Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Platuan4th wrote:

Beerfart wrote:Also, again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.

Just for the record thanks to a civil engineer friend and industrial technology friend: Fire protected does NOT mean fire immune.

I suppose there has to be a "first time in the history of buildings ever" for pretty much anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bombboy1252 wrote:Let's get along and agree to disagree folks. That way we can go back to playing with our toy soldiers.....

It's unfortunate that some people are unable to debate in a civil manner. I'm about to give up here as well. 4 pages of garbage and Mod indifference is about enough for me.

I weary of wading thru insults and emotional responses looking for posts with some shred of intelligence or data.

....less emotional responses would make for a much better debate thread.

Beerfart wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Beerfart wrote:Also, again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.

Just for the record thanks to a civil engineer friend and industrial technology friend: Fire protected does NOT mean fire immune.

I suppose there has to be a "first time in the history of buildings ever" for pretty much anything.

Of course. It wouldn't be the first time if it had happened before.

Platuan4th wrote:
Of course. It wouldn't be the first time if it had happened before.

I prefer to question the plausability of such an explanation.

I feel that we owe it to the victims to explore these possibilities.

Beerfart wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
Of course. It wouldn't be the first time if it had happened before.

I prefer to question the plausability of such an explanation.

I feel that we owe it to the victims to explore these possibilities.

So much for attempting to diffuse the situation using humor.

Guys, this topic is tough, and many will feel strongly about it. Despite that, it doesn't mean rule #1 doesn't apply. BE POLITE. Even if you are disagreeing.

Keep it together boys or this one will be shut down - MT11

Not much can withstand and Impact like that. Also, the burning of the Jet Fuel aided in the destruction. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. And if you were a really smart cookie, you would realize that the Hijackers had nearly full tanks of gas, as they took Trans-continental flights.

Any way you look at it, that building was coming down. Oh, and Tower 7? It had about 728200000 pounds of Skyscraper crash on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beerfart wrote:....less emotional responses would make for a much better debate thread.

You're asking for a non-emotional response near the 10th anniversary of the worst Terrorist Attack on US soil?

That's a bit mad, isn't it?

I don't know, It does look like a set up demolition, but I do question the governments motives of doing something like this, I can understand the oil reason, but maybe some 3rd party we don't know about did something? the world may never know the truth.

Gentlemen. There is a button called ignore.

I have pressed it 9 times since I joined Dakkadakka.

I don't miss what I'm not reading. Not one bit.

Take from that what you will.

bombboy1252 wrote: the world may never know

But Mr. Owl says it takes 3!

Beerfart wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Beerfart wrote:

Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.

Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.

Heavy debris from Towers One and Two hit Seven, which was facing One and Two. It had massive structural damage, and the building failed. A Fire also broke out inside the building.

Again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.


I'd also be interested to know how damage to a portion of debris results in a "controlled" collapse of a building. One would think that the building would list to one side rather than "bow" in the middle and collapse upon itself.

According to civil engineers, the tower was designed for jet-liner impacts. It was also designed to last for three hours in normal fires, however we're talking about engulfing entire levels of the building with fire within seconds which is of course a faster spread than a normal office fire. It took roughly an hour for the buildings to start collapsing after the impact of the jet-liners. The fire had enough time to weaken the steel beams that had survived being blown to hell from the initial impact. The building itself was filled with a lot of air, 95% of the building was actually air and not steel or concrete and the perimeter is what supported the building with the core also holding up a lot of weight. We have a plane that destroyed two sides of the building and damaged the center core, which is already stressing the surviving beams. Then we add flash fire on more than several floors that weakens the surviving beams after an hour of burning. After awhile the weight of the upper floors can no longer be held by the weakened surviving beams and the building starts to collapse, with the additional weight from each floor gradually speeding up the collapse for the floors below. There was little to know lateral pressure on the building, it wasn't windy that day and the impact of the fighter would not have affected the building after an hour of sitting still. The building had only one direction of pressure, vertical pressure, gravity and all pushing down on the building and causing it to eventually collapse downwards.

This is basic physics, if you drop something it will go straight down. If you put enough pressure in another direction then it will start falling in that direction, and in this case there was more pressure coming from gravity on the upper floors than going against the side of the building which caused it to straight down as opposed to sideways.

It was designed to survive a standard office fire for three hours(office fires are smaller and slower than jet fuel exploding), it was designed to survive jet-liner impacts(it didn't topple over), it was not designed to suffer from a jet-liner impact and then a flash fire engulfing multiple in mere seconds.

Chowderhead wrote:That's a bit mad, isn't it?

Aren't we all a little mad anyway?

bombboy1252 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:That's a bit mad, isn't it?

