1) steel impacted and weakened by an explosion has its ultimate failure limit.
2) steel weakened by high temperatures has its ultimate failure limit.
3) steel under both 1 and 2 has an ultimate failure limit that is less than either 1 or 2.
Engineers cannot fully accurately predict how a building will behave under such an event. They can come up with theories and approximations. But they cannot accurately 100% predict how a building will perform under such conditions. There are too many variables. Many assumptions are made, even with computer analyses.
We can't even predict earthquakes yet.
I'll give you an example. A known common steel called A36 has a tensile capacity of 36,000 pounds per sqaure inch.
This means if you pulled on a 1" X 1" steel bar, it would take about 36,000 pounds to stretch it such that if the force is released, the bar would not shorten back to it's original length. Therefore, it has yielded. This is not ultimate failure where it would break in two pieces. That would take about twice the load.
My point is that if you do this test dozens of time in a lab, the actual yield and failure loads would vary significantly - plus or minus 15% would be a guess for talking purposes. That is for one simple piece of steel in a controlled load test.
Think of what the WTC complex steel framing was like, in conjunction with all issues such as connection strength, welds, plating, bolts, strength from secondary elements (partitition walls, window frames, exterior wall system, etc) - then you add in a plane impact, explosion forces, variable heat from a fire. It is beyond science. I'm sure that PHDs, research engineers, chemists, scientists and academia will refute that this is not an unsolvable problem. But those engineers who have real world experience in building design know better.
"This guy back here is giving me the ole one more....one more back to you buddy."
Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.
That "ever-so-leadable" public is now largely opposed to this administration, in large part because of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.
The firefighters' first-hand observations seem to contradict the official story and were conveniently omitted from the testimony conducted by the commission.
Actually, no it wasn't. Plenty of testimony from firefighters describing explosions is very much available.
Also, there were pools of melted steel visible in the wreckage. That pretty much dismisses the theory that the beams were merely "weakened not melted".
It would dismiss the theory, if WTC supports were the only steel in the World Trade Center. It would also dismiss the the theory if said support weren't exposed to intense heat after the buildings collapsed.
I guess we'll never really know what condition the towers' beams were in due to the fact they were shipped off to China in quite a hurry.
No. Much of the steel was kept by NIST. Some of them were shipped to China because Chinese firms bought the steel. Some of that was recalled by NIST.
For sure ... Of course, at some point, you've got to believe something. I've listened to both sides, and so far, the non-conspiracy theorists are making more sense on this particular issue. Does that mean that Bush hasn't abused 9-11 for political capital? No. I think people get these issues confused. Bush using 9-11 to push a certain agenda does not mean that the event itself is an inside job.
People often lump all issues, events and situations into one big lump. If not guilty of on thing, then not guilty of all things.
I think we all have to learn to look at each individual issue, event and situation; and evaluate each one ......one at a time.
Actually, no it wasn't. Plenty of testimony from firefighters describing explosions is very much available.
It would dismiss the theory, if WTC supports were the only steel in the World Trade Center. It would also dismiss the the theory if said support weren't exposed to intense heat after the buildings collapsed.
No. Much of the steel was kept by NIST. Some of them were shipped to China because Chinese firms bought the steel. Some of that was recalled by NIST.
1. Firefighters' direct testimony about first-hand observations were excluded from the commission's report, a glaring omission to say the least.
2. 'Intense heat' meaning hot enough to melt the steel into pools, again this comes from eyewitness accounts and contradicts the official report.
3. It would have been quite a plus to allow the analysis of the beams that failed in WTC 1 or 2, they did this with a beam from WTC 7 so why not the others. That kind of inept decision-making is highly suspect, they aren't that dumb.
Uh, melted steel? Been cited that it's actually melted aluminum that looks like melted steel (colored) because of all the crap that got burnt and melted into it.
