9/11 Conspiracies(threads merged)

[Coleman]

Exploding planes might. wiki explosions. The heat and pressure is much higher during an explosion. jet fuel doesn't just get hot when mixed with your typical office equipment and plane fragments.

Thanks to the person finding the very clear shot of part of the core obviously there. Trying to say there was no core wreckage towards the beginning was ridiculous. There are other pictures of the core but trying to get you guys to not accept crazy talk probably isn't possible even if I post them all here.

[Norse]

Well bugger me!

We here at CC are among a host of super-knowledgeable structural engineers!!

Wowl! it's like a fucking steel-erection party of structural geniuses!

Well, forgive me for sounding slightly cautious here, but I'm fairly certain, that a building the size of a twin tower would not collapse so perfectly evenly. I mean, if one of the corners had began to drop before the other 3, this would create an imbalance, that would result in a sideways drop, thus landing upon other buildings, people etc....

I mean, isnt this patantly obvious?

ffs, I wonder why I fucking bother.

[Titanic]

Well bugger me!

We here at CC are among a host of super-knowledgeable structural engineers!!

Wowl! it's like a fucking steel-erection party of structural geniuses!

Well, forgive me for sounding slightly cautious here, but I'm fairly certain, that a building the size of a twin tower would not collapse so perfectly evenly. I mean, if one of the corners had began to drop before the other 3, this would create an imbalance, that would result in a sideways drop, thus landing upon other buildings, people etc....

I mean, isnt this patantly obvious?

ffs, I wonder why I fucking bother.

But why would one one the corners just drop? All of the strength is in the middle, the steel structure is based in the core, nothing would collapse unless the core of the building was seriously damaged and when enough damage was caused it gave way.

yes, no larger than a baseball.

no desks, no chairs, no bodys. only paper and pulverized concrete.

Desks and chairs? 100 stories of concrete and steel has just collapsed in seconds, and you think a wooden desk is going to remain intact? Its going to be crushed and smashed beyond recognition. Also, loads of stuff remained unbroken, especially underground. There were cars there, which once a path was cleared, they just drove out because they were undamaged.

[Norse]

But why would one one the corners just drop? All of the strength is in the middle, the steel structure is based in the core, nothing would collapse unless the core of the building was seriously damaged and when enough damage was caused it gave way.



Desks and chairs? 100 stories of concrete and steel has just collapsed in seconds, and you think a wooden desk is going to remain intact? Its going to be crushed and smashed beyond recognition. Also, loads of stuff remained unbroken, especially underground. There were cars there, which once a path was cleared, they just drove out because they were undamaged.

Exactly!

The video that Greecepwns has provided us with, shows that the twin towers collapsed at a faster rate than gravity! Super! the Arabic gravitational-law-defying uber-tricksters! those arabs sure know how to strike a building with a plane with class!

Mathematicians calculated, that (hypothetically) if this nature of collapsing occured, what with the resistance of each floor pounding onto the floor beneath it, and each floor "pancaking" then it would have taken around 90 seconds to have fully collapsed, and it would have also left the central chamber in tact.

These floors would never have fallen at the rate of gravity, let alone faster than it. You claim to have done physics at A-level titanic, either you are lying, messing around, or proving my point that educational standards are devastatingly poor nowadays.

[Iz Man]

which part do you not understand

Love your avatar.
THE TROOPER !!
Maiden Rules.
Up the IRONS!!!

[cena-rules]

towers collapsed.

Anyway Ill give everyone my two cents as it were. I feel that the Givernment needed a reason to invade Iraq. Mr blair used the report claiming WOMD which have never been found. Bush on the other hand wanted to give the rather gullible americans a reason to support the war. This would have in turn stopped the protesting like in britain. Therefore my belief is that bush or someone in the american government paid people to do this terrible act. If this is true (which hasnt been proven) the is this no worse than what SH did. Should we hang GWB and other top american officials??

war is wrong

[Norse]

war is wrong

Yes!

Except for if we are fighting for amply-chested, blondes with nice arses.

Just like on a friday night down town

[Titanic]

](*,)

towers collapsed.