Aren't we all a little mad anyway?

Chowderhead wrote:Not much can withstand and Impact like that.

Not exactly a scientific evaluation, but the fact remains...the WTC was designed to.

Also, the burning of the Jet Fuel aided in the destruction. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. And if you were a really smart cookie, you would realize that the Hijackers had nearly full tanks of gas, as they took Trans-continental flights.

Yea, that's the official story. Nevermind that Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to weaken the support girders of the towers. (this is from experts, again, easy to find info on this very subject online) Nor does it explain the damage to WTC 7.

Any way you look at it, that building was coming down.

absolultely true...I'm just questioning...how and why.

Oh, and Tower 7? It had about 728200000 pounds of Skyscraper crash on it.

No it did not. More like there was structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof. It's not really known if this was the real 'cause' of the collapse or not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beerfart wrote:....less emotional responses would make for a much better debate thread.

You're asking for a non-emotional response near the 10th anniversary of the worst Terrorist Attack on US soil?

That's a bit mad, isn't it?

Not at all. You see, I was actually effected by this disaster. Thus far, my posts have been the least inflammatory that I've seen from most anyone in this discussion.

Platuan4th wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:That's a bit mad, isn't it?

Aren't we all a little mad anyway?

So the US government purposefully destroyed the World Trade Centers in order to open up an inter-dimensional rabbit hole large enough for large armies to go through so that they could invade Wonderland and dethrone the tyrannical Queen of Hearts.

halonachos wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:That's a bit mad, isn't it?

Aren't we all a little mad anyway?

So the US government purposefully destroyed the World Trade Centers in order to open up an inter-dimensional rabbit hole large enough for large armies to go through so that they could invade Wonderland and dethrone the tyrannical Queen of Hearts.

We should have listened to Jefferson Airplane!

But seriously, you 9/11 truthers are wacky.

Chowderhead wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:That's a bit mad, isn't it?

Aren't we all a little mad anyway?

So the US government purposefully destroyed the World Trade Centers in order to open up an inter-dimensional rabbit hole large enough for large armies to go through so that they could invade Wonderland and dethrone the tyrannical Queen of Hearts.

We should have listened to Jefferson Airplane!

All of this is just......yes

Beerfart wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Not much can withstand and Impact like that.

Not exactly a scientific evaluation, but the fact remains...the WTC was designed to.

Also, the burning of the Jet Fuel aided in the destruction. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. And if you were a really smart cookie, you would realize that the Hijackers had nearly full tanks of gas, as they took Trans-continental flights.

Yea, that's the official story. Nevermind that Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to weaken the support girders of the towers. (this is from experts, again, easy to find info on this very subject online) Nor does it explain the damage to WTC 7.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Actual experts say that the structural steel used in the WTC construction will begin to soften at 425 Celsius and lose half of its strength at 650 Celsius. The fire was reported to be around 750-800 Celsius(normal house fires reach 500 to 650 Celsius in comparison) and then you have to couple that with uneven heating of the steel. This heating caused uneven expansion in parts of the beams and then caused stresses on the beams which ultimately lead to buckling.

Beerfart wrote:Yea, that's the official story. Nevermind that Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to weaken the support girders of the towers. (this is from experts, again, easy to find info on this very subject online) Nor does it explain the damage to WTC 7.

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

All it has to do is lose strength.

Also, a Glass building isn't very safe against a Airplane screaming across the sky at it.

halonachos wrote:
According to civil engineers, the tower was designed for jet-liner impacts. It was also designed to last for three hours in normal fires, however we're talking about engulfing entire levels of the building with fire within seconds which is of course a faster spread than a normal office fire. It took roughly an hour for the buildings to start collapsing after the impact of the jet-liners. The fire had enough time to weaken the steel beams that had survived being blown to hell from the initial impact. The building itself was filled with a lot of air, 95% of the building was actually air and not steel or concrete and the perimeter is what supported the building with the core also holding up a lot of weight. We have a plane that destroyed two sides of the building and damaged the center core, which is already stressing the surviving beams. Then we add flash fire on more than several floors that weakens the surviving beams after an hour of burning. After awhile the weight of the upper floors can no longer be held by the weakened surviving beams and the building starts to collapse, with the additional weight from each floor gradually speeding up the collapse for the floors below. There was little to know lateral pressure on the building, it wasn't windy that day and the impact of the fighter would not have affected the building after an hour of sitting still. The building had only one direction of pressure, vertical pressure, gravity and all pushing down on the building and causing it to eventually collapse downwards.

