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))
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - How the Towers Fell
(1218 posts, started )
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..."
So you are comparing a 100+ storey building(built with alot of steel) to a row of houses(built with stone and wood)?
I would understand the colapse if there was like a big chunk of one of the towers on top of the WTC7, but there wasn't! There was a fire there, that's all, and if there were some fuel tanks in there wouldn't they blow one by one, blowing the windows, etc, INSTEAD of that, building fu*kin collapsed perfectly, text-book controlled demolition, are we seriously arguing over this one?
Why doesn't the demolition guys just set some fire instead of planting hundreds of explosives in the PERFECTLY planed positions? that vary from building to building..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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If it was an inside job, then they would have:
- Not flown planes into the buildings, because that would be difficult to arrange
- Not have the towers collapse in a way that looks simmilar to a planned explosion
- 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?
Not too difficult really. UAV's and GPS, just a couple of things I can think of.
It seems to be credible in some peoples eyes so it obviously worked.
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.
* It was more spectacular, and they have the "reason" why the buildings fell, if they just planted explosives how would they explain hundreds of planted explosives in one of the most secured buildings in the world (i assume)? Planes give the justification for the colapse and the whole world hated the "terrorists" for doing such a monstrosity...
* Well, that's exactly what they wanted, not to damage the other nearby buildings and kill even more people (it seems they had some simpathy left after all) not to mention the importance of nearby buildings...
* How would it be less suspicios if terrorists planted the bombs, how would they explain the world the pure amateurism that led to dozens of terrorists entering the building, carying explosives right infront of the security?
More secured then airports?
The trade centers were also very important buildings.
Well how did plane hijackers get through all of the airport security, and manage to walk right into the cockpit of planes?
Obviously, since they would probably use some plastic knives, that story is more beliavable and doable then entering the WTC's with bags of explosives, isn't it, but there probably weren't any "hijackers" there in the first place, who knows who and what drove that planes..
Offcourse they are, and that's why they chose them for the "WOW" effect..
As i said, there probably wasn't any hijackers in the first place, but they could pull that off, why not, with some plastic knives or whatever, it's doable, if i'm not mistaken, cockpit doors weren't locked before 9/11..
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.
Why no way? As soon as it fall 50 cms, the upper part of the tower acquired 10 times the kinetic energy to destroy one floor. So it crushed one floor, and lost 1/10th of it's kinetic energy in the process, that is to say 5.13% of it's speed....but as soon as the crushed floor gives up, it falls again at least 50 cms, and acquires again 10 times the energy to crush the next floor. You see what I mean? Every time it crushes a floor, it loses only 10% of it's energy, and it acquires more speed and therefore energy before the next floor. And all crushed floors falling increase the falling mass and therefore the energy.
The thing you do not want to understand is that when an object starts falling, it behaves like it is heavier. Take a car, built to hold it's own weight. Drop it from 5 meters, and it will be destroyed.
Take a 80 000 tons part of a tower, and let it fall 50cms. It lasts 0.31 second. Then it bumps on the next floor. To stop it in 1 second, the next floor has to be able to hold 80 000 tons and an additional weight coming from the speed: 24800 additional tons.
To stop it in 0.3 second (1 second is really too much....floors are not elastic), the floor has to be able to hold 160 000 tons.
And you forget one thing. As soon as it bends and falls one floor, you can be sure the holding structure of the upper part will not fall exactly on the holding structure of the lower part. For example steel core of the upper part as it is bent will not apply on steel core of the lower part, but on concrete next to it. Because of that lower floors have their holding capacity greatly reduced, and at the same time are asked to hold a lot more than they can in the best conditions.
The fall of a mass m from a height h to ground level at speed zero (I mean it falls and gets stopped) releases m.g.h joules of energy. This is how it works. No way to trick.
If it happens in 10 seconds, power released is m.g.h/10 watts.
10 tons falling from 100 meters high in 10s will then give 10000*9.81*100/10= 981 000 watts. This is already almost one million watt.
A WTC tower weighted about 280 000 tons and the height was 420 meters. If we consider to go faster that mass was evenly dispatched on the entire height, energy released by the fall is equivalent to energy released by the fall of a single 280 000 tons mass from a height of 210 meters.
Power released is then 280 000 000*9.81*210/10=57 682 800 000 watts.
