Terrorists Suspend Laws of Physics!

[duhk]

If there were enough explosives planted in the building to turn all the concrete in the building to dust (assuming a collapsing building doesn't turn concrete to dust, which I haven't seen any evidence to prove that) Then don't you think that people in the building would have noticed explosive control wires/fuses running around the building? Or perhaps see someone planting them? They would have to plant them in nearly every concrete pillar on every floor. Or that the fire spredding throughout the building would detonate the explosives prematurely? Or perhaps you are referring to one large explosion? Well frankly an explosion large enough to do that would blow out the windows of all the buildings for a couple miles. As well as making a massive fireball and send parts of the building flying in all directions.

I personnally do not have much experience with concrete, but the forces involved in a collapsing building of that magnitude are tremendous. And I don't doubt for a second that they would be able to turn concrete to dust. Please point me to information that proves otherwise (not one of your conspiracy sites, they don't prove it) or why you have significant experience with the structural properties of concrete.

You know, there are kinds of explosives that don't blow up if there is a fire.

Hahah, and a massive fireball? You must be referring to what you see in movies. And there is something called controlled explosions/demolition.

And crimsontide, it's not that i don't disagree with you, well maybe, it's just you don't have anything to back up your claims to make my statements false, or wrong, no one posting here has. Like i said b4, If I am wrong, there is definately something out there to prove me wrong, unless i'm right. Got that? good. And for god sakes, i've been backing up my claims since my first post. Stop saying that my sources aren't credible, cuz you obviously haven't been looking at them thoroughly, and is at lost of all your logic and common sense. So yeah, take the advice and shutup, cuz you post nothing to prove that i'm wrong. Unless you're just posting to annoy me cuz you know im right and you don't like being wrong.

Now, if you say that those websites are wacko, then find the evidence that would make the information in those links wrong, do you see where i'm going with this? If you get evidence to prove me wrong then you're gonna prove that site wrong too. So until you do, it's not wrong or a wacko site.

And sorry for the name calling but you called me names first, you assumed things about me first, just like the dumb ones b4 you. Trust me, i don't start offending people until they offend me first, so don't call me petty. Yeah, go ahead and read through all the posts, you can see i've always been the one offended/attacked first.

Anyways, I think i won, since i have the most evidence, didn't you learn that from your dad being an attorney or judge? huh? dumbass. Oops, that was so immature of me, gosh... K, well yeah, I'm sorry for the name calling and the assumptions about you personally, but you did it to me first, and so did all the other ignorrant ones. Give you thumbs up for your list of smart insult, but, it's false, well in my case it is. But it's true for the others, since they started all the nonsense first. So what...? you insulted yourself? So you actually are saying that I'm the right one here, thanks.

About being biased, why would i be biased?, there's nothing to be biased about. Most of the people that disagree, disagree by saying it's stupid, saying i'm stupid for suggesting such a scenario. Making claims that all the evidence i have is bull****, cuz it doesn't come from a real news website like cnn, or fox, or msn. But most of them don't realize the government controls those news outlets. I'm just defending my facts, by showing how they're wrong, and how they reply with such stupid accusations or claims, also, they never back up their claims with any evidence, credible or not. Oh, and if i get insulted in the process, i'll insult back. Oh, it gets them made? well sheesh, they should'nt have done it to me first. I guess that's it for today.

[BOOGMaster]

I also question how two of the largest buildings in the world managed to fall down on itself, especially when the North Tower supposedly was weakened on one corner, not all (like the South Tower which received a direct impact)

Its like many engineers have repeatedly said after the event "it looked more like a controlled demolition"

Oh c'mon, neobond! It's like 99.99999999999% of the other engineers said: It looks like a terrorist attack.

[PlagueWielder3k]

duhk, I dont remember who but someone posted a link to www.howstuffworks.com up there which has a couple of links there as well. You want more? Say the word!

Back on topic:

The main argument of the guy that wrote the article that you presented at the beginning is that the jet fuel didnt burn hot enough to melt all that steel and that concrete doesnt turn into dust.

First off about the dust. His theory is based on what? Trust me, if you crush concrete with enough force (and there was more than enough in the incident) it will turn into dust.. just like a rock, crush it hard enough and you have dust.

About the temperature. You have to remember that it doesnt have to melt the structure. Also, you do not know how deep the plane penetrated into the building. What if it went almost all the way through and weakened the structure enough. It doesnt matter how hot the fuel really burned.. all it had to do was burn in an high enough temperature to weaken the steel so it can deform.

About the plane that hit the building on the side. You cannot possibly know exactly where the fuel went. If I remember correctly the fuel is stored in the wings and I dont think that half of the wing was sticking outside or fell down... its obviously crashed into the building as well because you would have seen remains of it on the ground if not..

I have truly no idea how the building fell onto itself but you never know... it might have fallen at a really small angle that didnt affect the fall much or that your eye didnt see. After all, there was a lot of damage around the buildings aswell.

I remember that you said that the floors should have been able to support each other a couple pages back. I dont know how the building was designed but even if one floor was able to support one, two or even three other floors the plane hit around 20 floors from the top if I remember correctly. You seriously think that one floor could support 20 floors? It was also weakened by the crash.

Anyway, Im off.

[duhk]

Hahaha, what are you doing?

I asked for it very very long time ago, and you ask if i want more? More of what, you weren't the one who posted it? But yeah, I want lots and lots and lots of more, cuz my source, has sources to lots and lots and lots of evidence.

Yah, it would break, it would crack, it would turn into large chunks. But logicly thinking, i don't think a building falling could create so much dust. I mean man, did you even see it on the news, that was soo much ****en dust, and it went very very far, and it was very very thick. Only an explosion could create so much dust.

Go find a video of a building getting wrecked by a wrecking ball and see how much dust that creates.

[PlagueWielder3k]

Again, didnt even read my post...

[duhk]

Watever man, there's nothing to reply to, cuz everything you say has no logic or common sense. But i still try. Now be quiet you zionist.

[duhk]

I'm not even gonna reply to you anymore, you're just some stupid kid, go to school and stay off the drugs.

[clide]

If you notice that last part is reffering to one large explosion and the first is reffering to hundreds of small explosives (controlled). Well there is no way one large explosion would be able to crush all the concrete in the building I've already said that, so it doesn't really matter if there will be a fire ball or not because it is clear that this wasn't the case.

I don't know if you have seen any controlled demolitions, but I have watched many shows on that subject thanks to the Discovery channel. When a floor is detonated with explosive it is unmistakable. Dust shoots out from all sizes and the building collapses on those floors. Like I said before. For this to be a controlled demolition they would have to have explosives on every floor for it to collapse like it did. Don't you think the 1000s of people walking around the buildind daily would notice something like that, and I see no dust comming out of the floors before they collapse. It would also have to involve remarkable timing. And advanced knowledge of where the planes would hit exactly. If that were the case, why wouldn't they have both the planes hit at the same time and collapse the building on impact? There would be no video evidence except maybe one shacky home video camera from which nothing could be distinguished well. If your trying to fool somebody, you don't wait untill there are video cameras at all angles watching your every move..

You also have conflicting stories within your sources and with your own opinion. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake2.html implies that there was an underground explosion that started the towers collapsing, I won't even go into that. But you claim now that it was a controlled demolition where the explosives demolished the concrete. There would be no need at all to do both.

Also there is no way to say it looks like the controlled explosion of another building, because there are no buildings like this that have been demolished. That article on howstuffworks explains that the outside walls are used to give strenth to the building, which was an innovative design. Don't you think walls designed to support the building would help aid the building falling into its self rather than to the side?

edit: http://detroityes.com/downtown/23ywcadust.jpg yeah definately not very much dust :rolleyes:

[duhk]

OMG, clide got me, i lose.

Edit: I got owned.

[clide]

OMG, clide got me, i lose.

Yeah, I know you're being sarcastic, and that you'll still believe that ignorant garbage fed to you by conspiracy sites. I wasn't really trying to convince you, just prove to the others here that all that crap you are saying is pure nonsense..

[duhk]

No, you owned me fair and square. you win. and i give up.

EDIT:

I said one thing, and you proved me wrong about it. So yah you win.

[xxdesmus]

wow...yeah, still very hard to read through that and see the pictures, but interesting though.

[Daviesbad04]

In the end, the towers held up nicely and I give thumbs up to the engineers and designers of the once great WTC. I have knowledge of aircrafts and a 767-200ER is not a small fella. Also, Taking note at the extreme speeds they were going, Its surprising how they didnt just rip through the whole building and came out of the other side. Typical cruise speeds at 30-35,000 ft are usually 500-550Mph.......Which is just around the same speed the planes hit both towers. One slower than the other. So for tower 1 to hold up an hour and 40 mins its a miracle. Had the senario been of 1 of the 767's hitting and completely going through the tower, It would have been a far greater tragedy. Not only would the deaths inside the Towers gone right into the 10's of thousands, but also chances are people around the WTC would have died. Then the plane going thru the building to the other side would have damaged many other buildings. So I mean, Alot of people say "Oh they werent built right" but lets think of all the other things that COULD have happened, which would have been far more chatastrophic than what did. IF it would have been another building, those 375,000Lb+ monsters would have destoryed it completely.

[clide]

I said one thing, and you proved me wrong about it. So yah you win.

Just about everything you have said in this thread can be proved wrong, I'm just feel I don't need to take my time to prove it. Its easy to make up crap that could have happened, but harder to back it up with factual, logical evidence. That why none of your sites have factual and logical evidence.

[aminmizar]

wow...yeah, still very hard to read through that and see the pictures, but interesting though.

more,more

Edited May 31, 2004 by aminmizar

[duhk]

k.

