What brought the towers down??? [Archive] - Page 10

gpond

06-12-2006, 12:10 AM

Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm sure someone else can answer this question here. How could it be possible for explosives to be set in a planned demolition without thousands of people who work in the building not to notice? I assume that the explosives would have to be placed at multiple points at support structures on every floor. And we're talking about enough explosives to bring down a steel building, so they have to be pretty big.

Naw. A few fires on a few floors should bring down three buildings in symmetrical fashion. Melting a steel building ain't what it used to be. Why assume large amounts of explosives on every floor when a simple plane with a few small fires on a few floors would do the job perfectly symmetrically and is clearly repeatable on three buildings in cookie-cutter fashion with no prior experience or expertise?

Do you see the irony involved in your position, friend? It would take a lot of explosives carefully placed on each floor, (and a lot of advanced planning) in your estimation, to bring down the three buildings in the way they came down. But your position has no problem imagining that two plane crashes with some residual fires and a third building with no plane crash, but residual fires, bring down the three buildings almost (but not quite) in their own footprints.

Do you see the lack of symmetry in the two positions?

One (the bomb theory) would involve tons of planning and careful execution.

The other theory can be almost casually executed -- just crash the planes and that is that.

azxcvbnm321

06-12-2006, 12:44 AM

No, I'm just taking the ridiculous conspiracy viewpoint which means that I have to suspend all reality. There is no doubt that a two planes with a huge load of fuel (they just took off) combined with flammables like paint thinner and paint probably stored in the Towers destroyed the buildings.

BUT, if I were to take the side of the conspiracy, then I would have to stretch things and assume that the buildings were demolished with planted explosives. WT7 would have to contain a large number of these explosives to bring it down. And you're telling me that no one saw these explosives? Anyone care to explain how this could have happened? I don't think so.

gpond

06-12-2006, 01:01 AM

BUT, if I were to take the side of the conspiracy, then I would have to stretch things and assume that the buildings were demolished with planted explosives. WT7 would have to contain a large number of these explosives to bring it down. And you're telling me that no one saw these explosives? Anyone care to explain how this could have happened? I don't think so.Why would WTC7 have to contain a large number of explosives to bring it down?

This is the kind of irony of which I was speakin'.

What other than "a large number of explosives" would have brought WTC7 down? ( It DID come down, right?)

This is a good question to be asking. Not a bad question.

I do not know the answer, completely. But dang.. I would sure like to know...

bigjon

06-12-2006, 01:07 AM

All the conspiracies depend on "doubts" but have no evidence themselves. There are no pictures of the so-called explosives, no other evidence that explosives were set. In a court, which side would win? The side with evidence of planes flying into the buildings, or the side with no evidence at all of explosives?

Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm sure someone else can answer this question here. How could it be possible for explosives to be set in a planned demolition without thousands of people who work in the building not to notice? I assume that the explosives would have to be placed at multiple points at support structures on every floor. And we're talking about enough explosives to bring down a steel building, so they have to be pretty big. How is it that no one notices? See, the "offical" story makes MUCH MORE sense. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to pull off what the conspiracy theories say without someone noticing.

As a former network guy with keys to all the closets that house all the stuff behind the scenes that the office types regard as a big mystery and blame whenever things don't go quite right. I know that what I did was totally without scrutiny, as are most of the routine mainainance staff functions.

And then their are the janitorial staffs of people who come and go in the middle of the night. Oh yah it would be just impossible, if you want to try to support the official looniest of all CT's.

runcible

06-12-2006, 01:42 AM

This is difficult to believe, that anyone that carefully looks at the evidence could in any way accept the official story regarding WTC 7?

Ignorace and stupidity are the only excuse I would understand. If you and Halo love and trust the government story on this, we wish you the best, however, many of us that look very carefully at the science smell a rat, and if you are so very interested in defending this crap, you are suspect as well, This obviously is only an opinion, but I have gone up against more than my share of shills on many sites as well.

