You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
That's the problem with truthers - they pick odd examples and say "this one didn't collapse despite being on fire, therefore something's wrong with the WTC collapse".
The only way this argument would make any sense is if a building constructed the exact same way got hit by the exact same type of plane in the exact same manner, and had a fire in the exact same manner. Otherwise it's just apples and oranges.
As to buildings free-falling, I found several examples without much effort. 2000 Commonwealth Avenue and Skyline Plaza are good case studies as there's lots of information about them. Basically, the top floor fell onto the one below and started a chain reaction of floors falling onto each other causing the entire building to fall perfectly ending up in the basement.
This is something truthers say can't happen (buildings falling perfectly straight into the basement), when in fact it's happened numerous times around the world. Then again, since the buildings used as examples aren't as tall as the WTC was, then my examples have no merit and can't be considered.
The problem with that is that the building was designed in such a way that you could could take out multiple floors and the building would stay standing....
Most buildings are built as columns but the wtc wasnt. The building was built around a center column that could withstand multiple impacts from a airplane. If that center column would get damaged enough to allow for the building to actually fall the building would not come straight down. It would fall over. The whole theory that the jet fuel melted everything is bs too since if you watch when it got hit the plane blew up and within seconds the jet fuel was all burned up. All you would have burning at that point is paper other stuff that really doesnt burn all that hot.
This site actually shows pictures of how the building was built and explains it all (and no this isnt some some theory on how the building was built. Its actually magazine articles from back when the building was being built.)
Advertisement
__________________
The harder I lift and the more I eat, the better my genetics seem to get.
Frank De Martini once said he "believed" the towers could withstand multiple hits but that wasn't a tested or calculated theory. He was speaking of a scenario in which a 707, empty of fuel and flying at low speeds trying to land at LaGuardia or Newark, would unintentionally crash into a tower. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were slightly bigger planes, full of fuel, flying at much higher speeds than a plane looking to land. The increased energy factor of the 2 impacts as well as the fully loaded fuel tanks were not factored in the initial construction nor Frank DeMartini's beliefs. Despite the increased impact energy, the two WTC towers did manage to absorb the impact of the planes as evidence of their remaining upright for nearly an hour after impact. But adding the resulting fires, which were not factored into calculations, weakened the remaining steel columns causing collapse.
When the planes hit the building they blew up and the jet fuel was burned off really quickly... The burning was just whatever was in the offices which would never get hot enough to melt structured steel. Unless somehow all the center columns that actually held the building up managed to melt at exactly the same speed the building would just fall over. Its pretty much just a really really really strong cage built around the elevator core. Then off that they had metal beams that came off. So you take out a couple floors and the building stays standing since the floors above arent actually relying on what is below it to stay standing.
I'm not 100% sure but there is a building in Vancouver that has a center core and then the building hangs off it that is a good example how that works. Technically the first couple floors are "missing" yet the building still is standing.
Normal buildings are built as columns that go from top to bottom. You take out a couple of columns below and now everything on top is putting a lot more force on the remaining columns and the building would come down.
__________________
The harder I lift and the more I eat, the better my genetics seem to get.
How do you know the hijacker was a rookie pilot who couldn't fly a Cessna 172?
How do you know he wasn't?
I find it quite improbable that a highly trained and professional pilot would become a religious martyr. It's possible of course but very very unlikely that a man who has dedicated so much of his life to the training and attention to detail required to get to that position would throw it all away for religious ideals. A professional pilot not only doesn't fit the profile of a martyr but he would quite simply be too smart to be an expendable pawn.
If Hanjour WAS in fact just a backup pilot why would he need to go to American schools to learn to fly? The primary pilot could have taught him all the basics he needed to steer the jet and control it's speed. Regardless, hitting a huge building like the WTC which stands above the rest of the skyline and hitting the low-lying Pentagon are two very different scenarios. And as I said the absolute precision flying that it took to make that attack would have been very difficult for a seasoned pilot who was very familiar with the handling characteristics of that airliner.
When the planes hit the building they blew up and the jet fuel was burned off really quickly... The burning was just whatever was in the offices which would never get hot enough to melt structured steel.
Truthers still can't understand that we're not talking about melting steel, we're talking about weakening it which requires a lot less heat.
and I've already posted this video showing that this was not the first time steel structures have collapsed due to fire and no jet fuel was present in these examples
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/13/_MRSr1MnFuk
__________________ LEAFS!
Last edited by Bouncing Bettys; 01-31-2011 at 01:35 PM.
ok so the support was weakened... how does it fall straight down then?