Again, it's easy to take a bit here, a bit there and come up with some credible questions -- but that's not reality, you gotta take it all in. Atta at Logan Airport. Planes crashing into buildings. People jumping from windows. A building that was designed for the floors themselves to serve as structural elements, each floor could hold itself, but when just one fell onto another ... dominoes. Will there be stuff we won't ever understand? Yap. But that shouldn't make us ignore all the points that simply can't be questioned.
Uh, melted steel? Been cited that it's actually melted aluminum that looks like melted steel (colored) because of all the crap that got burnt and melted into it.
Again, it's easy to take a bit here, a bit there and come up with some credible questions -- but that's not reality, you gotta take it all in. Atta at Logan Airport. Planes crashing into buildings. People jumping from windows. A building that was designed for the floors themselves to serve as structural elements, each floor could hold itself, but when just one fell onto another ... dominoes. Will there be stuff we won't ever understand? Yap. But that shouldn't make us ignore all the points that simply can't be questioned.
Exactly. The steel didn't melt, it shouldn't have melted, and why people cite that as evidence in favour of a conspiracy is beyond me.
1. Firefighters' direct testimony about first-hand observations were excluded from the commission's report, a glaring omission to say the least.
It's not a "glaring omission". They were withheld as evidence in the Moussaoui trials. They have since been released. You can find thousands of pages of testimony and recordings on the web.
2. 'Intense heat' meaning hot enough to melt the steel into pools, again this comes from eyewitness accounts and contradicts the official report.
Jesus. It doesn't contradict the official report. Does anywhere in the report claim that metals can't be melted? No. The actual melting steel is mentioned in the NIST report. Look, lots of "steel" probably melted on that day. Aluminum melts at much lower temperature than actual steel beams. Obviously plastics melt at much lower temperatures. Lots of things melt, particularly when you have raging fires and 110 story buildings collapsing. NIST concluded that molten steel was the result of non-WTC materials such as pieces of the plane or other loose debris.
3. It would have been quite a plus to allow the analysis of the beams that failed in WTC 1 or 2, they did this with a beam from WTC 7 so why not the others. That kind of inept decision-making is highly suspect, they aren't that dumb.
It's not a "glaring omission". They were withheld as evidence in the Moussaoui trials. They have since been released. You can find thousands of pages of testimony and recordings on the web.
Jesus. It doesn't contradict the official report. Does anywhere in the report claim that metals can't be melted? No. The actual melting steel is mentioned in the NIST report. Look, lots of "steel" probably melted on that day. Aluminum melts at much lower temperature than actual steel beams. Obviously plastics melt at much lower temperatures. Lots of things melt, particularly when you have raging fires and 110 story buildings collapsing. NIST concluded that molten steel was the result of non-WTC materials such as pieces of the plane or other loose debris.
So it's not suspect that the official report excludes the most direct eyewitness testimony? We know it's on the web and other places, the fact that the commission refused to include it is troubling to say the least.
That second part is hardly more than a reaching strawman.
With the inconsistent nature of the commission report, how can any subsequent study be not questioned in full? Operating on a "take my word for it" basis is out of the question with what we know 5 years later.
So it's not suspect that the official report excludes the most direct eyewitness testimony? We know it's on the web and other places, the fact that the commission refused to include it is troubling to say the least.
It would be troubling if the actual conclusions of that report were contradictory to the vast majority of the testimony.
That second part is hardly more than a reaching strawman.
Suggesting that pieces of an airplane, when that plane crashes, can melt or cause other metallic objects to melt is a "strawman"? I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
With the inconsistent nature of the commission report, how can any subsequent study be not questioned in full? Operating on a "take my word for it" basis is out of the question with what we know 5 years later.
Question away. You don't care about questions though.
I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:
1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.
2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.
3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.
4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.
Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?
not one of those "engineers" has a phd. I would bet my career on it.
It would be troubling if the actual conclusions of that report were contradictory to the vast majority of the testimony.
Suggesting that pieces of an airplane, when that plane crashes, can melt or cause other metallic objects to melt is a "strawman"? I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
Question away. You don't care about questions though.
