9/11 truth now!

Well, Some of you may have heard of the "Consipiracy" but, I kid you not, it's true. Many demolistion exsperts have even said it looks like a controlled explosion. Why would soemone do this?!?!?! Because if they did they have a Reason to fight the war over OIL .... the goverment dosent care about anyone around us so Fuck them all fuck that bitch ass president fuck him!



i know i spell horribley

 

you're not going to get far. people have been trying to spread the truth for the past 8 years. some people learn, others are too ignorant to accept the new [more logical ad scientific based] story. why ? because terrorists froma a far off land + plane = build stucture faliure through the pancake theory. and thats all they need to know.

 

ps being a pot head doesn't help your cause.

 

i found new (to me) information about the world trade towers at http://dprogram.net/chronology

1987 May 9 or June 9 – WTC 1 and 2 exterior cast aluminum panels (visible on the side of each tower) had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the
building, thus causing galvanic corrosion problems that are exposed to (the elements).
T. S. Gordon, and both Mayor Giuiliani’s Office and the New York Port
Authority allegedly received an order for the buildings to be
completely dismantled by 2007 before the aluminum exterior starts
falling from the buildings and the floors they support collapse.

1989 – Plans were made to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC
towers and rebuild them. Furthermore, there were air conditioning and
other problems. The project architect said that the $5.6 billion “take
it down, rebuild it” project (”the Bridgeways Project“) was canceled,
and in about “10-12 years” they would “blow it up and start over”.

“The building was bid at $750.M, and cost $1.2B to build. It was
worth about $4. to $5.B at its peak, but would have cost nearly $15.B
to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 ’safe’ life.
Obviously, it was Imploded, because there was never going to be a
‘break-even’ point for either, the current, or future owners!”“The
owners were fully aware of the problem and had been given the
ultimatum that they could not ‘implode’ the buildings. They received
the report stating that: Decommissioning was required by the EPA by no
later than 2007, at a projected cost of $20.B.”

 

One friend of mine corrected me when I told him there was no way they should've fell at such a speed. He showed me the math for the weight of the top part of each tower times the force of gravity, minus some factors of resistance that he said in that situation probably wouldn't matter much - the force was still equal to something like 90,000 megatons of dynamite.
I still think there are some fishy things about those days - but that cleared up all of the 'it was rigged' ideas. Them crashes definitely could've brought down those buildings - just because it looked like a controlled demolition doesn't mean it was one.

 

isn't the whole theory that resistance factors should have made the towers fall slower than they did? This guy is just throwing those resistance factors out and labeling them unimportant.

Also, where did this friend learn the weight of the top part of the towers?
Newspapers?
Television?
. . . The internet?

Can it be verified?

 

The aluminum exterior was non-structural, meaning that it could have all been removed without harm to the building frame and interior, assuming that plastic would have been used to keep the rain out.

Acceleration due to gravity is a constant 32 feet per second squared. Except when very high speeds are reached during a lengthy free-fall, wind resistance is only significant for lightweight objects, like paper or a sheet of plywood. It would be negligible for any steel or concrete structure.

Controlled demolition implosions are done from the bottom up. With a top-down collapse, there is no control. This is why the WTT damaged other buildings on the way down.

 

You seem to get it.
I really can't seem to find any of the links he gave me or his calculations. I'll keep looking though.
And gEo, when I said MINUS the resistance factors, I meant he subtracted them, as in, took them into account even though he didn't figure they would matter in the situation - just to prove to me how powerful of a force it would have been. He even included a small amount of wind resistance, just to be nice. It was still enough to easily level the building.
I will keep looking for these.

 

Once a single floor collapsed, the end result was inevitable. I don't remember the exact number, but let's say that the airplane impacts were at least five floors down from the top. When those bent, heat-stressed beams and trusses gave way, the floor below it suddenly had the weight of a six-story building dropped on it, after a free-fall of whatever the height of each level was (probably 12 to 15 feet, allowing ceiling space for air conditioning, etc.). No office building floor is designed to withstand anywhere near that magnitude of a shock load. Then the next level had the weight of a seven story building dropped on it. Then eight, and so on.

