Chip

iTrader: (3)

They were designed to withstand an impact which they did and they were designed that if they were going to fall for any other reason (like fire damage) it would be into their footprint.

the mk1 kid

Where does it say that? I'm not suggested they weren't either, i just haven't read it before...

Tom

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Im quoting my opinion of what the design brief would be for a building like that.

I dont have access to the original architects internal documentation on the subject (obviously its safe to ignore anything stated publically as marketting hype) like anyone else, so opinions is all that anyone can actually give on the discussion.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

3 buildings of essentially the same design falling in essentially the same way, doesnt seem surprising at all to me.
If one of them fell straight down, and one of them fell sideways and the third one dissapeared upwards into space, that would be surprising.

the mk1 kid

You're quoting a guess!? lol

Tom

the mk1 kid

BUT building seven was a different design, it was not hit by a jet and was only half the height, furthermore the damage sustained was concentrated to one side! You're making this too easy...

Tom

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Yes, im attempting to come down to your level in order to be able to play the "lets waste time at work talking absolute shite" game that is ALL this thread is.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

It was essentially the same basic design as far as im aware, yes it was different height etc, but the construction methods and basic core structure were similar so you would expect it to behave in a similar manner if it also experienced fire.

XRT_si

iTrader: (2)

Can ANY conspiracy theorist answer this in any way, shape or form with a feasible answer? Rather just continuing to ignore this rather vital point?

DanW@FastFord

iTrader: (1)

Still doesn't explain it in the slightest.

No, I don't think it's 'all about oil', I never said it was. It's the most commonly cited 'reason' for why America would want an excuse to bomb the A-Rabs.

Maybe you could tell me (in your own words, not some cut and paste from Wikipedia) what it is all about.. oh hang on, your phone's ringing. It's your mate David Icke!

the mk1 kid

I doubt i could come up with any sensible reason to be honest, but that doesn't interest me - i'm not trying to debate whether it was the US Government, some rag-head or tweetie pie, i'm only interested in science and engineering as neither the two lie or accept bribes.

Tom

the mk1 kid

Its all about making the day go quicker

Tom

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Read the edinbourough uni paper then, and you should find all the answers you need

I dont think that you'll find any scientific answers in the lunatic camp though TBH mate, their whole argument is based on pseudo science and "eye witness accounts" and NOTHING that should be of any interest at all to an engineer IMHO

mrjenrst

i never said it would but the american's have already thought about it then why not put it into play if justification was needed? Not saying it would or has been done but any country that has even thought about it make's me wonder. I personaly think the yank's must of either known something long before or are covering something up on a big scale. But i suspect it will never be brought to light unfortunatly.

DaveEscos

Reninactment!

build them again in the desert.. and re create the events. That might shut these conspiracy cunt flaps up.

Jesus christ some people are so fucking thick!

Baaaaaaaa!

Gary F

iTrader: (1)

Has anyone watched "The Arrivals" 0-48 episodes? Which covers 9/11? Now that is some fucked up shit!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The yanks knew without any doubt that "an attack" against "a major landmark target or targets" and "involving aircraft" was "pending" IMHO

So perfectly reasonable for them to be formulating plans of what they were going to do after the attack before it happened, as they knew that SOMETHING was coming from Al Qeuada, they just didnt know exactly what.

Thats another example of the conspiracy theorists main bread and butter, that the yanks seemed to react to the attack so quickly that it meant they knew all about the attack in advance and the only reason they knew that was cause they committed it themselves.
Again like ALL of their "proof" its a case of making the incorrect judgement that 2+2=73

the mk1 kid

Quite the opposite, its the engineers who are forming the back-bone of these 'lunatic camps' - if it were a bunch of bored house wifes and wasted students i'd be more inclinded to agree.

Tom

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its IME mainly people like yourself who are claiming to have relevant experience but no doubt dont.

How much actual real world experience of building design and demolition do you actually have?

Im going to guess that its none at all, and that your "engineering" background is not in anyway linked to buildings and is more to do with for example engines or similar so although you are claiming to be an "engineer" to try and add weight to all your nonsense assumptions and guesswork, you actually have utterly no relevant experience?

Let me know if im wrong

XRT_si

iTrader: (2)

Isn't that slightly narrow minded as one answer will effect the other?

Where speculation and a few internet bods can only try and guess what 'might' have happened to the science and engineering side as NOTHING is 100% fact, only speculation on both sides.

The answer to my question is only black or white; the cover up or why haven't people come forward question is MUCH easier to solve as there isn't a feasible answer.

the mk1 kid

You sir are a loud-mouthed outspoken cunt, who, to date has only spouted out unwanted abuse in this, and many other posts i have read.

If you have nothing interesting to say why dont you fuck off, and do us all a favour - although i dont necessarily agree with Dan and Chip on this one, we are discussing it like civilised adults.

Tom

DaveEscos

Fuck off you spasticated mug.


( I like the sir thing though...)

RobL

watch this video at 3 min, you can clearly see the sw corner falling first a good deal of time before the rest follows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

dojj

iTrader: (3)

It's taken so long to read this thread I've forgotton some of the questions I was going to pose but I'll start with the important ones.

Hogan had 24 inch pythons, NOT 26 inch ones as has been posted.

When were the towers built?

Is it not likely that if they were built before the invention of the jet engine that no one would have been able to forsee a day when they would be hit by an aeroplane carrying more fuel than would every have been envisaged and at a higher speed than they would have ever believed possible and so didn't design them to be impact resistant to areoplane assults?

Has anyone actually theorised about where the fuel went to when the planes hit? Did it go up in one big bang? Did rivers of it flood one floor? Did it alll go down the liftshafts and stairwells and set the rest of the building on fire?

Why is the hole in the side of the pentagon not as big as an aeroplane?

If you pile up a stack of jenga bricks, when the lean becomes too much to bear, it topples over, so why did the towers not topple over where they were most stressed? Remember that if they have been up for long enough you have to consider the fact they they would not have been the requirement for them to fall within their own footprint.

Why is it that every controled demolition of a building has millions of men with pencils in their top pockets doing maths to work out how to bring the building down in the smallest possible footprint becuase they say an uncotrolled demolition could send the debris flying all over the place?

I'm sure there are more questions but if someone could answer them for me please

DaveEscos

Without professing to be an 'engineer'

Surely it's straight forward. Top part of burning building takes down remainder on its fall. Pancake effect after the initial faliure.

PLEASE NOTE - I have not spend days / weeks / years reading up and masturbating over possible causes / conspiracy theorems for the 911 events.

RobL

i think youll find for every 1 engineer that thinks the same way you do there would be hundreds wholl disagree with him

dojj

iTrader: (3)

One more thing.

OBL didn't actually own up to plotting it as he was just as surprised as everyone else when he was asked about it, so why are people saying that he masterminded it all? I can understand if they were alqaida chaps on alqaida training courses with alqaida references etc but is that just something we've come to accept as being the truth because we've heard it so many times?

And why did dubya say he was watching the attacks take place when there were only 1 or 2 videos that caught the plane hitting the fisrt building and he was Reading a book, upside down I seem to recall, at a school?

I don't want to buy into the conspiracy thing but the only other option I've got is to have to consider the entire dubya administration as being full of utterly enept morons who would have had trouble tieing their own shoelaces without someone there to help them.

XRT_si

iTrader: (2)

Agreed and agreed.

What's more these are both points which could be easily answered through simple common sense.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

No he isnt, he's a fisherman, and a fucking good one

If all the conspiracy theorists followed that advice there would be no discussion

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Just in case you missed it while you were wrapped up in "davegate"

dojj

iTrader: (3)

But we've all seen a stack of boxes fall over or the famous can of beans starting a demolition in te local supermarket when the old granny pulls one out the bottom so why not the towers?

I can a cept that there is a lot of empty space in between the floors but that's why they are designed to do, carry the wieght of the floors above that are supporting them to a lid them being squashed by them.

Please don't ask an old lady to put on a demostraiom for you at tesco though

the mk1 kid

But where do you start with the cover up or not - none of us know, or ever will just what 'powers' the governments really have or choose to exercise. There could be 1000 government employees with not real ID, who are a paid a fortune to do 'whatever' at the expense of their lives should they speak out - bit film-like isn't it, but who knows?!

Tom

dojj

iTrader: (3)

I'll be back.













When I've found the charger for the iPhone

XRT_si

iTrader: (2)

Balance a bean tin on something that will give way. Then drop another bean tin direcetly on top of it.

Now tell me if it all went stright down or fell over.

the mk1 kid

I'll give him that, but it took a while to get a bite!!

Tom

XRT_si

iTrader: (2)

Just think about that scenario logically for 2 minutes...baring in mind Ricky Hatton can't do a line of coke without pictures coming out or Wayne Rooney shagging a bird he shouldn't have.

People just aren't reliable enough to keep secrets. And that is the only 100% fact.

XRT_si

iTrader: (2)

Fair point!

DaveEscos

From my view... the planes struck at fair heights upwards in to the buildings. There wasnt enough 'real estate' to actually tilt and fall sideways.

when the intense heat caused the damaged floors to succum.. we all saw one corner fall first, the floors above were pulled in and the result... pancake effect.. collapsing the lower floors.

It all seems pretty straight forward to me

Chip

iTrader: (3)

To be fair though, expecting a highly trained government operative to keep a secret, is a little different to expecting some skanky hooker to do so

But I do agree totally that the number of people who would have been involved is massive and something would have obviously come out by now.

the mk1 kid

I did miss it Chip, but i wont shy away from the question. You're not far wrong, my BSC in Mech Eng didn't land me a job in the demolition trade, though the degree covered thermodynamics, design material and processes, dynamics etc etc - strangely though, nothing on engines

You're missing the point a little though, where i have suggested the style in which the buildings all collapsed indicated perfect demolition (WTC 7 is the example to watch) it is only one of the aspects of that horrible day that suggests explosives were used.

I dont think i have to be a metallurgist to work out there shouldn't of been molten pools of liquid iron at the bottom of all 3 towers a month after the last fire was extinguished - particularly if you consider ALL the reports for a fire-based collapse suggest that the steel did not melt, but softened, and buckled, causing the failure of the buildings. So where did the molten iron come from?

Tom