- it seems that first hand testimony should probably be considered first and foremost
- a strawman is exactly the overused tactic that's on display here, we are discussing a certain aspect of the argument and drawing away from it with hypotheticals is unnecessary
- it seems that first hand testimony should probably be considered first and foremost
Ok.
- a strawman is exactly the overused tactic that's on display here, we are discussing a certain aspect of the argument and drawing away from it with hypotheticals is unnecessary
Ok, let's remove any hypotheticals. Good luck with a conspiracy theory.
- that's defense lawyer-esque right there
Perhaps. But don't ask questions, refer to an answer as a "reaching strawman" and offer zero refutation. You obviously aren't questioning in order to get answers. You're "questioning" in order to attack answers.
That could be numerous things like the tower supports failing...I am sure they wouldn't fail quietly. I am quite certain they would fail with a loud bang.
How do things fall from the bottom upward? What does that even mean? I saw the towers fall from where the air planes hit. The weight of the upper floors (above the plane crashes), combined with the massive heat from the constant fires, was enough to bring both towers down.
Again....nobody has answered my question about how they "supposedly" rigged the buildings with dynamite with no one ever seeing it.
If the towers were rigged with explosives it could have been done the two weeks prior to the "attacks" where all bomb sniffing dogs and 24 hour security was removed from the towers... two weeks is enough time to rig the towers... did you know the security company for the towers was owned by one of Bush's brothers? Heh...
Have you also seen the smaller "explosions" being blown out underneath the falling rubble?
If the towers were rigged with explosives it could have been done the two weeks prior to the "attacks" where all bomb sniffing dogs and 24 hour security was removed from the towers... two weeks is enough time to rig the towers... did you know the security company for the towers was owned by one of Bush's brothers? Heh...
There's a problem with your theory. When a skyscraper is "rigged with explosives", key support structures are severed up to 90% to ensure that the demolition works properly. At that point buildings are not safe for occupation because daily use of them poses an acute risk that the building will collapse on its own.
Secondly, the buildings did not collapse in their own footprint and the steel outer structure is seen falling away from the structure. If WTC was a controlled demolition, it was one of the worst controlled demolitions in history.
Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.
Credibility, if they lied about WMDs then what else could they have lied about, it brings up too many questions
PJ at MSG in 2008! Mission Accomplished
The band all knows. We're too afraid to mention.
Don't want to be part of Frank's luncheon.
Lose weight. Be safe. Where's Mike McCready?
My god he's been ate!
Ok, let's remove any hypotheticals. Good luck with a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps. But don't ask questions, refer to an answer as a "reaching strawman" and offer zero refutation. You obviously aren't questioning in order to get answers. You're "questioning" in order to attack answers.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain it, I'm definitely in the "let it happen" group. No more of a conspiracy than a certain Hawaiian incident at least.
Sorry if I offended with the strawman part, the theory that airplane fuel brought down the WTC has always been suspect to some people. To see no type of rationalization of this until years after the fact and then it's explained away with blind spectulation that just isn't cutting it on the factual front.
It wouldn't be such a suspicious timeline if the administration had not stonewalled the idea of a investigative commission in the first place. The fact that they didn't want to see it happen coupled with the lackluster reporting of said commission makes it all that much harder to believe.
There's a problem with your theory. When a skyscraper is "rigged with explosives", key support structures are severed up to 90% to ensure that the demolition works properly. At that point buildings are not safe for occupation because daily use of them poses an acute risk that the building will collapse on its own.
Secondly, the buildings did not collapse in their own footprint and the steel outer structure is seen falling away from the structure. If WTC was a controlled demolition, it was one of the worst controlled demolitions in history.
Its not my theory, just one of the many I have seen... and I've watched the tapes many times... they fall straight down... I am sure there are many ways to skin a cat... besides I've watched shows an the discovery channel about demos and they showed nothing about tampering with the integrity of the buildings they were bringing down...
Besides they didnt need to be brought down "controlled" just brought down... place enough C4 in a building and set it off anything is gonna come down...