"I have talked to three pilots who have told me in their own words and understandings that what we are being told happened, could NOT possibly have happened.

What I DO KNOW is that we are not hearing much TRUTH. And 110 story buildings do NOT collapse because a plane hits them. The second plane nearly missed the building, only going through the corner. Most of the fuel burned in an outside explosion. It collapsed first, long before the tower that the plane completely entered. The refined Kerosene (a/k/a jet fuel) burned up fairly quickly. The stuff burning from that point on was desks, paper, plastics, carpet, etc. That fuel did not generate 2000-degree heat that would compromise 6 tubular steel columns in the center of the building designed SPECIFICALLY to keep the building from collapsing if hit by a Boeing 707 that, because it was older and less efficient, carried MORE fuel that the 757 and 767 that hit the towers. The structural engineer who designed the WTC Towers explained how the towers were designed to withstand a hit by a commercial jet -- and he did explain this to an international coalition on Terrorism in Frankfurt, Germany on Wednesday before the event.

And 53 minutes after Tower 2 was hit the tower just imploded because it was on fire? Yeah right! I discussed this with a structural engineer who investigated a HOTEL in Los Angeles that he said was 30 stories and it burned from the ground floor up. It burned for nearly a week. The fire totally destroyed everything on all 30 floors. The estimated temperatures were 2200 degrees because of the natural gas and other fuel that was the catalyst for the fire. The concrete and infrastructure did not budge. It cost more than a million dollars to TEAR IT DOWN. The 30 floors above the first floor did NOT cave in on the first floor when the support structure go hot. And he reviewed the architecture on the WTC and said the type of steel and the type of construction for the WTC was double the strength of the LA hotel."

that's quoted from here. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/unanswered.html

[PlagueWielder3k]

You forgot one thing about that hotel. Nothing hit it! So what if it was 2200 degrees? Concrete doesnt melt as far as I know. Ill put money that if a plane hit it it would have collapsed 10 times faster than the WTC towers.

What you dont seem to understand is that the temperature didnt have to reach the melting point of metal or whatever! All you have to do is make it hot enough so it becomes weaker and is not able to support all the weight.

But forget it, you dont listen to anything but that little whatreallyhappened website.

[PlagueWielder3k]

You know what. You have legos right? Everyone does. Build the biggest structure from you legos and throw a tennis ball at it as hard as you can. I want to see that structure not fall!

[Danrarbc]

I would think hitting the corner would harm the structure more than hitting one wall, especially for a structure that gets a lot of strength from the walls. By htting the corner two walls are damaged.

[clide]

Heh yep as plague mentioned it completely leaves out the fact that a plane crashed into the building. It was a combination of the plane and the fire, not just the plane, and not just the fire, but both.

In fact I saw a show on TLC or Discovery about the attack, and the structural engineer (probably the same one you mentioned) was at an interview before the attack and mentioned that he did not think that they would be able to withstand a more modern airplane crashing into the building.

[PlagueWielder3k]

Even if the engineers planned the building to withstand such an impact, dont forget that the building were designed some 10 or 20 years ago and planes didnt go as fast as today. A plane crash at that time is probably nothing compared to nowadays.

Also, dont forget that what the these are just theories... there is no way to know what would happen in real life without actually doing it.

[clide]

For more information check out

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm

The potential force of the impact from each plane can be approximately calculated and the figures are very large. The weight of each plane would

have been approximately 150 tons, according to the media reports and Boeing data on this type of plane. The plane would have been traveling at around 800 kms/hour at impact. This gives a momentum of 150x800/3.6=33,333 tons.m/sec. If the plane was arrested by the building in effectively 0.6 seconds, which is a reasonable estimate based on a linear deceleration over the 63.5 m width of the building, then the force exerted on the building is the momentum/effective time to arrest, i.e. Force=33,333/0.6=55,555kN. To put that in perspective, the ultimate limit state design wind pressure over the entire height of the building is 220 kg/m 2 . This gives a ULS wind force on one face of the building of 58, 400 kN. Thus the potential force of impact from the plane is 95% of the design ultimate limit state wind load on the building! Especially in the case of the North Tower, not much of the plane was ejected from the building, so it is reasonable to assume the most of that potential force was absorbed by the building. Also the above calculation also does not take into account any additional force generated inside the building from blast loading due to, for example, exploding jet fuel.

[duhk]

hi.

[BOOGMaster]

Yeah, I know you're being sarcastic, and that you'll still believe that ignorant garbage fed to you by conspiracy sites. I wasn't really trying to convince you, just prove to the others here that all that crap you are saying is pure nonsense..

Don't worry bout' us, Clyde. We already know that. :laugh:

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

OK I'm no building expert here but here's my reasoning on why they collapsed in on themselves instead of tipping over:

I am willing to bet that when you build anything as tall as the WTC buildings that they would be designed to collapse instead of tipping over. I mean the Ramifications otherwise would be huge! I'm betting that most buildings that tall are built to collapse that way when they're going to fall.