Governments 9/11 story Crazy

[flipside]

And don't forget that the impact of the planes would have detonated explosives, cut detonation cords, displaced explosives, etc.

This is so ridiculous.

You have a good point about the impact of the plane and the fires setting off some explosives. Could you really tell that no explosives went off when the planes hit the buildings? Do you think the molten metal dripping from the tower is odd? How do you get molten metal from a uncontrolled fire in under 2 hours?

Dentonation cords are not necessarily needed anymore as tiny remote units are often used. These devices where surprisingly small when I saw them and not every floor would need to be set. The lower floors and the basement being most important in allowing such a collapse as well as the main seperations floors (not sure what they were called -observatory decks?) You can see them from the outside of the building, 3 or 4 slightly off colored floors. ( Do a search for WTC blueprints)

I won't go as far to say I know there were explosives in the building but the evidence indicates to me there was..and no other theory makes more sense.

 

[Logic 7]

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.

This is where you are totally wrong, how come your mind, can't even understand we are talking of 2 different structure, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, the structure that collapse was freaking way more smaller, with basically the same amount of burning fuel, why cant you understand that?

the temperature in WTC never reach the melting point according to NIST report, that is something you still ignore , in fact it reach even less than half of his temperature.

 

[TenPenny]

the temperature in WTC never reach the melting point according to NIST report, that is something you still ignore , in fact it reach even less than half of his temperature.

Okay, 'splain this one to me.

The temperature reached in a normal house fire is not high enough to melt steel. (Since the temperature of burning jet fuel is higher than a burning house, that's obvious)

Yet, a structural steel beam in a house will collapse sooner than a similarly-sized wooden beam subjected to a house fire.

Why? Is it because the CIA detonates explosives in every house fire where there are steel support beams?

 

[Logic 7]

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.

How would you explain the puff that comes out of the buildings when floors starts to collapse? this is an indication of explosive place in buildings.


how would you explain that all wtc fell almost at free fall speed?, which is by the way contredict the official story


how would you explain that steven e jones founds thermate in the debris?
this is an hard evidence that explosives were used in the buildings.


how would you explain , explosion in the bottom of each building before it collapse?

how would explain that columbia university registered 2.1 and 2.3 seismic records before each collapse?

how would you explain, the power down , on 9th september in wtc that last 48 hours?


how would you explain that firefighters saw, heard and felt explosion in the buildings?

how would you explain that those same firefighters werent allowed to be in front of the 9-11 comission?


how would you explain that there is police report that says explosion there was explosion in the bottom of each buildings and collapse?

how would you explain that george w bush brother in law was in charge of wtc security from 1996 to 2002?


how would you explain that wtc 7 was demolish by explosives? admitted by his owner on a documentary called "america rebuilds"?

and more importantly why that building would fell??


it was a building where there was CIA, NSA, FBI, and all the secret service stupidity.



all the evidence are there to prove that those buildings were brought down with explosives, and more importantly , that it was an inside job.

 

[flipside]

Okay, 'splain this one to me.

The temperature reached in a normal house fire is not high enough to melt steel. (Since the temperature of burning jet fuel is higher than a burning house, that's obvious)

Yet, a structural steel beam in a house will collapse sooner than a similarly-sized wooden beam subjected to a house fire.

Why? Is it because the CIA detonates explosives in every house fire where there are steel support beams?

You are correct the temperature in a normal house fire is not hot enough to melt steel. You are correct that Jet Fuel burns at a higher temperature than wood.

I have never seen a steel support fail in a fire? Most house fires I have seen with steel ibeam supports (running horizontally) only fail when the structure around them has burned away enough for the beam to fall, and it rarely will fall evenly. Ussually one end will give first as the fires never burn evenly enough to cause a sudden collapse of the entire structure. A wooden beam which can hold the weight of a large ibeam is a very large chunk of wood and would take hours to burn and much less heat to fail. Are you saying a large steel ibeam will fail before an equal strength wooden beam in a fire? I'm not talking about steel homes with metal wall studs I'm talking about large support beams for floors and large spans.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying " Is it because the CIA detonates explosives in every house fire where there are steel support beams?" I would like to see any building collapse steel or wood in such a sudden manner where explosives were not used.. Are you saying homes with steel support ibeams collapse sooner than wood from fire? Most homes ussually do collapse from fire but slowly starting at the weakest point and ussually outward.

