rajncajn Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) Oh wait... I've got it now... the plane had the thermite on it. Someone elluded detection at four different airports & loaded thousands of pounds of thermite powder into the cargo hold of the plane & took all the luggage so that no one would miss it & destroyed it all, again without detection. Better yet... it was in the luggage, but no one seemed to notice the extremely overweight baggage as they were loading it into the plane. "Hey Joe, go get the forklift, I can't lift these damn suitcases into the plane." ETA: I know, I said I was done. But I have beer now & I feel better. This still irritates the piss out of me tho. Edited September 29, 2009 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I have a question . . how does a building just drop in on itself without taking the momentum of the plane slamming into one side as a tipping point to fall OVER, not straight down? Wouldnt where the plane struck be more damaged/weakened from the plane hitting it and it would lean OVER toward the impact side? Not trying to stir things up, but I always wondered that . . . . and I sure am not an engineer . .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I have a question . . how does a building just drop in on itself without taking the momentum of the plane slamming into one side as a tipping point to fall OVER, not straight down? Wouldnt where the plane struck be more damaged/weakened from the plane hitting it and it would lean OVER toward the impact side? Not trying to stir things up, but I always wondered that . . . . and I sure am not an engineer . .. To be brief, it was progressive failure before the buildings collapsed so the damage was more widespread prior to collapse. Then the weight of the buildings caused a pancake collapse with the forces going straight down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 To be brief, it was progressive failure before the buildings collapsed so the damage was more widespread prior to collapse. Then the weight of the buildings caused a pancake collapse with the forces going straight down. But wouldnt the stresses and damange be more severe on the side where the plane struck? Causing the building to lean to that side? Or if American steel is that dang strong, then why the hell are we importing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 But wouldnt the stresses and damange be more severe on the side where the plane struck? Causing the building to lean to that side? Or if American steel is that dang strong, then why the hell are we importing it? It was initially more damaged at the impact area, but the redundant design allowed the building to transfer the loads to the remaining steel members. Without that, the buildings would have collapsed immediately and possibly have some horizontal deflection as you described. But after that, the jet fuel with the explosions caused fires of very high temperatures and the impact caused the fireproofing to fall off the steel beams. This combination eventually caused the steel to deform and weaken. The floor beams eventually fell off the vertical steel members because of this. Without the horizontal supports, the vertical members all around the building started to move, then with no support to counteract that, the buildings collapsed. Since it was all around wshen this happened, it went vertically down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I'm not nearly as smart as John, but even i can figure out that a plane going at 500 mph didn't just damage one side of the building and is capable of causing equal damage all thru the building including an explosion out the opposite side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Most of these comments are regarding WTC 1+2, and the video linked only talks about WTC 7 and how it collapsed like in a demolition style collapse, and it wasn't hit by a plane. So most of these comments are even relevant. Edited September 30, 2009 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I'm not nearly as smart as John, but even i can figure out that a plane going at 500 mph didn't just damage one side of the building and is capable of causing equal damage all thru the building including an explosion out the opposite side. never said there wasnt damage to both, just asking why id didnt fall TOWARD the orginal impact instead of downward. Ever see a tree getting chopped down? If you remove the support at the area of where you are chopping, does the tree fall TOWARD the notch/weakened area? Just curious, and John more than adequately answered the queston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Most of these comments are regarding WTC 1+2, and the video linked only talks about WTC 7 and how it collapsed like in a demolition style collapse, and it wasn't hit by a plane. So most of these comments are even relevant. I would think the thousands? millions? of tons of falling steel & concrete could do enough damage to make another surrounding building collapse and if you watched all the videos they are not all just about WTC 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 never said there wasnt damage to both, just asking why id didnt fall TOWARD the orginal impact instead of downward. Ever see a tree getting chopped down? If you remove the support at the area of where you are chopping, does the tree fall TOWARD the notch/weakened area? Just curious, and John more than adequately answered the queston. except they only chop on one side of the tree putting a notch in it so its forced to fall to that side. If they were to take a saw and just try and go straight thru in a straight cut, it doesn't necesarrily fall towards the side you started the cut. In fact there's a good chance it will then fall away from the original side of impact as you are pushing in that direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 , and John more than adequately answered the queston. I just now noticed that John snuck a reply in before both my replies. So yea, my answers were kind of worthless after that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Ever see a tree getting chopped down? If you remove the support at the area of where you are chopping, does the tree fall TOWARD the notch/weakened area? Trees are made of solid wood. Most of a building is air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) except they only chop on one side of the tree putting a notch in it so its forced to fall to that side. If they were to take a saw and just try and go straight thru in a straight cut, it doesn't necesarrily fall towards the side you started the cut. In fact there's a good chance it will then fall away from the original side of impact as you are pushing in that direction. I would think the blunt trama from a non-saw sharpened plane going very fast would at least bend teh girders in the middle TOWARD the impact area. But I do not profess to be an engineer, I asked my question and Big John answered it? Where are you going with this? Just saw you other answer . . . . carry on . . . .lol Edited September 30, 2009 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Did you know that you can make everything you'd ever need... food, clothes, structures, electronics, fuel... all out of hemp you can grow in your yard? The fat cats and the corporate head honchos don't want you to know about this, man! + 1 That 9-11 was a US government plot is as insane as saying Iraq was responsible. F'n nutjobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I have a question . . how does a building just drop in on itself without taking the momentum of the plane slamming into one side as a tipping point to fall OVER, not straight down? Wouldnt where the plane struck be more damaged/weakened from the plane hitting it and it would lean OVER toward the impact side? Not trying to stir things up, but I always wondered that . . . . and I sure am not an engineer . .. well obviously the initial impact wasn't enough to bring the buildings down, it took several minutes/hours of thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning before they gave in. but when they DID start collapsing, yeah, the first part that gave in were the areas where the planes hit and the fire was most concentrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 well obviously the initial impact wasn't enough to bring the buildings down, it took several minutes/hours of thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning before they gave in. but when they DID start collapsing, yeah, the first part that gave in were the areas where the planes hit and the fire was most concentrated. Makes sense. Havent seen the footage in years, but always wondered about why it didnt "lean" to that side when it did let go . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Makes sense. Havent seen the footage in years, but always wondered about why it didnt "lean" to that side when it did let go . . . If i remember right...it did lean somewhat...then gravity took over. You might want to watch it again....and I could be mistaken, but I thought the first tower leaned quite a bit and then the weight of the lean caused the pancaking effect. Not sure though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterwing Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 Building 7 was not hit by a plane. And most people ive asked dont even know it exists. The twin towers? Yeah weve all seen them and heard of them. They showed it on tv over and over--i was installing your cable tv that day, i know. But i never even knew building 7 went down (or existed) till at least 5 years afterwards...that seems almopst impossible cuz i watch a lot of news back then, like i said i was a cable guy---always in front of the news- Building 7 was omitted from the 9-11 report (which was supposed to explain what happened to us that day.)..- i found it very oidd that it was not mentioned in the report at all. its 47 or so stories tall--ita called wtc 7--it fell down at freefall speed and wasnt even mentioned!! why? BBC REPORTED WTC 7 BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT HAPPENED AND FOR THE LAST TIME IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TWIN TOWERS IM TALKIN ABOUT BUILDING 7.. It should have been mentioned at least....and that should raise anyones eyebrow.... No plane-no jet fuel-no impact--just straight down in 10 seconds, right after the owner of building 7 said he made a decision to "pull" it all of that is weird---but its really messed up that it wasnt even in the report..... if the ids tower was attacked by terrorist im sure someone qould know about it---and include it in their report right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I think it's pretty obvious why WTC7 collapsed. I remember watching that afternoon/evening and they were talking about how they were keeping everybody away from it because it was creaking like crazy and they were afraid it would collapse. then it did collapse. read this about building 7. every single stupid conspiracy claim easily debunked. if you read that and the conspiracy "evidence" side by side and conclude "conspiracy", then you have the critical thinking skills of cheese grater. bump for the troofer idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterwing Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 Why would there be nano thermite in the dust? Im not sure, but it doesnt make sense. Why would they forget to include buiding 7 in the report? Im not sure, but it doesnt make sense. Why am i such an idiot for wondering? Im not sure, but it doesnt make sense! And if your wondering: it took a long time to even read or look up any of this---im not one to come to quick conclusions, and i never liked where it was headed. bin laden is not wanted by the fbi for the attacks on the twin towers wait what? yes look it up. Osama bin laden is not even wanted by the fbi for the wtc attack! why the beep not? i looked it up. go the the fbi website. hes wanted for other things unrelated, but not for wtc attack. theyre officual response to thjat is that they dont have any evidence he was involved....look it up---i did. Not because i wanted to believe in irrational things--because it its easy to look up. You want a link? Too bad you will tell me its not crdible know matter who its from so look it up! Its tour dutyin my opinion. I am not a frickin super genius-im not a fricken engineer--im not psychic--I am a fully functioning adult, and I am wondering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Why would there be nano thermite in the dust? Im not sure, but it doesnt make sense. There wasn't, if you followed Az's link and actually read it you would know that. Why would they forget to include buiding 7 in the report? Im not sure, but it doesnt make sense. Because the report was detailing how the twin towers fell, not WTC 7. It wasn't "omitted", it just wasn't included because it wasn't pertinent to what caused the twin towers to fall. Why am i such an idiot for wondering? Im not sure, but it doesnt make sense! And if your wondering: it took a long time to even read or look up any of this---im not one to come to quick conclusions, and i never liked where it was headed. Idiot is a strong word, I would shoot for extremely gullible & the reason is because as hard as you say you looked, you didn't seem to notice all the evidence that clearly debunks the claims. bin laden is not wanted by the fbi for the attacks on the twin towers wait what? yes look it up. Osama bin laden is not even wanted by the fbi for the wtc attack! why the beep not? i looked it up. go the the fbi website. hes wanted for other things unrelated, but not for wtc attack. theyre officual response to thjat is that they dont have any evidence he was involved....look it up---i did. Not because i wanted to believe in irrational things--because it its easy to look up. You want a link? Too bad you will tell me its not crdible know matter who its from so look it up! Its tour dutyin my opinion. International criminals are subject to the same laws that you & I are. There is no hard evidence that OBL concocted the plot, only that his organization was behind it. Not sure why this would make a difference to you or why it would even be relevant to this discussion. I am not a frickin super genius-im not a fricken engineer--im not psychic- Neither are we. -I am a fully functioning adult, and I am wondering... Yeah, so am I... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I am not a frickin super genius Did you read Az's links? Would you agree they debunk all the conspiracy nonsense regarding WTC 7 and explain exactly what happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterwing Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) "Because the report was detailing how the twin towers fell, not WTC 7. It wasn't "omitted", it just wasn't included because it wasn't pertinent to what caused the twin towers to fall." If the report was supposed to be only about the twin towers id be with you on this man--but its not, so here i am. The report wasnt about the twin towers only and why they fell...and I highly doubt youve read any of it like I have. A 47 story buiding that fell down is important as well. Just like everything else in the 9-11 report that is not the twin towers is important.. Thats the point Im getting to. Also, Explaining the reasons why will help prevent future failures of security as well as building code improvements. Edited September 30, 2009 by masterwing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 "Because the report was detailing how the twin towers fell, not WTC 7. It wasn't "omitted", it just wasn't included because it wasn't pertinent to what caused the twin towers to fall." If the report was supposed to be only about the twin towers id be with you on this man--but its not, so here i am. The report wasnt about the twin towers only and why they fell...and I highly doubt youve read any of it like I have. A 47 story buiding that fell down is important as well. Just like everything else in the 9-11 report that is not the twin towers is important.. Thats the point Im getting to. Also, Explaining the reasons why will help prevent future failures of security as well as building code improvements. Dude, seriously... read all the posts in this thread. Answer the questions I posted that show just how irrational your thinking is & READ AZ'S FRIGGIN LINKS. You're not worth another breath until you do because otherwise all you are doing is trolling & if that's the case you don't deserve my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I am a fully functioning adult, and I am wondering... I'm not so sure. I think you're suffering from the delusional nonsense that affects more Americans every day. There seems to be some desperate need to believe everything's a conspiracy. Personally I blame the X-Files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.