Ok now you are doing talk to the hand, i was wrong, and you were wrong on the amount of fuel, at least admit it can't you?, still you don't even acknowledge the overpass was minimum 100 times smaller than the wtc tower.
Governments 9/11 story Crazy
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Ok now you are doing talk to the hand, i was wrong, and you were wrong on the amount of fuel, at least admit it can't you?, still you don't even acknowledge the overpass was minimum 100 times smaller than the wtc tower.
That is the best explanation i had so far, it makes sense now, hanjour, the pilote who flew for 45 min, was able to find the pentagone and washington at the same time, i guess allah helped them to find that from 10 000 feet in the air, thankx for this clear explanation beaver, now i get it.
Yes,I was wrong on the amount of fuel. However,the point I was making is that steel structures will collapse when exposed to heat. And yes the wtc is much bigger than an overpass. Now will you admit that steel will melt and/or lose its strength when exposed to extreme temperatures ,such as gasoline or aviation fuel fires.
Niether gasoline nor kerosene burning produce extreme temperatures. The overpass in California was a span, meaning it had no support underneath it the burning fuel and ashphalt waekened the concrete and heated the steel reinforceing beams and they sagged because of no support. That's only remotely close to what occured with the WTC buildings in question, in that we have fire concrete and steel. The orientation of the structural loads was not at all the same.
Niether gasoline nor kerosene burning produce extreme temperatures. The overpass in California was a span, meaning it had no support underneath it the burning fuel and ashphalt waekened the concrete and heated the steel reinforceing beams and they sagged because of no support. That's only remotely close to what occured with the WTC buildings in question, in that we have fire concrete and steel. The orientation of the structural loads was not at all the same.
Those pilots in the planes that struck the WTC buildings were really really really really good.
Those pilots in the planes that struck the WTC buildings were really really really really good.
Well according to bin laden, they calculated in advance from their deep cave in afganisthan, where they could struck, so the steel structure would collapse
You may be right, in the case of the world trade center, it would have need way more time of burning, since the tempeture only reach temperatures half of his melting point for a very brief moment , since there is audio clip of firefighters describing "small pocket of fire on 78th floor", it destroyed your entire argument.
I guess I'll take another kick at the cat. The overpass collapsed because the steel beams sagged,OK. What made the steel sag? Not the weight of the concrete because it had been holding up for years with much heavier weight from traffic. Hot concrete weighs the same as cold concrete. Therefore most people would say the heat from the fire caused it to sag or bend or twist .Obviously,gasoline does burn at the temperature that will cause steel to lose its strength.Aviation fuel even burns hotter.
Kick #2. You admit that at least 10,000 gallons of jet fuel is burning,yet a firefighter from the ground describes it as a small pocket of fire and that is what your scientific mind accepts as the truth. Well,I just watched a news clip about the tornadoes in Kansas,(I'm not there anymore) and a rescue worker says it looks like a war zone. Now,what do you surmise really happened,twisters or Bush bombed the bejesus out of Greensburg,Kansas?
There was a program on Discovery Channel not too long ago whereby they showed how the burning of the WTC's allowed for the collapse of the buildings. Basically, it was the heat/temperatures. Showed illustrations of just how it happened and interviewed structural engineers etc. Pretty much disproved the CT's idea of what supposidly happened.
JMO
JMO
Hey All!
I'm pretty shocked that there are folks here who don't believe that all three towers were brought down with explosives?? I read someone mentioned holograms? Are you out of your mind? Listen folks everyone saw planes hit the towers (1&2 at least), which in itself is highly unlikely to happen without "inner" help. And then everyone watched them turn to dust in under 10 seconds..right? So lets forget about the spaceships, holograms, missle flashes, and get to the facts we have.
It has been proven that both the 9/11 commision report "pancake" theory and Popular Mechanics article have serious issues and questions. Go find out about the inner columns, find out about the sealed elevator shafts, find out about the empty floors through out the towers, do your own research.
It has already been proven the bridge collapse and the wtc collapes have no similarities. Are you really being serious? A bridge? Ok lets pretend they are similar... so the fire somehow got so hot it weaked the steel in a very very short period, so much fuel from the planes and burning furniture that all of the sudden all the steel collapses at once? oh right it didn't it pancaked because a few floors near the top were weakened from heat and collapsed hitting the floor below and breaking all the connections, inner columns, outter columns, over 1000 floor connections at once turning the floors above to dust and then onto the next floor and so on..each time it hits a floor below right into its basement. Now obviously this sounds believable until you watch the video footage? If the floors are collapsing into one another then the builing should have taken much longer to fall (much longer) and why would they collapse straight down perfectly. When objects are falling and collide with something there is always resistance and a reaction which will shift the direction of the falling object or slow down its momentum. So why was ther no shifting? Why didn't any of the buildings show any signs of resistance or lose of momentum while collapsing? Were these buildings designed to collapse like this? Ok so lets try to believe they came down by fire.. ( I can't believe I'm explaing this ) Was the construction of this building flawed?, if so someone should be held responsible! ..hmm it seems the buildings were designed very well and extremely strong.. how about looking the construction of the towers up if you don't know abouts it.
Anyway I have babbled enough .. and all I want is a real investigation. I'm not here to say who did it or how it was done but I do see through all the evidence and you can no longer deny... explosives were used!
I wish it wasn't true...
I'm pretty shocked that there are folks here who don't believe that all three towers were brought down with explosives?? I read someone mentioned holograms? Are you out of your mind? Listen folks everyone saw planes hit the towers (1&2 at least), which in itself is highly unlikely to happen without "inner" help. And then everyone watched them turn to dust in under 10 seconds..right? So lets forget about the spaceships, holograms, missle flashes, and get to the facts we have.
