Quote from SamH :

YOU show me ONE that did. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a conspiracy exists. I DON'T believe they exist. It is not up to me to prove a negative. Or does that reason factoid escape you as well?

2 fuel-laden intercontinental aircraft hit 2 towers. Only an idiot would claim that they didn't cause extensive damage. They damn-near cut the buildings in half for crying out loud.

Where is the explosive residue evidence? C'mon, I'm bored with your blind faith.. giz us some substance to your claims.

I know of one, Steven Jones, who found microscopic iron spheres in the dust from the WTC. A woman who was cleaning her apartment, that was in direct sight of the towers, kept a bag of dust and gave it to him. He analysed it and found the iron spheres in it, these are ONLY produced during a thermite reaction. He is also supposed to have found some grey and red flakes in the dust which have the signature of thermite, but I haven't heard it from his mouth yet, nor have I looked into it. I read it in a document by David Chandler, a member of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.

Wrong, intercontinental? I don't think so. Fuel-laden? The towers were built to withstand a 707 which could carry twice as much fuel as a 757, so I think they took into account the fuel/fire scenario.

@Juls: The US government knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen, they faked the Gulf of Tonkin to atack Vietnam, so it is entirely possible they had a hand in 9/11. False flag terrorism isn't a new thing. I have only heard the name Lusitania, I haven't heard anything about it though.

So, Juls, what do you say to 1 gallon of fuel having about 100 million joules of energy? So if there was only 100 gallons of fuel in the planes that would be what? 1 billion joules?(not sure if thats right but it would be alot if the tank was half full, 5,000 gallons @ 100 million joules per gallon) 400 million joules doesn't sound like much now I know that.

Quote from SamH :

C'mon Boris, this is why you guys look silly. You place your faith in the people who deliberately mislead you, time and time again.
Attached are a couple of pictures of WTC7, taken from the side of the building that was actually directly affected.

See that building, almost entirely on fire on pretty well every window of every floor on one side? They call that WTC7.
[edit - inline image removed, didn't realise it was that big.]

See that cloud of smoke and dust in the background? They call that WTC7, too. Just a minor fire? Suckers!

You are calling that proof? Nice...I see smoke alright, no fires. And alot of black smoke, which indicates what? Well, firemen say it's an oxygen starved fire but anyway. I also see some windows blown out, no substantial structural damage.

What it looks like to me is, the smoke is from the towers debrit and a couple of floors you can see on the sides of WTC7 which are blackend, and the wind is coming from behind WTC7, along the side and its creating like a vortex, sucking thing(lol technical term anyone? pls?) and it's sucking the smoke into that area. You can almost see through the smoke in some parts and see that there's not that much damage at all. You can see the front of the building is ok through the smoke at the bottom.

"See that building, almost entirely on fire on pretty well every window of every floor on one side?" Blatent lie, every window? every floor? Come on Sam, don't start bullshitting.

EDIT: Sam, you also seem to be seeing what you want to see, not what's actually there.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 19:31.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Force of gravity, plus fire, plus structural damage? Wouldn't that be enough to make a floor collapse? And once one floor as collapsed it would over-stress the structure in the surrounding floors and cause their failure too in one big chain reaction (a dynamic failure, which you seem to think doesn't actually exist*)

A perfectly plausible theory that can happen.

*When I was at uni our year had a group project - build a balsa bridge to span a metre wide gap. There were some pretty elegant solutions in terms of shape and truss size/length. The results were calculated using final mass of the structure, and it's ability to carry a known load (40kg I think). Points were deducted for every 10g of weight over a 'standard figure' and awarded below. Points were deducted for every additional kg the structure took and deducted for every additional kg under the required amount. This meant we had to optimise our design. Mine tool 42kg before it started to sway as the forces within the structure started to become unbalanced, but it didn't break instantly. It took 30 seconds before the structure started to oscillate wildly, and it was only when a section was put into bending on the edge of the gap that it failed - this was a dynamic failure, and had the load been static I have every confidence it would have taken another 10kg easily. I won that competition by 3 points (I think I got about 60, but I can't remember to scoring criteria well enough now). I like to think it was because I designed it carefully, but it was probably just good luck. Oh, and mine was the lightest design too I suspect you won't believe me though, but I have my Balsa bridge (repaired) hanging up in my house as a show of pride

Ok....a question for you...

If the fire wasn't there would the tower collapse?

And I never said dynamic failure didn't exist, I just thought it wasn't a good example of the towers collapse.

Also, you talk about the floors as if they are flimsy/paper like structures. The trusses were not the final load bearing structure for the floors. Although we are led to believe this.(See my previous post about this it's the final part of that post) So, I find it hard to believe the floors failed as easy as they did. Anyway, the fires would never have gotten hot enough to even weaken the steel. Alot of the fuel was burned up in the initial explosion and the rest would have burned out in 10-20mins. What's left? Office furniture, which would find it extremely hard to weaken this steel. Also, the furniture would have to have a fire proof rating, since it's in a high rise building. And because there was so much steel and it was all interconnected, it would easily conduct the heat away from the heat source.

And about the bridge, I can believe what you say because I have no other choice. You built/designed and had a hand in making it fail so therefore I have no other option but to believe you. If you didn't have any input I would still believe you because bridges are a different structure and have different strengths and weaknesses. The same way if the towers oscillated so much it would obviously fail. They do not need to be particulalry bulky structures either, to hold considerable amounts of weight compared to their own.

