WTC Collapse Mystery solved, Maybe !

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Singularity, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,374
    What makes you think the passengers overpowered the hijackers?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    Well we have about 4 years worth of footage when it comes to WWII... but those hijackers being overpowered is just speculation, there's no proof that a bunch of good-willed citizens decided to bring it down. Did they find the blackboxes? No.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Are you absolutely certain of that? I seem to remember reading that they recovered both of them from that crash. The VDR was damaged and unusable and the FDR was fine but wasn't much help.
     
  8. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    It was Flight 93 that was brought down by citizens, correct? Yes that one was found, but the government didn't let anybody except family members (sworn under secrecy, btw) listen to it... So ummm, the allegation that a bunch of people brought it down was conceived by the news media under no concrete proof, and now it has a life of its own.

    If you can show me where these people got the idea that it was brought down because the hijackers were overpowered, I'd like to see it.
     
  9. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    They got the idea because some of the passengers called and left messages for their families using their cell phones, saying that they intended to retake the plane. They were aware at that time of the fate of the other planes, and realized there was no alternative.
     
  10. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    WTC collapsed because of the jet fuel burning from airplanes...metal infrastructure of WTC began to melt, thus the buildings collapsed. And no WTC did not have a mass dumpening, that picture on the 1st page of the tread shows the inside of the Petrona Twin Towers and if WTC had the same thing that wouldnt have saved it, the WTC went down because of the metal melting and infrastructure diseintegration.
     
  11. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Exactly. The impact of the planes took out most if not all of the glass on the impact floor, and probably the floors imediately above and below. And likely damaged the sprinkler system as well. Several thousand gallons of what is essentially kerosene sprayed over lord knows how many thousand pounds of paper, plastic, wood, carpeting and what ever other flammable materials you find in an office building and the whole works ignited. And somebody wonders why they fell? Geez.
     
  12. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    So... why would blacksmiths need a forge to melt metal when they can obviously do it over an open flame? And Kevin, the kerosene burned within 5 minutes, all the other material wouldn't have lasted long enough to reach steel melting heat (impossible for an open flame). Not lasting long enough because once one floor was obsolete of fuel, the fire moved on up or down.. so it couldn't possibly have heated the metal enough before moving on.

    Can we continue this discussion about where the news media got the info about the plane going down due to good samaritans?
     
  13. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
     
  14. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    All steels lose most of their strength substantially below their melting point.

    And I mean substantially.

    And I mean most.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I am not entering the main discussion as I have no kowledge about it, but think that the implied idea that the quick buring of the jet fuel (not actually kerosene, but close) would achieve less heating, appears to be wrong. If a ton of fuel is completel burned in X minutes, instead Y minutes (X < Y), I am inclided to thik that more, not less,of the energy released would be absorbed in the building. I.e. less would be lost to the enviroment. I may be wrong on this, but I would need some counter argument to accept the idea that quick burning is less likely to heat the interior of a building.
     
  16. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    So why did it wait to melt in WTC ?
     
  17. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    Uh, because perhaps the fire took time to burn? And the cement took time to crumble in the heat, and collapse without the help of steel strength?

    Why then, to use your theory Anomalous, did they not blow up the bombs immediately? Why wait?
     
  18. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    Comeon Rodent, U r trolling.

    The whole show was made by David Cooper fields relatives, They wanted to make believe that the entire building collpase because of the meltdown, hence the delay,

    If U do that again , I wont respond.
     

Share This Page