Yes I know. Hey buddy :)

The ? is was there enough gravity or inertia or momentum or weight in motion to start a pancaking on a fairly healthy structure where most had not been touched by fire.

People were 30 floors up for sure and came back with no fire or structural damage on the lower floors.

So that is the question. So we need to know more. Yes it is huge but there are also lots of verticle beams too.

Also if I pancake an erector set with a heavy enough weight it will indeed pancake straight down but it must be very heavy in relation to the standing structure.

I may be missing something. If so I apologize :) But I am usually not wrong. :) lol

Honestly it was more out of respect to anyone who may have lost someone. It is pretty horriffic when that plane goes in.

I am no expert, just dont think it could pancake like that from the damage done. I may be wrong. :)

Anyhow, good discussion all.

The thing is.. if there was a controlled dem then Bin Laden was either a patsy or a cohort but then there HAS to be a conspiracy between the planes and the demolishers and that is where it gets sticky...

Anyone want to tackle that :) hehe

We do know that a certain someone saved a lot of money by having things go as they did... following the money says guilty.

The ground floor carries all stories above it or rather the frame does.

The q is do the beams run up higher than one floor or are they just boxes (floors) built on boxes.

I would think the beams would go verticle many stories which means no "floor" supports anything but rather the frame supports the floors independent if a floor gives way.

If a floor gives way the frame does not compress straight down into powder. With enough weight maybe but not with what was above and not from the SLOW momentum that (supposedly) started it all going.

One thing's for sure. It pancaked.. either by weight and some momentum combined with weakened structure OR by demolition.

go read the thousands of pages that have been written by engineers and so on exactly why the towers fell. there is no reason to get caught up with the illiterate controlled demolition bullshit.

BTW why was building 7 so conveinently "wired" for demolition and demolished I believe the next day.

What are the odds? Any gamblers here.

All I can say is WTF? And that one came down the same way.. perfect pancake.

I mean that is clear as day. Coincidence? Please Billy.

They all three (buildings) HAD to go. Anyone tell me why? I know but I value my life LOL :)

ya may be right man, ya may be right but I have to take the show me attitude. My nature. :)

Seriously, you have read Eng reports as to how they fell? Or is this board rederick :)

Hey Johnny, good common sense points you been making. Been meaning to say so.

Yeah the whole melting really doesnt fly to get a perfect pancake. The "non-truthers" have to hang their hat on the fact that it pancaked on sheer weight.

I wonder if any of these guys ever built with an erector set and those were not M-Beams. They can take a lot of verticle stress.

It just doesnt add up to anyone with a mechanical head that it could pancake and turn those M-Beams to powder. Go down like dominos and no beams shoot out? They all collapse straight down at the same speed as the last floor?

Didnt all the Beams get disintegrated I heard? That is a key point.

They carted it all away so we will never know. Looking at those beams tells it all but where is the Church Lady, "how convenient" they are gone and never examined.

Must say as it falls their is no structural support in the beams fighting. They appear to be cut through like a controlled dem. No large beams shooting out or bending. All neatly cut. Each floor falls the same as the last.

Critical mass I guess.

ok.. let me get a beer and lets look at this fall.. I will find some vid stuff.. nuff talk..

wow this is fucking amazing, I dont know what to say



must see first 30 seconds at least

the scale of that coming down is so huge

maybe it was too much weight

it is one helluva demolition IF it was but then again so was bldg 7.

Basicly it collapsed like it was made of Lego blocks rather than M-Beams.

It goes through floors at like 1/10 second per floor.

Hard to believe a bldg could ever be that susceptable to pancaking.

Size is relative and really should be discounted as it contains the same structural steel for it's size as a smaller building.

Each floor of the WTC was 627 tons. Are you honestly telling me when 627 tons falls fifteen feet, it's not going to destroy everything below it?

Maybe so. But then they should have put enough steel in to make the weight relative.

I am sure there are codes for weight versus steel. Believe me everything in Eng is highly thought out.

Maybe just the mass of it all falling was never considered when building it. That is poss but hard to believe with all the codes and Eng theory that goes into construction.

you don't even seem familiar with the basics of the collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...rs.27_collapse

how can you attempt to debunk something you seem ignorant about?

