Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

9/11


PolyNewbie

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

MichaelHardner:I'm not the one talking about the building collapse. That issue is too fraught with complications.

No it isn't complicated at all - its intuitively simple and its the golden egg for the truth movement -it is the defacto proof of 911 being an inside job. No one can credibly say that the wtc7 collapse was due to structural damage or fire. Of course if it was due to structural damage or fire some beams would collapse before others causing an assymetrical collapse. Thi is easy to reason because some load bearing parts would absorb more load than others and therefore collapse sooner.

Even if you built a perfectly symmetrical structure with the aid of an electron microscope to make sure all the vertical load bearing systems were identical and you placed a perfectly symmetrical load on top and kept adding weight to it until the structure failed, it would not collapse straight down. That can never happen and this is intuitively obvious but can only be fully explained by advanced theorists.

See wtc7 collapse videos

If buildings naturally collapsed that way the controlled demolition teams would not be necessary. There is no way you will find a scientist or engineer that will say that is a natural collapse due to damage - even the official explanation of that collapse is changing all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MichaelHardner:http://www.lalamy.demon.co.uk/ronanpnt.htm

That collapse was guided down by the rest of the building remaining standing. Its the only way that collapse could happen.

There are many examples like this and they are better. The reasons for the collapses was a shearing force that caused all fllors to simulataneosly fail at a critical point. All of these collapses are due to a shearing force at all critical points and an engineering error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buildings are not natural - they are very regular structures with a predictable design. This design is what makes progressive collapse not only possible but very likely when fires are combined with structural damage.

After damage their structure becomes less predictable. Show me one scientific link that syas the collapse of wtc7 was what you would expect. Not even NIST or FEMA would say that..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is basic observation.

767 hits WTC 1, explodes and one engine is found intact for the most part. You figure a crash and a free fall of a few hundred feet would destroy the engine.

767 hits the Pentagon, but little to no debris is found. From the photos they have of both sites, the engine from WTC has more material in it than what was found at the Pentagon. That does not strike you as odd?? To me it just does not make sense. Logic may need to come into play. Occam's Razor can lick my ass. I hate it when people quote this.

First: Flight 77 was a 757, which is a smaller aircraft than the 767s that struck the WTC.

Second: see what I said about apples and oranges. There's a lot of factors at play that could account for the differences between the flights. And I for one acknowledge that I am not qualified to make a informed judgement on what *should* happen in a plane crash because I'm no more of an an expert on the subject than you. That's why they have experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Phd engineers talk about these collapses and I have a degree myself. You have no one that supports your viewpoints on the collapses and no scientific training.
Many structural engineers that have looked at the problem agree that progressive collapse is possible. Second, I can assure you that my qualifications in engineering far exceed whatever you have - I just don't see the point of making unprovable and irrelevant claims of expertise in anonymous Internet forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MichaelHardner:You cannot prove that statement. You are basically making up science to suit the conclusions that you want to draw. I have given you a real example of a progressive collapse - those examples prove that your statement is false.

You are the one that is making stuff up. You have no scientifuc training and no links to scientists or engineers that would support your viewpoint.

I have many links that would support my viewpoint, in addition to this I have heard PhD engineers talk about all the collapses people often use in 911 arguements in a classroom and I do have some basic traing in there matters. In all of the examples of progressive collapse a shearing force and error is engineering that causes all joints to simulataneously fail - they were designed for this to happen but in error.

Plus: If these collapses were natural and what is expected why would anyone hire a CD team ? Why not just go in to the building, light some fires and wait ? Why are CD companies careful to film their demolitions ? Why to CD's take so long to plan and implement ?

It is you that is making stuff up. Stop accusing me of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RiverWind:Many structural engineers that have looked at the problem agree that progressive collapse is possible. Second, I can assure you that my qualifications in engineering far exceed whatever you have - I just don't see the point of making unprovable and irrelevant claims of expertise in anonymous Internet forums.

If buildings naturally collapse straight down into their own footprint then why have CD teams ?

Thats crazy. I don't care if you are Einstein himself - nothing collapses symetrically unless there is a controlling element and all your ideas about this are not supported anywhere.

Even Bush admitted that their may be explosives in wtc7 - I've seen it on video but cannot find the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus: If these collapses were natural and what is expected why would anyone hire a CD team ? Why not just go in to the building, light some fires and wait ? Why are CD companies careful to film their demolitions ? Why to CD's take so long to plan and implement ?
Because demolition companies have to ensure zero collateral damage. The collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 caused WTC7 to collapse because of falling debris. The collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 was an extremely messy affair that caused a lot of collateral damage and would be considered a compete failure if a demolition company had actually planned the collapse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posed as example of progressive collapse.

Dumb example. The rest of the building that remained standing provided the controlling mechanism to guide this straight down. If you were really an engineer you would have come up with a better example and you would have known of it. There are many better well known examples that would seem to support your arguement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example ? I can back everything up that I say. I make no outrageous claims that cannot be backed up by scientists with Phd's saying the same thing. Just because something sounds outrageous to you does not make it outrageous. Its an outrageous world we live it - torture, child rape/sex slaves, drug trafficking. The list never ends.

Yeah exactly, and people always like to distract us from real issues by coming up with these theories that can't be proven simply because they can.

After damage their structure becomes less predictable. Show me one scientific link that syas the collapse of wtc7 was what you would expect. Not even NIST or FEMA would say that..

They've done investigation's on it PN.