Dynamic failure does actually sound more fitting when you speak of a bridge, don't you think?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Well, that morning it was there, and that evening it was a pile of rubble. Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere in between the building collapsed. Maybe I'm wrong- I've not actually been to 'Ground Zero', so maybe all towers are standing there just fine, and this is the actual conspiracy - but I'm pretty sure they aren't there anymore, and thus they collapsed.

Would you like a definition of 'collapsed'?

Ok, maybe I left out some words there and didn't explain what I ment properly. What I should have said was it wasn't a collapse caused by the force of gravity plus fire.

And no thanks, I am able to find out for myself. Not that I need to though.

Quote from SamH :

@U4IK, where is the explosives residue? Hundreds of independent laboratories were involved in the phorensic examination of debris from ground zero in the months following 9/11, and not one of them has since claimed to have found any evidence of explosive residue during their phorensic and DNA testing. Come on, put up.

Hundreds? Ok, show me even 50 agencies that released documents on there tests for explosive residue.

Quote :

WTC7 suffered structural damage and was gutted by fire

And you say I speculate? There is absolutely NO PROOF what so ever, of extensive damage, enough to cause collapse, from the towers debrit OR from fire.

Quote from mookie427 :

what is it proof of then? Aliens? Inside job? Pray tell, please

I just said what it was proof of in the previous sentences.

Quote :

in other words - I don't have any irrefutable proof, so I'm backing out of this thread in a huff

I don't huff like a child does, so where you got that from I don't know. YOU don't have "irrefutable" proof either so we're both on the same level. If you did, or anyone else did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

Anyway, read what this chap thinks and forget about what I have to say on the matter.

http://www.911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf

Quote from SamH :

The video is proof that the building collapsed on itself, crushing the floors below. You say it couldn't do that, and yet I see it doing that in the video. How do you explain that that's in the video and yet apparently never happened.

You have not offered any proof whatsoever, and neither has any of your fellow conspiracy theory fans, that what happened was not what we see happening.

You believe what you see is a collapse, but how can you or anyone for that matter, prove it? A video alone is not proof. People believe that there were no planes because the videos of the planes hitting the buildings are not "real" looking. Does that, therefore, mean, that because the footage of a plane entering the tower has only one wing that there were no planes? Obviously not. Just because they tell you it was a collapse, you look and think it's collapse, doesn't mean it's a collapse. The video IS proof that the buildings came down, no doubts there. The video IS proof that the towers were totally destroyed. But the video IS NOT proof that they collapsed, it just isn't.

Quote :

The argument is that what brought down the towers was a deliberate demolition. However, there is a complete and distinct absence of explosives residue in the phorensic evidence in the wreckage. None of the conspiracy theorists address this, and yet it's obviously fundamental to that theory.

And where is this evidence? I haven't seen any. NIST only had around 250 pieces of steel to examine. You can't tell me that was a full and thorough examination of the steel from the towers. Steven Jones has found evidence of thermate reaction in the dust. Tiny iron balls which only get ejected with a thermate reaction. There was nothing else in the towers which could have caused these tiny irons balls/pellets to form.

Quote :

No, it's been 7 years of crap from you lot. It's now time for you to come up with some proof.

And there are not plenty of educated people supporting conspiracy theorists. There are a very TINY number of educated people supporting them, and they are probably proportionate in society to the percentage of the population currently held in mental institutions. There are millions of educated people that don't believe the conspiracy theorists, but you choose to listen to a few nutters. It's not reasonable.

What proof have you got mate? Show me some. Crap you call it, others may differ from that evaluation.

Ah, can't be arsed looking through stuff just to show you. Getting tired of saying the same shit and it being rejected by you lot. One day, like the Gulf of Tonkin, this will be opened up and people will find out the real reason for invading Afghan/Iraq.

Quote from SamH :

That's a serious break of logic. An epic fail. Not believing one thing does not automatically make you a believer in something else.. though I know it's a favourite vehicle for 911 conspiracy theorology, jehovas witnesses and various small cults, the KKK etc. not to mention a favourite by many politicians. It's the stuff of rhetoric, at the end of the day, and it's shite. You shouldn't insult peoples' intelligence by trying to use it here.

Shit, I actually miss read his post there. Thought it said "I don't think the official story is" questionable. My bad...

Quote :

but there isn't any evidence now, let alone PROOF, and it's been 7 years so far. Just a bunch of half-baked and debunked theories with absolutely nothing to support them. I hope we're not going to have to wait 2000 years like we've been waiting so far, for the 2nd coming. Not sure I can be arsed waiting that long.

You still need to prove how they crushed themselves. Using a report that only shows how the buildings were damaged(edit: by the planes impact), how the fires burned but not show how it physically crushed itself isn't proving anything. And there are plenty of people, well educated people, debunking the official story, so who's right?

Quote :

Thousands of us watched that day. I watched the collapses from our conference room in Chicago. I remember the events as if they were in slow motion. I've never seen anything convincing from you lot yet, that makes me believe that the collapse of the towers was anything different from exactly what I saw on the day. 2 planes hit, fires, structural failure and collapse. Do you have ONE OUNCE of proof to show that that was not what happened?

