Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
What I want to know is how does concrete, office furniture & humans get pulverised into dust?

If it were a pancake collapse then surely everything would be crushed & you would have large slabs of concrete, furniture, identifiable body parts etc.

Nope you just get dust & perfectly sized steel beams.

We've all seen pictures of ground zero & there is very little to recognise, if anything that would make you think a 2 X 100+ story buildings stood there.
A pancake collapse would IMO mean you would have at least have 50% of the materials left scattered about the area yet there was nothing but 2 holes in the ground.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I never said the building could not ever fall.

Im just saying a plane crashing into it and fires making the building fall straight down is next to impossible because I believe that the building would have still supported itself.


Lets think about this for a minute.


Heat caused the structure to weaken and thats why the first floors fell and that forced air downward and also the pancake began to stack.

In order for the whole building to fall down in about 10 seconds, the vertical and horizantal columns would need to already be weakened, only the area that was hit on impact by the plane and the area of fire were signficantly weakened. Why did the rest of the building collapse? But the more imporant question is why did it collapse upon it's self? That would have been the hardest way for it to fall because that way puts up the most resistance.If you push open a door, the door is also "pushing" back at you with the same force.

Keep in mind that we are talking about a light weight building, and that we are talking about steel.

bbc nes image.


Think logic. The building was light weight. If you were to cut off the damaged area, raise it 500 feet and drop it perfectaly back in place on the building, would the building completely collapse straight down? Can you answer this with a yes?

The fact is pancaking would be the most unlikely way for it to fall because the floors would land with even pressure and the building was still intact so the entire lower building would be pushing aginst it with more force than the pull of gravity.

Take a table that has four legs and see how much weight it can take if you place pressure evenly on it. If you dont think it landed with even pressure then this would get rid of the compresed air theroy because an uneven impact area would realease air to the upper floors and to the outside not downward to lower floors.

But if the building were "cut" in the right places, such as on the vertical and horizantal columns, it would collapse completely because the building would not be intact. Thats what I think thoes explosions are in that pic.



How can you ignore eyewitness accounts of people being burned on lower floors?



[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Thats is obvious if you have seen the film loose change, people heard explosives and it looks to me as if that might be explosives going off to help the wtc collapse? because we all know there is no way that this huge sky scraper was brought down by an airplane



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime

Of course the building built in the 1960’s was impossible to bring down with an airplane or by a fire, and the Titanic was an unsinkable ship until it hit an iceberg and busted out a line of rivets. If the Titanic tragedy happened today instead of 1912 this forum would be flooded with the same type of posters talking about how the government caused it and then covered it up.





The Titanic comparison is very ridiculous. The people that made the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable were most likely rich and extremely arrogant men that believed they could conquer GOD. The claim that a ship can be unsinkable is just as silly to say that a plane is uncrashable. There would be no conspiracies back then because most level headed people know that ships aren't and never can be unsinkable. At the most, it would confirm people's beliefs before this "unsinkable" claim was made.

I don't think anyone here believes that the towers were undestructable. There is just WWWAAAYYYY to many inconsistencies, to many coincidenses, to many eyewitness accounts, to many improbable things going on that day to blindly believe the official story. Why do you refuse to understand that????



[edit on 18-5-2006 by commonsense4u]

[edit on 18-5-2006 by commonsense4u]

[edit on 18-5-2006 by commonsense4u]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11Believe me dude, or just use your freaking head. Air is going to go upwards and out through smoke into the open atmosphere before it's going to blast out of the perimeter columns of a building, sending shards of metal and all, like a freaking high explosives detonation.


I was talking about compressed air breaking windows, not steel columns. The OP's question.

And how do you know exactly what is contained in those little clouds coming out of the windows?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
i hope you can clarify anything, if it needs clarification


No problem, first I dont appreciate having my words twisted around. I did not say you were not intelligent, I do not know you and have no way to evaluate anyones intelligence in a forum from just one post. You acually seem quite bright, and what I mean by the statement I made is that it gets a little tiring hearing people make statements about a high rise fire, until they understand fire science, fire behavior and what is done to fight a high rise fire. Not you in particular but all of the people that took the 9/11 investigation seriously and agree without not knowing how it really works.

Battalion 7 made a fire estimate on that fire floor. Until you have the fireground freuency transcripts we have no idea how many men in battalion 7 were on the fire floors and where the person doing the communication was on the main frequency. I am sure he stayed on floor 78 while a team went up and communicated by hand, voice, or on a fireground frequency. We fight fire just like the miltary fights the enemy. The guy on the radio was keeping his eye on his buddies going into the extreme danger area, so if the @*$& hits the fan, someone can call for help.

We dont just all use our radios to communicate scene status. Someone on the team will communicate what is told to him. Most times you dont even have your own radio, that is what the PASS device is for, so you can scream for help!



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by commonsense4u
The Titanic comparison is very ridiculous. The people that made the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable were most likely rich and extremely arrogant men that believed they could conquer GOD. The claim that a ship can be unsinkable is just as silly to say that a plane is uncrashable. There would be no conspiracies back then because most level headed people know that ships aren't and never can be unsinkable. At the most, it would confirm people's beliefs before this "unsinkable" claim was made.