I suppose we shouldn't be comparing house fires, or bridge collapses with this event anyway. But seriously doesn't any of the events of Sept 9/11 make you wonder?

And remeber Black/Dark grey smoke is a weak fire that is struggling for oxygen and the whiter the smoke the hotter.. heck for the jet fuel to burn at its maximum potential there would have been far less smoke period.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Actually I have seen several buildings demolished by explosives that collapsed identically.

Then you weren't paying attention. In a controlled demolition all the charges go off as nearly simultaneously as possible and the whole structure begins to collapse at once.

 

[L Gilbert]

Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Government's 9/11 Story is Crazy

And what do they say about all the conspiracy stories?

 

[L Gilbert]

Then you weren't paying attention. In a controlled demolition all the charges go off as nearly simultaneously as possible and the whole structure begins to collapse at once.

Quite right. The center support charges go off only milliseconds before the exterior support charges.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

How would you explain ...

All of your questions are answered in links and arguments provided multiple times to you in this thread and others, I'm not going to go through them again. You obviously didn't understand any of it the first time, or the second time, or the third time, or however many times we're up to now. You don't have a case, and you either don't understand the evidence or haven't bothered to check it out. You're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.

 

[TenPenny]

Are you saying a large steel ibeam will fail before an equal strength wooden beam in a fire? I'm not talking about steel homes with metal wall studs I'm talking about large support beams for floors and large spans.

That's exactly what I'm saying, because the yield strength of a steel beam drops as the temperature rises. Way before melting the steel. This is a basic concept that you keep ignoring, with your insistence on the "melting" of steel.

It's not melting of steel, it's failure of a steel support beam or column. They are two different things.

 

[flipside]

Then you weren't paying attention. In a controlled demolition all the charges go off as nearly simultaneously as possible and the whole structure begins to collapse at once.

I would say in most controlled demolitions the explosives do go off nearly simultaneously. But, in most controlled demolitions they are not attempting to hide the fact it is a controlled demolition.

Demolition experts can make the explosions loud and dramatic or quieter and less aparent.

Do you think they would want it to look like a controlled demolition or not really? Seriously lets just say you were planning this, would you try to make it look like the building fell or that it was controlled? I'm assuming you'd want it to look like it just collapsed. So you probably wouldn't need as many explosions and you probably would set them off at different times to make it seem like the building was slowly falling apart, and not suddenly. Well in my opinion they failed they used too many explosives and the speed at which they did fall indicated something more than just a fire near the top.

 

[TenPenny]

That reminds me of the Christian argument that God would have created fossils just to make people believe them, so therefore, fossils are proof of the existence of God.

 

[L Gilbert]

That reminds me of the Christian argument that God would have created fossils just to make people believe them, so therefore, fossils are proof of the existence of God.

rotfflmfao, I never heard that one. Hilarious.

 

[flipside]

That's exactly what I'm saying, because the yield strength of a steel beam drops as the temperature rises. Way before melting the steel. This is a basic concept that you keep ignoring, with your insistence on the "melting" of steel.

It's not melting of steel, it's failure of a steel support beam or column. They are two different things.

I understand that the stength of the steel weakens with heat but there was melting steel dripping from the building? Unless a massive cutting torch was being used up there?

Ok so the fire was so hot it weakened the steel.. fine I'll go along with that. Which means to me the pancake theory is right out the window.

So how does that explain the collapse? Straight down? Near freefall speed? Right into the basement? I might believe it to be fire if one building fell like this and the others fell following the laws of physics..Do I really need to find a Scientific study on the speed the buildings fell and Newtons Laws of physics?

How does Newtons law not relate to this collapse?

 

[thomaska]

How would you explain the puff that comes out of the buildings when floors starts to collapse? this is an indication of explosive place in buildings.


how would you explain that all wtc fell almost at free fall speed?, which is by the way contredict the official story


how would you explain that steven e jones founds thermate in the debris?
this is an hard evidence that explosives were used in the buildings.


how would you explain , explosion in the bottom of each building before it collapse?

how would explain that columbia university registered 2.1 and 2.3 seismic records before each collapse?

how would you explain, the power down , on 9th september in wtc that last 48 hours?


how would you explain that firefighters saw, heard and felt explosion in the buildings?

how would you explain that those same firefighters werent allowed to be in front of the 9-11 comission?


how would you explain that there is police report that says explosion there was explosion in the bottom of each buildings and collapse?

how would you explain that george w bush brother in law was in charge of wtc security from 1996 to 2002?


how would you explain that wtc 7 was demolish by explosives? admitted by his owner on a documentary called "america rebuilds"?

and more importantly why that building would fell??


it was a building where there was CIA, NSA, FBI, and all the secret service stupidity.



all the evidence are there to prove that those buildings were brought down with explosives, and more importantly , that it was an inside job.

