Good Video About The Towers Falling

pushmepullme

There was a big old thread started by me about how the towers fell last week.

My point remains the same, in that:

A - I'm not saying that the US government was involved.
B - I'm not saying that bombs were smuggled in after the planes hit.
C - I'm not saying that I know everything.
D - All I'm saying is that there is enough 'evidence' out there to suggest, that something else may have happened. And from all the stuff I've seen and read (both sides of the argument), I am 99.99% convinced that the towers would not have fallen just because of the planes hitting them. Its impossible. It'd be easy to prove that its impossible too if we build a scale model of the two towers, scaled down the planes and fire, and see how our models fell.

ryan198

In these threads there are always comments that this would be the biggest con ever, etc. I say:
A: It wouldn't be ... the holocaust and its post-denial by German and Polish citizens quite easily is a bigger con on those people.

B: Is it really that far-fetched that a modern government would execute its own people for political ends? Nearly every modern society has done so why not the US?

pushmepullme

The Russian government executed its own people at that theatre siege back in 2003.

dunkman

pushmepullme wrote:

I am 99.99% convinced that the towers would not have fallen just because of the planes hitting them. Its impossible.

contradiction alert.... its not impossible if you have 00.01% uncertainty

are you a structural engineer?

sonicreducer

watch the video at 49 minutes and 50 seconds. look at the pic of the steel pieces. please, someone explain that to me. if that isn't evidence of explosives, what is it? i would love to hear from farfromglorified about this one,...

rebornFixer

pushmepullme wrote:

There was a big old thread started by me about how the towers fell last week.

My point remains the same, in that:

A - I'm not saying that the US government was involved.
B - I'm not saying that bombs were smuggled in after the planes hit.
C - I'm not saying that I know everything.
D - All I'm saying is that there is enough 'evidence' out there to suggest, that something else may have happened. And from all the stuff I've seen and read (both sides of the argument), I am 99.99% convinced that the towers would not have fallen just because of the planes hitting them. Its impossible. It'd be easy to prove that its impossible too if we build a scale model of the two towers, scaled down the planes and fire, and see how our models fell.

It is entirely possible that the towers fell without any explosives planted. "Something else" could mean steel being weakened and breaking along said weak points, post-strike.

rebornFixer

pushmepullme wrote:

The Russian government executed its own people at that theatre siege back in 2003.

Um, presumably not on purpose, though!

WhiteMaleRat

dunkman1974 wrote:

contradiction alert.... its not impossible if you have 00.01% uncertainty

are you a structural engineer?

I am a structural engineer. I don't think there is any reason for suspicion regarding the sequence of events and the way the towers collapsed based on engineering journals I've read and what I see with my own eyes. This is what I recently posted:

1) WTC may have been designed for an accidental plane hitting it in the 1960's, but not a large plane, going full throttle with all that fuel. The building failed because of a gaping whole left the steel structure half of what it was for many floors. The remaining steel left in that area was subject to the temperatures that further compromised it. The weight of the levels above collapsed down, creating momentum and impact loads that the building lower levels could not withstand (pancake effect).
4) The 2 main towers that collapsed created vertical vibrations in the ground that may have effected the 3rd WTC tower. Earthquakes are generally horizontal motion. The vertical vibrations may have caused the 3rd building to spring up and down creating additional stresses to an existing building that was also on fire.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

pushmepullme

It was designed for a Boeing 707:

http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html

A Boeing 707:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707

A boeing 767 (plane that hit the Towers):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Difference in length: 4 - 16 metres

Difference in wingspan: 8 - 12 metres

Difference in weight: Roughly 13000 Kg.

Make your own mind up.

sonicreducer

pushmepullme wrote:

It was designed for a Boeing 707:

http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html

A Boeing 707:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707

A boeing 767 (plane that hit the Towers):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Difference in length: 4 - 16 metres

Difference in wingspan: 8 - 12 metres

Difference in weight: Roughly 13000 Kg.

Make your own mind up.

at about 49 min 50 sec. why does that column look like it was cut at a perfect angle and what is that cooled (once melting) metal running down it? forget the plane for now,...

LBC1076

sonicreducer wrote:

at about 49 min 50 sec. why does that column look like it was cut at a perfect angle and what is that cooled (once melting) metal running down it? forget the plane for now,...

Shape charges and thermite most likely.


Off topic sort of, what is the song playing in the background at 20:37 and 50:20?

Ahnimus

binger wrote:

Great video. I posted this in another thread, but I seem to be a thread killer so.... It needed it's own thread. Good job.

I also watched a debate between the Loose Change guys vs. Popular Mechanics editors on democracy now.

from http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/11/1345203

Go to the site and watch or listen to the segment.

If we entertain the idea that there was a conspiracy of some kind, then what is the big picture? That's what I want to know.

Peace

Interesting, I found that very entertaining. You can get whatever you want from it and maintain whatever perspective. It's really hard to say any of what they discussed was conclusive. However, I feel the Popular Mechanics dudes basically lied about Underwriters Laboratories and the Coronor. If the Coroner didn't want them publishing that in their video he could stop them and/or answer their calls. Underwriters Laboratories according to their website does source and certify structural steel. They were also commisioned by NIST to recreate the steel that was used in the original construction.