I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy

[superisis]

I belive that from viewing tons of videos of this incident and other incidents buildings are not easy to take down.

The jet fuel should IMO only be able to weaken/melt the steel structure around the impact area which is no more than a few floor and never ever a whole floor. The building is simply to thick. Looking from other accidents where planes have exploded, hit buildings or anything like this there is rarely much dmg around the plane or to much melt land IMO again.

So it comes down to weakening a couple of floors below and a few above.

Even if the whole above part of the building was to collapse it would till and fall down on to the side of the impact where most of the steel structure and structure as a whole would be damaged. It would never be enough to make the entire building to collapse. The bottom floors constantly hold up the entire x floors every day.

Maybe the construction firm cut costs buy making the towers weak vs jumbo-jets. Saved a lot of money I'm sure. Or maybe there weren't any jumbo jets around at the time. Point is, maybe the building was just weak (compared to the others you've watched being assaulted by airplanes). How come all the conspiracy theories/alternative truths require so much more faith and so much less logic than the "truth" (inside quotations since not everyone in this thread agrees with the term). I'm not an engineer/physics major but I do trust the (probably) millions of smart and skilled people who have looked over the facts and decided not to challenge them.

This aint global warming, most scientists disagree with your interpretation of physics.

 

[Ondskan]

@Jericho

Other peoples opinions are not yours to call "trolling" and never will be.

Mytbusters, seen that show and the episode. They aren't exacly what I'd call reliable sources.

The 9/11 has written in their report that the surrounding floors and its steel structure was weakened by the Jetfuel. I never said that they belived in other theories. They as everyone that dares to call them a respected scientist belives that even that was enough to destroy the entire building.
Other respected scientists belive that it was not enough.

There's no respected scientist that belive the jet fuel weakened the entire structure. Please find one if you can.

But if you read my post you'd understand I meant that.
Try to read the next time and not assume. I have read engineering books. Nothing to advanced though. Just about the different construction models used in modern and older buildings. Have you?

Again all you managed was an attempt paint my opinion as false. Try to paint any picture of your opinion.


@Superisis.


There's plenty of them. They are just silenced a bit.
I don't belive in many conspiracy theories. All the ones I've belived in have gained more and more support. Such as the plans for a North American Union and Global Warming. But they aren't at all silenced with threats or something like this. There's many books, professors and engineers that belive that the other side is wrong, they simply don't get much attention. If you want to find out you can.

 

[lovett]

Skyscrapers weigh way more than planes. If I ran a stick into a rock, the stick would break and the rock would stay the same. It's very simple.

This is really an awful analogy. Awful.
I mean, a skyscarper isn't a solid object for one. A stick doesn't contain flammable jet fuel as a second. And I bet you don't throw a stick made of aluminium at the rock, moving at several 100 km/h.

And, to carry on the jokes:

Isn't a building heavier then a wrecking ball?

I can't be bothered to read two pages of rubbish.

My degree is in mechanical engineering. I know a bit about steel.

The fire did not have to MELT the steel. Steel is weakened simply by being heated. In other words, hot steel is much weaker than cold steel. In other words, steel buildings collapse when they burn, because the fire weakens the steel long before it melts. I learned this in school, I have seen it in person, and any know-it-all who claims that the towers couldn't have collapsed because the fire wasn't hot enough to MELT steel is an unprintably unspeakable idiot.

Don't make me come back in here. You will not like it.

Im curious. Presumably temperature change can effect the size of a steel frame in skyscrapers, quite significantly? Like it does rail tracks and so on?

Do skyscrapers take any measures to counteract this, and if so, what?

Just curious whether you, or anyone else here, could enlighten me.

 

[Merkinball]

Anybody with any understanding of structural steel, and reinforced concrete, that's taken a basic materials science, or mechanics of materials class knows that...we were probably lucky that the towers stood that long.

The buildings were designed to collapse, or implode as they did. Structural steel begins yeilding long before it reaches its melting point. A contained jet fuel inferno has temperatures that far exceed the requirements to get structural steel to reach its yeild point.

Conspiracy theorists are dolts.

 

[Ondskan]

We weren't lucky that it stood that long.
It couldn't have fallen faster than free-fall and it was only 50% slower.
Nobody sane disputes the fact that jetfuel weakened the area around the impact. That's not where the debate is.

It's about how a building can implode like that just because a small part of it is weakened. Could you please explain this to me in as advanced terms as you or anyone ellse is schooled to do. I'd love a real engineer to explain this in physics to me.

