BF2S Forums 9/11 all staged?

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Okay now I have no clue how any of you could be as thick to believe that a 757 crashing into a building would only leave a small circular hole, and no large pieces of itself in the surrounding area. A plane did not hit the pentagon, the story for what happened to the pentagon, and to Flight93 is utter bull. Planes do not just disappear when they crash, they leave large pieces of debris, debris which a fire from jet-fuel is not hot enough to melt away. As for the fire in WTC 1&2, it could have gotten hot enough to cause the steel to lose enough strength to fail, but if that was the case the top floors of it would have crashed into the lower ones and A. they would just fall over, or B. they would cause the whole thing to shake and it would have fallen over instead of collapsing. Or in the almost impossible event that it did collapse like we were told, the it would have either A., collapsed at a much slower pace, because (as said in LC9/11) it was at close to free fall speed, or B., collapsed from the base, not the top. Thank you

Listen.  The majority of crashes occur at slow speeds (slow for airplanes ) and usually at wings level, dirty side down.  There is no way to know what a 757, way above safe maneuvering speed, would look like crashing into a building or the ground since it never happened before.  As for TWA800, most of the plane did not impact anywhere near the velocity of the planes on 9/11.

Sgt_Sieg wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Okay now I have no clue how any of you could be as thick to believe that a 757 crashing into a building would only leave a small circular hole, and no large pieces of itself in the surrounding area. A plane did not hit the pentagon, the story for what happened to the pentagon, and to Flight93 is utter bull. Planes do not just disappear when they crash, they leave large pieces of debris, debris which a fire from jet-fuel is not hot enough to melt away. As for the fire in WTC 1&2, it could have gotten hot enough to cause the steel to lose enough strength to fail, but if that was the case the top floors of it would have crashed into the lower ones and A. they would just fall over, or B. they would cause the whole thing to shake and it would have fallen over instead of collapsing. Or in the almost impossible event that it did collapse like we were told, the it would have either A., collapsed at a much slower pace, because (as said in LC9/11) it was at close to free fall speed, or B., collapsed from the base, not the top. Thank you

Listen.  The majority of crashes occur at slow speeds (slow for airplanes ) and usually at wings level, dirty side down.  There is no way to know what a 757, way above safe maneuvering speed, would look like crashing into a building or the ground since it never happened before.  As for TWA800, most of the plane did not impact anywhere near the velocity of the planes on 9/11.

Yeah, also strangelove, the reason the towers fell like they did is because the central support beams melted, so it without the support the entire tower ABOVE the impact fell at ONE time. All that weight simply demolished the building underneith it. And if you didn't notice, the tower didn't fall into a neat litte square. It fell over a huge area, dust and wreckage flew all over Downtown Manhattan.

Still, it's been disclosed (in the FEMA report) that they did consider a 707 (similar size, speed and weight) impacting the towers when they were designed, and being near to an airport they probably have considered the possibility of it losing control on takeoff as well as landing (i.e. with full fuel load).  Anyway, the full design documents haven't been made available to the public as of yet, so there is no way to know what exact scenarios they considered.

You could postulate that skyscrapers should all be pulled down, because they are highly dangerous when light/medium structural damage and fire are combined.  Remember, WTC7 was hit on one corner by a bit of falling debris, and fire started as a result.  This is the most basic earthquake scenario anyone could imagine, and given that the fire was in the middle floors of WTC7 and was definitely not intense by building fire standards (fires have gutted multiple stories of steel framed buildings without collapse), imagine the consequence of a structural damage plus large fire in at a basement level in an earthquake situation.  Total deathtrap.

However, the thing is they have considered scenarios like those that occurred, which makes it all the more mysterious how the building collapsed.  The progressive collapse, or pancake theory, so far cannot account for the speed at which the building came down.  Even the nerfed simulations fall much slower than the videos show.  That's why I'd like to see an independent investigation of all the facts.  I'm not going to jump in and say I'm 100% certain of an unproven hypothesis, because I'd be as bad as the US government then.

the temperature that the fuel burned at caused the steel pillars to melt, the weight of the floors above colapsing is easily enough force to drop the buildings. Im sorry but theories can be made for many things that happen if you look for them, it was a group of terrorists would took the planes and crashed them, don't believe absoulte rubbish brought to you by clever twistings of facts. Basically burn me all you like, but to believe its a government cover up for a reason to start war is ABSOULTELY RIDICULOUS! (don't be sheep!)

xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:

you guys didn't even watch the video. fact is, if it was staged then we're following an unjust cause in this war

were following an unjust cause in this war anyways.

1. Have you ever seen a truss (bearing a load) that is subjected to heat? Then you might change your tune. Especially when the towers weren't fireproofed properly.

2. It will fall at a slower rate, yes, but the point is moot. IT'S STILL FALLING.

3. As for your points 3 and 4, you should take a good, long look at yourself. At this point I'm tempted to use a special word, it starts with 'h'.

Sgt_Sieg wrote:

Guess what, if the Government couldn't cover up Watergate, there is NO WAY they could cover up something of this magnitude. End of story.

<3

hahahha now thats an american thinking

lets play out the scenario "I need thousands of NSA FBI bush admiinistration and airline workers to sware they wont talk about it, and somehow get the brave souls on 93 to land somewhere and we can brainwash them, and take out record of them ever landing and destroy the airplane, while we take the pentagon plane and shoot id down and hide the wrectage in real time. and then ram a cruise missile in there, because im a douche bag college know it all hippie and dont read the facts that the windows are blast proof and dont look at the picture in open sight of plane windows"

thats a good point still i like the mathematics part of how the strenght wears down

Spark wrote:

1. Have you ever seen a truss (bearing a load) that is subjected to heat? Then you might change your tune. Especially when the towers weren't fireproofed properly.

Jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to even weaken that amount of steel enough for collapse.

Go watch that 9/11 documentary again - the one about proby fireman - what do you see when they first enter the building? What is the explanation they give for it?

That's your answer as to why the 'jet fuel fires weakened the steel' theory is complete and utter bull.

Spark wrote:

2. It will fall at a slower rate, yes, but the point is moot. IT'S STILL FALLING.

No the point is not moot - video footage shows that the towers fell at the rate they would under free-fall. Not, at the rate they would fall if they were collapsing under their own weight.

Spark wrote:

3. As for your points 3 and 4, you should take a good, long look at yourself. At this point I'm tempted to use a special word, it starts with 'h'.

You'll have help me out on this one - what word begining with 'h'?

SealXo wrote:

EDIT: thats whats wrong with you liberals is that you think of the "basics" like you said and not more in depth

Actually the only meanings of the word 'liberal' that applies to me are "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant" and "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." particularly the "open-minded" bit.

I am a skeptic - look it up. Actually, no I'll save you the trouble:

dictionary.com wrote:

skep‧tic  /ˈskɛptɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skep-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.    a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3.    a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4.    (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a.    a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b.    any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
–adjective
5.    pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6.    (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-09-09 19:04:08)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Spark wrote:

1. Have you ever seen a truss (bearing a load) that is subjected to heat? Then you might change your tune. Especially when the towers weren't fireproofed properly.

Jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to even weaken that amount of steel enough for collapse.

Go watch that 9/11 documentary again - the one about proby fireman - what do you see when they first enter the building? What is the explanation they give for it?

That's your answer as to why the 'jet fuel fires weakened the steel' theory is complete and utter bull.

Clearly you don't know much about trusses. Let me highlight one little bit for you:

"More than 60% of the roof systems in the United States are built using a truss system. By design, wooden truss systems contain a significant fuel load and are often hidden from sight. Fires in truss systems can burn for long periods before detection and can spread quickly across or through the trusses. Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions.

The number of fire fighter fatalities related to structural collapse could be significantly reduced through proper education and information concerning truss construction. Fire fighters should be discouraged from risking their lives solely for property protection activities.

Unfortunately, fires are not predictable: conditions often deteriorate quickly, and fire-damaged building components, including trusses, can collapse with little warning. Engineering calculations provide data for an approximate time of failure under specified fire conditions; however, under uncontrolled fire conditions, the time to truss failure is unpredictable."

STEEL TRUSSES CAN FAIL IN LESS TIME THAN WOODEN ONES. I'm not sure that you know what is meant by 'fail'. It does not mean it melts. It simply means it is weakened so far that it can no longer support its load. Usually a sign of failure is extreme bending.

The bottom line is that TRUSSES DO NOT WORK IN FIRE. And the WTC was constructed out of trusses (which weren't fireproofed properly, I believe the fireproofing company faced/is facing legal action over it)

Spark wrote:

2. It will fall at a slower rate, yes, but the point is moot. IT'S STILL FALLING.

No the point is not moot - video footage shows that the towers fell at the rate they would under free-fall. Not, at the rate they would fall if they were collapsing under their own weight.

And.... how do you think they made the towers collapse in freefall, without seriously changing the building's integrity? Surely someone would notice?

Plus, do you have any conclusive evidence (besides the video) that this is so? Where?

Spark wrote:

3. As for your points 3 and 4, you should take a good, long look at yourself. At this point I'm tempted to use a special word, it starts with 'h'.

You'll have help me out on this one - what word begining with 'h'?

Guess.

Last edited by Spark (2006-09-09 19:34:47)

Steel does't need to melt to weaken, the hotter it gets, the weaker it gets.  Just read maddox's article on the subject.

Spark wrote:

lots of stuff about trusses (removed to reduce space)

Yes, but for the building to collapse as if in freefall, one would have to remove all the trusses all in one go, not just weaken them so that they slowly bent.

Spark wrote:

Plus, do you have any conclusive evidence (besides the video) that this is so? Where?[/b]

Video evidence is conclusive enough.

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

3. As for your points 3 and 4, you should take a good, long look at yourself. At this point I'm tempted to use a special word, it starts with 'h'.

You'll have help me out on this one - what word begining with 'h'?

Guess.

And I thought you were going to call me a 'hippie liberal' or some-such...

[mcp]eltorrente wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can be an expert in what happens when a large jetliner filled with fuel impacts a large building at very high speed.

The funny thing about these big conspiracies is that you can never prove them.  None of the hundreds or thousands of people involved will ever say anything and there will never ever be any credible evidence.  Just a grainy film here, and a random professor there.. Some of you are just gullible goofs.

That goes both ways.

That's why it pays to be a skeptic and to question everything.