Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Woops strange double post
edit on 3/20/2013 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


You ignore my question with one we've been answering for years. There are countless experts screaming for years. Up to you if you feel like listening.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 




google Spain sky scraper fire burned for 20 + hours

But it was constructed with traditional 'I Beam' methods.
WTC was not.
The exterior of WTC could not stand by itself. It required the floor trusses to keep it from buckling.
The building in Spain could.

These collapses are the reason no new buildings will ever be made using the same designs.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Don't take me the wrong way. I'm enjoying this civil discourse. I'm usually on your end of this so give me time to adjust


The Jet fuel burned up. At least 90%. Can we agree on that before moving on?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek
 


google Spain sky scraper fire burned for 20 + hours


yep. It sure did. Also guess what else? The steel only sections collapsed within 2 1/2 hours of fire initiation. The top floors all collapsed rapidly in a short amount of time. All that survived was the concrete pillar core, and that is ALL that allowed the building to remain standing.

Windsor Tower Fire Study


23:00
Fire started at the 21st Floor
1:29
East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37
South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13
Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47
Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51
Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35
South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek
 


It wasn't just hearing things go boom. It was trained firefighters knowing the different noises. Differences you nor I are trained to decipher. Plus fire fighters hard booooms in the basement before the building fell. And that's just scratching the surface.



Where are the booms in the basement before the building fell ? In this clip people can be heard talking normally prior to the collapse. It is the sight of the building actually collapsing that catches their attention :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 




You ignore my question with one we've been answering for years. There are countless experts screaming for years. Up to you if you feel like listening.

Did you look at the qualifications of the signers on those websites?
Verrry few are qualified in the areas needed to support the conspiracy side. And most say something to the effect 'I just want to see a new investigation'.

Why can't these experts get something going beyond a website and paid conferences?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


No problem!

I do agree that the jet fuel burned off rapidly. Like starter fluid for your charcoal grill! But what remained burning was the office contents of over ten floors and there was plenty of "office fuel" to burn nice and hot!



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by bknapple32
 




You ignore my question with one we've been answering for years. There are countless experts screaming for years. Up to you if you feel like listening.

Did you look at the qualifications of the signers on those websites?
Verrry few are qualified in the areas needed to support the conspiracy side. And most say something to the effect 'I just want to see a new investigation'.

Why can't these experts get something going beyond a website and paid conferences?



Architects for truth documentary has more qualified people discussing the events than anyone here though. Have you seen that? Its quite interesting.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Ok off your post before.. In spain... The steel framing burned within 2 1/2 hours... Almost exactly like 1 and 2. Now Im assuming off my research that WTC 1 and 2's core was just as if not more stable than that in Spain, a skyscraper decades older.

Why then did the floors beneath obliterate into dust? Why not react the same way as in Spain? The weight of floors above 90 would not have been enough to crumble the floors below into dust causing near free fall speed.




As for jet fuel. I agree, plenty of office materials to continue the fire. But lets examine the physics of those steel beams. They needed jet fuel fire temperatures to degrade. With 90% of the jet fuel burning away instantly, there just wasnt enough leftover to keep the temperatures hot enough to degrade the steel. Those office fires burned at a much lower temp than if there were just pools of jet fuel continuously burning. As evident by the color of smoke.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
After all these years I still have not seen an explanation from our resident OS supporters how sagging trusses can pull in columns much larger than themselves, without the weaker connections failing first?

A sagging truss cannot put any more force on the columns than they can when they are rigid, let alone do that but not break the weaker 1" and 5/8" bolts first.

So unless you can prove this can happen, your claim that fires caused the collapses is complete nonsense.

BTW paper burning cannot get hot enough to cause steel to fail, period.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 




there just wasnt enough leftover to keep the temperatures hot enough to degrade the steel

But how many exterior colums were severed in the initial impact? The remaining colums were carrying far more than designed.
I think we all agree that steel loses strength with heat.

Why hasn't RG the self proclaimed expert on the buildings, ever shown the remaining ones could withstand the heat and extra load? He has the plans and he in an engineer.

All it took was an engineering student to catch a mistake in the 70's or 80's on another NYC building. That forced them to retrofit steel plates to prevent a wind driven collapse on the building. So it's not rocket science.
But no one has shown on paper that the engineering of the OS is wrong.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by bknapple32
 




there just wasnt enough leftover to keep the temperatures hot enough to degrade the steel

But how many exterior colums were severed in the initial impact? The remaining colums were carrying far more than designed.
I think we all agree that steel loses strength with heat.

Except, those steel beams were built to withstand every day fire heat. Even to withstand jet fuel blasts.




All it took was an engineering student to catch a mistake in the 70's or 80's on another NYC building. That forced them to retrofit steel plates to prevent a wind driven collapse on the building. So it's not rocket science.
But no one has shown on paper that the engineering of the OS is wrong.



A lot of experts have shown that. Whether you chose to acknowledge it is another case.
edit on 20-3-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
So why has the 911 section here, all but dried up in the past year?
Even the conspiracy shows on tv have moved on.


It hasn't dried up in the last year on ATS, it dried up a few months back because the 9/11 forum was shut down.

So it wasn't even active for people to post. Now there it a wat score of 1 required, so no new people can immediately post in the 9/11 forum. That is why it dried up here, you were posting here before it shut down, so you'll know why it's quietened down on here. And you'll also know that since it quietened down it has been slowly picking up again..

This matter will not go away that easily, in fact it wont go away at all, people know they have been lied to, and that is enough motivation to keep researching and discussing 9/11.

People still talk about it daily all over the internet, maybe you need to get away from ATS a bit more often Sam, there's lots of other discussions going on elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
But how many exterior colums were severed in the initial impact? The remaining colums were carrying far more than designed.
I think we all agree that steel loses strength with heat.


But the building should not globally collapse from that. First off it should have leaned towards the damaged columns, the collapse would be asymmetrical, and partial.

Yes steel loses strength from heat, but if it fails it doesn't fail instantly. Also only a very small percentage of the steel would be effected by the heat, yet we got a global failure.


All it took was an engineering student to catch a mistake in the 70's or 80's on another NYC building. That forced them to retrofit steel plates to prevent a wind driven collapse on the building. So it's not rocket science.
But no one has shown on paper that the engineering of the OS is wrong.


Again though they would not have suspected complete global collapse. You are really reaching with these claims.

No one has shown on paper that the OS is right either. Common sense and basic physics tells you the OS is wrong.

Can you show me in REAL LIFE, not on paper, that light weight trusses can pull in massive steel columns when they sag? IF you can do that then you would end the 911 debate mate.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



GenRadek, I thought you said: "All that survived was the concrete pillar core"




Seems to be most of the building and steel still there in this picture.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Plenty of steel holding it up in this shot too...




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Here's some witnesses discussing the explosions in the basement...





Just google basement explosions 9/11 on youtube, loads of witness videos on there..



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 


I was responding to what I took to be a reference to WTC 7. Yes, there are witnesses to elevator shaft doors blown out and fireballs at lower levels in the North Tower due to jet fuel . William Rodriguez, who now seems to be making a living out of being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, attested to it.

en.wikipedia.org...

But these events were shortly after the plane impact. What relevance could they have to a much later collapse from the plane impact point ?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
What i don't get it this....

After 11 years the OS supporters are still here day after day desperately telling anyone who will listen that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Why? Why do you feel the need to do this?

If the evidence is so clear cut like you keep saying. How about letting people do their own research and reach their own conclusion?

To me its so blatantly obvious the OS is a massive lie. I find it hard to believe how anyone cant see this.

11 years of arguing over the internet seems pointless to me





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join