Anyway Ill give everyone my two cents as it were. I feel that the Givernment needed a reason to invade Iraq. Mr blair used the report claiming WOMD which have never been found. Bush on the other hand wanted to give the rather gullible americans a reason to support the war. This would have in turn stopped the protesting like in britain. Therefore my belief is that bush or someone in the american government paid people to do this terrible act. If this is true (which hasnt been proven) the is this no worse than what SH did. Should we hang GWB and other top american officials??

war is wrong

What? After 9/11 they invaded Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq was 2 years later, if 9/11 was all about Iraq then they would have invaded Iraq in 2001.

The video that Greecepwns has provided us with, shows that the twin towers collapsed at a faster rate than gravity! Super! the Arabic gravitational-law-defying uber-tricksters! those arabs sure know how to strike a building with a plane with class!

Mathematicians calculated, that (hypothetically) if this nature of collapsing occured, what with the resistance of each floor pounding onto the floor beneath it, and each floor "pancaking" then it would have taken around 90 seconds to have fully collapsed, and it would have also left the central chamber in tact.

These floors would never have fallen at the rate of gravity, let alone faster than it. You claim to have done physics at A-level titanic, either you are lying, messing around, or proving my point that educational standards are devastatingly poor nowadays.

Physics AS Level..yer.

The building fell faster then then the rate of gravity? Wtf?!? How can anything fall FASTER then the rate of gravity. I think that alone proves that anything else was in the video is bullshit. Also, why would the core remain standing? Its the core which collapsed and the floors followed suit as nothing else was holding them up.

Also, it would never have taken 90 seconds to collapse, because thats just too slow, as there would be no momentum or speed behind it. Once the first few floors had fallen, then everything underneath gave way as soon as the tower above hit it meaning that it was close to free fall but not quite. This is also the reason why those 14 people in Stairway B survived, because by the time the collapse reached the 4th floor the momentum had been lost because it had hit so many floors and slowed down to just rubble collapsing.

[vtmarik]

watch the discovery channel episode about the movie "loose change".

The guys who made loose change are going to have a part 2...

And the fact that they haven't been silenced/bought off/killed by the government is proof that they weren't telling the truth.

Any government capable of killing 3000 people surely wouldn't have a problem nailing two college students.

EDIT: I'm surprised no one's posted this in the thread yet:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

[Norse]

The building fell faster then then the rate of gravity? Wtf?!? How can anything fall FASTER then the rate of gravity. I think that alone proves that anything else was in the video is bullshit. Also, why would the core remain standing? Its the core which collapsed and the floors followed suit as nothing else was holding them up.

Exactly again!

my oh my, you're starting to click on now, arent you titanic? There's some progress.

Now, I am going to explain this to you in a manner that I would expect a 4 year old paraplegic kid with learning difficulties to understand.

(hypothetical, of course):

If a plane strikes a building that is 200 meters tall, and it begins to collapse at t=0, what time would the building have collapsed by?

well, assuming that (gravitational constant) g = 10 m/s^2, then assuming the building was in free-fall from the 100 meter height, it would hit the ground at

t = (h (height)/g(gravitational constant)^0.5 (square root of)

t = (200/10)^0.5

t = about 4.5 seconds.


This is an example of course...

However! and it is a big however, one of the twin towers (to which they calculated as this 't' value being just over 9 seconds) actually collapsed in just over 8 seconds.

Now, this would mean that t=0 (the seeming time at which the collapse began to take place) was actually before t=0....

The collapse of the innards and the structure at the base had began before the seeming beginning of the collapse.

Now...use your imagination.

Not only that, but the building would have not even collapsed a fraction as fast as the rate of gravity, due to the resistance that the structure would offer.

That is, assuming, that simultaneous, precisely calculated timing of detonations, placed in the optimum damage area's throughout the structure of the tower, were not present..which they obviously were..

honestly, It's like explaining a very simple principle to a child with learning difficulties this is.