(How does the building implode in almost free fall speed just because a small area of it is damaged/weakened or even destroyed/melted/ruined completely).

 

[Merkinball]

We weren't lucky that it stood that long.
It couldn't have fallen faster than free-fall and it was only 50% slower.
Nobody sane disputes the fact that jetfuel weakened the area around the impact. That's not where the debate is.

It's about how a building can implode like that just because a small part of it is weakened. Could you please explain this to me in as advanced terms as you or anyone ellse is schooled to do. I'd love a real engineer to explain this in physics to me.

(How does the building implode in almost free fall speed just because a small area of it is damaged/weakened or even destroyed/melted/ruined completely).

What about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis? Was that an inside job too? Some structure's, or mechanical systems experience complete catastrophic failure when a seemingly small part fails. Why does an engine get blown to bits when a simple crankshaft breaks?, or a connecting rod breaks?

There were how many stories above the weakened area's? There was how many thousands of tons of compression from the mass above it? Then, accelerate that mass downward upon failure, and continue to accelerate more mass, and more mass, just with exceptionally more mass. It was essentially like a complete vertical avalanche, except it was comprised of much heavier materials. Steel, and steel reinforced concrete. It's practically impossible to get a structure to support the force of a three story fall accelerating twenty/thirty stories of sky scraper. You're talking about ridiculous forces.

My mechanics class learned the factor's of safety that had been built into the structures. And in all reality, they were exceptionally high. There's basically very few structures on the face of the earth that had a higher factor of safety than the twin towers. Some dams, and some bridges, but that's about it. And even when you examine the force from the free falling top tiers of the building...man...it just absolutely stood no chance NOT imploding. The buildings were designed to hold the static weight on top of it. The 83rd story was NOT designed to hold an accelerating force of 37 stories slamming down onto it after a 40 foot fall.

And again, the building was designed to implode centrally in the event of a catastrophe anyway. They were designed to fall in like that.

 

[JerichoHill]

First, go here:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/skyscraper5.htm

Then, have a plane come through and destroy many of the vertical columns, and have the fire weaken many.

Now, at the area of impact, the structure will not suppor the top. The buildings framework supports for awhile, but eventually buckles. Then the top collapses.

This is very easy to understand. Please read Popular Mechanics.

 

[Elta]

I don't think there was a planed demolition but, I do believe there was some sort of large rattling in the bottom of the building before the planes hit. My step dads golf buddy says he was working there and it felt like an earthquake went off in the basement 4 or 5 seconds before the first plane hit. Maybe someone who infiltrated the building screwed with the broiler room to make it exploded and add more chaos to the situation. After all Osama himself said he didn't think the buildings would actually fall.

2 sticks of C4 in two important columns wouldn't be impossible for al queda to arrange either IMO

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It's about how a building can implode like that just because a small part of it is weakened.

It didn't implode, it collapsed. Big difference.

 

[Ondskan]

There's accounts of fire fighters and police who were closest after the impacts also hear one or several sounds resembling explosions or earthquakes and after that the buildings collapse.

What is interesting is that the top floors don't actually collapse before the lower part starts collapsing. As seen in this video:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kv4s3fn8jDc the top floors are holding up as the lower ones start exploding which means that the top ones actually never even reached and pounced the ones below the impact as is illustrated in most computer simulations (floor upon floor falling on each other).

In clear language: The top floors that are supposed to cause the chain reaction that makes the lower floors collapse aswell never catch up with the lower floors falling.

It's good to add that security protocol/system was changed just days prior to the terrorist atacks aswell: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html


@ Eran. I agree, if anything it collapsed. But some here say it imploded. I'd like them to explain that
Ofcourse I also disagree to that it collapsed due to the jetfuel. Anyway this just shows that even the people who support the "official theory" don't really know what to think as we who don't belive in the "official theory". It's a mess of belifes, opinions and "facts".

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I like Jericho was in NYC that day. I saw the aftermath of the first plane hitting and then I saw with my own eyes the second plane hit. I watched the buildings come down.

I too will remove myself from this thread before I get banned.

 

[Ondskan]

Wouldn't you rather share your experience of this horrible event?
Did people mention explosions or ground shaking, if you talked to any of the people present at the event itself that is.

