9/11 ATTACKS - Avoiding the hard questions

Then (technically) only the top of the building collapse? Maybe lean over to one side. i am a blacksmith, and I know that if you heat a steel bar 3/4 from the top, and the proceed to pound it from the top and add pressure, the whole damned thing doesnt flatten, it bends to one side where the pressure is most.

 

Even if you say that steel can be melted by jet fuel and fire, what about the support columns BENEATH where the actual impact occured, these steel columns were not damaged in the least and would have been able to support the rest of the building, if anything had collapsed it would have been just the few top floors where hte plane had crashed into it, and even furthur if you want to say that they can still collapse, all the stuff in those buildings such as computers, printers, monitors, tvs, etc. and the floors themselves, would have prevented that building from falling at free fall speed like it did. and lastly, what about wtc 7? that wasn't even hit by an airplane, no jet fuel, yet it collapsed due to fire which has never happened.

 

The Jet Fuel barely even got onto the tower itself. When the plane hit, most of the jet fuel you can SEE in the videos explode and not even come near the building. Theres no way the towers could have fell from burning of fuel.

--In earlier history, buildings many and many stories tall have been on fire (for more than a dozen stories) and not one building has ever fallen to the ground due to a fire. The support columns did not melt....they were blown up via explosives. Listen to the witnessess.....they say it sounded like explosion after explosion.....and then another explosion....and another.

--Even at the pentagon, the entire "crash" was staged with no pysical evidence of an airplane crash (i.e. skid marks, Wings, other debris, etc.) and people even smelled explosives (that were used to create the hole in the side of the pentagon). I cant trust our government farther than i can throw them dude.

 

What I found interesting about these calculations of heat transfer and so on is that they seem to assume that AN AIRPLANE WEIGHING 300,000 POUNDS AND CRASHING INTO A BUILDING AT 500 MILES AN HOUR is somehow not a relevant factor worth considering in the subsequent collapse of the building.

Do you have to be a structural engineer to figure that one out?

 

Pointbreak, that would do more damage to the object not the obstacle.

Imagine an indy car hitting a Walmart at full speed.

Do you have to be a structural engineer?

 

The simple logic that PB so desperately seeks to avoid (for the shock it would cause him in having to question the very root of the now entrenched WoT paradigm of foreign boogeymen being responsible) is that even if the upper stories were so critically damaged (which the restabilisation of the buildings almost immediately disproved), such asymetrical weakening would, as Heron has rightly suggested, explain only an ASYMETRICAL collapse of the stories above that area. It does not give any logical explanation for the bulk of the remaining INTACT, unburnt and undamaged structure collapsing straight down at freefall speed in SYMETRICAL fashion.

No "pancake theory" - however much endorsed by the suits and ties lining up to cash in on the winfall budgetary outlays this WoT has unleashed - can negate the utter illogic of the suggestion nor its absolute historical precedent for all known high-rise collapses apart from controlled demolition.

Another point not raised before also goes to the presumption of PB's happy endorsers, that even if there "raging" fires (which there werent by known recorded testimonial fact of firefighters on those uppermost floors) there is a big difference between the heat of the fires and the heat attained by the steel supports/trusses themselves. Being a contiguous interlinked structure and given the conductivity of steel, the heat would have been carried away and dissipated throughout the structure rather than being concentrated as needed for suifficient time in one location to heat the steel to the point of required loss of strength for the alleged global collapse.

Doesnt take a PhD to figure this out, just recognition of the characteristics of demolition when one sees it.

Denial is so much easier than having to consider the depth of ideological evil and treason that has hijacked our precious "brand America".

 

The design of the building played as much of a factor as the burning jet fuel. Never before in history has a 100+ story skyscraper collapse from fire alone. Or collapse from being hit by jumbo jet.

 

The design of the building actually goes further to reinforcing the farce of the official theory of its collapse. With 47 rundundant central box towers supporting the entire structure, the loss of even several (which unlikely there even one lost as the planes would have broken up well before reaching the central core) would (and did in fact) not matter.

The restabilisation of the structure almost immediately is demonstration of their calculated strength and resilience. They, like any building, however would not be able to withstand purposed demolition charges and did not.

Neither the plane impacts nor the fire brought those towers down.

 

I don't know how many times i have heard people say ''witnessess say it sounded like explosions'' .... It is so flimsy it is unreal.. Imagine if you are standing near a building that has been hit by a plane.. the noises comeing from that building i agree sound like explosions.. but it is merely a 'gut reaction'.. It does not mean it WAS explosives that caused these explosions.. Gas pipes 'exploded' does that mean sombody lined the gas mains with explosives ? no. Scared and frightened you are hardly going to quote something from Oscar Wild or a great piece of prose on 'what do large bangs sound like'.. You will just say ''it sounded like explosions'' come to think about it what ELSE could you say ?.. ''it sounded like what i imagine rocks sound like falling onto the moons of jupiter'' or ''the terminal forced release of pressure built up during the occlusive phase of a stop consonant'' erm no i don't think any normal person will say such a thing.

Ask the same people with hindsight if they believe it WAS explosives and it will come down to their point of view.. You never hear anybody say ''well i thought i heard what sounded like explosions but no i think it was erm quite a large bang''

Do you know what, that is probably a half true statement..

you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.


because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently

Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

I can't argue with you though..because you believe explosives brought those towers down.. being around these forums so long NOTHING will convince you otherwise.. I did not wish to 'stir you up' just add that you are probably correct that no one thing brought those towers down.

