Quote:
Originally Posted by the indigo
Uhhh, they did.
 |
This is a report. It's not an investigation. Anything that did not boost the government version of things was excluded. Actually, this report is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Your calling it "Two differently damaged buildings". Seems to me like two buildings both got hit by airplanes, it's infrastructure pretty much destroyed, and they fell the way all buildings fall. They don't tip over, but instead crashed down on itself because there was nothing to support the upper floors.
|
One building got hit head on, the other at an angle. Most of the fuel ignited outside the building. This one, that got hit second with less damage, fell first. The majority of the infrastructure was unaffected.
They didn't fall the way buildings fall at all - they fell the way buildings fall with destruction charges, but otherwise no buildings have ever fallen this way before.
They were hit at the top quarter and third part of their structures - which means they had up to 75% of the building to support the upper floors. You can't say there was nothing to support the upper floors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
As for your comment about "fire bringing down the buildings", there's two points here. First off, this wasn't your typical fire. Your typical house fire or office building fire doesn't involve tons of jet fuel. So this was a bit more than a "fire". At the same time, no one claimed that fire brought down anything. The towers were nearly sliced in half - and the fire help to bring down the rest.
|
Jet fuel doesn't burn long enough or hot enough to soften metal.
You're wrong about the claims - the government claimed the fire/s brought down the towers.
The towers weren't nearly sliced in half. They were built to withstand a jumbo jet crash. They were "sliced" two thirds and three quarters of the way up. The only part of the plane that could have damaged the building's structure was the engine. The rest is light weight and aluminum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And building 7... I'm so tired of this. Everyone acts like "nothing happened to building 7" but that's as far from the truth as you can get. It suffered two earthquakes from when the other towers fell, then all of the debris pretty much landed at the base of WTC7. This "debris" - which isn't a good term to call billions of tons of concrete - took out nearly a quarter of the base of WTC7.
|
Not much concrete fell, actually. It was mostly turned to dust, by some magical process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You said exactlyi "9/11 proved three times that all it takes is a fire...". Your saying that fire took down these buildings yet seem to recall something about airplanes....
|
True, you're right, I did say that. But I was being facetious. Obviously fires don't bring down steel buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Well if you haven't read heard or seen that a quarter of WTC7 was torn out by debris, you didn't look. At all. All you've read is your side saying "Nothing happen to WTC7 other than a fire" and your ignoring the rest.
Start with wikipedia:
The brown area is the section that was hit by "debris". Again, debris is a bad term to use here because we are talking in terms of tons of steel and concrete and what not.
As for the other buildings, well, three out of ten buildings fell. Some buildings fell, some didn't. Why is it that in 1989 during the big San Fran earthquake the Bay Bridge fell, but the Golden Gate bridge didn't? They were buildings, and built differently. Some of the fell, some of didn't. |
Just from that pic you can tell that it wasn't 25% of the building was compromised.
Regardless, the building fell straight down - vertically, symetrically - which is hard to achieve with controlled demolitions generally, but the ultimate goal and the only time and method where buildings collapse straight down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
WTF are you talking about? This was the largest crime scene ever. Every piece of debris was collected, and sent to NJ where they shifted through it looking for DNA and any evidence.
|
Nope. Check it up. Most of the debris was shipped off-site - at least, the important segments, the steel.
The dust and smaller debris may have been sent to New Jersey but that's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Yes, it's perfect logical that after a plane hit a building, it fell.
|
How is this logical, especially when the building was constructed to withstand a plane hit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
As for quote there, why hasn't hundreds of people involved in designing the building come forward with similar comments? Oh that's right, they have. The came forward and said the buildings was designed to withstand a impact of plane that was in the air when they designed the building - not the planes we fly thirty years later.
|
The plane they used as a model was bigger and heavier; it had four engines, not two, and back then planes were made with heavier materials than those in 2001, which had a predominance of aluminum parts. So 2001 planes would cause less damage than planes in the 70s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Again with the fire. Did not see the airplanes hit the building? Can you not begin to understand the amount of damage that was done to the structure of the building before any fire started?
|
The two engines might have taken out parts of the structure, that's about it.
Aluminum doesn't rip apart steel.
And the engines wouldn't have taken out 90 to 100% of the bulding's structure, top to bottom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Normally if take one of those beams of steel and heat it up to 500 degrees or whatever, it would take some time to degrade it. But if you slam it with a an airplane, boil it in jet fuel, and then demand it hold up twenty floors on it's own, well, it's gonna give way a lot quicker.
|
It would take about six hours to melt it if you were around 1500 degrees. Not "some time" and certainly not less than an hour. Temperatures never reached anywhere that hot in th buildings.
Most of the building's structure couldn't have been damaged by anything but the plane's engines. And jet fuel doesn't "boil" steel.
Six tests/simulations conducted didn't lead to global collapse, beam failure or anything explaining why over a thousand feet of vertical steel support failed that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Better yet, do you know what "nano thermite" really is? Isn't just Aluminium, copper, and maybe magnesium. I'm not a fucking engineer here, but I'm guessing you can find this in any computer. And there was a lot of fucking computers in the WTC complex.
People are sheep.
|
People are sheep, agreed.
But I figure there's a difference between copyrighted, military grade thermitic material and the stuff found in chips and hard drives... or they wouldn't have published a paper on the stuff...