If you have 4 sides to the support that would mean that in order for it to come straight down it would have to melt at exactly the same temp. all the way around in order for it to start to collapse on itself.. I just dont see how that is possible.. One side would weaken first and the building would topple and not come straight down since as soon as one side starts collapsing you are actually having less weight on the other side.
Also pause the video at 15 seconds.. That is how a normal tower is built. The twin towers werent built like that. It was a center support that had supports coming off of it that each floor sits on. That means that you could actually completely remove a couple of floors and everything above it would stay standing. Also they did the test on a 1 ton piece of steel. The steel in the tower weighed 22 tons a piece..
Looks a little different then the little piece of steel they used in that video isnt it?
And before you argue that they scaled the load... Look at the way they were welding stuff on.. Pieces across (again.. the building wasnt designed like that... the load would be vertical and not horizontal)
__________________
The harder I lift and the more I eat, the better my genetics seem to get.
So you use as an example a picture of a plane that catches fire after overshooting a runway to a plane that smashes into the ground/building? Typical apples to oranges comparison of a truther.
Wikipedia has a nice page listing all the major commercial airline crashes. You can find it here:
Here's a picture of a similarly sized plane, an Airbus 321 that slammed into the side of a hill. Where did all the wreckage disappear to?
If you sift through the cases from the Wikipedia site and look at aircraft that have crashed by overshooting or made emergency landings, they look like the picture you provided - the plane suffered damage from fire, not from impact. You look at pictures at planes that crashed into the side of a hill or large structure you will see lots of examples of planes with very little left to identify.
That's a great point, except that photo is probably taken hours if not days after the crash when everything has burned itself out and all fires are gone. This happened in the mountainous remote region of Pakistan.
Pentagon is in the middle of a city. Surely immediately after the crash we would have seen journalist photos showing immense amount of debris. This is just not the case.
I want to know how a rookie pilot with ZERO experience in a 757 was able to fly it with such precision that he got a direct hit on the Pentagon. One that was so bad his flight instructors didn't think he would have been able to fly a Cessna 172. At more than 500mph he was able to negotiate over other low lying buildings and the interstate highway, not bounce off the ground at all in the field, and hit the side of the building perfectly. My dad spent 23 years as a fighter pilot in the military, 15 commercially flying the Tri-Star, 747-400, and new 777, with over 14,000 hours in the cockpit..... and he says there's no F'ing way.
It's been almost 10 years since the attack and everyone knows the official story. So get me the video from the hotel that had direct, unobstructed, clear, no "take the distance and measure 4x3 for scale" yadda yadda bullshit footage of the entire field and would have seen the plane hit the Pentagon. If the official story was true they would have released this footage, but they haven't. And until they do I'm not buying that a commercial jet aircraft hit it (because it's not true).
This is the footprint of a plane hitting the WTC:
This is the damage at the Pentagon:
Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.
A plane did not hit the Pentagon. It was a missile, I believe (not sure).
But anyways, the TRUSTY government will tell you a plane hit the pentagon, and the sheeps will believe it.
I'm curious why truthers never seem to explain what REALLY happened, they can only concentrate on what they think DIDN'T happen.
- There's NO way a plane hit the Pentagon.
- There's NO plane wreckage at the Pentagon.
- There's NO way WTC building collapsed because of fire.
- There's NO way the WTC fires were hot enough to melt steel.
- There's NO way the WTC towers could free-fall.
- There's NO way something with wings hit the Pentagon (just for you JD13).
Seems all they can do is offer ridiculous explanations why something DIDN'T happen. Why don't they tell us what REALLY happened, using the EVIDENCE to support their theory?
I'll tell you why - it's because this is how conspiracists work. When there's a lack of evidence to support your argument you have to resort to dismantling the other argument. You then claim that since argument A is invalid (because you supposedly proved it wrong), you can conclude that argument B becomes valid.
This is a false dichotomoy (for people who don't know what that is, here's a brief description). A false dichotomoy is where you are told there are only two possibilities, black and white, when in fact there could be 3 or more choices. Often used by conspiracists who start off by stating there are only two choices. The conspiracist then spends time proving choice 'A' wrong and at the end concludes the choice 'B' is correct. No evidence is ever presented to prove choice 'B' - indeed they don't need to since they already proved 'A' is wrong.
