short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Strangest Tribe

I guess I'm having a hard time believing that all three WTC buildings fell straight down as if collapsed by demolition-style imploding. I can't believe they would be "designed to collapse" architecturally speaking that is.

My thoughts and speculations would lead me to believe that under such circumstances... the WTC's weren't hit by the planes to the extent that one would assume that some internal melting or structural weakening wouldn't have caused (especially the second plane that hit mostly right of center) some pitching or lean before collapse.

What I'm seeing always leads me to believe that these towers were imploded somehow. Just doesn't seem to make sence.

Nevertheless, it shouldn't be ignored...it needs to be questioned.

Always question.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Strangest Tribe wrote:

I guess I'm having a hard time believing that all three WTC buildings fell straight down as if collapsed by demolition-style imploding. I can't believe they would be "designed to collapse" architecturally speaking that is.

My thoughts and speculations would lead me to believe that under such circumstances... the WTC's weren't hit by the planes to the extent that one would assume that some internal melting or structural weakening wouldn't have caused (especially the second plane that hit mostly right of center) some pitching or lean before collapse.

What I'm seeing always leads me to believe that these towers were imploded somehow. Just doesn't seem to make sence.

Nevertheless, it shouldn't be ignored...it needs to be questioned.

Always question.

It's also interesting how the media showed the towers coming down again and again for what seemed like months to make people fumed enough until the War in Iraq started up. Instantly, overnight, it all magically disappeared, and the "you're either with us or against us" mindset was ingrained into society.

Honestly what Country should ever make a threat like that? If you're not with us...you're the enemy?

building #7's collapse, in reality, is essentially impossible to have occurred.

Why are we led to believe that steel frame concrete reinforced buildings all the sudden are these brittle, flimsy structures that are apt to collapse into finely pulverized dust?

It's fucking ludicrous. I don't know how the media did it, but they did, and somehow common sense went right out the window...

That's some pretty potent jet fuel I'd say...nothing a fully loaded 707 could ever accomplish with, in all reality, even more jet fuel than what actually hit the towers :rolleyes:

nucking futs!!
.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

revisiting some of the saved WTC wreckage...it seems almost unbelievable what that jet fuel can really do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzOuyin_2as

.

spiral out

MakingWaves wrote:

The information I saw on why they collapsed seemed to based on engineering and physics.
Some people will never be convinced and will always think there is a conspiracy with this. I can't understand why and reading about it just frustrates me anyway.

They had to manipulate the data and keep manipulating to get it to collapse, because no matter what they tried it just wouldn't.

And some people will just believe anything their told without questioning the facts or looking into how they came to the conclusions they did and that frustrates me.

MakingWaves

spiral out wrote:

They had to manipulate the data and keep manipulating to get it to collapse, because no matter what they tried it just wouldn't.

And some people will just believe anything their told without questioning the facts or looking into how they came to the conclusions they did and that frustrates me.

Ok, all of you conspiracy people are correct and all the respected engineers and college professors that offer logical explinations as to why they collapsed are wrong. Just keep telling yourselves that. The US media and the US government were able to put together the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind that will never be able to be duplicated.

Just fucking ridiculous.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, all of you conspiracy people are correct and all the respected engineers and college professors that offer logical explinations as to why they collapsed are wrong. Just keep telling yourselves that. The US media and the US government were able to put together the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind that will never be able to be duplicated.

Just fucking ridiculous.

Look at it more simply. The WTC buildings were over engineered to withstand anything you could throw at them. Including an airplane and jet fuel.

Over engineered. Let that sink in for a bit.

What hit the towers were well within design specs, below design specs actually.

An hour later the buildings are dust...not just collapsed...dust... with molten pools of metal that were still red hot a week later

right....sprinkle a little jet fuel and poof it's magic....gmafb...


....whatever you need to tell yourself...

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Look at it more simply. The WTC buildings were over engineered to withstand anything you could throw at them. Including an airplane and jet fuel.

Over engineered. Let that sink in for a bit.

What hit the towers were well within design specs, below design specs actually.

An hour later the buildings are dust...not just collapsed...dust... with molten pools of metal that were still red hot a week later

right....sprinkle a little jet fuel and poof it's magic....gmafb...