Conspiracy theories aside...one building had more weight above it than the other by virtue of the impact points. They were also hit in different places. If the impact to both buildings was exactly the same, and I mean to the thousandth of a degree, I would be able to accept the uniform implosion of both towers as statistically possible.
That is just simply not the case in this horrible national tragedy. I'll give you one tower impoding in a uniform manner based on the nature of the impact...the how, where, and when. I will not give you both...and neither will science or mathematics.
You don't need a conspiracy theory...all you need is statistical probability.
Conspiracy theories aside...one building had more weight above it than the other by virtue of the impact points. They were also hit in different places. If the impact to both buildings was exactly the same, and I mean to the thousandth of a degree, I would be able to accept the uniform implosion of both towers as statistically possible.
That is just simply not the case in this horrible national tragedy. I'll give you one tower impoding in a uniform manner based on the nature of the impact...the how, where, and when. I will not give you both...and neither will science or mathematics.
You don't need a conspiracy theory...all you need is statistical probability.
not to mention tower 7 imploding because of "falling debris"
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain it, I'm definitely in the "let it happen" group. No more of a conspiracy than a certain Hawaiian incident at least.
Um...that's still a conspiracy theory. And it still requires a host of hypotheticals and, more fatally, blatant assumptions without any grounding in fact. It's as if I suggested that molten metal observed at WTC came from a plane, but was unable to prove there had been any planes.
Sorry if I offended with the strawman part, the theory that airplane fuel brought down the WTC has always been suspect to some people. To see no type of rationalization of this until years after the fact and then it's explained away with blind spectulation that just isn't cutting it on the factual front.
You didn't offend. Don't worry about that.
It's not "blind speculation" to suggest that the WTC was brought down by fire when combined with the impact of the planes. It's sound science. Now that doesn't mean that it's exactly what happened that day. But I don't think anyone's claiming that the government's version is 100% absolute truth. It's not. But for a person to then take that concept and pretend that some nefarious deeds happened is to demonstrate how little truth or fact actually matter to that person.
It wouldn't be such a suspicious timeline if the administration had not stonewalled the idea of a investigative commission in the first place. The fact that they didn't want to see it happen coupled with the lackluster reporting of said commission makes it all that much harder to believe.
You don't have to believe it. You can believe whatever you'd like.
Its not my theory, just one of the many I have seen... and I've watched the tapes many times... they fall straight down... I am sure there are many ways to skin a cat... besides I've watched shows an the discovery channel about demos and they showed nothing about tampering with the integrity of the buildings they were bringing down...
Research RDX demolitions and the prework that goes into it.
Besides they didnt need to be brought down "controlled" just brought down... place enough C4 in a building and set it off anything is gonna come down...
:rolleyes:
The amount of C4 required to blow up the world trade center isn't something you can hide. You don't use C4 to secretly blow up steel skyscrapers and get away with it.
Conspiracy theories aside...one building had more weight above it than the other by virtue of the impact points. They were also hit in different places. If the impact to both buildings was exactly the same, and I mean to the thousandth of a degree, I would be able to accept the uniform implosion of both towers as statistically possible.
That is just simply not the case in this horrible national tragedy. I'll give you one tower impoding in a uniform manner based on the nature of the impact...the how, where, and when. I will not give you both...and neither will science or mathematics.
You don't need a conspiracy theory...all you need is statistical probability.
What a ridiculous post. That's like looking at two hurricanes and suggesting that it's "statistically impossible" that you'll get two rain storms.
The collapses of those two buildings are similar, but not equal, just as the scenarios that led to their collapse are similar but not equal.
Um...that's still a conspiracy theory. And it still requires a host of hypotheticals and, more fatally, blatant assumptions without any grounding in fact. It's as if I suggested that molten metal observed at WTC came from a plane, but was unable to prove there had been any planes.
You didn't offend. Don't worry about that.
It's not "blind speculation" to suggest that the WTC was brought down by fire when combined with the impact of the planes. It's sound science. Now that doesn't mean that it's exactly what happened that day. But I don't think anyone's claiming that the government's version is 100% absolute truth. It's not. But for a person to then take that concept and pretend that some nefarious deeds happened is to demonstrate how little truth or fact actually matter to that person.
