9/11 Truth: Structural Failures vs. Controlled Demolitions

[Huntingtons]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

 

[SethNaket]

The problem is most people don't understand how profound the difference is between static and dynamic load. A concrete test cube might be strong enough to support 10 tons of static load, but I can easily crack it with a 5kg sledgehammer. Hit it hard enough and concrete *does* pulverise (like if you drop say a 50 story building on it). I know because I've worked at a cement/concrete testing facility and cracked many a test cubes.

Once the top part of the tower manages to break through one floor, the following floors offer little more resistance than what air resistance you would get from free-falling. I'm not saying I know for sure if the towers where demo'd or not, all I'm saying is that once it breaks through one floor it's gonna break through all of them and fast.

As for why it falls straight down, it's pretty simple. There are no horizontal forces strong enough compared to gravity to change the direction of the momentum of the falling parts much.

 

[- English -]

people are entitled to their own opinion.. i wouldnt put bush past anything for oil

 

[Asha]

I dunno who said melt anywhere... it weakened the steel is what I have always heard.

 

[UrganNagru]

Doesn't help their theory saying thats at 10 seconds the buildings are collapsing faster than they would at free fall when it would take 9.22 seconds for the tallest building to collapse if there was no air resistance, which shows there must of been resistive forces.
They also say that the collapse should of slowed down as it progressed, but wouldn't it speed up as the amount off falling mass increases, the force of the falling building would increase over coming the resistive forces more easily and so accelerate to terminal velocity.
(time calculated from these stats http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml, g=9.81 using s=ut+1/2at^2)

And good point about dynamicand static forces Seth

 

[tamtap]

What hapenned was that when the planes exploded into the buildings, thousands of gallons of fuel ignited inside the towers and melted the inner structural core. Thats why they fell down.

You can't compare that to a "traditional" pancake collapse, or engineered demolitions.

All 3 are different. And no one has ever before melted the inner structural core of a building to collapse it.

what a fucking spastic.

is this what happened at the pentagon ? oops no bodies, no seats, no wreckage, no flight data recorders and a 6 foot hole. and the 'thousands of gallons" of fuel didnt even burn the SUV right outside on the CNN video.

yeah right.

You need more work at your special needs class.

Tam

 

[Jeremiah]

I always thought that the explosions outside of the tower just as the planes hit was the jet fuel igniting and burning up. Once the jet fuel has been consumed, it is possible for other materials in the building to continue burning at such a high temperature?

Also, as my memory serves me, there are three neccisary components for a fire: Fuel, Oxegyn and a source of Ignition. When the building started to collapse, wouldnt at least one of these components be eliminated if we believed that it was a result of the fire on the upper floors causing the explosion.

For example, I would have thought that as the building collapsed, a vacum would have been created due to floors collapsing on top of each other. And for the size of explosions every few floors, wouldnt there have had to be a large deposit of either fuel or oxegyn (Assuming that the fires on the above floors supplied the ignition?

I'm not claiming these examples prove anything, but if they hold, doesnt it show something more than meets the eye (If my examples are flawed, then it proves nothing hehe)

 

[Huntingtons]

what a fucking spastic.

is this what happened at the pentagon ? oops no bodies, no seats, no wreckage, no flight data recorders and a 6 foot hole. and the 'thousands of gallons" of fuel didnt even burn the SUV right outside on the CNN video.

yeah right.

You need more work at your special needs class.

Tam

where is your proof? dont show a flash movie with blurry pics and shitty footage. show some evidence that can be used constructivly.

 

[tamtap]

jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees faraneheit. However, when steel reaches this temeprature it weakens considerably.

Again though, lets not let facts get in the way of a good consipracy theory. There are hundreds of web sites refuting these conpsiracy theories, its just that the conspiracy theorist nerds choose to ignore them

FACT: The Fire Department reported explosions BELOW them AFTER reporting the plane crash fires were undercontrol. Recorded,unedited, proved and televised.

Avgas would not collapse the THREE buildings that were demo'd on 911.

Care to dispute this ?

The question is why did the us govt do it ?

Tam

 

[tamtap]

where is your proof? dont show a flash movie with blurry pics and shitty footage. show some evidence that can be used constructivly.

dude go google the CNN site and look at the early footage shot at the pentagon. This is how much of a piss take it is: there is a stool with an open book on it 'untouched' on the second floor where all this bullshit thousands of gallons of avgas supposedly hit.

If you want it spoon fed all in one place www.thepowerhour.com made a dvd comprising all the footage shot on 911.

Of particular interest is the object attached to the fuselage of the second plane to hit WTC.

http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsi...199131880bda=b12e4fa3aee81c5a61ba314b62f15df4
Tam

 

[Yeke]

what a fucking spastic.

is this what happened at the pentagon ? oops no bodies, no seats, no wreckage, no flight data recorders and a 6 foot hole. and the 'thousands of gallons" of fuel didnt even burn the SUV right outside on the CNN video.

yeah right.

You need more work at your special needs class.

Tam

You realise the differences in structure between the two buildings?
also that there ARE clear photographs of wreckage from a passenger plane and photographs of where the plane hit numerous street lights before hitting the pentagon, well probably not since you no doubt got all your information spoon fed too you from one side of the fence.

Have fun going through life beliving the first thing you see and ridiculing people that dont share "your" view.

 

[tamtap]

You realise the differences in structure between the two buildings?
also that there ARE clear photographs of wreckage from a passenger plane and photographs of where the plane hit numerous street lights before hitting the pentagon, well probably not since you no doubt got all your information spoon fed too you from one side of the fence.