I'm quite confused why a conspiracy would wire up WTC #1 & #2 for demolition, then skip WTC 3 (nearest to both towers), WTC 6 (next nearest to WTC 1), WTC 4 (nearest to WTC 2), and WTC 5 (same block as WTC 1 - 6, next nearest to WTC 1 & WTC 2), and decide that, just for the hell of it, they'd blow WTC 7 (across the street from the twin towers and the above mentioned towers!)

As for the science end of it, there are plenty of engineers (the majority?) which seem to agree with the gov'ts scenerio of a fire and damage-induced collapse.

Since you seem so fond of the science end of things, why don't you figure out the potential energy of WTC #1, the kinetic energy of the 767, and the chemical energy of the aviation fuel, and compare it to a small (kiloton) nuclear weapon. I'll be waiting for the answer. Show your work.

Pragmatist

06-12-2006, 01:46 AM

I'm quite confused why a conspiracy would wire up WTC #1 & #2 for demolition, then skip WTC 3 (nearest to both towers), WTC 6 (next nearest to WTC 1), WTC 4 (nearest to WTC 2), and WTC 5 (same block as WTC 1 - 6, next nearest to WTC 1 & WTC 2), and decide that, just for the hell of it, they'd blow WTC 7 (across the street from the twin towers and the above mentioned towers!)

As for the science end of it, there are plenty of engineers (the majority?) which seem to agree with the gov'ts scenerio of a fire and damage-induced collapse.

Makes one wonder, what was in WTC 7? Or haven't you asked that?

Prag

RickyJ

06-12-2006, 01:53 AM

As for the science end of it, there are plenty of engineers (the majority?) which seem to agree with the gov'ts scenerio of a fire and damage-induced collapse.
LOL! There are plenty of engineers that will agree to anything you want them to agree to for the right price buddy.

THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE! THOSE TOWERS WERE BROUGHT DOWN WITH EXPLOSIVES ONLY MORONS CAN"T SEE THAT FACT!

bigjon

06-12-2006, 01:54 AM

I'm quite confused

that says it all:musicus:

runcible

06-12-2006, 02:33 AM

slvrbugjim

06-12-2006, 02:42 AM

Since my gov't shill check is late, perhaps I should create a conspiracy theory and promote it for money. I heard a rumor that the "loose change" guys got a theatrical movie deal, and their video have some serious flaws.

I need a unique idea to stand out from the crowd. Perhaps seekrit NSA nanites were the cause of WTC 1, 2 & 7's disappearance. Everyone was brainwashed to believe that the towers collapsed, when in reality the scrap metal was sold to North Korea to help fund the CIA.

That sounds plausible to everyone, right?

Naa, this government loves you and would never lie to you, so go ahead sheeple, believe what they tell you to believe, please do not question authority, comply comply comply like little slaves. Put your money in the stock market, where it will be safe. 911 was carried out by box cutter weilding cave dwellers and we had there picture in the paper in just a few hours. Not only did they get the entire US military to stand down for 80 minutes that day, they got physics and science to stand down, now that is talent.

No go back to sleep, nothing to see here, watch your TV s and Faux news. Buildings collapse neatly into there own footprint at free fall speed, all the time, this is a common and very easily explained occurance. Most of all, know that we are here to protect you, your government loves you, but you must give up all freedom so that you can be safe, safe little slaves.

runcible

06-12-2006, 09:19 AM

Naa, this government loves you and would never lie to you, so go ahead sheeple, believe what they tell you to believe, please do not question authority, comply comply comply like little slaves. Put your money in the stock market, where it will be safe. 911 was carried out by box cutter weilding cave dwellers and we had there picture in the paper in just a few hours. Not only did they get the entire US military to stand down for 80 minutes that day, they got physics and science to stand down, now that is talent.

The gov't has lied to the people before, it will lie to the people again. That doesn't mean that the gov't scenerio for the collapse of WTC #1 & #2 is a lie.

