Quote from SamH :

That's a disproportionate response, and not acceptable. Besides that, It's a bit silly to believe that anyone is actually going to get useful or usable 9/11 answers from an internet forum. Seriously. Most of us regard the content of this thread in the same way, or similar, to the content of the FES website.

Well if you don't think you will get answers then don't take part? Simple as. I feel the ONLY way people will get the truth is talking amongst themselves because government officials, corporations or companies are not going to get into the details of it. So this is the only way, imo.

FES website?

Quote :

It's fun to kick the suggestion around but we've largely got a bit more of a grip on the fact that much if not all of the conspiracy theories are based on twisted and perverted information and rely heavily on the power of suggestion to fill in the gaps of ignorance. Not all of us, though, and it's kinda fun prodding and poking a bit of fun at the ones that choose to relay laughable theories sooner than think for themselves.

Laughable theories? See, you can't even see that the Official story for 9/11 is itself a theory.

But I don't see the fun in poking you guys for believing in a theory? I'm here to try discuss things and find out more, not diss people because they believe something different.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:41.

Quote from Juls :

...snip...

Ok, so since you know so much about how the building acted after the collapse began, maybe you could contact NIST(National Institue for Standards and Technology) with your figures and inform them of what exactly happened because not one investigation into 9/11 actually goes into how each floor reacted, how, once the collapse began, each floor was crushed in fractions of a second.

You seem like you know what you are talking about but applying it to the wrong situation. You see the towers fall like they did and you put the wrong equation or something to it. How come NIST didn't come out and say what you've just said? Or anyone for that matter, you are the first person I have heard actually calculating the energy/force/whatever that it took to bring the towers down in 10seconds. But still it's not right, you say it created billions of watts of energy, ok, but you don't say how this energy was dispersed. It could have been anything, even air friction as you stated. Air frictio wont cause steel to melt, or concrete to be crushed into pieces, tiny microscopic pieces.

Anyway, I just feel you lads think you know what your on about but how come no significant official or investigation has come up with the figures of what happened each floor? NIST came up with a computer program which was altered to make it mimic what actually happened. Ask Kevin Ryan, he was fired because of asking questions about their tests.

Just one more thing Juls, that video of the failed demolition, did you watch it? How come that could fall atleast one floor, 8-10feet, and not fall to pieces? I'm sure it weighed alot and you say that the top section of the tower only had to fall 50cms to gain enough energy to start crushing. I don't know but it doesn't seem to fit the tower, what you are saying.

-------------------------------------------------

Quote from wsinda :

Then do the math yourself. Or post a link to a page where it is done. You won't convince people by typing extra question marks.
....
Furthermore, all that the conspiracy theorists do is shed doubt upon the "classical" explanation. I have not seen any positive proof, like "mission accomplished" messages to Bush, or confessions from someone who was in the plot. (Of course, that only proves what a cunning conspiracy it was. :rolleyes

No, you are the one trying to tell me how it is, so you show me any document which clearly states what happened each floor, after the collapse began. Surely it is easily worked out? Since people here seem to think they can do it with examples and stuff, show me where you get your calculations from.

"Classical explanation" is exactly what? The 9/11 Comission report? NIST report? Both are massively flawed, there are alot of architects and engineers who for one thing are alot better educated on this subject than you or I, so when they say that these reports aren't exactly full reports and they doubt their findings I find it hard to believe these reports when they are trying to tell us about why/how the towers fell and the people like you who use them as their side of the "arguement".

--------------------------------------------------

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yes. It's a technical term. Slightly different from a static failing.
What height would you like? A floors height? That would be enough wouldn't it - 8 feet or so.

Listen, watch the tower when they start to fall, there is no way they had enough energy to force out the walls/debrit like it did, it's just not possible. @Juls, what energy would it take to force these walls and debrit 100's of feet away from the tower, right at the beginning of the collapse?

Quote :

Whole sections? You mean an entire floor jump out and landed on it? Or do you mean small bits of debris?