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a three-year, US$24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study included not only in-house technical expertise, but also drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[6]

NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors.[1]

You are the one that is making stuff up. You have no scientifuc training and no links to scientists or engineers that would support your viewpoint.

You haven't really provided any link's yourself, and I trust a structural engineer on this stuff more than an electrical engineer with too much time on his hands.

Plus: If these collapses were natural and what is expected why would anyone hire a CD team ? Why not just go in to the building, light some fires and wait ? Why are CD companies careful to film their demolitions ? Why to CD's take so long to plan and implement ?

Common sense says a plane ramming into a building and exploding is different from setting fires. I'd imagine CD's would take long to implement since they have to carefully plan out how to demolish a building.

Some fun facts on CD's.

Large buildings, tall chimneys, and increasingly some smaller structures may be destroyed by building implosion using explosives. Imploding a building is very fast — the collapse itself only takes seconds — and an expert can ensure that the building falls into its own footprint, so as not to damage neighboring structures. This is essential for tall structures in dense urban areas. Any error can be disastrous, however, and some demolitions have failed, severely damaging neighboring structures. The greatest danger is from flying debris which, when improperly prepared for, can kill onlookers. Even more dangerous is the partial failure of an attempted implosion. When a building fails to collapse completely the structure may be unstable, tilting at a dangerous angle, and filled with un-detonated but still primed explosives, making it difficult for workers to approach safely. While controlled implosion is the method that the general public often thinks of when discussing demolition, it is extremely dangerous and is only used as a 'last resort' when other methods are impractical or too costly. The destruction of large buildings has become increasingly common as the massive housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s are being levelled around the world. At 439 feet and 2.2 million square feet, the J.L. Hudson Department Store and Addition is the tallest steel framed building and largest single structure ever imploded.[1]
Its been growing for the last five years !

Only due to the unpopularity of the Bush administration. Once a different president get's in I'm sure we'll see these theories die down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the video you can see that the top of the building remained intact as it went into the ground.
What does that have to do with anything? The fire damage occurred at the lower floors so that is where collapsed started.
wtc1 & wtc2 were blown apart starting at the top.
Not at all. The tops of the buildings remained intact until they started to fall. The progressive collapse started where the airplanes hit the buildings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:What does that have to do with anything? The fire damage occurred at the lower floors so that is where collapsed started.

We are talking about proigressive collapse as if it happened on 911. It didn't.

A collapse that sees the building only fail at ground level isn't progressive.

You can say that wtc1 & wtc2 were progressive collapses all you want but anyone who watches the video can see that they were blown apart from impact point down. Concrete was pulverized into dust.

The collapses of wtc1, wtc2, & wtc7 were not investigated by FEMA or NIST. FEMA dared not speculate. NIST speculated only.

You are not an engineer. If you were you could make a better arguement supporting your own views and use better examples and provide links that support your scientific views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PN,

You're adding my name to quotes that aren't mine.

I read the NIST report on the collapses and it seems pretty sound to me. This is what these people do for a living, so they have my trust.

You're correct that there is some question as to what caused WTC 7 to collapse, but to infer a conspiracy out of that is pure supposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say that wtc1 & wtc2 were progressive collapses all you want but anyone who watches the video can see that they were blown apart from impact point down. Concrete was pulverized into dust.
Concrete and steel weighs a lot. The concrete was crushed by the weight of the floors above. PN, you nit pik about every little detail of the collapse - insisting over and over again that it was not a progressive collapse despite the fact that there is zero evidence that anything other than progressive collapses occurred. Your theories hinge entirely on unlikely premise that the gov' is capable of carrying out such a hoax - an assertion that I find as rediculous as the suggestion that the buildings were brought down by an energy beam. A gov't that screws up almost anything it touches is not capable of doing such a thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:there is zero evidence that anything other than progressive collapses occurred.

none except for the video evidence showing the collapses. wtc7 was not a progressive collapse. Anyone can see that wtc7 videos. wtc1 & 2 were blown to bits from top down and not a progressive collapse either, again, obvious from videos wtc collapses

Your theories hinge entirely on unlikely premise that the gov' is capable of carrying out such a hoax

No, thats what your theories depend on (but the inverse). My theories depend on nothing but evidence. .

Riverwind:an assertion that I find as rediculous as the suggestion that the buildings were brought down by an energy beam

Having donw both math modeling and measurements on energy beams and looking around my place and knowing of at least examples of at least three energy beams that are in my residence I have to dissagree with you. I would not venture to say an energy beam is impossible in fact I think its likely. But I do not think any of the theories match the evidence perfectly. I think the buildings were most likely CD'd using nukes developed for the purpose in the 50's.

The word "energy beam" sound s catoonish and that why you use it, but scientifically it could be a possibility and certainly should not be dismissed as rediculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner:I read the NIST report on the collapses and it seems pretty sound to me.

3000 people died that day plus 0.5 million in Iraq and another 3000 soldiers. Hypothesis doesn't sound good enough for me. In fact they only hypothesised and didn't investigate, no computer animation.

Why the hell not ? :angry:

Here you are telling me they have too much respect for human life to carry out such an attack :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PN,

Hypothesis is all you're going to get, I'm afraid. There will always be an amount of doubt, however small it may be.

A computer simulation is for display purposes only, it doesn't really prove anything. The proof should be in the report. As I said, I've read it and it seems reasonable.

Even if you have problems with the report, it's a giant leap to go from that to the assumption that a conspiracy was in place. Those suspicions of their character were obviously in place before the attacks took place in order for you to jump to that conclusion so quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...