The Eiffel tower isn’t the World Trade Center, and no one cut through one leg of the WTC.
If you loaded the upper parts of the Eiffel tower with massive amounts of concrete, and then in the middle softened all the girders progressively with heat, though with some of course weakening more than others, then yes, when the tower reached the point of no longer being unable to hold the load, it would all rapidly come down in one pile.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The Eiffel tower isn’t the World Trade Center, and no one cut through one leg of the WTC.
If you loaded the upper parts of the Eiffel tower with massive amounts of concrete, and then in the middle softened all the girders progressively with heat, though with some of course weakening more than others, then yes, when the tower reached the point of no longer being unable to hold the load, it would all rapidly come down in one pile.[/quote]
Where do you get the information to be able to claim this? I mean are you just using your own logic principles and thoughts on physics & Building engineering or are you actually going of some event that happened prior to 9-11? Or since even?
V
What about all the aircraft carriers coincidentally being at sea the weekend of the Pearl Harbor attack? That was not required by a law of physics? Was the US government complicit by:
On Vegita’s post: Interesting that you don’t turn your argument on yourself and/or the truthers, with their regard to their insistence of how buildings must fall.
As to why I say what I do: I am going on physics and complete lack of evidence that the building should have fallen any way other than how it did as a result of weakened structural members from fire.
For that matter, one of the engineers responsible for constructing the building was calling the Fire Department (or other official agency) while the firefighters were going in to warn them that from his knowledge, what did happen was exactly what was going to happen, and would happen rapidly due to the lack of asbestos shielding.
It’s purely making stuff up to claim the buildings would have fallen differently unless explosives were used.
On dswithers’ post: Has nothing whatsoever to do with “truthers” claims of explosives being used on the WTC, as “evidenced” (supposedly, but with no evidence) by how it fell.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, you know, when people claim it’s super-suspicious that objects fall straight downwards under the pull of gravity when no longer supported, and make that fact allegedly-important evidence for their theory, judgment does get called into question.[/quote]
No, not at all, we completely agree that when things are no longer supported they would fall straight down, we just don’t buy that the supports of the building magically all failed at the same time due to fire. They obviously all failed at the same time, that we are not questioning at all. (building 7) Especially when the cause of the fire was applied to one side of the building. Logic would lead me to believe the damage would be greater on the side of the source of the fire and would be less on the side furthest from the source. Again, it would just be logical if the side of the building whose supports encountered the fire first had collapsed first. Of course this also would be the first steel framed skyscraper to ever collapse ONLY from fire, so there is that too. ???
V[/quote]
Still going to fall straight down.
And still catastrophically and suddenly: one moment still (just) able to support the massive weight above, and the next moment, not.[/quote]
And we have so much data to base this on right? Seeing as there have been hundreds of steel framed skyscrapers to collapse from fire, oh wait thats right, this is the first and only, so really there is no way of knowing exactly how it would happen, so having some suspision doesn’t actually make you completely crazy.
Also I disagree with you that it “would” happen this way, steel bends right? So if one side collapsed, I would expect the unweakened steel on the other side of the building to bend before it breaks. The force applied to it would escalate over a period of time from a load it could handle to a load that it could not handle but still slow against gravity, to a load that would cause it to fail completely at slowing. I didn’t see anything that resembled the second stage, it just went from handling the load to not hanling it at all, uniformley throughout the building.
V[/quote]
Ok V a couple of things here;
You are correct there have been no other fires in high rise buildings that have caused catastrophic failure (ie. collapse)
Fire doesn’t just contain itself to a single area. As the heat rises it spreads laterally through the floors and continues to travel up from floor to floor (this is called mushrooming). Thus resulting in superheating of all contents in the area and causing a resulting “flashover”.
We also have no data other than WTC 1 & 2 on what the reald world effects of flying a 747 into the construction style used on WTC. One of the problems is also in other high rise fires they were able to supply water to the sprinkler systems on the upper floors. In this case there is the possibility that this infrastructure was damaged and the fire pumps for the building were unable to supply water to these upper floors (nor were the standpipes of any use).
