|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:57 pm
Stuch Moonlite Symphony I would like to know why the fuel exploded twice...It woul;d ignite correct? But it would take long for almost all the fuel to be ignite, so why did each plain explode more than once?
Seriouisly if there is a specific dynamic to this I'd like to know. The second explosions spoken of by witnesses could have been backdrafting - people opening doors onto the fires giving them a rush of oxygen. The plane would have had more than one fuel tank, it's possible that one survived a crash only to be ignited later. Or perhaps it could have been something explosive within the building, fuel storage for back up generators etc. Moonlite Symphony I'm also wondering why the building fell almost perfectly straight down...
Because demoltion teams are trained to make that happen, just blowing a hole in a building at ant point doesn't cause straight fall. It takes years of training to understand exactly how to make a building go down as clean as that one did...So to me it looks either VERY well planned or the worlds most extrodinary coincidence...TWICE.. It does take demoltion teams years to understand how to make a building fall straight down, safely. The towers did fall straight down, but not as though they had been demolished. Too much rubble and dust came away mid-collapse - when a building is demolished, they minimise this by demolishing it from the bottom. When building any skyscraper, the engineers design it so that it will fall in on itself and then straight down, otherwise you would have some kind of dominoe effect - building after building after building. The trade centers outer columns were all connected to the inner core, any outward horizontal movment would have been countered by the connections with the floor joists. The building survived the initial imapct of the plane. When it gave way, the only horizontal forces acting on it were light winds, which we can call negligable. So the forces which caused the collapse were the buildings on loading, which only acts in one direction. Down. Had, when the top section gave way, the floor below been able to take the extra loading, the collapse would have halted and the section would have rotated horizontally and fallen away down the side of the building. As it was, the floor gave and each floor below that gave. A smooth, straight down collapse. Exactly as it was designed to do. That is to say, exactly as it was designed to collapse should the situation arise.
But I wonder about that.
Yes the only horizontal force was wind, but the damage was on the side...So like a tree getting chunked in the side...it doesn't just fall straight. down.
That's a very different thing, but I suppose it illustrates the point, a great deal of damage put on one side of the building would create a balance issue wouldn't it?
And yes in conventional controlled demo there is less debris and it blows bottom up...but thinkign for a moment that this WAS intentional...
Why would they WANT it to look like a demo? They wouldn't. They would make it blow in a way that fit the situation as planned, but still went down desireably.
And if one building was pre-set for demo, is it hard to think that others were as well?
So yes MAYBE the wonderfull variables of the situation could have been just right for a straight fall...but it's doubtable.
Besides other things make the entire situation seem shady. There is a documentary that covers the following point, the name of which I forget, and by whom. But I'll try and find it.
Why was NORAD(I believe it is) conducting a drill on the EXACT THING THAT HAPPENED? On the very same day? Are they so good at foresight that they're practicing what to do on that day, that event at those times?
I'm never going to say with absolute certainty what DID happen. But the government has NEVER been honest about all of it and because of that I have a tendency to think they're doing plenty of lying.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:34 pm
people now don't care much for how long something last. i also think that the buildings weren't fully stable. but reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:45 pm
Moonlite Symphony And yes in conventional controlled demo there is less debris and it blows bottom up...but thinkign for a moment that this WAS intentional... Why would they WANT it to look like a demo? They wouldn't. They would make it blow in a way that fit the situation as planned, but still went down desireably. And if one building was pre-set for demo, is it hard to think that others were as well? You're slipping into pure speculation here. Moonlite Symphony So yes MAYBE the wonderfull variables of the situation could have been just right for a straight fall...but it's doubtable. You're missing the point. Skyscrapers are designed to fall straight down in the event of a collapse. The only way that tower would not have fallen straight down would have been if the horizontal force of the plane had been above what it was designed to sustain. It was reasonably damaged on one side, but the extra strain would have been taken by all the surrounding perimeter columns. Any rotation caused by the top section would have been cancelled out by the internal columns and floor joists. Quote: Besides other things make the entire situation seem shady. There is a documentary that covers the following point, the name of which I forget, and by whom. But I'll try and find it. Why was NORAD(I believe it is) conducting a drill on the EXACT THING THAT HAPPENED? On the very same day? Are they so good at foresight that they're practicing what to do on that day, that event at those times? I'm never going to say with absolute certainty what DID happen. But the government has NEVER been honest about all of it and because of that I have a tendency to think they're doing plenty of lying. It's called Loose Change. And its claims about the collapse of the towers are rather laughable. I have already said I will not be discussing the whos, wheres and whys of the collapse. Just the facts of how it happened with a healthy dose of evidence and common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:23 pm