I watched it also, as it happened. I also fell for the story that bin Ladens crew did it and that the towers crushed themselves. Why? Because I just took their word for it, I never looked into it at all. Once I did look into it and start listening to people I understood that what happened to the towers was physically impossible.

Quote from SamH :

So you're saying that the collapse of a building is not proof that the building collapsed. It's just speculation? You're off your rocker, surely. You must be.

Hmmm...

What I said was... " but that is not proven to have crushed the whole building, has it? So it's actually not an example of a building being crushed. It's more speculation" I never once mentioned collapse in my response. There's a difference between crush and collapse, I'm sure you are aware of that...

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 16:23.

Well you can use it, but that is not proven to have crushed the whole building, has it? So it's actually not an example of a building being crushed. It's more speculation. We wouldn't be here having this conversation if that was proven.

Quote from SamH :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

Now, repeat after me: "ok, you've showed me a good enough example, so what I've been saying is total bullshit. I don't know what I was thinking."

Hahaha. You can't use the actual footage of an event as an example of that event. And a bad video of the event at that. Why not use this one? Posted by ae911truth (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c You should actually look through their other videos.

Quote from wsinda :

Yes, I can see you are a true believer.
Nope. I don't think the official story is unquestionable....

You believe, without reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was planned and finally followed through by bin Laden and his mates?

Quote from obsolum :

U4IK ST8...

Of course it would be difficult for me alone to change peoples minds here, that is quite obvious. But it's not my intention to change their minds solely on the videos or words I show them. They will have to look for themselves, I only show them some pieces. I understand that the quotes and other info I have put here is speculation, but this is speculation from highly educated people. The people who were actually authorised to investigate this didn't do a thorough job and didn't use all of their educated abilities to find out exactly what happened. How many people in the Commission report are actually structural engineers? I know NIST may have a few but why didn't they show us, even simulated, what happened to each floor as the tower collapsed? "Global collapse ensued" isn't good enough for many people, as an explination for the towers crushing themselves.

Hopefully one day someone will get the balls to come out and give us some damning evidence. Then what happens? Everyone here who believes the towers fell by themselves will go back on what they have been saying in this discussion? I'd like to see that.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 15:48.

Ok, I'm not going through every repsonse again, since not one person has any meat in their comments.

Not one person here has shown me a reasonable, even half descent, explination for how the towers fell. If you feel I'm wrong, fair enough. Believe what the "experts" who were appointed by the government to investigate it, say to you.

Now see, nobody here seems to be picking up on my counter arguements. SamH sits back for a while and only picks what he wants to respondd to. I try respond to everything people put forward. I say that all them examples Juls showed me don't fit into this scenario and nobody says anything about that. He talks about how many jules of energy was involved, yet he fails to mention that 1 gallon of fuel produces close to one hundred million joules, so I found out. So, the explosion of the fuel could of had more energy than the actual collapse. I have also pointed out things in the video kingfag showed, nobody responds to that.

Listen, you can talk shit all you want. Show me a reasonable example of a tall building, with exterior load bearing walls, a core and that collapses to the ground, crushing everything in its path, including it's basement and I'll come back and say "ok, you've showed me a good enough example, so what I've been saying is total bullshit. I don't know what I was thinking." I am waiting for this to happen, you think I enjoy typing out responses, the same thing over and over? Of course I'll stick to my guns if I believe I'm right.

And just a quick note to Sam - Of course that's not all I got from what you wrote, but I wasn't going to respond to that with the tone I got from your post. I'm not getting involved in a slaggin match, or turning around and saying "well I'd kill you too, if you said some of that shit to my face" but that's pathectic really. Sam, you show me some evidence, that you feel, makes the case for the towers unquestionable. Come on, I'll be waiting.

And Mookie, I just noticed your comment there so I'll respond to that.

Quote :

true, the laws of physics didn't change for 9/11. But you're trying to change the laws of physics to fit your own view

pig-headed, arrogant, stuck-up-your-own-arse, blinkered, I could go on

That has to be the funniest comment so far. It shows you have NO clue and no understanding. Why and How could I change the laws of physics to suit this event? They are what they are, nobody can change them. You should look them up. You are just argueing a side of an arguement to suit you. You say that you did at one stage believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I doubt you ever did because you don't seem to be able to understand aspects of this event. You will now be another person I refuse to converse with because of the shit you talk, now please go wipe your mouth becasue the shit is dripping off your face, you are talking so much of it.

From now on I'm only going to respond to posts with aspects of 9/11 in them, not conspiracy theory bashing comments. Once again, everyone seems to think the official story is unquestionable, when, in fact, it is also a theory. Not all the facts are in the final report. What about William Rodrigez(sp?)? What about his comments? He was praised by Bush & Co. until he started talking about what he heard/felt during the attacks. Don't you think the testimony from the janiter of the towers is most important? Do you think it should be in the final report? Well the "experts" didn't think so, which is another thing which amazes me.

EDIT: Ok, if you think I'm nuts, fair enough. Listen to this MIT Prof. and see do you think what he is also nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk (he begins at about 1min10secs)@SamH - notice how much steel NIST actually had to analyse. You laughed at me when I said not all the steel was analysed. Show me where you get your information on that from.

EDIT2: Doh! That's the wrong vid, that one is bad quality. Here's a better version of the same presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4

EDIT3: Instead of posting again I'll add this here. I just came across this video for the first time. Now, watch as the top section of the tower collapses, it is, in some of your eyes, crushing the tower but watch as it falls, where does all that debrit come from once the top of the tower disapears? The top section should be crushing the rest of it, those pieces of debrit seem to come from that top section. Pieces first go up/out and then fall. It doesn't make it any easier for me to believe after seeing this. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqzgs__q-GY&feature=user

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:15.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Offcourse, but it seems some people found themselves offended by our couriosity.

Can you tell me this, does it sounds possible to you, that, in order for this to be an internal job, how many people would there be for this to work? Can you imagine the massive organization and all those people being quite all this time, can you imagine the burden if you knew that you could stop 5000 of your citizens being killed and not do anything about it? Or the lifes lost from Iraq and Afgan wars, and you know that you participated in it? At least someone would talk, no way you can be that much of a monster and have all that on your soldiers just for a bigger bill on your banking acount... Only that part seems impossible to me, majority of other things just screems "inside job"

Well that's another story all together and I could go on for a long time, but I wont. Some people didn't know they were part of it and some did. That's about as much as I'll say 'cos there's alot more on that too. Watch some Webster Tarpley presentations and see what you think of him. He's on youtube.

Quote from SamH :

Let's get this straight, shall we? My mum died in hospital. The official report is that she died of natural causes. Technically, she died of a combination of oxygen poisoning and morphine overdose. That's a net result of palliative care. Nevertheless, I understand how she died and why.

Now, if you turned up shortly afterwards and started talking about how the hospital was behind my mum's death, and that she was actually murdered.. and if you kept going on and on, despite having absolutely NO evidence to support your claim, and just finding inane "issues" with "official reports" etc, I'd give you about 2 months to live. After that time, I'd bloody well hunt you down and kick the shit out of you. And if you breathed one more word about it, I'd likely kill you. Especially 7 years on.

I lost a friend at the Pentagon. It's a bloody good thing, for you, that it wasn't my mum.

Why such anger? If you would feel better from killing me for something I say, then that's alright with me. I ain't afraid of dieing. Get angry all you want because you know exactly what I'll do sitting here and that's laugh. Which I feel you would too if you were in my shoes. Anger gets nothing solved, it only makes blood boil, and that's not good for you.

Quote from Juls :

You still do not see clearly why we laugh at the in-trays experiment do you ?

Of course not. Listen, you gave to me, examples of collapses having similarites to the towers collapse, yet, not one of them had EXTERIOR load bearing walls, not one of them collapsed like the towers and not one had anywhere near the same materials used, apart from kingfags' one which I'll get to. But none of the came close to being strcuturally similar. The only structure which had exterior load bearing walls was the in-trays. Also, it simulated the core being destroyed by the plane because there actually wasn't one, and it only had 2 exterior walls bearing the load. So, unless you show me a building with exterior load bearing walls, collapsing like the towers, then I will never understand why you laugh at this experiment.

Quote from kingfag :

It burned for about 7 hours and collapsed all the way to the ground, as this video shows.
I work nearby, so I've seen it going up in flames, from the alarm bells to the collapse. The firecrew abandoned the building after about an hour, they didn't trust the structure of the building anymore. Nobody was injured.

It's far from the same scale as the WTC buildings, but at least it's a building (albeit a reinforced concrete one instead of a metal girder skeleton) and not a tin can or plastic tray. And it shows that concrete pulverizes when it collapses and generates a massive dust plume. And that a building actually can collapse due to fire damage.

I'm glad I got to see that video now because, although the towers were a lot heavier, they were also a lot more robust/strong/rigid to be able to withstand that weight. This block didn't totally crush the bottom floor, also, as he gets over you can see pieces of this block still intact on the ground, there was nothing left intact from the towers, apart from the metal(although some of that got melted ), not even the top section was recognizable, as it supposidly collapsed in the "second fase of collapse" after it crushed the entire building. Another thing, you say pulverised concrete. I don't see a lot of dust/debrit and he is only yards from the collapse. I was expecting there to be a greyish color layer of dust around the collapse but I see colors so not much pulverised concrete got eject that far.


Keep it coming lads, I'll look at anything you lads have to show. I'm open minded, I'll be happy when I see a good legitimet explination for the towers collapse. The laws of physics didn't change just for 9/11. Building codes were not quickly made up and missed this "progressive collapse", of course they knew about it, haven't structures been falling for years? Centuries? Decades? I know it wouldn't be called prograssive collapse but intelligent designers knew that if something falls on something, that second "thing" will move and hit the next "thing". How old are dominoes?

Come up with a physically similar, to the towers, experiment or actual building and have it collapse like the towers and I'll s t f u. Up until that point, I'm always gona be here.

And I don't see the point in getting angry, Sam, just brush it of or sit there and laugh at me, but don't get annoyed, discussions and anger just do not mix. It makes people retaliate/turn off rather than listen, don't ye think? It's also not my aim to piss people off or get them annoyed like you sound there Sam. I'm only here to discuss this.

