The 911 challenge thread
01-27-2008, 10:53 PM
#42
i'm bored, so i figured i might as well watch the presentation. But it's annoying as hell because these guys must have searched for hours to find the shitiest video embed player they could. well mission accomplished fellas. Nothing helps highlight a presentation better than buffering every 10 seconds on a 3 minute video clip.
Reply
0
0
01-27-2008, 11:00 PM
#45
Wow, I wanted a Porsche thread. Instead I get some ******* idiot trying to convince me that planes didnt fly into the WTC. Best possible scenario, you convince a bunch of individuals from a miata site that planes didnt fly into buildings. Wow. I beg you to consider keeping the BS section full of what belongs here. BS.
Reply
0
0
01-28-2008, 12:44 AM
#51
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Just to clarify, the explosives were used to bring the buildings down after the planes hit and the fires burned for some time.
Slide #22 is interesting to me.. The official "pancake" theory says the burning floor collapsed, and then the weight of the chunk of building above it fell down, crushing the floor below, then the next floor below collapsed, until the whole bldg was gone. Slide #22 shows a demolition gone wrong. Only the bottom floor blew out, the whole building dropped down... but it stopped! The weight of the whole building falling down wasn't enough to crush any subsequent floors! The next slides talk about several tall buildings that burned for over 6 hours without collapse. (one of them, for 19 hours!)
The most damning thing in my mind is slide 293. That the pancake theory cannot explain the free fall acceleration. If the top hits the next floor, the top part will be slowed down as per the conservation of momentum - the combined momentum of the stationary floor below (zero) and the top part would slow the pair down.
The official NIST investigation only investigated/modeled up to the point that the initial collapse of the burning floors. They took it for granted that this would initiate the subsequent "pancaking". This is the true crux of the matter; many have said that pancaking would not happen even if the burning floors collapsed.
The earlier FEMA report shows several unanswered anomalies not addressed by the NIST report, including evidence of thermate...
And More
(Slide 272) It is interesting that the tower with direct hit in the middle with jet fuel burning inside fell *after* the one that did not have a direct hit and jet fuel exploded outside.
(Slide 252) NY fire fighter saying fire is out right before collapse.
(Slide 233, 236) Where are the pancakes and concrete? Why the concrete has turned into powder? Entire building turned into dust like a demolition.
(Slide 212) Thermite on Steel - this is not fire damage or yielding/shearing!
(Slide 110) lots of bang bang gunfire-like sounds before collapse.
more..
Pulverization of concrete - most of it dust, no chunks larger than a fist
Multistory lengths of steel beams embeded into next door buildings, some flew >300 ft .. calculated eject velocity 55 mph. Air pressure can't do that.
Multiple "squibs" - industry term for mistimed explosives - in all 3 buildings.
Symmetric collapse of all 3 buildings into their footprints.
Pool of molten steel under rubble for weeks - typical result of explosives demolition. Fire wouldn't cause steel to "flow like lava" (as per witnesses)
Slide #22 is interesting to me.. The official "pancake" theory says the burning floor collapsed, and then the weight of the chunk of building above it fell down, crushing the floor below, then the next floor below collapsed, until the whole bldg was gone. Slide #22 shows a demolition gone wrong. Only the bottom floor blew out, the whole building dropped down... but it stopped! The weight of the whole building falling down wasn't enough to crush any subsequent floors! The next slides talk about several tall buildings that burned for over 6 hours without collapse. (one of them, for 19 hours!)
The most damning thing in my mind is slide 293. That the pancake theory cannot explain the free fall acceleration. If the top hits the next floor, the top part will be slowed down as per the conservation of momentum - the combined momentum of the stationary floor below (zero) and the top part would slow the pair down.
The official NIST investigation only investigated/modeled up to the point that the initial collapse of the burning floors. They took it for granted that this would initiate the subsequent "pancaking". This is the true crux of the matter; many have said that pancaking would not happen even if the burning floors collapsed.
The earlier FEMA report shows several unanswered anomalies not addressed by the NIST report, including evidence of thermate...
And More
(Slide 272) It is interesting that the tower with direct hit in the middle with jet fuel burning inside fell *after* the one that did not have a direct hit and jet fuel exploded outside.
(Slide 252) NY fire fighter saying fire is out right before collapse.
(Slide 233, 236) Where are the pancakes and concrete? Why the concrete has turned into powder? Entire building turned into dust like a demolition.
(Slide 212) Thermite on Steel - this is not fire damage or yielding/shearing!
(Slide 110) lots of bang bang gunfire-like sounds before collapse.
more..
Pulverization of concrete - most of it dust, no chunks larger than a fist
Multistory lengths of steel beams embeded into next door buildings, some flew >300 ft .. calculated eject velocity 55 mph. Air pressure can't do that.
Multiple "squibs" - industry term for mistimed explosives - in all 3 buildings.
Symmetric collapse of all 3 buildings into their footprints.
Pool of molten steel under rubble for weeks - typical result of explosives demolition. Fire wouldn't cause steel to "flow like lava" (as per witnesses)
Reply
0
0
01-28-2008, 02:52 AM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 698
Total Cats: 0
I've watched several documentaries and read many things, and above many other things, had seen ground zero as well as know someone who works at THE engineering firm testing the steel from the buildings over collapse controversy.
It all does not hold water. It seems like "hey that seems right" but it's a logical fallacy. Choosing to believe that the "bang bang" noises when the tower collapses are explosive charges is simply a opinion. More likely, it might actually be the sound of the buildings structure oh...breaking? or how about those pockets of natural gas that are created after the line fracture and are left to fill an entire office?
Above all else, at least approach this the way a simple minded (since well...to be honest that's kinda what you are implying) philosopher does. What do you gain from believing its a giant conspiracy? Well...you can hope to influence others and a larger investigation would be done (much too late after the fact) and it would come out that the govmnt. was not responsible. Do you think even if you know, anyone will want the government to be responsible? It's not gonna happen. So either you can be miserable and alienate everyone around you because you won't shut up about it, and be called crazy, and a zealot for god knows how long. Or you can shut up, accept the fact that it sucked like everyone else, know that we are building a new tower, have faith in your government
and try to deal with the normal **** you have going on.
Weigh your options man, it's just not worth the effort to believe that the whole thing was elaborately planned up by some mastermind government. That **** would leak anyway, i mean ****...NSA couldn't keep it under wraps that they were logging every cellphone communication in the US whether you were a terrorist or not.
It all does not hold water. It seems like "hey that seems right" but it's a logical fallacy. Choosing to believe that the "bang bang" noises when the tower collapses are explosive charges is simply a opinion. More likely, it might actually be the sound of the buildings structure oh...breaking? or how about those pockets of natural gas that are created after the line fracture and are left to fill an entire office?
Above all else, at least approach this the way a simple minded (since well...to be honest that's kinda what you are implying) philosopher does. What do you gain from believing its a giant conspiracy? Well...you can hope to influence others and a larger investigation would be done (much too late after the fact) and it would come out that the govmnt. was not responsible. Do you think even if you know, anyone will want the government to be responsible? It's not gonna happen. So either you can be miserable and alienate everyone around you because you won't shut up about it, and be called crazy, and a zealot for god knows how long. Or you can shut up, accept the fact that it sucked like everyone else, know that we are building a new tower, have faith in your government
and try to deal with the normal **** you have going on.
Weigh your options man, it's just not worth the effort to believe that the whole thing was elaborately planned up by some mastermind government. That **** would leak anyway, i mean ****...NSA couldn't keep it under wraps that they were logging every cellphone communication in the US whether you were a terrorist or not.
Reply
0
0
01-28-2008, 03:07 AM
#57
Ok, I watched the whole thing and they make it sound like it was an explosion. Their physics arguements are what got my attention. The buildings fell too quickly. Some of the video's show things flying out of the building before that area ever collapsed. I certainly don't have an explanation and don't know what happened either, but I do think it deserves more attention. At least, more investigating. They need to know what happened.
Reply
0
0
01-28-2008, 03:10 AM
#58
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 1
Is Bush THAT smart to pull this off,lol.
Regarding the Boeing 707, here's another snippet...
The World Trade Center was designed to withstand the force from the impact of a Boeing 707, lost in the fog and travelling at a relatively slow speed of 180 miles per hour.
The Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the World Trade Center were significantly heavier, with fuel for transcontinental flights. American Airlines Flight 11 was travelling at 470 miles per hour when it crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 was travelling at 590 miles per hour when it crashed into the South Tower.
The energy contained in an airplane or other moving object is proportional to the velocity.
where m is the object's mass (in kg) and v is the object's speed (in m·s−1).
Aircraft
Boeing 767 -North Tower- (179,168 kg * 210.12)/2 = 3,954,417,824 (energy)
Boeing 767 -South Tower- (179,168 kg * 263.72)/2 = 6,229,464,421 (energy)
Boeing 707- (163,293 kg * 80.46722)/2 = 528,658,660(energy)
(*my comments* Notice how much MORE energy was in the 767s?)
The engineers also did not consider how fires resulting from a crash would affect the buildings. It was a combination of the damage from the impact of the Boeing 767's, and the resulting fires that ultimately caused the steel columns to weaken to the point where they failed and the building collapsed.
And here's something from a bunch of implosion geeks:
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
Regarding the Boeing 707, here's another snippet...
The World Trade Center was designed to withstand the force from the impact of a Boeing 707, lost in the fog and travelling at a relatively slow speed of 180 miles per hour.
The Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the World Trade Center were significantly heavier, with fuel for transcontinental flights. American Airlines Flight 11 was travelling at 470 miles per hour when it crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 was travelling at 590 miles per hour when it crashed into the South Tower.
The energy contained in an airplane or other moving object is proportional to the velocity.
where m is the object's mass (in kg) and v is the object's speed (in m·s−1).
Aircraft
Boeing 767 -North Tower- (179,168 kg * 210.12)/2 = 3,954,417,824 (energy)
Boeing 767 -South Tower- (179,168 kg * 263.72)/2 = 6,229,464,421 (energy)
Boeing 707- (163,293 kg * 80.46722)/2 = 528,658,660(energy)
(*my comments* Notice how much MORE energy was in the 767s?)
The engineers also did not consider how fires resulting from a crash would affect the buildings. It was a combination of the damage from the impact of the Boeing 767's, and the resulting fires that ultimately caused the steel columns to weaken to the point where they failed and the building collapsed.
And here's something from a bunch of implosion geeks:
DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.
WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?
Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.
DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.
WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?
Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.
DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.
Reply
0
0
01-28-2008, 03:10 AM
#59
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
That **** would leak anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
"The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the US Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane, sinking a U.S. ship, burning crops and blaming such actions on Cuba. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford."
Reply
0
0
01-28-2008, 03:12 AM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 698
Total Cats: 0
don't you think if it was a "planned" explosive collapse the idea would be to NOT have little bits flying out places it shouldn't? I mean, you can't use both arguments "it fell too neatly, like someone used charges...look how contained it was!" and "look there were explosions! stuff flew out the sides!"
Reply
0
0
