing to slow the rate of decent of the collapse, and was completely destroyed itself. There are also photos of the debris which look very much like the steel beams have been sliced through is a very precise way. Because of what happened to the evidence this can now not be proven to have been cut or not cut purposefully, but it sure doesn't add up to me.
Puppet boy.
I thought that the conspiratorial betrayal was the heart of this discussion and that all facts in the matter including the scientifical are a part of it. Therefore all things that show that it was a conspiracy is of interest.RenegadeRick said:
Them two planes were not a smoke screen tactic, that is soo often used oteherwise.
Yup Yup.Changleen said:
No windows eh? Terr'rists get control of the plane and make everyone close their window shades so they can't see that the plane is going to crash.rockwool said:That is not cool.
Second plane that hit was of commercial origin but was a "special plane" as them cargo planes that are same exterior but different interior. It wasn't striped as an AA and as I recolect it had no passanger windows. Get a memorabilia disk and check it out or/and watch 911 In Plane Site.
That is also one of the dodgy things about this incident. The palce was a crime scene, and as because of that it is not allowed to destroy the evidence! But the whole thing was quickly rapped up and I also belive that pictures of the rubble was not allowed to be taken.. and ASAP sent to Asia for reusing.Changleen said:
The company that handled the demolition was also the same that handled the Oklahoma City building that some claim was some type of rehersal for 911. The demolition job for WTC was also never out for bidding which might be (don't remember) aquired by law.
767...get it rightSDH said:
Any of you conspiracy folks care to throw out some ideas on who did this and why?
The primary why is easy and obvious, (grounds for WoT) however there is opportunity for many smaller 'whys' as well dependant on how much you choose to believe about what was reported at the time.Westy said:
As for who - who benefits, and who had the resources to do this? Intelligence agencies, big big business and governments seem to fit both of those answers.
Of course it was actually the Jews.
:hot:As I see it the prezadenn was definitely aware of it, so was his closest neo con buddies, his dad-mr CIA, and further I don't know the people in the background. Of course, something of this nature can not have been something widely spread.Westy said:
WHY?
As I mentioned previously in this thread, dumbya was mocked and haunted like a wich by all media in the whole world, even yours, like when he was mocked for hanging at the golf course all the time instead of working. The public hunt on tricky dick can not have come close to this... And it was getting worse by the week!
Every thing he laid his hand on was attacked and things like the Kyoto conference in May? of 2001 which he sabotaged by not signing;
the world "natures day" in the spring were he went out and said that US companies are allowed to spew out pollutions as much as they like, and that it was totaly up to them if they wanted to be a company with an enviromental policy;
The human rights comference in Cape Town in July? where the US backed Israel up who claimed one of the countries had anti semitic caricatures up on their monter. The media here in Sweden reported it first with empathy for the Israeli/US move but the day after they had National TV standing at the booth and showing the "anti semitic caricatures" who clearly was nothing of the sort, but had been used as an excuse because of the upcomming discussion of reparation for the slave ancestors.
These were just a few examples but I hope you can remenisse the atmosphere of 2001 with them.
Other reasons were:
*Military budget of world conquest proportions. Afghanistan and Iraq would never have been possible otherwise. Don't forget they probably belived they would have handled Iran and Syria by now and would have been marching to N.Korea and Cuba.
Why? It has to do with the black and white ideology of the neo cons. They belive they stand for what is good in this world.
*Make a buck. Look in the gvmt and see who has shares and it what companies. Look at what these shares were worth before and after 911. Look at if these companies got any contracts handed to them in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That is A LOT of money we're talking about here, which definitely helps if they should have any moral doubts that they stand for what is good...
These are the reasons I can think of, might be more, dunno.
*EDIT: Probably needless to say but Afghanistan was mainly about the pipelines from Kazakhstan and Azerbadjan, secondly about the popy fields to finance CIA's unofficial missions, of which none would have been possible otherwise.
*Oil is not just money in their pockets, it also has to do with the future economic world domination of the US that is becoming more threatened, mainly by China, for every year.
Right. If different planes than the ones that took off at Logan were those that struck the WTC that would certainly PROVE a preplanned conspiracy. However, these claims can be easily dismissed.rockwool said:
Please see: http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html#windowless for a discussion of why the "no windows" and "pod" theories may not be the most reliable.
See: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html for a discussion of why the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory is also not the strongest.
There is so much evidence available and the American people in their short attention span world do not wish to review everything... especially if they don't want to believe your "crazy conspiracy" conclusions anyhow.
If we can focus attention on a few key points that are not easily dismissed, we might be able to get enough people to raise their voices and demand a real investigation.
If this was all planned to justify the WoT wouldn't it have made much more sense to frame some folks with Afghani, Iranian or Iraqi passports?Changleen said:The primary why is easy and obvious, (grounds for WoT) however there is opportunity for many smaller 'whys' as well dependant on how much you choose to believe about what was reported at the time.
As for who - who benefits, and who had the resources to do this? Intelligence agencies, big big business and governments seem to fit both of those answers.
Of course it was actually the Jews.
Those details would escape the average American. They all look the same to us.Westy said:
RenegadeRick said:Those details would escape the average American. They all look the same to us.
But it could have been a set up for a good joke: An Iranian, Uzbekistani and a Syrian walk on to an airplaine........
Koo-koo for Coca Pufs!!!