You don't have to believe it. You can believe whatever you'd like.
I don't find it such a preposterous idea that a foreign enemy would want to blow up some shit and we would look the other way in anticipation of our blank check to do as we wish with our military might. Like I said, it's happened before. It's actually more comforting than the idea that blatant warnings were ignorantly dismissed by the administration.
The reason I keep going back to the firefighter testimony is that it's hard to accept with the theory of the building temperature being hot enough to bring down steel girders and them being close enough to witness the origin. That would be a bit hard to explain within the context of the commission's report so any question of motive for them to omit that is quite obvious.
not to mention tower 7 imploding because of "falling debris"
...
Don't discount the force of falling debris...
Case in point... I drop a brick off the Empire State Building... it's doing some damage.
What if I push a '66 Buick off the roof? How about a cement mixer? A cement mixer from that height... when it hits the ground, it is doing some damage to the hotdog cart parked in the plaza.
imagine a building... a 110 story building coming down. The force of all of that matter... steel girders and truss'... concrete and glass... desks and chairs and computers and refridgerators and air conditioning units and everything else... it has to go somewhere. The path of least resistance... up the street or through the adjacent structure.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
The reason I keep going back to the firefighter testimony is that it's hard to accept with the theory of the building temperature being hot enough to bring down steel girders and them being close enough to witness the origin. That would be a bit hard to explain within the context of the commission's report so any question of motive for them to omit that is quite obvious.
...
The structure of the towers was the number of vertical supports along the perimeter. When those support structures were breached, the downward load was redirected towards the remaining, in tact, supports. The pressure, along with the heat from the fires caused the failure. Once they failed, the remaining support could not withstand the weight of the upper structure and its contents and the entire level failed.
Just watch the videotape... you can actually see it fail, the upper structure tilt slightly and come straight down. None of the floors below are strong enough to stop a force as powerful as this. The only structure strong enought to stop it was the Earth.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
2) steel weakened by high temperatures has its ultimate failure limit.
3) steel under both 1 and 2 has an ultimate failure limit that is less than either 1 or 2.
Engineers cannot fully accurately predict how a building will behave under such an event. They can come up with theories and approximations. But they cannot accurately 100% predict how a building will perform under such conditions. There are too many variables. Many assumptions are made, even with computer analyses.
We can't even predict earthquakes yet.
I'll give you an example. A known common steel called A36 has a tensile capacity of 36,000 pounds per sqaure inch.
This means if you pulled on a 1" X 1" steel bar, it would take about 36,000 pounds to stretch it such that if the force is released, the bar would not shorten back to it's original length. Therefore, it has yielded. This is not ultimate failure where it would break in two pieces. That would take about twice the load.
My point is that if you do this test dozens of time in a lab, the actual yield and failure loads would vary significantly - plus or minus 15% would be a guess for talking purposes. That is for one simple piece of steel in a controlled load test.
Think of what the WTC complex steel framing was like, in conjunction with all issues such as connection strength, welds, plating, bolts, strength from secondary elements (partitition walls, window frames, exterior wall system, etc) - then you add in a plane impact, explosion forces, variable heat from a fire. It is beyond science. I'm sure that PHDs, research engineers, chemists, scientists and academia will refute that this is not an unsolvable problem. But those engineers who have real world experience in building design know better.
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03
Greeted as liberators... uh... Mr. Vice President... why do those roses look like hand grenades?
Hail, Hail!!!
They were explosives...the explosives of bodies and debris falling for hundreds of feet from the sky.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
That "ever-so-leadable" public is now largely opposed to this administration, in large part because of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.
Actually, no it wasn't. Plenty of testimony from firefighters describing explosions is very much available.
It would dismiss the theory, if WTC supports were the only steel in the World Trade Center. It would also dismiss the the theory if said support weren't exposed to intense heat after the buildings collapsed.
No. Much of the steel was kept by NIST. Some of them were shipped to China because Chinese firms bought the steel. Some of that was recalled by NIST.
