Imortal, i get the impression you don't buy into the above theory. Care to elaborate?
Take a look at the footage. The only time the flag waves is when someone touches or brushes the flag or pole. The flagpole used was of a springy metal. When you hit it, it vibrates back and forth until the motion is damped down by friction. The flag was on the end of the pole so it wavered as the flag moved. This is the only time the flag moves.Spark wrote:
Aliens and the pyramids are retarded theories. But the moon one intruiges me. My main question is with the flag. Its waving, as if its windy. But there's no air on the moon so no wind. WTF?
The funny part is that using the same materials in an atmosphere, the air against the flag would dampen the motion down faster than it would in vacuum. Also, look when the astronauts move by the flag without touching it. The flag doesn't move, even though it would in an atmosphere if you rush right by.
I have ripped into these a LOT on other threads. The 9/11 conspiracy people are the same ones who claim all sorts of other conspiracies.duka wrote:
Imortal, i get the impression you don't buy into the above theory. Care to elaborate?
Short version? For a look at some of the 'evdidence' presented, go to: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.html for another viewpoint.
I have also noted that when some people say to have an open mind, they only want you to agree with them. Their minds are just as closed in the other direction. I do not mean to imply everyone is this way, but there are a lot of them.
One of the primary arguments I heard in support of the "we never landed on the moon" theory, was the flustered response the NASA spokesperson gave when confronted with these "facts".
To me it looked a lot like the reaction I must have given the person I met at a bar, convinced that I was a figment of his imagination. If, at the time my brain hadn't been too busy trying desperately to grasp what was happening, I might have had the good common sense to order another drink, on his tab this time, which as his illusion should have been my god-given right, instead of staring at him mouth agape. I now know why the brain has aneurysms.
After that, having come to my senses, I took the time to look into the more plausible explainations of these supposed moon-landing inconsistencies, and as Imortal touched no, it seems there are perfectly logical explanaitions for every single "lie".
I am beginning to wonder if the problem isn't over-zealous, sometimes gullible individuals giving themselves a bit too much credit when it comes to fields they know very little or nothing about.
Certainty in the field(s) I am well versed in, and caucious respect when questioning anything that falls into a category that if i'm honest, i don't know a damn thing about.
PS, thanks imortal, but i was referring to the Pentagon theory
To me it looked a lot like the reaction I must have given the person I met at a bar, convinced that I was a figment of his imagination. If, at the time my brain hadn't been too busy trying desperately to grasp what was happening, I might have had the good common sense to order another drink, on his tab this time, which as his illusion should have been my god-given right, instead of staring at him mouth agape. I now know why the brain has aneurysms.
After that, having come to my senses, I took the time to look into the more plausible explainations of these supposed moon-landing inconsistencies, and as Imortal touched no, it seems there are perfectly logical explanaitions for every single "lie".
I am beginning to wonder if the problem isn't over-zealous, sometimes gullible individuals giving themselves a bit too much credit when it comes to fields they know very little or nothing about.
Certainty in the field(s) I am well versed in, and caucious respect when questioning anything that falls into a category that if i'm honest, i don't know a damn thing about.
PS, thanks imortal, but i was referring to the Pentagon theory
whoops, my bad,... thanks again
I watched the video, and I have to say it looks like it was done by someone who wanted to show there was a conspiracy. If I wanted to show a conspiracy, I could probably tilt the facts to make it seem like everyone is against me (they are, its a fact!).
Heres the problems with his "analysis":
1: Seemed to imply the jets weren't passenger jets. Completley ignores that several passengers made phone calls on their cell phones and were talking to people on the ground as it happened.
2: Compares the intentional crashing of a jet with an accident. In a true accident, it is assumed that the pilot isn't flying full throttle into the ground. The pilot may be trying to pull up, slow down, etc before hitting the ground. In 9/11, the hijackers were trying to go as fast as possible. Of course this would result in a massively different debris pattern because there is much more force involved (mass times velocy squared, two times the speed, four times the energy). In addition, he only considered chemical heat when talking about the melting points of metals. With enough collision force, it will heat up objects.
