9/11 conspiracy debate

[racefactory]

Except those buildings didn't have a core beam structure, they were a skeletal beam structure.

Where did you you get your engineering qualifications?

I got it from the Botch Engineering institute.

[Jantar]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

I believe that this http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm debunks the freefall theory.

[Oakie]

Freefall didn't particularly worry me. What did was how the hell do you get enough explosive rigged in an inhabited building even half that tall to drop it without anyone noticing . The answer of course is you can't and the figures in the article prove just how ludicrous the suggestion was.

As an aside though, at work we have an ex special forces soldier who fought in the Balkans war. (Bosnian). He was telling me the other day that he showed the footage of the towers coming down to a special forces friend of his (explosives expert) who had never seen the footage and his first reaction was to ask who had done the demolition as it did look very much like a controlled demo. Looks can be deceiving I guess.

[mashman]

I could accept 1 building collapsing like that. But 3? There is also the news story with the reporter commenting that building 7 had collapsed, where you could clearly see it over her shoulder in the background. They report what they're told to report. None of it adds up and it has to be the fluke of the century for 3 buildings to fall without demolishing those around it. Just my take though.

[Virago]

Bullshit, any engineer knows it's a controlled demolition...

The beauty of the internet is that any moron can declare themselves to be an authoritative engineer...

[PrincessBandit]

The guy on the grassy knoll did it...

Did you say the grassy Noel?

[ducatilover]

Did you say the grassy Noel?

I thought it said greasy knob....

[onearmedbandit]

I could accept 1 building collapsing like that. But 3? There is also the news story with the reporter commenting that building 7 had collapsed, where you could clearly see it over her shoulder in the background. They report what they're told to report. None of it adds up and it has to be the fluke of the century for 3 buildings to fall without demolishing those around it. Just my take though.

Soooo, what would you have expected to have happened instead when two airliners hit them?

[Laava]

[mashman]

Soooo, what would you have expected to have happened instead when two airliners hit them?

I would have expected the aircraft fuselage to have gone clean through the buildings to start with. I haven't seen any footage that shows that and it confuses me. As for the buildings, I just find it very difficult to accept that 3 building dropped straight down when the supporting structure should have been able to hold the weight of the building above, enough to stagger the fall anyway. I base that assumption on the buildings having carried the above floor weights for a number of years. Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.

You?

[Jantar]

I would have expected the aircraft fuselage to have gone clean through the buildings to start with. I haven't seen any footage that shows that and it confuses me.

Have you ever looked at the construction of an aircraft fuselage? It is a very flimsy construction and relies on its complete shape and structure for its strength. It only requires a small deformation and the whole thing will crumple up. I would have been very suprised had any of the fuselage continued right through the building. However I would also have been extremely suprised if the engines didn't carry right through. Oh! they did.

As for the buildings, I just find it very difficult to accept that 3 building dropped straight down when the supporting structure should have been able to hold the weight of the building above, enough to stagger the fall anyway. I base that assumption on the buildings having carried the above floor weights for a number of years. Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.

You?

Well, the buildings didn't fall quite as straight down as you seem to imply. Have a look at this photo of the Tower 2 collapse and note the top section. http://www.debunking911.com/

Now consider that it wasn't just the weight of the top floors that caused the lower ones to collapse for Towers 1 and 2, it was the impact from the floors above. It wasn't just a stable weight, but a weight hitting at 90% of freefall speed.

Tower 7 is a different story and is at least partly due to design fault. But see http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf for a peer revied study of its collapse.

[shrub]

Have you ever looked at the construction of an aircraft fuselage? It is a very flimsy construction and relies on its complete shape and structure for its strength. It only requires a small deformation and the whole thing will crumple up. I would have been very suprised had any of the fuselage continued right through the building. However I would also have been extremely suprised if the engines didn't carry right through. Oh! they did.

Many years ago I earned my living fixing aeroplanes (RNZAF), and they are made of an aluminium alloy and are NOT designed to withstand frontal impacts - in fact their nose cones are usually made of very light fibreglass. When they hit buildings they crumple, but the energy of a 160 tonne object travelling at around 500 mph is off the scale. And when you set alight to around 60,000 litres of jet fuel (kerosene) things get really ugly. Jet fuel burns relatively slowly compared to petrol, so instead of a big old WHOOSH it's a big old whoooooooooooooooosh, and metal gets hot and soft, concrete cracks and buildings fall down.

Which they did.

Now as for the involvement of the CIA etc, I am a cynical fuck and I reckon TPTB turned a few blind eyes because it worked for them, just like I reckon Osama could have been taken out years ago - do you honestly think the best equipped secret service in the universe took 10 years to find him?

[dangerous]

The guy on the grassy knoll did it...

and its no wonder you never made it to 'inspector'

I would have expected the aircraft fuselage to have gone clean through the buildings to start with. I haven't seen any footage that shows that and it confuses me. As for the buildings, I just find it very difficult to accept that 3 building dropped straight down when the supporting structure should have been able to hold the weight of the building above, enough to stagger the fall anyway. I base that assumption on the buildings having carried the above floor weights for a number of years. Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.

so you also believe ther was a bomb in the CTV building chch then?
re Jantar's comment about fuselarges, agreed

The 16 floors of stairs thats 32 sets of stairs in the forsife barr building calopsed and compressed below ground level, no bombs involved... buildings arnt designed to carry the waight of the floor above letalone 2 foolrs, 3 floors etc.
what a farking crock a shit this bomb theory is, why bother with the effort of hijacking if all ya needed to do was hide a bomb.

[YellowDog]

what a farking crock a shit this bomb theory is, why bother with the effort of hijacking if all ya needed to do was hide a bomb.

Films make money - That's why!

Their Hollywood sponsors wanted ALL the action, without the need for additional special effects.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

It was them damn Aliems I tell you them pesky damn Aliems... Its always the Aliems