Please....lets not start talking silly. I did say whole sections, yes. Sections which were blown off the towers, shit like this doesn't just fall apart from a gravity collapse, sorry it just doesn't. You think it does? Prove it... Here's an image of the Marriott Hotel after the collapse - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WTC1.jpg (large image) It was 22 storeys high and this section was the only part still intact. See here for more info on the building.

Quote :

Yes, why not. Steel doesn't have a particularly high melting point compared to some things, and it's possible to generate lots of heat doing mundane things, like dragging rubber across tarmac or unscrewing a rusty screw.

Sorry?? Compared to what things? And how do you suggest these temperatures are reached in a gravity collapse? You think dragging rubber on tarmac or unscrewing a rusty screw from wood actually generates alot of heat? If you think that's alot of heat well the heat needed to melt/warp steel/iron would be colossal in your eyes. I can't figure out why you would even use this as a sort of comparison to generating alot of heat, burning rubber is nothing, unscrewing anything isn't in comparison. So use something else like burning propane, now that is quite a mundane act in itself but creates a hell of alot of heat.

Quote :

Why isn't it? It's not a bad model of a building really.

You think? Since when have you seen a hollow building? I'd like to see one.

Quote :

Absolutely. The building may have turned to smaller bits of rubble, but it still has the same mass and momentum. The size of the individual bits doesn't come into it.

It doesn't? Really? So lets say the whole top part of the building is already in pieces, now drop it. You are saying it would do the exact same damage? Seriously?

Quote :

Pretty sure.
As the building collapses and acts upon the building below, a force is generated. But as the building isn't uniform in structure the force isn't uniform in magnitude across the section. Therefore one half might be unsupported (low force) whilst the other is supported (high force). Depending on where the CoG was at any given point, these internal forces will tend to divert the falling structure.

Stand on some bathroom scales. It'll read ~75kg. Now bounce a bit (but don't jump). You'll see the scales vary as internal forces (internal to the system) vary. Same with a building.

It strikes me as though you don't know what you're talking about.

Huh? The building was unifrom/symetrical, for the most part. But you say it isn't so prove it.

Lets talk of CoG. The first tower to fall. Example: You are on a bike and begin to fall over, what's the only thing that can happen to make you fall straight down and not over? The ground to be taken from under you. That's exactly what had to happen in the tower. the floors below where it began to tip had to be take out for it to fall down and not over. I don't care how much energy it had falling, nothing can change laws of physics. Once it started moving, nothing should have stopped it continuing to fall over.

I don't get what you are trying to say. If I jump up and down, sorry bounce not jump, is that not an external force as far as the scales is concerned? I can't see the comparison to the towers with tat one sorry.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

I guess so. To be honest, I don't really care. I'm just arguing with him for fun.

What a pr***... How else are we supposed to get the answers? Only through discussion. You coming here just for a laugh is so annoying. If you think you know it all then piss off, you don't need to hear what we say, do you? Atleast the others are discussing points not bringing up insignificant arguements just "for fun".

Just had to stop replying to others when I saw this. It'll be the last time I respond to you anyway.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Well how did plane hijackers get through all of the airport security, and manage to walk right into the cockpit of planes?

Well how would any plane hijackers get through airport security? Use weapons that can't or wont be detected. Take hostages and storm the cockpit, pretty simple really because the air hostesses aren't going to put up much of a fight. I'm sure if they really wanted they could do it with nothing but words, just scream "we have a bomb, allah..." whatever. And that's it, plane hijacked. Funny how there's no footage of the hijackers in the airports where they boarded the hijacked planes. They show images of Atta at a security check in an airport before getting a flight to wherever the hijack plane was departing from.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 00:21.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

If it was an inside job, then they would have:

• Not flown planes into the buildings, because that would be difficult to arrange
  

Not too difficult really. UAV's and GPS, just a couple of things I can think of.

Quote :

• Not have the towers collapse in a way that looks simmilar to a planned explosion
  

It seems to be credible in some peoples eyes so it obviously worked.

Quote :

• Randomly plant bombs inside of the building and say that terrorists blew up the towers, because if the government were trying to blow it up, wouldn't it be easier, and less suspicious if they just said that terrorists blew up the buildings?
  

It would be easier but they needed this to be on the scale of Pearl Harbour, an all out attack. More targets, more terror. They couldn't just blow the Pentagon either because people would know it wouldn't be possible to get in there. Sure it's normally impossible for any aircraft to get into Washington airspace, so how that plane hit the Pentagon without being intercepted or shot down is another question.

Quote from Juls :

As soon as the 80 000 tons of the upper floors started to fall at least 50 cms because pillars bent on one floor, they acquired enough speed and therefore kinetic energy to crush the next floor below...many documents written about this subject calculate that the kinetic energy of the upper floors when they started falling and reached the first remaining floor was already more than 10 times what could stand that floor.

Ok, so it crushed each floor. Not sure how many, we'll say 60 to make it easy, 60 solid floors with no fires or damage. The top begins to sag and bang it begins. How long would it take to crush the first few floors? Not long, but as it continues to fall the structure below it would be getting considerably stronger, therefore slowing and breaking apart this massive 80,000 tonne upper floor section. I don't care how you work it out, there is no way on earth that an 80,000 tonne structure can crush a +/- 60 storey structure below it, that was made to hold 80,000 tonnes when motionless, in about 10 seconds. No way.

Quote :

You write the lower part of the tower should not crush because it was built to stand the upper floors...
Yes the lower part of the tower was built to stand the upper part...but when it is steady, not when it started falling because pillars gave up in one floor. In the same way, as soon as the lower floor of a demolished tower blows, the other floors fall one floor and acquire enough kinetic energy to smash themselves on the ground.

I have seen one demolition like what you described and you can see what happens for yourself... http://www.metacafe.com/watch/721214/failed_demolition/ Buildings that get demolished don't smash themselves to pieces when falling, there is a sequence of explosives placed all over the building, on every floor, to make sure it falls where they want it to fall. See WTC7 for details. The towers demolition was different because it had to be seen to collapse from the impact zones.

Quote :

To give a rough idea, when 80 000 tons (upper floors) free fall 50 cms, they reach a speed of 3 m/s.
Kinetic energy is then 360 million joules.
Let's say the next floor below can stop it. Sure it will stop it in less than one second...it is not a trampoline it is hard. 360 million joules in one second...this next floor has to absorb 360 million watts.
360 million watts. Now you have an idea about the power levels involved in this fall. As soon as it falls one floor, it fully collapses. This is simple logic.

Simple logic???? You say it could take less than a second for the first floor, ok. What time for the next? The next? The next? There's alot of floors to do in 10 seconds and I don't think it could get faster as it's hitting off a solid steel framed structure, with 4inch thick concrete floors. How you think doesn't seem very logical to me, alot of technical terms alright.

Quote :

Think about energy again. The towers weight at least 200 000 tons each. 10s after the collapse started, everything is on the ground, and steady. It means the entire potential energy of 200 000 tons of concrete forming a huge tower was dissipated as heat and vibrations....in 10s. It represents tens of billions of watts. With so much energy spent in so little time, everything is reduced into ashes, and what can melt melts. It is easy to calculate an estimation....do it....this is huge power.

Are you serious? Simple logic, yeah? "tens of billions of watts" from a gravity driven collapse??? The fire supposidly made the supporting floor structures fail and gravity took over, yes? It's impossible to create billions of watts of energy just from gravity collapse. I'm no scientist but I doubt you'll find one that will agree with you.

Quote :

of course not. It is like a collision. The upper part of the building starts falling 50 cms and acquires slow speed...from that point it is unstoppable...but it does not mean that it remains intact. It collides with the lower part and gets detroyed (from below) by the energy released too.