3: Different eyewitnesses always see different things. Of course some will see vastly different things. A plane going perhaps as high as 500 mph will be very hard to get a good look at.
4: A massive conspiracy will be VERY hard to keep secret. With each passing day, the risk gets higher that someone will tell.
Furthermore, the risks involved in such a conspiracy are HUGE. If as much as ONE thing screwed up and revealed the entire plot, the Republican Party would cease to exist. In addition, the narrator seemed to imply bin Laden wasnt a terrorist??? Before 9/11 he did plenty of attacks including the two embassies and the USS Cole. Of course he's going to deny it initially.
Why did a number of flight instructors report training several of these terrorists to fly, and that they only asked to be taught to fly and not to land?
I do wish Bush weren't in office. That being said, I think he is a good person that does bad things. It takes Religion to make good men do bad things. Bush is very religious, and the he believes that its ok to lie if its for a good cause. The good cause he sincerely believes in is ridding the world of evil dictators. I have to admit, it does seem appealing. I hate the idea that men like Saddam were allowed to rape and pillage their country while the world went, oh well. That being said, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, to say the least.
If there were real evidence to support a Bush conspiracy, why haven't any Democrats jumped on it? If anyone had any real evidence, they could wipe out the Republicans in the next thousand elections.
Heres the problems with his "analysis":
1: Seemed to imply the jets weren't passenger jets. Completley ignores that several passengers made phone calls on their cell phones and were talking to people on the ground as it happened.
2: Compares the intentional crashing of a jet with an accident. In a true accident, it is assumed that the pilot isn't flying full throttle into the ground. The pilot may be trying to pull up, slow down, etc before hitting the ground. In 9/11, the hijackers were trying to go as fast as possible. Of course this would result in a massively different debris pattern because there is much more force involved (mass times velocy squared, two times the speed, four times the energy). In addition, he only considered chemical heat when talking about the melting points of metals. With enough collision force, it will heat up objects.
3: Different eyewitnesses always see different things. Of course some will see vastly different things. A plane going perhaps as high as 500 mph will be very hard to get a good look at.
4: A massive conspiracy will be VERY hard to keep secret. With each passing day, the risk gets higher that someone will tell.
Furthermore, the risks involved in such a conspiracy are HUGE. If as much as ONE thing screwed up and revealed the entire plot, the Republican Party would cease to exist. In addition, the narrator seemed to imply bin Laden wasnt a terrorist??? Before 9/11 he did plenty of attacks including the two embassies and the USS Cole. Of course he's going to deny it initially.
Why did a number of flight instructors report training several of these terrorists to fly, and that they only asked to be taught to fly and not to land?
I do wish Bush weren't in office. That being said, I think he is a good person that does bad things. It takes Religion to make good men do bad things. Bush is very religious, and the he believes that its ok to lie if its for a good cause. The good cause he sincerely believes in is ridding the world of evil dictators. I have to admit, it does seem appealing. I hate the idea that men like Saddam were allowed to rape and pillage their country while the world went, oh well. That being said, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, to say the least.
If there were real evidence to support a Bush conspiracy, why haven't any Democrats jumped on it? If anyone had any real evidence, they could wipe out the Republicans in the next thousand elections.
THANK YOU imortal! It's about time someone posted proof supporting the other side. I'm not saying that I'm going to change my mind about the conspiracy, but you've actually gone out and done the research to prove us wrong, rather than just saying "OMG your all Retardss!1!"
Marconius, Imortal only posted credible evidence dispelling what common sense at the very least should cause you to question. Furthermore, what Imortal offered you via post was evidence establishing truth, not a theory born our of an unhealthy sense of paranoia or at the very least poorly founded skepticism. Acknowledging it as proof and then adding that a change in your mind remains questionable is ridiculous.Marconius wrote:
THANK YOU imortal! It's about time someone posted proof supporting the other side. I'm not saying that I'm going to change my mind about the conspiracy, but you've actually gone out and done the research to prove us wrong, rather than just saying "OMG your all Retardss!1!"