You shouldn't stop, I mean, if a family member of yours died in the attacks and you knew what you know now, would you stop questioning? Even with the slightest doubt you would want to know exactly what happened. I feel it disrespectful to the dead that we just take the Comission Reports word for it and don't even question the inconsistancies in their story. The way they leave out eye witness reports and they don't cover all the buildings. This is in the OFFICIAL story man come on people. Wtf...

Anyway, it's totally up to you though, at the end of the day. I can't just agree to disagree on this one.

@ kingfag - Some nice footage there, I hadn't seen that. How long were the fires burning, just out of curiosity? And in the first video it does seem to destroy the floors below, but I'm not sure how far down or how much damage there is. Is there more about this anywhere? And since I get this given to me I'll say it to you. It isn't really to the scale:height:mass of the towers so technically it can't be compared to the towers.

O....M....G.... I can't believe you used these as examples....

Quote from Juls :

O M G

When an entire building (or a very large part of it) collapses because of a chain reaction, this is called progressive collapse.

Here is a case study. Entire collapse, in spite of many steel columns and low number of floors.
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/861/8 ... ePlazaCaseStudy060913.pdf

Bad example. Why? The conclusions on the last two pages. I can't believe you compare this to the towers yet rubbish the "in-trays" experiment. Amazing. It was incomplete, very little mild steel(I doubt there was alot of strong? steel or they wouldn't bother commenting on how little mild steel there was) so it wasn't structurally capable of holding an incomplete structure with frozen concrete and lateral soil pressure. Also, one thing I notice in this which should be present at the towers, in some form, is the concrete floors stacked on top of each other. Of course in some places the concrete would be crushed but these floors were huge spaces and to think not one section, even from the top floors, would survive the collapse is ludicrous.

Quote :

Oklahoma City federal building is another case. The bomb cut 3 columns and damaged 4% of the building surface, but 40% of the building collapsed.

Yet another bad example. Well atleast for the towers. It is exactly what happened WTC7. Columns cut near the bottom and the rest comes down. Not one part of that building crushed another part.

Quote :

Here another case (a gaz explosion in a room on the 18th floor caused the collapse of all rooms located below up to ground level)
http://www.modernsteel.com/Upl ... March_2004/30727_nair.pdf

Now this is getting closer, but it still isn't close enough for me to believe the towers crushed themselves. Ok, the blast happened on the 18th, as you can see the damage gets less as it reaches the ground and the ground floor columns are still intact. I would have to find out more on that building because there's not much about it in that article. It says what happened and then goes off on one. I need to see more.

Quote :

Tall buildings are prone to progressive collapse. A steel bridge entirely collapsed in 2007 because one truss broke.

Hopefully, building engineers, instead of believing WTC collapse was not possible, use this case as all others before to improve building strategies used to avoid progressive collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/ca ... /csemag_progcollapse.html

Interesting... It has quotes from the person who wrote the previous .pdf you linked to, so it's more of the same, a lot of talk and no meat(graphs, images, documents, quotes from other sources). Although I did get one good quote from it, "The only thing that everyone could agree on was that the World Trade Center performed very well in resisting progressive collapse," now there's a quote from Jon Magnusson, CEO of structural engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, who was at a 2002 workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Science & Technology no less. NIST, the people who didn't/couldn't document how the buildings acted DURING the collapse.

They had 10,000 pages of info about how they thought the buildings got damaged, how the fire acted, everything except how each floor got pulverised, how the massive core box columns got squished. Also, not even 1 page set out for WTC7, not 1. It only got a couple of lines in a FEMA report which stated that their best hypothesis only had a low probability of happening.

But enough of that, Jon Magnusson then goes on to say, "Its collapse was progressive, but it didn't fit the traditional definition." Of course it didn't, 9/11 started a whole new list of definitions. I think the NIST official gave him a kick under the table when he heard him saying they did well preventing the progressive collapse.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Don't call me a kid, seriously. Don't make this personal. I didn't make it personal, don't stoop to that level.

Don't want to read? That only makes you childish one not being able to take criticism, as shown in the 58 pages of responses to everyones points against your ones.

Want to get personal? Your username is hardly more 'mature'.

Don't get me started.

That's a better tone.

It's not personal and I didn't, and never would, attack someone personally on a forum. I haven't up to now so why would I start?

Anyway, ok so your a teenager, not much difference. Plus, I've done alot more research, if you want to call it that, into this subject. I'd have a fair idea of what I'm on about, you don't. You troll these boards all day, not me mate. I only post here because I have looked into it and I have seen things that don't add up.

"Don't get me started" What a laugh... You think that's childish? Threatening? What will you do if I do get you started?

Hey kid, be quiet and go back to playing games, please.

I haven't even read what you said. Caps, bold and big font stop me reading, also seeing your name tells me it's more childish bs.

