Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse w/videos

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by apex
Actually, as you heat steel up, you'd be surprised how much it can weaken, so from an engineering standpoint, it isn't really surprising that it came down.

How much does steel have to heat up to weaken? BTW, NIST found only ONE piece of steel that went over 250C. That's not enough to weaken it for collapse.

Fair enough point, that does pretty much rub out that idea.

and considering the outside wasn't built to hold too much of it up

It was designed for 50% of the wieght. I wouldn't call that "not too much".

50%? I thought it was less than that, oh well.

(combined with loss of the core), it isn't really surprising it came down, is it?

This is where you lost me. What loss of core? What was the mechanism for loosing the core?

I mean, that particularly in the north tower, the plane went straight into the core of the structure, and that along with the loss of the outside brought it down. (or have I just metaphorically shot myself in the foot with this?)

Guiliani should be hanged at the World Trade Center site for not backing the people in his State. Hang this son of a bitch.

To allow this person to be a nominee for President, that it is a slap to the face of every American that is alive today. And if they allow this person to run for Presient, the administration should be hanged and everyone who controls the elections and government officals who are involved. We should kill another 3000 at WTC site just to give the world some justice and prevent further murder of American people by these treasonous people.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by spiritp0wer]

Originally posted by apex
I mean, that particularly in the north tower, the plane went straight into the core of the structure, and that along with the loss of the outside brought it down. (or have I just metaphorically shot myself in the foot with this?)

You could be right. No one knows the extent of damage inside. But, I believe it was NIST that simulated it and found that the core structure wasn't badly damaged.

I have to correct myself. Apex helped me remember that my post was wrong or at least misleading. I believe it was one piece of steel got over 600C and the rest didn't get over 250C. Not that one piece got to only 250C.

Thanks Apex.

Originally posted by esdad71
Being from NY, I would have been there with the onlookers. Until that first tower came down, No one knew what would happen. After that all bets were off and people scrambled for their lives.

Thank you for proving my point.

NO one would have thought the towers would fall or else they would have ran as far away as possible.

On that day the laws of physics were temporary not real.

That is of course if you choose to believe the government's story over the laws of physics...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The buildings didn't suffer 'minority damage'. It was rather major.
Watching them as they were burning, and looking at the HUGE
holes in them, many Americans figured they were coming down.
Rudy isn't the only one who stood there thinking that they were going
to fall. Being a non-civil engineer, I figured they'd fall over sideways.

The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

They say that a plane hitting the world trade center is no different then a pencil piercing a spider web, surely you get the concept?

The fire was so dim that you can see a women in the hole of the building where there is a little tiny fire around her not hot enough to burn her while she is standing there.

If you think it's common sense that the towers would pancake onto them selves from a plane crash into the building, then there is nothing more to discuss. As far as I'm concerned, you made up your mind and there will be no changing it in this life time.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by 27jd
How do you cut down a tree from the top?

The airplanes hit in the middle (more or less) of the buildings.
It is at the point of impact, and the big holes, that I was referring to.
Kinda like when someone cuts down a tree. They take a wedge out and
the tree falls in the direction of where the wedge was taken out.

But instead ... the buildings fell straight down.

Originally posted by spiritp0wer
Guiliani should be hanged at the World Trade Center site for not backing the people in his State.

And how, exactly, did he 'not back the people in his state'??

Hang this son of a bitch.

:shk:

Originally posted by selfless
The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

1 - I don't believe that those structures could possibly stand 10 big planes full of fuel pounding into each of them at such an excessive rate of speed ... no freak'n way.

2 - What ever engineer(s) said that they could ... they are wrong. Plain and simple. Engineers are humans and they make mistakes and who ever said that, they made a whopper of a mistake. that's insane.

If you think it's common sense that the towers would pancake onto them selves from a plane crash into the building,

No. Re-read what I said.

I said that I thought it would FALL OVER ... like a tree getting cut down. I said that when it came straight down it was a surprise. However, I do indeed think that it's entirely probable that having a big plane full of fuel hitting the trade center would definately bring it down. It just came down different from how I thought it would.

And back to the subject - it obviously fell different than how Rudy thought it would. He said that he was surprised that it 'imploded'. That's how us lay folks (non-civil engineers) would say it .. we were surprised that it fell in on itself instead of falling outwards like a tree being cut down.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That's how us lay folks (non-civil engineers) would say it .. we were surprised that it fell in on itself instead of falling outwards like a tree being cut down.

Not to derail this thread anymore than has been already. Doesn't that tell you right there that something was wrong? WTC 2 did start to tilt like a tree but something happened.

Originally posted by Griff
How much does steel have to heat up to weaken? BTW, NIST found only ONE piece of steel that went over 250C. That's not enough to weaken it for collapse.

People, this means you have to stop using oven steel trays in the oven or else it will melt!!!! wait...... no it doesn't.

Oh no I'm in trouble, i some times put it to 450c....

:0

Originally posted by FlyersFan

No. Re-read what I said.

I said that I thought it would FALL OVER ... like a tree getting cut down. I said that when it came straight down it was a surprise. However, I do indeed think that it's entirely probable that having a big plane full of fuel hitting the trade center would definately bring it down. It just came down different from how I thought it would.

Yeah well you still said you thought it would fall down and there is no way to make you see that it would not collapse from just one plane crash so I am not gonna try to make you change your mind on that, that was my point.

I guess i said pan cake because that's what happened...

[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

1 - I don't believe that those structures could possibly stand 10 big planes full of fuel pounding into each of them at such an excessive rate of speed ... no freak'n way.

2 - What ever engineer(s) said that they could ... they are wrong. Plain and simple. Engineers are humans and they make mistakes and who ever said that, they made a whopper of a mistake. that's insane.



Firstly i'm sick to death of the endless going round in circles debating about this very subject and avoid posting in these threads now aday but i just had to comment on this..Excuse me but is your best reply 'they are wrong' what so the whole law of physics is thrown out of the window as well then ok buddy whatever have you actually looked at the evidence compiled for the case that the tower was strong enough not to fall etc.

Do you have a background in engineering that would make your claim credible?


[edit on 30-5-2007 by SR]

Talking about structural engineering is on topic because Giuliani said this:

"Giuliani replied by saying, "I didn't realize the towers would collapse." He later added, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise."

Originally posted by SR

Originally posted by selfless
The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

1 - I don't believe that those structures could possibly stand 10 big planes full of fuel pounding into each of them at such an excessive rate of speed ... no freak'n way.

2 - What ever engineer(s) said that they could ... they are wrong. Plain and simple. Engineers are humans and they make mistakes and who ever said that, they made a whopper of a mistake. that's insane.

I agree on both accounts. One plane took out 15% of the outer columns. Just simple math tells us that 10 planes would do 150% damage. That's one and a half buildings.

Do you have a background in engineering that would make your claim credible?

Yes, BS civil engineering, 1996. P.E. pending. Not sure about credible. You yourself said that engineers are human and make mistakes.

I have a picture to show all of you.

Remember the Osama Bin Laden confession tape that they "found" in a basement in Afghanistan? This is where he confessed to planning the 911 attacks, for Jihad and all that stuff. Everyone knows it was a fake, it wasnt the real Bin Laden. Look at the picture.



There is no way that fat man is Osama Bin Laden.

So what does this mean? It means your government LIED, it means they FAKED the video, they purposely created a fake confession video to put the blame on Bin Laden. Now why would they do that?

I ask everyone, you know who you are....why would they fake a video?? Do you know how easy it is to fake videos nowadays, especially with the technology they have, its very easy. Why would they LIE, by creating a fake tape which everyone knows is fake, all the top experts know it.

Osama tape appears fake, experts conclude

Swiss Scientists 95% sure Bin Laden tape fake

Why would they put out fake tapes? I want someone to answer that, if you got the guts.

Originally posted by selfless
People, this means you have to stop using oven steel trays in the oven or else it will melt!!!! wait...... no it doesn't.

Oh no I'm in trouble, i some times put it to 450c....

Maybe you missed his post further up the page saying he made a mistake.

In any case, oven trays will be a different steel to that used for making skyscrapers. And he didn't say melt, at the right heat it will have a lower strength, it will look the same macroscopically, but microscopic level analysis shows it is different.

Originally posted by selfless
The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

AFAIK, they said a single 707, modeled to be fairly low on fuel, trying to land at an airport, not a near fully laden 767 going at high speed.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SR

Originally posted by selfless
The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

1 - I don't believe that those structures could possibly stand 10 big planes full of fuel pounding into each of them at such an excessive rate of speed ... no freak'n way.

2 - What ever engineer(s) said that they could ... they are wrong. Plain and simple. Engineers are humans and they make mistakes and who ever said that, they made a whopper of a mistake. that's insane.

I agree on both accounts. One plane took out 15% of the outer columns. Just simple math tells us that 10 planes would do 150% damage. That's one and a half buildings.

But the damage was mostly cosmetic, wasn't it?

It's like if you take a popsicle and you take off the frozen liquid part, the wooden stick is still intact and will not be corrupted...

Well, it's a top of the line engineer who said that the world trade center was designed in a way that if a plane crashes through it, it's like a pencil piercing a spider web, the damage would not affect the overall constructed aspect of the building.

A giant steel framing in the middle of the building holding up the whole floors would not be corrupted by the destruction of individual floors.

Just like the popsicle and the spider web analogy.


[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by apex
Maybe you missed his post further up the page saying he made a mistake.

In any case, oven trays will be a different steel to that used for making skyscrapers. And he didn't say melt, at the right heat it will have a lower strength, it will look the same macroscopically, but microscopic level analysis shows it is different.

I don't think you understood my joke...

It was just to laugh at the thought of steel being melted at such a low temperature....

Originally posted by apex
Maybe you missed his post further up the page saying he made a mistake.

You are right, i missed his post, it was right above mine so i think i missed it because we posted at the same time, perhaps.

Yeah 600c is still not hot enough to melt steel, unless anyone can prove otherwise?

Originally posted by selfless
But the damage was mostly cosmetic, wasn't it?

You're mostly right. But, the columns that were severed would be considered structural damage. I was just agreeing that 10 planes was an exageration. Not that your thought process was flawed.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by selfless
But the damage was mostly cosmetic, wasn't it?

You're mostly right. But, the columns that were severed would be considered structural damage. I was just agreeing that 10 planes was an exageration. Not that your thought process was flawed.

From my stand point, the official story is so ridiculous that I some times exaggerate my points.

I should have said, the world trade center was designed to withstand 10 small to medium plane crashes.

But i still think there's no way that the towers would have fallen from the plane crashes alone...

I did think that 911 was a black flag operation when i saw it for the first time and at that point i was aware that planes could just be a mock up staging to allow blame to be put onto someone else, who ever needed to be dominated.

At that time there was the whole anthrax thing going on so then i thought it was obvious that the purpose of the anthrax was to introduce in advance the blame of 911 being terrorists into the consciousness of the populations.

It's funny how every time there is an attack on USA it just happens to fit a global dominance agenda and then when that agenda is established there is no longer any threats until the next time they need democratic support from the people to invade other countries in order not to be perceived as the dictators that they are.

I some times can't believe that some people can't see what is being purposely portrayed in front of their eyes and into their collective consciousness.