....whatever you need to tell yourself...

I don't know where you get this information but the WTC towers were not designed to withstand a hit that they took. and by the way it wasn't just jet fuel burning once the freaking building caught on fire. I still don't see why people think this fire was basically cold.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

I don't know where you get this information but the WTC towers were not designed to withstand a hit that they took. and by the way it wasn't just jet fuel burning once the freaking building caught on fire. I still don't see why people think this fire was basically cold.

This is where a lot of people just gulped down what the media shit out.

The 767's were not at max weight capacity and fuel. The WTC buildings were designed for a fully loaded max capacity 707 which would have had MORE jet fuel than the 767's that hit WTC. A 707 can also go about 100 mph faster than a 767.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This is where a lot of people just gulped down what the media shit out.

The 767's were not at max weight capacity and fuel. The WTC buildings were designed for a fully loaded max capacity 707 which would have had MORE jet fuel than the 767's that hit WTC.

Ok, so you really believe that the government was able to get the media involved with this conspiracy also. So that would mean thousands of people are in on this cover up.

Now tell me what is wrong with the following.

"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."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, so you really believe that the government was able to get the media involved with this conspiracy also. So that would mean thousands of people are in on this cover up.

Now tell me what is wrong with the following.

"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."

The bottom line is that we were made to believe a 707 is not comparable to a 767 which is what hit the towers. I'm saying in reality the building was totally designed to handle this and should have. It's simple to think about.

They were over engineered and designed for exactly what hit them. Actually more than what hit them.

So address that logic and mindset first before you start digesting all the gov't reports which are essentially flawed and grossly inadequate.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The bottom line is that we were made to believe a 707 is not comparable to a 767 which is what hit the towers. I'm saying in reality the building was totally designed to handle this and should have. It's simple to think about.

They were over engineered and designed for exactly what hit them. Actually more than what hit them.

So address that logic and mindset first before you start digesting all the gov't reports which are essentially flawed and grossly inadequate.

So what if they were designed to withstand the impact. Read what I posted again, it was the combination of the collision and the fire.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

So what if they were designed to withstand the impact. Read what I posted again, it was the combination of the collision and the fire.

They were designed to withstand and survive the entire event not just the impact.

Strangest Tribe

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, all of you conspiracy people are correct and all the respected engineers and college professors that offer logical explinations as to why they collapsed are wrong. Just keep telling yourselves that. The US media and the US government were able to put together the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind that will never be able to be duplicated.

Just fucking ridiculous.

I'm not a conspiracy nut... but some of this makes sense.

My father flew jets in the Navy... right after 9-11 he told me he was suspicious of the story that 3-4 inexperienced pilots could maneuver these passenger planes with such precision. I don't think he's a conspiracy nut... he was just pointing out that the guys that did this had more than a few hours of flight training under their belts. The planes were already several hundred miles out of New York before they were Hi-Jacked. The Hi-jackers would have had to reset their bearings from about 30000 feet and about 400-500 miles from the WTC. An experienced pilot that had flown the route before would be familiar with the landmarks but woud still need help with the navigation (air traffic control). To an inexperienced pilot, circling back and finding their target (NYC) would be a longshot. Especially for 2 inexperienced pilots that didn't communicate with anyone on the ground.

My dad told me that back in the 70's (before computers did everything) pilots had to rely almost 70% on radio contact. Many passenger jets that lost radio contact flew blind and relied on the pilot's experience. This happened once when a pilot landed in Cleveland and thought he was landing in Detroit.

If my dad questions this logic, then I'm not so sure I wouldn't question some of the points made here.


I'm not sure the best way is to actually believe everything you are told, conspiracy nuts or not. One can only look at history to see even larger conspiracies that occured right under everyone's nose.

Does the Holocaust ring a bell?

spiral out

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, all of you conspiracy people are correct and all the respected engineers and college professors that offer logical explinations as to why they collapsed are wrong. Just keep telling yourselves that. The US media and the US government were able to put together the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind that will never be able to be duplicated.

Just fucking ridiculous.

For every respected engineer and college professor that has gone out of his way to twist the facts to make them fit is an engineer and college professor who see the collapse for what it was and instead of trying to think of a incredibly illaborate reason (for the little people who will believe anything) for why they collapsed, just tell it like they see it.