Ok, it "collides with the lower part and gets destroyed(from below)", but how then did it still, after being mostly destroyed by the time it got near the bottom, still have the force to crush the bottom floors and smash into the basement, which has 7 floors underground I believe, then into the subway?

Quote from BlakjeKaas :

There ain't a conspiracy, the planes got hijacked by some drunk wannabe-americans, the american gov. was too slow to shoot the planes down, end of story.

No conspiracy w/e from towers collapsing with bombs or things. Just bad luck, molten plane, and kerosine.

Hmmm... How hot does kerosine(jet fuel) burn? In optimum conditions? Now find out how hot alluminum, iron or steel has to be before it will "melt". Then come back and say "No conspiracy...just bad luck..."

Quote from BlakjeKaas :

so, you say, if I fly a plane in your house, only YOUR house will collapse? (or not, because your house is so incredibly strong) ((assuming you have neighbours))

So you are comparing a 100+ storey building(built with alot of steel) to a row of houses(built with stone and wood)?

I'd suggest recording and .250 speed, F2/F3 speed up or down. I have to have all AA/AF off while playing to get descent fps and when I fraps it has gone to 1fps with alot of cars on screen. Recording at slow speed then speeding it back up to edit helps.

Btw, my system is ancient and doesn't come close to anyones here, so if I can you should be able to. I would reduce the AA/AF slightly but not turn it off, press F2 a couple of times in the replay to slow it down and then fraps. Should be ok, once you figure out how to speed it back up again.

Quote from wsinda :

So you believe that the molten metal was steel? And not another metal that melts easier, like zinc (from galvanized steel) or aluminum (widely used in any office building). Were the reported puddles of molten metal ever analyzed properly?

Hahahh...

That was my planned response to Tristan. Or something similar. As far as I know there was no molten steel. Mostly iron and alluminum. So no, I don't think the molten metal was steel.

The molten pools of iron were witnessed by iron workers, so I would say they know what they are talking about.

O.......k......

Syncronicity is everywhere but because a certain font shows a plane and something resembling a tower, people use the Q33 thing as proof that 9/11 was caused by some bloke who worked for M$. Or that someone knew it was coming. Now that's bs!! Type Q33 NY to add some extra craziness.

Ok, look up a show from before 9/11 called "The Lone Gunman" and see what happens in that. Now ask youself is that syncronicity or foreknowledge?

I have to say that almost all politicians are corrupt, they all have their own or their bretherens interests at heart, not the interests of the people. And this is in any country, on any continent.

Quote from lerts :

the ideas on my thread are all my own

i get them most from art who is a manifestation of the all knowing colective uncouncious, like lyrics or paintings

911 was obviously not done by bin laden alone

i see a dark usa and a light usa, bush, pentagon is to the light side, cia to the dark

Ok, all your own is hard to believe but I can't tell for sure so I'll have to take your word for it...

The whole US government is on the dark side, imo. They do nothing for the people, nothing. They let the bankers flood the economy with "cash" and take loans from these bankers and the tax payers pay it back, yeah that's a government I want to be governed by.... not.

Btw, bin Laden has never admitted to 9/11 and the FBI isn't looking for bin Laden for 9/11 so why do you think he didn't work alone? Actually, you say bin Laden did not do this alone, yes? So where did you get that info from? And why believe the news, if it's all propoganda bs??

See - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Quote from FBI Website :

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

"...throughout the world." Surely if he was wanted for 9/11 it would be in block capitals somewhere?

The Q33 N thing is crazy. Someone who knew that font came up with that I bet. There was not flights or terminal numbers relating to the towers.
http://digg.com/tech_news/_WTC ... r_Someone_saw_it_coming._.. Something I just googled now.

Quote from lerts :

i mean you cant call me crazy for trying to listening to my soul through synchronity and at the same time believe all the bs conspiracy propaganda

i see no difference on cnn propaganda vs internet propaganda david icke style,different content same bs

I never said you were crazy, I may have insinuated that you were a mason but never crazy. Each to there own.

