[Architecture-er]

For those touting the 9/11 conspiracy, here's footage of one of the building's point of failure




Unless someone was incredibly quick with a T-bar, the collapse initiated at the point of impact, not at the base or wherever.

[GrowingNinja]

Bush is the real terrorist, we all know it.

[CJKay]

So many nutjobs in this thread that it's frustrating to get through the first 3 pages without wanting to slap someone silly.

[Aj12]

The sheer idiocy on this thread makes my head want to explode. How anyone as thick as the conspiracy theorists on this thread survive in the real world I don't know.

[Pindar]

(Original post by f1mad)
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osam...ssion-13506877

Debunked.

Yes, because that looks JUST like Bin Laden



I suppose the fact he's wearing a gold watch, gold rings and jewellery (against his religious beliefs) and writing with his right hand (when he's left-handed) is irrelevant? Plus it sounds nothing like him. Video conveniently found of criminal mastermind confessing all found weeks after invading Afghanistan? And it's the only piece of evidence against Bin Laden?... and you take this on face value?

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."

- Osama Bin Laden

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34440,00.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/1...nladen.denial/

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks." - Osama Bin Laden [Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001]

[Pindar]

(Original post by f1mad)
You conspiracy theorists really are something, aren't you.

Again to quote the same poster:

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
What conceivable reason could there be for it being an inside job. The "war on terror" has cost the US hundreds of thousands of lives and more than 4 trillion dollars.

Yes, 4 trillion dollars. Where do you think that money went genius? Halliburton and the military-industrial complex perhaps?

You honestly think they care how many people die when they're earning billions?

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
There's mounds of video evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda accepted responsibility for it.

There's mounds of documentary evidence which suggests Al Qaeda doesn't even really exist.

Every single intelligence officer knows that no such organisation exists and countless have stated this on record. It is an umbrella term for any small loose "radical Islamist" groups with no affiliation with each other, even those with completely different views and ambitions. It's as vague as fighting "terror".

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
For those touting the 9/11 conspiracy, here's footage of one of the building's point of failure




Unless someone was incredibly quick with a T-bar, the collapse initiated at the point of impact, not at the base or wherever.

those buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes..

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by King-Panther)
those buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes..

I can promise you, it's incredibly hard to make a building able to withstand a commercial plane hitting it at maximum velocity. Partly because you can't run particularly accurate tests, since you can't calculate for factors you've not thought of yet

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
I can promise you, it's incredibly hard to make a building able to withstand a commercial plane hitting it at maximum velocity. Partly because you can't run particularly accurate tests, since you can't calculate for factors you've not thought of yet

I myself am an aspiring architect. All sky scrapers are designed in the same fashion, they're not called sky scrapers for no reason, they're in the sky, and such a scenario is a possibility.

No, they took a lot of things into consideration, they should have stood... the collapse shouldn't have happened.

[Aj12]

(Original post by King-Panther)
I myself am an aspiring architect. All sky scrapers are designed in the same fashion, they're not called sky scrapers for no reason, they're in the sky, and such a scenario is a possibility.

No, they took a lot of things into consideration, they should have stood... the collapse shouldn't have happened.

they were designed to survive a 707 going very slowly getting ready to land. Meaning the impact force, weight of the aircraft and force of the fires due to the aircraft fuel would be far smaller than what actually a happened. A almost fully fuelled 767 that is heavier than a 707 going incredibly fast flying into it

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Aj12)
they were designed to survive a 707 going very slowly getting ready to land. Meaning the impact force, weight of the aircraft and force of the fires due to the aircraft fuel would be far smaller than what actually a happened. A almost fully fuelled 767 that is heavier than a 707 going incredibly fast flying into it

yeah, because they're going to land right next to the tower, no, i think you find they were designed to withstand the impact of the plane at full speed.

"A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing."

City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center pages 131-132.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

[Aj12]

(Original post by King-Panther)
yeah, because they're going to land right next to the tower, no, i think you find they were designed to withstand the impact of the plane at full speed.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Well yeah actually it was incorporated due to the chance of planes lost whilst flying to JFK. Anyway assuming it was designed to withstand a plane impact, if you can actually design for that since its never really happened and the tech avalible to those in the 9060's makes it unlikely they could properly work simulate what would happen, at leats with fully fuelled jetliner's, its likely designers did not actually take effects of jet fuel into account. IE the towers survived the plane impacts but not resulting fires. And before you get into debate about fire melting steel ect read this.

'That's probably why it poured out -- simply because it was dumped there,'' Dr. Pitts said. ''The structural people really need to look at this carefully.''

The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

The towers did withstand the plane strikes at first, allowing thousands of people to escape, but then the fires, stoked by burning jet fuel, softened the steel of the towers. Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/ny...anted=2&src=pm

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Aj12)
Well yeah actually it was incorporated due to the chance of planes lost whilst flying to JFK. Anyway assuming it was designed to withstand a plane impact, if you can actually design for that since its never really happened and the tech avalible to those in the 9060's makes it unlikely they could properly work simulate what would happen, at leats with fully fuelled jetliner's, its likely designers did not actually take effects of jet fuel into account. IE the towers survived the plane impacts but not resulting fires. And before you get into debate about fire melting steel ect read this.

"A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing."

City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center pages 131-132.

you can still use the laws of mathematics and physics to make such predictions.

thats nice, but other engineers dispute such theories.

'That's probably why it poured out -- simply because it was dumped there,'' Dr. Pitts said. ''The structural people really need to look at this carefully.''

The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

The towers did withstand the plane strikes at first, allowing thousands of people to escape, but then the fires, stoked by burning jet fuel, softened the steel of the towers. Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/ny...anted=2&src=pm

yes, the heat can weaken the steal, but that still wont cause it to collapse in on itself, but rather topple over above impact leaving the rest of the building. Nor would it melt the steal, only weaken it, so explain this.

[Aj12]

(Original post by King-Panther)
"A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing."

City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center pages 131-132.

you can still use the laws of mathematics and physics to make such predictions.

thats nice, but other engineers dispute such theories.


yes, the heat can weaken the steal, but that still wont cause a collapse nor melt the steal, only weaken it, so explain this.

So basically if engineers are arguing about it either way then you can't argue that the buildings could survive the impact since its a point of contention among experts in the field themselves
Not sure about that exact photo but here is a link debunking the use of thermite
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Aj12)
Not sure about that exact photo but here is a link debunking the use of thermite
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

did I mention thermite, im saying how can there be molten steal? also, the heat would soften the steal, causing the building above impact to topple off, it wouldnt cause it to collapse upon itself.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Aj12)
So basically if engineers are arguing about it either way then you can't argue that the buildings could survive the impact since its a point of contention among experts in the field themselves
Not sure about that exact photo but here is a link debunking the use of thermite
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

it clearly did survive, and heat would cause the steal to soften but this would cause it to collapse upon itself. topple over, maybe.

[King-Panther]

either way, it is one of the most tragic and disheartening things I have ever seen in my life, and i hope nothing will ever surpass this! it just goes to show, how messed up we are as a species. we've got a lot of growing to do.

[Aj12]

(Original post by King-Panther)
did I mention thermite, im saying how can there be molten steal? also, the heat would soften the steal, causing the building above impact to topple off, it wouldnt cause it to collapse upon itself.

Lol molten steel is pointed as an example of the use of thermite or controlled demolition, its clearly where you were angling. Anyway as far as I can tell no one actually knows what it was though you can rule out what it was not.

That link i posted from the uni of Sydney explains that so go reread it.

[Donald Duck]

It means they won't attack the UK, which is surely a good thing, whatever reasons they might have.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Aj12)
Lol molten steel is pointed as an example of the use of thermite or controlled demolition, its clearly where you were angling. Anyway as far as I can tell no one actually knows what it was though you can rule out what it was not.

thermite is a possibility, but not the only one. Indeed, i am indicating some sort of demolition because those buildings would not have collapsed upon themselves, nor could the heat melt the steal.

That link i posted from the uni of Sydney explains that so go reread it.

there is no account of the molten steal. nor does this account for the collapse of the central columns, nor tubular perimeter.





also, what brought building 5 down, no plane hit it.