Just some information from somebody educated in the fire service.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The Eiffel tower isn’t the World Trade Center, and no one cut through one leg of the WTC.
If you loaded the upper parts of the Eiffel tower with massive amounts of concrete, and then in the middle softened all the girders progressively with heat, though with some of course weakening more than others, then yes, when the tower reached the point of no longer being unable to hold the load, it would all rapidly come down in one pile.[/quote]
Where do you get the information to be able to claim this? I mean are you just using your own logic principles and thoughts on physics & Building engineering or are you actually going of some event that happened prior to 9-11? Or since even?
V[/quote]
V, I suggest you read through this:
I’m a practicing engineer with past experience in structural steel design, and I can vouch for the science. PM doesn’t have some agenda, and isn’t part of some big conspiracy. The conspiracy nuts don’t understand steel construction, and have clearly not performed a real structural analysis on the building design. A building like the WTC is a very complex and precise design, and altering just a few key components (ie. by weaking through heat) can cause a “domino effect” as other components fail to pick up the loads. The reason you haven’t heard of other skyscrapers coming down due to fire is because no other skyscrapers have been hit with large aircraft and ignited with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Normal fires don’t do that kind of damage, and they can usually be contained and localized by the building’s fire supression systems.
Also, just from the standpoint of what makes sense:
The idea that a corner can come down but the rest ought to bend and supposedly throw the building sideways isn’t considering the enormous shock of having thousands of tons of weight at first accelerate downwards for a few feet, then strike the floor below.
The building below was designed to support all that weight above: but not all that weight plus such massive shock. Hence the “pancaking” so unfortunately seen.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I watched last night. It’s absolutely wonderful that jesse is taking the alex jones torch and bringing it to cable TV. Even if they aren’t going to get any groundbreaking answers, I just hope they get more people asking these questions.
The climategate thing was just such a big win for the truth movement. I mean One of the most common arguments I hear is hwo could such a wide reaching conspiracy be kept quite by so many people for 1,3,5,19 years. And here we have climategate which was kept secret for nearly 8 years and was only leaked when some hackers broke in and stole the info. It’s not like an insider leaked the information. Most people just have no idea what individual humans will do for money and power. These people were more than willing to CRUSH the world economy, and all it was really about was them getting rich off the waves of upcoming government spending. The investment by the private sector in green type companies. Etc…
V[/quote]
I agree with what you’ve posted. To answer the question as to how such a thing can be kept secret is very simple. The prevailing politically correct environment is a natural for keeping such things a secret. If you speak out against a politically correct notion you are immediately castigated on the public stage. It’s not a matter of certain scientists stepping up and telling the truth, they’d be glad to if they would not be publicly humiliated and have their careers threatened.
[/quote]
So would you then say that it would be a possible reality that IF there was government involvement in the 9-11 attacks that anyone who was involved would not leak the information for fear that the group they would betray would likley hunt them and kill them and thier families/loved ones? Would you also say that it is a possibility for this group to not only not leak information but try as hard as they can to actively cover up and hide any involvement they and others had. Certainly if they came out, even as a whistle blower they would eventually be tried themselves and executed for treason right? So there really would be very little to gain from becoming a 9-11 whistleblower at this given point in time. 50 years from now maybe, but then it will most likley be far too late to actually prosecute anyone for anything.
V[/quote]
I’m not saying that at all. Anyone who actually believes that our own government would blow up the twin towers falls into one of the following groups:
Driven to wild conspiracy theories because of an extreme lack of trust in our government(no you shouldn’t trust the government but this group goes over the edge).
Very young. I like young people, they’re gullible, curious, imaginative and did I mention that they’re gullible?
Has a very low IQ. Sorry to say it but stupid people fall for just about everything. “I read it on the Internet it must be true”!
Driven by some sort of profit motive. This one is what drives the cottage industry of “the government did it”. And it’s the same motive that drives the UFO craze. Books, articles, TV shows, etc. Always follow the money.
I can create a conspiracy theory on almost any topic you can name and make it sound believable. I think we’d all be better served if this conspiracy theory died, but it won’t, it will never die as long as group four is making money and groups one, two and three have some money to spend.
[/quote]
I fall into none of those categories yet I fully believe that 9/11 was an inside job.Anyone who takes the time to look at the facts should be able to figure that out.
Now Im not saying the “government” did it, but certainly a group who opperates in and around the united states did.
[/quote]
No, If anyone within or with ties to the government knew about it then every aid and worker in the government would have to know about it also. A Small group could never pull this off. Well of course unless they had the unlimited resources of a cave and some turbans, then they could pull it off.
V[/quote]
I read heavy sarcasm in that.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
If I cut through one leg of the Eifel Tower, would you expect it to fall straight down into it’s own footprint? Or would it fall towards the side where the support was taken out, even if the remaining 3 supports were insufficient to hold the entire weight of the tower up. I just can’t see it falling straight down into it’s own footprint.
V[/quote]
Correct, Building 7 was demo’d anyone who doesnt see that is blind.
The oklahoma federal building didnt fall down and it was blown in half.
Also steel will bend but not much, it more like flexes.The steel I beams at ground level were seared off at 45 degrees which is impossible to happen to all of them without demo.Also 45 degrees is the exact angle demo is placed on steel beams when a building is demo’d.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The Eiffel tower isn’t the World Trade Center, and no one cut through one leg of the WTC.
If you loaded the upper parts of the Eiffel tower with massive amounts of concrete, and then in the middle softened all the girders progressively with heat, though with some of course weakening more than others, then yes, when the tower reached the point of no longer being unable to hold the load, it would all rapidly come down in one pile.[/quote]
So Bill youre saying you believe the idea that the planes blew away all the fire retardent when the planes hit the towers.
No, I believe the documented fact that government regulations prevented asbestos shielding from being used as designed in the mid to upper levels of the WTC.
This is also the fact that the engineer who called the city at the very time the firefighters was going in was specifically warning them about: that because of this lack of asbestos the towers could not be expected to withstand the fire for very long and the firefighters were therefore in imminent extreme peril.
Or do you figure he was in on the conspiracy and the call was made as a diversion tactic to make people think explosives weren’t used?
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The Eiffel tower isn’t the World Trade Center, and no one cut through one leg of the WTC.
If you loaded the upper parts of the Eiffel tower with massive amounts of concrete, and then in the middle softened all the girders progressively with heat, though with some of course weakening more than others, then yes, when the tower reached the point of no longer being unable to hold the load, it would all rapidly come down in one pile.[/quote]
So Bill youre saying you believe the idea that the planes blew away all the fire retardent when the planes hit the towers.[/quote]
That is a possibility, but keep in mind the material is not flame retardent it is fire resistive (not fireproof). It is a spray on material that detiorates over time and does easily fall off, and will also decompose when exposed to high enough heat.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Also steel will bend but not much, it more like flexes.The steel I beams at ground level were seared off at 45 degrees which is impossible to happen to all of them without demo.Also 45 degrees is the exact angle demo is placed on steel beams when a building is demo’d.[/quote]
Dude, no offense, but you clearly know NOTHING about statics, strength of materials, or structural design. Steel will react to different forces in a variety of ways depending on many factors. Some being: Steel composition, steel grade, heat treatment (or exposure), shape and size of beams, direction and magnitude of force, etc. Steel beams will bend to a certain point, then can break (yes at 45 degree angles), deform or bend severely, or a combination of both. Also, welds and connections (bolts, rivets, etc) are also each a potential fail point and each react differently to stresses. To say that you can look at a picture of a fallen building and determine the cause without performing a exhaustive structural analysis (in this case 1000s of engineering man-hours) is incredibly ignorant.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Correct, Building 7 was demo’d anyone who doesnt see that is blind.
The oklahoma federal building didnt fall down and it was blown in half.
[/quote]
2 completely different buildings:
Different size
Different design
Different structural materials
Different stresses to the structure
As I said before, unless you have done a complete structural analysis, you can’t make ANY accurate claims. FEMA (and the popular mechanics article I linked) did this analysis. You are saying ALL of FEMA is in on the conspiracy?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I believe the documented fact that government regulations prevented asbestos shielding from being used as designed in the mid to upper levels of the WTC.
