OmegaBlack
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 31
- Points
- 28
^dork
-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
More 9/11 talk
- Thread starter Mandingo
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
Troy Wingate said:
Now you are questioning whether commercial planes hit the towers? There are a dozen videos of commercial planes flying into the towers. Tell me your joking!!
The buildings collapsed straight down because they are 90% air. Once one floor failed and collapsed the floor beneath it couldn't sustain all the load and it failed and so on. It's a pancaking effect. There was ZERO chance of them falling over like a tree which is a solid object.
cdt
Winter Is Here
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2005
- Messages
- 22,273
- Reaction score
- 9,758
- Points
- 113
It just seems weird. Both sides make sense, Dingo's tree example, whichever side sustains the biggest blow thats where it will fall and Maximus' pancake effect.
But I beleive the building should have collapsed this way...
The floors should have started pancaking after a certain point due to the impact and just the overall pounding the building took. The floors above where the airplane hit should have pancaked and fallen forward toward where the plane came from. Below where the plane hit should have fallen back the opposite direction and fallen back.
But I beleive the building should have collapsed this way...
The floors should have started pancaking after a certain point due to the impact and just the overall pounding the building took. The floors above where the airplane hit should have pancaked and fallen forward toward where the plane came from. Below where the plane hit should have fallen back the opposite direction and fallen back.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
Here's an interesting article from Popular Mechanics -
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
Here's one of the myths they analyzed -
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
Here's one of the myths they analyzed -
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...r+windows.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP/WIDE+WORLD+PHOTOS
If you look at this photo, the top did tip to the side a bit. But then the pancaking effect kicked in and the building was pulverized.....again b/c unlike a tree it's 90% air. This is why the 110 story buildings were reduced to only a few stories of rubble.
If you look at this photo, the top did tip to the side a bit. But then the pancaking effect kicked in and the building was pulverized.....again b/c unlike a tree it's 90% air. This is why the 110 story buildings were reduced to only a few stories of rubble.
Maximus said:
Now you are questioning whether commercial planes hit the towers? There are a dozen videos of commercial planes flying into the towers. Tell me your joking!!
The buildings collapsed straight down because they are 90% air. Once one floor failed and collapsed the floor beneath it couldn't sustain all the load and it failed and so on. It's a pancaking effect. There was ZERO chance of them falling over like a tree which is a solid object.
all the people that were on board were robots or clones, there sole purpose in life was to die on 9/11. how the hell can you see a commercial logo from the ground??
cdt
Winter Is Here
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2005
- Messages
- 22,273
- Reaction score
- 9,758
- Points
- 113
I'll never forget that day..7th grade. Beautiful day out. Regardless of what happened that day was awful. I'll never forget I woke up at 5:30 with the worst stomache ache I've ever had and my mom told me just stay home. So after I was completely empty I crashed from 6-8:45ish. Woke up surfed the channels and felt actually pretty good and was bummed that it was so nice out and I'd have to stay inside all day even If I felt better.
My parents had gone out to breakfast that morning and got back around 9. They brought me a little food home so I came upstairs to eat it and watch sportscenter for the 4th time that morning. As I was flipping through to get to ESPN I saw all this smoke coming out of this huge building. It was all over CNN and I figured it was like a small fire or something in downtown Cleveland. I watched for a bit and told my parents some Airplanes hit the World Trade Centers which I had seen but didn't really know much about.
They said yeah right go back and lay down so I did. Then they called me down and were like wow so you weren't lying, at the time rumors were running rampant and local news were throwing out ideas of planes hitting the Perry Nuclear Power Plant so my mom picked up my brother from school and we basically just watched the news all day.
Sorry it's kinda off topic but seeing those pictures just made me recollect everything from that day..
My parents had gone out to breakfast that morning and got back around 9. They brought me a little food home so I came upstairs to eat it and watch sportscenter for the 4th time that morning. As I was flipping through to get to ESPN I saw all this smoke coming out of this huge building. It was all over CNN and I figured it was like a small fire or something in downtown Cleveland. I watched for a bit and told my parents some Airplanes hit the World Trade Centers which I had seen but didn't really know much about.
They said yeah right go back and lay down so I did. Then they called me down and were like wow so you weren't lying, at the time rumors were running rampant and local news were throwing out ideas of planes hitting the Perry Nuclear Power Plant so my mom picked up my brother from school and we basically just watched the news all day.
Sorry it's kinda off topic but seeing those pictures just made me recollect everything from that day..