WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Also notice the wording in the summation. Does it look familiar?

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ke-Trapped.php

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It doesn't matter- if there had been an earthquake at the time, places that measure such things nearby would have picked it up. The activity that earthquake monitors -did- pick up was quite interesting, however. It suggested that explosives took down the towers:
    New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation



    If they're hit by earthquakes or explosives, sure. Otherwise, no.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Yes, very familiar John. Next time we see a building collapse via earthquake or controlled demolition, we can say that they pancaked, ok?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    The 2nd worst insult on Sci....right after "fucking smelly shit" and just before the #1 spot of "Intellectually Dishonest".
     
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    they were hit with a big bombs...the airplanes. you seem to forget that.
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Nothing like stating the obvious. First time i have seen you do that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The airplanes' effect was negligible, as even official story supporters' Bazant & Zhou's paper makes clear:
    The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.

    By the way, I took a look at the earthquaked school you were talking about:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Notice how the concrete is still in blocks instead of pulverized to dust? I think it's safe to call this an earthquake pancake collapse, which we can easily distinguish from a WTC like controlled demolition pancake collapse, which pulverizes the concrete to dust .
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    John, I'm not sure if you understood me. I'm saying that the only thing that could get high rises to completely collapse are earthquakes or controlled demolitions. I certainly don't believe that planes and office fires could have done it. I've now made a further distinction between earthquakes and what happened at the WTC buildings.
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Well then i take that back.
    :yawn:
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Ah, but debris from the twin towers hit it and then a bit of fire; the official story is that that was enough to bring it down. The 9/11 commission didn't even think WTC 7 was important enough to mention. When the protests concerning the official disinterest in this building got loud enough, however, they made some efforts to actually find out what happened. Ofcourse, by then, all the steel had been removed. It made it harder to investigate what really happened. Even WTC 7 investigator Jonathan Barnett didn't seem to pleased about it:
    We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7".

    The video of the above transcript can be seen here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    That's the John I know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I hope you are not serious. Design theory and assumptions made by the designers to hype a building design is a separate issue. The airplane you\they are\were referring to are not nearly the size that hit the towers and does not mention Ten Thousand (or more) gallons of burning fuel. It was an optimistic estimation.

    Sure a toofer can at least acknowledge some truth.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Um, Stryder, I just took a look at the bottom and.. it looks like you added pseudoscience but didn't actually remove woo-woo

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Bazant & Zhou aren't the WTC designers, they're official story supporters who wrote a peer reviewed paper that shaman_ frequently likes to tout. They got a bunch of things wrong but this particular point is one that even Steven Jones' agrees with.


    Actually, 707s are indeed about the size of a 767. What's more, they tended to actually go a bit faster then the 767s:
    The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
    The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

    Both planes hit the towers below 607 mph.


    Actually the buildings were designed to handle more then that. A fully fuelled Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    They were not 'designed' to handle that. They were designed for many other reasons and considerations but those are estimates because they were not tested with the same variable mentioned. And of course not the ENORMOUS amount of burning fuel. Which was one of the major issues.

    Here is a question for you:

    If a manufacturer of an automobile claims that its car can roll over ten times and the occupants will come out unharmed would you volunteer for the test?

    Now double it because that is would be similar to the scenario we are discussing.

    So you would volunteer?

    Does it mention the fuel in the theoretic estimations?
     
  19. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Don't care to argue about it anymore. I know that's a controlled demo - just by looking at it. The official story is obviously a lie (at least regarding WTC7 in my opinion). Therefore the rest could be a lie or not.

    The next question is what to do about it. I can't do anything about it. So IDGAF anymore.

    What are you going to do about it? You can try to convince people that can't be convinced, you can tell new people about it (though most have now either heard the arguments and made their own decision), but it doesn't really matter.

    They got away with it. Next time they pull this shit don't give them a chance to get away with it.
     