Stuch Moonlite Symphony And yes in conventional controlled demo there is less debris and it blows bottom up...but thinkign for a moment that this WAS intentional... Why would they WANT it to look like a demo? They wouldn't. They would make it blow in a way that fit the situation as planned, but still went down desireably. And if one building was pre-set for demo, is it hard to think that others were as well? You're slipping into pure speculation here. Moonlite Symphony So yes MAYBE the wonderfull variables of the situation could have been just right for a straight fall...but it's doubtable. You're missing the point. Skyscrapers are designed to fall straight down in the event of a collapse. The only way that tower would not have fallen straight down would have been if the horizontal force of the plane had been above what it was designed to sustain. It was reasonably damaged on one side, but the extra strain would have been taken by all the surrounding perimeter columns. Any rotation caused by the top section would have been cancelled out by the internal columns and floor joists. Quote: Besides other things make the entire situation seem shady. There is a documentary that covers the following point, the name of which I forget, and by whom. But I'll try and find it. Why was NORAD(I believe it is) conducting a drill on the EXACT THING THAT HAPPENED? On the very same day? Are they so good at foresight that they're practicing what to do on that day, that event at those times? I'm never going to say with absolute certainty what DID happen. But the government has NEVER been honest about all of it and because of that I have a tendency to think they're doing plenty of lying. It's called Loose Change. And its claims about the collapse of the towers are rather laughable. I have already said I will not be discussing the whos, wheres and whys of the collapse. Just the facts of how it happened with a healthy dose of evidence and common sense.
Because there are PLEANTY of films on the subject.
I suppose my problem in assuming such a tall building would fall straight is a lack of demonstration. If someone could demonstrate that the principles of construction you described worked...Then it would be more possible in my eyes.
But I still feel the thought on backdrafts causing secondary explosions is VERY unlikely...
Because the same backdraft in both towers causing second explosions of the same fuel? How was the fuel dripping that it would explode more than once.
And I MIGHT be wrong because I never studied it thouroughly. But don't they try and design fuel tanks and fuel to avoid the possibility of such massive explosion in a case of crashing?
a side note, this IS about the towers but I've never seen anyone try to reasonably explain the pentagon.
I guess my big problem is that no matter what everything about the entire incident seems speculative...even more so because all the evidence is gone. They were two VERY individual buildings in a fairly unique situation. I DO know that "the best layed plans of mice and men go oft astray." Which I bring up because, technology doesn't always work like it's supposed to, and even more in the world of destruction of it were many uncontrolable variables. And more often than not the tested variables are lied about because no one thinks they actually matter, so they can do construction anyway.
So yeah, I AM being very speculative. But I also down know all the hard physics and design principles that went into the buildings and their fall. I've not studied demo. intensively. So I wont admit any amount of special knowledge, but I do want to add any reasonable question to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:58 pm
 I recently found this image on the Popular Mechanics website. It shows the beginning of the South Tower collapse. And it can be cleary seen that the tower is not falling straight down but it collapsing towards one corner. This is because the plane hit he building diagonally, taking out one corner of the inner core. Unlike the North Tower which was hit dead on by the plane. The fact that the top section tilted before collapsing shows that the failure experienced enough resistance to cause a rotation in the building itself, unlike the zero resistance within a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:36 pm
Moonlite Symphony a side note, this IS about the towers but I've never seen anyone try to reasonably explain the pentagon. Bet they don't show this photo in the conspiracy videos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:39 am
[quote="Stuch]
So what are they?
Okay, you have 100,000 tonnes of rubble falling onto remaining floors. Everything is shaking. The perimeter columns and those of the inner core and being pounded again and again as subsequent floors give way. This compresses them at such a rate that the air within rooms and hallways becomes compressed - not having time to creep out underneath doors etc. This compressed air, mixed with the increased pressure imposed on the windows frames means that the glass just gives way and the air simply pops out of the window, along with any dust and small rubble caused by the constant structural movement.
you should go on one of thos conspiracy thoerists websites and bow their asses up.... although the construction was probly a conspiracy!! :O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