Also, it would never have taken 90 seconds to collapse, because thats just too slow, as there would be no momentum or speed behind it. Once the first few floors had fallen, then everything underneath gave way as soon as the tower above hit it meaning that it was close to free fall but not quite. This is also the reason why those 14 people in Stairway B survived, because by the time the collapse reached the 4th floor the momentum had been lost because it had hit so many floors and slowed down to just rubble collapsing.

so, your one year learning basic physics has given you more of an insight into the structure and dynamics of complex engineering mathematics and building compositions than a team of seasoned, experienced physicians, mathematicians and engineers who calculated this? and your reason....."errr, because of like momentum and stuff..."....ha!


Hang on, so as soon as the few floors that the "plane" hit began to collapse, everything just "magically" began to collapse as well, without the first few floors caving in on it first?......You are beyond help

[vtmarik]

Let's make this simple.

Here is footage of controlled demolitions:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3E59CbUH_g4& ... ed&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xLzTKQ4-qU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gONQ2U336Ps& ... ed&search=

Everything blows up from the bottom up. The explosions occur in straight lines across the sources of support, and then the entire structure collapses into itself. It's controlled, simple, and easy to see that explosions happen from the bottom up.

Now here is the WTC collapse:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

It collapsed when the floor beneath the burning section gave out, sending thousands of pounds of steel, glass, and building materials crashing down onto the floors below at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. This would quite easily rip up the immediate floors below, creating even more debris that falls at 9.8 m/s^2 and decimating the floors below.

Distance = rate*time.

Time = Distance/Rate

Time = 417m/9.8m/s^2

Time = 42 seconds^2.

Time = 6.5231 seconds

No demolition company, and no demolition procedure involves blowing up 1-3 floors and then letting the top section do the work. Sorry, you lose.

EDIT: There is no way that the building would be falling at faster than free fall because it wasn't thrown or pushed down by any force.

[Norse]

dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum...

[vtmarik]

Um, did I quote you in my post? No.

Get over yourself.

[Norse]

Um, did I quote you in my post? No.

Get over yourself.

apologies

[vtmarik]

Now, I'll respond to you.

Not only that, but the building would have not even collapsed a fraction as fast as the rate of gravity, due to the resistance that the structure would offer.

That much steel and debris ripped through the lower floors like a brick falling through a wet paper bag. It's obvious that it's all in freefall from the footage.

So then, from what you write, you seem to agree with me that the world trade centre is markedly like a controlled demolition...

It's similar in the fact that it collapsed in on itself rather than falling over.

That is, assuming, that simultaneous, precisely calculated timing of detonations, placed in the optimum damage area's throughout the structure of the tower, were not present..which they obviously were..

Where? There were no detonations or explosions. Watch the footage of the Kingdome being demolished. That's what demolition charges look like when they're detonated.

Where were they in the WTC?

[Norse]

You've got to watch the original video that greecepwns posted...

I for one, even assuming that "fire" may have damaged the structure on them 1-3 floors to a point where they fail , honestly cannot see how it is possible for a building to collapse so perfectly central and so damn quickly.

But, don't take my word for it...watch the video for the expert opinion.

[vtmarik]

You've got to watch the original video that greecepwns posted...

I for one, even assuming that "fire" may have damaged the structure on them 1-3 floors to a point where they fail , honestly cannot see how it is possible for a building to collapse so perfectly central and so damn quickly.

But, don't take my word for it...watch the video for the expert opinion.

There was no torsional or horizontal force on the building. Where else would it fall but down?

I'll watch it when I'm not at work.

[Norse]

You've got to watch the original video that greecepwns posted...

I for one, even assuming that "fire" may have damaged the structure on them 1-3 floors to a point where they fail , honestly cannot see how it is possible for a building to collapse so perfectly central and so damn quickly.

But, don't take my word for it...watch the video for the expert opinion.

There was no torsional or horizontal force on the building. Where else would it fall but down?

I'll watch it when I'm not at work.

Well, the alleged planes went into the buildings at angles, which would have weakened only certain parts....I mean, I saw "footage" of one of the planes go right into the corner of one of the sides...Surely this would have weakened that corner, thus leading to the caving in on that particular corner of it, causing it to rip the building down at that angle...

