What really happened???

I blame the pandas. Those blood-thirsty bastards will do anything to get their bamboo fix.
 
they may be the only two buildings that have ever caught fire that actually collapsed. But guess what, none of those burning buildings were hit by airliners.

And yea, of course it would sound like an explosion when they started to collapse. Have you ever heard a rope or a cable snap under pressure? It sounds like a gun shot. So what do you think hundreds of ton worth of steel sounds like snapping...
 
And the fact is that nobody has ever done it before. Its not like theres something to compare it to. We're talking hundreds of thousands of variables colliding and interacted over the space of just a few minutes.
 
Shamrock said:
1 hour?
Click to expand...
And fifty-five seconds.

That video was a laugh. A missile was fired from the plane milliseconds before impact?

But I did find it interesting. Some camera angles I've never seen before.
 
Oh god, does it have the "pod" thing again? See Popular Mechanics for a great look at most of that stuff.

(And wouldn't it have just been easier for the government to hire a bunch of guys to hijack the jets? Why always all the missiles-and-bombs-and-poison-gas stuff? There are much simpler ways to topple a building.)
 
joule said:
And fifty-five seconds.

That video was a laugh. A missile was fired from the plane milliseconds before impact?

But I did find it interesting. Some camera angles I've never seen before.
Click to expand...
Hah. I found that video very cool. Definetly worth a watch...
 
Direwolf said:
Oh god, does it have the "pod" thing again? See Popular Mechanics for a great look at most of that stuff.

(And wouldn't it have just been easier for the government to hire a bunch of guys to hijack the jets? Why always all the missiles-and-bombs-and-poison-gas stuff? There are much simpler ways to topple a building.)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it of been easier for the government to find out about the hijacking, and simply plant some explosive materials into the 2 towers?
 
Bah, someone shut these people up already.

TERRORISTS BLEW UP THE WTC. How hard is that to swallow?
 
The pod stuff is just over the top and totally unclear, thats proven to be insignificant as theres no proof, along with most of the claims about anomalies with the aircraft.

Although the towers odd behaviour on collapse is still interesting, and is still on hot debate with a majority of people in new york as to how they both managed to fall perfectly in their own footprint while on the way down meeting no resistance from the majority of the undamaged structure.. ejecting debris with explosive force symmetrically hundreds of meters outwards, along with the later indentical collapse of building 7 which had minor fire's on a few floors.
 
Too sloppy, it would have a huge margin of error and the effects of a failure would be enormous. You have to remember, terrorists screw stuff up all the time, thats how we catch them. That and the difficulties of even planting the explosives.
 
clarky003 said:
Although the towers odd behaviour on collapse is still interesting, and is still on hot debate with a majority of people in new york as to how they both managed to fall perfectly in their own footprint while on the way down meeting no resistance from the majority of the undamaged structure.. ejecting debris with explosive force symmetrically hundreds of meters outwards, along with the later indentical collapse of building 7 which had minor fire's on a few floors.
Click to expand...

Fell just as I would have imagined it, I thought.
 
Direwolf said:
Too sloppy, it would have a huge margin of error and the effects of a failure would be enormous. You have to remember, terrorists screw stuff up all the time, thats how we catch them. That and the difficulties of even planting the explosives.
Click to expand...

Well the reason the debate is still going on today is because all 3 buildings show all 7 clear cut signs of demolishion,

Also as a major example of scientific error in the origional explaination, entropy of heat dissapation through the entirely connected steel structure was ignored in the official report. which is an obsurd error.

most of the concrete turned to powder.. 5 to 10 times the amount of each buildings volume,.. a major characteristic of demolishion.

molten metal way hotter than any get fuel, or fires remained in pools in the basement remaining upto two weeks after, which is a sign something much hotter was in action as only sudden super heating of steel leaves molten pools for long periods of time.

The buildings collapsed symmetrically , which means all load bearing steel core segments all the way down collapsed simultaniously somehow in both buildings, even when one aircraft mostly missed the second tower hitting it on the edge totally off centre, yet it collapsed identically 'before' the first tower even.

and the list goes on http://911research.com/
 
I stopped watching when he talked about how the fire couldn't have destroyed the towers and compared it to examples of previous fires in other skyscrapers. Because at that point he lost all credibility...not that he really had any, but anyway...

The comparison between this situation and previous fires is completely and utterly invalid. Those examples only had a fire. The trade center had a fire plus an airplane crash. You cannot compare the two.

The towers collapsed on 9/11 because of two specific elements. One, an airplane hitting the building and two, a fire inside the building. It was designed to withstand either one of those, but not both at the same time.

Here's why it collapsed:

Standard steel members within a skyscraper are I-beams that are coated with a heavy insulating material. Now normally steel has a very high yield stress. However, when subjected to high heat the yield stress is drastically reduced and it can undergoe plastic deformation much more readily...in other words, fail. So in a normal fire the insulating material protects the steel from excessive heat. This is why none of those buildings in the examples in the movie collapsed. However, when the plane hit the trade center the resulting force of the impact coupled with the explosion destroyed a lot of the insulated coating on the I-beams, thus exposing the steel directly to the heat of the fire and lowering its yield stress so that it collapsed under the deadload above it.
 
clarky003 said:
Well the reason the debate is still going on today is because all 3 buildings show all 7 clear cut signs of demolishion,

Also as a major example of scientific error in the origional explaination, entropy of heat dissapation through the entirely connected steel structure was ignored in the official report. which is an obsurd error.

most of the concrete turned to powder.. 5 to 10 times the amount of each buildings volume,.. a major characteristic of demolishion.

molten metal way hotter than any get fuel, or fires remained in pools in the basement remaining upto two weeks after, which is a sign something much hotter was in action as only sudden super heating of steel leaves molten pools for long periods of time.

