Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

i came up with a theory that i have not seen anyone talk about. if 9/11 was an attack planned by the government, they would probably plan it in the pentagon. well a missile was shot at the pentagon shortly after the planes hit the building. anyone ever think that maybe it was to kill the few that knew about the plans and destroy all the evidence?

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Your comparing 5 people in this thread to 350 million people around the world? this is why people laugh at truthers, NO LOGIC now QUIT RESPONDNG AND PROVOKING ME because its clear you're mad about losing. I don't have time to fight off 3483948 truthers all day, be gone with your delusional cooky nut job conspiracy self.

There is no need to get all emotional.
Losing? Mad? I am amused you believe that.
Can you give us a source to where you got your numbers "3483948" to how many Truthers that you have to fight off?
Nice names?

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Anyway I'm done with this thread, I knew this thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (its the 911 conspiracy section what do you expect lol) but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job and that there is no HARD evidence to support that claim, just theories. I hope the gullible internet sheeple wake up from the spell the theories will put you under, and learn that the real world rejects these "movie like theories" and real physics and science does not indicate ANY foul play. Have fun delusional truthers.

Can't handle getting ripped up on his own thread. 9/11 is an inside job and there is plenty of us "truthers" to prove him wrong. A sane person knows planes don't bring down buildings. He's gullible for believing his own BS!

To skeptic, Remember what I said be sure to come back and start a thread when the truth comes out. I wanna rip you on that too.

I'm loving all the facts and science that all of us are posting that disputes your amateurish theories.

This guy thinks he as the answers for it all, but as we can all see he doesn't.

Disinfo agent? For sure.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
everyone knows Steel loses its strength and stiffness when subjected to high temperatures. A typical steel structural member loses its load-carrying capacity (or about 50 percent of its original strength) at 538°C (1,000°F) when exposed to an ASTM E-119 standard fire (Kodur and Harmathy 2002).

edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

That means it gets bendy in the hot areas and by definition not uniform, there would also possibly be heat conducted to other areas on a reducing scale, but that does not explain the total destructions of the towers. For the towers to have gone down in the way that they did, and without intervention other than isolated fires, means that they were never fit for the purpose in the first instance, and failed consistantly in key areas all the way down. Ther are even some clues in that NYT's extract, like the aluminium stuck to the steel, not melted but stuck. What about the bolts themselves and their life cycles? why were there cracked washers on those bolts? there are myriad questions about the method and construction of the twin towers and the bolts and the aluminium cladding all have a part to play.

Yes, the Pentagon is another part of the OS that is BS.

Because of the horrible nature of the psychology we would have to collectively face within our own ranks, the true motivations behind the attacks on 9/11 will never be dealt with.

We are in collective denial, and time and dischord will see to it that we never develop enough to deal with it's perpetrators in a just and mature manner.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Of whom do you speak? Yourself? I was merely pointing out the flaw in your last post, amounting to idle name calling and character assassination.

Facts are fickle, some add up to none. Only by looking at the big picture can you even begin to decipher the intent of the attackers. Who benefitted?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Explain Bldg 7. That is the start, middle and end of the debate. If that ONE building can be explained by natural forces and occurrence through the events of that morning, then all the theories fall apart. If however, it cannot be explained as a cause/effect of two planes hitting Bldg 1 and 2, then it's all a load of crap. It's really that simple and that cut and dry. So..... Explain Bldg 7.

Firehouse.com: Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
...
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

....A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Someone on scene said they saw a massive hole on the south side of WTC7.

Captain Chris Boyle is a decorated Firefighter from New York. Why would he lie?

Originally posted by HolyandClean
Game over.

You going to deny all this eye witness testimony? And all this expert opinion?

Everyone just watch this video and stop arguing. This will seal the debate! 9/11 was an inside job! The only thing people don't know, is that it was sacrifice to Satan!

reply to post by liejunkie01


I haven't run out of ammo. I will start debating you. It's called physics there was not enough weight in the above sections of the building to "implode" the bottom of the buildings. To suggest this happened without the help of explosives is physically impossible.

His argument has holes all over it. He repeatedly says that progressively the floors would have to give way underneath the impact zone for his theory to work. What did they magically disappear?

Millions of tonnes of concrete and steel pulverized into dust in micro seconds, again physically impossible.

I know demolition experts and construction workers that laugh and scoff at such theories.

Also how did the steel on the oppostie side of the impact zones melt exactly at the same time as the steel at the impact zone to ensure perfect implosion. That is also physically impossible.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

if you are guillble enough to believe the official story then by all means be that dumb.

Now that's still isn't a personal attack it's fact.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

Of whom do you speak? Yourself? I was merely pointing out the flaw in your last post, amounting to idle name calling and character assassination.

Facts are fickle, some add up to none. Only by looking at the big picture can you even begin to decipher the intent of the attackers. Who benefitted?

The poster above has made it a point that he wants to(how did he say it again), oh yeah.........rip the op in his threads. this is an admission on his part..He stated that he wants to "ripp" the op for his beliefs and data that he presents....I read his intention loud and clear. I am sorry that you did not see that.

The only character name I said was "sport".....Take that how you want too........He cmes he and lays his personal opinion as fact and does it in a manner that violates T&C.

My point was to point out that his opinion is....only an opinion.....

So it is ok for you guys to "ripp" people here, but we cannot stand up for ourselves?

I believe I was being civil....Sarcastic, but civil.

I will rip anyone who is dumb enough to believe the official story.

In addition, if you pump up the official story, your time will come, it's that simple

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by ANOK

 

Did I say I believed in the pancaking theory? I don't know what to believe aside from the fact that we are lied to in this disaster, also I think you got the wrong poster your replying to because I never pointed you to any wiki.

LOL my bad I was replying to the poster who you replied to on my behalf. I was in a rush and didn't notice. But actually isn't that pretty obvious if you look at it? It still has the original posters name there, who I was actually replying to.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
I will rip anyone who is dumb enough to believe the official story.

In addition, if you pump up the official story, your time will come, it's that simple.

Okay, I will bite.

I believe in the official story. What are you going to do to me?

Originally posted by nh_ee

Physics 101 - Statics

Basic elementary physics explains why this isn't feasible.

For a couple of reasons.

If it collapsed due to fatigue as we are being told. It wouldn't occur evenly.
In order for something to fall straight down as it did, the supporting structure would need to be removed evenly...as in controlled demolition.
Otherwise if collapsing due to fatique, the weaker side, where the plane struck would collapse first.

Secondly, due to the conservation of energy.
The top 15 floors did not weigh more than the bottom 85 floors + 6 floors of foundation.

In Physics 101 we are taught this via what are called Free Body Diagrams which described the forces on a body under gravity.

They look like this:




Where N is the Normal the forces pushing upwards due to the strength of the object.
Where F is the Force pushing downward due to gravity and it's weight or mass

F= ma


In this example we would use Block A as representing the top floors that collapsed coming down on Block B.

Which represents the opposing 85 Floors + 6 Floors of Foundation pushing upwards.

You'd calculate the forces of each. And in summary simply due to the major differences in Mass.

Even though block A is moving it still would not exceed the forces pushing upwards represented by B.

Which is where the Architects and Engineers calculations can provide details and numbers of ...

You can test this theory by creating a tower of 11 cinder blocks for example.

1 cinder block representing 10 stories of the WTC.

1 cinder block on top is lifted up a few inches representing the distance the top floors traveled initially due to the collapse of the story.

Now Drop this top cinder block on the bottom 10 cinder blocks.

The forces pushing downward would be opposed by the forces pushing upwards which were far greater and would not collapse the bottom 10 cinder blocks...but at most, might damage one slightly.

Because the forces would be absorbed by the entire structure and not only the single cinder block being impacted.

Plain and Simple.


But this is what they were counting on.
How many Americans even understand Physics for example ?

I mean, looking at all of my suburban neighbors, Avg working Americans....most due not have a clue.
When it comes to math and science...

That was the whole basis of the Fraud of 911. Televised Shock and Awe to a gullible uneducated population.

War is a Racket.

just an example of how the OP has no idea and gets ripped on his own thread.

one day he will wake up. Keep it up fellow "truthers"

reply to post by Section31


I won't do anything. Time will come means you will wake up and realize what happened? Up to you how long you want to take.

reply to post by MasterAndrew

It's called physics there was not enough weight in the above sections of the building to "implode" the bottom of the buildings. To suggest this happened without the help of explosives is physically impossible.

See my post a few pages back.

Do you know what an I-beam clip is?

You keep spitting the same old crap..................Lets talk I-beam clips and how they support the beams....I laid it out pretty simple....None of you want to talk of the one side that only had 1 single bolt on the I-beam clip.....Not two.

Here is an example of an I-beam clip that holds the two beams together.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e681a25d04a.gif[/atsimg]

Notice the two bolt holes?

This is similar to what was used on the towers. One side of the building had two bolts and the other side had only one bolt holding it together.........

You know what........I have been sitting here researching this........................ again. Just so I know I have my facts straight, unlike other members around....... I am tired of trying to sift through all of the bs that the truthers are tainting the facts with. It is impossible to find any information. This is really ridiculous......I try Googling some information and all that pops up is truther this and truther that....It takes hours to go through the BS. It is late and I am done.

You do the research. I am out...Have a nice day...... I am tired of waistng my time. This is why I do not bother to visit the messed up 9/11 forum.

You people will never find "your" truth.....It is all tainted with the stinch of crap.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by nh_ee

Physics 101 - Statics

Basic elementary physics explains why this isn't feasible.

Thank you for your wonderful wisdom, I guess I'll ignore every expert that disagrees with you and take your word for it.....ya but I'M gullible? Funny.

That's his reply to EXPERT criticism.

No idea

Enough said.