Quote from mookie427 :

dammit where's a 'beating a dead horse' emoticon when you need one

U4IK - I can see you're valiantly fighting your corner, I really can. Even in the face of damning evidence to the contrary you are refusing to accept that you may be wrong on even the smallest thing

The way I see it, this is what happened. This is coming from someone who self-proclaimedly knows little about building structure etc, and failed AS physics:

The 15-20 storeys above the initial impact site on the north tower gave way, releasing all the built up potential energy in a massive burst of kinetic energy which had by far enough energy to smash through the floors below. Some reports state that the tower went at almost freefall speed, but if you watch the videos the debris thrown off falls a lot closer to freefall than the tower itself, which demonstrates a 'domino' effect or whatever you want to call it, slowing its fall. The same goes for the south tower

See you're coming out with shit that I cannot see happening. After watching numerous videos, including the construction, it's seems alomst impossible in my mind that the top section could keep up the momentum, energy and strength to crush the whole thing. I've stated that the tower was stronger at the bottom and weaker(ie less beams and less weight) at the top, so how could this piece crush the rest of it? I can't believe it, the core columns were massive and they were crushed while being in there strongest position(in relation to the falling debrit, and I know there would have been lateral movement but not enough the bend them over because if they did it would have brought the tower over, not crush the floors and the just topple the core.), upright. The falling debrit should have either pushed them into the ground or just left them standing, atleast the last 10 to 20 floors, similar to the outer walls we seen in images, there should be big massive core columns sticking up in the center, but no, the weaker outer load bearing walls were left standing, how?

Quote from wsinda :

AFAIK a weekend is not enough to prepare a controlled demolition. Especially one that needs to look exactly like it was caused by a crashed airliner.
Naw, they were probably planted right when the WTC was built.
C'mon, seriously. Doesn't the "9/11 truth movement" have any explanations, documents or videos at the ready? Surely you must have come across some.
Oh, I got the impression that the US invaded Afghanistan just to catch the guy. Granted, that's probably outside the FBI's jurisdiction.

True a weekend would be nowhere near enough time to rig the whole building but something went on. All security passes/cameras/locks, all doors were unlocked and free for anyone to walk around.

Of course I have seen alot of videos but many are too long to say here, watch this and see what you think. A lot has to be done by you yourself to get the knowledge, I can only inform you, you have to research. Only if yu feel you need to, obviously if you don't care, don't bother.

They don't need a jursitiction to name Americas top 10 most wanted. Bin Laden is in there but not wanted for 9/11. Weird. They chased him alright but they were never intending to catch him, atleast the top officials knew where he was. The average solder wanted to ring his neck, or strap him to an IED.

Quote from Juls :

Funny, because this is exactly what happens with cards towers or matches towers, or any very big structure made with tiny bars. If you like experiments, just take sketchyphysics in sketchup and build a structure with many tiny elements....and let the last few floors fall on the others....everything will collapse (or not) depending on the structure you did.

Every video animated experiment I have seen so far, showing the collapse of a building, does not represent anything like the conditions in the twin towers nor the physical state of the towers. That experiment in the office is closer to the real thing than anything I have seen yet.

Quote :

116 instead of 110 gives less than 6% error.

6% of the towers weight is actually alot of weight. Would work out about 6 floors I suppose? 14 floors crushed the second tower to pieces, roughly 15%? If 6% isn't really significant, the way you suggest, do you honestly think that roughly 15% of this buildings weight could actually crush the whole thing? And it being a weaker structure to begin with?

Quote :

Scaled down models do not behave like the full scale building, unless they are very carefully built with elements scaled down too. This experiment with plastic elements is ridiculous. If you start this way you can even scale it down again and use one bar of LEGO and then you can demonstrate that towers can only fall on one side and can not be demolished vertically.

This test wasn't intended to be to scale of anything. Just a demostration of how a structure with the exterior walls bearing the load of the floors. There isn't even a core in this yet it didn't even come close to crushing. Even with the weight added.

Quote :

Think about an avalanche. Before the avalanche starts, you have a strong pile of snow, and each level of the pile can stand the snow above.
Then when a little patch of snow starts sliding, instead of stopping when it meets the snow below, it brings enough energy to move this snow too....etc....until the full pile goes down. WTC was a record building, very tall. So tall with a light structure compared to it's size. So tall that in case a part of the building starts moving, it works like an avalanche.

Hmmm... I seriously cannot see the comparison. Yes, I know avalanche and yes I understand how they act but yet again this example isn't comparable. Ok, the snow builds up, the weight becomes too heavy for the slope to handle, so what happens? It follows the path of least resistance, oh no shock horror, how could it do that? It doesn't take everything last piece of snow with it, it doesn't go through the mountain, obviously, it slides off the mountain. And of course it'll gather more snow on the way but what happened the towers shouldn't have happened. The tops should have fell off. Not go straight through the path of most resistance.

That is where I cannot believe this. I understand the massive amounts of weight involved, I do realise the amount of energy involved but, not all that energy would be released as crushing, melting forces, would it? And there was far too much materials between the top section of the tower and the ground for it have an easy a passage as it did. The weight thing isn't that important in relation to the tower because, at one stage the tower was one unit, now, once the top section got going, it was 2 pieces of that unit. So 1/5 crushing the other 4/5's is something I find hard to believe. Even more so because the tower get weaker in structure as it gets higher, so the floors nearer the ground would be a lot more rigid and tough. How the weakest part of the structure was able to crush the strongest part is not in my comprehension, I can't understand it.

Quote :

It was supposed to handle a plane crash, because it was estimated that no floor would be damaged enough to collapse by a plane. But once a floor collapsed, the tower was doomed. Strange how you want to find a complicated explaination where everything was sadly simple.