It's a nasty thing but people should talk about it to better understand it.
Few people doubt that terrorists flew planes into those buildings but if there's more to the story than that wouldn't you want to know? Despite the chance being small INYO

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Wouldn't you rather share your experience of this horrible event?
Did people mention explosions or ground shaking, if you talked to any of the people present at the event itself that is.

It's a nasty thing but people should talk about it to better understand it.
Few people doubt that terrorists flew planes into those buildings but if there's more to the story than that wouldn't you want to know? Despite the chance being small INYO

Your wrong. Most people know that planes were flown into buildings. You have it on video even. There is no denying that, no matter how hard you try. While you are welcome to your feelings, if your ever in NYC i would be careful about vioceing them for your own saftey.

 

[Merkinball]

What is interesting is that the top floors don't actually collapse before the lower part starts collapsing. As seen in this video:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kv4s3fn8jDc the top floors are holding up as the lower ones start exploding which means that the top ones actually never even reached and pounced the ones below the impact as is illustrated in most computer simulations (floor upon floor falling on each other). - Onskdan

Build a tower out of linking logs, the same thing will happen. There's really nothing tearing apart that upper mass. However, as that upper mass fell downwards, stripped more mass, gathered more mass, continued to accelerate faster and faster, it gained more and more ability to pull apart the building below it. There was no real destructive force acting on the top parts of the buildings.

Did you ever have Lincoln Logs? Have any lying around? Make a big verticle tower, weaken one part, and you can watch this sort of thing in action. You can see it in some imposion video's as well.

 

[Ondskan]

Thats the thing tho. The upper part never collapsed and never accelerated and produced force. It was actually about to tilt when the explosions started/it started tilting when the explosions started (hard to see exacly). 2.40

@Bronx:
I know planes flew into the buildings. There's no doubt about that in my mind, that's not what I am saying. All I'm saying is that the whole story doesn't end with that. Read the Guardian article I presented. It points out several important things and should be able to sum it up better than I ever could.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Breaking my own promise not to get involved anymore

Can someone please point to one peice of real, undenyable evidence that a conspiracy took place? Just one?

You would need thousands of people to be involved for this to be an inside job, from the financers to the guys who did whatever needed to be done. Your telling me not one has come forward or been arrested on another charge and started talking? Your telling me this happened, without a hitch, perfectly?

Yeah

 

[Elrohir]

Basicly what I think was done is that Terrorists flew the planes into the building but that those planes couldn't possibly take down the building.
After watching countless of videos and reading what scientists and architects from both "sides" have said I must say that I agree with those who say that explosives were placed.

Who are the scientists and architects on your "side"? Can you name a single credible structural engineer who agrees that this had to be a controlled demolition? I eagerly await the "countless" videos from credible scientists and architects who say a controlled demolition took place.

As an aside: How could they possible plant enough explosives to bring down a building the size of the WTC? Do you know how long that would take?

You guys are so indocrinated by the media it isn't even funny

Skyscrapers weigh way more than planes. If I ran a stick into a rock, the stick would break and the rock would stay the same. It's very simple.

You are amazing.

 

[Ondskan]

Begin by reading the article I gave you and search about it on wikipedia (9/11).
There you will find the names of several highly awarded scientists who belive what I belive.


After that you can research on your own. it's better that way than me telling you what to look for and who to read, I've done that a little to much already.

___


Edit: About the explosives, I don't know. The change of security protocol and the in many peoples opinion lowered security might have contributed. It's just as peculiar as to how the hijackers got on the planes in the first place when they were suspected by the FBI and when the gov. was warned by among others France that a terrorist atack was about to happen.


Gonna eat now. Cu's

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Begin by reading the article I gave you and search about it on wikipedia (9/11).
There you will find the names of several highly awarded scientists who belive what I belive.


After that you can research on your own. it's better that way than me telling you what to look for and who to read, I've done that a little to much already.

I'd like you to show me something aside from theroy.

 

[Merkinball]

Thats the thing tho. The upper part never collapsed and never accelerated and produced force. It was actually about to tilt when the explosions started/it started tilting when the explosions started (hard to see exacly). 2.40 - Onskdan

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!! THREE FLOORS OF BOTH BUILDINGS CAVED IN INSTANTANEOUSLY AND ALLOWED THE FLOORS ABOVE IT TO BEGIN FALLING DOWNWARD WITH GRAVITY!!!!! WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION PRIVATE!!! YOU PRESENT CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE OLD PEOPLE F__K!!!!