Plane Crash in Manhattan - Calling Researchers!

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The steel was at most 50%, the fires were not hot enough. I already provided proof with the smoke.

That's funny, according to you, a building which is designed to hold 5 times it's maximum weight capacity. Magically, collapsed under it's on weight. Unless there was a marching band and 20 grand piano's with elephants, I don't see how you can.

And of course no solid explanation on the structural behavor of the towers.

Each floor is built to hold the floor above it, by way of Engineering, it holds up the entire thing. When about 10 floors fall onto 1, that weight capacity, which is 1/4 Destroyed, and about 50% weakened, comes down, and then the Pancake Effect comes into play, of course with the North Tower, it just fell down.

Explosives could not have done this again, it fell top to bottom, and if they had been placed where the Plane hit, they would have gone off prematurely, and it would go down instantly

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Each floor is built to hold the floor above it, by way of Engineering, it holds up the entire thing.

That's not how the towers were build sadly, and even if they were, why would the floors fall under their own weight when they are designed to hold much more times than their own limit?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger

When about 10 floors fall onto 1, that weight capacity, which is 1/4 Destroyed, and about 50% weakened, comes down, and then the Pancake Effect comes into play, of course with the North Tower, it just fell down.

To bad the towers were not built that way, the central column is what supports the towers. The floors don't really support the weight of the building. ad how does that explain a building falling from it's own weight, when it's designed to hold 5 times more?

The steel at most was weakned 60%, yet fell gave up under it's own weight?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger

Explosives could not have done this again, it fell top to bottom, and if they had been placed where the Plane hit, they would have gone off prematurely, and it would go down instantly

why would they be placed where the plane hits, your supposed to place them near the base of a building, Not at the very top.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Inconceivable!

Is it...conceivable?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The steel was at most 50%, the fires were not hot enough. I already provided proof with the smoke.

That's funny, according to you, a building which is designed to hold 5 times it's maximum weight capacity. Magically, collapsed under it's on weight. Unless there was a marching band and 20 grand piano's with elephants, I don't see how you can.

And of course no solid explanation on the structural behavor of the towers.

now what was it you were telling me ashtar about ignoring Krieger? seems your not listening to your own advise? this guy does nothing but troll all the time,he's not interested in knowing the truth about 9-11,stop taking his bait.thats all he does is try to bait people and you took his bait.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
now what was it you were telling me ashtar about ignoring Krieger? seems your not listening to your own advise? this guy does nothing but troll all the time,he's not interested in knowing the truth about 9-11,stop taking his bait.thats all he does is try to bait people and you took his bait.

Yeah, I contradicted myself, my bad.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's not how the towers were build sadly, and even if they were, why would the floors fall under their own weight when they are designed to hold much more times than their own limit?

To bad the towers were not built that way, the central column is what supports the towers. The floors don't really support the weight of the building. ad how does that explain a building falling from it's own weight, when it's designed to hold 5 times more?

The steel at most was weakned 60%, yet fell gave up under it's own weight?

why would they be placed where the plane hits, your supposed to place them near the base of a building, Not at the very top.

1.)They were not built for it to collapse above them
2.)5 times more? Do the Math, 1/4 destroyed on about 4 floors, and the Structure weakened to 50%, 10 floors at least falling from above.
3.)Considering how we proved the Building fell top to bottom, instead of Bottom to top, the only place Explosives COULD have been placed, was at the area where the Plane hit, since that's where the building Collapsed

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
1.)They were not built for it to collapse above them
2.)5 times more? Do the Math, 1/4 destroyed on about 4 floors, and the Structure weakened to 50%, 10 floors at least falling from above.
3.)Considering how we proved the Building fell top to bottom, instead of Bottom to top, the only place Explosives COULD have been placed, was at the area where the Plane hit, since that's where the building Collapsed

Wow, all these questions are really incompetent, especially the last one. Why would it matter if the explosives let off when the plane hit, obviously if they were explosives there it would be set to detonate as soon as the plane hit. So, how would the plane setting them off on impact be a bad thing?

Oh, and even if the building was reduced to 50% of it's original strength, it would still be able to support two and a half times it's load.

Common sense should tell you that if the steel structure is able to support 5 times it's rated load with 100% of it's load, than at half the strength it can carry half the load.

I've wasted enought time here, I'm done.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Wow, all these questions are really incompetent, especially the last one. Why would it matter if the explosives let off when the plane hit, obviously if they were explosives there it would be set to detonate as soon as the plane hit. So, how would the plane setting them off on impact be a bad thing?

Oh, and even if the building was reduced to 50% of it's original strength, it would still be able to support two and a half times it's load.

Common sense should tell you that if the steel structure is able to support 5 times it's rated load with 100% of it's load, than at half the strength it can carry half the load.

I've wasted enought time here, I'm done.

I don't believe I made a question.....

So wait, you're not doing the Explosives at the Bottom thing anymore? If explosives had been set to detonate when the Plane hit, the building would come down immediately.

2 and a half times it's load, again, the structure was made to hold up the floor above it, when about 10-15 floors come down on top of it, it can no longer hold, 1/4 of the structure is missing , 50% weakened, it can no longer hold the floors above it

You wasted it before you even got here....

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I don't believe I made a question.....

So wait, you're not doing the Explosives at the Bottom thing anymore? If explosives had been set to detonate when the Plane hit, the building would come down immediately.

2 and a half times it's load, again, the structure was made to hold up the floor above it, when about 10-15 floors come down on top of it, it can no longer hold, 1/4 of the structure is missing , 50% weakened, it can no longer hold the floors above it

You wasted it before you even got here....

🙁 Man krieger, how old are you?
Besides the fact that's not how the towers were even built, how would floors falling on floors change the weight it's designed to support?

Also, the lower you go the stronger the floors, since the lowest floors would be designed to support the most weight. So, how would floors falling suddenly effect that? (If they were built that way, since their not built that way)

And the building did come down almost immediaetly, you really need to think before you post.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
🙁 Man krieger, how old are you?
Besides the fact that's not how the towers were even built, how would floors falling on floors change the weight it's designed to support?

Also, the lower you go the stronger the floors, since the lowest floor would be designed to hold the most weight. So, how would floors falling suddenly effect that?

And the building did come down almost immediaetly, you really need to think before you post.

They were designed in the way that each floor held up the floor on top, when about 10 floors fall together in a Pancake way, it can no longer hold, the building falls

53 Minutes is Immediately? Wow, I must be slow

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
They were designed in the way that each floor held up the floor on top, when about 10 floors fall together in a Pancake way, it can no longer hold, the building falls

53 Minutes is Immediately? Wow, I must be slow

Ah, the pancake collapse, which has no scientific explanation behind it, Can you explain it.

And the towers weren't designed that way, like I said before.

Yeah, it was, consider the amount of explosives that would be needed to destroy the tallest building in the world. The chain reactiion from the plane impact wouldn't have been enough to reach the support columns which are pretty much underground.

you two do know thats what the 9-11 thread is for dont you?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
🙁 Man krieger, how old are you?
Besides the fact that's not how the towers were even built, how would floors falling on floors change the weight it's designed to support?

Also, the lower you go the stronger the floors, since the lowest floors would be designed to support the most weight. So, how would floors falling suddenly effect that? (If they were built that way, since their not built that way)

And the building did come down almost immediaetly, you really need to think before you post.

Thinking before he posts is something he obviously never does.well I know your going to keep responding to him here so something else you will have to explain to him is that all you got to do to see the obvious that it was exposives that were set off in the towers is look at all the photos of the towers that were taken afterwards and you can see huge holes coming from the bottom of the ground and that the place looks like a war zone.That is not a typical sight for what a building looks like when it collapses.It doesn look like a war zone.I have seen pics of buildings that collapsed in california due to earthquakes and they collapsed by tipping over sideways which is what the towers would have done if they indeed collapsed.Those buildings also received fire done to them and those buildings where they collapsed,in those photos,they hardly looked like a war zone like the towers did.again Darth just cant seem to grasp it that buildings that do collapse due to fires dont collapse FREEFALL instantly like the towers did.they tip over when they collapse and it doesnt happen freefall within seconds.Now when you set off explosives to buildings,it IS typical for the buildings to collapse freefall and for the place to look like a war zone.when they blew up the kingdom -the building where the seattle seahawks football team used to play,that building collapsed freefall like the towers did and looked like a a war zone had hit it.But darth never thinks before he posts so its useless explaining any of that to him.

anyways you two,you really need to take this over to the 9-11 thread if your going to continue it again.