This is also the fact that the engineer who called the city at the very time the firefighters was going in was specifically warning them about: that because of this lack of asbestos the towers could not be expected to withstand the fire for very long and the firefighters were therefore in imminent extreme peril.
Or do you figure he was in on the conspiracy and the call was made as a diversion tactic to make people think explosives weren’t used?
[/quote]
No I dont believe that but lots of firefighters and Police officers reported hearing explosions in the buildings before exiting and watching them come down.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I watched last night. It’s absolutely wonderful that jesse is taking the alex jones torch and bringing it to cable TV. Even if they aren’t going to get any groundbreaking answers, I just hope they get more people asking these questions.
The climategate thing was just such a big win for the truth movement. I mean One of the most common arguments I hear is hwo could such a wide reaching conspiracy be kept quite by so many people for 1,3,5,19 years. And here we have climategate which was kept secret for nearly 8 years and was only leaked when some hackers broke in and stole the info. It’s not like an insider leaked the information. Most people just have no idea what individual humans will do for money and power. These people were more than willing to CRUSH the world economy, and all it was really about was them getting rich off the waves of upcoming government spending. The investment by the private sector in green type companies. Etc…
V[/quote]
I agree with what you’ve posted. To answer the question as to how such a thing can be kept secret is very simple. The prevailing politically correct environment is a natural for keeping such things a secret. If you speak out against a politically correct notion you are immediately castigated on the public stage. It’s not a matter of certain scientists stepping up and telling the truth, they’d be glad to if they would not be publicly humiliated and have their careers threatened.
[/quote]
So would you then say that it would be a possible reality that IF there was government involvement in the 9-11 attacks that anyone who was involved would not leak the information for fear that the group they would betray would likley hunt them and kill them and thier families/loved ones? Would you also say that it is a possibility for this group to not only not leak information but try as hard as they can to actively cover up and hide any involvement they and others had. Certainly if they came out, even as a whistle blower they would eventually be tried themselves and executed for treason right? So there really would be very little to gain from becoming a 9-11 whistleblower at this given point in time. 50 years from now maybe, but then it will most likley be far too late to actually prosecute anyone for anything.
V[/quote]
I’m not saying that at all. Anyone who actually believes that our own government would blow up the twin towers falls into one of the following groups:
Driven to wild conspiracy theories because of an extreme lack of trust in our government(no you shouldn’t trust the government but this group goes over the edge).
Very young. I like young people, they’re gullible, curious, imaginative and did I mention that they’re gullible?
Has a very low IQ. Sorry to say it but stupid people fall for just about everything. “I read it on the Internet it must be true”!
Driven by some sort of profit motive. This one is what drives the cottage industry of “the government did it”. And it’s the same motive that drives the UFO craze. Books, articles, TV shows, etc. Always follow the money.
I can create a conspiracy theory on almost any topic you can name and make it sound believable. I think we’d all be better served if this conspiracy theory died, but it won’t, it will never die as long as group four is making money and groups one, two and three have some money to spend.
[/quote]
Hey there might be 10 categories but I chose those four as the most obvious. Why don’t lay out a few more categories for us?
[quote]Gregus wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And, Zeb’s point was that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are either young, have a low IQ, have an extreme over-the-edge distrust of government, or have a profit motive, or good questions.
Not that you must combine them all at the same time 
[/quote]
fixed.
On a totally unrelated note, I wonder if the citizens in Germany that ren around warning that some crazy party is trying to take over. Surely they were labeled Conspiracy Nuts and granted most also were executed. [/quote]
I know (reasonably confident) that you are smart enough to realize that there are exceptions to the rule. For example, if I say that every conspiracy theory ever launched is wrong, I’d be wrong. Obviously, there were people sitting around in Germany claiming that a guy named Adolf was going to try to take over the world. That however does not mean that the people sitting around claiming that Bush blew up the towers are correct. Or, are you saying that ALL conspiracy theorists are correct?
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I watched last night. It’s absolutely wonderful that jesse is taking the alex jones torch and bringing it to cable TV. Even if they aren’t going to get any groundbreaking answers, I just hope they get more people asking these questions.