This is basic physics, if you drop something it will go straight down. If you put enough pressure in another direction then it will start falling in that direction, and in this case there was more pressure coming from gravity on the upper floors than going against the side of the building which caused it to straight down as opposed to sideways.

It was designed to survive a standard office fire for three hours(office fires are smaller and slower than jet fuel exploding), it was designed to survive jet-liner impacts(it didn't topple over), it was not designed to suffer from a jet-liner impact and then a flash fire engulfing multiple in mere seconds.

I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)

It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.

....and it's the crux of my problem with the whole thing.

Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:Gentlemen. There is a button called ignore.

I have pressed it 9 times since I joined Dakkadakka.

I don't miss what I'm not reading. Not one bit.

Take from that what you will.

Good advice....

Lemme see....Kronk /ignore for irrelevance.

Chowderhead wrote:

feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.

I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.

For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.

And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.

Your country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.

I think you missed my point. I am using my country as an example because I read the figure (92 billion) in the paper yesterday morning. We spent a vast, vast sum of money, on security, and our biggest threat is domestic; drunken hockey fans/douchebags. Where did the money go? Partly to fly our CF-18s around a bit, partly to sail our destroyers around the Persian Gulf a bit, partly to send a few thousand troops over to get shot at for a while, and quite a large part to private security firms.

Assuming the per capita spending is the same, compared to Canada, the US has spent 800 billion on security since 9/11.

I would speculate that the worldwide post-9/11 security business has been the largest transfer of public money (taxes) to private pockets (security corps).

That guy walking around town with his not-cop uniform, sipping a coffee and checking out the skirts, his job is safe. I sweat my bag off all day, building the condo he is going to live in and get laid off when the project is finished. His job is pointless, he has nearly no training, and he essentially is someone who is paid to call the police when something dangerous goes down, like a homeless man sits down at a coffeshop. My job is essential; I am highly skilled.

WTF.

rubiksnoob wrote:
But seriously, you 9/11 truthers are wacky.

Yes, yes, you HAVE said that....many times now.

Thank you for this observation.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

So far beerfart you're giving arguments along these lines.

Us: Science says that this would happen.

You: No, if you look deeper into the science...

Us: This isn't english class, there is no deeper meaning to the science.

You: No you guys don't understand because of Building 7.

Us: Here's proof of what happened to building 7.

You: No, you guys need to read deeper into the science!

feeder wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.

I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.

For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.

And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.

Your country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.

I think you missed my point. I am using my country as an example because I read the figure (92 billion) in the paper yesterday morning. We spent a vast, vast sum of money, on security, and our biggest threat is domestic; drunken hockey fans/douchebags. Where did the money go? Partly to fly our CF-18s around a bit, partly to sail our destroyers around the Persian Gulf a bit, partly to send a few thousand troops over to get shot at for a while, and quite a large part to private security firms.

Assuming the per capita spending is the same, compared to Canada, the US has spent 800 billion on security since 9/11.

I would speculate that the worldwide post-9/11 security business has been the largest transfer of public money (taxes) to private pockets (security corps).

That guy walking around town with his not-cop uniform, sipping a coffee and checking out the skirts, his job is safe. I sweat my bag off all day, building the condo he is going to live in and get laid off when the project is finished. His job is pointless, he has nearly no training, and he essentially is someone who is paid to call the police when something dangerous goes down, like a homeless man sits down at a coffeshop. My job is essential; I am highly skilled.

WTF.

Welcome to life, it's a wonderful thing when you don't think about it!

halonachos wrote:http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

So far beerfart you're giving arguments along these lines.

Us: Science says that this would happen.

You: No, if you look deeper into the science...

Us: This isn't english class, there is no deeper meaning to the science.

You: No you guys don't understand because of Building 7.

Us: Here's proof of what happened to building 7.

You: No, you guys need to read deeper into the science!

Actually, no, that's not how the DEBATE has gone at all. You should go back and read the thread again.

Notice I use the word "debate" as I'm not "argueing".

Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.

Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.

Beerfart wrote:
I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)

It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.

Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.

Look, I may only be in the fourth year of my biochemistry major, I may have gotten a C in physics and physics 2, and I may have gotten an A in my philosophy class, but I think I know the difference between actual science and trying to put philosophy into hard sciences.

Melissia wrote:

Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.

Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.

Ba-zing.

halonachos wrote:

Beerfart wrote:
I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)

It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.

Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.

Look, I may only be in the fourth year of my biochemistry major, I may have gotten a C in physics and physics 2, and I may have gotten an A in my philosophy class, but I think I know the difference between actual science and trying to put philosophy into hard sciences.

Okay...I guess. However, irrelevant.

Platuan4th wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.

Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.

Ba-zing.