Ok, what about the power downs the weekend before 9/11 happened? Have you heard about them? Google Scott Forbes.
Also, do you think it's possible that, during the fixing of the trade towers after the first bombing, that devices could have been planted? I understand this is speculation but, so is the story of hijackers hijacking planes, all we have is some phones calls and a statement from one of the pilots, wrongly transmitted to the air traffic controllers. Where are all the security videos of them boarding the planes or even checking in? Show me them and then I will believe that part of the theory.
In you eyes maybe Bin Laden fits better, not in the FBI's eyes though. He's not even wanted by them over 9/11.
If you think that's piss poor but you'll take a computer generated animation as FACT then I'm sorry, I can't continue to converse with you...
Eh, I think you may be wrong yourself, actually I know you're wrong because I just covered that in this thread. The bottom 4 or 5 floors still remained intact. People survived in there, firefighters and citizens. So ehmm, you get your facts straight...
Umm, ok, so the Mariot was completely crushed by the towers falling, i was talking about other WTC buildings which sustained much much more beating and fire then WTC 7, check this link: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14876 Notice the intensity of fire on ALL floors in WTC 5, yet it didn't collapsed..
I never said I was taking any computer generated imagery as fact
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
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
There's a huge difference there, Mariot was crushed it did not collapse, and check that link and see WTC 5 and 6 in blazing flames yet they didn't collapse..
Ok, you don't take them as fact, so what do you base your theory on, that the towers crushed themselves to pieces?
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.
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.
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.
I'd have thought a degree in mechanical engineering would deem me slightly more qualified that you.
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.
Has nothing to do with it.
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.
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.
I explain that by suggesting that the model is not valid enough to carry out that experiment and end up with sensible results. Was the structure solid (i.e. bolted together). Were the load bearing structures in vaguely the right place? Was the model sufficiently slender to model a twin tower with a similar strength:height:mass ratio to make it comparible. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You're right, that would deem you slightly more qualified than me.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In the end that goes for every single person that has a "theory" about 9/11. Maybe someday there will be irrefutable proof of what actually happened. Until then people are gonna have all kinds of theories and explanations about this and no way to actually prove anything. That's why I stay out of 9/11 discussions.
Because you're picking holes in things that don't have them. Read the walls of text left by both you and Tristan. You're both so obviously not going to stop until the other one does, meaning the vicious circle just goes round and round. I wouldn't care but you can't consider the loss to the people involved, and what happened to them. All you (and Tristan) care about is coming out the winner.
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.
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.
116 instead of 110 gives less than 6% error.
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.
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.
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. These towers were a "fragile" symbol because of their height, mass/structure ratio, and that's why they were several times target for terrorist attack. Note that most buildings of that height in the world are very different, with a lot more structure, far less area per floor...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