The climategate thing was just such a big win for the truth movement. I mean One of the most common arguments I hear is hwo could such a wide reaching conspiracy be kept quite by so many people for 1,3,5,19 years. And here we have climategate which was kept secret for nearly 8 years and was only leaked when some hackers broke in and stole the info. It’s not like an insider leaked the information. Most people just have no idea what individual humans will do for money and power. These people were more than willing to CRUSH the world economy, and all it was really about was them getting rich off the waves of upcoming government spending. The investment by the private sector in green type companies. Etc…
V[/quote]
I agree with what you’ve posted. To answer the question as to how such a thing can be kept secret is very simple. The prevailing politically correct environment is a natural for keeping such things a secret. If you speak out against a politically correct notion you are immediately castigated on the public stage. It’s not a matter of certain scientists stepping up and telling the truth, they’d be glad to if they would not be publicly humiliated and have their careers threatened.
[/quote]
So would you then say that it would be a possible reality that IF there was government involvement in the 9-11 attacks that anyone who was involved would not leak the information for fear that the group they would betray would likley hunt them and kill them and thier families/loved ones? Would you also say that it is a possibility for this group to not only not leak information but try as hard as they can to actively cover up and hide any involvement they and others had. Certainly if they came out, even as a whistle blower they would eventually be tried themselves and executed for treason right? So there really would be very little to gain from becoming a 9-11 whistleblower at this given point in time. 50 years from now maybe, but then it will most likley be far too late to actually prosecute anyone for anything.
V[/quote]
I’m not saying that at all. Anyone who actually believes that our own government would blow up the twin towers falls into one of the following groups:
Driven to wild conspiracy theories because of an extreme lack of trust in our government(no you shouldn’t trust the government but this group goes over the edge).
Very young. I like young people, they’re gullible, curious, imaginative and did I mention that they’re gullible?
Has a very low IQ. Sorry to say it but stupid people fall for just about everything. “I read it on the Internet it must be true”!
Driven by some sort of profit motive. This one is what drives the cottage industry of “the government did it”. And it’s the same motive that drives the UFO craze. Books, articles, TV shows, etc. Always follow the money.
I can create a conspiracy theory on almost any topic you can name and make it sound believable. I think we’d all be better served if this conspiracy theory died, but it won’t, it will never die as long as group four is making money and groups one, two and three have some money to spend.
[/quote]
I fall into none of those categories yet I fully believe that 9/11 was an inside job.Anyone who takes the time to look at the facts should be able to figure that out.
Now Im not saying the “government” did it, but certainly a group who opperates in and around the united states did.
[/quote]
And I’m betting that under close examination you would in fact fall into one (or more) of those four groups.
Sorry.
horsepuss stated on a thread entitled “Brave New World Or 1984” the following:
12-15-2009, 08:17 PM
horsepuss
Level 2
[quote]This article hits the nail on the head of how I believe this world is run by secret societies and the wealthy.
Loved reading it and intend to pick up those books, Thanks Headhunter[/quote]
You are overly distrustful of our government and hence believe that the US government is capable of blowing up the twin towers and killing its own citizens.
I should have added one more thing to my four prong theory, those who are distrustful conspiracy theorists rarely think they are. Almost like that fat guy you know who has no idea that he’s fat. Yea you know the guy I’m talking about.
Some people don’t fully understand where they fall as they think that their reasoning is legitimate and very logical.
Keep in mind I only looked at ONE of his posts.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I believe the documented fact that government regulations prevented asbestos shielding from being used as designed in the mid to upper levels of the WTC.
This is also the fact that the engineer who called the city at the very time the firefighters was going in was specifically warning them about: that because of this lack of asbestos the towers could not be expected to withstand the fire for very long and the firefighters were therefore in imminent extreme peril.
Or do you figure he was in on the conspiracy and the call was made as a diversion tactic to make people think explosives weren’t used?
[/quote]
No I dont believe that but lots of firefighters and Police officers reported hearing explosions in the buildings before exiting and watching them come down.[/quote]
In a pancake style collapse (which is what happened here) one floor slams down onto another pushing the air out (like clapping your hands).
No take into consideration that each floor was 39,000 square feet.