People often lump all issues, events and situations into one big lump. If not guilty of on thing, then not guilty of all things.
I think we all have to learn to look at each individual issue, event and situation; and evaluate each one ......one at a time.
1. Firefighters' direct testimony about first-hand observations were excluded from the commission's report, a glaring omission to say the least.
2. 'Intense heat' meaning hot enough to melt the steel into pools, again this comes from eyewitness accounts and contradicts the official report.
3. It would have been quite a plus to allow the analysis of the beams that failed in WTC 1 or 2, they did this with a beam from WTC 7 so why not the others. That kind of inept decision-making is highly suspect, they aren't that dumb.
Seriously. A Ph.D. does not make one smart, unfortunately.
Here's a nice lil conspiracy counter-point:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2MjZmOTI2YzM0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=
Again, it's easy to take a bit here, a bit there and come up with some credible questions -- but that's not reality, you gotta take it all in. Atta at Logan Airport. Planes crashing into buildings. People jumping from windows. A building that was designed for the floors themselves to serve as structural elements, each floor could hold itself, but when just one fell onto another ... dominoes. Will there be stuff we won't ever understand? Yap. But that shouldn't make us ignore all the points that simply can't be questioned.
Exactly. The steel didn't melt, it shouldn't have melted, and why people cite that as evidence in favour of a conspiracy is beyond me.
It's not a "glaring omission". They were withheld as evidence in the Moussaoui trials. They have since been released. You can find thousands of pages of testimony and recordings on the web.
Jesus. It doesn't contradict the official report. Does anywhere in the report claim that metals can't be melted? No. The actual melting steel is mentioned in the NIST report. Look, lots of "steel" probably melted on that day. Aluminum melts at much lower temperature than actual steel beams. Obviously plastics melt at much lower temperatures. Lots of things melt, particularly when you have raging fires and 110 story buildings collapsing. NIST concluded that molten steel was the result of non-WTC materials such as pieces of the plane or other loose debris.
Ugh.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf
Page 33.
Where to begin?
So it's not suspect that the official report excludes the most direct eyewitness testimony? We know it's on the web and other places, the fact that the commission refused to include it is troubling to say the least.
That second part is hardly more than a reaching strawman.
With the inconsistent nature of the commission report, how can any subsequent study be not questioned in full? Operating on a "take my word for it" basis is out of the question with what we know 5 years later.
It would be troubling if the actual conclusions of that report were contradictory to the vast majority of the testimony.
Suggesting that pieces of an airplane, when that plane crashes, can melt or cause other metallic objects to melt is a "strawman"? I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
Question away. You don't care about questions though.
not one of those "engineers" has a phd. I would bet my career on it.
- it seems that first hand testimony should probably be considered first and foremost
- a strawman is exactly the overused tactic that's on display here, we are discussing a certain aspect of the argument and drawing away from it with hypotheticals is unnecessary
- that's defense lawyer-esque right there
Ok.
Ok, let's remove any hypotheticals. Good luck with a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps. But don't ask questions, refer to an answer as a "reaching strawman" and offer zero refutation. You obviously aren't questioning in order to get answers. You're "questioning" in order to attack answers.
If the towers were rigged with explosives it could have been done the two weeks prior to the "attacks" where all bomb sniffing dogs and 24 hour security was removed from the towers... two weeks is enough time to rig the towers... did you know the security company for the towers was owned by one of Bush's brothers? Heh...
Have you also seen the smaller "explosions" being blown out underneath the falling rubble?
There's a problem with your theory. When a skyscraper is "rigged with explosives", key support structures are severed up to 90% to ensure that the demolition works properly. At that point buildings are not safe for occupation because daily use of them poses an acute risk that the building will collapse on its own.
Secondly, the buildings did not collapse in their own footprint and the steel outer structure is seen falling away from the structure. If WTC was a controlled demolition, it was one of the worst controlled demolitions in history.
The band all knows. We're too afraid to mention.
Don't want to be part of Frank's luncheon.
