On November 27 2009 01:52 Cloud wrote: Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
Exactly, and proving that it's a conspiracy by lighting a 4 foot tower of paint cans or whatever that was in the youtube video is ridiculous.
I was a little bit intrigued by this at first, but then i saw a few of the terribly constructed and extremely biased "Scientific videos", "experiments" and "math" created by conspiracy people... And if anything 95% of the proof people are using has made me think the government is right.
You cant just say "Steel does not melt at 700 celcius - Bush is the devil" you have to think of all the incredible amount of factors that play a role in a building comming down.
Grainy video of something resembling a plane does not help the cause either.
On November 27 2009 01:52 Cloud wrote: Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
lol yeah exactly. I wonder if he can calculate the whole Big-Bang too?
On November 27 2009 01:43 Superiorwolf wrote: I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous.
When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit.
*I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable.
I love how you guys are still completely ignoring every post that counters your asinine claims. The fire didn't melt the steal. The fire weakened the steal. This is what happens when you heat steal. Combined with the impact from the plane, the structural integrity of the building near the impact point was no longer sufficient to hold the weight above it.
You can tell who in this thread doesn't have a degree in engineering.
I can´t but I guess you have one.
So, if heat weakens the metal ( as it usually does), shouldn´t it like slowly bend rather than suddenly give in at some point and start smashing the lower parts of the building. And I understand that there were more flames on one side than on the other so shouldn´t the weight on top like bend to the one side? And even if it couldn´t suddenly hold any of the weight shouldn´t the lower storeys that have always hold the same weight on top of them still hold the dead weight or atleast offer some resistance? Of course if the weight coming down already had some velocity the structure can´t withstand the force, but I don´t think that was the case.
E. I just think it´s stupid to make a building that loses all integrity if it´s hit by something at the top.
yeah, the fact that his calculations are wrong is without doubt, but the fact that the ancient people used to make swords proves 100% that the wtc collapsed becouse of the plane.
On November 27 2009 01:52 Cloud wrote: Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
Exactly, and proving that it's a conspiracy by lighting a 4 foot tower of paint cans or whatever that was in the youtube video is ridiculous.
I was a little bit intrigued by this at first, but then i saw a few of the terribly constructed and extremely biased "Scientific videos", "experiments" and "math" created by conspiracy people... And if anything 95% of the proof people are using has made me think the government is right.
You cant just say "Steel does not melt at 700 celcius - Bush is the devil" you have to think of all the incredible amount of factors that play a role in a building comming down.
Grainy video of something resembling a plane does not help the cause either.
I think that paint can video was just to show idiots that fire doesnt burn downwards... And I agree that the problem with this "conspiracy" is those real "conspiracy theorists" who believe their mother is an alien because the letters in a candywrapper could be arranged to say so. They come up with all the retarded "evidence" and stick to it no matter what.
But if someone could come up with "real evidence" without all that retarded stuff I believe it could be quite interesting.
E. I just think it´s stupid to make a building that loses all integrity if it´s hit by something at the top.
It's not like its easy or cheap to make a building that can withstand the force of a fucking commercial airliner slamming into it. Not to mention that sort of shit just doesn't happen every day... or ever.
Alot of the so-called "evidence" for a "conspiracy theory" is complete forgery. I can't say without the shadow of a doubt that there was no conspiracy theory but I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's almost certainly not the case.
E. I just think it´s stupid to make a building that loses all integrity if it´s hit by something at the top.
It's not like its easy or cheap to make a building that can withstand the force of a fucking commercial airliner slamming into it. Not to mention that sort of shit just doesn't happen every day... or ever.
Not what I meant. I was talking about the supportive structures that were not directly hit by anything. It seems that the building was fine for some time and then it could no more stand the weight of the damaged part. Can it be so hard to build it so that if the top is smashed the building itself could still stand?
Just wanna say, in particular to 1tym and those who use the fact that the towers were suppose to be able to take a 707 impact is that yes, they were built to be able to withstand an impact from a 707, but NOT at "cruise speed". When designing a tower what would cause a giant airplane to potentially fly low enough to hit a building? When its Landing or taking off. So it wouldn't be anywhere close 607 miles per hour. Nobody ever planned a building to take a full speed jet liner.