How would you explain that the people on those flights are still missing?

I mean really, Washington Politicians can't even keep the fact that they hire prostitutes a secret. In keeping a big secret like 9/11 under wraps I think you might be giving politicians a wee bit too much credit.

 

[flipside]

Do you mean all the missing bodies from the flights? Although i find it difficult to believe, apparently the fires were so hot in all the crashes that nearly everything was incinerated..

The government can't keep secrets otherwise no one would be questioning thier theory.

 

[Logic 7]

All of your questions are answered in links and arguments provided multiple times to you in this thread and others, I'm not going to go through them again. You obviously didn't understand any of it the first time, or the second time, or the third time, or however many times we're up to now. You don't have a case, and you either don't understand the evidence or haven't bothered to check it out. You're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.

Your links are wrong 95% of the time, they only cover selected conpsiracy theories questions, to prove they are right, withouth covering all the aspects,, and they don't cover 20% of what i asked, plus you dont even bother try to understand by yourself, you let other biased web site-mass media do it for you, come on get real please.

 

[Logic 7]

How would you explain that the people on those flights are still missing?

I mean really, Washington Politicians can't even keep the fact that they hire prostitutes a secret. In keeping a big secret like 9/11 under wraps I think you might be giving politicians a wee bit too much credit.

They are just dead, i 've never said anything against that.

 

[TenPenny]

I understand that the stength of the steel weakens with heat but there was melting steel dripping from the building? Unless a massive cutting torch was being used up there?

Ok so the fire was so hot it weakened the steel.. fine I'll go along with that. Which means to me the pancake theory is right out the window.

So how does that explain the collapse? Straight down? Near freefall speed? Right into the basement? I might believe it to be fire if one building fell like this and the others fell following the laws of physics..Do I really need to find a Scientific study on the speed the buildings fell and Newtons Laws of physics?

How does Newtons law not relate to this collapse?

Near freefall speed...well, when the first of the floors collapsed, the shockwave would have travelled through the steel at the speed of sound, the same way that water hammer shockwaves travel. The shock pulsations when the shockwave hits a joint are usually in the order of 10 to 20 times the size of the shock wave. Have you ever read the full story on the department store in Korea that collapsed?

The bloody buildings fell down because they were hit by jets. If you feel the need to believe in a greater being, so be it.

 

[flipside]

Near freefall speed...well, when the first of the floors collapsed, the shockwave would have travelled through the steel at the speed of sound, the same way that water hammer shockwaves travel. The shock pulsations when the shockwave hits a joint are usually in the order of 10 to 20 times the size of the shock wave. Have you ever read the full story on the department store in Korea that collapsed?

The bloody buildings fell down because they were hit by jets. If you feel the need to believe in a greater being, so be it.

Ok so a powerful shock wave caused the freefall speed collapse. Of course there was a shockwave, but still magically all three fell the same way.

I'm assuming that your saying the initial shock wave from the first floor collapsing due to weakened steel from the fire and impact sent the shockwave throughout the building causing the joints and beams to either break, bend or weaken. This would then explain the speed of the collapse as the shockwave basically destroyed the structure just before the collapse and the shockwave turned the concrete to dust.

Do you have any Scientific studies beside the 9/11 obmissions or Pop Mechanix to support this shockwave theory. Would actually cause a pancake collapse to more than triple in speed?

Also heres some info on the dept store in Korea I really do not think it has any relation to the WTC towers. http://www.answers.com/topic/sampoong-department-store-collapse
Were columns removed from the WTC? Were floors added when engineers said it was not safe? I'm not sure how that feebly faulty mall has anything to do with shockwaves, fires or a near free fall speed collapse. When infact it took 20 seconds for the 5 story mall (which should never have been 5 stories) to collapse that apparently was a structural joke. I wonder why it didn't collapse in less than 6 seconds?
BTW I'm not trying to be rude or one sided.