Lose weight. Be safe. Where's Mike McCready?
My god he's been ate!
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain it, I'm definitely in the "let it happen" group. No more of a conspiracy than a certain Hawaiian incident at least.
Sorry if I offended with the strawman part, the theory that airplane fuel brought down the WTC has always been suspect to some people. To see no type of rationalization of this until years after the fact and then it's explained away with blind spectulation that just isn't cutting it on the factual front.
It wouldn't be such a suspicious timeline if the administration had not stonewalled the idea of a investigative commission in the first place. The fact that they didn't want to see it happen coupled with the lackluster reporting of said commission makes it all that much harder to believe.
Its not my theory, just one of the many I have seen... and I've watched the tapes many times... they fall straight down... I am sure there are many ways to skin a cat... besides I've watched shows an the discovery channel about demos and they showed nothing about tampering with the integrity of the buildings they were bringing down...
Besides they didnt need to be brought down "controlled" just brought down... place enough C4 in a building and set it off anything is gonna come down...
That is just simply not the case in this horrible national tragedy. I'll give you one tower impoding in a uniform manner based on the nature of the impact...the how, where, and when. I will not give you both...and neither will science or mathematics.
You don't need a conspiracy theory...all you need is statistical probability.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
not to mention tower 7 imploding because of "falling debris"
Um...that's still a conspiracy theory. And it still requires a host of hypotheticals and, more fatally, blatant assumptions without any grounding in fact. It's as if I suggested that molten metal observed at WTC came from a plane, but was unable to prove there had been any planes.
You didn't offend. Don't worry about that.
It's not "blind speculation" to suggest that the WTC was brought down by fire when combined with the impact of the planes. It's sound science. Now that doesn't mean that it's exactly what happened that day. But I don't think anyone's claiming that the government's version is 100% absolute truth. It's not. But for a person to then take that concept and pretend that some nefarious deeds happened is to demonstrate how little truth or fact actually matter to that person.
You don't have to believe it. You can believe whatever you'd like.
Research RDX demolitions and the prework that goes into it.
:rolleyes:
The amount of C4 required to blow up the world trade center isn't something you can hide. You don't use C4 to secretly blow up steel skyscrapers and get away with it.
What a ridiculous post. That's like looking at two hurricanes and suggesting that it's "statistically impossible" that you'll get two rain storms.
The collapses of those two buildings are similar, but not equal, just as the scenarios that led to their collapse are similar but not equal.
I don't find it such a preposterous idea that a foreign enemy would want to blow up some shit and we would look the other way in anticipation of our blank check to do as we wish with our military might. Like I said, it's happened before. It's actually more comforting than the idea that blatant warnings were ignorantly dismissed by the administration.
The reason I keep going back to the firefighter testimony is that it's hard to accept with the theory of the building temperature being hot enough to bring down steel girders and them being close enough to witness the origin. That would be a bit hard to explain within the context of the commission's report so any question of motive for them to omit that is quite obvious.
Don't discount the force of falling debris...
Case in point... I drop a brick off the Empire State Building... it's doing some damage.
What if I push a '66 Buick off the roof? How about a cement mixer? A cement mixer from that height... when it hits the ground, it is doing some damage to the hotdog cart parked in the plaza.
imagine a building... a 110 story building coming down. The force of all of that matter... steel girders and truss'... concrete and glass... desks and chairs and computers and refridgerators and air conditioning units and everything else... it has to go somewhere. The path of least resistance... up the street or through the adjacent structure.
Hail, Hail!!!
The structure of the towers was the number of vertical supports along the perimeter. When those support structures were breached, the downward load was redirected towards the remaining, in tact, supports. The pressure, along with the heat from the fires caused the failure. Once they failed, the remaining support could not withstand the weight of the upper structure and its contents and the entire level failed.
Just watch the videotape... you can actually see it fail, the upper structure tilt slightly and come straight down. None of the floors below are strong enough to stop a force as powerful as this. The only structure strong enought to stop it was the Earth.
Hail, Hail!!!