An experienced civil engineer would not have to do any calculations to confidently predict the complete failure of the structure.

The only way the terrorists could have screwed this up would have been by hitting the buildings too high. The 109th floor might have been able to withstand having the 110th dropped onto it. If so, the jet fuel would have burned itself out, and the event would have ended right there.

 

They were both 110 stories - the North tower was hit around the 93rd-99thfloor the other between the 77th-85th.
Just additional info.

 

So if its 99th floor buckled onto the the 98th, the floor decking of 98th received twelve times its normal weight load. Normal safety factors are on the order of 2.5 times rated load, and that is for static (non-moving) weight. Its beams may as well have been toothpicks.

 

Well damn, that sure convinced me.

 

So if this is the way both towers came down, can you explain why every one of the 47 huge core columns also came down? That's where the whole pancake theory loses me. The trusses break off and fall to the next floor but somehow take the core columns with it. I don't think so. After all was said and done the core columns were laying on the ground with the rest of the rubble which brings me to my next point. If this was a pancake collapse, why was the concrete in the towers pulverized? There should have been layers of floors on the ground, broken, twisted and mangled but
not pulverized.

NotDead you missed my point in my original post. Sure it's easy to remove the aluminum panels on the exterior but it's also very expensive. According to the article I quoted, it costs four times what the buildings were worth at their peak. There was a plan to demolish them by implosion/demolition but it was rejected by the NYC government, the Port Authority if I remember correctly. So one way or another the towers had to be remodeled on the entire exterior or taken down piece by piece at a minimum cost of 20 billion dollars. Follow the money.

 

Building collapses are messy.

So, you think that the owners "hired" 19 Saudis to hijack planes and fly suicide missions? And the two attacks on Washington (1 successful) were merely diversions?!?

You don't hire people for suicide missions. Dead people don't need money. This is an absurd theory.

 

Maybe the hijackings were hoaxes. They used equipment left over from the moon landing hoax. Which probably used leftover equipment from the Pearl Harbor hoax.

 

:rofl:

 

fail.

 

I agree that others are too ignorant to accept the scientific based method. That is what proves that the plane collision is responsible and it is not a controlled explosion.

There is a real simple thing here.

Heat conducts quickly through metals. When heated, metals lose strength and become softer. They do not need to be melted.

Load bearing points carry the most weight. When heated and softened, those are the points that fail. The structure collapses under its own weight.

Controlled demolitions work by 'knocking out' the load bearing points. Then the structure collapses under its own weight.

That is why the two would look similar.

 

No, there is every reason for all of the above and there was. I had acquaintances who went to help clean up. That is what I saw in photos and that is what they told me (actually a she, not they, she was in the police force of a Columbus area force at the time...) they saw.

Or, you could look at the fact that they (terrorists) had tried once before. They said they would do it. The terorists all took training on how to do it. The phone transcripts match what descriptions. The videos produced by the terorists were found and Al Quaeda released videos of the terrorists (the ones involved) claiming victory in th =e endeavor that were created before it happened.

video report

 

Steel also expands when heated. Unequal heating of interconnected framing members can cause stress cracks, rapidly leading to failure. Also, extreme expansion can push trusses out of position, and rotate columns away from true vertical, which can cause them to fail from misalignment. There are so many ways that the structural failure could have started. Any of them could have led to the same domino effect. We will never know which type of failure happened first because too much of the evidence was destroyed.

I have also been thinking recently about the small puffs of smoke seen one or two levels below the advancing collapse. Those were probably caused by the two jet engines, punching through concrete decking faster because of their high concentrated weight. A detached column could have done the same thing.

I never have quite understood the terrorists' obsession with those towers, but they made their priorities quite clear with the 1993 attempt. To Americans, there were (and are) many other things that ranked higher as national symbols and objects of pride.