Honest question for the 911 conspiracy buffs.

[Dante]

No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.

1st question:

Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?

The story goes the government needed to destroy the buildings in order to invade Afghanistan. laughing here is NOT abuse, it is a normal reaction to absurdity.

So we invade afghanistan in order to invade Iraq. get it?

 

[PredFan]

Yes ,falling through thousands of feet of concrete and steel is so much easier than falling through the air..what was I thinking...lol

One floor colapses onto the lower floor, now it is the weight of two floors, then the two floors collapse onto a third floor now it is the weight of three floors, and on and on. It's pretty solid physics.

Well two problems with that theory one being there is a robust central core the floors are built around and two is the principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum

You do know that the "central core" was elevator shafts right? The law of conservation of energy is not violated by the crushing weight of increasing amounts of debris. The law of conservation of mementum would support the official version that I described.

Thanks, btw for refraining from using insults to get your point across.

 

[PredFan]

Yes ,falling through thousands of feet of concrete and steel is so much easier than falling through the air..what was I thinking...lol

One floor colapses onto the lower floor, now it is the weight of two floors, then the two floors collapse onto a third floor now it is the weight of three floors, and on and on. It's pretty solid physics.

except the problem with your hysterical logic is that any architec will tell you that towers and buidings,especailly huge towers like the trade centers,the lower the floors are,the steel columns are thicker and stronger than the colums that are higher and they were designed so they could take a hit from MULTIPLE AIRLINERS and they would remain standing.

I'll be expecting an apology from you soon or our discussion is over. I can always ignore you and discuss this stuff with EOTS.

 

[PredFan]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

 

[eots]

One floor colapses onto the lower floor, now it is the weight of two floors, then the two floors collapse onto a third floor now it is the weight of three floors, and on and on. It's pretty solid physics.

Well two problems with that theory one being there is a robust central core the floors are built around and two is the principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum

You do know that the "central core" was elevator shafts right? The law of conservation of energy is not violated by the crushing weight of increasing amounts of debris. The law of conservation of mementum would support the official version that I described.

Thanks, btw for refraining from using insults to get your point across.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ]WTC Core - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dante]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

btw, a plane military(?) did crash into the Empire State Building before the WTC were built.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAVd2txjNEc]WTC Construction Manager - Twin Towers can take multiple plane impacts ! Filmed January 2001 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[trickydickyUK]

But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.

But they have been discovered; it's just a case of some people being afraid of admitting it and what its consequences mean for the people of America.

 

[trickydickyUK]

No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.

1st question:

Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?

Well the answer is obvious America is a police state now and it is only going to get much worse.

 

[candycorn]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted. No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact.

Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact. The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.

 

[Obamerican]

One of the original architects said that they had figured in the impact of the aircraft but not the resulting fires from the fuel. And, like CC said, there is a difference between a plane flying in the fog at low speed trying to find their way to La Guardia and someone flying a commercial jet at full throttle.
Besides the whole argument of "they were designed to withstand......" is a moot point. How many things were designed incorrectly and no one even suspected until it failed. Dams, bridges (Tacoma Narrows comes to mind) and buildings.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted. No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact.

Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact. The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.

The hypothesis of fire destroying 3 buildings with collapse times just under freefall acceleration has never been proven.
BTW airports are designed to accommodate aircraft landing as well as taking off with various speeds, and the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial explosions and ensuing fireballs.

 

[Mr. Jones]

i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.

Yes ,falling through thousands of feet of concrete and steel is so much easier than falling through the air..what was I thinking...lol

One floor colapses onto the lower floor, now it is the weight of two floors, then the two floors collapse onto a third floor now it is the weight of three floors, and on and on. It's pretty solid physics.

Solid physics is what the NIST report leaves out, in particular conservation of momentum and the time it takes for the lower floors to be overcome by the weight of the upper ones, and the forces working against each other upon impact...The times of collapse don't jive with all that work that was needed to accomplish that...in all 3 buildings, not to mention the forces needed to pulverize the concrete into fine dust.
There simply was not enough "natural" energy, kinetic or otherwise to collapse them in the times observed, unless the mass was moved out of the way of the collapsing structure just beforehand, and fire sure as hell could not do that. Otherwise the CD industry would not have to resort to exotic means to do their job, and rely on "jet fuel" and matches to accomplish their work.

The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact would meet resistance from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load these columns through their elastic range and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase.
This force would also be felt by the columns below the storey which was first impacted.
Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance.
Momentum Transfer in WTC1
(which would take time to overcome, multiplied by all the floors)

In short the time for these laws of physics to be applied during the collapses, would take more time then was observed in the 2 WTC towers, and especially the WTC 7 building that was NOT even hit by a plane.

 

[daws101]

daws handlers sure pay him a a lot of money.No way would he keep coming back here everyday for his constant ass beatings he gets here everyday.He got OWNED here and he knows it.

assbeatings by who!!
you clowns are surely delusional if you think you're kicking my ass

 

[daws101]

No..plane hit wtc 7

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

 

[PredFan]

Well two problems with that theory one being there is a robust central core the floors are built around and two is the principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum

You do know that the "central core" was elevator shafts right? The law of conservation of energy is not violated by the crushing weight of increasing amounts of debris. The law of conservation of mementum would support the official version that I described.

Thanks, btw for refraining from using insults to get your point across.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ]WTC Core - YouTube[/ame]

Can't see videos because of a firewall at work.

 

[PredFan]

No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.

1st question:

Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?

Well the answer is obvious America is a police state now and it is only going to get much worse.

The closest thing to a reason as I've heard so far.

 

[PredFan]

One of the original architects said that they had figured in the impact of the aircraft but not the resulting fires from the fuel. And, like CC said, there is a difference between a plane flying in the fog at low speed trying to find their way to La Guardia and someone flying a commercial jet at full throttle.
Besides the whole argument of "they were designed to withstand......" is a moot point. How many things were designed incorrectly and no one even suspected until it failed. Dams, bridges (Tacoma Narrows comes to mind) and buildings.

I think I must acknowledge the truth that the buildings were designed with planes crashing into them. Learned something new today.

 

[daws101]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.

The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.

But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.

Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.

British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph

 

[daws101]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

btw, a plane military(?) did crash into the Empire State Building before the WTC were built.

yes it did in a thick fog. what are you inferring?