If each floor was 627 tons then how many M-Beams (or whatever) were there and how many tons were they rated for. What if there were 1200 beams and well over the 627 ton mark rating.

Yes momentum got it going but 1200 verticle beams should be able to take 627 tons falling 15 feet.

Size is relative.

My car is designed to withstand a head on collision at 30mph. But the same collision at 70mph, and well, all bets are off. And being built to withstand an impact of a certain size doesn't guarantee it's safe.

The towers were built to withstand in impact of a 1960s 707 at 180mph. While the size and weight of the 767 planes that hit WTC towers, there is a staggering difference here - The 767 went into service twenty years after the 707 planes, were much stronger, and different aviation fuel than existed in the 1960s when the towers were built. Also, the original study didn't factor in that people would intentionally slam planes into the towers - It was expected the planes would be doing under 200mph, not the 500mph when the planes hit.

I left the Eng books behind. :) True. I am ignorant to go any further and too tired to read further so I will leave the next guy to pick up the ball.

Admit it, you spent 30 mins looking for that and you havnt even read it. hehe

That is some boring shit. :)

Allright Ill f'n read (some of) it. :)

"While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse"

There ya go. Maybe I was wrong :) Maybe it collapsed on it's own. I am only after the truth. :)

We all need a Jew to steer us gentiles in the right direction :) :thumbsup hehe

Your missing some math here.

The beams were designed to support an individual floor and then some. The beams were not designed to support the individual floor AND the floor above it. The beams were also not designed to carry the individual floor, and the floor above it being dropped from fifteen or twenty feet down. In other words, a 600 ton piece of concrete that falls fifteen or twenty feet is more like three times that weight when it impacts.

Now factor in that we are adding the weight of an airplane, AND four or five floors. The plane weights 100 tons (174,000 lbs really), and when the plane hit it took out four or five stories. So you had the added weight of the extra floors above any given floor PLUS the airplane.

But that's only the weight.

What percentage of the beams were taken out on the first floor to fall when the towers itself fell? I remember one corner of a tower was missing, which is what held those precious beams in place - the floors were mounted to the outer wall, and an entire corner PLUS was missing.

Now.... Factor in that the rest of the beams were weakened from the fire.

The beams couldn't support what was above it in the best of circumstances, had lost a fair percentage of it's support with the outer walls missing, and was weakened by a fire.

How the fuck did the buildings not fall down sooner?

I hear ya man. There sure is a lot of force to buckle those beams vertically but I guess like a huge sludge hammer it just did.

Also maybe if you "split" a smaller building by taking a floor out and dropping it as i said it would be diff than splitting a large building.

Maybe the forces are not linear but exponential* the bigger the building as the whole works as one. Not sure on that :)

(* there's a nickle word for ya :) )

Holy crap.. Someone changed their mind in an online argument... facts... worked
*looks outside, no rivers of blood and plagues of centipedes* hrm.

in essence we got concrete hammering on steel



i had too, i been in this thread all night :)

yeah :) maybe you all saved me from becoming the next Hinckley or something. lol

My faith in humanity is slightly restored. I am open minded. :)

I am out of the argument and "in limbo" until a "Truther" convinces me that Wiki is BS or that Rochard is with the CIA or something. lol

I like Media Guy tho and rebels are fun :( I like his tatoo on the back of his head or whatever that is. :)

I am in limbo ready to desert my Truther status unless a Truther rescues me from my mind indoctrination at the hands of a clever Jew and his gang of "maintain the status quo" (probably right wing) men.

In other words goodnight :) I did sort of change my mind tho tonight. Wiki is God in my book :thumbsup

In Wiki we trust.

OK Good night :)

So, retard boy, let me ask you for the 6th time. Hoe should the building have collapsed according to you. Are you ever are gonna fucking answer this or can we conclude you are just another dumb fucking conspiracy nuts with dumb fucking claims?

with regards to the buildings? yes we do, MILLIONS saw it live on tv.

or did they edit the live footage too?


you ass clowns should put the sci-fi down, it's clearly ruined your lives instead of inspiring.

Well in theory evenif these types of structures could collapse due to fires, they wouldn't go straight down. That's what was weird about all three buildings that day - vertical descents, no toppling, no assymetry, just plunges...

Agreed -the baseless, sci-fi theories don't help any attempt to get an investigation going on the legitimate questions about the event/s.

:D

I already posted a witness who almost said he didn't think it was a plane for the north tower and the blob those clowns filmed was not a plane. You've blindly accepted a myth after seeing evidence that planes in NY were in fact a myth. It looks like one of those fighter jets used in the early Stars Wars movies.:1orglaugh

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...wernothing.jpg

It cracks me up when silly liar nut balls DO NOT use video and photo evidence to try to back up their loony government conspiracy theories, because that very same material shows very obvious proof the official story is bunk.:thumbsup

No, there was always clear evidence that an orb showed up in three live broadcasts. Documented evidence. Ignored evidence. You are not challenging that, which you have the right to ignore, but by doing so, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, that an orb could be a plane, when it was obviously much smaller than a chopper. You haven't done that. Nobody will ever do that because a lie cannot be proven.

So with zero evidence or documentation how would you expect anyone to think what you are saying isn't gibberish?:winkwink:

Where would they go then!! Straight up??

Jesus christ! Can one of you nutters just tell me where that fucking building is supposed to go when it collapses? Is it that fucking difficult to answer?

It was an UFO, i pulled it straight out of my ass.

You are insane. I don't have another explanation for it. Just 100% insane. Fucked in your head. Mentally fucking ill. Beyond help most likely.

On ignore you go, together with your nutjob buddy Johnny. Fucking freaks.

Good old, Rochard. A gfy vet, denying reality about 911 myths.:( You posted the best fake image that 911 fakery produced, but, the right engine is still too close to the fuselage much like the one I posted previous, that you ignored. It has no markings, is black with no windows, therefore, it's fake, and would be laughed by open minded humans being told the truth about how they were fucked by the media and government on 911.

Here's the worst fake plane image I've come across. It was labeled techmac and has no right wing and it convienenty crops out the impossible turn and zooms out after that impossibility. See, the fake image is too far north, to actually impact the southeast corner of T2 because it's south and east of T1.:thumbsup

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

You are such a dumbass that you don't the know when to use a instead of an.:1orglaugh

Go ahead and put me on ignore, ya pussy.:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh That's not dirty frank, correct? That is some schmuck who bought his name?

Why would people from Europe be obsessed with silly govenrment coverups from the states?:1orglaugh More importantly, why would silly americans defend 911 fiction when that fiction covers them completely? That's the saddest part...politically correct pornographers.:1orglaugh

I told the truth and you don't have another explanation for it. Just 100% truth.:thumbsup

You're a lunatic plain and simple. You can deny that. Your obvious refusal in accepting fact-based reality cements that fact. The truth can easily mock lying lunatics like yourself. Feel free to believe whatever you want and I'll remain comfortable knowing that people like you will never have any influence on anything anywhere.:1orglaugh

http://i40.tinypic.com/wbvqzo.jpg

Look at the imbeciles jerking eachother off :1orglaugh

You two Einsteins do realize that English isn't Frank's first language, right? How many languages do you speak fluently? That's what I thought.

:1orglaugh

She described the drone as a possible police chopper, meaning that she could not identify as such, because it wasn't. She was forced to call it something that it could be never be or else her career in news reporting would have ceased in those live, on-air moments. These silly women proved how absolutely how ignorant and laughable humanity is and probably always has been, but, the info age leaves no doubt it. There were NO choppers seen before the drone appeared and only one after the explosion, flying east.

"We just saw another live picture of, duhhh, what I believe, duhhh, was a plane that just hit another plane?":1orglaugh So, it went from an unidentifiable chopper, to, duh, what she knew had to be a plane, because that's what was supposed to happen, but didn't, unless there were two things involved for tower 2?:helpme

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1...e= plpp_video

And you're giving Frank a hard time about his English? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I do like my commas and wonder if I use them properly.:1orglaugh

So what really happened? Was it a controlled demolition or did "orbs" fly into the buildings? If it was done by the government, what was the motive? To invade Iraq? Everybody has all this "evidence" of a government conspiracy, but none of it leads to a conclusion. kind of like the Kennedy assassination.

Surely one of the 100's of government and military personnel it would have taken to pull something like this off would have leaked evidence or come forward in some way. Not to mention all these radio and TV executives and reporters that were supposedly ordered to go along with the cover-up, right? Maybe Wikileaks cables or anonymous hackers will uncover the truth soon?