STRATOZYCK
As for your assertions about religion, I sincerely doubt a healthy case can be made to support your argument that all it takes to turn a good man evil is religion. History has shown us a fair number of individuals both religious and pagan, that have committed their fair share of atrocities or in other cases greatly contributed towards humanity. Don't destroy the credibility of your whole post with a poor judgment call like that.
Furthermore, a good person that does bad things is at best completely oblivious and/or ignorant to reality, a character trait I would hardly call good to begin with.
It never fails to surprise me how ordinary people turn into raving conspiracy fanatics... The whole 9/11 event, when viewed with even an ounce of common sense, is exactly what it looks like, i.e. a terrorist strike. Why, when presented with reams of valid evidence, would normally rational people grasp at straws and screech "Conspiracy!"? Does it make them feel more important perhaps? More knowledgeable?
Now that god is dead and I found out that Santa is really my gay uncle, what else do I have left?
Yeah that was an offhand quote from a physicist. But my point was, Dubya does believe God told him to invade Iraq. Of course more than religion can cause people to do bad things.
Oh another thing I found in the video that was rediculous was the statements about people buying put options on airline companies before 9/11.
NEWSFLASH Airlines are ALWAYS a good bet to go down in stock. They have been performing poorly for some time now. If you think the whole industry is going down, of course you would buy put options on all airlines. Every investment advice I've ever heard always says, bet on airlines to go down (not literally I hope).
Again, the religion quote was taken out of context, it was meant to explain how Bush, a good person, does something bad (like invading a country unprovoked) because of religion. I know, religion causes people to do good things like give to charity and help one another. Anyway, I never meant to bash all religious people, merely those that think God is telling them to do certain things.
Oh another thing I found in the video that was rediculous was the statements about people buying put options on airline companies before 9/11.
NEWSFLASH Airlines are ALWAYS a good bet to go down in stock. They have been performing poorly for some time now. If you think the whole industry is going down, of course you would buy put options on all airlines. Every investment advice I've ever heard always says, bet on airlines to go down (not literally I hope).
Again, the religion quote was taken out of context, it was meant to explain how Bush, a good person, does something bad (like invading a country unprovoked) because of religion. I know, religion causes people to do good things like give to charity and help one another. Anyway, I never meant to bash all religious people, merely those that think God is telling them to do certain things.
No, I haven't seen it, I will watch it tomorrow, but I'll post my comments on the subject before I watch it and tell you what I see would affect these opinions. (because unlike some people on this forum, no need for names, I am open to all evidence which contradicts opinions I hold).
I have no doubt it will tell me what my research and common sense has told me, that neither the impact of the planes nor the resulting fire destroyed the twin towers and building 7.
I have, over the past 4.5 years, become aware that the 322/US government was the most likely culprit for the events on 9/11, with the motive of creating and undeniable and indelible scar from upon the American psyche, but there is no way to prove it as the US government controls the only channels which could have done so.
From a glance at other posts I see the video may hint they were not the hijacked jets which impacted the towers. I am of the opinion that they were, but that conventional demolition charges were placed on the steel support girders which were remotely detonated in the unconventional top to bottom order to create the top down collapse which occured, due to the fact most of the fuel was consumed in a visible fireball. If I see anything in the video, or anywhere, to change my opinions I will let you know.
If anyone has not conducted their own investigation and begin researching the subject here are two starting points with differing views:
A good starting place for pro-terrorists as culprit views: Any news site from any developed nation.
A good starting place for pro-government as culprit views: http://www.wtc7.net
I have no doubt it will tell me what my research and common sense has told me, that neither the impact of the planes nor the resulting fire destroyed the twin towers and building 7.
I have, over the past 4.5 years, become aware that the 322/US government was the most likely culprit for the events on 9/11, with the motive of creating and undeniable and indelible scar from upon the American psyche, but there is no way to prove it as the US government controls the only channels which could have done so.
From a glance at other posts I see the video may hint they were not the hijacked jets which impacted the towers. I am of the opinion that they were, but that conventional demolition charges were placed on the steel support girders which were remotely detonated in the unconventional top to bottom order to create the top down collapse which occured, due to the fact most of the fuel was consumed in a visible fireball. If I see anything in the video, or anywhere, to change my opinions I will let you know.
If anyone has not conducted their own investigation and begin researching the subject here are two starting points with differing views:
A good starting place for pro-terrorists as culprit views: Any news site from any developed nation.
A good starting place for pro-government as culprit views: http://www.wtc7.net
Oh, and I am of the opinion that it could have been somewhere in between. Terrorists planned it, then US government found out and made sure they could pull it off without a hitch with bettter than expected results, as was also probably the case wit the WTC bombing in '93.
Yes, we must all come to love internet experts, close relative of the armchair general.duka wrote:
One of the primary arguments I heard in support of the "we never landed on the moon" theory, was the flustered response the NASA spokesperson gave when confronted with these "facts".
To me it looked a lot like the reaction I must have given the person I met at a bar, convinced that I was a figment of his imagination. If, at the time my brain hadn't been too busy trying desperately to grasp what was happening, I might have had the good common sense to order another drink, on his tab this time, which as his illusion should have been my god-given right, instead of staring at him mouth agape. I now know why the brain has aneurysms.
After that, having come to my senses, I took the time to look into the more plausible explainations of these supposed moon-landing inconsistencies, and as Imortal touched no, it seems there are perfectly logical explanaitions for every single "lie".
I am beginning to wonder if the problem isn't over-zealous, sometimes gullible individuals giving themselves a bit too much credit when it comes to fields they know very little or nothing about.
Certainty in the field(s) I am well versed in, and caucious respect when questioning anything that falls into a category that if i'm honest, i don't know a damn thing about.
PS, thanks imortal, but i was referring to the Pentagon theory
Well, I hit two topics, but... on the Pentagon Theory. The most common myth out there and its components:
1- How can an 250 foot wide plane fit into an 18 foot hole?
2- It was some sort of missile
3- why isn't all the plane debris on the lawn?
4- why don't we have video of it, since it is Washington, DC, and the news is everywhere?
5- why weren't the windows broken around the hole?
That about cover the issues?
1> The 18 foot hole conspiracy thoerists quote is actually the hole in entering the C ring. The pentagon is built in 5s. 5 sides, 5 floors, and 5 rings, with spaces between the rings. So, to get the hole in the C ring, SOMETHING had to go through ALL of the E ring, then go through ALL of the D ring. What was left managed to make a hole in the C ring. The people on the scene determined that the 18 foot hole was made by the forward landing gear. Most of the rest of the plane had already been shedded at that time and left behind inside the building.
2> This is one of those silly comments that always crops up. Remember everyone claiming that the Navy shot down TWA 700? If there was a missile fired at the Pentagon, where did it come from? Cruise missiles fly low and slow. An airliner is something everyone sees but just passes without noticing, even if it isn't where we suspect. A cruise missile, flying over ANY city, let alone the capital, would draw a HELL of a lot more attention. Not to mention calls from everything it overflew on the way to the Pentagon. And also, the damage pattern shown at the pentagon was not consistant with any damage from any cruise missile warhead I have had experience with. Any Air Farce boys wanna chime in and add thier comments and experiences?
3> most of the plane debris went INTO the Pentagon, and shed inside the E and D rings, and between the E/D and D/C rings. Even the wings, which were snapped off (one on the lawn, and one on the building) still has the mass and inertia to keep traveling forward. And unless the wings snapped off exeptionally cleanly, there would still be SOMETHING, perhaps even a single strut, connecting the wings to the fusalage, and drug them into the main hole. There WAS quite a bit of debris on the lawn, however, so not all of it went inside.
