9/11 crap again, what do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Towards the end of this video it clearly shows some charges going off near the top of the building.

 
Clearly explosions are they? No they aren't clearly explosions. How about squibs cause by air pressure change etc. do some reading up on squibs.

How did they get the explosives in, how did they remove the walls, how did they pre cut the structure, how did they ensure planes didn't damage cables explosives etc.
 
You talk one amount of bs Glaucus you do realize that right?

The facts are - there are respected structural engineers on both sides...the different is one side is the official report so that is the side that is believed.

I don't think you are a structural engineer so all you are basing your opinion on is what someone else has said...exactly the same as so called CT. I notice though you like to slander everyone as a CT nutter if they hold an opinion other than the official one....

Did you know that on the approach the plane cut down many lamposts, something a missile (CT suggested replacement) can't do. It also clipped a 10ton back up generator and pushed it out the way, again something a missile can't do.
Then you have all the witnesses.
Click to expand...

Thats funny he didnt claim it was a missile you argue against the worst nutter CT theory not against the argument of the person who is talking to you. Also suddenly witnesses are credible now? What about all the witnesses (including firefighters with years of experience) who claimed they heard a bomb....what about the lack of fires and smoke at upper levels of WTC buildings and yet at lower levels smoke and fire all over the place?

It is exactly the same as a lot of the moon CT, you have people pulling from irrelevant experience. Just like no stars, yet some photogphars think you should see stars, as on earth you have a black sky with no clouds you can photograph stars. But they'd use applied their experience with out calculating. The revolts is very reflective, in direct sunlight, that means the exposure times are very short and as such are not picked up on the film.
Exactly the same appies to 9/11, people pulling on what they see as fact from their experiences, but the truth is none of these people actually have the needed experience and they fail to do the calculations.
Click to expand...

Its called straw man. You create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition.....(ie the Moon landings fakery CT theory)


But shocker...you only accept something if it fits your theory....thats not science thats dogma..learn the difference.
 
[FnG]magnolia;24917465 said:
I'm guessing a mod has edited the thread title to be reflective of the OP?
Click to expand...

No i actually called it that.

Go back to your Justin Timberlake threads where you pretend your funny please.
 
Not a all. It's showing how people get it wrong by using "logic" they've experienced before and applying it to situations they haven't applied to it before.

Yes I compared it to a missile, as I said that's one of the CT claims. g-Man didn't give any details so I'm using common CTs, if he wants to come back then that's fine. It's far from BS like you claim.

And no I don't support it just because its the official side, I support it as it makes sense.
Many aspects of the CTs can be proved outright wrong. Many more are subjective, but when you dig into it you can show its not exactly how the CTs claim.
Take the explosions, on the face of it, they look like explosions. Yet if you compare the two there's actually big differences, the debris from a CD charge you get more debris as the charge goes off which then disappears, on the WTC, it starts low then builds, almost the complete opposite.
 
Glaucus said:
How did they get the explosives in, how did they remove the walls, how did they pre cut the structure, how did they ensure planes didn't damage cables explosives etc.
Click to expand...

There are numerous reports from those that worked in the buildings who reported odd goings on with floors being closed and workcrews at erm, 'work' in the weeks leading up to the event.
Oh, they were removing the asbestos or something, right? Or I guess it's just something that the CT nutjobs made up.

Playing devil's advocate, the areas that the planes hit didn't necessarily have to have any explosives or cables for the explosives in them.

If you believe the damage from the planes and the resulting fire could take down both the towers, then it's not like the entire building had to be rigged from top to bottom with explosives to do it either is it?

Then there are the numerous reports of people hearing and feeling actual explosions.
 
Last edited:
Uncle Petey said:
There are numerous reports from those that worked in the buildings who reported odd goings on with floors being closed and workcrews at erm, 'work' in the weeks leading up to the event.
Oh, they were removing the asbestos or something, right? Or I guess it's just something that the CT nutjobs made up.

Playing devil's advocate, the areas that the planes hit didn't necessarily have to have any explosives or cables for the explosives in them.

If you believe the damage from the planes and the resulting fire could take down both the towers, then it's not like the entire building had to be rigged from top to bottom with explosives to do it either is it?
Click to expand...

How about above it,
Yes there was work in there, it was nothing like CD, have you seen what CD do to a building to prepare it?

You could not take into account the exact damage the planes made. You can't take into account debris cutting cables, the fires damaging cables etc.
 
oulton said:
b) argue that even in the impossible scenario that the steel got hot enough it would not go from full standing to freefall (full structural to zero support) instantly.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take this one.

