WTC Building 7 on 9/11
- Thread starter battig1370
- Start date
B
BlueMoose
Guest
-I advice everybody watch it and then draw your OWN conclusion.
My opinion is that Popular Mechanics were just "talking heads",
Well, big aeroplane went billions of pieces, "nothing much left to found",
still he is babling something about picking body parts from crashingpoint
ground zero "from that hole". And then escaping aaah..the black box!
Yeah, this sounds like really reliable explanation, flesh vs steel, winner flesh !
And in start of the clip he is the one who use the liarcard, immediately
starting dismissing the document.
Here, go check it out for YOURSELF., NBC broadcast about this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guEqg1SdMpE
Last edited by a moderator:
B
BlueMoose
Guest
-I didnt find there nothing, poorly presented case and other side were just
ranting most of the time. Watch it and get even more confused.
Wanna see better presented case about 911. The second part of this film.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
You all do know that sciforums is part of the conspiracy and there are operatives among us??
For those who finally start to question the core lie, the web of disinformation created the hoax that the trick used to suggest planes was holograms. This works the same way as the hoax they created immediately after 9/11, remote controlled planes: it discourages people from continuing to seek the truth, once they realise that would have been technically impossible.
Source: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53631
SciForums.com moved it immediately from folder "computer science" to "pseudoscience". It was closed as soon as enough operatives "replied" claiming the opposite of the title of the thread.
For those who finally start to question the core lie, the web of disinformation created the hoax that the trick used to suggest planes was holograms. This works the same way as the hoax they created immediately after 9/11, remote controlled planes: it discourages people from continuing to seek the truth, once they realise that would have been technically impossible.
Source: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53631
SciForums.com moved it immediately from folder "computer science" to "pseudoscience". It was closed as soon as enough operatives "replied" claiming the opposite of the title of the thread.
I'm not even gonna bother responding to you about this anymore after this. If you can't seem to understand what was presented in the video, then it's not even worth me trying to change your mind; it's a waste of time because you dismiss everything no matter how credible they are.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Just for example, in this case,
if one is arguing for conspiracy the other cant use 911 Official report for defence IMO, because the 911comittee are involved in conspiracy too.
It was full of that kind contradictions, I would like to see this guy try to debunk zeitgeistmovie.
Sorry if I offended you but I think it was too messy and poorly presented
case and so on the answers didnt matter to me much.
I wanna see real questions well presented and then the answers.
peace
if one is arguing for conspiracy the other cant use 911 Official report for defence IMO, because the 911comittee are involved in conspiracy too.
It was full of that kind contradictions, I would like to see this guy try to debunk zeitgeistmovie.
Sorry if I offended you but I think it was too messy and poorly presented
case and so on the answers didnt matter to me much.
I wanna see real questions well presented and then the answers.
peace
Last edited by a moderator:
I KNOW!!! I saw that and wanted so bad to tattle!!!
I hope they peace the crap outta each other!
No skyscraper had had a fully fueled jet fly into it.
You apparently don't remember the Value Jet plane crash in the Florida Everglades.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The Value Jet didnt disappear, it just got sucked into swamp mud.
And even IF all the steel beams melted throughout several floors, which itself is highly unlikely seeing as steel melts over a thousand degrees higher than burning fuel, that still wouldnt cause the entire structure to collaspe into dust.
Last edited:
The everglades are not a bottomless pit. Why isn't there at least a part of a tail section sticking out?
A jet full of fuel hitting at full speed will do a bit of structural damage. Like a car driving into my house, there is gonna be bent framing even in areas the car didn't hit.
Burning jet fuel pours down the building. Several floors collapse.
I don't know how much my house weighs, but I think if it collapsed on my burning structurally unsound garage, my garage will collapse. And if my burning garage was on top of another burning structure, it might collapse.
And all the weight of that would be on the unsupported sections of what is below.
And I agree, it couldn't have collapsed into dust. I was unaware it was dust. Do you have a picture?
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I believe some wreakage was found, although in small peices. The rest is deeply buried in primordial muck.
Bent framing sure, but this doesnt cause floors to collapse...they simply get bent out of shape.
The official theory was that fire caused the collapse, not structural damage from the impact.
Last edited:
The planes caused the actual structural damage that eventually caused them to collapse, but without the fire the steel would not have been weak enough to collapse.
Steel does not have to melt to become ineffective and collapse. 50% of steel's strength is gone when it reaches 1000C.
Steel does not have to melt to become ineffective and collapse. 50% of steel's strength is gone when it reaches 1000C.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
So your're saying that the collapse of several stories was caused by a combination of weakened steel (from the heat of the fire), and structural damage from the impact.
Fair enough, but even if thats correct this still wouldnt pulverize the entire building:
http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm
"Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case."
Fair enough, but even if thats correct this still wouldnt pulverize the entire building:
http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm
"Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case."
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Jesus were did you get your concepts of structural engineering? once you bend a steel member you compromise the strength of that member, have you never taken a peace of metal and bent it back and forth until it breaks, the first bend is the hardest, because the matrix of the metal is still aligned, but once you bend it the molecular structure changes with the stress applied to the area of the bend, and with every bend that areas molecular structure becomes weaker and weaker, and if you add heat it happens that much faster, take a peace of metal and start to bend it and watch what happens.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Well, I didnt get them from you...thankfully.
What buffalo said was correct, however I don't think that he answered your questions.
To prove you wrong, I'll just play along with you here, so the Towers were taken down by controlled demolition, here are a few questions:
1. In every single controlled demolition, the buildings are destroyed from the bottom up; the base is taken out, then the tower basically crushes itself as it falls. Last time I checked, the WTCs collapsed from the point of impact of the planes down.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
2. In any controlled demolition, you will see flashes of light where the explosives went off, please point them out to me as the towers are collapsing... oh, wait there aren't any to point out.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
3. Loud bangs happen when the bombs go off, I mean LOUD; you would be able to hear them on a video from outside. Please point out to me the loud bangs in the videos. Even if you were to find some, with no accompanying flashes, there would be no way to prove they were bombs... In a collapsing building there are lots of things that make noise.
So, if you can explain those things to me it would be most appreciated, otherwise, stop thinking it was a controlled demolition.
To prove you wrong, I'll just play along with you here, so the Towers were taken down by controlled demolition, here are a few questions:
1. In every single controlled demolition, the buildings are destroyed from the bottom up; the base is taken out, then the tower basically crushes itself as it falls. Last time I checked, the WTCs collapsed from the point of impact of the planes down.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
2. In any controlled demolition, you will see flashes of light where the explosives went off, please point them out to me as the towers are collapsing... oh, wait there aren't any to point out.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
3. Loud bangs happen when the bombs go off, I mean LOUD; you would be able to hear them on a video from outside. Please point out to me the loud bangs in the videos. Even if you were to find some, with no accompanying flashes, there would be no way to prove they were bombs... In a collapsing building there are lots of things that make noise.
So, if you can explain those things to me it would be most appreciated, otherwise, stop thinking it was a controlled demolition.
Dark, I've said something similar to this in the other 9/11 thread and I'll say it again here. There's really no point in trying educate these people - in essence, all you are doing is attacking their favorite fantasy.
They live in a make-belive world where facts, logic and accuracy don't matter. In truth, not only are such important things ignored, they're actually despised - because they undermine the fantasy and show the believers to be less than reasonable thinkers. These people just aren't worth wasting ANY time or effort on. Let them live in their lies. They cannot be happy any other way.