You believe that having terrorists fly planes into 3 buildings is completely impossible? That is making a lot of assumptions. Certainly, they could have at least done so by pure luck? When you consider that these men most likely trained to the point that they could practically "do it with their eyes closed" then I would say that success is much more likely. Consider that this attack was motivated by religions beliefs (Beliefs that were so strong these men were ready to die for them) and I think that any sort of situational pressures would be overcome by their sheer determination to do the 'right' thing. To them, this was the greatest thing they could and would ever do. Therefore, I think they made their plan practically foolproof.
The only thing I can see stopping them from doing what they did is the laws of physics, but I have yet to see any hard numbers that say it would be physically impossible to fly a plane into a building like they did. Could you please cite your sources? (Honestly, I would like to read up on the final approach of Flight 11, 175, and 77)
Meh, I've grown quite bored of this thread. Honestly, I think you guys are going to believe whatever you want to believe and I'm going to believe in what I want to believe and we're never going to stop arguing about. I really think that what you see in the events depends on what you take away from what happened (you need to nitpick for details to support each view)
Name calling eh, nice. Look at the official report on how the plane aproached the Pentagon, watch a documentary or two. No i'm not saying the towers were impossible to hit, but the Pentagon aproach is laughable.
Let's say that they practiced it so they can do it with their eyes closed, would you hit the upper side of both buildings? Seriously, imagine Bin Laden watching that and going: face-palm "you morons, not the upper side!!"
The twin towers crashes are nothing special, I think we can all agree on that, but the Pentagon incident is different because there were only a few eyewitnesses (which seen different then the official data), and no video has been shown of it unlike the twin towers.
Maybe a "fu*k yeah, that's what happens when Americans show you who's the boss" kinda asset in the whole story. I watched United 93 though, awesome film and really, could be a real story, if everything else adds up, but so many stuff do not.
And i'm no freak too, just can't let go of this subject and would really want to see that point where we could all know what happened. Maybe it was 100% like that, we just don't have solid proofs.
why? how the flying **** can you not understand that, I am trying to lay it out as simple as possible... ok, to use a very oversimplified analogy... imagine someone standing on your shoulders. Their foot slips off your shoulder. what happens? they fall. pause. at this point they are falling, you are not... yet. They are slightly tilted in the air because their foot slipped off and they have rotated ever so slightly. Now resume. they fall on top of you, and your knees buckle or you bend at the waist and you hit the ground too. Buildings do not have knees though, so the overwhelming weight will cause the weakest points of the building below them to collapse. In this case, the building is symmetrical, so the floors collapse in an effect commonly referred to as "pancaking" in these arguments.
Now the foot slipping off is not precisely the same sort of collapse, because it rotates from a different point, but the effect is still the same.
You think mechanical structures can't sag with enough pressure? lol ok, this is getting laughable now. The construction of this building leaves it particularly vulnerable to sagging, as it is not a concrete structure. It is like a giant erector set, and when the steel heats up enough and is supporting enough weight... bye bye
Get a longish steel rod of a certain width and you can bend it with your hands. If the force is great enough on any bar or floor, it can and will bend, causing sagging of the floors first and the visible kink when the structure lets go.
Your entire argument seems to be that I can't possibly be who I say I am and that you know so much better without ever having done any of the math or even attempting to consider my input. I was trying to make this as easy to undestand as possible for you, and then when you complain about that and I give you a more in depth post you just laugh it off. wtf
Look up the college if you doubt the quality of the teaching there.
I know I said I wouldn't but I can't leave this...
Wow, is my first thought reading your response...
"You think mechanical structures can't sag with enough pressure? lol ok, this is getting laughable now." - Where did I say buildings can't sag? I was saying building 7 didn't sag at that kink like you suggested. I've seen enough footage and pictures to know what happened. If you think it sagged to create that kink then you are a crackpot... Watch the footage, the small structure at the top of building 7, can't remember what exactly it's called, but that disappears into the building, then the kink and within milliseconds the rest of the building is falling to the ground and is completely destroyed in 6-7 seconds. All this with very little movement to the north, south, east or west. I watched it and seen the pics from afterwards, it swayed very little on the way down. And it only slightly damaged the buildings close to it, which it towered over. So if, as you say, it leaned throughout the day, then I would imagine at least one of the buildings beside it(in which ever direction you suggest it was leaning. I presume it was in the direction of the towers as that's where the damage would be.) would have been heavily damaged.
"Your entire argument seems to be that I can't possibly be who I say I am and that you know so much better without ever having done any of the math or even attempting to consider my input." My entire argument? Get real, I'm here to discuss 911, not your education, but if I think your are BS'ing about it then of course I will mention it. And of course I considered your input, I read and responded to it. Also, you listened to a number of people who have had a lot more experience in the field of engineering and who have done, and will continue to do, more math with regards to structures and metals than you ever will and you call them crackpots. I think I treated you with a bit more respect than that. Well, until I got the impression you needed to lie to get a point across...
And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing... it's a bull sh!t theory...
That theory would be great if the plains hit at the middle. Your shoulders example doesn't add up, more acuratelly would be that a small dog stands on your shoulder, if the dog slips he wouldn't bring you down, would he?
|||||||| FIRE!!!! <------- plane went in here
[The | are the steel supports, btw!]
So you've got the structure still being held up, i.e. the compressive strength of the steel is still sufficient to hold up the building. At one point, the fire causes the strength of one steel support [probably] to fail, let's say it's the one closest to the "fire" in my diagram. At this instant of time this support failing means there is no longer sufficient strength to hold up the building, and it collapses. However it is this downwards force that causes the rest of the steel supports to also fail, basically at the same time [due to their lesser strength due to the fire and the now larger force acting upon them]. This failure would occur very quickly.
So it would be correct to say that upon the initial failure of one support, the top bit would collapse asymmetrically as there is still some upwards force on the LHS of the building. However due to the fact that the rest of the steel supports would then fail pretty damn quickly, it then turns into a symmetrical collapse as there is no force whatsoever holding them up.
i definitely find you a more credible source, and understand and believe what you are saying much more then st8.
i am loving this debate, not sure what side i am on just yet, but after this, i am very interested on what you guys have on the pentagon.
what i think you need to do to prove your qualifications (lying on the Internet is like...pointless anyways), is have a post saying what you think generally in terms everyone can understand, then make another half with engineer terms you talked about (that nobody would understand i believe you said)
Clearly I am doing a poor job explaining WTC7 - it is a much more complicated collapse than the two towers. let's try a different tact, letting someone else explain it for me. Pay special attention to the NIST video and the simulation images. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... re=player_embedded#at=67
Like I said it's commonly referred to as 'pancaking.' To think of what I'm describing as true pancaking (floors stack up on top of eachother) is a fallacy because the floors get pulverized by everything above it and add to the debris falling onto the next floor down. If you watch the videos, you can watch the debris be exploded out the side of the building slightly below where the support columns are still standing. This is because the support columns are the strongest thing in the building so they can withstand the debris a little longer and they are on the outside of the building so there is less material directly above them. Thus the pulverization of the floors outpaced the crushing of the support columns. It did not fall at free fall speed, it did take longer to destroy itself. Watch any video, look at any picture of the collapse of the two towers, and you can see rubble that is outpacing the fall of the tower.
Sections from the side falling past the building as it comes down - this is because the collapse of the building is slowed by hitting iteslf on the way down over and over:
It was an analogy to display the underlying physics in an easy to imagine scenario... I used people simply because in my experience most people have a more intuitive grasp of the physics of their own body than physical objects. I'm guessing this is because we (hopefully) move our body every day, and can feel the muscles moving to provide forces... now the rest of the system, specifically for the collapse of the lowers section is quite different, as I made a point to note. our joints are our weak spots in terms of sustaining a vertical force from above. In a building it's a different story, the weak sections are the floors first, followed by the structure. Now in terms of why we would be able to withstand a dog vs a human, that comes down to biomechanics. Our body is capable of producing an upwards force through the contraction of muscles. Put a weight bar on your back, your legs get tired faster because you are using muscles to push upwards. A building is incapable of producing an upwards force. Furthermore, it is not as flexible a system as our bodies, which would help dissipate and deflect some of the energy.
It is not a problem of whether the exact ratios of weight are right in the analogy - it is a matter of whether the weight above the lower object is enough to break the weakest link in the lower object.
essentially yes, that is what I'm saying. Of course the diagrams you drew are a much simpler version of the building structure, but I think that's about the best anyone can do illustrating with a keyboard Important to note that those rows are around the entire perimeter of the floors, with another set of supports in a column in the center of the building.
The support columns were not constructed the way many large buildings are. The columns were not concrete encased, which would have been a more effective method of fire prevention than the 2-hour-rated spray on fireproofing they used. If the columns had been concrete encased, I think there would have been a much less chance it came down, all other things being equal.
It's a picture of my cock
Have you ever tried to type the necessary variables and math equations on a computer? it's tedious, I try to avoid it as much as possible. Besides, I could fake that too if I was really determined to live a charade on this forum and this is taking me quite enough time already.
You said "Mate you are talkin nonsense, serioulsy. "A slightly asymmetrical collapse caused a symmetrical one underneath it..." What utter BS, I seriously cannot believe a civil engineer student is actually saying that." and I explained it.
Yes I quickly realised that drawing the WTC support system in 3D with a keyboard was going to be difficult
Yeah for some reason I initially assumed it would be made of steel reinforced concrete, but then looking at the WTC I saw it blatantly wasn't
You don't need to explain to me how it happened, I understand what you are saying, you don't need to simplify your explanation and you don't need to tell me to watch videos or interviews, I've seen them all. It has been a long time since this happened and I have already discussed everything you are saying in this thread. You are doing a poor job of convincing me that what you say is true.
Here's a video for you to watch, and I'd like your expert opinion on what you see. At exactly 1minute 16seconds of the video there is visible debris being ejected through the smoke, could you explain to me what part of the tower that is exactly, please. This footage was released by NIST under the Freedom Of Information Act.
What? I said you are not an engineer or anything close. I never said anything about you being right or wrong... You suggested that you were some sort of engineer, which you are not... I'm not the worlds most qualified engineer is what you said, which suggests you are an engineer, just not the most qualified.
I don't need you to explain anything, thanks. I seen enough to know the many different theories.