All hypothetically and assumingly, of course.

[heavycola]

Now, I am going to explain this to you in a manner that I would expect a 4 year old paraplegic kid with learning difficulties to understand.

Why would being paraplegic make you stupid? can you turn that high-powered percepshion of yours inward on yourshelf, dr lecter?


here is what happened.
one day some crazed zealots flew planes into the world trade centre.
Afterwards, the majority agreed that planes had indeed flown into the building causing an almighty explosion or two. Just like everyone saw on the TV. And that was that.
But then some less violent crazed zealots, overcome by the enormity of what happened, found themselves unable to reconcile the epoch-defining, world-changing nature of this attack with the handful of surly towelheads identified as the hijackers. A bunch of cave dwelling lunatics could not be responsible. There HAD to be more to it than that.
And a bunch of conspiracy theories were born. It was the government. It was mossad. It was dick cheney. But the simple truth is it was as it appeared. Those of you buying into these bullshit theories need to examine why you are so determined to believe them.

[vtmarik]

Well, the alleged planes went into the buildings at angles, which would have weakened only certain parts....I mean, I saw "footage" of one of the planes go right into the corner of one of the sides...Surely this would have weakened that corner, thus leading to the caving in on that particular corner of it, causing it to rip the building down at that angle...

All hypothetically and assumingly, of course.

It still would have fallen straight down. Did you expect it to slide or peel off? When the support gives way, even if it's a corner, it still falls along the force exerted on it. The only force exerted on it was gravity, thus it fell straight down.

Or, in other words...

[mr. incrediball]

Well, the alleged planes went into the buildings at angles, which would have weakened only certain parts....I mean, I saw "footage" of one of the planes go right into the corner of one of the sides...Surely this would have weakened that corner, thus leading to the caving in on that particular corner of it, causing it to rip the building down at that angle...

All hypothetically and assumingly, of course.

It still would have fallen straight down. Did you expect it to slide or peel off? When the support gives way, even if it's a corner, it still falls along the force exerted on it. The only force exerted on it was gravity, thus it fell straight down.

Or, in other words...

i think what norse is trying to say is that the weakened parts would meet less resistance than the undamaged parts, causing the building to lean and eventually fall sideways.

[vtmarik]

i think what norse is trying to say is that the weakened parts would meet less resistance than the undamaged parts, causing the building to lean and eventually fall sideways.

Why would that make the building lean?

Ok, let's draw a picture. I'll use MS Paint.


Now, if that top section were being pushed or pulled by another force, then the building may have fallen sideways. However, the only force here was gravity, so the whole thing fell into the floors below, started a chain reaction of collapse, and fell to the ground.

It's the same principle that allows martial artists to break multiple boards/bricks stacked on top of one another. As the brick above it breaks, it exerts force in addition to the fist driving into it, this breaks the next brick down, and so on.

[mr. incrediball]

i think what norse is trying to say is that the weakened parts would meet less resistance than the undamaged parts, causing the building to lean and eventually fall sideways.

Why would that make the building lean?

Ok, let's draw a picture. I'll use MS Paint.


Now, if that top section were being pushed or pulled by another force, then the building may have fallen sideways. However, the only force here was gravity, so the whole thing fell into the floors below, started a chain reaction of collapse, and fell to the ground.

It's the same principle that allows martial artists to break multiple boards/bricks stacked on top of one another. As the brick above it breaks, it exerts force in addition to the fist driving into it, this breaks the next brick down, and so on.

i should really stop trying to beat people older than me at physics

[vtmarik]

i should really stop trying to beat people older than me at physics

Don't worry, I applaud your efforts to play devil's advocate.


And norse, can I ask why you put the word footage in quotation marks? The footage was indeed footage. According to you the content was fake, not the film taken of the content.

[mr. incrediball]

i should really stop trying to beat people older than me at physics

Don't worry, I applaud your efforts to play devil's advocate.


And norse, can I ask why you put the word footage in quotation marks? The footage was indeed footage. According to you the content was fake, not the film taken of the content.

i now reduce myself to crying "owned" when i here a good argument

*sigh*

OWNED!