So what makes one more right than the other? Their all respected people.

I personally am going with, it looked like a demolition. I don't need some idiot payed by the goverment who spent months and months twisting the facts to choose that decision for me.

And you call logical twisting facts, you really must believe 2+2=5.

And whats the media got to do with it, they just put out what thier told, you don't really think you have a free and independent press over there do you.

Throughout history there have been many attacks carried out by goverments and blamed on other people just to get thier countries people to fall into line, look it up you'll be surprised. And my personal view is if goverments have done it before they sure as hell would do it again.

audome25

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/architects.htm

he was on the history channel once talking about what they designed the tower to withstand, i remember a point being that "withstand" meant the impact of an aircraft wouldn't knock it over.

chopitdown

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'm saying in reality the building was totally designed to handle this and should have. It's simple to think about.

They were over engineered and designed for exactly what hit them. Actually more than what hit them.

Well, it would appear that possibly the design didn't work out like it was supposed to. That happens from time to time.

mookie9999

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

They were designed to withstand and survive the entire event not just the impact.

"It was a fully laden aircraft, it was piloted by a suicidal pilot bent on converting this aircraft into a ballistic missile," he said. "That was not a design consideration."

From the article link on this page. I keep hearing all of the conspiracy theorists (especially you) citing how we shouldn't believe what the experts as well as the government tells us. But where is your data originating from? And please do not direct me to truth.org or some other CS site. Do you have viable proof or at least a group of respected opinions that back your claim that the Twin Towers should have withstood the attack without issue? Key word being viable. I don't want to watch some two hour movie narrated by some grade schooler telling me that a plane didn't crash in Pennsylvania.

MakingWaves

spiral out wrote:

For every respected engineer and college professor that has gone out of his way to twist the facts to make them fit is an engineer and college professor who see the collapse for what it was and instead of trying to think of a incredibly illaborate reason (for the little people who will believe anything) for why they collapsed, just tell it like they see it.

So what makes one more right than the other? Their all respected people.

I personally am going with, it looked like a demolition. I don't need some idiot payed by the goverment who spent months and months twisting the facts to choose that decision for me.

And you call logical twisting facts, you really must believe 2+2=5.

And whats the media got to do with it, they just put out what thier told, you don't really think you have a free and independent press over there do you.

Throughout history there have been many attacks carried out by goverments and blamed on other people just to get thier countries people to fall into line, look it up you'll be surprised. And my personal view is if goverments have done it before they sure as hell would do it again.

Ok, I will keep believing 2+2=5 and you keep believing what a couple of nut jobs are saying on the internet.
Also, of course it looked like implosion...the fucking building was collapsing. That is what happens in an implosion. What did you expect to happen? There be another huge explosion and the building explodes outward. And you probably are one of these people that think the building fell within its own footrprint. Give me a break. Take a look at ground zero and pictures of it afterwards. Also, to give our government and people of the media which would have had to be involved too credit for such a large cover up is crazy.
But I am wasting my breath. The government blew up the WTC's, we didn't land on the moon and I am going to guess that explosives were on the USS Arizona during Pearl Harbor because there is no way a ship could sink that fast.

Specifics

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, I will keep believing 2+2=5 and you keep believing what a couple of nut jobs are saying on the internet.
Also, of course it looked like implosion...the fucking building was collapsing. That is what happens in an implosion. What did you expect to happen? There be another huge explosion and the building explodes outward. And you probably are one of these people that think the building fell within its own footrprint. Give me a break. Take a look at ground zero and pictures of it afterwards. Also, to give our government and people of the media which would have had to be involved too credit for such a large cover up is crazy.
But I am wasting my breath. The government blew up the WTC's, we didn't land on the moon and I am going to guess that explosives were on the USS Arizona during Pearl Harbor because there is no way a ship could sink that fast.

Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?

But i am wasting my breath, theres no precedent for governments to misuse they're powers, the US government has never acted in an underhand and shady way and acts only for the good of the people US and the world at large, and it is currently in the process of expending billions of dollars and thousands of US lives in a noble attempt to free the people of the middle-east from oppression.

chopitdown

Specifics wrote:

Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html