Political Crossfire Forums

[NAB]

Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Are you referring to the planes that hit the WTC? If you go back and look at the videos they did not blow up on the outside, as you put it. They penetrated INTO, and in the case of the second plane, THROUGH the entire building. This is the part were the exterior structure was sheared through, you know, the thing that makes the building stand up.

Combination of factors caused the collapse, but they all were created by one event: plane hitting at high speed.

[Bull]

pikers wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Uh yeah, uh, dat's wha-happened... :-|

When a bullet hits the human body, it tends to break up, causing more damage on the inside than the outside. Or, it simply deforms dramatically, causing more trauma on the exit side than the entry.

"Blew up on the outside"... Holy Christ. :roll:

Uh...what you're saying makes absolutely no sense at all. A bullet's physics and a plane physics are two entirely different things. Fault By Comparison... :lol: .

[Patriot911]

Bull wrote: pikers wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Uh yeah, uh, dat's wha-happened... :-|

When a bullet hits the human body, it tends to break up, causing more damage on the inside than the outside. Or, it simply deforms dramatically, causing more trauma on the exit side than the entry.

"Blew up on the outside"... Holy Christ. :roll:

Uh...what you're saying makes absolutely no sense at all. A bullet's physics and a plane physics are two entirely different things. Fault By Comparison... :lol: .

They make a hell of a lot more sense than most of what you post. Anyone who ever saw the damage caused by the planes or the video of Flight 175 slamming into WTC2 knows you are full of the smelly brown stuff when you say the plane exploded outside the building. Do you seriously believe your own writing or are you just hoping everyone else is so brain dead they will believe what you write?

Bullets enter a body because their mass + speed is enough to overcome the resistance of skin and other internal organs. The planes entered WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon because the plane's mass + speed was greated than the resistance of the steel in the case of the WTC towers or reinforced concrete in the case of the Pentagon. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable analogy.

[Bull]

NAB wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Are you referring to the planes that hit the WTC? If you go back and look at the videos they did not blow up on the outside, as you put it. They penetrated INTO, and in the case of the second plane, THROUGH the entire building. This is the part were the exterior structure was sheared through, you know, the thing that makes the building stand up.

Combination of factors caused the collapse, but they all were created by one event: plane hitting at high speed.

Blowing Up on The Outside





This is why people say the idea that fire brought down the building because of the jet fuel is INSANE. MOST of the jet fuel blew up on the outside AFTER the crash!!! The remaining fire was just used to sustain the fire inside the building, but was definently not enough to bring a building down. Also, after a while, the smoke coming from the South Tower begins turning black...which means it's losing oxygen (technically, both towers smoke color darkened over time, but the South Tower is more telling).

[Patriot911]

For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

[Bull]

Patriot911 wrote: Bull wrote: pikers wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Uh yeah, uh, dat's wha-happened... :-|

When a bullet hits the human body, it tends to break up, causing more damage on the inside than the outside. Or, it simply deforms dramatically, causing more trauma on the exit side than the entry.

"Blew up on the outside"... Holy Christ. :roll:

Uh...what you're saying makes absolutely no sense at all. A bullet's physics and a plane physics are two entirely different things. Fault By Comparison... :lol: .

They make a hell of a lot more sense than most of what you post. Anyone who ever saw the damage caused by the planes or the video of Flight 175 slamming into WTC2 knows you are full of the smelly brown stuff when you say the plane exploded outside the building. Do you seriously believe your own writing or are you just hoping everyone else is so brain dead they will believe what you write?

Bullets enter a body because their mass + speed is enough to overcome the resistance of skin and other internal organs. The planes entered WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon because the plane's mass + speed was greated than the resistance of the steel in the case of the WTC towers or reinforced concrete in the case of the Pentagon. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable analogy.

But Patriot, the speed is almost irrelevant...and the mass is almost equally irrelevent because if you look at the above pics you'll see that the hole is small compared to the building itself.