You honestly believe that they thought a plane would fly in and that none of the floors would give way? Give me a break...(well they actually knew they wouldn't give way, I'll come to that in a second but since you think this was it's down fall I'll go with it) A 707 has a fuel capacity of 23,000 gallons of fuel, twice that of a 757. I'm not say the 757 was full bit I am saying that if the designers of the towers were thinking of the biggest plane at the time hitting it, I'm sure they would take into account the possibility of it having a full load. A hell of alot more fuel than the 757's that hit the towers would of had.

Also, how was the building doomed just from floors giving way? Please don't talk about the trusses, I can show you pictures if you want that show, without a doubt, that trusses were NOT the only structure used to carry the load of each floor. Although that's what I always heard, and believed until rescently seeing these photos, "Never trust a truss", I've heard firemen saying it, I've seen images of them with fireproofing on, I've even watched the building of the towers and seen them being hoisted up into the air, I've watched the NIST tests when they used trusses for thier test but as soon as you see these image and look closely, you see, where there are no trusses in place yet, steel I beams connecting the inner core to the outer walls.

Ok, I've added a couple of pics to show what I mean. First is a close up of the beams, second is a copy of the first but with lines to show where the beams are, for the partially blind and the last is the original picture.

See the outer wall columns, they are 14 inches wide, so them beams are a good sized beam. Also, the trusses were not installed this way, they came part of a large section with 4 or 5 trusses attached to a large floor. I'm not sure the dimensions of these floor sections but if you want to see them just google "The building of the world trade center".

The floors should never have failed the way we are told, the trusses were not the final load bearing part of the floor. So it couldn't happen the way the said.

Quote from tristancliffe :

How about, before attempting to analyise the failing of a structure, you actually get the first hint of an education about that area. Don't believe what a shitty youtube video shows you, try and think for yourself.

In your favour, you type pretty damn well for someone so clueless about what they write about (apart from 'alot' ). Most feckless people can barely use a keyboard.

I've done a hell of alot more than watch a few shitty youtube vids. More like 100's of hours of videos, every kind. Debunkers vids, the lot. I've read a fair few papers too. Obviously I do think for myself otherwise I'd agree with you, with your qualifications. And why do I need to get an education on the area of how structures fail when there are enough reputable individuals out there who have years of knowledge in this field and I can learn from them, maybe you could too if you even considered taking the time to read some stuff on it. Not look at grainy youtube vids and think all conspiracy theorists are nuts.

A few names if you are interested: Webster Tarpley, Richard Cage, David Griffin and Jim Hoffman(EDIT: also Richard Grove has alot of info on the profiteers of 9/11) are just a few good names I can think of that don't have any crack pot theories like many others do. I would encourage you to do some research and not sit back and think you know it all because of a mechanical engineering degree.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment on the typing. I try my best. One thing I hate is having to make a sentence out for myself. Or blocks of text with no punctuation are the worst.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 19:16.

Quote from tristancliffe :

There is little point trying to explain anything to you if you think that somehow buildings use a different set of physics to other scenarioes. You've read a little and watched a few videos, and now you seem to think that all buildings have to fall over to collapse regardless of what hits them or how they are build....

I still think you are utterly wrong, but as I can't empirically prove anything specific about the WTC (if only for lack of time and data) you will always think I'm wrong. I would hope that you might see sense, but I very much doubt it.

I hope you are happy believing what you believe, even if it doesn't actually match real life. Have a nice Christmas.

Man, believe what you want. I'll be glad not to read your blabberings here again.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'd have thought a degree in mechanical engineering would deem me slightly more qualified than you.

You're right, that would deem you slightly more qualified than me.

Quote :

And what has that got to do with it? It was an example of how structures fail when you said that because it had supported the floors above before it would always be able to. My experiement proved that wrong.

Yes, under extreme circumstance like standing on a can, yes it will fail. But this can, even in comparison to one floor, still isn't a good one. If the can does represent one floor, what happens the remaining floors? They all give way in the same way? Did the top section of the towers weight spread evenly across all columns the same way your foot pressed on the can with an even force? I doubt it so how could it fall straight down, like the can gets crushed?

Quote :

Has nothing to do with it.

Maybe the materials side of it has nothing to do with it but certainly the weight of each object has alot to do with it. You try crush a can by dropping another can on it.

Quote :

Why is the section below stronger? Assuming the method of construction was the same from top to bottom, then both 'ends' would be the same strength. But anyway, you are still missing the point about the can experiement.

Yes the ends would be quite similar but the towers were not built the same way from the bottom up. So, obviously the bottom sections, definately the bottom third, would be so hard for that top section to crush.

Quote :

But if you put concrete in it so that it had a lot more mass then it might well crumple once the upper 'floors' failed, as the dynamic failure took hold.

It might? Is that the best you can do? And this dynamic failure again, it's as if nothing got in its way. It's as if this concrete wasn't actually concrete but hard clay and just crushed the instant it got some pressure put on it.

Quote :

I explain that by suggesting that the model is not valid enough to carry out that experiment and end up with sensible results. 1 Was the structure solid (i.e. bolted together). 2 Were the load bearing structures in vaguely the right place? 3 Was the model sufficiently slender to model a twin tower with a similar strength:height:mass ratio to make it comparible. 4 Was the load from the plane distributed in vaguely the right direction? I didn't watch the whole video (only the first 3 seconds). The path of least resistance isn't necessarily falling over sideways, unless a force is used to make it fall over (i.e. it goes out of balance). The building collapsed whilst remaining in balance - a perfectly reasonably state of affairs.

