You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: September 11 2001
Well usually building elements and systems aren't tested too withstand passenger jets flying into them...lol
Fire - check
Earthquake - check
Flood - check
Tidal forces - check
High winds - check
Air plane resistance ..... No
And which one of those carries the highest amount of force? Surely not the man made option.
I also remember the WTC actually being constructed to withstand 2 airplane crashes. Think it became a consideration after the ESB incident.
Re: September 11 2001
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
And this is where it becomes obvious that none of you have any idea what you're talking about. The towers were in fact designed to withstand passenger jet impacts like those on September 11, 2001. All those buildings were purposely over engineered and built to last. Yet somehow, they all amazingly pancaked collapsed into their own footprint. First time in history steel structures collapsed due to fire.
And feel free to explain how an untrained little terrorist guy flew over The Pentagon lawn at 500 mph without as so much leaving a scratch on it? It's The Pentagon and there's no videos of it or pics? And after all that planning, the terrorists fly a plane into the unoccupied wing? They supposedly hit light poles on the way in, but nothing fell off the plane?
So once again, there's quite a few events that transpired that day that defy the basic laws of physics. And besides the physics part, untrained arabs flying those planes like that is so beyond far fetched. If any of you want to actually look into it, instead of mocking or discrediting someone who disagrees with you...I think you'll all be shocked at what you find.
Re: September 11 2001
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
And this is where it becomes obvious that none of you have any idea what you're talking about. The towers were in fact designed to withstand passenger jet impacts like those on September 11, 2001. All those buildings were purposely over engineered and built to last. Yet somehow, they all amazingly pancaked collapsed into their own footprint. First time in history steel structures collapsed due to fire.
And feel free to explain how an untrained little terrorist guy flew over The Pentagon lawn at 500 mph without as so much leaving a scratch on it? It's The Pentagon and there's no videos of it or pics? And after all that planning, the terrorists fly a plane into the unoccupied wing? They supposedly hit light poles on the way in, but nothing fell off the plane?
So once again, there's quite a few events that transpired that day that defy the basic laws of physics. And besides the physics part, untrained arabs flying those planes like that is so beyond far fetched. If any of you want to actually look into it, instead of mocking or discrediting someone who disagrees with you...I think you'll all be shocked at what you find.
LOL - this is hilarious. The buildings didn't collapse due to a simple fire. Johnny's office garbage can wasn't burning. Priceless. See, people have posted all kinds of evidence and links supporting what happened. None of those are given any credibility, but all these consipracy theory sites are the bible of what happened that day? Right, because THEY don't have an agenda.
The pilots were trained. If you weren't so busy reading up on conspiracy theories you'd know that. And maybe there are no pictures of a plance crashing at the Pentagon, but there aren't any pictures of anything else hitting it either, or any reports of anything else hitting it. So are you saying the building just blew up and the plane that supposedly hit it is still flying around somewhere?
As soon as you can tell me exactly where all of the planes and the people on the planes went, I'll consider looking into your "theories" some more. Until then, it's nothing but a bunch of propaganda given to you by someone with an agenda.
Re: September 11 2001
Neemo wrote:Well usually building elements and systems aren't tested too withstand passenger jets flying into them...lol
Fire - check
Earthquake - check
Flood - check
Tidal forces - check
High winds - check
Air plane resistance ..... NoAnd which one of those carries the highest amount of force? Surely not the man made option.
I also remember the WTC actually being constructed to withstand 2 airplane crashes. Think it became a consideration after the ESB incident.
If they were designed for that then I stand corrected
I would wager a guess that the man made one would be the highest "concentrated" force, but I don't know for sure
How long did the buildings burn before collapse? Anyone know?
edit....Buildings were prolly designed for progressive collapse too to minimize dangers to surrounding bldgs
Re: September 11 2001
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
And this is where it becomes obvious that none of you have any idea what you're talking about. The towers were in fact designed to withstand passenger jet impacts like those on September 11, 2001. All those buildings were purposely over engineered and built to last. Yet somehow, they all amazingly pancaked collapsed into their own footprint. First time in history steel structures collapsed due to fire.
And feel free to explain how an untrained little terrorist guy flew over The Pentagon lawn at 500 mph without as so much leaving a scratch on it? It's The Pentagon and there's no videos of it or pics? And after all that planning, the terrorists fly a plane into the unoccupied wing? They supposedly hit light poles on the way in, but nothing fell off the plane?
So once again, there's quite a few events that transpired that day that defy the basic laws of physics. And besides the physics part, untrained arabs flying those planes like that is so beyond far fetched. If any of you want to actually look into it, instead of mocking or discrediting someone who disagrees with you...I think you'll all be shocked at what you find.
That's all well and good, but like Buzz said, nobody has provided any legitimate alternate storylines for the day. At least not that I've read. All these conspiracy theories have just as many holes, if not MANY more, than the "actual events".
Re: September 11 2001
How long did the buildings burn before collapse? Anyone know?
edit....Buildings were prolly designed for progressive collapse too to minimize dangers to surrounding bldgs
The South Tower collapsed first even though the North Tower was hit first.
The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. after burning for 56 minutes
The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. after burning for 102 minutes
Re: September 11 2001
They were designed with airplane hits in mind, that is correct. A B-25 Mitchell bomber flew into the Empire state building in in 1947 or something, and they had that in mind. It impacted due to low and dense fog and the pilot made mistakes.
But of course, they did not foresee packed jet airliners with tons and tons of fuel in them crashing into it. No one was able to foresee a disaster of this magnitude, which is also why the conspiracy theories show up; the scenario is too unthinkable which means people go looking for an explenation that is not there.
Re: September 11 2001
yeah 102 minutes isnt a very good performance for fire ratings in a building that large....should be at least 120...but who knows how much the fire protection was damaged or how much the structural integrity was compromised when the planes ripped through there
DCK how does a B-25 bomber compare to the jets that hit the building (size, weight and speed) also does jet fuel burn hotter than a normal fire?
i dunno...i still say that an impact like that and a constant burn on a compromised structure isnt gonna be good for anyone and when like 10 -20 floors of a bldg come down at once on top of other floors the structure isnt gonna like that too much either
Re: September 11 2001
A B-25 is nothing compared to 737's and those marks above that. The amount of jet fuel in a filled up 737 is massive. The impact is massive. A B-25 would be a mediocre fart compared to it, even if a B-25 is indeed a medium range bomber from WW2.
I guess the towers could handle a B-25, maybe a B-17 or a DC-3 or DC-4 But to protect buildings against 737 modern airliners with so much jet fuel, it's nearly impossible.