57 billions watts. They have been released until the last one. We can discuss endlessly about how they were spent (friction in air, earth vibration, burning tower content, smashing floors, heat....etc) but they have been released.
As said before, even crushed in small bits, this is still a huge falling mass. Bigger and bigger in fact as it takes new falling floors. So what is the difference for the lower floors? Almost no difference...instead of being crushed by 80 000, then 100 000, then 150 000 tons of clean tower, they are crushed by 80 000, then 100 000, then 150 000 tons of rubble.
This was not a matches box tower. This was not a traditional concrete tower. This was a massive building with very strong and very localized holding structure...core and shell, and almost nothing in between. As soon as the core bends, there is very little chance the upper part will meet something strong enough to slow it down.
Why do people absolutely want to compare it with a traditional concrete building? Maybe because it backs up their theories.
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.
This is typical of conspirationalist thinking: just bend every fact into the direction of your conclusion.
Q: If it was an inside job, why did they have to kill so many people?
A: Otherwise the world wouldn't be struck with terror.
Q: If it was an inside job, why didn't they kill more people?
A: The plotters have some compassion left.
Q: If it was an inside job, why did it look so much like a controlled demolition?
A: Because it is a controlled demolition.
Q: If it was an inside job, why didn't it look exactly like a controlled demolition?
A: Then the world would clearly see that it was a plot.
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
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.
Whole sections? You mean an entire floor jump out and landed on it? Or do you mean small bits of debris?
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.
Why isn't it? It's not a bad model of a building really.
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.
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.
Not really...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
That attack failed, but it shows that it is (was) possible to sneak explosives into the WTC towers.
That's what the US government said at least. So that means that you are believing the government when they tell you that cockpit doors weren't locked before 9/11?
I find it difficult to understand why people think a Government is competent enough to carry out such a monumentally complicated task. Anyone who's worked in or for Government knows how utterly useless they are.
They weren't routinely locked before. The door locks were retro-fitted. I think you know this.
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.
my father told me once a big true:
noone has absolute power
i think a war is going on
noone has absolute power
i think a war is going on
Of course, because if we discuss long enough, then we will find out what exactly went on in those planes... Um, no. How does that work? How does discussion get answers? Everything that everyone has said in the thread has been repeated over and over and over again, anyway. To say that answers can be obtained by discussion is illogical. Unless there is some way to communicate with the dead.
But they are the same old points that people have been bringing up for the past 7 years.
EDIT: All that discussion can do is allow people to come to a consensus. It does not actually reveal the truth. A jury (in the US at least, I don't know how it works in other places) is given evidence (some concrete and some circumstantial), and they must come to a common consensus about whether or not a person is guilty of a certain crime. By discussing the case, they decide whether or not the person is guilty. But, they don't find "the answers", they just agree that the person is guilty. That's why there are people in prison who have probably been wrongfully convicted. Much fewer then there used to be, though, due to video cameras, DNA testing, etc. But discussion can help you think of a possible scenario, and then investigate it.
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.
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.
Oh yeah, and if you send a link to this thread to 10 of your friends within 5 minutes, a melon will fall on the head of someone you hate. Today's horoscope: Someone at work is in love with you, but is afraid to say. If 10,000 people forward this message to [email protected], John McCain says he will tell us the truth about who really was behind 9/11. Etc. No, really, it's true.
This topic is sooo annoying!
But yes, discussions do bring up answers sometime... my god, do you even talk to people in real life?
Discussions bring up new ideas... new ways to look at something... therefor, they can bring up new answers aswell. But with your attitude, i really doubt you will understand that...
Say there is a algebra problem that one person is trying to solve. If you take five people who do not understand the problem at all, then no matter how much they discuss, they probably won't be able to solve it.
Yes, it sounds unreasonably as to how many people would have been involved in such a thing, really sounds impossible, but there are so many questions left unanaswered, so many dodgy things that outweight the "official" anouncements..
You're beeing all mathematical and geeky as how the towers fell, will ANYONE explain the PERFECT collapse of the WTC 7, not a SINGLE footage of the plane hiting the Pentagon, the only camera that did manage to capture something conveniantly didn't recorded the crucial frame, just the explosion...
Again, the passport, c'mon people, a passport?? And if they don't lie in Zeitgeist, haven't checked that info, they found more then one "terrorist" passport on the streets... who are we kidding here?
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - How the Towers Fell
(1218 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG