But, as the official story goes, the outer skin was pulled inward due to the sagging trusses and I would imagine each pancaking floor there after pulled the outer skin inward. I'm not saying it's definitely not the outer skin, just that it doesn't seem to fit with my understanding of the official theory.
It looks to me, and this is my opinion here, that between 1.12 and 1.14, right at the bottom of the screen, you can see the outer skin below the impact zone getting blown out and down.
It looks to me, and this is my opinion here, that between 1.12 and 1.14, right at the bottom of the screen, you can see the outer skin below the impact zone getting blown out and down.
But the thing is I never asked you anything about pancaking, or to explain anything to me... and this is what I said in response to you first mentioning the pancake theory - "And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing... it's a bull sh!t theory..."
"blast zone", I like your wording, hehe...
Anyway, where the debris comes through the dust/smoke is actually above the impact zone, put your finger on the screen where the impact zone is and play the vid from the 1.07 mark in the description, you will be able to see the debris above your finger, not very scientific but it'll work, the camera doesn't move much once the collapse begins. So, that leads us to only one conclusion, the top (1/3) section of the tower falling was breaking into pieces as it passed the impact zone, which then begs the question: How the fcuk can a section of a structure that's breaking into pieces, have the structural strength to crush the remaining (2/3) section of the building, completely, but not actually demolish any other building it falls onto? (see WTC 4, 5 + 6)
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
What? When did I ever ask you to explain what happens in a pancake collapse?
Holy sh!t, you sound like Donal Rumsfeld when he was asked where are the weapons of mass destruction... "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
I'll ask again, what part, below or above the impact zone, is that debris from in the video I linked to... here it is again, it's at 1min 16secs... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2VcxDzWk4
And to Boris, it would help this discussion if you didn't bring in altered or edited pics or vids. Makes it harder to discuss the facts....
I hope you're making yourself feel better by using that language... hahaha
And you don't have to explain anything, as I already told you. I do know what happens in a pancake collapse.
Anyway, tell me where the piece is from, because it's important. Thanks. Or to be more specific for you. Is it from above or below the impact zone?
And you don't have to explain anything, as I already told you. I do know what happens in a pancake collapse.
Anyway, tell me where the piece is from, because it's important. Thanks. Or to be more specific for you. Is it from above or below the impact zone?
Oh no, that looks all wrong... even the building in front doesn't look right. How anyone could fall for that is beyond me...
It seems to me that you were taught different physics to what I understand, AND also these other engineers understand. How? I don't know...
I know it's a piece of the outer wall, that is blatantly obvious. Where on the building did it come from? Roughly. Was it from the falling section or the section below the impact zone?
Edit: Think about the pancaking theory, before you answer, because this section is roughly 6-7 floors in height, probably more...
Who's judging this intelligence contest btw? You? Haha.... go away...
I told ye Boris, people like Shotglass just like stirring the sh!t. They think they are more intelligent than everyone else and the only thing they can do when they run out of ideas is belittle people, I've been here before, just let him say whatever, ignore him and he'll get bored and go away...
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
You don't need to explain to me how it happened, I understand what you are saying, you don't need to simplify your explanation and you don't need to tell me to watch videos or interviews, I've seen them all. It has been a long time since this happened and I have already discussed everything you are saying in this thread. You are doing a poor job of convincing me that what you say is true.
Here's a video for you to watch, and I'd like your expert opinion on what you see. At exactly 1minute 16seconds of the video there is visible debris being ejected through the smoke, could you explain to me what part of the tower that is exactly, please. This footage was released by NIST under the Freedom Of Information Act.
What? I said you are not an engineer or anything close. I never said anything about you being right or wrong... You suggested that you were some sort of engineer, which you are not... I'm not the worlds most qualified engineer is what you said, which suggests you are an engineer, just not the most qualified.
I don't need you to explain anything, thanks. I seen enough to know the many different theories.
You're not even close to being an engineer, lol.
We don't need a kiddies diagram to show us what happened, we have actual pictures and videos for that, and I understasnd what RAM is saying, I just don't agree with it...
You're a funny bloke...
Nice Boris, lets hear his response to that. Heh...
I know I said I wouldn't but I can't leave this...
Wow, is my first thought reading your response...
"You think mechanical structures can't sag with enough pressure? lol ok, this is getting laughable now." - Where did I say buildings can't sag? I was saying building 7 didn't sag at that kink like you suggested. I've seen enough footage and pictures to know what happened. If you think it sagged to create that kink then you are a crackpot... Watch the footage, the small structure at the top of building 7, can't remember what exactly it's called, but that disappears into the building, then the kink and within milliseconds the rest of the building is falling to the ground and is completely destroyed in 6-7 seconds. All this with very little movement to the north, south, east or west. I watched it and seen the pics from afterwards, it swayed very little on the way down. And it only slightly damaged the buildings close to it, which it towered over. So if, as you say, it leaned throughout the day, then I would imagine at least one of the buildings beside it(in which ever direction you suggest it was leaning. I presume it was in the direction of the towers as that's where the damage would be.) would have been heavily damaged.