Have fun going through life beliving the first thing you see and ridiculing people that dont share "your" view.

Please give the links to there 'clear photographs' or you are a liar.

Here are some links for you.

WTC:

"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor"

heres the actual radio trans: http://rapidshare.de/files/9140213/FireFighter.mp3.html

balls in your court.

Tam

 

[Yeke]

Please give the links to there 'clear photographs' or you are a liar.

I'll save myself the time since its a long while since I looked into this and tell you that one of the photographs was posted in this very forum on this very section about a week ago, gogogo search.

 

[Miril]

So if Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, how can the following be explained?

- Eyewitness Accounts of bystanders who saw or heard flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.
- The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage.
- The recovery and identication of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77.

 

[old.Tohtori]

how can the following be explained?

- The recovery and identication of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77.

David copperfield was the missing one?

 

[Dahakon]

I'm not saying that I support the conspicacy theories, just can someone please explain to me how (as shown in the vid) the "explosions" in the tower were going down faster than the debris falling outside it? According to physics they should have gone down at the same rate, not the one in the building (with more dense substance to get thru, although I accept that concret does turn to dust when you hit it hard enough) taveling faster than the one with just air to fall thru.

 

[Lamp]

Did the collapsing masonry create a slip stream where the upper stories could fall through with no resistance ? Kinda like a vacuum ? The external debris fell slower due to air resistance. I dunno. Maybe someone who knows about physics can advise on this.

 

[SethNaket]

Well it's certainly possible for shockwaves to propagate much faster through the building than freefalling debris falling outside the building. I don't know if this is what actually happened since I've never demolished a building.

For example say you have a 3m high pillar and you smash the top of it really hard. If you smash it hard enough it will break all the way to the bottom, obviously before the debris from the top falls to the ground. The speed of sound through rock (concrete) and steel is very high, so once the top of the building hits a certain floor, the floor below it could possibly be partially destroyed already from the shocks.

 

[CorNokZ]

Why on earth would the US goverment do this? JUST to get oil?

Would ppl just drop the conspiracy theories? Why would usa spill and risk so many of their own just to get oil? They can get it else where for alot less..

If they did it, they would probly use more money than they gained.. Their stockmarket fucked up after 9/11, they used shit loads on upgrading the militairy and shipping them off to Afghanistan!

I really can't see why they would do this nor how they would be able to do it! IF it was real, we would without a doubt have better proof today than we have atm..

 

[old.Tohtori]

Why on earth would the US goverment do this?

Bit extreme example...but i bet the germans asked one day "What? Gassing jews? But why would hitler gas jews?"

If you catch my drift.

 

[Ctuchik]

wow. so many ppl here that know everything there is to know about this stuff. claiming its obvious that it was Bush himself that ordered the attack just to get a chance to invade iraq....

i mean come on for crying out really fucking loud! Bush is insane yes but u guys beat him with miles if u believe that bullshit to be true.

u "know" the coverments are using satelites to mind controll u so u have to wear tin foil hats to?

bet uve seen aliens at area 51 to.... >.<

nothing of the so called "evidence" posted here claiming it was a "inside job" proves nothing.

hell i can probably prove that the snow is green and mars is made out of cheese theoretically if i really really wanted to.

 

[Ctuchik]

Bit extreme example...but i bet the germans asked one day "What? Gassing jews? But why would hitler gas jews?"

If you catch my drift.

so why did hitler want to gas the jews? think about that and spot the huge diffrence...

 

[Huntingtons]

Bit extreme example...but i bet the germans asked one day "What? Gassing jews? But why would hitler gas jews?"

If you catch my drift.

difference is: hitler wrote about his dislike for jews... bush or us gov never wrote that they disliked their population

 

[Lamp]

I'm on the same wavelengh as Ctuchik here

We don't really know how or who, lets be honest. Speculation, guesswork, but quite simply no one universal truth.

 

[Huntingtons]

Why on earth would the US goverment do this? JUST to get oil?

Would ppl just drop the conspiracy theories? Why would usa spill and risk so many of their own just to get oil? They can get it else where for alot less..

you follow the media coverage of the oil problems (cept for the findings in the north sea?). the media hypes the lack of oil so people get scared etc. and i would doubt they spent more money than they could gain by invading iraq and afghanistan.

there could also be other motives than money alone.

 

[tamtap]

I'll save myself the time since its a long while since I looked into this and tell you that one of the photographs was posted in this very forum on this very section about a week ago, gogogo search.

liar.

 

[Pirkel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfcodzyZIJk&mode=related&search=

 

[old.Tohtori]

so why did hitler want to gas the jews? think about that and spot the huge diffrence...

Well yeah...but i didn't mean it like that.

Like i said, extreme example.

Better way to put it is that goverments do crap stuff and a lot of stuff we don't know about, regardless of humans hurt and lives lost.

Just a fact of life.

difference is: hitler wrote about his dislike for jews... bush or us gov never wrote that they disliked their population

Yet. I wouldn't be suprised if after the presidency he wrote one. Well would...since it would shock me he could write

 

[noblok]

liar.

From this link: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[original post]

 

[evzy]

Some people who you think are actually of reasonable intelligence get suckered into this shite all the time and it still surprises me tbh...

Wont watch it, dont need to watch it - would never get the minutes back at the end of my lifetime that i wasted on it ....