The heat from all that fuel in the planes made the steel weak and bend which put more stress on the other beams. If one of those other beams gives away, the other beams cannot hold up all that weight from the top of the building. And when the top starts collapsing, there is no stopping it because then the beams below would've had to withstand not only the dead weight of the floors above, but the momentum from the velocity of these floors above. That is why you see the floors go down basically straight and even while coming down.
The thing is that it doesnt matter who, how and why did the wtc shit. Conspiracy or not, the outcome was what bush (im not talking about that stupid little piece of shit, im talking about his government) needed most, a war, a reelection and more power by sending other people`s sons to kill or die half the world away.
So, leaking text messages... wtf, it doesnt change anything.
I feel sorry for many us citizens that are being trained to think what us government want them to think. Think for yourself, question the authority.
On November 27 2009 02:57 randombum wrote: Just wanna say, in particular to 1tym and those who use the fact that the towers were suppose to be able to take a 707 impact is that yes, they were built to be able to withstand an impact from a 707, but NOT at "cruise speed". When designing a tower what would cause a giant airplane to potentially fly low enough to hit a building? When its Landing or taking off. So it wouldn't be anywhere close 607 miles per hour. Nobody ever planned a building to take a full speed jet liner.
That's the thing about conspiracy theories they are always wrong because they relay off of half assed assumptions such as that video with a setting like 5 inch steel on fire with "jet fuel" i'd like to see how they were allowed to take jet fuel home with them.
It's a building used for office space with shitty drywall it's also a confined space and fires burn up have you ever eaten fire or did fire play you are safe as long as you have the fire on you and no other body part above the fire and the fire doesn't melt the steel it warps the steel and as the steel is under the forces of keeping a broken tower up the more stress you put on the steel and weaken it the faster it fails.
common sense my ass it's a building if it's a structural part it's going to be under high loads even higher loads if it's holding up a building with giant holes in it, fire doesn't have to melt anything it just has to weaken or warp it enough for physics to do the rest.
And indeed the twin towers were meant to withstand a low flying plane at landing speeds not at full throttle suicide bomber style =p
On November 27 2009 03:03 coltrane wrote: Maybe I will be controversial on this....
The thing is that it doesnt matter who, how and why did the wtc shit. Conspiracy or not, the outcome was what bush (im not talking about that stupid little piece of shit, im talking about his government) needed most, a war, a reelection and more power by sending other people`s sons to kill or die half the world away.
So, leaking text messages... wtf, it doesnt change anything.
I feel sorry for many us citizens that are being trained to think what us government want them to think. Think for yourself, question the authority.
I am all for questioning authority and people doing their own research as to why the towers fell and if the government was involved. However, anyone who doesn't believe that the towers could have fallen due to the impact damage and fire are being ignorant.
There is plenty of evidence that proves why the towers fell.
Haha... To everyone who still claim that the fire was the main factor for the collapse of two carefully and extraordinarily designed modern towers...
The common sense tells you that the fire burns upwards. When a fire burns, the hot air is less dense and thus rises. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel since it just doesn’t get as hot as the melting point but let's just say it can for the sake of argument.
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.
The only part that reached the maximum temperature is where plane hit, which was the upper part and the bottom parts were hardly affected (since fire burns upwards) by heat. The disintegration of steel structure in certain area is not enough to cause "gravitational collapse" so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. How can the undamaged stories below the impact zone offer no resistance at all? (Sky scrappers are designed like Pyramids with more supporting structures as you go lower)
Also if you refer to the calculation, the kinetic energy released by the plane crash was well within the limit the towers were built to survive. Refer to my earlier post.. I know there is no simple equation to determine this as there are various factors that will come in play in different circumstances, but you have to admit a lot of the events that took place on 9.11 was not sufficiently comprehensive through the official explanation provided by the US government.
Operation Northwoods was once a conspiracy theory. Now it's part of history. Only time will tell if US involvement in 9/11 is conspiracy theory or not.
On November 27 2009 03:40 1tym wrote: Refer to my earlier post.. I know there is no simple equation to determine this as there are various factors that will come in play in different circumstances, but you have to admit a lot of the events that took place on 9.11 was not sufficiently comprehensive through the official explanation provided by the US government.
Two planes piloted by hijackers were flown into the WTC which lead to their eventual collapse.
Sounds pretty encompassing and a million times more likely than hundreds or thousands of people accepting their roll in killing thousands of civilians without leaving any "real" evidence behind.
EPT