 

Ok so you conspiracy theorists say that the buildings couldn't have collapsed down because the heat wasn't enough or Einstein back there went through the whole physics of burning jet fuel.

What about bombs. How much dynamite must there have been in that building to bring it down the way it did? And even then if you watch a demolition a building very rarely falls straight down.

I think the same with 9/11. We didn't really see the building go straight down. It was an illusion. By the time the buildings were half way down there was enough smoke, dust etc for us not to see what really happened to the building.

I can't see who could have planted enough bombs to bring two of the biggest buildings in the world, straight down without anyone noticing that they are doing it. We are talking more than a few bombs in an underground carpark. There would have to be bombs on nearly every level.

The truth with fire is that it is totally unpredictable and despite Einsteins theories back in the earlier part of this thread maybe the heat was enough to bend the metal. We aren't talking bending the whole struts just enough for the ceiling to collapse on each floor.

Having watched the whole scene on the day it happened its pretty convincing that the planes caused the buildings to collapse.

I also agree with the point that the guy from switzerland (solve et calwhatever) posts long spiels about stuff and sits back to see the arguments erupt.

The truth is we'll never know the truth. I'm going with the official story because the conspiracy theories have more wholes than the cheese they make in switzerland.

 

Better add yourself to that list of "conspiracy theorists" then, if you accept the "official" explanation which lacks so much supporting evidence, let alone basic reasoning, it couldn't even begin to compete with swiss cheese for solidity.

 

Who here has the compared the studies between respected physicists and structural engineers regarding the collapse the the World Trade Center buildings? I'm sure this is loaded question because most definitely the reports that suggest the towers did collapse according to the "official" story are somehow funded by the US government and of course part of the coverup. This is why there is no reasoning with some people. The sickness tells them that anything that contradicts the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy.

 

Not all the studies are funded by the goverment.. or that 'official'.. To me it just seems like more common sense.
At this point i doubt anybody within this thread is going to have a change of mind.. however convincing the arguement either way is.

Whats that motto Sherlock holmes used to say ????

 

I was just looking into future posts that will surely include that accusation. At least the studies that will conclude the towers were not brought down by explosives will be accused of being "government funded". You know the routine.

 

You mean sources like these, all of which were furiously denounced by the conspiracy theorists within moments of me posting them?


JOM: The Member Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...Eagar-0112.html

This 152 page book published by MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/Tower...0&%20Beyond.pdf

The Civil Engineering Faculty of the University of Syney

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyers

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/AIBS_2002_wtc.pdf

Dozens of articles collected by iCivilEngineer.com

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php

Gregory Fenves, a professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...nd/?sid=1047658

The American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics

http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

The National Institute of Standards and Technology

http://www.continuitycentral.com/news01832.htm

Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar...B81809EC588EF21

Etc etc.

 

PB:"Whats that motto Sherlock holmes used to say ????"

The fictional Sherlock Holmes solved the crime in "Silver Blaze" by deducing it was the owner of the house who was the criminal. How did he know? Because the dog did not bark. The only person who could have committed the crime without arousing the dog was someone the dog knew as a friend, the dog's owner.

Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night time"

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

From "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle


This goes hand in hand with what happened at the booker elementary school on the day of september eleventh.

"The Sarasota Herald Tribune announced Bush's visit to Booker Elementary on September 8th, giving the 9-11 planners three days to include Bush as a target for a diving jetliner. Nobody could have safely assumed he was not a target."

The Booker Elementary video shows the Secret Service did not rush in to remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of the armored Presidential Limousine. That's their job. That's what they do in the case of a real surprise attack withmany unknowns. They don't do anything else.

But the Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark."

(Segments taken from www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11bushbooker.html)

 

Running around scared shitless is not Presidential. It's Cheney's job.

 

I think i should change my avatar...

It a great inspired theory you have there.. but that site is almost a proffesional sceptic.. it like many proffesional sceptics..will NEVER alter it's opinion.. merely add more and more 'profound' comments like the one above.. i have to say it is VERY creative.

I was obviously thinking of his logic.. wich i can't find to quote.. so i can't be all clever

I do.. i am not trying to be disrespectful..it's just the truth imho.

 

I think that about says it all...

what he's saying is that no matter how much evidence shows official complicity, people are going to keep their heads under the ground regardless. You sure you're not American Matthew? lol

 

So what is the truth.

The truth is a set of events as seen through the eyes of one person.

So if you have three people you have three sets of events and the truth usually lies someone in the middle.

In the above arguments.... my eyes saw two buildings, two planes and a shit load of rubble. Other people say they saw two buildings fall down too easily.

The truth is we'll never really know the truth, we'd be shot before we got close to it.

I happen to think the idea of a government killing its own people absurd but maybe I like to believe that there are enough sane people in government to prevent insanity happening.

I could be wrong, I know nothing of American politics and whether even George Bush is at a level where even he'd know what was going on.

I don't like all this secret service crap that goes on around the world. Unelected people paid to spy on and kill other spies, leaders etc. The idea of people being paid to kill innocent people in the hope that this will trigger the war which will ultimately enable a country to storm another country and steal its supplies. (ie oil).

If its ever proven that George Bush was involved then he is surely as bad as Milosevic, Saddam and even Hitler?!?.