Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

reply to post by Tower7WTF


It is an example of how inductive reasoning can lead to wrong conclusions.

Never before has a concorde crashed. Conclusion: the one that did crash must have been a conspiracy.
Never before has a highrise building collapsed due to fire. Conclusion: the one that did collapse must have been a conspiracy.

See the similarities?

As for the temperatures that were reached, publish a paper that shows its not possible. When it gets accepted by a majority of engineers I will have to revise my position.

Never before has a concorde crashed. Conclusion: the one that did crash must have been a conspiracy.
Never before has a highrise building collapsed due to fire. Conclusion: the one that did collapse must have been a conspiracy.

See the similarities?

No sorry i dont .... a concorde is an aircraft controlled by man ..... a highrise building is a professionally constructed solid structure.

And why would you wait for someone to put forward an oppinion you beleive ? why not just look deeper and build your own opinion ? Thats the trouble with the OS , people just believed it and didnt ask questions.
I believe the people at AE for 911 truth make alot of sense , and they dont throw it at you and scream "listen" like NIST.

But to be honest , theres alot of theories going around which have prevented us from getting to the bottom of this.... one for example is the nuke theory ... those people need to make their mind up what planet theyre on.

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
No sorry i dont .... a concorde is an aircraft controlled by man ..... a highrise building is a professionally constructed solid structure.

It is about the structure of the argument, not the content. Of course buildings are not planes. If you do not recognice a similar structure in the argument then so be it.

And why would you wait for someone to put forward an oppinion you beleive ? why not just look deeper and build your own opinion ? Thats the trouble with the OS , people just believed it and didnt ask questions.
I believe the people at AE for 911 truth make alot of sense , and they dont throw it at you and scream "listen" like NIST.

Because I am not an expert in building collapse so I have to rely on what people who are experts have to say about it. The problem with truthers is that they often think they have become experts themselves after watching a youtube video.

But to be honest , theres alot of theories going around which have prevented us from getting to the bottom of this.... one for example is the nuke theory ...

those people need to make their mind up what planet theyre on.

To me it is a bit like a christian arguing why islam is a silly religion. Or in other words, I have yet to hear of an alternative theory that is plausible and supported by evidence.

reply to post by -PLB-


There is a difference that a layman woulnd't understand.

The mesh of the towers is a known entity, a known design type that would not fail from a hole being punched through it.

I think someone could safely say if you made a huge hole in a chain link fence, the fence would not collapse. Do you agree, or do you think that no one can make that claim until you see it?

Saying the Concorde would not crash, or the Titanic would not sink, isn't even in the same ballpark. Planes crash, boats sink, chain link fences do not collapse from holes punched in them. Known events PLB predict future events.

reply to post by ANOK


Buildings also collapse, some without anything out of the ordinary happening to them. What you are showing here is a falacy called special pleading.

And comparing high rise building to chain link fences is just silly.

And comparing high rise building to chain link fences is just silly.

edit on 24-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

You do know how the towers were constructed right ?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by -PLB-

 

There is a difference that a layman woulnd't understand.

The mesh of the towers is a known entity, a known design type that would not fail from a hole being punched through it.

I think someone could safely say if you made a huge hole in a chain link fence, the fence would not collapse. Do you agree, or do you think that no one can make that claim until you see it?

Saying the Concorde would not crash, or the Titanic would not sink, isn't even in the same ballpark. Planes crash, boats sink, chain link fences do not collapse from holes punched in them. Known events PLB predict future events.

ANOK that would depend on the size of the hole and the position!

You keep going on as if when you make a statement its right, well since you keep going on about the laws of motion my dont you list the ones you think take place during this event.

In simple terms so the layman can understand why dont you tell everyone why the OS cant be true according to the wisdom of ANOK?

Originally posted by ANOK


I think someone could safely say if you made a huge hole in a chain link fence, the fence would not collapse.

No, It collapses. Just like the buildings.

reply to post by Tower7WTF


For starters, chain link fences do not support anything. The support columns in the WTC tower did.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Tower7WTF

 

For starters, chain link fences do not support anything. The support columns in the WTC tower do.

*facepalm* ....... it was like a building inside of a building ...... the construction of the perimeter / floor levels , was similar to a chain link fence, only , this one was made out of A36 steel.

And the cores werent effected by the crashes .... so they were obviously destroyed in another way , looking at how WTC 1 collapsed .... and the plane didnt even hit the core in WTC 2.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Tower7WTF

 

I don't know of this ever happening before, for example a high rise fire being unattained for over 6 hours. Just to point out a fallacy here:hasty generalization. Simply put, there are not enough samples of high rise building fires in order to make any statement about it. And even if there are, inductive reasoning is still inconclusive. From inductive reasoning, the Concorde could not crash. Until it did.

What utter rubbish? What holds up airplanes and what holds up skyscrapers?

So how could the amount of steel required to support 29 stories weaken in ONE HOUR regardless of the fire proofing?

How could the amount of steel required to support 15 stories weaken in TWO HOUR regardless of the fire proofing?

And then the physics profession does not demand to know the amount of steel on every level in TEN YEARS.

I wish I was an alien just so I could laugh my ass off at the entire human race. Assuming aliens have asses of course.

psik

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
this one was made out of A36 steel.

A36 is what the rest of the world calls mild steel. It's nothing special. Now if the towers were built out of 4130 chromoly heat treated to a Rockwell hardness of 42 I'd be impressed.

A36 Steel is considered a softer metal, sometimes referred to as a "mild steel" recognized with a hardness of approximately 20 on the Rockwell Hardness scale . ..

Chan link fences are made of A36 steel.

" A36 Steel is considered a softer metal, sometimes referred to as a "mild steel" "


And how many 747s have you seen fly through A36 steel un damaged ? however "mild" it is , its still steel , it should have torn the plane apart, not just let it slide on through.

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
*facepalm* ....... it was like a building inside of a building ...... the construction of the perimeter / floor levels , was similar to a chain link fence, only , this one was made out of A36 steel.

No it was not, the perimiter columns were supporting floors. Removing this support means this load had to be redistributed to other supports. These supoorts were then carrying an unusual uneven load.

And the cores werent effected by the crashes .... so they were obviously destroyed in another way , looking at how WTC 1 collapsed .... and the plane didnt even hit the core in WTC 2.

They were affected, read the NIST report. (it looks like you are a reincarnation of a user with reptile in his name. If so, last reply from me).

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
" A36 Steel is considered a softer metal, sometimes referred to as a "mild steel" "


And how many 747s have you seen fly through A36 steel un damaged ? however "mild" it is , its still steel , it should have torn the plane apart, not just let it slide on through.

edit on 24-10-2011 by Tower7WTF because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2011 by Tower7WTF because: (no reason given)

I've seen 2 757 fly through A36 steel. Did you know 7075 T6 aluminum will kick mild steel's ass. Not only in strength to weight but also strength to volume. A 1/4 in thick piece of 7075 T6 al is much stronger than a 1/4"piece of mild steel.

reply to post by Tower7WTF


Hehe they love to throw out words like 'mild', 'lightweight', etc., as if they mean they are somehow inadequate.

They fail to realize those terms are relative, and not literal in the way they want to portray them.

They also fail to realize certain structures can be very strong simply from their design, regardless of what it's made of. They want to believe the towers were like Jenga blocks lol.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


If you wan't to know how fire heats steel, look up the experiments by NIST, Quintiere and others.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
*facepalm* ....... it was like a building inside of a building ...... the construction of the perimeter / floor levels , was similar to a chain link fence, only , this one was made out of A36 steel.

No it was not, the perimiter columns were supporting floors. Removing this support means this load had to be redistributed to other supports. These supoorts were then carrying an unusual uneven load.

And the cores werent effected by the crashes .... so they were obviously destroyed in another way , looking at how WTC 1 collapsed .... and the plane didnt even hit the core in WTC 2.

They were affected, read the NIST report. (it looks like you are a reincarnation of a user with reptile in his name. If so, last reply from me).

NIST lied , and when confronted about it mayaswell have said ..... meh .......
Look at wtc 2 , the plane breaches both sides , indicating it didnt even touch the core , the collapse of wtc 1 , the antenna drops first , it was on the centre of the core, so the core gave way first .
Its not rocket science.

I've seen 2 757 fly through A36 steel. Did you know 7075 T6 aluminum will kick mild steel's ass. Not only in strength to weight but also strength to volume. A 1/4 in thick piece of 7075 T6 al is much stronger than a 1/4"piece of mild steel.

edit on 24-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Dude just .... go away
2nd.

Originally posted by Tower7WTF

I've seen 2 757 fly through A36 steel. Did you know 7075 T6 aluminum will kick mild steel's ass. Not only in strength to weight but also strength to volume. A 1/4 in thick piece of 7075 T6 al is much stronger than a 1/4"piece of mild steel.

edit on 24-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Dude just .... go away

2nd.

Didn't someone tell you to go away yesterday. You did get the message.,,, Right ?