Quake3World

Hannibal wrote:To all: I've not followed many of the WTC 'conspiracy' debates, particularly the one offered up in this thread.

Explanation A: set us up the bomb

Explanation B: look boss da plane

Either out of willful blindness or sheer faggotry, I've simply not bothered to explore any of it. So my question is...are there any 'independent' experts, institutions, or bodies of evidence that are agreed upon or otherwise respected by the non-retards on both sides? Or is virtually every aspect of the causal stories told by both groups a matter of dispute?

testimony and/or material in the public domain (which is to say, not because an internet bottom-feeder said so) is more what I'm after. Are there any sites that are attempting to dispassionately collect/organize all the bits of evidence floating hither and yon?

you may wish to start here...

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

Thanks puff.

seremtan wrote:presumably the metal girders holding up WTC 7 which also collapsed were melted by the burning jet fuel of a 767, on account of one hitting the building across the street

i mean, fuck - if i clench my arse hard enough and let rip with a monster guff i'm sure i can bring down the sears tower from here, especially since i had chilli for dinner

clearly there's no point continuing with this debate

You make it sound like only the jet fuel was burning in a building with curtains, carpets, paperwork, wood, etc. The entire floor would have caught on fire adding to the temperature of the burning jet fuel. In the conditions, the steel could never have melted, but given enough heat it would have damaged the structual integrity of the steel. At that point the weight of the floor would no longer be supported and once one floor crashed down, the rest would go under the momentum and weight.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Kracus wrote:I didn't think they came down that perfect tbh...

i agree. it was a bit dusty afterwards.

Sanction wrote:

seremtan wrote:presumably the metal girders holding up WTC 7 which also collapsed were melted by the burning jet fuel of a 767, on account of one hitting the building across the street

i mean, fuck - if i clench my arse hard enough and let rip with a monster guff i'm sure i can bring down the sears tower from here, especially since i had chilli for dinner

clearly there's no point continuing with this debate

You make it sound like only the jet fuel was burning in a building with curtains, carpets, paperwork, wood, etc. The entire floor would have caught on fire adding to the temperature of the burning jet fuel. In the conditions, the steel could never have melted, but given enough heat it would have damaged the structual integrity of the steel. At that point the weight of the floor would no longer be supported and once one floor crashed down, the rest would go under the momentum and weight.

* the temperature of burning carpets, curtains and paper is even lower than that of burning jet fuel
* no highrise steel/concrete building in history has ever collapsed through fire, even one raging for a day over more than 3/4 floors

sure, more than jet fuel was burning, but - unless desk blotters, OHP screens and Miss KPMG 2001 calendars have some weird chemical shit in them - that doesn't make much difference

I would like to point out that this combination of impact and fire in a building of this size are pretty much without precedent. It's enormously complex from a mathematical standpoint, and I'd like to see results of detailed simulations.
On the demolition issue, I'd like to point out that there would have to have been a HUGE number of detonations to bring down the towers. And where's the amateur video corroborating these claims?

The Oklahoma City Bombing only needed 2 demolitions to cause an inconsiderable amount of damage structurally. With a building the height of WTC, 4 well-placed demolitions in each girder junction would've been enough.

Unless you are a structural engineer or a demolitions expert, shut the fuck up.

edit: In fact, shut the fuck up anyway. That last post of yours proves even further that you are completely ignorant on this subject.

Nightshade wrote:Unless you are a structural engineer or a demolitions expert, shut the fuck up.

Unless you're a doctor, kiss my ass.

Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense, idiot.

Nightshade wrote:I would like to point out that this combination of impact and fire in a building of this size are pretty much without precedent. It's enormously complex from a mathematical standpoint, and I'd like to see results of detailed simulations.
On the demolition issue, I'd like to point out that there would have to have been a HUGE number of detonations to bring down the towers. And where's the amateur video corroborating these claims?

That's true and it's a valid point. Even so, you have to have fires hot enough to damage the structural integrity of thick steel columns. Surely you recognize that planes hitting the towers alone can't bring them down or do too much damage, without the integrity of the beams being compromised as well.
The entire argument rests on the beams being weakened.

I would also like to see some independent scientific tests run to see if this could have happened with jet fuel, so it is no longer a point of conjecture.

There was a lab - the company who designed the beams for the towers - that was going to run tests with identical steel, in order to reproduce the results. I can't remember what happened, but I don't believe the results were ever released.

It seems like some engineering firm would be able to do this though.

get out of my thread fag0ts...

Freakaloin wrote:get out of my thread fag0ts...

This thread is mine, get the fuck out looser...

a homo says i'm a god?...

Nightshade wrote:I would like to point out that this combination of impact and fire in a building of this size are pretty much without precedent. It's enormously complex from a mathematical standpoint, and I'd like to see results of detailed simulations.
On the demolition issue, I'd like to point out that there would have to have been a HUGE number of detonations to bring down the towers. And where's the amateur video corroborating these claims?

what i'd like to know NS is why you demand a smoking gun for the demo theory, but not for the official story? you say the impact of the planes is enough to explain things, but how do you know this?

what i saw on the day was one plane hitting full-on (first hit), the other sheering one of the corners (2nd hit), yet both fell the same way and the 2nd hit actually fell first in spite of the plan only hitting the corner. wtf? how likely is that?

lastly the pancake effect doesn't explain the speed of fall because while the falling material is obviously heavy, the floors on to which it was falling are an inert mass and provide greater-than-air resistance. yet both towers fell only 1.5 secs slower than freefall time from that height

btw regards the controlled demo, the vids taken on the day that have been replayed a zillion times show demo-like 'squibs' plus there is the testimony of FDNY guys who heard a series of explosions right before the towers collapsed

there's a long list of FDNY and NYPD quotes/links here:

http://www.911proof.com/

the only ppl who believe 911 wasn't an inside job, or christian morons, foxnews bots and a few crazy ppl...