So you believe nowhere or nobody is telling the truth? It's all bs? You have some strange theories of your own in your own thread, so where do you get these from? I'm sure you get them somewhere and not just your head, although it could be plausible.

I will say this, the 9/11 Commission report is where all the propoganda about 9/11 started. Atleast the lads who made Loose Change thought they were making something for the people. There may have been some false info in there but they weren't to know that when making it. I only watched the final cut of Loose Change rescently and I have to say it's a huge leap from the 1st edition in terms of accurate information.

Quote from lerts :

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=_-3L1mXQzw4

if you believe this prooves anything you should learn about synchronity

this site is great where you can discuss this issues with such freedom

Q33 N

I just covered that, it's meaningless, not worth the effort.

And Q33 N relates to what? I know what it does but why is it significant? Q33 N means nothing.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Not at all impossible. It's called inertia and momentum. A dynamic failing.

Ha... A dynamic failing? Anyway, the towers top section didn't have enough momentum to crush the floors directly below like it did, if it was dropped from a height well it may have a chance but not crushing it right from the start. Only last night I watched a Chanel4 program about the 9/11 Hotel, where the hotel beside the towers was actually crushed from falling debrit but a section which was reinforced after the 93 bombings still remained. And that had whole sections of the tower fall directly onto it from a huge height.

Quote :

Can't it? Ever felt how hot a screw can get just turning it through soft wood? Imagine tonnes of it falling on top of itself.

So you believe that floors falling on top of each other caused some of the steel to melt?

Quote :

Steel box columns can collapse in on themselves. It's called buckling. Try it with a coke can - stand on it, touch the side and watch it buckle with the same weight it used to take. Take another coke can. Stand on it. Then jump (and land on it). It will crush, even though you weigh the same...

Not really a good comparison though.

Quote :

No, it would have broken up as it fell and the massive forces were distributed over the material. It would still weigh the same, but just not be a solid, single piece.

So you are saying that this crushing piece of building came apart as it got closer to the ground but was able to still cursh the strongest part of the structure? These box columns were made of 4inch thick steel. You're saying this falling/crumbling structure was able to crush these columns?

Quote :

The 'outside interference' was the internal structure. The law of conservation of momentum was maintained, but as the towers are not an constant density throughout the structure it would quite easily divert the direction of collapse.

You sure you know what you are talking about? How was the conservation of momentum maintained if it changed direction without anything acting upon it? If you beliebve the internal structure acted upon this to change it's direction, please explain...

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Sun 14 Sep 2008, 16:13.

Quote from Juls :

Yes, maybe if the last floor starts falling it should be slow, and all floors pile-up nicely...but this is not what happened.

When towers collapsed, the top part block, falling and crunching everything below, weighted between 40 000 and 80 000 tons. With such a weight falling at once, things below do not pile up, but crunch and burn into powder.

The energy released by such a mass falling is HUGE. Several times enough to liquify dozens of tons of steel, several times enough to change into ashes everything inside the towers. And the falling mass gets bigger as floors below are smashed and start falling too.

So big that only a tiny fraction of this energy released is enough to smash completely all floors above... and so the fall is only a fraction slower than a free fall.

Where did you hear all that?

First, What made all the structure below the impact loose it's rigidity? It would be impossible, I'll say that again, it would be impossible for the top section of either tower to "crush" the remaining section of either tower, no matter how heavy it was. It held all that weight for years, so why, when a plane hits the tower, the floors/columns below loose their strength? Impossible...

Second, here's another impossibility, the steel was liquified from the top section falling onto the floors below? Wth man, that just can't happen, I don't know where you heard that.

You talk about tiny fraction of energy as if the rest of the building was made of paper, the building was built to hold up the top part of the tower, why when the top falls the rest just goes pfff and lets the top crush it to the ground. Steel box columns cannot collapse into themselves, straight down, so how you can mechanically picture this collapse in your mind confuses me.

