9/11 - Controlled demolition?

IceBus said:
Not to cause the catastrophic collapse of two hugley overly engineered buildings. The same goes for Building 7.
Click to expand...

The planes weighed hundreds of tonnes, almost full with highly flammable aviation fuel, flying at hundreds of miles an hour, yes the building was designed to cope with high winds and a small plane flying into it at low speed but nothing as big as actually happened, with the fire too. IMO its a wonder the towers stood as long as they did.

As for WTC 7 Hundreds of tonnes of girders and other debris fell over 50 floors onto the building as well as the fire between floors 5-7. besides I don't see how this helps your argument as it is a drop in the ocean compared to the other events and the building was evacuated anyway so no casualties.

Hamish
 
IceBus said:
The thing is, the towers survived the initial strikes, and didn't collapse until some time after. What caused the collapse?

It wasn't burning jet fuel - http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
Click to expand...
If I could find the link I want to find I'd post it but I can't, so please take my word that the stuff you're believing is 110% pure, trademarked Elvis-teddy-eating dog poop:)
 
I haven't read the above link, and i'm not going to bother either.

I can easily see how a plane weighing x 100 tonnes (pure guess) flying at 100+ mph would sufficently weaken any structure to be vunerable to extremly high temperatures.
 
Let's put this into context, if there is "evidence" such as this why is it not on the 6 o'clock news?

Instead it is on Youtube, produced by "Spazzmatic Entertainment" with a cheesy soundtrack courtesy of "Tool" :rolleyes:
 
Hamish said:
The planes weighed hundreds of tonnes, almost full with highly flammable aviation fuel, flying at hundreds of miles an hour, yes the building was designed to cope with high winds and a small plane flying into it at low speed but nothing as big as actually happened, with the fire too. IMO its a wonder the towers stood as long as they did.

As for WTC 7 Hundreds of tonnes of girders and other debris fell over 50 floors onto the building as well as the fire between floors 5-7. besides I don't see how this helps your argument as it is a drop in the ocean compared to the other events and the building was evacuated anyway so no casualties.

Hamish
Click to expand...

Because the way it collapsed was identical to the way towers one and two fell - and it was referred to as being 'pulled'. Building 7 was the furthest away from towers one and two, and as they fell straight down, I don't see how it could have sustained serious damage while the buildings around it were left standing:-

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/170305martialpreview2.wmv

I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation why the towers fell straight down as opposed to toppling over, when no other building has ever collapsed due to fire, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse of the WTC. Steel's melting point is around 3000*C and IIRC jet fuel burns at a maximum of around 500*C
 
Last edited:
IceBus said:
I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation why the towers fell straight down as opposed to toppling over
Click to expand...
They would only topple if there were sufficient tensile strength, from top to bottom, to hold the building together as it fell.

I'm sure a physicist or engineer could draw you a diagram with the relevant lines of force, bu, somehow, I doubt you would believe them.

IceBus said:
Steel's melting point is around 3000*C and IIRC jet fuel burns at a maximum of around 500*C
Click to expand...
Steel is not the homogeneously strong material that you might believe - it suffers weak spots, corrosion, stress and fatigue.
 
According to William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked in the WTC, there was an explosion in the basement before either of the planes hit. I saw an interview of him about a week ago where he was speaking of numerous witnesses who were with him at the time, all of whom's stories have been ignored, or never really highlighted. Was that due to jet fuel aswel? ;)
 
e36Adz said:
According to William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked in the WTC, there was an explosion in the basement before either of the planes hit. I saw an interview of him about a week ago where he was speaking of numerous witnesses who were with him at the time, all of whom's stories have been ignored, or never really highlighted. Was that due to jet fuel aswel? ;)
Click to expand...

It's stuff like this that bothers me most - why are eye-witness reports being ignored by the media and investigators?

Borris - if someone could show me diagrams of force that conclusively proved that the WTC collapsed because of the impact of the two planes and no other forces I would have no problem agreeing with it. It's the fact that at the time there were a lot of reports of secondary explosions - which I remember news channels talking about at the time of the attack on live TV.
 
Borris said:
They would only topple if there were sufficient tensile strength, from top to bottom, to hold the building together as it fell.

I'm sure a physicist or engineer could draw you a diagram with the relevant lines of force, bu, somehow, I doubt you would believe them.

Steel is not the homogeneously strong material that you might believe - it suffers weak spots, corrosion, stress and fatigue.
Click to expand...

