911 (murdered by the government)

[zeldaprajihd45]

I believe that the USAG was involved in destroying those towers. According to my personal visit to the destroyed towers and knowledge of physics the plane didn't destroy the towers but a ton of explosives placed with deliberate accuracy since one of Newton's laws states that a object that has a momentum greater than the opposing resistance force of another then when the object hits the other object the other object will move in the direction of the object. In plainer terms if you hit something hard enough to move it it should move in the same direction as the force.

---------- Post added at 03:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

Apparently USAG hasn't got bad enough to send a hitman on a 6 year old well don't be scared fellows.

[descalzo]

Talk to any demolition expert and you will find out that taking down the WTC via demolition techniques would be nearly impossible.

It would take days, if not weeks of prep work, including cutting through steel beams.

Then the impact and explosion of the planes would have dislodged any explosives in place, requiring them to be hooked up again.

[essellar]

According to my ... knowledge of physics ...

You'd better work on that part a bit; impulse reactions tend to be immediate and don't take many minutes to happen. I hit a golf ball, it initially compresses laterally due to its own inertia, but it begins to move even before it has finished compressing. If the impact of the airplanes was the direct initiator of the collapse of the towers, they would have begun falling even as the fireballs erupted.

On the other hand, structural weakness caused by an impulse reaction (the initial breaking and bending of beams and the cracking of concrete) and exacerbated by extreme heat may take some time to manifest itself as structural failure, and that manifestation will occur in reaction to the major forces in play at the time (in this case, gravity and whatever remaining structural integrity there may have been).

I realise that it's difficult for some people to believe that the direct actions of a mere 19 people could have such a devastating impact on a nation of some 300 million, but it really is time to put this baby to bed once and for all. Yes, the government of the USA was involved in the attacks, but not directly -- the attacks were carried out by people who believed* they had a righteous cause against the government and people of the United States for its ongoing actions both domestically and on the international stage. But can we at least face the fact that 30,000 pounds of jet fuel travelling at over 300mph is a pretty devastating weapon, even if the airplane itself is nothing more than a gnat's mass when compared to the target it hits?

____________
* My statement that their belief that their actions (and their cause) is righteous does not imply any endorsement on my part or any agreement with them. Certainly the USA, like many major powers both contemporary and in the past, has acted in a short-sighted and self-interested way in many instances, but I don't believe the acts of 9/11, the UK subway bombings in 2005, the Spanish rail bombings in 2006 (Basque), the Air India bombing in 1885 (Sikh), and so forth, can be justified under any circumstances.

[deadmaus]

knowledge of physics

= zero

Like Rosie O saying " it's the first time in history steel was ever melted by fire". Forget about making words and spears etc.

Also Mr Kool-aide drinker, do you fell bad about voting Obama in or are you in denial about his performance as well?




---------- Post added at 05:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 AM ----------

You'd better work on that part a bit; impulse reactions tend to be immediate and don't take many minutes to happen. I hit a golf ball, it initially compresses laterally due to its own inertia, but it begins to move even before it has finished compressing. If the impact of the airplanes was the direct initiator of the collapse of the towers, they would have begun falling even as the fireballs erupted.

On the other hand, structural weakness caused by an impulse reaction (the initial breaking and bending of beams and the cracking of concrete) and exacerbated by extreme heat may take some time to manifest itself as structural failure, and that manifestation will occur in reaction to the major forces in play at the time (in this case, gravity and whatever remaining structural integrity there may have been).

I realise that it's difficult for some people to believe that the direct actions of a mere 19 people could have such a devastating impact on a nation of some 300 million, but it really is time to put this baby to bed once and for all. Yes, the government of the USA was involved in the attacks, but not directly -- the attacks were carried out by people who believed* they had a righteous cause against the government and people of the United States for its ongoing actions both domestically and on the international stage. But can we at least face the fact that 30,000 pounds of jet fuel travelling at over 300mph is a pretty devastating weapon, even if the airplane itself is nothing more than a gnat's mass when compared to the target it hits?

____________
* My statement that their belief that their actions (and their cause) is righteous does not imply any endorsement on my part or any agreement with them. Certainly the USA, like many major powers both contemporary and in the past, has acted in a short-sighted and self-interested way in many instances, but I don't believe the acts of 9/11, the UK subway bombings in 2005, the Spanish rail bombings in 2006 (Basque), the Air India bombing in 1885 (Sikh), and so forth, can be justified under any circumstances.

Outstanding reply there sir.

[cybrax]

If you ask any conventional demolition expert they will say it takes weeks of preperations to drop a building flat like this.

Some theories have been put forward that the towers were orginally built or retrofitted after the 1991 attack with features that would prevent the tower from toppling sideways in the event of catostrophic failure. Not surprisingly such wild claims have been strongly denied, sadly the logic is undeniable that such a feature would save lives in the surrounding area.

Given that every floor failed from the radio mast to ground level with little of the central core sticking up through the mess is a fact that deeply bothers those same demolition experts.

Some useless facts:
1. shaped charges for cutting steel beams and bulkheads are available on rolls (Sabrex)
2. there are non-explosive chemical methods for breaking up steel re-enforced concrete
3. at least one researcher found byproducts associated with thermite in the dust

[zeldaprajihd45]

November 16, 1999 plane hits apartments the apartments still standing today severe damage on a couple floors. I think that if a hit you with a bat in the hace you will fall on your back rather than collapse in a neat pile but 1st amendment allows it right as it is my humble opinion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU see demolitions and compare to a 911 vid

[essellar]

Just to put a wee damper on any possible follow-on conspiracy whackadoo...

[B][I]Some useless facts:...
3. at least one researcher found byproducts associated with thermite in the dust

...given that thermite (its commonest form, at least) is just aluminum and iron oxide, one would almost expect to see it (or its byproducts) in a disaster of that nature. The probability of aluminum and oxidized iron coming into contact at extreme temperatures should, I think, approach 1 under those conditions, so if you go looking for evidence of thermite, you're very likely to find it.

As for the "core", there really wasn't one in the WTC towers, at least not in any structural sense. The floors were peripherally supported; the central area consisted of little more than a firebreak and the elevator shafts (which were anchored to the floors). In fact, it was the peripheral support that was largely responsible for the mode of failure exhibited.

As for free speech, well, yes, zeldaprajidh45, you have the right to say what you want (unless it is defamatory, threatening, or falls afoul of any applicable hate laws). But so do I, and unless you can come up with something a little more substantial to support your argument, you're going to be scienced and engineered into dust by people who have actually taken the time to look over the buildings' structure and understand a little bit of physics and chemistry. I've already explained that the impact did relatively little damage to the buildings -- they may have been structural write-offs, but without the fire they could have been safely evacuated and razed in a controlled manner.

Because one building acted in one way and another in a different way proves nothing -- I highly doubt that the apartment building you're talking about was built in anything like the way the WTC towers were. (And the chances are pretty good that the airplane wasn't a nearly-fully-fueled 737 either.) Neither was the Pentagon; the damage it sustained was huge, but nothing at all like the towers. The towers were essentially empty boxes held together by their floors, and all it took was for one floor to let go of its outer walls. At that point, the "box" above fell on the floor below, which couldn't support it, so it fell on the floor below, and so on until everything hit the ground. It's pretty simple, really. It was a great structure where wind, earthquake and impact were concerned, but the idea that an enormous fire would occur immediately after an impact that knocked most of the solid (but fragile) insulation off of the structural members in the area of the impact wasn't something the engineers had planned for (nor, I think, would it have occurred to anybody at the time).

Oh, I've seen the vid, many times. The pops you see are due to air compression. You did at least realise that the windows didn't open, didn't you? And that as one floor collapses on another, the air contained by that storey has to go somewhere? Try thinking independently rather than listening to anyone with an agenda. Get a copy of the building's structural schematics -- you should be able to find them in a lot of places, along with neato documentaries of how the building structure was designed. Remember, those towers were the architectural marvels of their time -- there is a lot of information out there that predates 9/11, so you don't have to worry about a cover-up if you look hard.

[whd55]

"Why the Towers Fell"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

The above is a link to the transcript of a PBS special on the towers collapse.

[zeldaprajihd45]

Just to put a wee damper on any possible follow-on conspiracy whackadoo...



...given that thermite (its commonest form, at least) is just aluminum and iron oxide, one would almost expect to see it (or its byproducts) in a disaster of that nature. The probability of aluminum and oxidized iron coming into contact at extreme temperatures should, I think, approach 1 under those conditions, so if you go looking for evidence of thermite, you're very likely to find it.

As for the "core", there really wasn't one in the WTC towers, at least not in any structural sense. The floors were peripherally supported; the central area consisted of little more than a firebreak and the elevator shafts (which were anchored to the floors). In fact, it was the peripheral support that was largely responsible for the mode of failure exhibited.

As for free speech, well, yes, zeldaprajidh45, you have the right to say what you want (unless it is defamatory, threatening, or falls afoul of any applicable hate laws). But so do I, and unless you can come up with something a little more substantial to support your argument, you're going to be scienced and engineered into dust by people who have actually taken the time to look over the buildings' structure and understand a little bit of physics and chemistry. I've already explained that the impact did relatively little damage to the buildings -- they may have been structural write-offs, but without the fire they could have been safely evacuated and razed in a controlled manner.

Because one building acted in one way and another in a different way proves nothing -- I highly doubt that the apartment building you're talking about was built in anything like the way the WTC towers were. (And the chances are pretty good that the airplane wasn't a nearly-fully-fueled 737 either.) Neither was the Pentagon; the damage it sustained was huge, but nothing at all like the towers. The towers were essentially empty boxes held together by their floors, and all it took was for one floor to let go of its outer walls. At that point, the "box" above fell on the floor below, which couldn't support it, so it fell on the floor below, and so on until everything hit the ground. It's pretty simple, really. It was a great structure where wind, earthquake and impact were concerned, but the idea that an enormous fire would occur immediately after an impact that knocked most of the solid (but fragile) insulation off of the structural members in the area of the impact wasn't something the engineers had planned for (nor, I think, would it have occurred to anybody at the time).

Oh, I've seen the vid, many times. The pops you see are due to air compression. You did at least realise that the windows didn't open, didn't you? And that as one floor collapses on another, the air contained by that storey has to go somewhere? Try thinking independently rather than listening to anyone with an agenda. Get a copy of the building's structural schematics -- you should be able to find them in a lot of places, along with neato documentaries of how the building structure was designed. Remember, those towers were the architectural marvels of their time -- there is a lot of information out there that predates 9/11, so you don't have to worry about a cover-up if you look hard.

You are offensive in my opinion being offensive in a discussion is just a way to get trouble.

[essellar]

You are offensive in my opinion being offensive in a discussion is just a way to get trouble.

Offensive? I haven't said anything personal in that; just refuted your argument and suggested avenues of actual research you might be interested in pursuing. I did characterize unfounded conspiracy theories as something less than desirable, but not you personally. Arguments ad hominem are a poor substitute for logic -- let me know when you have something substantial to add to the discussion.