The buildings collapsed symmetrically , which means all load bearing steel core segments all the way down collapsed simultaniously somehow in both buildings, even when one aircraft mostly missed the second tower hitting it on the edge totally off centre, yet it collapsed identically 'before' the first tower even.

and the list goes on http://911research.com/
Click to expand...
I agree those are all interesting questions, and not discussing them is not without merit, but I stick with my belief that theres just too many variables and too little data for any real conclusions to be made.
 
Shame on the American architects for assuming people would fly non-exploding planes into their buildings.
 
rosseh said:
Shame on the American architects for assuming people would fly non-exploding planes into their buildings.
Click to expand...

It's actually a current question/controversy among structural engineers in America. Do we really need to build things to withstand both a plane impact and a high temperature fire? It's not hard to build things to withstand either, but to build things to withstand both brings in all sorts of problems, cost being one of them. Not to mention, how do you insulate steel with a material that cannot destroyed by an airplane crash? I imagine it can be done, but the cost/complexity of the engineering involved would certainly be prohibitive.
 
Neutrino said:
It's actually a current question/controversy among structural engineers in America. Do we really need to build things to withstand both a plane impact and a high temperature fire? It's not hard to build things to withstand either, but to build things to withstand both brings in all sorts of problems, cost being one of them. Not to mention, how do you insulate steel with a material that cannot destroyed by an airplane crash? I imagine it can be done, but the cost/complexity of the engineering involved would certainly be prohibitive.
Click to expand...
Thats when we all resort back to caves.
 
Put a massive net around stuff, it's that simple!
You could make it up all nice too with some fairy lights.
That takes care of planes, and if a fire does break out it could also be a handy alternative if a fire escape is blocked. Just jump onto the nearest anti-plane netting and shimmy down.

win/win :E.
 
If only we made stronger people...a cockroach may survive a 70 story fall, but us humans, 1 MAYBE 2?
 
xcellerate said:
If only we made stronger people...a cockroach may survive a 70 story fall, but us humans, 1 MAYBE 2?
Click to expand...

Oh we can survive a 70 story fall just fine.









It's the landing that's a killer.
 
^^^^ when i read your post, i read it as, "This video made me think...I am the king of noobs!"
 
Thats one of very very few videos that I actually think has some credibility to it. Rather than twist facts around to make it seem like something else happened... it simply found evidence (however credible) that goes against what the official report is. Im not saying I believe 100% or even most of what was said. But I think some facts make sense. The cell phone test that showed how unlikely it is for even 1 cell phone to make a connection (.006% chance of success). The fact that black boxes can withstand so much, and yet are destroyed anyways. And especially the company who inspected the steel, saying that it was up to the standard, and would withstand heat of 2000 degrees, and it would take even more for it to melt. The molten steel in the basement also seems suscpicious.

But I dont believe that people saying they heard explosions is proof that there were explosions. Most people have never heard an explosion in their life, nor a plane right over their head, nor a missile, nor a 100 story building collapsing. Any of those "Could" sound like an explosion to a citizen who doesnt know any better.
 
lol, yea i was meaning to post that. The lady who was quoted saying something about how it definitly sounded like a missle not a plane.

Although, why did the pentagon take the footage from the gas station and why doesn't the video (5 frames) they give us show a jet?
 
I remember reading about most of these things on snopes.com, but I can't seem to find the original article...anyone else know of it?
 
*twilight zone theme playing
do do do do do do...do do
 
xcellerate said:
If only we made stronger people...a cockroach may survive a 70 story fall, but us humans, 1 MAYBE 2?
Click to expand...

We are able to survive a 7 story fall, depending on the terrain and the angle you fall at.
 
The comparison between this situation and previous fires is completely and utterly invalid.
Click to expand...

I respect everyones opinion on the matter but for me its important for everyone to consider this, there is one key thing that people just flatly assume without question, without further investigation, which is assuming it leads to that conclusion of non validity.

I have to agree with this conclusion instead
NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation,"
Click to expand...

Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:

* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
Click to expand...

What most people are going to base their opinion on^

NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:

* That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
* That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
Click to expand...
* Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions.
* Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
* Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
* Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
* Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
* Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.

All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.

What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.
Click to expand...

Most people arnt told to contemplate this or study it, yet it is implicit to a thorough unbiased investigation and the evidence is right infront of your face, unlike the flat out assumptions of "intense fires" which caused the collapse in the building's core which cannot be measured or even seen.

other unmentioned evidence is the explosion said to of been witnessed at the location of WTC building 6 immediately before the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

wtc_smoke-at-base.jpg

smoke rises at the base after the explosion which was recorded on video around 8 seconds before the start of the first total collapse.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html
 
These conspiracy theories are just plain dumb and play off of ignorance.

There was smoke at the base because there was fire...fire=smoke.

Burning pieces of building falling off = smoke too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Solaris
What are you up to these days?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Shem
Shem
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
Star Citizen
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top