So, what happened to the section that did all the crushing? It just fell into pieces when it hit the ground? I'm curious because if this falling/crushing section of the building had the energy to crush the ENTIRE building, surely it would still be intact sitting on top of all the rubble? No?

Lets look at the conservation of momentum for a moment.

Quote :

The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects (which has no interactions with external agents) is constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system.

Now look at the first tower to collapse. Then ask yourself, was this collapse controlled? Your answer can only be yes because this is a law of nature. Once something starts moving it will continue on its path unless something from outside it acts upon it. The top of the tower begins to fall the way mechanically minded people think it should, falling over and off the main tower, but then suddenly it just goes straight down, impossible without outside interference. I don't care how heavy this section was, the tower was well able to withstand this section and it should have fallen off the tower, not crushed it totally to the ground, then itself crumbles when it hits the ground. It would be funny only for the 1000's of people who were murdered.

Quote from lerts :

i think you show big gullibility and paranoia thinking bush was involved

bush was not involved, he gives me good vibrations, he is a luciferian, a firm believer in freedom

You can't be serious? You sound like a mason covering his bretherens ass. Any true luciferian is far from a believer in freedom...

I understand that Bush isn't the one in control but you can't honestly tell me that Bush, being a luciferian, truely believes in freedom for the Americans? As Rdcranno said, Bush is a puppet being told what to say. There are much more powerfull men than him. The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations are where the big boys are. Most of them nobody here will have heard of. Quick example, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahearn(former Irish Taoiseach) both were invited to the annual Bilderberg meeting one year before they were (s)elected.

9/11 was the starting point of all our troubles today, the "War on Terror" will never end, and I mean never because how can they ever catch "Terror"? It's another impossibility.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Sun 14 Sep 2008, 15:40.

Try this - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=905165#post905165

Hey Dan,

I watched your replay and tried your set. I couldn't get around the oval with your set so I adjusted nearly everything to get it drivable for me. I've attached a replay so you can see how I got around the oval, a 14.8 I think was my best time. Also put my set there for you, but you may need to adjust some settings.

Hope this helps you out.

Btw, I couldn't get the layout from your replay so I just went onto the server and got that 1.

Nice track but only room for 1 car. You might want to reduce(use w/e to reduce/increase the width of checpoints and marshals) the width of the marshals, they are a little bit on the track.

Anyway, your problem was the first checkpoint was facing the wrong way. It was like this [ instead of this ]. (use , or . to rotate checkpoints)

Uploaded the fixed version.

Presidential Directives NSPD 51 and HSPD 20 and more.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v= ... QjoSQ&feature=related

Nice idea, had to give it a go!

Got about 4 or 5 full laps and I did watch your .spr first.

47.36

Some people will get quicker by blasting by the finish line but hey, it's just for fun.

Hi,

I'd like to sign up for this league too if I could, racing the LX6. Looks like fun.

Sounds good, I'm in too.

Nice "How to" Becky and +1 for sticky.

I had this problem just yesterday. I think it's a new feature in the new patch, I have test patch Y24. You have to press shift+f twice now, once to leave just mouse cursor and slider at bottom of screen and again to clear all.

Hope that's it.

Edit: Check out the "Replay Controls" section - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=44644

Is it fading in and out at the beginning and end of each clip or somewhere in the clip?

I'll tell you both anyway.

To fade start/finish, put your mouse over the top corner of the clip and your mouse cursor will change, click, hold and drag.

To fade in and out during a clip you need to insert video/audio envelopes. Select the video or audio clip by clicking it, then go to Insert, then choose whatever envelope you want. A bar will appear in the selected clip. Right click on the bar to add points. Event Velocity is for speeding up/slowing down video.

Aspect ratio is different screen settings, sort of, but I'm sure wikipedia can tell you what it actuall does.

Hope that helps.