Ok, 1 no it wasn't solid, therefore it had more potential to be unstable and fall over/apart. 2 The load bearing structures in this experiment, the 2 side walls, were alot similar to the towers, as the outer columns of the towers were load bearing. And because there was less outer walls, this added to the potential of this building being crushed. 3 No this "building" did not have similar strength:height:mass ratios because it was not a scaled model test, it didn't need to be. 4 The load from the plane wasn't taken into account here, although there was only two outer walls and no core columns, so we could say the plane totally destroyed the wall it went in through, the core and the wall it exited. Now it should definately fall. You didn't watch it? Fair enough... Ok, so let me get this straight. The path of most resistance was straight down and it's perfectly reasonable to think that the tower could collapse straight down? Just by gravity? I understand the planes went in and steel warped bent out of shape but gravity had to pull this mass through the remaining tower.

Quote :

That structure could take the weight, but a building has a lot more mass for a given amount of support, and is a vastly more complex structure. The desk tidies experiement is simply not valid to draw specific conclusions from - indeed, it is no more valid (specifically) than my coke can experiment. One collapses downwards, the other falls over. En passe. And besides, the desk tidies weren't designed to take that load, which is the same argument you used to rubbish my experiement.

The building could take the weight, so could the towers. They stood for over an hour with no signs of saggin, weakening. Buildings are built to take the weight of the top parts. Obviously there is more mass in actual buildings, but it's also obvious that they use stronger materials to hold up that mass.

Ok, you say that's what I used to rubbish your experiment. That's rubbish because, did you see this chap standing on these desk tidies? No, these desk tidies WERE designed to be stacked on top of each other. Same way as if you used another coke can, instead of yourself as the crushing force. These were designed for what this experiment looked at, they were designed to hold more of the same thing on top of itself, no doubt.

Quote :

It almost certainly was the same strength. Same size of core, same dimensions of materials. A building is only supported on one side - the base. Unless the WTC were also supported at the top, somehow. The loads would vary instantaneously (or thereabouts), as weather, temperature and the number of planes flying into varied.

Well technically they would be the same strength at the "ends" but as I covered, the floors and columns were not built with equal strength from the bottom up. The top of the building having less metal beams and also the beams were not as thick.

Quote :

Ah, but I am qualified. In engineering. Which is what we are discussing. The specialisations of civil engineering are neither here nor there at the complexity we are talking about.

True, so if "The specialisations of civil engineering are neither here nor there at the complexity we are talking about " why do you feel the need to try and belittle me with your, "I'm qualified" ego boosting shit? It's not even the same engineering. Structural engineering is a different ball game, especially with regards to buildings crushing themselves. That's more along the lines of physics but neither of us is qualified in atht field, so what happens then? The laws of physics come in and are you, with your mechanical engineering degree, going to say these laws are wrong or wrongly calculated?

Quote :

I don't know why your taking the time to show how little you know either. Perhaps you should stop? Use the time you save to go to uni and study a form of mechanical engineering perhaps?

The reason is because I dislike people like you who believe they know it all because they have a degree. Talk shit and expect people to lap it up, I've seen it with other subjects on this forum. I'm not saying you're a stupid mofo but you do go on like you deserve to be the one telling others whats what, not only about 9/11. I think you talk shit when it comes to 9/11. Ok, you have your beliefs but they're not based on the correct knowlegde. Your degree probably covers building/designing structures but structures failing and the things that happen because of it, you have no clue or qualification.

Quote from mookie427 :

I have to say tristan is speaking much more sense than you U4IK

Each to their own...

Tell me why I should? No one ever said or treats this like an official enquiry. People are just defending what they believe to be true and discussing what others have to say. Nobody has to do any of this, but they chose to.

Quote from mookie427 :

I never said I was taking any computer generated imagery as fact

Ok, you don't take them as fact, so what do you base your theory on, that the towers crushed themselves to pieces?

Quote :

yeah, only a handful of people survived at the base of the hotel because they were in a stairwell that was reinforced after the 1993 bombing. IIRC yes the bottom few floors did survive to some extent but they suffered huge damage, as the rest of the building collapsed onto it followed by the trade centre debris

Yeah, there only survived some floors/stairwells because it was reinforced. Was the towers basement and other sections reinforced? How did they get crushed then? They were obviously larger, stronger steel beams and columns holding that up.

Quote :

Anyway, I'm gonna give this thread a rest for a bit as it's angrying up my blood. You obviously are so set in your ways that nothing will change your mind. You carry on believing it was a controlled demolition or whatever on the twin towers, I won't stop you, I myself used to be one of the people who believed the entire thing was an inside job but I saw sense. In my view the only attack we should be questioning is the Pentagon

The same could be said for many people here arguing for the official theory. Ok, you saw sense, nice one. How can you question the Pentagon but not the towers, or Shanksville?

Btw, if you did once think the entire thing was an inside job, I'd like to see what made you see sense because I'm finding it hard to believe.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue 16 Sep 2008, 15:39.

Quote from mookie427 :

what, and they would go undiscovered for 8 years? Don't be so silly

Of course, who would be searching for these devices in the walls and floors? Anyway, it's just as crazy an idea as any of the official ones.