Tears dont cut it Mr. President

[brk53y]

More Interesting Theories;

1\. The footage of Americans landing on the moon was fake.
2\. Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy.
3\. Elvis and Hitler are both still alove and living somewhere in South America

Ah I see what you did there.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Yossarian]

Your right yoss to suggest planes didn't hit the towers is ridiculous. I don't buy into the laser weapons theory either. But I don't believe that the damage from the planes is what causes the towers to fall
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Okay well that's up to you. There are some excellent reviews of what happened by engineers though. Not government people or people pushing an agenda, just academics studying the evidence.

To quote Bazant and Verdure

The combination of seven effects— 1 Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution; 2 overheating due to loss of steel insulation; 3 drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat; 4 lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses; 5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors; 6 multistory bowing of some columns for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling ; and 7 local plastic buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of columns Fig. 1 b . As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower.

 

[stryker]

Your right yoss to suggest planes didn't hit the towers is ridiculous. I don't buy into the laser weapons theory either. But I don't believe that the damage from the planes is what causes the towers to fall
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

I agree. He's just twisting our words now. Neither of us ever said planes didnt hit those buildings. However you have to be extraordinarily gullible to believe that the planes hitting the tops of those towers made them fall like that.

 

[happy_tiger]

Your right yoss to suggest planes didn't hit the towers is ridiculous. I don't buy into the laser weapons theory either. But I don't believe that the damage from the planes is what causes the towers to fall
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Okay well that's up to you. There are some excellent reviews of what happened by engineers though. Not government people or people pushing an agenda, just academics studying the evidence.

To quote Bazant and Verdure

The combination of seven effects— 1 Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution; 2 overheating due to loss of steel insulation; 3 drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat; 4 lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses; 5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors; 6 multistory bowing of some columns for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling ; and 7 local plastic buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of columns Fig. 1 b . As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower.

Yoss is right

No 2 is the main reason that the Towers fell

 

[Yossarian]

Your right yoss to suggest planes didn't hit the towers is ridiculous. I don't buy into the laser weapons theory either. But I don't believe that the damage from the planes is what causes the towers to fall
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

I agree. He's just twisting our words now. Neither of us ever said planes didnt hit those buildings. However you have to be extraordinarily gullible to believe that the planes hitting the tops of those towers made them fall like that.

I'm not twisting anything but why bother rigging a building with explosives if you're going to ram planes into it? That makes no sense to me. Like people would be prepared to let that slide but when the buildings collapsed it pushed them over the edge?

No not gullible, just relying on the careful analysis of the data which I've laid out. You can choose to ignore the great bulk of the engineering community if you want to. If you destroy the internal support of a building (remember that's where the core support for the WTC buildings were) and set it on fire it will collapse.

 

[stryker]

That could well be the reason Happy but the planes didnt cause that…for gods sakes...there are explosions caught on camera seconds before both towers fall, which by the way took 8 seconds each.Newtons law of physics clearly states free fall speed cannot be obtained with resistance below it. Yet the top of the towers fell and increased speed ignoring the resistance below. Tower 7 then collapsed at free fall speed without an airliner even touching it.

 

[stryker]

why bother rigging a building with explosives if you're going to ram planes into it? That makes no sense to me.

Well if you are open to exploring alternate theories to what the government says, it can make perfect sense. The planes were a cover and they were a trigger to start a war that is still ongoing today.

 

[brk53y]

Agreed Stryker, explosions are clearly visible before they come down.

Happy when you watch the video of the towers coming down does it look natural to you? That a tower 110 odd storeys high can collapse on itself? Like I've said I could be wrong but it doesn't make sense to me. Surely the side that was impacted by the plane would have sustained more damage, therefore causing it to eventually fall towards the more damaged side?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[tigermaniac]

Didn't G W Bush once say, you can fool some of the people some of the time
BUT
You can't fool all the people all the time.
What was that suppose to mean.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[happy_tiger]

That could well be the reason Happy but the planes didnt cause that…for gods sakes...there are explosions caught on camera seconds before both towers fall, which by the way took 8 seconds each.Newtons law of physics clearly states free fall speed cannot be obtained with resistance below it. Yet the top of the towers fell and increased speed ignoring the resistance below. Tower 7 then collapsed at free fall speed without an airliner even touching it.

Stryker it would of been so easy to test your theory and if there is any legitimacy to it

All they do is test the remains and rubble and they could quite easily tell whether it was caused by explosives or the planes causing terminal damage caused by striking the buildings

My missus works for an engineering firm and I put this question at a Xmas party about 5 years ago to the structural boys They all agreed without question . I have never seen a video where the explosions occur beforehand . The problem is everything that is happening before the collapse is occurring in the cores of the buildings and is not visible

 

[brk53y]

That could well be the reason Happy but the planes didnt cause that…for gods sakes...there are explosions caught on camera seconds before both towers fall, which by the way took 8 seconds each.Newtons law of physics clearly states free fall speed cannot be obtained with resistance below it. Yet the top of the towers fell and increased speed ignoring the resistance below. Tower 7 then collapsed at free fall speed without an airliner even touching it.

Stryker it would of been so easy to test your theory and if there is any legitimacy to it

All they do is test the remains and rubble and they could quite easily tell whether it was caused by explosives or the planes causing terminal damage caused by striking the buildings

My missus works for an engineering firm and I put this question at a Xmas party about 5 years ago to the structural boys They all agreed without question . I have never seen a video where the explosions occur beforehand . The problem is everything that is happening before the collapse is occurring in the cores of the buildings and is not visible

Have a closer look at the videos happy.

I work with mechanical engineers and demolition experts and the majority of them agree that it looks like the towers are brought down by controlled implosion.

Everyone will have a differing opinion. Who is correct we may never know
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[happy_tiger]

That could well be the reason Happy but the planes didnt cause that…for gods sakes...there are explosions caught on camera seconds before both towers fall, which by the way took 8 seconds each.Newtons law of physics clearly states free fall speed cannot be obtained with resistance below it. Yet the top of the towers fell and increased speed ignoring the resistance below. Tower 7 then collapsed at free fall speed without an airliner even touching it.

Stryker it would of been so easy to test your theory and if there is any legitimacy to it

All they do is test the remains and rubble and they could quite easily tell whether it was caused by explosives or the planes causing terminal damage caused by striking the buildings

My missus works for an engineering firm and I put this question at a Xmas party about 5 years ago to the structural boys They all agreed without question . I have never seen a video where the explosions occur beforehand . The problem is everything that is happening before the collapse is occurring in the cores of the buildings and is not visible

Have a closer look at the videos happy.

I work with mechanical engineers and demolition experts and the majority of them agree that it looks like the towers are brought down by controlled implosion.

Everyone will have a differing opinion. Who is correct we may never know
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

What's to say all the internal issues didn't conspire to perfect the building to literally implode

I love a good conspiracy theory I believe the real reason the NRL brought in 2 referees was to control the results of games

I'm more interested in the 2 gunman theory at Port Arthur tbh What Stryker said about strike rates of Bryant intrigues me and I have read stuff , but nothing from the survivors from Port Arthur The point I was trying to make in my post before about most people running away is that the sounds reverebrating off different objects could make it sound like shots were coming from different directions Unless someone had seen something I would discount the theory personally

 

[brk53y]

That could well be the reason Happy but the planes didnt cause that…for gods sakes...there are explosions caught on camera seconds before both towers fall, which by the way took 8 seconds each.Newtons law of physics clearly states free fall speed cannot be obtained with resistance below it. Yet the top of the towers fell and increased speed ignoring the resistance below. Tower 7 then collapsed at free fall speed without an airliner even touching it.

Stryker it would of been so easy to test your theory and if there is any legitimacy to it

All they do is test the remains and rubble and they could quite easily tell whether it was caused by explosives or the planes causing terminal damage caused by striking the buildings

My missus works for an engineering firm and I put this question at a Xmas party about 5 years ago to the structural boys They all agreed without question . I have never seen a video where the explosions occur beforehand . The problem is everything that is happening before the collapse is occurring in the cores of the buildings and is not visible

Have a closer look at the videos happy.

I work with mechanical engineers and demolition experts and the majority of them agree that it looks like the towers are brought down by controlled implosion.

Everyone will have a differing opinion. Who is correct we may never know
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

What's to say all the internal issues didn't conspire to perfect the building to literally implode

I love a good conspiracy theory I believe the real reason the NRL brought in 2 referees was to control the results of games

I'm more interested in the 2 gunman theory at Port Arthur tbh What Stryker said about strike rates of Bryant intrigues me and I have read stuff , but nothing from the survivors from Port Arthur The point I was trying to make in my post before about most people running away is that the sounds reverebrating off different objects could make it sound like shots were coming from different directions Unless someone had seen something I would discount the theory personally

I suppose it's possible happy who knows ay?

All I'm saying is it makes sense to me that the US government was involved ( how heavily I don't know) in what happened that day to make their case for a war on terror and to enter Iraq and Afghanistan.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[happy_tiger]

It did , but what have they got from invading Iraq and Afghanistan

Jack didddly squat if you ask me

The minute they abandon they will both be back exactly the way they were within 2 years

The Russians couldn't get the Afghanis to submit ,the Americans can't either

 

[Yossarian]

Just to make a few comments on issues raised on this page:

The appearance of something exploding doesn't mean their are explosives present. What appears to be things exploding are objects being forced out at pressure. Put some stuff in a box and then smash it and things will be launched out.

Weight baring down on something will cause it to collapse unless their is sufficient resistance to support that weight. Same reason why a fat man breaks a chair.

The building doesn't collapse where the plain went in because buildings (well that one at least) aren't designed that way. What held that building up were the internal core supports. That's what the plane damaged. When the fire weakened everything else the damage to the supports meant the floors couldn't support themselves. As each floor collapse more weight comes onto the remaining floors. If floor 84 can't support the weight above it, floors 1-83 are no chance.

WTC7 was collateral damage. It caught fire and the fire couldn't be put out. Rather than collapse at free fall speed the process to a hell of a long time.

 

[brk53y]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[happy_tiger]

These photos you mention , can you post one

I had numerous looks and saw nothing

I just can't believe that You Tube can let the photos of people falling from the WTC be displayed

That is disgraceful to put it mildly

 

[Guest]

If the yanks set up 9/11 themselves and killed 3000 of their own just to invade Afghanistan then that'll do me.

 

[happy_tiger]

If the yanks set up 9/11 themselves and killed 3000 of their own just to invade Afghanistan then that'll do me.

But why invade either Iraq or Afghanistan anyway ??

 

[brk53y]

Happy if you have a spare half hour or so read this article. Type into google the destruction of the world trade centre - global research
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_