For all the talk of physics disproving the gov't story, there's very little physics presented. Why is that? I have a few hundred dollars worth* of textbooks on engineering within 15' of me, lets discuss the physics. I might have to crack open a book or two to look up a formula, but I think I can follow along.

*"A few hundred dollars worth" sounds pretty impressive, but even 10 years ago, college textbooks were pricey. I remember paying around $100 for one softcover textbook. At those prices, it doesn't take long to collect a few hundred dollars worth.

Large Sarge

06-12-2006, 09:52 AM

The gov't has lied to the people before, it will lie to the people again. That doesn't mean that the gov't scenerio for the collapse of WTC #1 & #2 is a lie.

For all the talk of physics disproving the gov't story, there's very little physics presented. Why is that? I have a few hundred dollars worth* of textbooks on engineering within 15' of me, lets discuss the physics. I might have to crack open a book or two to look up a formula, but I think I can follow along.

*"A few hundred dollars worth" sounds pretty impressive, but even 10 years ago, college textbooks were pricey. I remember paying around $100 for one softcover textbook. At those prices, it doesn't take long to collect a few hundred dollars worth.

WRS had quite a debate with Halo, and WRS did his own calculations showing what the Govt story is impossible, he is a real engineer, not a pretend one (like some folks around here)

here is the thread.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=35031

for all those folks still left believing the Govt. use the above thread, and save us the trouble of deprogramming another group.

RickyJ

06-12-2006, 10:20 AM

I have a few hundred dollars worth* of textbooks on engineering within 15' of me, lets discuss the physics. I might have to crack open a book or two to look up a formula, but I think I can follow along.

You better start hitting those books dude a $100,000 dollars awaits the first person that can prove the governmnets theory of how the towers fell scientifically. Amazing that not one engineer has collected yet, despite so many backing the government version, I guess $100,000 dollars doesn't appeal to them.

You want to discuss physics, then start discussing it nobody is stopping you.:haha:

runcible

06-12-2006, 10:23 AM

You better start hitting those books dude a $100,000 dollars awaits the first person that can prove the governmnets theory of how the towers fell scientifically. Amazing that not one engineer has collected yet, despite so many backing the government version, I guess $100,000 dollars doesn't appeal to them.

Who is offering the money and who judges the proof?

runcible

06-12-2006, 10:27 AM

WRS had quite a debate with Halo, and WRS did his own calculations showing what the Govt story is impossible, he is a real engineer, not a pretend one (like some folks around here)

here is the thread.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=35031

for all those folks still left believing the Govt. use the above thread, and save us the trouble of deprogramming another group.

Could you point out where WRS did his calculations in that thread? I don't see them.

Silver Scout

06-12-2006, 11:19 AM

Can this thread be closed now? Its taking up too much space and im tired of looking at it.

And if you need to be told what brought the towers down ... you're a retarded assclown and need your internet privileges taken away.

nuff said :bandito:

Large Sarge

06-12-2006, 11:42 AM

Could you point out where WRS did his calculations in that thread? I don't see them.

try these

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=29711&highlight=Calculation

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=186738#post186738

runcible

06-12-2006, 01:07 PM

try these

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=29711&highlight=Calculation

Oooh, math. This one will take me a bit to dig through. One oddity though: For an engineer, he seems to confuse m/s (a unit of velocity) with m/s² (a unit of acceleration). The beginning math on that is pretty good otherwise (I get a Vmax of 8.8533 m/s when the above floor hits the floor below it, he gets a Vmax of 8.85 m/s, that's the same number to less significant digits. The really requires a detailed analysis. I do notice that he tends to use smaller figures in some places without giving a good reason why (for example, halving the speeds of the 767s, which reduces the resulting for by an order of magnitude!) I also notice that he states the energy needed to deflect each column, but doesn't give a source for the figures. I strongly suspect that he's using figures that are applying to steel at normal atmospheric temperatures, and not steel that has been warmed up by a few hundred degrees. There's a few warning bells going off here.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=186738#post186738

This one is just plain odd. For example, the quote "the floors were designed to hold 8 times their own weight without collapse for one week, they were tested to that standard in the field." If the top 20 floors collapsed on the floor below them, that would be 20 times the weight of the floor. 20 is greater than 8, last time I checked. But I am a product of gov't run schools, and my belief that 20 is a larger number than 8 could be the result of gov't brainwashing.