So, for the conspiracists, tell me what exactly hit the Pentagon? Was it a missile? A Global Hawk? Show me how a strike by either of these will match the damage done to the Pentagon. Don't keep tellng me what DIDN'T happen, I want to know what ACTUALLY happened.
- There's NO way something with wings hit the Pentagon (just for you JD13).
So, for the conspiracists, tell me what exactly hit the Pentagon? Was it a missile? A Global Hawk? Show me how a strike by either of these will match the damage done to the Pentagon. Don't keep tellng me what DIDN'T happen, I want to know what ACTUALLY happened.
The problem is there's no way to say definitively. Until the US government releases the footage that has a clear view of the strike then all anyone has is speculation. Like I said earlier it's been almost 10 years and they're sticking with the official story, so why do they continue to hide the footage? If they have nothing to hide then they should prove it, do you not agree?
It could have been a small plane loaded with explosives, could have been a missile of some sort, could have been something specifically designed for this sole attack, we'll never know until that footage is seen. The current evidence heavily suggests that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but many choose not to believe it along with many other aspects of what went on that day.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm just questioning the official story. 9/11 as a whole just seems off. There are too many extenuating circumstances and questionable occurrences in a single day. From NORAD operations, to the way the towers collapsed, to a rookie pilot handling a 757 with the precision of a guided munition on his first flight. Add the fact that in top secret documents the US government has planned staged attacks in order to justify political or military moves in the past.... and people smell smoke. The timing of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the falsified evidence of WMD's, the rebuilding contracts in the billions and billions of dollars just adds fuel to idea. Even if only part of the official story is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie, how would that make you feel about the rest?
Despite all the evidence produced to say what happened I still can't get my gut feeling to agree with it. There's got to be a fire accompanying that smoke. The problem is they may have buried it so deep that we won't be able to prove it's existence within a time-frame when everyone still cares enough to do anything about it. That's probably what they're counting on, much like the murder of JFK.
dangonay please respond to penner2k's last post so that we can finally put these conspiracy theories behind us.
He cant... Its virtually impossible to that the support weaken at EXACTLY the same speed so the building would collapse on itself in a free fall. Like I said one side would weaken a little sooner (most likely the side that actually got hit) which would mean the building would lean a little to one side. Now instead of all the weight being evenly distributed across there would be thousands of pounds more on one side which in turn would cause that side to weaken at an even greater speed.. The building should topple since it would slowly compound the problem.
Also another problem is you have a support structure that pretty much going straight up and down from top to bottom. That is EXTREMELY strong. That would NEVER collapse on itself. At most again it would weaken and topple. But to actually collapse on itself. lol... You gotta be an idiot to actually believe that could happen. Hell look at an egg. If you put even pressure on exactly the top and bottom of its really really really hard to break.. I bet if you took 4 1 inch bolts and placed them face up on the ground and then took a semi truck and placed them exactly center on them those 4 bolts would actually hold up the truck. That would also prove my point cuz if you were even 1/10000 on an inch off of placing it dead center it would topple. It wouldnt collapse on itself.
__________________
The harder I lift and the more I eat, the better my genetics seem to get.
He cant... Its virtually impossible to that the support weaken at EXACTLY the same speed so the building would collapse on itself in a free fall. Like I said one side would weaken a little sooner (most likely the side that actually got hit) which would mean the building would lean a little to one side. Now instead of all the weight being evenly distributed across there would be thousands of pounds more on one side which in turn would cause that side to weaken at an even greater speed.. The building should topple since it would slowly compound the problem.
Also another problem is you have a support structure that pretty much going straight up and down from top to bottom. That is EXTREMELY strong. That would NEVER collapse on itself. At most again it would weaken and topple. But to actually collapse on itself. lol... You gotta be an idiot to actually believe that could happen. Hell look at an egg. If you put even pressure on exactly the top and bottom of its really really really hard to break.. I bet if you took 4 1 inch bolts and placed them face up on the ground and then took a semi truck and placed them exactly center on them those 4 bolts would actually hold up the truck. That would also prove my point cuz if you were even 1/10000 on an inch off of placing it dead center it would topple. It wouldnt collapse on itself.
I see I wasted my money finishing up my engineering degree this past year. I should simply have come to you and Arash for answers to any questions I had. I want to see some mathematical equations explaining why the WTC buildings would fall over. I don't want some bullshit statements like "That would NEVER collapse on itself" or "place a semi truck on 4 x 1 inch bolts". Seriously? Now we're comparing balancing a semi on bolts to a skyscraper? Do you truthers sit around conducting these stupid experiments to try to explain phenomenom you can't understand (or refuse to even try to understand)?