[NAB]

Bull wrote: NAB wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Are you referring to the planes that hit the WTC? If you go back and look at the videos they did not blow up on the outside, as you put it. They penetrated INTO, and in the case of the second plane, THROUGH the entire building. This is the part were the exterior structure was sheared through, you know, the thing that makes the building stand up.

Combination of factors caused the collapse, but they all were created by one event: plane hitting at high speed.

Blowing Up on The Outside





This is why people say the idea that fire brought down the building because of the jet fuel is INSANE. MOST of the jet fuel blew up on the outside AFTER the crash!!! The remaining fire was just used to sustain the fire inside the building, but was definently not enough to bring a building down. Also, after a while, the smoke coming from the South Tower begins turning black...which means it's losing oxygen (technically, both towers smoke color darkened over time, but the South Tower is more telling).

Come on Bull. So the only explosion was on the "outside" of the building. Did the planes just bounce off?

[Bull]

Patriot911 wrote: For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

Patriot, listen to the absurdity in your statements. Desks, walls, papers? These minor household items brought down the building in under an hour?

Did you know that on February 13, 1975 the 11th floor of the North Tower (which later spread to more floors including the core) caught fire? It was reported that the fires were so intense that windows were blown out from the heat, and fires could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the East side. The fire destroyed most of the 11th floor and lasted for over 3 hours...it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out. If you compare this to 9/11...the oddities are astounding. Here you have an incident where fire was ablaze in the North Tower and spread for over 3 hours. The fire was so hot, it busted windows (something that didn't happen on 9/11...the only windows busted was from the crash). This means the fires were over 700 C. Yet and still, you barely see any fire at all in the Twin Towers and all you see is smoke (black smoke at that). There is even a picture of a woman STANDING inside the hole!!

[Bull]

NAB wrote: Bull wrote: NAB wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Are you referring to the planes that hit the WTC? If you go back and look at the videos they did not blow up on the outside, as you put it. They penetrated INTO, and in the case of the second plane, THROUGH the entire building. This is the part were the exterior structure was sheared through, you know, the thing that makes the building stand up.

Combination of factors caused the collapse, but they all were created by one event: plane hitting at high speed.

Blowing Up on The Outside





This is why people say the idea that fire brought down the building because of the jet fuel is INSANE. MOST of the jet fuel blew up on the outside AFTER the crash!!! The remaining fire was just used to sustain the fire inside the building, but was definently not enough to bring a building down. Also, after a while, the smoke coming from the South Tower begins turning black...which means it's losing oxygen (technically, both towers smoke color darkened over time, but the South Tower is more telling).

Come on Bull. So the only explosion was on the "outside" of the building. Did the planes just bounce off?



The strength of the explosion was on the outside...yes. Because that's where the majority of the fuel was focused.

Here's the picture of the woman inside the hole after the plane hit the building. I think they actually showed this on TV too...she was alive.

[Patriot911]

Bull wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Bull wrote: pikers wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Uh yeah, uh, dat's wha-happened... :-|

When a bullet hits the human body, it tends to break up, causing more damage on the inside than the outside. Or, it simply deforms dramatically, causing more trauma on the exit side than the entry.

"Blew up on the outside"... Holy Christ. :roll:

Uh...what you're saying makes absolutely no sense at all. A bullet's physics and a plane physics are two entirely different things. Fault By Comparison... :lol: .

They make a hell of a lot more sense than most of what you post. Anyone who ever saw the damage caused by the planes or the video of Flight 175 slamming into WTC2 knows you are full of the smelly brown stuff when you say the plane exploded outside the building. Do you seriously believe your own writing or are you just hoping everyone else is so brain dead they will believe what you write?

Bullets enter a body because their mass + speed is enough to overcome the resistance of skin and other internal organs. The planes entered WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon because the plane's mass + speed was greated than the resistance of the steel in the case of the WTC towers or reinforced concrete in the case of the Pentagon. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable analogy.

