RE: Loose change - 9/11

quote:

ORIGINAL: chrisshepherd

quote:

ORIGINAL: _Virtuoso_

quote:

ORIGINAL: chrisshepherd

Steel weakens alot before it melts. And how do you know about this certain type of smoke and dust?

I've spent hours studding WTC anc other high rise buildings. Both how they are built and how they would burn. Everything that the towers did makes sense. The outside walls were load barring. Part of those walls were destroyed making the stress that much greater on the rest of the walls weakening them greatly. That and with the inside supports being moved to the center of the building, to allow for more uninteruppted office space caused it to be a fairly weak. It makes sense the way that the buildings pancaked.

There were supports on the outside and inside of it leaving the floors free range to fall with no supports stopping or slowing them. Therefore falling straight down makes sense.

If both jets had hit the empire state building, it probably wouldn't have fallen. It was built using supports and pillars spaced evenly throughout the building. Meaning that the supports are going to be in the way on every floor but its stronger. The outside walls have no load. The building does not rely on the outside to support it like WTC did. If both planes hit the building and it did somehow fall, it would not pancake as there are so many pillars it would topple over. But because the WTC was built without these pillars it made it prone to the type of pancake collapse that happened.

if you just do some research about the way the buildings are built then you'll discover that everything makes sense without the government conspiracy.

The way it collapsed, exploding from top to bottom in layers, isn't how it would have naturally collpased, and about the demolition charges, thats because some of the engineers who designed and constructed the WTC have looked into it and they have pointed out on the videos which bursts of smoke are from charges exploding, they have also stated that there was no way those steel beams could have collapsed or melted, but that if they could have melted the tower wouldn't have collpased in the way it did. Just me, but I would rather believe the engineers who designed and built the WTC and have been in construction for over 30 years, then a goverment official who covers up half the sh*t that happens in the US. You can find the videos on the net.

Ok show me where these mystery engineers have said that. Because I watched a Nova interview with the architect saying exactly what I said.

When the outside supports started to fail the weakened steel beams that made up each floor started to give way also. And because there was nothing to impede their fall the floors pancaked. The floors connected the outside supports to the inside supports and if one failed the other was sure to as well. In any traditionally built high rise building, you're right charges would have had to be used to get that effect. but because of the design, which saved money, saved weight, and created extra office space, also made it inherently weak to something of that size.

Thats not a cover up thats architecture. its how it was built. its black and white. you're argument is good if it were the Empire state building, but the towers were built 100% different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chrisshepherd

quote:

ORIGINAL: _Virtuoso_

quote:

ORIGINAL: DA


That's of course disregarding the thousands of onlookers who saw no such thing.

Apart from the fact that unless you are a professional you wouldn't notice it without it being pointed out to you. Watch the videos and you will see.

well it looks like you've made up your mind. Your logic just doesn't make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheSilverFox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queefing   
oh look what i found.  a made up term.  haha

quote:

original:Jane

I like boobs. Not like big messy boobs that pour out the bra when they are unleashed. Not small boobs either. Not fake ones either. A full C cup.

quote:


original:Jane

WOW! I am honored! I am finally, FINALLY in someone's sig. Twisted of all people.
Boobs=power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thehardway

UMMM, I was backing up Chris.... in this instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _Virtuoso_

quote:

ORIGINAL: thehardway

UMMM, I was backing up Chris.... in this instance.

You said you saw the engineers explaining the reason for the tower falling, that was my argument though? lol really confused.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thehardway

WHat Chris explained, the architect who designed the building, the NOVA special on it, and the the corresponding book that went with that program, much longer, more tedious and dry, full of failure analysis, explains the reason why it fell that way. the differances in the way those buildings were designed, and why they were not that strong, and they weren't.

If I remember correctly, and I wouldn't trust my recolection, the type of insulation, srpay foam, actually helped contribute to the heat produced in the fire after the fact and caused the beams to melt warp ect, in addition to the 17 forrests full of papre in those buldings.

I don't have the time to think hard and really remeber the details, but that special that Chris is refering to and the explinations he gave, which came form that special, (he is also missing some tid bits, that complete the whole picture, like the insulation on the beams, Chris does mention the corner cutting for extra space, and that is correct to), is the acceppted failure anaylisis of the twin towers.

My father who teaches failure anaylsis, uses those explinations that Chris gave (in much more detail), as examples of how to not design things. He uses the companion book to the NOVA series as required reading, for his students, on top of a billion other referances .