Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers


  • Please log in to reply
848 replies to this topic

#196    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:12 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 June 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

you are looking for reasons to ignore the evidence, rather than looking at the evidence.
to answer your questions, you simply have to ask yourself "how would I have done it". if you don't have the imagination or knowledge to realise that computers control planes these days to exacting precision, then again, you are only looking for reasons to confirm your belief, rather than look at the evidence or pretending you don;t have that knowledge or imagination. demolitions can occur any way yo want them to occur, youtube "top down demolition", ordinary thermite can cut through structural steel beams, youtube "john cole 911 experiments". why would there be evidence of a demolition team, ask youself "how would I have done it", the answer is you would not wear "demolition team" labels on your uniform, sorry to be overly sarcastic but come on, 50,000 people were in those buildings, nobody knew what everybody was doing and you could access the columns from inside the elevator shafts, ask yourself how would you have done it, a reasonable person would say "rent floor space and shut the doors", even bin laden could have done that.
all these speculative questions have been waived a million times.

you are asking good questions, but what you are doing is asking the wrong side for proof before investigating. the only questions to answer is "is a new investigation warranted".

when your questions are anlaysed logically we find they are not questions, they are statements. you are stating "this is impossible", "that is impossible", in order to show those statements false, it is sufficient to show through speculation that it is possible which has been done. it is not required to know exactly how it was done in order to answer those questions. if you are stating something is impossible then the burden of proof is on you to prove something is impossible, otherwise you are just appealing to incredulity - a logical fallacy.
If I were to accept your position I would have to accept a whole raft of maybe's. As it is I want evidence for those maybes and not imaginative speculation. The burden of proof is firmly on your side.

Show me where a floor was rented for rigging.
Show me the planes were rigged for remote control.
Show me that there were no records from door personnel showing traffic in and out of the buildings.
Controlled demolitions do not rely on thermite alone - they involve weakening the support members enough that the force of thermite is adequate to sever the remaining part.

Speculations without evidence are not adequate and discredit your position.

The objective of the hijackers was achieved without the twin towers falling - they would have been demolished anyway - why go to all the extra trouble of rigging them ?

I refuse to throw basic common sense out just because I have a suspicion that there was an element of Government collusion.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 13 June 2011 - 01:19 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#197    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:15 PM

Check it :tu:
http://ca.video.sear...oose change 911

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#198    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:19 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 June 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

the building could withstand millions of 0.3g peaks over a second, you are denying Newtons third law again. The building withstood 1g since it was built. it was built with a safety factor of 5 on the perimeter, so would require 6g to realistically fail the top story of the bottom block. a 6g impulse would be seen in the data.
There is a large peak g at the point of impact, but since that overloads the columns that hit each other, those columns deform, and in deforming they act like shock absorbers to protect the bulk of the building which therefore sees a much lower g over a longer time.

Quote

I do not believe that you are an engineer.
Then go ask your nearest university engineering department.

Quote

look at figure 6, a 6g impulse would result in 17.38 m/s reduction in velocity, such a reduction would be visible in the velocity time graph, it would take at least 6 datapoints (0.8 seconds) to recover to preimpact velocity. it would show in the graph.
MacQueen and Szamboti make an incorrect assumption that means these numbers are wrong, see my post above or post #109.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#199    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:21 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 13 June 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

BBC even reported the collapse of WTC7 in advance !!

i mean the building was still standing when they reported the collapse!
This proves what exactly?  How does it help a conspiracy to tell the media in advance?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#200    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:22 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 13 June 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

BBC even reported the collapse of WTC7 in advance !!

i mean the building was still standing when they reported the collapse!
And people don't make mistakes ?
The building was damaged by debris and by fire and there was speculation that the building would either fall down or have to be pulled at some point.
The fact that the BBC misreported is compelling evidence of NOTHING.

Let me say however that if there was a remote possibility of a building been demolished on the day then it would have to be WTC7.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 13 June 2011 - 01:26 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#201    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:24 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 13 June 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

The outcome? They did predict plane impacts if thats what you mean.  Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 (cached)
The outcome of the impacts and particularly the fires.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#202    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:36 PM

Gotta love facts! This movie explains alot that makes this terorist act not so Afgan terorist, smells like a Us act...

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#203    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:50 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 13 June 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

If I were to accept your position I would have to accept a whole raft of maybe's. As it is I want evidence for those maybes and not imaginative speculation. The burden of proof is firmly on your side.