"Your entire argument seems to be that I can't possibly be who I say I am and that you know so much better without ever having done any of the math or even attempting to consider my input." My entire argument? Get real, I'm here to discuss 911, not your education, but if I think your are BS'ing about it then of course I will mention it. And of course I considered your input, I read and responded to it. Also, you listened to a number of people who have had a lot more experience in the field of engineering and who have done, and will continue to do, more math with regards to structures and metals than you ever will and you call them crackpots. I think I treated you with a bit more respect than that. Well, until I got the impression you needed to lie to get a point across...
And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing... it's a bull sh!t theory...
Wow, is my first thought reading your response...
"You think mechanical structures can't sag with enough pressure? lol ok, this is getting laughable now." - Where did I say buildings can't sag? I was saying building 7 didn't sag at that kink like you suggested. I've seen enough footage and pictures to know what happened. If you think it sagged to create that kink then you are a crackpot... Watch the footage, the small structure at the top of building 7, can't remember what exactly it's called, but that disappears into the building, then the kink and within milliseconds the rest of the building is falling to the ground and is completely destroyed in 6-7 seconds. All this with very little movement to the north, south, east or west. I watched it and seen the pics from afterwards, it swayed very little on the way down. And it only slightly damaged the buildings close to it, which it towered over. So if, as you say, it leaned throughout the day, then I would imagine at least one of the buildings beside it(in which ever direction you suggest it was leaning. I presume it was in the direction of the towers as that's where the damage would be.) would have been heavily damaged.
"Your entire argument seems to be that I can't possibly be who I say I am and that you know so much better without ever having done any of the math or even attempting to consider my input." My entire argument? Get real, I'm here to discuss 911, not your education, but if I think your are BS'ing about it then of course I will mention it. And of course I considered your input, I read and responded to it. Also, you listened to a number of people who have had a lot more experience in the field of engineering and who have done, and will continue to do, more math with regards to structures and metals than you ever will and you call them crackpots. I think I treated you with a bit more respect than that. Well, until I got the impression you needed to lie to get a point across...
And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing... it's a bull sh!t theory...
Mate you are talkin nonsense, serioulsy. "A slightly asymmetrical collapse caused a symmetrical one underneath it..." What utter BS, I seriously cannot believe a civil engineer student is actually saying that.
More BS coming up... "There is a kink in the middle where the structure has sagged and was the first place to buckle..." It sagged? Wtf man... come on, you seem to have no sense of mechanical structures and your going to be a civil engineer? It was instantaneous that kink, then within milliseconds the rest of the building followed, not "a few second later it was followed by the building". The whole building was on the ground in a few seconds...
So, after reading all that I'm going to call it a day with you, really, I cannot go on. And as for the crackpot label, well, lets just say I'm starting to think you are the crackpot. Some of the things you have come out with are ludicrous, seriously. And it makes it even worse when you claim to be a civil engineer student, you should know better, or actually you should have been taught better, if indeed you are what you say you are.
Boris, you know what you are on about, don't even entertain these lads, they're just trying to stir the shit. Shotglass knows full well that the first time he played that game, there was no chance he could have done what he said. You are right, the pressure they would have been under(just hijacked a jet, killed pilots, knowing they're going to die) and the g-forces they would have felt in the plane(not major forces but I would compare it to sitting here playing LFS then actually going to the same track for real and trying to go as fast as I did in the game, it would be near impossible because of the g-forces affecting my control of the vehicle), there's no way they could have hit their target having never sat in the cockpit before then, no chance in hell.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
I think I know more than you on this subject, and you the one who's almost graduated as a civil engineer? eh?
Well, judging by the rest of what you said you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.... I will explain. And I never said anyone was speaking for anyone else and I'm sure they, as fully qualified engineers, would never dream of speaking for all engineers. And it's not your writing style, it's the language you use that makes me think you are not what you say you are...
So building 7 leaned for hours, then collapses straight into it's own footprint but it wasn't symmetrical? Seriously? If a building sags and leans for hours due to fire then it will fall over! Not collapse into it's own footprint. Here's another engineer, civil and structural in fact, speaking about building 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8
Now lets just get a previous quote here -
Then you say -
It is physically impossible for an asymmetrical collapse to change to a symmetrical collapse without an outside force acting upon it. Conservation of momentum. Simple. I thought any type of engineer would know that... even I understand that and I'm no engineer.