They have.

One of the big american universities did the most complete simulation of a building ever.
From memory it involved the physics, materials sciences, architectual and I think chemistry departments as well as the computer sciences people and they basically created a model of the WTC towers based on every bit of information they could get their hands on (including original plans, plans for every modicifation to the towers, the reports as to the state of the buildings*, burning points of all the materials etc).
Basically the model they created had pretty much every variable covered, and modelled fully.
The result was a simulation that showed an almost identical collapse under the same scenerio (I think the simulations only really varied in the time it took for the collapse, some happened faster some slower).




*I beleive there had been worries about the fireproofing around the steel, as it turned out that the application of the insulating material was very very poor during the original construction (effectively negating the use of it), with the result that any fire would have caused a lot more damage to the stress structure than the original plans allowed for.
 
IceBus said:
It's stuff like this that bothers me most - why are eye-witness reports being ignored by the media and investigators?

Borris - if someone could show me diagrams of force that conclusively proved that the WTC collapsed because of the impact of the two planes and no other forces I would have no problem agreeing with it. It's the fact that at the time there were a lot of reports of secondary explosions - which I remember news channels talking about at the time of the attack on live TV.
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as X=Y though.

The initial impact damaged the stress stuctures quite badly, but the building could have survived, what caused it to collapse was a combination of the initial impact damage and a fire which weakened the already damaged structure (a fire that might not have ahd the same effect as fast if the fire proofing around the steel had been better).
 
The amount of theroies for 9/11 is huge, some of them are pathetic but some are plausible, its ok saying "terroists did it" but I dont like to think that everything I see is the way it happened.

The US goverment is powerful and the FBI CIA etc good of easily of done something.

Werewolf said:
I beleive there had been worries about the fireproofing around the steel, as it turned out that the application of the insulating material was very very poor during the original construction (effectively negating the use of it), with the result that any fire would have caused a lot more damage to the stress structure than the original plans allowed for.
Click to expand...

Aye, the rushed the building of it, cut back on work and just shoved them up.

Channel 4 did a documentary on the buidling of the twin towers and why the fell a couple of years ago.
 
Last edited:
IceBus said:
I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation why the towers fell straight down as opposed to toppling over, when no other building has ever collapsed due to fire, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse of the WTC. Steel's melting point is around 3000*C and IIRC jet fuel burns at a maximum of around 500*C
Click to expand...
Steel may melt at aroud 3000*C but it's strength is significantly weakened by small rises in temperature.

Oh, and no other buildings were built using the same technique as the WTC towers. Steel core & exterior held together by the floors which were hung from the core/exterior by steel fixings. Imagine these fixings were heated to 500*C by the burnung fuel, paper, wood, plastic etc, they'd no longer have the strength to hold a poured concrete slab weighing many many tons. The slab falls onto the next one down adding to the force applied to that that one's fixings and it too collapses onto the one below. You can see a pattern starting to build here I'm sure. No floors = no structure holding the exterior & core together = collapse.

Not that hard to understand really.
 
IceBus said:
Did the designer of towers one and two not say that they were designed to take multiple aircraft strikes?
Click to expand...
SERIOUSLY man, aeroplanes were MUCH smaller back then and it probably could have been hit twice by tiny 1960's planes and still stand up.
 
Sorry guys, it was me. I've been meaning to own up to it for a while now, but I've been busy.

PS :rolleyes:

PPS Maddox has a page up about this. I can't link to it, but I'm sure you can find it. Believers, be prepared to be insulted.
 
Last edited:
TinFoilHat_puton.jpg
 
e36Adz said:
According to William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked in the WTC, there was an explosion in the basement before either of the planes hit. I saw an interview of him about a week ago where he was speaking of numerous witnesses who were with him at the time, all of whom's stories have been ignored, or never really highlighted. Was that due to jet fuel aswel? ;)
Click to expand...

If there were explosions in the basement, why did they collapse from the top down, rather than fall from a break / explosion at the bottom?

Rich
 
The truth is that the buildings wernt ever designed to take an impact by a plane
Click to expand...

Yes they were and with quite a large safety margin too. I think they used the most common large airliner - the 707 as the basis for impact - but 40 years after the initial design, airliners weighed more, were much faster and put much more force into the building on impact than it could withstand. It's a tribute to it's design that it remained standing at all.

Planes flew into it, people died, it collapsed and more died. End!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom