|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 107)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
LOL, no just waiting for them to post another steel skyscraper that collapsed due to fires the same way WTC7 did. They can talk all they want but they still have not found one.
The Windsor Building in Madrid burned much longer and reached much higher temperatures then WTC7 did. (800 Degrees Celsius/1,472 F)
This building did not collapse. :eyes:
All buildings are built differently but if fires did demolish WTC7 then everyone working or living in a steel framed skyscraper should evacuate now. If these buildings are so easily demolished by fires why is no one rushing to fix the many thousands that already exist around the globe?
Fires? LOL. |
while it is true that there are lots of steel framed skyscrapers that behave quite well in fire situations..... the level of fire protection in the key strucutral components plays a huge role. pre 1970 era structures used large amounts of asbestos as a fire protection agent. WTC used sheetrock. two very different materials and not to mention buildings as old as the empire state building were very much over engineered. The era in which it was desinged did not have the insight into material behaviour and finite element analysis that we do today. and thus we can build much lighter and ecinomical structures....
as for the building in Iran, from the best of my knowledge the main construction material in teh middle east is reinforced concrete due to its ample availibility and cost. i do not belive that there are any steel mills in the middle east so all strucutral steel would have to be imported at great cost. If i were to make an educated guess, that building would most likely be a reinforced concrete building. |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Not to sound rude or anything, but have you bothered reading through the rest of this thread? But I guess I'll go ahead and make a quick comment...
Now factor in the law of conservation of momentum, and the fact that each succesive floor along with it's trusses would offer resistance to the fall. And I don't recall the exact numberm but there's well over 100 floors. Do you really expect all that to happen in [roughly] 13 seconds?!? So you're telling me that an apple dropped from the top of the WTC with no horizontal initial velocity would land approximately the same time as the collapse? Heh, ok, whatever. BTW, there's something posted earlier on this thread, and pancacking should have taken atleast 59 seconds, unless you really thing 9-11 was such a special event that it defied the fundamental laws of newtonian physics. |
That 59 seconds is only if you start at the top and work all the way down each 100 floors. When you have a whole 30 some floor section of the building shift at once it takes a lot less time. 30 floors smashing onto the other 70 floors is quite a bit of weight. That's a ridiculous amount of force.
After falling for 13 seconds an apple would be traveling at over 400 ft./second, so yeah, it's entirely possible. Also, after only 12 seconds an apple or anything really will have fallen almost 2500 feet. Seeing has how the top of the top floor of the WTC was only 1365 or so feet high, it's not only possible it could happen within 9 seconds. Of course this is only based off the calculations I got from punching numbers myself. This is also only true if you believe Newton wasn't trying to hide the "truth". |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
That 59 seconds is only if you start at the top and work all the way down each 100 floors. When you have a whole 30 some floor section of the building shift at once it takes a lot less time. 30 floors smashing onto the other 70 floors is quite a bit of weight. That's a ridiculous amount of force.
After falling for 13 seconds an apple would be traveling at over 400 ft./second, so yeah, it's entirely possible. Also, after only 12 seconds an apple or anything really will have fallen almost 2500 feet. Seeing has how the top of the top floor of the WTC was only 1365 or so feet high, it's not only possible it could happen within 9 seconds. Of course this is only based off the calculations I got from punching numbers myself. This is also only true if you believe Newton wasn't trying to hide the "truth". |
the truth is (as proven by nasa recently) that einstein was right, and newton was wrong. gravity is a phenomenon caused by large masses distorting the space time fabric....... |
|
|
| culorut |
Thats some powerful gravity. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Thats some powerful gravity. |
LOL, yeah, apparently concrete gets puverized into dust by waffles... er pancaking. Hmmm, could explosives do that? Just a thought. Pancacking also causes explosions in the basement before builidings collapse, don't forget that bit :tongue2. Not to mention it confuses the out of NORAD too. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i love it how instead of engaging the discussion people think posting pics or short vids make up for it :rolleyes:
and shaolin, have some ing commitment to the cause and actually argue building construction with colonel here instead of being a cheeky bastard ;) im really wondering why you think concrete is some super, all-powerful substance, completely immune to the forces around it. and yes mate, demolition explosives certainly could make a building "pan cake", but that certainly wouldnt be possible in a clandestine manner. just ridiculous. i have loved demolitions since i was a kid, and it is ing obvious when those charges go off! nothing remotely similar in september 2001, for two of the largest ing buildings ever constructed.
and its wonderful to see you in here again colonel. you're a bright lad :) |
|
|
| tyos |
voted yes.
I'm not so sure if they organized it but i'm sure they are not telling the truth :whip: |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| could explosives create the results that were seen on 911, yes..... could the US gov't rig 3 skyscrapers in downtown new york with enough RDX to implode them on their own footprints without anyone noticing some strange behaviour? no chance in hell..... the pentagon cant keep a few photos of soldiers humiliating iraqi detainees from hittin the internet let alone work crews of hundreds strapping RDX to every column in those three buildings. The statement "Elvis Lives" has more credibility than "the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition" |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
could explosives create the results that were seen on 911, yes..... could the US gov't rig 3 skyscrapers in downtown new york with enough RDX to implode them on their own footprints without anyone noticing some strange behaviour? no chance in hell..... the pentagon cant keep a few photos of soldiers humiliating iraqi detainees from hittin the internet let alone work crews of hundreds strapping RDX to every column in those three buildings. The statement "Elvis Lives" has more credibility than "the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition" |
LOL, apparetnly a lot of people did notice a lot of "funny" thing about 9-11. You just happen to be one of those in denial. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
As I keep pointing out; without the evidence contained in the crater that was WTC, no one can ever find out what exactly brought down the towers.
Given the fact that other buildings had suffered damage from colliding aircraft and/or fire that DID NOT collapse prior to or after 9/11 somehow we are supposed to believe two planes made three skyscrapers fall.
Like I said-- without any solid evidence that was left in ground zero, we will never know the exact truth.
All we have are people from both sides talking out of their faces as experts and non-experts alike from using visual and audible evidence while lacking physical and therefore forensic evidence. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Given the fact that other buildings had suffered damage from colliding aircraft and/or fire that DID NOT collapse prior to or after 9/11 somehow we are supposed to believe two planes made three skyscrapers fall. |
I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing events as if they are alike. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing events as if they are alike. |
True in one case you have small fires in WTC7 causing the building to come down controlled demolition style.
On the other hand you have many buildings which burned much hotter and much longer but never came close to collapsing.
Nothing alike correct, only controlled demolitions bring down buildings in that manner. |
|
|
|
|