Steel doesn't break when heat is applied, what type of terms are you learning in this college? As one of the engineers said, steel in buildings is designed to go through a few stages before it will actually fail, elastic and plastic are two stages iirc. They are designed to sag and the connections are designed to withstand the sagging of the beams. This is for any steel frame building, not just the WTC buildings. Also, the jet fuel burned up after the first 15mins according to the official story, so how could it possibly have enough time to weaken the steel? Check out the Cardington fire tests, this is what happens to non-fireproofed steel subjected to hours of high temperature fire.
And of course the heat wont dissipate immediately from the furnace through the floor, but it would pass through any steel/metal structure physically attached to the furnace quicker than through the floor, and also because heat wants to rise in the absence of a good conductor.
But I don't understand why you need to personally attack them by calling them names? I wouldn't do that here so why do you choose to? Why not use your education and knowledge on the subject to disprove what they say? I'll tell you why you don't, because you haven't got the knowledge to. I would love to see you debate one of these "crackpots" on this.
Who or what is Al-Qaeda? That is what you should be asking yourself. But to answer your question, which is extremely hard to answer. Obviously it was done by people who have no consideration for the lower gene pool, as they call us. These people who have a globalisation agenda, people who want to get into the middle east(...justification for military intervention into *insert middle-eastern country here*... which is similar to what the US military wanted in 1962, which was justifictaion for military intervention into Cuba(see Operation Northwoods)), people who are setting up the middle east to attack Iran from all sides, people who want WW3. There are many reasons I can think of but these are all my opinions based on what I have seen happening over the years since 9/11, but I could never actually tell you exactly who done it and why, all I do know is what we are being told is not the truth...
I didn't misunderstand, I know you are not sure of the chemical makeup of the materials in the planes and in the buildings and there effects, while burning, on the structural integrity of the buildings. I know what you are asking. But what you don't understand is that a metallurgical engineer must know the effects of different types of materials while burning, on different types of metal and to figure out what way to build metal structures and the melting point of different types of metals.
You don't seem to me to know what you are on about though, you don't describe the situation in the towers the way other engineers have, be them civil, metallurgical or structural. And you certainly don't come across as, to me anyway, as someone with an education which you say you have, but I'll have to take your word for it, wont I. And to resort to name calling, wtf, this is what people who have no argument resort to. It shows a very low intelligence level to start calling people names, why not prove your point with valid information?
Again, you don't know what you are talking about, which again brings into question your qualifications. If, as you say, it was a symmetrical collapse, describe how, from a random amount of damaged exterior and core columns, the two towers and building 7 could end up having a symmetrical collapse? And of course I know you'll take into consideration the time and amount of weight each connection has to take before it will fail. Also, each connection will have to fail simultaneously for a symmetrical collapse. Which, imo, would be impossible in a collapse due to fire.
Name calling again, yeah, keep it coming. Heat cannot be trapped in a steel framed office building, please, even a furnace looses heat through dissipation. You're trying to tell me a 110 storey highrise with fires on approx. 10 of those floors will not dissapate heat in an hours time? And you're calling other highly qualified individuals crackpots? The heat would have dissipated very quickly into the floors above and below the fires.
A commercial plane, or any plane for that matter, circling over Washington near to the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse for that matter, would cause extreme concern. You need to watch the data recorder analysis before making any more assumptions. The plane came in at roughly the same heading it actually hit the Pentagon at, so all it had to do was dive straight into the building but no, it flew around and descended extremely slowly before impact, not the characteristics of a terrorist with a death wish. And it only did one loop btw.
Utter bollocks, really? So about Hani, why did he take his time in attacking the Pentagon, why not just fly straight into the building? I'm sure you watched the flight data recorder analysis? Well I doubt you did because then you might understand that what actually happened was very illogical, from a terrorist point of view. If indeed he wanted to attack the Pentagon, why fly around it? The planes that hit the towers didn't need to so why do this in thee most restricted, heavily defended airspace in America? Why risk getting the plane shot down and all your years of planning going out the window because you wanted to take the scenic route to your final destination? Now that's bollocks, come on...
Hang on... There are metallurgical and structural engineers who are saying that the buildings physically couldn't fall the way they did without some other forces acting upon them. Why are you saying you need this or that type of engineer or physicist? There was nothing in the planes or the towers that could make metal melt, nothing that could produce molten spheres of iron, nothing that could burn hot enough to make red hot molten metal pour from the building. What more do you want these experts to say?
So these generators greatly increase combustion rate, would that not cause the jet fuel to burn up even quicker? And I highly doubt a metallurgical engineer would overlook the planes having jet fuel and the temperature it burns at and how long the fuel would burn for. It's obvious the jet fuel wouldn't have time to soak into any of the contents inside the towers because it would burn up quite quickly, hense the massive fire balls we seen. And if there were devices on the planes to cause the fuel to combust at a higher rate then all that would be burning for the hour or so before collapse would be office contents, which would obviously include the other materials you talk about, which I doubt any metallurgical engineer would overlook.