4> The Pentagon is actually quite a bit of distance from the Capitol area. Most steady neaws crew that are in the capitol day after day are concentrated around the capitol building and the white house. They only need to use the Pentagon as a backdrop when something military-related is in the news, and nothing was, in mid September, 2001. And before the plane hit the Pentagon, most people were convinced that the Capitol building was a target. REmember, they were trying to evacuate Congress at the time. Much more news- and picture worthy than a building no one knew would be under threat. The cameras were just in the wrong place.
5> Ah, the old window problem. Since around 1997 or so (give or take a year), the Pentagon has been going a huge renovation, since it hasn't been really upgraded since WWII. Among the improvements were blast-proof windows. This renovation was suggested after the OK City bombing. The plane hit one of the sections that had already had its windows replaced by blast resistant windows.
Did I miss anything?
Anything behind that opinion, or does it just make you feel better? That was not meant as an insult, by the way.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Oh, and I am of the opinion that it could have been somewhere in between. Terrorists planned it, then US government found out and made sure they could pull it off without a hitch with bettter than expected results, as was also probably the case wit the WTC bombing in '93.
Terrorist involvement with (edit:typo) government knowledge because of the '93 WTC bombing. Search it on wikipedia read the article you find with particular attention to the section on the alleged FBI awareness.
I'm am watching the video now, I had not been aware of some of the details which indicate this was a missile, as my investigation had only looked at the WTC itself. I am, since my last post, more open to the possibility that it was not a conventional jet that hit the pentagon. My opinions on WTC may also be about to change from what I am hearing as I type.
I'm am watching the video now, I had not been aware of some of the details which indicate this was a missile, as my investigation had only looked at the WTC itself. I am, since my last post, more open to the possibility that it was not a conventional jet that hit the pentagon. My opinions on WTC may also be about to change from what I am hearing as I type.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-09 17:17:56)
how did I miss this video? when was it released?
Okay, when you get done, go here and have a fun read: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.htmlUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Terrorist involvement with govenment knowledge because of the '93 WTC bombing. Search it on wikipedia read the article you find with particular attention to the section on the alleged FBI awareness.
I'm am watching the video now, I had not been aware of some of the details which indicate this was a missile, as my investigation had only looked at the WTC itself. I am, since my last post, more open to the possibility that it was not a conventional jet that hit the pentagon. My opinions on WTC may also be about to change from what I am hearing as I type.
This is a ten page segment Popular Mechanics did to bring some light to the most common 9/11 myths.
EDIT:*** As for the 1993 WTC bombing... I don't have as much information on that, so I will withhold opinion for now.
Last edited by imortal (2006-03-09 16:57:18)
"Did I miss anything?"
Of course. We all know the pentagon was built by aliens...
Great rebuttal. Perhaps the real conspiracies in the world are ones that we never even bother to think about. How about the fact that South America fits into Africa? Looks suspicious to me. I bet it's somehow Dubya's fault.
Internet experts... haha love that phrase. The problem with the internet is that theoretically an educated person has just as much voice as an idiot that never read so much as a newspaper. But, the idiots usually filter themselves out by misspelling easy words and by not capitalizing the start of every sentence. I know it seems like a nit picky thing, but honestly would you believe anyone taht der cintenses wuz harrably mingled?
I can understand believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy. It was, just among different people than the video claimed. Heck, I won't claim anyone who believes that is unintelligent. I had a political science professor that was very intelligent, yet he consistently made incorrect predictions (election, Falluja, etc) because he was horribly biased. If you want to nail Bush, you will naturally make some errs in judgement.
Here's one thing I'll ask people reading this thread. Does anyone think any of the blame for not preventing 9/11 should be placed on Bill Clinton? He was offered bin Laden by Sudan in 1995 I believe and he turned him down. Many intelligence experts believed that bin Laden sincerely believed we would not invade Afghanistan if he brought down the WTC because of Clinton's weak responses to USS Cole and the embassy bombings. When questioned by congress, the Clinton administration said something like, "of course we retaliated, we fired two cruise missiles!" They failed to understand that bin Laden thought, "wow all they did was fire two cruise missiles."
We sent a team out to assasinate bin Laden in the late 1990s, but they were contually reigned in because CIA lawyers said we didn't have the authority to assasinate anyone. Now, I won't blame Bill Clinton for everything on this, but I would say its more the result the mindset we had fallen into. We have people in this country who strongly believe that the US should keep no secrets, that we should never assasinate anyone, never torture, etc. Now, some of you are flipping out. But if we could, shouldn't we have assasinated Hitler? If torturing the family members of a 9/11 hijacker could have stopped 9/11, shouldn't we have?
But no, we are "better" than that, so thousands, sometimes millions have to die to defend our desire not to "sink to their level."
Now, before I get accused of being a sadist, I don't believe in torture, it's ineffective. By torture I mean hot poker type stuff, not sleep deprivation. I don't even believe in the death penalty. There are things worse than death. However, if we could have assasinated Saddam or bin Laden, wouldn't that have saved a lot of trouble?
In case anyone hasn't figured it out, I love rambling so I apologize. I am the type of person that can sit down and hammer out ten pages in an hour.
Of course. We all know the pentagon was built by aliens...
Great rebuttal. Perhaps the real conspiracies in the world are ones that we never even bother to think about. How about the fact that South America fits into Africa? Looks suspicious to me. I bet it's somehow Dubya's fault.
Internet experts... haha love that phrase. The problem with the internet is that theoretically an educated person has just as much voice as an idiot that never read so much as a newspaper. But, the idiots usually filter themselves out by misspelling easy words and by not capitalizing the start of every sentence. I know it seems like a nit picky thing, but honestly would you believe anyone taht der cintenses wuz harrably mingled?
I can understand believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy. It was, just among different people than the video claimed. Heck, I won't claim anyone who believes that is unintelligent. I had a political science professor that was very intelligent, yet he consistently made incorrect predictions (election, Falluja, etc) because he was horribly biased. If you want to nail Bush, you will naturally make some errs in judgement.
Here's one thing I'll ask people reading this thread. Does anyone think any of the blame for not preventing 9/11 should be placed on Bill Clinton? He was offered bin Laden by Sudan in 1995 I believe and he turned him down. Many intelligence experts believed that bin Laden sincerely believed we would not invade Afghanistan if he brought down the WTC because of Clinton's weak responses to USS Cole and the embassy bombings. When questioned by congress, the Clinton administration said something like, "of course we retaliated, we fired two cruise missiles!" They failed to understand that bin Laden thought, "wow all they did was fire two cruise missiles."
We sent a team out to assasinate bin Laden in the late 1990s, but they were contually reigned in because CIA lawyers said we didn't have the authority to assasinate anyone. Now, I won't blame Bill Clinton for everything on this, but I would say its more the result the mindset we had fallen into. We have people in this country who strongly believe that the US should keep no secrets, that we should never assasinate anyone, never torture, etc. Now, some of you are flipping out. But if we could, shouldn't we have assasinated Hitler? If torturing the family members of a 9/11 hijacker could have stopped 9/11, shouldn't we have?
But no, we are "better" than that, so thousands, sometimes millions have to die to defend our desire not to "sink to their level."
Now, before I get accused of being a sadist, I don't believe in torture, it's ineffective. By torture I mean hot poker type stuff, not sleep deprivation. I don't even believe in the death penalty. There are things worse than death. However, if we could have assasinated Saddam or bin Laden, wouldn't that have saved a lot of trouble?
In case anyone hasn't figured it out, I love rambling so I apologize. I am the type of person that can sit down and hammer out ten pages in an hour.
does anyone REALLY belive the official story!!!
Like REALLY!!!
I don´t!!! To many COINCEDENCES in so little time (under 12 hours)
Like REALLY!!!
I don´t!!! To many COINCEDENCES in so little time (under 12 hours)
imortal, you already posted that link, and FYI i was already well aware of the popularmechanics debunkings, and these have helped to shape my opinions that what crashed was a plane (or now, perhaps an -identical- drone but still more leaning towards a jet, why worry about a hundred people when you know you will kill thousands anyway).
imortal, were you aware of the information on wtc.net. I'll show you mine if you show me yours
edit http://www.wtc7.net oops
edit http://www.wtc7.net oops
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-09 17:06:08)
Oh yes, this video seems to be getting towards the same conclusion I did. Controlled demolition.
(edit, i'm at about the 55 minute mark)
(edit, i'm at about the 55 minute mark)
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-09 17:09:46)
...as for the "controlled demolition," the two most common points were that the fire was below the melting strength for steel and that they windows blew out on the way down from top to bottom as it fell.
The tempurature difference between steel melting and jet fuel burning has been joyiously pointed to by conspicacy therorists. The problem is that the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to fall. All that had to happen was for the supporting struts to lose a little bit of their strength. Not much; perjhaps as little as 10%. Steel looses strength and becomes more pliant at lower tempratures than its melting temp.
The WTC towers were comercial endeavors. They had to be physically and economically feaasable. The means designing and building them to hold and stay up, but to do so with the minimum of materials to lower the costs to make it affordable. That means using enough steel to support the weight of the building, and the piddly lightweight things like people and furniture that goes inside. There would be a bit of excess capacity, but not much.
As the steel support beams warmed, they became more pliant, and lost some of theri strength. Not much. But enough. As soon as the support was weak enough that it could not hold up, the roof it was holding fell. It most likely started witha single, maby 3 or four nearby pillars. the roof collapsed, and then the weakened-but-not-quite-failing struts under the first pillar had a LOT more weight to deal with, and they collapesed, along with a few to each side. So more deris hit the next floor down. Also a bit weakened, but even more debris hit it, so it collapsed. and so on, and so on, until it was entire floors collapsing at once.
Considering where the most weight is in the building along with the fire bweing inside, the hottest part of the fire was most likely in the center. So the most likely failure point would be in the center, above the plane impact point. The initial collapsing would be internal, and if there was any motion at first, it would be not only subtle, and obscured by smoke.
Once the collapse reached the entire floor-state, two things happened. First is that the areas above that had not collapsed lost its support from underneath, and it fell. This would be the first obvious sign of external collapse, as the area above the fire began to sag and fall as one.
Estimated time from the first, intial support failure to when it is visibly noticeable would only be 5 - 15 seconds. Once a failure happens, the chain reaction would happen FAST. Also, with the intial collapse happening inside the building, the collapsing structure is pulled in on itself, instead of being pulled over to the side. By the time the collapse reached to non-damaged areas, the weight of collapsing material is way above any tolerances designed, and failure is almost instantanius. Entire floors are collapsing at once.
This brings up the second point. As the entire floor collapses, the air inside the building has to go somewhere. remember that a building is mostly empty air. As the floor collapses and nears teh next floor down, the air is compressed, and air pressure builds until it exceeds the saftey limits on the glass. The glass is shattered, and the air (and whatever the air can lift) is expelled out the windows. Then that floor collapses, and the process is repeated.
Common sense time: take a paperclip, and straighten it out. Once it is straight, grab the parperclip in both hands, and bend it back and forth repeatedly. What happens? It snaps. If you feel at the failure area, you will notice heat from the friction of you bending it. But it is not melted at all. The tempurature difference was enough to comprimise the metal. Onviously, this is small scale, but shows teh basic theory.
