9/11 Truth?

[Zorak]

no but I have read many stories and saw plenty on the speculation of what happened.

if one buys into the demo conspiracy then they would have to explain how the buildings collapsed from the top where the planes entered. if you ever watched a film of a building being demolished it is nothing like that. the towers collapsed from the top. demolished buildings have charges that start on the bottom and go rapidly in sequence to the top.

I get what you are saying but am unsure of the relevance of it.

Of course, a plane crashing into a building is quite unlike the planned demolotion of a building? :unsure:

 

[Peter Parka]

I think someone (James?) said it best when he said how do we know how the building would react anyway? First time I've ever heard of a jumbo jet being flown into a skyscraper!

 

[lumpenstein]

Dont know if its true but I've heardskyscrapers are designed to collapse on themself like that for obvious health and safety reasons.

Considering how tall the two main towers were can you imagine if they collapsed at the base and fell sidwards? :eek

 

[Zorak]

I think someone (James?) said it best when he said how do we know how the building would react anyway? First time I've ever heard of a jumbo jet being flown into a skyscraper!

Very true, I can't argue with that.

But the 767 isn;t a jumbo jet

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Very true, I can't argue with that.

But the 767 isn;t a jumbo jet

Neither is the 757, which are actually what hit the WTC towers. Point being, a fully loaded 757 has never hit a steel structure building.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Your presuming that the natural tendacy of a floor collapsing in on itself is to fall straight down, you are presuming that the structural integrety of the floors were compromised equally.

Like I said, if your not an engineer, your "common sense" is less than worthless.

So basically you're just calling me an idiot here? Very nice.

Did you watch them fall? Because neither of the towers fell straight down from the point of collapse. The tower with the antenna fell to one side and then straight down, remember it leaning? I do. I don't even need to watch videos to remember that horrifying scene.

The mere fact that WTC tower 7 was hit by debris suggest the towers didn't fall directly downward on their foot prints. They leaned off to one side and fell overlaping a 2-3 block radius.

But hey, I'm not a structural engineer. I do know that I have read more on architecture, as its one of my passions, than you have.

 

[Zorak]

Neither is the 757, which are actually what hit the WTC towers. Point being, a fully loaded 757 has never hit a steel structure building.

It was a 767 I believe.

 

[Zorak]

So basically you're just calling me an idiot here? Very nice.

Did you watch them fall? Because neither of the towers fell straight down from the point of collapse. The tower with the antenna fell to one side and then straight down, remember it leaning? I do. I don't even need to watch videos to remember that horrifying scene.

The mere fact that WTC tower 7 was hit by debris suggest the towers didn't fall directly downward on their foot prints. They leaned off to one side and fell overlaping a 2-3 block radius.

But hey, I'm not a structural engineer. I do know that I have read more on architecture, as its one of my passions, than you have.

I don't believe I did, actually.

I apologise if it seemed that way.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

meh. Maybe I was thinking about this.

WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - Truveo Video Search


Eerie interview.

 

[siasl]

meh. Maybe I was thinking about this.

WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - Truveo Video Search


Eerie interview.

well, yeah....as far as it went, it make completes sense....crashing through the WTC facade wouldn't do a lot of structural damage in and of itself....

what that vid doesn't talk about is jet fuel burning inside that steel frame for an extended period of time....i don't think there is any question that if some big ol kid had just tossed a jet liner into the WTC towers, they'd still be standing today.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Oh I totally agree, I'm not making an arguement against the towers collapsing due to structural failure from the impact and resulting fires.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Plane hits tower, something is going to catch fire. Ever been in an office? Paperwork, wooden desks and massive amounts of flamable material everywhere. Shit is going to catch on fire faster than a fat kid can get through a cake.

 

[Zorak]

Kerosene doesn't burn at a fantastically high temperature though if I remember correctly, there have to be other things to consider. That's why they can be used in parafin lamps and the such.

There are other things to be considered beyond jsut jet fuel

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Jet fuel doesn't need to burn at high tempuratures to create a massive fire. But igniting everything inside will. You have to remember how the structures were built. Internal steel columns with lightweight floor trusses connecting to the exterior silver-colored aluminum alloy beams is NOT how any other high rise office building has EVER been designed and built.

Typical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center

A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.

Over time intense heat (and this doesn't have to be very hot at all), will weaken steel and change its behavioural patterns. The longer steel is subjected to heat, the softer and weaker it becomes. Now, with the aluminum alloy, which isn't designed to carry the kinds of weight it was subjected to after being damaged, on top of the fire and the steel being weakened, the structure will fail.

 

[Zorak]

Ah, I see.

Kerosene burns at 1600 degrees btw, I looked it up, and brought me back to those old science lessons hehee.
I presume the melting point of steel is higher, but from what you say - structural damage can be aicheved before melting point.

Also, in your opinion James, was the WTC perhaps not brilliantly constructed in relation to fire safety?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

I'll tell you this guys. YOU go out and buy a butane torch. YOU go find a nice little chunk of steel laying around somewhere that you cannot bend with two vice grips.

Take that butane torch, put it on the piece of steel and without it even coming close to glowing red you will be able to bend it.

Steel + heat = flimsy shapable MAN MADE material. How do you think steel is made anyway? Heat and pressure. Heat is the Number One enemy of steel.

Fuck no I'm not a civil engineer, fuck no I'm not an architect, but my common sense seems to be more than abundant. These 9/11 conspiracy theorists are fucking retards. Planes crashing can't bring down the towers!! Well no shit, it was the resulting fire that brought them down. Otherwise they would have collapsed as soon as they were hit.

 

[Peter Parka]

I'll tell you this guys. YOU go out and buy a butane torch. YOU go find a nice little chunk of steel laying around somewhere that you cannot bend with two vice grips.

Take that butane torch, put it on the piece of steel and without it even coming close to glowing red you will be able to bend it.

Steel + heat = flimsy shapable MAN MADE material. How do you think steel is made anyway? Heat and pressure. Heat is the Number One enemy of steel.

Fuck no I'm not a civil engineer, fuck no I'm not an architect, but my common sense seems to be more than abundant. These 9/11 conspiracy theorists are fucking retards. Planes crashing can't bring down the towers!! Well no shit, it was the resulting fire that brought them down. Otherwise they would have collapsed as soon as they were hit.

Your knowledge is pretty scary, especially since you carry guns!:surrender

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Ah, I see.

Kerosene burns at 1600 degrees btw, I looked it up, and brought me back to those old science lessons hehee.
I presume the melting point of steel is higher, but from what you say - structural damage can be aicheved before melting point.

Also, in your opinion James, was the WTC perhaps not brilliantly constructed in relation to fire safety?

I think it was. I really really wish I'd been able to get to NYC to tour the WTC observation deck before they collapsed, but I never thought of going there. If I was there I would have been looking around the deck for every little detail as to how the tower was built.

 

[Alien Allen]

I think it was. I really really wish I'd been able to get to NYC to tour the WTC observation deck before they collapsed, but I never thought of going there. If I was there I would have been looking around the deck for every little detail as to how the tower was built.

been there twice

there is nothing to see that you envision.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

been there twice

there is nothing to see that you envision.

I wanted the experience, and I'm sure I could have ended up pointing out things to people they never would have noticed.

Shoulda seen me in the Sears Tower. I had a hardon the entire time.

I so need to go back to Chicago.

 

[Peter Parka]

Shoulda seen me in the Sears Tower. I had a hardon the entire time.

.

:eek Oh my!:eek