Show me where a floor was rented for rigging.
Show me the planes were rigged for remote control.
Show me that there were no records from door personnel showing traffic in and out of the buildings.
Controlled demolitions do not rely on thermite alone - they involve weakening the support members enough that the force of thermite is adequate to sever the remaining part.

Speculations without evidence are not adequate and discredit your position.

The objective of the hijackers was achieved without the twin towers falling - they would have been demolished anyway - why go to all the extra trouble of rigging them ?

I refuse to throw basic common sense out just because I have a suspicion that there was an element of Government collusion.

Br Cornelius
you are asking for speculation in your questions, then complain the answer is speculation, and in doing so derailing this thread.
you made the claim it was impossible to rig a floor. In order to show that somehting is not impossible, it is sufficient to show that it is possible, so your claim of impossible is false. what you then do is demand proof that it was done exactly that way, you have raised the bar, moved the goalposts, played a switcheroo. noone has proof it was done that way, the point was to show it was not impossible.

in playing your switcheroo you are asking the whole puzzle is solved before an investigation is warranted.


#204    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:02 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 June 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

you are asking for speculation in your questions, then complain the answer is speculation, and in doing so derailing this thread.
you made the claim it was impossible to rig a floor. In order to show that somehting is not impossible, it is sufficient to show that it is possible, so your claim of impossible is false. what you then do is demand proof that it was done exactly that way, you have raised the bar, moved the goalposts, played a switcheroo. noone has proof it was done that way, the point was to show it was not impossible.

in playing your switcheroo you are asking the whole puzzle is solved before an investigation is warranted.
I have not said anything is impossible. I think it is massively improbable and as such I want a well supported case to be made to support the "incredible" claim. In my universe that is not unreasonable, what is unreasonable is to ask me to circumvent common sense questions to support a claim which fails to meet the observation of my own eyes and the evidence of engineers. You'll have to do a lot better to win me over to that position.

Your main arguing point seems to be that heat effects on the structural members were inadequate to account for the loss of structural integrity. The paper you give to support this claim simply ignores this facet and is as a result not compelling.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 13 June 2011 - 02:04 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#205    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:09 PM

Watch the video please and stop arguing, max temp. of wtc fires was 1300degress those columns were made to support 2000degress so fire didnt make building collapse but controlled explosion did...

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#206    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:23 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 June 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

The outcome of the impacts and particularly the fires.

Indeed...has anyone specifically asked Skilling if he believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition vs the effects of the jetliner impacts? It's much like the Moon hoaxers...they selectively choose data from an expert that seems to support their theory, but for some reason don't ask that expert their real question...


#207    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:27 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

Watch the video please and stop arguing, max temp. of wtc fires was 1300degress those columns were made to support 2000degress so fire didnt make building collapse but controlled explosion did...
It takes much less temperature to increase the plasticity of the steel and hence reduce its elasticity. Differential heating of column surfaces also played a large part in pre-stressing the columns placing them under a differential load and making them much more likely to hing rather than spring.

I am not in the habit of watching Ytube video's unless there is a massively good reason to do so.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#208    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:38 PM

Cornelius isnt it logical that if you make a structure that last for 3 days with burning at 2000degress wont collapse it, especially if burning happenes to be on top of structure. But in this case a jetproof building is hitted by 747, which on impact releases almost all the fuel in a giant fireball, makes it collapse in brief couple of minutes...Well i aint stupid or something but that sound very fishy to me...In my logic if this was truly the act of terorism WTC wouldnt collapse at all...Would burn slightly, nothing hard, like it really happened. So in short its impossible for jet fuel to make this building collapse, expert statments....If so this was manmade...

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#209    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:40 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 13 June 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

Indeed...has anyone specifically asked Skilling if he believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition vs the effects of the jetliner impacts? It's much like the Moon hoaxers...they selectively choose data from an expert that seems to support their theory, but for some reason don't ask that expert their real question...

If you mean US experts you get a big fat lie...it was a weather ballon...
Ask foreign expert you'll get a diffrent story, closer to real one..

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#210    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:53 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

If you mean US experts you get a big fat lie...it was a weather ballon...
Ask foreign expert you'll get a diffrent story, closer to real one..

I believe it was a US expert who conducted the study that said the building could survive a very high speed jetliner impact. This is a major point in the CD theory.
Why don't you ask him if it was a CD job?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users