  20. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    This is the response I posted in May:
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

    That thread ended in October and he never responded. But I emailed that to Richard Gage in June of 2007 when I first emailed it to Greening. Gage responded saying it was correct. It is curious that Mackey assumed the mass tapered toward the top but the combination of steel and concrete made no difference but Greening assumed it was constant. It is as though these guys just have to make some complicated junk no matter how fundamentally flawed and they can find people who will go for it.

    .
    The funny thing is that you act as though consensus matters and yet your Greats are going against the consensus of the majority of people accepting the official story. You can't have it both ways Scott. I am not saying that my way is THE ONLY WAY to prove the plane didn't do it. I just happen to think a lot of people could regard it as absurd that we don't have this data after SEVEN YEARS and that it could be a useful tactic to the Truth Movement to point out to everyone that the NIST hasn't come up with simple data. I just think it is much better than screaming "Inside Job, Inside Job".

    Another curious thing would be for the Obama administration to have every engineering and architectural school in the country come out with an official position paper on the destruction of the 3 WTC towers. It looks to me like most of them are just being silent and people just take that as support of the official story. They should be made to state their position and explain it.

    psik
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Straight from NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf, page 302 (418 in the pdf tab):
    Salient points with regard to the structural design of the World Trade Center towers:
    1. The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings....
    3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. Because of its configuration, which is essentially that of a beam 209' deep, the towers are actually far less daring structurally than a conventional building such as the Empire State Building where the spine or braced area of the building is far smaller in relation to the height. The building as designed is 16 times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the Structural Engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure. This is not the case with conventional buildings where a more radical approach must be used if the building is to be constructed at reasonable cost...
    7. The design has been reviewed by some of the most knowledgeable people in the construction industry. In a letter to John Skilling, the Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, the Chief Engineer for the American Bridge Division of U.S. Steel Corporation said:
    "In reviewing this design with our Operating and Construction Departments, we are very optimistic that you have turned a new page in the design of structural steel. It is high time that some new thinking be applied in structural steel. In the words of our General Manager of Operating, Lester Larison, he said - 'It was the best damn thing that he has seen come down the pike in his 46 years of experience. Imagine designing a 100-story building for under 30 pounds per square foot.'"​

    John Skilling put it more succinctly in an 1993 interview after the first WTC attack, for the Seattle times:
    "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

    He knew what -could- bring the towers down, though. The very end of the article states rather presciently:
    Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

    "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."​


    Ofcourse not. It's a bad example. However, if the designer of the WTC building said that the towers should only have suffered significant damage where the planes hit and yet the towers suffer a complete collapse within seconds of its initiation and the -only- way the designer could have envisioned this happening is if it were taken down by controlled demolition, well, then, don't you think it -might- be good to investigate if the towers were, in fact, taken down by controlled demolition? And yet NIST freely admits it never bothered, that it saved very little of the steel from the twin towers and none of the WTC 7 steel at all. It gives us some tweaked out computer simulations and expects us to swallow the whole thing. The sad thing is that many do.


    Perhaps in the analysis that went missing. But analysis have been done since and they make it clear just how absurd the idea is:
    Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. The Germans didn't get a successful launch of the V-2 until 1942.

    Skyscraper physics is too simple minded to be rocket science. No the 10,000 gallons could ne heat enough steel of the south tower fast enough and the videos make it obvious that a lot of it exploded outside of the building anyway.

    http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4924

    I think you are rationalizing backwards. You have already decided to conclude the plane could do it so you don't need to know the quantity of steel in the impact zone. That is one of the most ridiculous things to not have.

    How do you explain this if there was a raging inferno?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2foEo8pzDZY

    psik
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Scott, dont you read what i post before posting the same redundant hypothetical snippets from before anything even happened?

    The designers also claimed this long before 911:

    Maybe they did believe this so i cannot speculate on that. But doesnt the notion of MULTIPLE, say 3 or more, 707s loaded with fuel seem JUST a little far fetched?

    The truth is that they really didnt know for certain nor could they have known. Note the words "probably" and "believe".

    And to use mosquito netting as an example is pretty fantastic claim in and of itself. I dont see the connection either.

    But refuting these unsubstantiated and cavalier claims is getting tiresome.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page