But Patriot, the speed is almost irrelevant...and the mass is almost equally irrelevent because if you look at the above pics you'll see that the hole is small compared to the building itself.

Thank you for once again proving your almost non-existant knowledge of physics.

Speed is critical. Mass is critical. The more speed you have, the more energy is delivered. The more mass you have, the more energy is delivered. The fact that the hole is small is also critical. It means the mass was concentrated on a small frontal area. Take a large mass (can we at least agree that ~200 tons is a large mass?), throw it at high speed (can we at least agree that 500 mph is considered high speed?) at a building (ANY building) and you are going to have massive damage.

Flight 11 hit dead on which means the entire energy of the impact hit the core of the building. Flight 175 hit at an angle which didn't deliver as much energy to the core, but did far more extensive damage to the outer lattice and created a very un-symetrical load on the building.

So how much energy are we talking about? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 BILLION foot pounds of force. Most of this force is concentrated in a circle 16 feet in diameter.

It is absolutely mind boggling to me that people can discount the amount of damage the jets did to the towers. The amount of energy released in the split second of impact is the equivalent of nearly a ton and a half of TNT. Tell me, Bull. How much damage do you think 3,000 pounds of TNT would do to a building?

[Patriot911]

Bull wrote: Patriot911 wrote: For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

Patriot, listen to the absurdity in your statements. Desks, walls, papers? These minor household items brought down the building in under an hour?

Did you know that on February 13, 1975 the 11th floor of the North Tower (which later spread to more floors including the core) caught fire? It was reported that the fires were so intense that windows were blown out from the heat, and fires could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the East side. The fire destroyed most of the 11th floor and lasted for over 3 hours...it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out. If you compare this to 9/11...the oddities are astounding. Here you have an incident where fire was ablaze in the North Tower and spread for over 3 hours. The fire was so hot, it busted windows (something that didn't happen on 9/11...the only windows busted was from the crash). This means the fires were over 700 C. Yet and still, you barely see any fire at all in the Twin Towers and all you see is smoke (black smoke at that). There is even a picture of a woman STANDING inside the hole!!

:roll: For someone who b*****s about others comparing apples to oranges, you sure compare a lot of apples to shoes.

First off, a standard office fire starts in one location and spreads. On 9/11 the fire started across multiple floors and engulfed the entire floor at once.

Second, you once again ignore the structural damage. How stupid do you really have to be to think that a 767 slamming into the building would have zero effect on the structural integrity of the building? Seriously!

Third, the core columns and trusses are sprayed with a fire protective coating. Unfortunately this coating does not adhere well to the steel and can be knocked off with little effort. Think a 767 slamming into the building might be considered a "little effort"?

Fourth, windows were busted because of pressure from the fire. Think a hole... oh I dunno.... about the size and shape of a 767 might relieve some of that pressure?

Fifth, when you look at the WHOLE picture of the lady standing in the hole, you realize several things:

First, that she is on the North side of the building. How do we know this? No smoke. The wind was blowing from North to South that day which would have carried the smoke away from her. This means she would have had fresh air blowing on her and thus the heat from the fire away from her.

Second, that there are major fires buring out of control across several floors.

Third, that the damage to the outer lattice of the building which supports 40% of the weight of the building is very extensive.

Fourth, that the plane did NOT explode "outside" the building.

Thanks for playing! Come again!

[Bull]

Patriot911 wrote: Bull wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Bull wrote: pikers wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Uh yeah, uh, dat's wha-happened... :-|

When a bullet hits the human body, it tends to break up, causing more damage on the inside than the outside. Or, it simply deforms dramatically, causing more trauma on the exit side than the entry.

"Blew up on the outside"... Holy Christ. :roll:

Uh...what you're saying makes absolutely no sense at all. A bullet's physics and a plane physics are two entirely different things. Fault By Comparison... :lol: .

They make a hell of a lot more sense than most of what you post. Anyone who ever saw the damage caused by the planes or the video of Flight 175 slamming into WTC2 knows you are full of the smelly brown stuff when you say the plane exploded outside the building. Do you seriously believe your own writing or are you just hoping everyone else is so brain dead they will believe what you write?

Bullets enter a body because their mass + speed is enough to overcome the resistance of skin and other internal organs. The planes entered WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon because the plane's mass + speed was greated than the resistance of the steel in the case of the WTC towers or reinforced concrete in the case of the Pentagon. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable analogy.

But Patriot, the speed is almost irrelevant...and the mass is almost equally irrelevent because if you look at the above pics you'll see that the hole is small compared to the building itself.

Thank you for once again proving your almost non-existant knowledge of physics.

Speed is critical. Mass is critical. The more speed you have, the more energy is delivered. The more mass you have, the more energy is delivered. The fact that the hole is small is also critical. It means the mass was concentrated on a small frontal area. Take a large mass (can we at least agree that ~200 tons is a large mass?), throw it at high speed (can we at least agree that 500 mph is considered high speed?) at a building (ANY building) and you are going to have massive damage.

Flight 11 hit dead on which means the entire energy of the impact hit the core of the building. Flight 175 hit at an angle which didn't deliver as much energy to the core, but did far more extensive damage to the outer lattice and created a very un-symetrical load on the building.

So how much energy are we talking about? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 BILLION foot pounds of force. Most of this force is concentrated in a circle 16 feet in diameter.

It is absolutely mind boggling to me that people can discount the amount of damage the jets did to the towers. The amount of energy released in the split second of impact is the equivalent of nearly a ton and a half of TNT. Tell me, Bull. How much damage do you think 3,000 pounds of TNT would do to a building?

Patriot, this is nice and all...but none of it had anything to do with why the building fell. If anything, all of this just contributed to the ball of explosion on the initial impact. You're forgetting that the building fell from the bottom (the same bottom where everybody evacuated and firefighters were).

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

Here is a video of him saying the above...Here

[Patriot911]

Bull wrote: Patriot, this is nice and all...but none of it had anything to do with why the building fell. If anything, all of this just contributed to the ball of explosion on the initial impact. You're forgetting that the building fell from the bottom (the same bottom where everybody evacuated and firefighters were).

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

Here is a video of him saying the above...Here

:roll: Oh come on. Are you forgetting we ALL saw the buildings collapse? Sorry, but there is NO WAY IN HELL the buildings fell from the bottom up. Why? Two reasons.

First, when you look at the videos you can clearly see everything below the collapse in perfect focus and can see the latticework. If the building were in motion from the bottom, you would not be able to see the windows.

Second, if the building fell from the bottom up, you would not see the debris we ALL saw falling off the sides of the building. Why? Well, what caused the debris to be pushed to the side? Remember the Newtonian laws of motion. An object at rest tends to stay at rest. So SOMETHING has to push the debris over the side of the building. Well, you have gravity acting as one force. If the building is collapsing from the bottom that is the ONLY force you have and the building would come straight down and you would still be able to see the tops of the towers. This is CLEARLY not what we saw. So what was the other force? The building itself. It provided enough resistance to the debris to push some of the debris over the side. How can it provide resistance if it is collapsing from the bottom up? It can't.

As for Frank DiMartini, who are you going to believe? The construction manager or the structural engineer Frank got his information from? Leslie Robertson has clearly outlined what the WTC towers were designed to withstand; A slow moving 707 lost in the fog and the resulting fires were not accounted for in the survivability calculations. It was NOT designed to withstand multiple hits. It was NOT designed to withstand the full speed impact of a 707 OR a 767.

[Patriot911]

One other thing. Notice what DiMartini says. He says he BELIEVES the building could PROBABLY withstand multiple hits. He doesn't know for sure. He is guessing. I suppose you can relate to that. You do a LOT of guessing. ;-)

[NAB]

Quote: Patriot, this is nice and all...but none of it had anything to do with why the building fell. If anything, all of this just contributed to the ball of explosion on the initial impact. You're forgetting that the building fell from the bottom (the same bottom where everybody evacuated and firefighters were).

Interesting. So the building feel from the "bottom"? Your recollection from that day seems quite different from mine.

From the Top

Simple Animation

[Bull]

Patriot911 wrote: Bull wrote: Patriot911 wrote: For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

Patriot, listen to the absurdity in your statements. Desks, walls, papers? These minor household items brought down the building in under an hour?

Did you know that on February 13, 1975 the 11th floor of the North Tower (which later spread to more floors including the core) caught fire? It was reported that the fires were so intense that windows were blown out from the heat, and fires could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the East side. The fire destroyed most of the 11th floor and lasted for over 3 hours...it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out. If you compare this to 9/11...the oddities are astounding. Here you have an incident where fire was ablaze in the North Tower and spread for over 3 hours. The fire was so hot, it busted windows (something that didn't happen on 9/11...the only windows busted was from the crash). This means the fires were over 700 C. Yet and still, you barely see any fire at all in the Twin Towers and all you see is smoke (black smoke at that). There is even a picture of a woman STANDING inside the hole!!

:roll: For someone who b*****s about others comparing apples to oranges, you sure compare a lot of apples to shoes.

First off, a standard office fire starts in one location and spreads. On 9/11 the fire started across multiple floors and engulfed the entire floor at once.

Uh, yea...with MOST of the fire blowing up OUTSIDE. What part of this can't you comprehend?

Patriot911 wrote: Second, you once again ignore the structural damage. How stupid do you really have to be to think that a 767 slamming into the building would have zero effect on the structural integrity of the building? Seriously!

Stupid enough to believe the building manager who said he believed it could withstand multiple impacts because it was built to. The WTC towers were not built like most towers are.

Patriot911 wrote: Third, the core columns and trusses are sprayed with a fire protective coating. Unfortunately this coating does not adhere well to the steel and can be knocked off with little effort. Think a 767 slamming into the building might be considered a "little effort"?

Fourth, windows were busted because of pressure from the fire. Think a hole... oh I dunno.... about the size and shape of a 767 might relieve some of that pressure?

Patriot, you're Sandwiching and not making any sense. The official story says "FIRE BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS." Now, there are differing theories like the Pancake theory (which is BS). But you say I'm comparing apples and oranges...no I'm not. I compared one fire that occured in the North Tower to another fire on 9/11. The difference is in the idea that the latter fire brought the building down. Then, there was the Madrid fire which was worse than BOTH combined and the building still didn't fall. If there was a fire raging in both the towers that brought them down...then you would have seen it. I brought up the windows busting BECAUSE that's what happens when fire become uncontrallably hot!

[quote="Patriot911]Fifth, when you look at the WHOLE picture of the lady standing in the hole, you realize several things:

First, that she is on the North side of the building. How do we know this? No smoke. The wind was blowing from North to South that day which would have carried the smoke away from her. This means she would have had fresh air blowing on her and thus the heat from the fire away from her.

Second, that there are major fires buring out of control across several floors.

Third, that the damage to the outer lattice of the building which supports 40% of the weight of the building is very extensive.[/quote]

First, the fact that she can even stand there was my point. It means the fire was small and pocketed. If there was a raging fire, she wouldn't be there...but fire would be shooting out from the hole. Secondly, the picture doesn't confirm a major fire (as you want to believe). You see one small fire in the corner of the picture. Again, she's standing right under it...so it must no be THAT bad.

Patriot911 wrote: Fourth, that the plane did NOT explode "outside" the building.

Oh yea...then what's this?


Patriot911 wrote: Thanks for playing! Come again!

Your arrogance is disgusting. All you're doing is bringing up minute excuses as to why the building COULD have fallen. But fact is, I have history and common sense on my side.

[Bull]

NAB wrote: Quote: Patriot, this is nice and all...but none of it had anything to do with why the building fell. If anything, all of this just contributed to the ball of explosion on the initial impact. You're forgetting that the building fell from the bottom (the same bottom where everybody evacuated and firefighters were).

Interesting. So the building feel from the "bottom"? Your recollection from that day seems quite different from mine.

From the Top

Simple Animation

You do realize that there was already damage done to the top of the building from the impact right? Demolition is also supported by the dust clouds. The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows (which was done by researcher Jim Hoffman).

I guess you're a proponent of the Progressive Collapse Theory? The "theory" that explains how steel buildings can self-destruct.



Well, this phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse (like 9/11) is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

[Bull]

Patriot911 wrote: One other thing. Notice what DiMartini says. He says he BELIEVES the building could PROBABLY withstand multiple hits. He doesn't know for sure. He is guessing. I suppose you can relate to that. You do a LOT of guessing. ;-)

Again, I'll take his word over yours.

I cannot stress the importance of the color of the smoke either. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

There appears to be no evidence of fires within the buildings' cores. It can be assumed that most of the fires were near the perimeters of the towers where broken windows around the crash zone allowed them a supply of air. The cores were an average distance of about 70 feet from the nearest walls, and had much less flammable material than the surrounding offices. The impact gash in the North Tower provided a line of sight to the core. Available photographs and videos show the gash as consistently dark, showing no signs of fire in the building's core.

[NAB]

Bull wrote: NAB wrote: Quote: Patriot, this is nice and all...but none of it had anything to do with why the building fell. If anything, all of this just contributed to the ball of explosion on the initial impact. You're forgetting that the building fell from the bottom (the same bottom where everybody evacuated and firefighters were).

Interesting. So the building feel from the "bottom"? Your recollection from that day seems quite different from mine.

From the Top

Simple Animation

You do realize that there was already damage done to the top of the building from the impact right? Demolition is also supported by the dust clouds. The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows (which was done by researcher Jim Hoffman).

I guess you're a proponent of the Progressive Collapse Theory? The "theory" that explains how steel buildings can self-destruct.



Well, this phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse (like 9/11) is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

When you say proponent of the "Progressive Collapse Theory", I'm going to have to assume you mean the collapse of the structure that follows the rules of physics. The one that applies to the rules of how a structure would react if the particular instances had happened on that day? Then yes, yes I am.

Btw, this constant use of this never happening as some form of proof that it couldn't happen is quite silly. An incident of this magnitude had never happened before, so previous precedents don't necessarily apply to this one.

Just one little follow-up on this, because I feel like I've made the mistake of going into this endless round and round this forum creates (which is why I stepped away for a while). The ability to do a post-mortem on a building failure has been going on for a long time. There have been many instances of certain failures in buildings, and the causes are eventually found even down to the failure of a particular bolt. Changes are made to the codes and details to keep these things from happening again. Life safety is a huge component in building design, as are lawsuits stemming from them. You would probably be astounded how many changes have been made in the way structures are designed from relatively minor building failures. I can guarantee you there are extensive changes being proposed in the building industry to try and counter-act potential future attacks, but if something on the scale of 911 happened again, there is only so much you can design into the building to withstand something like that. Maybe if you designed your high-rise as a load bearing concrete exterior, with punched openings. It would survive, but no would want to work in such a building, so a developer will never build it. The current direction in the industry is to find more means of egress to get the people out. Buildings aren't necessarily designed to be completely immune to fire, merely hold-up long enough to get people out safely. Just look up terms like 2-hour wall. The WTC towers actually did remarkably well considering what they went through. I've read quite a few industry reports to that effect. Considerings the size and population of the towers and the scale of the catastrophe, it can be surmised that the casualties were relatively low. You can thank the design (done in the 60's) for that.

Sorry if I'm rambling there, but I design buildings for a living, and most of the suppositions I read in this forum don't fit into the nature of how they work in the real world. That might be one reason why you see so few ACTUAL structural engineers/architects/contractors/etc listed in the links I see posted here. You'll see the occasional physicist who knows his math, but very little about building construction and design. It takes more than math skills to put a building together and understand how one fell down.

Later, and you and Patriot need to ease up on each other. :wink:

[Bull]

NAB wrote: Bull wrote: NAB wrote: Quote: Patriot, this is nice and all...but none of it had anything to do with why the building fell. If anything, all of this just contributed to the ball of explosion on the initial impact. You're forgetting that the building fell from the bottom (the same bottom where everybody evacuated and firefighters were).

Interesting. So the building feel from the "bottom"? Your recollection from that day seems quite different from mine.

From the Top

Simple Animation

You do realize that there was already damage done to the top of the building from the impact right? Demolition is also supported by the dust clouds. The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows (which was done by researcher Jim Hoffman).

I guess you're a proponent of the Progressive Collapse Theory? The "theory" that explains how steel buildings can self-destruct.



Well, this phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse (like 9/11) is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

When you say proponent of the "Progressive Collapse Theory", I'm going to have to assume you mean the collapse of the structure that follows the rules of physics. The one that applies to the rules of how a structure would react if the particular instances had happened on that day? Then yes, yes I am.

Btw, this constant use of this never happening as some form of proof that it couldn't happen is quite silly. An incident of this magnitude had never happened before, so previous precedents don't necessarily apply to this one.

Just one little follow-up on this, because I feel like I've made the mistake of going into this endless round and round this forum creates (which is why I stepped away for a while). The ability to do a post-mortem on a building failure has been going on for a long time. There have been many instances of certain failures in buildings, and the causes are eventually found even down to the failure of a particular bolt. Changes are made to the codes and details to keep these things from happening again. Life safety is a huge component in building design, as are lawsuits stemming from them. You would probably be astounded how many changes have been made in the way structures are designed from relatively minor building failures. I can guarantee you there are extensive changes being proposed in the building industry to try and counter-act potential future attacks, but if something on the scale of 911 happened again, there is only so much you can design into the building to withstand something like that. Maybe if you designed your high-rise as a load bearing concrete exterior, with punched openings. It would survive, but no would want to work in such a building, so a developer will never build it. The current direction in the industry is to find more means of egress to get the people out. Buildings aren't necessarily designed to be completely immune to fire, merely hold-up long enough to get people out safely. Just look up terms like 2-hour wall. The WTC towers actually did remarkably well considering what they went through. I've read quite a few industry reports to that effect. Considerings the size and population of the towers and the scale of the catastrophe, it can be surmised that the casualties were relatively low. You can thank the design (done in the 60's) for that.

Sorry if I'm rambling there, but I design buildings for a living, and most of the suppositions I read in this forum don't fit into the nature of how they work in the real world. That might be one reason why you see so few ACTUAL structural engineers/architects/contractors/etc listed in the links I see posted here. You'll see the occasional physicist who knows his math, but very little about building construction and design. It takes more than math skills to put a building together and understand how one fell down.

Later, and you and Patriot need to ease up on each other. :wink:

No, I said that Progressive Collapses are rare. But the most commonly cited example of progressive collapse is the collapse of one corner of a 23-story block of flats in Newham in east London, known as Ronan Point. But this was only one section of the building...not the entire building itself. For an entire building to fall, it's called a Total Progressive Collapse (which is even more rare, and as far as I know...has no previous occurance...but I'm looking). The problem with the progressive collapse theory is that it's very difficult to actually build something that will exhibit this behavior. A building has to be built in a pancake/layered-like fashion...like the building in London was. The Twin Towers weren't built that way.

This is a picture of one of the Towers under construction...


...Notice how it's now built in layers form, which would make Progressive Collapse unlikely. Plus, as I said, there has been no pass case of a steel high rise to collapse this way (the London building was brick and concrete). It's important to note that only earthquakes and demolition have EVER leveled a high rise!

NAB, Professor Steven Jones is also a Physicist. If you haven't read his scientific paper you should. Why Indeed Did the Towers Fall?

The paper has also been updated. In it, he critizes the NIST report and the PCT...amoung other things.