The people who said the Titanic was unsinkable where the engineers who built it. The people who said the World Trade Center was built to withstand a planecrash were the engineers who built it.

There were and still are Titanic conspiracies. Pull up Google and search titanic conspiracies - there are hundreds.

en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by commonsense4u
I don't think anyone here believes that the towers were undestructable. There is just WWWAAAYYYY to many inconsistencies, to many coincidenses, to many eyewitness accounts, to many improbable things going on that day to blindly believe the official story. Why do you refuse to understand that????


Of course people believe the towers were indestructable - that why they need the squib theory. Read the post directly above your own. The guy says there is no way that a huge skyscrapper was taken down by an airplane. Really? what science did he use to come to that conclusion? I can tell you right now it goes something like this: building is big. Plane is small. Plane can't hurt building.

What inconsistencies? What coincidenses?
Witnesses saw government agents placing bombs in the buildings?

I read that witnesses heard what they said were explosions as the buildings where collapsing. These were 500,000 ton buildings falling down violently from around 1800 feet in the sky. How are they suppose to sound? Like feathers drifting down in the breeze? Millions of pounds of concrete is falling with walls breaking and floors smashing together, steel twisting together. It was violent and it was noisy.


[edit on 18-5-2006 by zerotime]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo
Think logic. The building was light weight. If you were to cut off the damaged area, raise it 500 feet and drop it perfectaly on the building, would the building completely collapse straight down? No. a few floors would but then it would support its self.


I am very glad you used this analogy because it's a very good one... you seriously believe that if you dropped 50,000 tons (the weight of 20 floors) from 500 feet above -- what remained standing of the tower would be able to withstand that?

50,000 tons.

If you dropped that mass from 10' above, the remaining structure would not be able to withstand it. Each floor was designed to support less than a tenth of that mass statically.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by vor75] - sorry that would be 90k for 20 floors.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by vor75]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
This is an excellent example of the science behind the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

www.tms.org...

The truth is that no one here wants the science or the facts. The OP posted this thread but lets be honest, he doesn't want to hear that there are rational reasons behind the collapse. He, as well as most of the posters in this thread, want to hear one and only one explanation - THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED IT. That is the only answer that will suffice because these posters minds are made up based on political biases and personal views of the world.

Of course the building built in the 1960’s was impossible to bring down with an airplane or by a fire, and the Titanic was an unsinkable ship until it hit an iceberg and busted out a line of rivets. If the Titanic tragedy happened today instead of 1912 this forum would be flooded with the same type of posters talking about how the government caused it and then covered it up.

My point is that we can build anything and call it impervious to disasters, but the reality is that no plan can incorporate all of the unforeseen variables that will lead to that plans ultimate failure.

I hope all you conspieracy believers at least take the time to read this article.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mck3114
Thats is obvious if you have seen the film loose change, people heard explosives and it looks to me as if that might be explosives going off to help the wtc collapse? because we all know there is no way that this huge sky scraper was brought down by an airplane
And we all know that if a huge 100K ton sky scraper is no longer to support its self and its support beams start to buckle and break it would never ever make sounds that sound like explosives. Ever heard a bone break in half from sudden force breaking it instantly in two? In case you haven't it sounds like a cannon shot.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Wow. You guys are amazing at totally ignoring so much information. Just not even addressing it, pretending it's not there. But anyway...


Originally posted by vor75
And how do you know exactly what is contained in those little clouds coming out of the windows?


There are only so many things it could be. The puffs all contain a fine dust; you can tell that much in videos easily. Solid debris can also be seen bursting out in higher res pics like the one at the start of this thread. And concrete dust did rain down, all over Manhattan, obviously from the buildings. Same consistency of the stuff coming from the explosions. Have any better ideas? People sitting around random piles of concrete dust in the Towers or something man?

And you still won't address all the points against air specific to the WTC. I've posted them at least three times in this thread by now and none of you will so much as touch them. Stop comparing the buildings to things that are totally unrelated and actually consider the squibs in the context of the WTC Towers. Put up or shut up, as Howard likes to say.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
[edit on 18-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan


[edit on 18-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]
If the government was behind it then explain what purpose they had in destroying building 7? What purpose did it have of it happening when it did?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmanunc

Originally posted by LoneGunMan


[edit on 18-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]
If the government was behind it then explain what purpose they had in destroying building 7? What purpose did it have of it happening when it did?
And better yet, if you truely believe what you say you believe, why would you still even want to live here in a country where you believe its government murders its own people for a political agenda.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmanunc
And we all know that if a huge 100K ton sky scraper is no longer to support its self and its support beams start to buckle and break it would never ever make sounds that sound like explosives. Ever heard a bone break in half from sudden force breaking it instantly in two? In case you haven't it sounds like a cannon shot.


having my leg bone break in two places. The first sounded like a "pop" and the second one sounded like a hollow tube breaking in half. Albeit, I was involved in a motorcycle accident at the time, and my ears were ringing after I had hit my head on the asphalt at 30 mph and my helmet split open, only to be stopped by a grass covered highway divider. Though, the unmistakable pain i've felt after cannot be forgotten.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotimeThere were and still are Titanic conspiracies. Pull up Google and search titanic conspiracies - there are hundreds.

en.wikipedia.org...


