World Trade Centre Dustification
- Thread starter TitanTim
- Start date
john-e89 said:Marlon said:Putting me on the spot eh Johnjohn-e89 said:Yes Colin, discussed, as in theory, clues in the title, conspiracy THEORY, zero facts.
Where do you stand on the amount of psychopaths needed for this, no one will answer me.....I wonder why......:wink:
its a difficult one I admit. What I can not accept currently is that all 3 towers collapsed at free-fall speed - 2 due to plane collisions and one that wasn't even hit. The Professional achitects and design engineers are stacking up in their hundreds on the side that says no plane collision could possibly have caused the collapses and certainly not in the manner they fell.
The report I put on page 5 is perfectly logical Colin, and for every engineer saying no, there are ones saying yes. Have any of them ever had experience of this scenario before? No, it’s unprecedented. And anyone with common sense cannot believe the amount of nutters needed to do this could be found, i’ll hang my hat on the peg and say it would be impossible. Think about it.
Come on John, it’s much more likely that at a time when the entire world’s media was watching, a building that had been burning for hours and had essentially been gutted by fire from the inside-out, was demolished by a massive, conspiratorial plot instead of falling down. :?
I agree that a lot of things don’t add up, and that there has been some manipulation of the facts. Probably also some mishandling or fabrication of key artefacts. I can’t imagine something like this happening and that not being the case though.
By the seaside...
I've stayed out of this but feel that I have to correct this piece of misinformation that keeps being repeated, they did not collapse at free-fall speed - it was 40-50% longer than free fallMarlon said:
There's a good paper on the mechanics of the collapse that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf
This diagram is taken from the paper and shows the difference between free-fall timing and the reality of the collapse
The paper also explains why the buildings collapsed (virtually) into their own footprint rather than toppling sideways...
...but, of course, those people that like to think of it as a conspiracy won't accept anything as mundane as a peer-reviewed paper written by experts in their field...
MrPT said:john-e89 said:Marlon said:Putting me on the spot eh John
The report I put on page 5 is perfectly logical Colin, and for every engineer saying no, there are ones saying yes. Have any of them ever had experience of this scenario before? No, it’s unprecedented. And anyone with common sense cannot believe the amount of nutters needed to do this could be found, i’ll hang my hat on the peg and say it would be impossible. Think about it.
Come on John, it’s much more likely that at a time when the entire world’s media was watching, a building that had been burning for hours and had essentially been gutted by fire from the inside-out, was demolished by a massive, conspiratorial plot instead of falling down. :?
I agree that a lot of things don’t add up, and that there has been some manipulation of the facts. Probably also some mishandling or fabrication of key artefacts. I can’t imagine something like this happening and that not being the case though.
Can you imagine the sheer bewilderment and panic of such an event, I bet they’ve been running around like chickens with no heads, saying this, saying that, when nobody has had any experience of an event like this before.
But you don’t need to listen to any of it, once you listen to others expressing an opinion you’re lost, all you need to do is listen to your own mind and ask yourself one question: Do you believe the amount of people needed are capable of mass murder? That’s it, everything else is irrelevant because it’s an opinion. Once you’ve answered that you can get to point B, or realise the conspiracy are theories based solely on others wanting to distort your common sense.
PerryGunn said:I've stayed out of this but feel that I have to correct this piece of misinformation that keeps being repeated, they did not collapse at free-fall speed - it was 40-50% longer than free fallMarlon said:
There's a good paper on the mechanics of the collapse that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf
This diagram is taken from the paper and shows the difference between free-fall timing and the reality of the collapse
WTC-Fig8.jpg
The paper also explains why the buildings collapsed (virtually) into their own footprint rather than toppling sideways...
...but, of course, those people that like to think of it as a conspiracy won't accept anything as mundane as a peer-reviewed paper written by experts in their field...
Freefall or not, the towers collapsed in around 10 seconds so it may as well been freefall give or take a few seconds, there is no way on gods earth that was down to one plane crash and subsequent fire, its been proven time and again there was not enough topend mass to pulverise the lower levels at the speed it occured. The towers had been designed to withstand multiple jet airliner strikes and proven if one side had been peeled away the structural integrity would still have been intact due to the central core design. The only plausible answer is the towers were blown up, why who knows. I always thought it was strange how many FBI were on site imediately after the event started some who were proven to be explosive experts and strangely kitted out for such an event. Theres plenty of testements from firemen hearing multiple explosions as the towers were collapsing.
If you look at the Grenfell tower and how that burned at far higher temps than the Twin Towers and remained standing. The fires temps in the twin towers after the initial jet fuel had burnt off were quite low as all that was burning was office carpets and furniture etc, temps were certainly not at a 1000 degrees etc to melt steel beams etc. Its never been known for a highrise to collapse through fire alone.
Tim.
john-e89 said:
I've no idea john, were the planes that hit the towers civilian or military? There was even talk that the calls from the planes were faked and that the planes were military. Problem is there's been so much conspiracy theories that the truth will never be known now. What you saw on that day happened but not in a way you think. For me the towers were blown up, no doubt about that, why and how is anyones guess.
Tim.
TitanTim said:
What difference does it make Tim? Military or not? It’s still mass murder. And you’re answering yourself, there are so many conspiracy theories, that’s the point, they’re theories, I cannot understand how rational thinking people are giving theories credibility when all you need to do is use common sense, the hell with theories, they are all someone else’s opinion, they mean absolutely nothing, they have zero fact. Saying you have no idea to mass murder then using your time to argue theories is completely beyond me.
Use common sense Tim.
PerryGunn said:I've stayed out of this but feel that I have to correct this piece of misinformation that keeps being repeated, they did not collapse at free-fall speed - it was 40-50% longer than free fallMarlon said:
There's a good paper on the mechanics of the collapse that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf
This diagram is taken from the paper and shows the difference between free-fall timing and the reality of the collapse
WTC-Fig8.jpg
The paper also explains why the buildings collapsed (virtually) into their own footprint rather than toppling sideways...
...but, of course, those people that like to think of it as a conspiracy won't accept anything as mundane as a peer-reviewed paper written by experts in their field...
Now don't start quoting hard science and things we can prove. Where would that ever lead us ? BTW did you know that there is a German bomber on the far side of the moon ? Oh no it vanished didn't it ? Oh and while I'm at it , any engineer who could not distinguish between temperature and heat would have failed rudimentary thermodynamics . This is an absolutely fundamental principle.
john-e89 said:
I agree john, but common sense to me disregarding all the theories, etc is you have two immensly strong towers, built to withstand an airliner hitting it, remembering that a plane is basically an aluminium tube and of no real consequence considering what it was hitting. Common sense tells me that alone wouldn't have destroyed the towers completely and in exactly the same way. I've no idea if the towers were blown up but I don't believe they were destroyed by the planes alone. I find it fascinating, especially when you consider what little was left of them. Realistically what should have happened is the fires would have continued and burnt themselves out or at the worst the top floors only would have collapsed and the towers would have remained standing, but of course its history now.
Tim.
Yep, there's a lot more 'heat' in a pint of boiling water than a red-hot needle...SeanConnor said:
The fires didn't have to burn hot enough to melt steel just long enough to heat-soak the steel and raise it's temperature high enough to lose structural integrity - strength loss of about 50% at 1100F, the beams try to expand, both ends are fixed so they buckle in the middle...
PerryGunn said:That statement is a prime example of why arguing with conspiracy theorists is a waste of time, facts are ignored or twisted to support their views...TitanTim said:
...so I won't bother visiting you in cloud-cuckoo land again...
So you think a few floors collapsing would have destroyed the entire tower, no way in 10 seconds, I don't need scientific diagrams I saw it with my own eyes on the day. Those towers collapsed on an instant, only one thing can help that along and thats demolition.
Tim.
john-e89 said:
The fuel burnt off very quickly, thermal imaging cameras just before the towers collapsed showed core temps to be very low, only a few hundred degrees C, not 1000s of degrees what people were led to believe and not high enough to have compromised the structure. The point is even if the upper floors had collapsed and pulled the outer walls in the downward inertia and mass would not have been enough to destroy the lower levels all the way down to virtually ground levels in the speed in which it did. That for me is enough to convince me the whole process was helped along.
Tim.
john-e89 said:
I read it John. Theories put forward are credable but I'm not convinced simply because I find it impossible for all the conditions to be present through both towers so they fell in exactly the same way. You could argue well yes they would have collapsed in the same manner as built the same but I can't accept personally that all the conditions were perfect for the both to collapse as cleanly as they did. If say one had half collapsed the other three quarters I could believe the theories you posted on page five would be more credible but I'm just not convinced by it. There is also the issue of why the towers turned to dust in the way they did. The tops of the towers collapsing and having the downward inertia to completely pulverise the lower levels still doesn't cut it for me. Even if the lower structure had been compromised through heat I still don't accept how the lower floors were so cleanly pulverised leaving only a few floors standing at ground level. The pancake theory would only hold true fir me if there were no central cores or strength.
For me demolition is more credible as it's removing the floors more cleanly and you would get that effect as was seen on the day i.e. total destruction as opposed to partial destruction due to failing steel beams, part collapsed floors and walls etc.
It was all too clean and perfect for me for a simple collapse.
Tim.