It has been proven that both the 9/11 commision report "pancake" theory and Popular Mechanics article have serious issues and questions. Go find out about the inner columns, find out about the sealed elevator shafts, find out about the empty floors through out the towers, do your own research.
It has already been proven the bridge collapse and the wtc collapes have no similarities. Are you really being serious? A bridge? Ok lets pretend they are similar... so the fire somehow got so hot it weaked the steel in a very very short period, so much fuel from the planes and burning furniture that all of the sudden all the steel collapses at once? oh right it didn't it pancaked because a few floors near the top were weakened from heat and collapsed hitting the floor below and breaking all the connections, inner columns, outter columns, over 1000 floor connections at once turning the floors above to dust and then onto the next floor and so on..each time it hits a floor below right into its basement. Now obviously this sounds believable
until you watch the video footage? If the floors are collapsing into one another then the builing should have taken much longer to fall (much longer) and why would they collapse straight down perfectly. When objects are falling and collide with something there is always resistance and a reaction which will shift the direction of the falling object or slow down its momentum. So why was ther no shifting? Why didn't any of the buildings show any signs of resistance or lose of momentum while collapsing? Were these buildings designed to collapse like this? Ok so lets try to believe they came down by fire.. ( I can't believe I'm explaing this ) Was the construction of this building flawed?, if so someone should be held responsible! ..hmm it seems the buildings were designed very well and extremely strong.. how about looking the construction of the towers up if you don't know abouts it.Anyway I have babbled enough .. and all I want is a real investigation. I'm not here to say who did it or how it was done but I do see through all the evidence and you can no longer deny... explosives were used!
I wish it wasn't true...
I must have missed that scientific study into the speed of buildings collapsing under different conditions. Can anyone provide an unbiased link to this study? I don't want an opinion from either Jones or, god forbid ,renowned metallurgist Ms. O'donnell .Actually I do not want an opinion at all,but an actual study that proves your point. Remember,no opinions,preferably a study conducted before 9/11 because there mut be one out there ,right? I will be waiting with bait on my breath.
I'm not sure of any links to Scientific Studies on the speeds of the buildings collapse. But its easy to get an estimate of the speeds which they fell. By watching several videos I have come to 10-12 seconds, please do this yourself at home.
Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling objects. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds WITHOUT accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 12 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.
Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds.
This really isn't my opinion and this information doesn't come from Alex Jones or Rosie O'donnel..lol. I'll try to find some study on this and I hope there would be plenty out there.. It appears that is what we need to prove these laws are correct and that they do relate to the collapse of the towers.
Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling objects. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds WITHOUT accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 12 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.
Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds.
This really isn't my opinion and this information doesn't come from Alex Jones or Rosie O'donnel..lol. I'll try to find some study on this and I hope there would be plenty out there.. It appears that is what we need to prove these laws are correct and that they do relate to the collapse of the towers.
I don't put much weight in conspiracy theories. But many things about the official version of 9/11 don't add up. This website covers in detail many questions regarding the events of 9/11:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
I am not sure of any scientific studies,which means to me that you can't find any,but come on now,give us another 5 years of denial and we can conjure something. Me mum cried that day and she is smarter than me.
Your wish is granted. It's not true. Ever actually seen a building demolished by explosives come down? WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 did not come down that way. To believe those buildings were brought down by explosives you also have to believe that the people who laid the explosives knew precisely what floor the planes would hit, where the debris would go, when the collapse would start, and were able to time the explosives to go off at the precise moment each collapsing floor hit the one below. If you have any brains at all, it's simply not believable. And if you don't have any brains, you'll buy all this paranoid conspiracy crap.
But it looks like fire did actually melt steel for the first time in history!
Where is Rosy O'Donnel and Liz Hasselback?
And don't forget that the impact of the planes would have detonated explosives, cut detonation cords, displaced explosives, etc.
This is so ridiculous.
Actually I have seen several buildings demolished by explosives that collapsed identically. I have yet to see a building collapse like that from fire. I use to be a volunteer fireman and have seen several large wood buildings burn to the ground and they don't even collapse in 10 seconds. I understand this is no comparision to the size of WTC or the fact a jet hit the buildings but the video footage alone has me baffled.
I'm not sure of your points.. because in a controlled demolition the people who plan it (or place the explosives) would know where the deris would go, when the collapse would start, and would be able to control when the explosives go off. As far as knowing exactly which floor was going to be hit why would that make much of a difference? As long as a plane did hit the towers than theres a possibility of covering up the controlled demolition, if the public is in shock and gulible enough. And from what I can tell by watching the video the explosives didn't have to be timed to cause the pancake theory, the pancake theory doesn't even exist in any of the collapses. When you watch the videos do you see any of the floors falling onto one another causing walls to buckle below the falling floors or shifting in the direction of the collapse? Especially in WTC 7 you see the entire building collapse at once? For the pancake theory to work the first floor to would have to hit the next floor near level and flat and the following floors to do the same all they way to the basement. Does this not sound even slightly odd to you? And you think fire caused this? Wouldn't you think the weakest section would be where the plane hit and that any downward force would cause the buildings floors to collapse in the direction of least resistance? I would imagine then that the floors would have shifted and fallen to the side of least resistance, or at least one of the three buildings to have some sign of a weak point. But you find it easier to believe that the plane hit caused severe damage and then the fires became so hot that they heated almost every beam evenly to cause a sudden collapse of the entire structure? Doesn't any of this strike you as odd? Would you not like to see a real investigation into these alegations?