|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401439 is a reply to message #400984] |
Thu, 03 September 2009 14:18   |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I'm not inclined to believe it was an 'inside job' by the US government because they've proven to be quite inefficient when it comes to these sorts of things.
If the terms 'Bay of Pigs' and 'Vietnam' aren't a good enough indication of how well the intelligence agencies and the government are at screwing things up, then the CIA's overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddeq in Iran, the supplying of arms to the Afghan mujahadeen and other botched forays into foreign powers should be aqequate.
What these all have in common are that they involved US government agencies like the CIA, and they didn't stay secret all too long. If 9/11 was an 'inside job,' it would have been exposed in a short time, much like those other operations. If there's one thing people are good at, it's not keeping their mouths shut.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401461 is a reply to message #400984] |
Thu, 03 September 2009 18:46 |
appshot
Messages: 83
Registered: August 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
I love that argument. It's funny to look at, because it means the person writing it hasn't got a clue how buildings are constructed. Specifically, it means that they haven't got a clue how skyscrapers are constructed. The possibility of a catastrophic failure is part of any architect's design if they're worth two shits; those towers fell more or less straight down because they were designed to do exactly that in the event that they were so compromised.
Actually, they were quite an inspired design for the time they were built; the outer structure (the steel beams running down the sides of the buildings that gave them their iconic look) actually supported a fairly large percentage of the total weight of the building while remaining flexible enough to deal with high winds. Had the planes been low on fuel, the towers would likely still stand today; collisions were a consideration in the design... it's just that nobody in the 1960s thought anyone would plow a fully-fueled airliner into a building deliberately.
Also, do you have any notion of just how much something that big weighs? Once the structural members were weakened by heat, the kinetic energy of the falling upper levels even across an extremely short distance (say a single story) would have been (and was) sufficient to cause cascading failures all the way down. It wouldn't have toppled in any case; toppling requires that the building retain structural integrity in at least one place- but the fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel all the way around the buildings (and in case you were wondering, steel loses much of its strength well below its melting point). Buildings don't just arbitrarily fall over; more often than not they have to be made to fall over by the conditions of the collapse (as when the foundation is knocked out on one side but not on the other).
Anybody who's had basic high school physics should be able to work that much out; look up the overall mass of each tower (which is likely public record on a trivia page somewhere) and work out a rough estimate on how heavy the portions above the impact sites were (1/3? 1/4?). With that, you can work out more or less how much force was exerted on the lower floors when the impact sites gave way. Momentum = Mass * Velocity. Here's a hint: it's gonna be a really, really big number. Then think about whether or not you can really imagine those buildings falling in any other direction than straight down.
|
Erm.. you are missing the point that momentum and energy are also conserved. Also, look closely when the buildings are falling, they go at somewhat of an angle, which indicates even less of a force. And also notice the dust and the steel frames and their position. The jet fuel fire did weaken the material but not to such an extent as to the failure of the beams. The main steel frames never got higher than 300C, which does NOTHING. Plus, if your reasoning is indeed true, then why need demolition teams. Just put a few floors who have enough "force"--Not that difficult to calculate by engineers and physicists-- on jet fuel and bam the building will collapse. The fire was also non-uniform and didn't constrict to an entire floor, because, as you said, it was built that way. Also, uhhh free-fall acceleration much?
And BlueThen, i was referring to WTC 7 as people are referring to. Sorry i didn't make it clear enough. I assumed you were smart enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401477 is a reply to message #400984] |
Thu, 03 September 2009 20:28 |
 |
infusi0n
Messages: 53
Registered: October 2008
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
Anyone wanna explain WTC 7 and why theres not 1 mention of it in the commission report? And how it stated the main theory behind the 2 towers collapes goes against all laws of physics and logic known to man?
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401480 is a reply to message #400984] |
Thu, 03 September 2009 21:39 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I recall hearing about that they had solved the mystery. The best reason why Tower 7 likely didn't make the report was because investigating structures takes time, and is filled with variables and all sorts of scenarios. However, I believe the commission was flawed, so I'm not putting too much stock in it anyways.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm
| Quote: |
Steel structure weakened
It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.
Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.
They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.
Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.
The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.
Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.
|
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401507 is a reply to message #401477] |
Fri, 04 September 2009 06:05 |
nope.avi
Messages: 601
Registered: December 2007
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| infusi0n wrote on Thu, 03 September 2009 23:28 |
Anyone wanna explain WTC 7 and why theres not 1 mention of it in the commission report? And how it stated the main theory behind the 2 towers collapes goes against all laws of physics and logic known to man?
|
not everything you watch on youtube is true btw
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401511 is a reply to message #400984] |
Fri, 04 September 2009 07:03 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
ITT: Pissing in the wind.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11 [message #401540 is a reply to message #400984] |
Fri, 04 September 2009 14:17 |
appshot
Messages: 83
Registered: August 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
I was referring to your first statement, which I can assume was focused around the main towers, because of your context. If you were referring to WTC 7, sorry then. I can't read minds, I'm too "stupid".
|
No, as you the initiator of the topic, i thought you would atleast have some extent of knowledge. And you were not indeed referring to my first sentence. Go back and read what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