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/ ... Impact.pdf

hey look! science can explain why the towers fell after airplanes hit them.

'lastly the pancake effect doesn't explain the speed of fall because while the falling material is obviously heavy, the floors on to which it was falling are an inert mass and provide greater-than-air resistance. yet both towers fell only 1.5 secs slower than freefall time from that height'

no sermetam no

seremtan wrote:

Sanction wrote:

seremtan wrote:presumably the metal girders holding up WTC 7 which also collapsed were melted by the burning jet fuel of a 767, on account of one hitting the building across the street

i mean, fuck - if i clench my arse hard enough and let rip with a monster guff i'm sure i can bring down the sears tower from here, especially since i had chilli for dinner

clearly there's no point continuing with this debate

You make it sound like only the jet fuel was burning in a building with curtains, carpets, paperwork, wood, etc. The entire floor would have caught on fire adding to the temperature of the burning jet fuel. In the conditions, the steel could never have melted, but given enough heat it would have damaged the structual integrity of the steel. At that point the weight of the floor would no longer be supported and once one floor crashed down, the rest would go under the momentum and weight.

* the temperature of burning carpets, curtains and paper is even lower than that of burning jet fuel
* no highrise steel/concrete building in history has ever collapsed through fire, even one raging for a day over more than 3/4 floors

sure, more than jet fuel was burning, but - unless desk blotters, OHP screens and Miss KPMG 2001 calendars have some weird chemical shit in them - that doesn't make much difference

you need to read this... http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/ ... ctures.pdf

it was written by MIT professors.

the 911 people use a load of bollocks to try and argue the case for demolition

Dukester wrote:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.

***

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once

Okay, let me get this straight...

Even though jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel, the fact that it was burning in such a large area at once made it possible, simply because you can cook a lobster in a pot of water, but not in a glass of water.

That's some top-class civil engineering right there. :icon27:

edit: And yes I understand the difference between temperature, and the amount of energy used in a given reaction, and the effects said energy has on the materials involved. That still does not explain this logic.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

seremtan wrote:

Sanction wrote: You make it sound like only the jet fuel was burning in a building with curtains, carpets, paperwork, wood, etc. The entire floor would have caught on fire adding to the temperature of the burning jet fuel. In the conditions, the steel could never have melted, but given enough heat it would have damaged the structual integrity of the steel. At that point the weight of the floor would no longer be supported and once one floor crashed down, the rest would go under the momentum and weight.

* the temperature of burning carpets, curtains and paper is even lower than that of burning jet fuel
* no highrise steel/concrete building in history has ever collapsed through fire, even one raging for a day over more than 3/4 floors

sure, more than jet fuel was burning, but - unless desk blotters, OHP screens and Miss KPMG 2001 calendars have some weird chemical shit in them - that doesn't make much difference

you need to read this... http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/ ... ctures.pdf

it was written by MIT professors.

the 911 people use a load of bollocks to try and argue the case for demolition

This said the pdf was corrupted when I tried to open it. I'll try saving it to my drive and opening it that way to see if I can check it out.

I'm interested in hearing a valid scientific reason for the collapse that rests on tested and proven material properties and reactions - so far I have seen nothing of the kind.

u guys r old...its already well established that 911 was an inside job...

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:you need to read this... http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/ ... ctures.pdf

it was written by MIT professors.

the 911 people use a load of bollocks to try and argue the case for demolition

Okay, opening statement:

The very fact that the buildings survived the crash of the planes into the buildings suggests that
a time dependent behavior at the material level affected the structural stability of the structure
to the point of failure. On the other hand, the failure per se reveals the existence of a weakest
link in the structural system, which ultimately failed because of a lack of redundancy.

So straight out of the gate, he has completely dismissed any cause of failure aside from a time dependent material behavior.

I'm going to continue reading this, but it is completely obvious from the first paragraph that the paper is framed in such a way that any question of causes that are outside the scope of the official explanation are dismissed before the research has even started.

This is not science, it is using a scientific title to rationalize a pre-coneived theory for the failure of a system.

In other words, this paper in no way invalidates any theories (and they are just theories) of explosives or any other outside elements being introduced to the system -- because the paper states outright from the opening statement that no such possibilities will be considered.

This engineer essentially states that "The very fact that the buildings survived the crash of the planes into the buildings," suggests that nothing could be responsible for the collapse except "a time dependent behavior at the material level."

Where is this logical leap proven? When have you ever seen a scientific paper make such a statement without conclusive evidence being provided to support said assumption?

Hopefully he will provide an explanation for this reasoning later in the paper, to clarify why he limited the scope of his research to time-dependent material behaviors. Otherwise it is completely useless for the purposes of this debate.

You know you dweebs keep talking about explosives in the building blah blah etc etc... but I mean seriously, don't you think a jumbo jet packs enough of an explosion?