Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavExactly.
What happend was simple, the impact of the Plane and the fire weaked the girders of the building, the weaked girders where unable to cope with the weight of the undamaged floors above them and they buckeld, that is why the building fell in the way it did, from top, straight down to bottom.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What happend was simple, the impact of the Plane and the fire weaked the girders of the building, the weaked girders where unable to cope with the weight of the undamaged floors above them and they buckeld, that is why the building fell in the way it did, from top, straight down to bottom.
thats just the OFFICIAL version of the governments but independent investigaters have proven that that could never have happened in the way they claim it did.The engineers of the building were all scratching their heads over the official report saying the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner that it should never have happened the way it did.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
thats just the OFFICIAL version of the governments but independent investigaters have proven that that could never have happened in the way they claim it did.The engineers of the building were all scratching their heads over the official report saying the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner that it should never have happened the way it did.
That's funny "Independent Investigators". There were PLENTY of experts, including Engineers that actually worked on the towers, that say in FULL statements, that they were not made for those conditions. I saw a slow motion vid of the North Tower coming down, if it had been explosives, the floors would not have collapsed
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
That's funny "Independent Investigators". There were PLENTY of experts, including Engineers that actually worked on the towers, that say in FULL statements, that they were not made for those conditions. I saw a slow motion vid of the North Tower coming down, if it had been explosives, the floors would not have collapsed
Bingo
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Funny, I saw a report with the man who designed the building saying it wasn't capable of withstanding a direct hit from a plane...
Leslie Robertson, chief structural engineer said it was designed to survive plane impacts, if it wasn't, than it would have tipped over.
The building was constructed with carbon steel which sways on impact, also, it makes no sense that it wasn't designed to take impact, a B-25 hit the empire state prior to the construction of the wtc, so,it would make sense to assume they would make it capable of withstanding such force. the only person I know that Say's the tower was not designed to survive plane impacts is the architect.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Leslie Robertson, chief structural engineer said it was designed to survive plane impacts, if it wasn't, than it would have tipped over.The building was constructed with carbon steel which sways on impact, also, it makes no sense that it wasn't designed to take impact, a B-25 hit the empire state prior to the construction of the wtc, so,it would make sense to assume they would make it capable of withstanding such force. the only person I know that Say's the tower was not designed to survive plane impacts is the architect.
Yes, it was made so the building would not tip over, from an Indirect hit, with a Pilot attempting to land, and not at full speed.
A B-25 is about half the size of a 767 give or take. Plus the pilot was trying to move it away
I'll try and find that vid of the Slow Motion N Tower collapse
Here's one, I'll try and find a better quality, closer view from the other side
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4965356265227042415&q=North+Tower+Collapse&auto=true
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Yes, it was made so the building would not tip over, from an Indirect hit, with a Pilot attempting to land, and not at full speed.A B-25 is about half the size of a 767 give or take. Plus the pilot was trying to move it away
I'll try and find that vid of the Slow Motion N Tower collapse
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Your not getting my point, time and time again, it has been said that a plane alone is not the culprit. this is what I'm saying.
You are correct, it is not, the Fire can weaken the Supports, which then caused the top to fall on it
I just realised these are Conspiracy Vids, but not the point, if you look at it yourself, the Tower is falling from the top down, not down and up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2638975558038550089&q=North+WTC+collapsing
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&q=North+WTC+falls
This one shows that it fell because of the hole in the Tower
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
And we agree, the plane, the speed of impact, the fire, the lack of proper fire proofing....
That's were the anomally lies, jet fuel ignites quickly, but also burns quickly. like I said before😮ne plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., Then by 9:03 a.m. , the second plane hit the northn tower the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen. But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower. a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) ,melted the steel. the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.
the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 even carry that much fuel?
Note:you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's were the anomally lies, jet fuel ignites quickly, but also burns quickly. like I said before😮ne plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., Then by 9:03 a.m. , the second plane hit the northn tower the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen. But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower. a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) ,melted the steel. the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 even carry that much fuel?
Note:you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.
Official explanation, from Firefighters and what not, there was still stuff in the building that burned, Furniture being the biggest. The fire could have gone on for a LONG time after, the temperatures could have easily weakened the Steel if it had gone on for a little longer
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Official explanation, from Firefighters and what not, there was still stuff in the building that burned, Furniture being the biggest. The fire could have gone on for a LONG time after, the temperatures could have easily weakened the Steel if it had gone on for a little longer
You missed the point, how did oxygen starved fire reach temperutes to magically melt still in 104 minutes, and again, jet fuel ignites quickly, but burns out quickly. how do you explain the sooty fire, or the fact that the entire steel frame gave out. how does jet fuel melt 200,000 ton steel frame in 104 minutes with a oxygen deprived fire?
And why hasn't a building fallen due to fire in the history of mankind?