Think about the physics on a frame by frame, split second basis. Lets say the damage is 4/5 of the way up the tower. Up to a certain point the structure holds. The heat built up in the inferno of fixtures, fittings office equipment, aluminium and jet fuel weakens the steel already damaged by a high speed impact of a fully laden aircraft. At first only a single part of the structure fails, maybe a floor support or a partially damaged verical support. That failiure adds additional stress to the remaining structure. Piece by piece the structure fails until the point comes where the equilibrium is overcome and with one side now unsupported the upper part of the tower begins to lean. With this additional angular force the other supports begin to fail and as each one does the remaining ones are increasingly stressed and fail faster and faster. Eventually the upper 5th of the tower is completely unsupported and instead of toppling it falls onto the lower part. With very little resistance the intact top 5th of the tower plummets through the rest of the structure crashing through the inner, non loadbearing structures and peeling the outer supporting structure open like a banana. The crossing of that equilibrium threshold between supported and unsupported is measured in thousandths of seconds.

If you look at how one of the of the towers fell, the one with the mast on top I think, you can see this happen. The top section leans and then begins to fall. You can see the top section, still intact, falling through the rest of the building until it become shrouded in the cloud of debris from the rapidly disintegrating lower tower.
 
Last edited:
Not this thread again


oulton said:
impossible scenario that the steel got hot enough it would not go from full standing to freefall.
Click to expand...

Where does this 'freefall' rubbish come from? It's trivially easy to prove the towers were not in freefall. If you watch any video of the towers collapsing, the lumps falling off the side travel downwards faster than the towers themselves. They are in freefall, the towers are not.

You do not need a complete structural failure of the supports to have a total collapse. If the supports weaken enough for the top portion of the tower to start moving then a collapse is inevitable. Thousands of tons don't have to start moving very fast or very far before the energy transfer to the floors below gets monstrous.
 
Glaucus said:
How about above it,
Yes there was work in there, it was nothing like CD, have you seen what CD do to a building to prepare it?

You could not take into account the exact damage the planes made. You can't take into account debris cutting cables, the fires damaging cables etc.
Click to expand...

No, but if you have a general target zone of however many floors on a massive structure, then you could quite easily place whatever you want above and/or below.

Bear in mind that I am playing devils advocate here.

Whilst I am certain in my mind that this was an inside job, the method of total destruction/demoliton/whatever, whether full intentional or not isn't really my concern or interest.

I look to what's been happening as a result of this event in the greater scheme of things and would suggest that you do the same :)
Who has gained from this?
 
oulton said:
How to build a skyscraper? No but surely a doctor would acknowledge plausability in the testimony of thousands of structural engineers who

a) dispute that jet fuel can even create a fire hot enough to melt structural grade steel

b) argue that even in the impossible scenario that the steel got hot enough it would not go from full standing to freefall (full structural to zero support) instantly.
Steel girders do not behave in this way.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that the argument fails on the first hurdle.

You don't need to melt structural steel.
You just need to get it hot enough that it loses some of it's strength (way below melting point), especially when it's already got a stress loading way above it's original intended leves because of the loss of structural members that have been knocked out of alignment by the impacts, or outright lost.

Also as has been mentioned, steel expands (at relatively low temperatures), and whilst it's been designed to take that into account within certain limits, it's not been designed to take it into account in temperatures of several hundred c.
You can see this quite easily in the way that pretty much every road bridge made of steel tends to have expansion gaps to allow for the steel expanding, and the way that the railways tend to have to run slower in hotter than normal weather because the steel used in the railway tracks might have expanded more than normal (or allowed for) just due to the sun.

The whole "freefall" thing is also a load of rubbish that can easily be dismissed if you actually watch an unedited video and start the timer at the moment it starts falling...(a lot of the videos CT'ers use are carefully edited to start the timer later...).
 
Uncle Petey said:
No, but if you have a general target zone of however many floors on a massive structure, then you could quite easily place whatever you want above and/or below.

Bear in mind that I am playing devils advocate here.

Whilst I am certain in my mind that this was an inside job, the method of total destruction/demoliton/whatever, whether full intentional or not isn't really my concern or interest.

I look to what's been happening as a result of this event in the greater scheme of things and would suggest that you do the same :)
Who has gained from this?
Click to expand...

Not really again you don't know where the damage is going to be, it would be miles of cables. Not even any prep work of cutting the steel structure and removing walls.

So it's impossiblefor a govement to take advantage of a situation, it must have been planned?
I'm fully aware governments are evil, lie, self interested etc. but it does not follow that everything that happens is a CT or planned by them. Especially when it just doesn't hold up. Why take the risk of CD, why not just fly some planes into it. The effect would be the same and the excuss is still there, why over complicate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom