Was the 9/11 Collaspe of the WTC Caused by Controlled Demolition? (page 7)

Caedes

oldflame

The Steele in those building were tested and rated for 3000 degrees.

Really? I would be really interested in using this material, Does it go by the trade name unobtanium?

RAF

when things collapse on several stages/floors there is a point of saturation which slow down the process ... even if the weight is still pushing it down

I've tried to think of several ways of saying this gently but you are wrong, loads high enough to cause failure do not have a 'saturation point'

For the pirate perspective,

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

And if you want some real information,

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Who are you?

What was the reason for the terrorist to attack on 9/11? I don't know all the details the media never covers it maybe this video might help:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/cp.01.html

IP_SEC

Why would it slow down? For every floor that collapsed, the weight on lower floors increased as did the acceleration of the falling parts due to gravity

Increase weight does not make things fall faster. Accel toward the earth is about 33 feet per second. Regardless of weight (remember Galileo?) Resistance below (air pressure, floors etc) are the only thing that can change that accel rate. Less resistance from below=closer to 33' per second accel. More weight on top=null effect on accel.

I dont know what happend. I do not trust this or any other gov to tell the troof.

Mary

The impact of the plane was no greater than the continual battering of hurricane force winds

What an incredibly stupid and inaccurate comment this was on that video. Are they really trying to say that a fully loaded plane that hit the tower at several hundred miles per hour was no different than the high winds that the towers endured? Little bit of a difference: The winds are not a solid object weighing god-knows-how-much nor does the wind hit with highly flammable fuel at 500 miles an hour. The video also stated that no building had ever collapsed like the WTC did. Maybe that's because no other building had been hit like the WTC was.

While I believe conspiracies can and have happened, this is not one of them. Anyone with half a brain can watch the videos over and over and over again and see that the buildings collapsed because of the impact of the planes and the high temperatures of the fuel induced fires. The reason that the other buildings that they showed on the video did not collapse is probably because none of them had been hit in the same manner and without the jet fuel to imflame the temperatures far beyond what a normal fire would have causes.

Actually, maybe Elvis and Princess Diana were responsible for 9-11.......Yep, that makes far more sense.

mkr32208

If the government did this to get into Iraq wouldn't they also

A) Have left a trail going to Iraq instead of afghanistan...

B) If they are capable of this why aren't' they capable of faking a few WMD's???

Who are you?

The thought process behind this conspiracy theory makes as much sense as those guys who set themselves on fire to protest something.

You sit there shaking your head and go "What an idiot. How does this person think that setting himself on fire will move anyone to do anything?"

Then you see the conspiracy theororists using the exact same logic...believing that a Capitalism based economy will voluntarily destroy billions of dollars of assets for no reason.

It's like expecting Donald Trump to light $1,000,000 of his own money on fire during prime time to increase ratings for the "Apprentice"....everyone would say Trump is a nutjob fool.

IP_SEC

A) Have left a trail going to Iraq instead of afghanistan...
B) If they are capable of this why aren't' they capable of faking a few WMD's???

Even less people would believe Iraq responsible than Alqeda (who ever alqeda is). You get troops in the region and Iraq is just a hop, skip and a double jump away.

They dont need to find WMDs they are in Iraq now... and still no good reason has been given.

believing that a Capitalism based economy will voluntarily destroy billions of dollars of assets for no reason.
It's like expecting Donald Trump to light $1,000,000 of his own money on fire during prime time to increase ratings for the "Apprentice"....everyone would say Trump is a nutjob fool.

not if he would trump that million dollars he burned by increasing his rating for the apprentice. OIL. Attacking Iraq was needed to preserve US capitalism, less all oil be traded in Euros now

Trump is a nutjob fool.

Yes but that is another thread

Who are you?

Lets start over. If the goal is to invade Iraq, and it is the year 2000. Iraq is being monitored by the UN and the US flies regularly over the no fly zone and Saddam regularly sends up anti-aircraft to try and shoot down our planes patrolling the no fly zone. To instigate a war with Iraq, you shoot down one of your own planes and blame it on Saddam, then you invade. Easy.

No reason to plan or carry out an elaborate 9/11 plot. 9/11 doesn't have to happen to invade Iraq.

It's like planning a trip from Philadelphia to New York. You can hop a shuttle for $69 bucks and get ther in 45 minutes or you can buy a Schwinn and start pedaling. Most rational people would prefer the quickest route.

mkr32208

Exactly the whole thing hinges on MOTIVE! For something like this you better have a DAMN GOOD MOTIVE. And there is no motive at all much less a good motive?

DannyHaszard

This is me 1987 building skyscrapers is what I have done all my life when the towers pancaked down I knew instantly it was the heat softened steel beams that failed.That part is all I am sure of.Is there a wicked conspiracy behind it?

Was the 9/11 Collaspe of the WTC Caused by Controlled Demolition?

Share this