I'm just telling you what I saw. I would think some pilots would find the situation you describe to be very difficult to undertake, look at the crash in Cork airport recently. Of course a fully qualified instructor should, with help from the ground(ATC) and the devices on the plane telling him where the runway is in relation to the plane, be able to land under difficult conditions. But throw him in the deep end without any training in those conditions and I think the outcome would be very different. Anyway, it's not about the instructor, it's about 3 untrained terrorists hitting their marks without any pre-runs or tests, which is extremely unlikely.
---
@RiseAgainstMe! Sorry mate but you obviously have no understanding of what you talk about, the heat had the whole building to dissipate into, the whole tower wasn't burning was it? And, if a structure begins in an asymmetrical collapse it physically can't change to a symmetrical collapse, it's physically impossible, listen to the experts, they know what they're on about. Here's a couple of structural engineers explaining some more
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4y6cweaegI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7oti6KGEf4
I understand anyone could fly a plane with little or no training, but to fly them with the precision they were flown on 911? That's a big ask, imo. I watched a documentary before where student pilots(5 or 6 of them) tried to fly a simulator into the towers and couldn't, it even took the flight instructor a few times before he actually hit the tower(not the exact spot obvioulsy). So trying to tell me 3 untrained terrorists could have done it first time, 3 times in one day, into 3 difficult targets? Nah, I can't see that happening.
Lets say for a second they did manage to hit the towers, the towers couldn't have fallen the way they did, it's just physically impossible. It defied the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics, according to Kathy McGrade, a metallurgical engineer (video just released 21st May) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ature=channel_video_title
So if you want to leave the conversation, fair enough, I'd rather talk about it, just to help people to try and see exactly what happened, and as the lady says in the video interview, all you need to do is watch the footage, you don't have to be a fully qualified anything, you just need to look at it and understand what's happening to the building as it's falling. And if they're lying about that, then the whole thing comes into question.
And copy and pasting stuff that looks like a well written script from a movie (it seems to try and hit certain emotinal chords, then hits you with a theory) with no references or who it's from, is not going to help the conversation. I would appreciate a link of the video you talk about though, just to look over it.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do about this, but you really need to look into it. I know there are some crazy theories out their and the "official story" is actually only a theory, they don't present any hard facts about why the building fell the way it did. "...and a global collapse ensued..."(this is what they say in the NIST report once the first few floors gave way) doesn't go into enough detail explaining how each floor pancaked, or how 50 floors from the impact zone suddenly give way without any resistance. Listen to the "smoking guns" from the metallurgical engineer in the vid and also the related vids by other engineers on the right, they might help you understand things a bit better.
Well, I think you have been brainwashed into thinking that way, to underestimate the lengths people in power will go to to get what they want. For instance, check out this document, Operation Northwoods from 1962, specifically page 8 section 3(b) and all of section 8 on page 10, but do read it all - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
"They" put people like Bush into power, so ordinary Joe's will think that people in government don't have the mental capacity to carry out an attack like this but, I'm sure you know, he is just a puppet, a figure people can point the finger at or point the cameras to when the sh!t hits the fan.
Have a good read of the document I linked to...
And by the way, the reason Operation Northwoods didn't come to pass is because JFK put a stop to it.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
That response to me? You think it wouldn't make sense to confuse the people who would most likely uncover what you did? That is the first thing I would do. Create as many different stories to make it harder for people to actually figure out what I did. It makes perfect sense.
This, imo, is exactly what is happening.
Oh, sorry, I just got the impression from your post this morning that this is what you thought actually happened...
Lad, you need to stop, they used planes, if they didn't, everyone who was in NY at the time would have just seen the buildings blowing up. There was too many eyewitnesses to cover that up.
And about the Pentagon, I think it's so obvious what happened there (tiny hole, videos tapes confiscated, plane? allowed to enter restricted airspace) that what exactly happened at the towers needs to be explained more because people like the no planers are trying hard to make it more confusing.
Not sure if people here heard this chap telling his experience on 911, his name is Richard Grove, but I'll put it here anyway. He was supposed to be in a meeting on the 90-odd floor on the morning of 911. Very interesting stuff he talks about - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5188081102820402482
Not "we're", you're stepping into that.
It's crazy to say all recorded reactions and video were faked but that's what the no plane theory has to say, and I doubt any of the footage from The CameraPlanet archive is faked. Of course, any news channel could alter footage after the fact but I don't think they could edit the footage as it happened(live) and get away with it.
This chap is obviously a planted actor though - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk
Now, time for bed...:tired:
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG