The Story of 9/11

kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
I'm more likely to die in a car accident or be struck by lightning. I am not scared of terrorists and it's a really ill formed suggestion.

You haven't pointed out any logical flaws. Hitler, Stalin? There are thousands of others much like them. There are hundreds of people in power right now, in this world, just as evil (proven by their acts). You just don't hear about them as much because they weren't in positions of great power.

I'll try to make it really simple for you as far as the buildings are concerned:

The buildings are designed to support themselves. Everything surrounding the buildings not a part of the structure is not. Therefore a logical collapse would have occurred into the path where there is no structure offering tremendous resistance.

Instead what happened is the structure collapsed in on itself at a free fall pace indicating the entire structure failed at an extremely rapid rate after standing strong for hours. And they fell in an extremely uniform fashion too. The symmetry was excellent. Yet the damage and fires were extremely asymmetrical.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...
They both fell the same way, because that's how buildings of that nature fall.
If 10 more towers were lined up, same circumstances, all 10 would fall the same way. Not a single one would flop over on its side.
Now physics are part of the conspiracy?
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
As to the fear bit, that's entirely opinon based. I will admit that is entirely my opinion, and may not be held by all. In that realm, your lack of concern regarding terrorism is entirely valid.

Any time you use prior elected officials as an example, that is a huge logical flaw. If you are elected, that is based on a vote, which means the general population at the time decides that. Due to the fact that an election is a (theoretically) uncontrollable outcome based on the opinion of a constantly changing sample of people, elected officials can't follow a provable trend. You have way too many variables. Good people are elected as well, therefore you can't declare being in a position of power a defining indicator of a proclivity towards evil.
Click to expand...
You make that assumption because 99 times out of 100 that assumption has been proven accurate. Then you go beyond that and look at their actions. Bush lied to make his buddies huge sums of cash and to push his own agenda resulting in a war where at least a million people have died so far and large swaths of a country that did nothing to deserve it ended up being destroyed. That's a sociopath who's evil. Obama has been proven a bold faced liar and argued he can legally kill anyone he wants as well as starting more civil unrest and wars across the globe. Only a power hungry sociopath would do these things.

Regarding your issues with the collapse, can you refer me to something where someone with a degree relevant to the collapse aggrees with that? Preferably that breaks it down in a easy to undertsand way for those who have no degree in structural engineering.
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;hZEvA8BCoBw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZEvA8BCoBw#![/video]

This was the closest thing I could quickly find. It's not a paper, but real engineers comment on the issues and explain their positions.

http://ae911truth.org/en/home.html

The Architects & Engineers site might have some additional content on it. They go around to various cities and give lectures, I suspect there is probably video of some of them out there.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
They both fell the same way, because that's how buildings of that nature fall.
If 10 more towers were lined up, same circumstances, all 10 would fall the same way. Not a single one would flop over on its side.
Now physics are part of the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Of that nature? Buildings are all of quite similar nature in that they are designed to support their own mass (multiple times) and structure as well as support themselves against many outside forces - some buildings much more sturdy than others (Ie: The WTC, widely regarded as an engineering marvel while it stood). The wind force that the towers had applied to them was greater than the force of gravity and you don't hear anyone talking about why they didn't just blow over given this reality. Of course it's obvious why they didn't just blow over, because they were very structurally sound.

Why did they fall into the path of most resistance? How is this reasonable? It's not. And you stating 'this is how it is' doesn't make it so I'm afraid.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
You make that assumption because 99 times out of 100 that assumption has been proven accurate. Then you go beyond that and look at their actions. Bush lied to make his buddies huge sums of cash and to push his own agenda resulting in a war where at least a million people have died so far and large swaths of a country that did nothing to deserve it ended up being destroyed. That's a sociopath who's evil. Obama has been proven a bold faced liar and argued he can legally kill anyone he wants as well as starting more civil unrest and wars across the globe. Only a power hungry sociopath would do these things.



[video=youtube;hZEvA8BCoBw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZEvA8BCoBw#![/video]

This was the closest thing I could quickly find. It's not a paper, but real engineers comment on the issues and explain their positions.

http://ae911truth.org/en/home.html

The Architects & Engineers site might have some additional content on it. They go around to various cities and give lectures, I suspect there is probably video of some of them out there.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was only talking about the twin towers. Obviously, building 7 is a whole different ball of physics.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
Sorry, I was only talking about the twin towers. Obviously, building 7 is a whole different ball of physics.
Click to expand...
The twin towers are in the same boat however. Their collapse is ridiculous and unbelievable. They fell at the rate of free fall gravity indicating no resistance from the structure at all and that resistance disappeared in seconds. Buildings don't fall like that from random asymmetrical damage ever. The only time they fall like that with great symmetry is with explosives.

Watching a house fire, it won't collapse like the WTC did. Even if it's extreme, and that's using wood and a building only a couple of stories high. It will break apart eventually leaving a smoldering heap, but it takes a long time to get there and there are many many intermediate stages. This becomes more and more apparent the bigger the building gets, but its apparent in all structures if closely observed.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Of that nature? Buildings are all of quite similar nature in that they are designed to support their own mass (multiple times) and structure as well as support themselves against many outside forces - some buildings much more sturdy than others (Ie: The WTC, widely regarded as an engineering marvel while it stood). The wind force that the towers had applied to them was greater than the force of gravity and you don't hear anyone talking about why they didn't just blow over given this reality. Of course it's obvious why they didn't just blow over, because they were very structurally sound.

Why did they fall into the path of most resistance? How is this reasonable? It's not. And you stating 'this is how it is' doesn't make it so I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
They were engineered for the lateral force of wind.

They were NOT engineered to have the top 20-30+ stories suddenly drop a couple of stories.
Once the initial drop occurs, there's no stopping it. For every story it dropped, it had that much more mass coming down on itself.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
The twin towers are in the same boat however. Their collapse is ridiculous and unbelievable. They fell at the rate of free fall gravity indicating no resistance from the structure at all and that resistance disappeared in seconds. Buildings don't fall like that from random asymmetrical damage ever. The only time they fall like that with great symmetry is with explosives.

Watching a house fire, it won't collapse like the WTC did. Even if it's extreme, and that's using wood and a building only a couple of stories high. It will break apart eventually leaving a smoldering heap, but it takes a long time to get there and there are many many intermediate stages. This becomes more and more apparent the bigger the building gets, but its apparent in all structures if closely observed.
Click to expand...
That's like comparing jumbo jets to paper airplanes. Come on.

Soooo.....you've seen house fires, now you're an expert on how the worlds most massive building should perform under extreme duress?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
The twin towers are in the same boat however. Their collapse is ridiculous and unbelievable. They fell at the rate of free fall gravity indicating no resistance from the structure at all and that resistance disappeared in seconds. Buildings don't fall like that from random asymmetrical damage ever. The only time they fall like that with great symmetry is with explosives.

Watching a house fire, it won't collapse like the WTC did. Even if it's extreme, and that's using wood and a building only a couple of stories high. It will break apart eventually leaving a smoldering heap, but it takes a long time to get there and there are many many intermediate stages. This becomes more and more apparent the bigger the building gets, but its apparent in all structures if closely observed.
Click to expand...
the towers didnt fall at freefall speeds you can tell that by looking at the debris falling at a quicker rate compared to the towers

have you any idea of how much weight was above the burning areas? and have you any idea how much force that weight translated into once it started its downwards journey?

please show you have a basic understanding of the above before you claim stuff as "ridiculous"
 
RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
They were engineered for the lateral force of wind.

They were NOT engineered to have the top 20-30+ stories suddenly drop a couple of stories.
Once the initial drop occurs, there's no stopping it. For every story it dropped, it had that much more mass coming down on itself.
Click to expand...

The twin towers where designed to withstand multiple Boeing 707 crashes. The plane that crashed into the empire state building was the inspiration for the structural engineers to adjust the building for plane crashes of the largest jet produced at the time.
:roll:


This video was from modern marvels in January 2001.

[video=youtube;9fQlC2AIWrY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9fQlC2AIWrY[/video]
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
The twin towers where designed to withstand multiple Boeing 707 crashes. The plane that crashed into the empire state building was the inspiration for the structural engineers to adjust the building for plane crashes of the largest jet produced at the time.
:roll:


This video was from modern marvels in January 2001.

[video=youtube;9fQlC2AIWrY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9fQlC2AIWrY[/video]
Click to expand...
Yep. And it wasn't the force of the crash that made them come down,was it, but we already knew that.

The video said nothing about being engineered to handle the fire that followed.

Roll your eyes at yourself. I'll do it for you.:roll:
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
All the video footage I saw showed the collapse being reasonable, given the hole the plane made. Also, it seems to collapse inward; I'm no expert, but for a building that has it's support on the exterior, that seems logical. In what way is it ridiculous? I may be missing something, but I don't see a glaringly obvious issue here.
Click to expand...
For someone so fanatical about "Facts" seems you don't understand that the twin towers got their support mainly from the MASSIVE core, not the outside walls.


This would seem to make your "Fell in on itself" an impossibility since the core is the strongest most massive part of the building by far, just look at all that structural steel, some girders were 4 feet in thickness. The core is so strong that it can sustain 4 foot lateral movements all day, every day, for 100 years. How can a building fall in on itself when to do so would mean the elimination of the strongest part of the building? The core can stand all by itself, it doesn't even need the rest of the building.


I just can't imagine the energy it would take to cause that much steel to fail on 144 floors all at the exact same moment. Cuz that's what you would need to do to take out something that strong. Remember that these are sissy fires, office furniture and the like. Any jet fuel was burned off in the initial explosion, any left over cannot possibly create temps greater than 400C as it only burns hot when compressed and mixed with air at the correct ratio, which sprayed onto a building certainly doesn't do.

You know why they use explosives to demolish skyscrapers? Cuz it's the only way to get them down.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
That is included in a plane crash...:dunce: engineers don't just do one calculation and call the job done
Click to expand...
Welllll.......They were wrong then weren't they. How does that make me the dunce?

You and Charlie Sheen should get to the bottom of this.
When you start ruffling illuminati feathers.......run! LOL!
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
Welllll.......They were wrong then weren't they.

You and Charlie Sheen should get to the bottom of this.
When you start ruffling illuminati feathers.......run! LOL!
Click to expand...
lmao he deleted that post once he realised that the video he showed with actual WTC engineer saying that they didnt calcualte fuel loads
 
RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
lol.. i don't believe it was a conspiracy i am saying it was designed for a plane crash. turns out they didn't account for the fuel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top