Why the hell are you talking about the titanic? Its like me bring up the nazi party had the Reichstag fire set as their pretext for a foreign attack.


Firefighter in the stairwell of WTC 1 during the collapse: "...this huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came up the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground."
www.whatreallyhappened.com...



We've heard of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted - whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground."
www.whatreallyhappened.com...




"...the fires are so massive, and so much of the buildings continue to fall into the street. When you're down there ... you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes..."
www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Need more accounts caught on video? Why would they lie? Are they mistaken?

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by jmanunc
And we all know that if a huge 100K ton sky scraper is no longer to support its self and its support beams start to buckle and break it would never ever make sounds that sound like explosives. Ever heard a bone break in half from sudden force breaking it instantly in two? In case you haven't it sounds like a cannon shot.


having my leg bone break in two places. The first sounded like a "pop" and the second one sounded like a hollow tube breaking in half. Albeit, I was involved in a motorcycle accident at the time, and my ears were ringing after I had hit my head on the asphalt at 30 mph and my helmet split open, only to be stopped by a grass covered highway divider. Though, the unmistakable pain i've felt after cannot be forgotten.
High school football game, kick off kid is the first to get to the kick off return wall blocking for the runner, breaks his arm in the collision. The sound it made was so loud you could feel it in your chest. It littarly sounded like a cannon being shot. If a breaking bone can make the noise i heard it make, breaking steal beems and concret can make noises that sound like explosions.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
For my part, I didn't answer your points because you seem to be visualizing air travelling downward through the building and out the windows somehow...

The idea here is that sections of the building are failing ahead of the main collapse.

From the force of the top coming down, there would have been shock waves travelling up and down the length of the building several times (the percussion velocity in steel is 6km per second) ... the waves would cancel one another here, and amplify one another there, into mach stem waves.

Certainly, there would be enough energy at random points to buckle and blow out windows, and cause parts of lower floors to give way (and shoot debris out those windows).

Now I'm certain you will explain to me why the first moments of collapse wouldn't transmit shock downward through the building -- even though steel is an excellent medium for transmitting shock waves.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by tayzer
When the building collaspe on each other of course the air goes up, but it also has to go down.


Until enough pressure builds up to allow the air back upwards and out. This would occur well before the air would start pulverizing concrete into dust and exploding it out of the side of a building with enough force to blow solid debris about a hundred feet out into the air.

You're failing to address these problems as well:


  • The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.
  • There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
  • There were expulsions very early in the collapses, so we are apparently to believe that the pancaking of a few floors would cause violent explosions of solid debris.
  • The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
  • The expulsions contain dust particles of the same consistency of the concrete dust and etc. that "snowed" down over Manhattan and coated the streets. This couldn't have travelled down the building ahead of collapse like that, and came out of a non-mech floor.
  • All other air shafts were in the core, necessitating air fly across the floors in a jet without decompressing, before blowing solid debris forcefully off of the sides of the buildings.



Originally posted by tayzer
If your saying that it was a bomb, then what was the use for the plane. The goverment could just bomb the damn building and blame it on terrorist. Save the hassle.


The buildings being demolished provided the psychological shock to bring it all home, and yet the planes and fires alone could not have done it, and explaining how al Qaeda would have rigged the buildings under Marvin Bush's old security team would just raise more questions than provide answers for the public.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
The idea here is that sections of the building are failing ahead of the main collapse.


So vibrating steel did this?



I'm not buying this at all dude. You're going to have to provide some scientific precedent for this phenomenon.

And I don't mean precedent for vibrating steel. I mean vibrating steel pulverizing concrete and gypsum and etc. into a fine dust and then ejecting them over 100 feet out into the air.

Even NIST claims that the squibs were caused by compressed air. You're going out on a bit of a limb, aren't you? With no precedent and no support from your government researchers?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
It was in reference to the OP's picture ... why are there "squibs" well below the collapse at that moment.

Shock waves ... lower floors giving-out locally ... compressing air .... blowing out windows. You sure complain about people not reading your posts properly when you pick and choose yourself.

The picture you posted clearly shows air being pushed out immediately below the main collapse.



Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by vor75
The idea here is that sections of the building are failing ahead of the main collapse.


So vibrating steel did this?

I'm not buying this at all dude. You're going to have to provide some scientific precedent for this phenomenon.

And I don't mean precedent for vibrating steel. I mean vibrating steel pulverizing concrete and gypsum and etc. into a fine dust and then ejecting them over 100 feet out into the air.

Even NIST claims that the squibs were caused by compressed air. You're going out on a bit of a limb, aren't you? With no precedent and no support from your government researchers?


[edit on 18-5-2006 by vor75]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join