Prove to me that a building will lean or topple over. Aside from a few low-rise concrete buildings on poor foundations, no skyscraper in history has ever fallen over. So why do you think the WTC should fall over? As soon as one side weakens, the building supports will shear. You should read up on this phenomenom - there's lots of information out there. Once the shearing takes place, the entire structure will lose its ability to support the loads from above and the structure will collapse.
I see you're also complaining about the National Geographic video showing how heating steel weakens beams. You are absolutely correct - the beams the National Geographic used are tiny in comparison to the WTC steel beams, so their video demonstration should no longer be used.
I now fully expect the truthers to remove all the videos from their websites showing thermite cutters (molds used to hold thermite against steel columns to demonstarte it can cut steel vertically). I mean, you guys are using thermite to cut little 1/4" and 1/2" steel girders when the WTC beams are anywhere from 3-5" thick. So I think it's only fair you stop posting those stupid videos as well.
There are many curiosities in the natural world. Things that when people see they wonder how it's possible for that to happen - they simply don't make sense or seem to defy the laws of physics. You can see such things at your local science centre - they make for good demonstrations to make people go "oooohh and aaahhhh". As odd as they seem, they all have simple explanations to show why they behave that way. They are only "curiosities" for the simple person. Same with the WTC tower collapses. They behaved as they should according to the laws of physics. But because they didn't behave the way a "simple" person thinks they should (because they know fuck all about engineering & physics), then it must be a conspircy of some sort.
Even if only part of the official story is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie, how would that make you feel about the rest?
Funny, I use that exact same argument against the truthers. If you can prove that even one single part of their WTC collapse theory is false, then how do you feel about the rest of the information they're giving you?
^both sides kinda feel the same way. Thats why this thread hasn't died. I do however feel that the entire incident should be taken into account when forming an opinion on 911. What I do appreciate though is the fact that both sides in this thread have made some effort to understand/research the issue and make up their own minds. The way that opinion is presented might not be the most diplomatic but its better then keeping your head in the sand like the general public.
I see I wasted my money finishing up my engineering degree this past year. I should simply have come to you and Arash for answers to any questions I had. I want to see some mathematical equations explaining why the WTC buildings would fall over. I don't want some bullshit statements like "That would NEVER collapse on itself" or "place a semi truck on 4 x 1 inch bolts". Seriously? Now we're comparing balancing a semi on bolts to a skyscraper? Do you truthers sit around conducting these stupid experiments to try to explain phenomenom you can't understand (or refuse to even try to understand)?
Prove to me that a building will lean or topple over. Aside from a few low-rise concrete buildings on poor foundations, no skyscraper in history has ever fallen over. So why do you think the WTC should fall over? As soon as one side weakens, the building supports will shear. You should read up on this phenomenom - there's lots of information out there. Once the shearing takes place, the entire structure will lose its ability to support the loads from above and the structure will collapse.
I see you're also complaining about the National Geographic video showing how heating steel weakens beams. You are absolutely correct - the beams the National Geographic used are tiny in comparison to the WTC steel beams, so their video demonstration should no longer be used.
I now fully expect the truthers to remove all the videos from their websites showing thermite cutters (molds used to hold thermite against steel columns to demonstarte it can cut steel vertically). I mean, you guys are using thermite to cut little 1/4" and 1/2" steel girders when the WTC beams are anywhere from 3-5" thick. So I think it's only fair you stop posting those stupid videos as well.
There are many curiosities in the natural world. Things that when people see they wonder how it's possible for that to happen - they simply don't make sense or seem to defy the laws of physics. You can see such things at your local science centre - they make for good demonstrations to make people go "oooohh and aaahhhh". As odd as they seem, they all have simple explanations to show why they behave that way. They are only "curiosities" for the simple person. Same with the WTC tower collapses. They behaved as they should according to the laws of physics. But because they didn't behave the way a "simple" person thinks they should (because they know fuck all about engineering & physics), then it must be a conspircy of some sort.
You still havent actually read on how the towers were designed did you?
My arguement starts to make a whole lot of sense once you realize the design is totally different then pretty much anything out there..
__________________
The harder I lift and the more I eat, the better my genetics seem to get.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