I also find it interesting that he references the Madrid tower. From the analysis I've read of the Madrid tower fire/partial collapse is that the reinforced concrete 17th floor stopped the collapse of the upper 15 stories. (WTC was NOT steel-reinforced concrete!). The Madrid tower also didn't suffer the destruction of many of the support columns, WTC #1 and #2 did.

The Madrid tower fire provides pretty pictures and video if you are making a conspiracy website or video, but it is a different design than the WTC towers, and it did not suffer the same damage as the WTC.

Lets all chant "This is the thread that never ends"

Halophyte

06-12-2006, 02:03 PM

This one is just plain odd. For example, the quote "the floors were designed to hold 8 times their own weight without collapse for one week, they were tested to that standard in the field." If the top 20 floors collapsed on the floor below them, that would be 20 times the weight of the floor. 20 is greater than 8, last time I checked. But I am a product of gov't run schools, and my belief that 20 is a larger number than 8 could be the result of gov't brainwashing.

And 21 floors is heavier live load limit that 1 floor can handle, and 22 floors is heavier than 1 floor can handle, and 23 floors is ...

And the resistance to collapse is a constant per floor, while the kinetic energy of moving mass increases per floor ...

I also find it interesting that he references the Madrid tower. From the analysis I've read of the Madrid tower fire/partial collapse is that the reinforced concrete 17th floor stopped the collapse of the upper 15 stories. (WTC was NOT steel-reinforced concrete!). The Madrid tower also didn't suffer the destruction of many of the support columns, WTC #1 and #2 did.

The Madrid tower fire provides pretty pictures and video if you are making a conspiracy website or video, but it is a different design than the WTC towers, and it did not suffer the same damage as the WTC.

Lets all chant "This is the thread that never ends"

The only thing that doesn't end here is "belief".

You'll find logic gets in belief's way on this thread.

Good luck to your, sir !

.

Large Sarge

06-12-2006, 02:03 PM

The Madrid tower fire provides pretty pictures and video if you are making a conspiracy website or video, but it is a different design than the WTC towers, and it did not suffer the same damage as the WTC.
Lets all chant "This is the thread that never ends"

you can address WRS (or Dr. jones directly) on his math, I am sure either one can handle you and your questions.

Regarding above statement, we have those 47 steel columns, BIG STEEL columns, that vaporized.

what happened to those?

Do you really believe the junk you are spewing, is it entertainment, or is it "just a job" ??

3 buildings drop in one day, which not 1 modern building has ever fallen from fire in all of human history, and we are supposed to believe that this is normal.

Large Sarge

06-12-2006, 02:05 PM

And 21 floors is heavier live load limit that 1 floor can handle, and 22 floors is heavier than 1 floor can handle, and 23 floors is ...

And the resistance to collapse is a constant per floor, while the kinetic energy of moving mass increases per floor ...

The only thing that doesn't end here is "belief".

You'll find logic gets in belief's way on this thread.

Good luck to your, sir !

.

and those undamaged 90 floors below the top 20 offered no resistance, allowing a free fall for both towers.

Please guys...

Halophyte

06-12-2006, 02:40 PM

and those undamaged 90 floors below the top 20 offered no resistance, allowing a free fall for both towers.

Please guys...

Contrary to popular CT beliefs, once the top of the buildings were dumped on the first floor below, the buildings collapsed one floor at a time.

What is difficult for most true believers to wrap their minds around - the time required to collapse each floor decreased as the collapse progressed from floor to floor, because the moving mass impacting the floor below increased.

It was an accelerating collapse. The logical falacy is to expect a decelerating collapse.

Duh.

The physical world does not play out like a football game, there was no slow motion replay offered.

.

Large Sarge

06-12-2006, 02:51 PM

Contrary to popular CT beliefs, once the top of the buildings were dumped on the first floor below, the buildings collapsed one floor at a time.

What is difficult for most true believers to wrap their minds around - the time required to collapse each floor decreased as the collapse progressed from floor to floor, because the moving mass impacting the floor below increased.

It was an accelerating collapse. The logical falacy is to expect a decelerating collapse.

Duh.

The physical world does not play out like a football game, there was no slow motion replay offered.

.

once again ignoring those massive 47 columns in the middle of each tower, the free fall speed of collapse, the reported explosions heard ( 1 person burned in the basement), the video taped EMT person shouting "There are bombs in the building, we have found bombs, everyone out ", the seismic activity recorded, the fact that U.L. could not duplicate any event to cause the collapses, etc etc

pick and choose halo, its all you can really do, and then warp reality around your own version.

We had a personal discussion awhile back about it taking a bigger person to admit when they are wrong, I guess you never listened to that, or god help you, you still actually believe the junk you are spewing...

Halophyte

06-12-2006, 03:06 PM

runcible

06-12-2006, 03:16 PM

I think after paying thousands of dollars on schooling, I deserve a better title than "armchair engineer". :aetsch:

I prefer semi-pro engineer. :wink:

But yah, this thread has gone far beyond the point of being productive. It is an "agree to disagree" situation, like religion, creationism, gold market manipulations, or the percentage of simian ancestry in our current president.

For everyone who has read this far in the thread, here's a cool site that has nothing to do with 9/11: http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Large Sarge

06-12-2006, 03:45 PM

There was no "freefall" speed of collapse, that's an outright CT video suggested lie.

You woudn't be able to tell the difference between an accelerating pancake collapse and a freefall ...

It was close to freefall, but no cigar.

So when are you going to be that "bigger" person, "Large" Sarge ?

I already admitted to Hoarder he was correct on a previous debate. (Feel free to ask him, he will confirm it)

You are not correct Halo, otherwise I would give you the same respect/response.

of course we could go into NORAD standing down for the first time in history, ordered by Cheney.

Mayor Willie Brown getting called and told to cancel his trip, on 9/10/01

the massive amount of puts placed on American and United for 9/11/01

the molten steel 6-8 weeks after the collapse.

WTC 7 is in itself a complete mystery. no explanation even offered, and apparently not needed by the sheeple.

Video footage of terrorists entering the planes, why was this not released?

these pilots who could barely manage to run a cessna in a single loop around an airfield, could somehow manage 757's for hundreds of miles, hitting WTC towers at cruising speeds.

and it goes on and on.

if your position had any backing besides being the one they spew on the 6o'clock news, it would deserve some merit. as it stands, the govt story is the true C.T.

bigjon

06-12-2006, 03:49 PM

Oooh, math. I also notice that he states the energy needed to deflect each column, but doesn't give a source for the figures. I strongly suspect that he's using figures that are applying to steel at normal atmospheric temperatures, and not steel that has been warmed up by a few hundred degrees. There's a few warning bells going off here.

At the time of impact the columns were at ambient temperature.

This one is just plain odd. For example, the quote "the floors were designed to hold 8 times their own weight without collapse for one week, they were tested to that standard in the field." If the top 20 floors collapsed on the floor below them, that would be 20 times the weight of the floor. 20 is greater than 8, last time I checked. But I am a product of gov't run schools, and my belief that 20 is a larger number than 8 could be the result of gov't brainwashing.

Lets all chant "This is the thread that never ends"

Each floor is designed to hold up 8 times it's static load which means to those of us who still have some brains that if there are 20 floors above the floor in question it holds up 8 times your 20 floors. So when your puny 20 floors crashes into it, it has the capacity to hold up 160 floors. All this presumes that 47 massive core columns were blasted out of the way be space alien's, to make room for the falling structure.

Personally I think that must be it you guys believe in space aliens and other fairy tales. As long as the boob tube told you thats what you believe.:thumpdown