Second, take a hard cover book, and a flat surface. Hold your face close to the flat surface, and slam the book flat against the surface, near your face. Take care not to hit your face. Do you feel the air being pressed out from under the book? Experiment with paper crumpled up near the edge and see if you can get the book to move light items with the air you displace.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional engineer. I did not pull this off of any website. I took what I have heard and read about the WTC collapse and put muy interpretation of what I thnk happened here.
EDIT** I was going to correct my spelling, but instead I will appolpgize for it to my English teachers, if they haven't already died in horror.
The tempurature difference between steel melting and jet fuel burning has been joyiously pointed to by conspicacy therorists. The problem is that the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to fall. All that had to happen was for the supporting struts to lose a little bit of their strength. Not much; perjhaps as little as 10%. Steel looses strength and becomes more pliant at lower tempratures than its melting temp.
The WTC towers were comercial endeavors. They had to be physically and economically feaasable. The means designing and building them to hold and stay up, but to do so with the minimum of materials to lower the costs to make it affordable. That means using enough steel to support the weight of the building, and the piddly lightweight things like people and furniture that goes inside. There would be a bit of excess capacity, but not much.
As the steel support beams warmed, they became more pliant, and lost some of theri strength. Not much. But enough. As soon as the support was weak enough that it could not hold up, the roof it was holding fell. It most likely started witha single, maby 3 or four nearby pillars. the roof collapsed, and then the weakened-but-not-quite-failing struts under the first pillar had a LOT more weight to deal with, and they collapesed, along with a few to each side. So more deris hit the next floor down. Also a bit weakened, but even more debris hit it, so it collapsed. and so on, and so on, until it was entire floors collapsing at once.
Considering where the most weight is in the building along with the fire bweing inside, the hottest part of the fire was most likely in the center. So the most likely failure point would be in the center, above the plane impact point. The initial collapsing would be internal, and if there was any motion at first, it would be not only subtle, and obscured by smoke.
Once the collapse reached the entire floor-state, two things happened. First is that the areas above that had not collapsed lost its support from underneath, and it fell. This would be the first obvious sign of external collapse, as the area above the fire began to sag and fall as one.
Estimated time from the first, intial support failure to when it is visibly noticeable would only be 5 - 15 seconds. Once a failure happens, the chain reaction would happen FAST. Also, with the intial collapse happening inside the building, the collapsing structure is pulled in on itself, instead of being pulled over to the side. By the time the collapse reached to non-damaged areas, the weight of collapsing material is way above any tolerances designed, and failure is almost instantanius. Entire floors are collapsing at once.
This brings up the second point. As the entire floor collapses, the air inside the building has to go somewhere. remember that a building is mostly empty air. As the floor collapses and nears teh next floor down, the air is compressed, and air pressure builds until it exceeds the saftey limits on the glass. The glass is shattered, and the air (and whatever the air can lift) is expelled out the windows. Then that floor collapses, and the process is repeated.
Common sense time: take a paperclip, and straighten it out. Once it is straight, grab the parperclip in both hands, and bend it back and forth repeatedly. What happens? It snaps. If you feel at the failure area, you will notice heat from the friction of you bending it. But it is not melted at all. The tempurature difference was enough to comprimise the metal. Onviously, this is small scale, but shows teh basic theory.
Second, take a hard cover book, and a flat surface. Hold your face close to the flat surface, and slam the book flat against the surface, near your face. Take care not to hit your face. Do you feel the air being pressed out from under the book? Experiment with paper crumpled up near the edge and see if you can get the book to move light items with the air you displace.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional engineer. I did not pull this off of any website. I took what I have heard and read about the WTC collapse and put muy interpretation of what I thnk happened here.
EDIT** I was going to correct my spelling, but instead I will appolpgize for it to my English teachers, if they haven't already died in horror.
Last edited by imortal (2006-03-09 17:31:35)
Note to self: When watching a google.video and watching a forum thread for responses, make sure you don't press F5 on the wrong window or you will be rebuffering for ages!