Had to be said.
He's just clearly said you won't stfu regardless of much your 'theories' are disproven or your clear lack of knowledge, yet you still soldier on regardless.
So lemme make this clear
You know nothing about construction. You can watch as much video as you want, and read as much as you choose, but you know piss all. Unless you have a degree in structural engineering or whatever it is I'd suggest you stop acting like you know.
Do you just troll this thread all day, every day to satisfy your insecurites or what?
It's not personal and I didn't, and never would, attack someone personally on a forum. I haven't up to now so why would I start?
Anyway, ok so your a teenager, not much difference. Plus, I've done alot more research, if you want to call it that, into this subject. I'd have a fair idea of what I'm on about, you don't. You troll these boards all day, not me mate. I only post here because I have looked into it and I have seen things that don't add up.
"Don't get me started" What a laugh... You think that's childish? Threatening? What will you do if I do get you started?
I do 'troll'. Main difference is that amidst some of my admittedly spam like posts, I actually bother to help some people, comment on textures, and general discussion.
Please, don't be a stereotypical arse by assuming because "you're" a teenager, that actually means something.
Age is only half the story, I hang out with people up to twice my age, yes, twice my age, and for my age I'm actually very mature, especially in RL situations which require actual thought. On the internet, I don't really care
What would I do? Me, personally, I wouldn't do anything. (And by the way I'm not laughing )
See, you assumed I was threatening you, when unfortunatly that's your assumption, and not my intention.
Have fun with your theories, hope they make you feel better
Walls of text upon walls of text... No one can answer simple questions with simple answers anymore?
Leave the towers alone already, heavy fire did a better job then month of plannings and hundreds of sticks of dynamite, nothing to see there, give me some walls of text about WTC 7 and Pentagon and surviving passports, or 7 bilion dollars insurance money from the WTC new owner who insured the buildings against terrorist attacks just a month before 9/11..
I don't know enough about the WTC7 scenario to even suggest a reason for it's collapse. I've only ever watched one you tube video on it. The pentagon was probably a plane crash, but as frames were removed from the video we can't be sure either way.
Uh, if you actually read, you'd perhaps gain an understanding of my problem with, not only this thread, but U4IK's seeming disregard to any grieving family. I'd hardly call that staring an argument. Bother to check my posts I'm actually pretty helpful
U4IK - you've been rubbishing the official line of enquiry and our explanations, yet to my knowledge in this thread you haven't provided any proof to back up what you're saying, except a laughable demonstration with plastic desk tidies
Just a thought about these desk tidies (or in-trays as we used to call them back in the 20th century)
If these things are so damn strong - as demonstrated in said video clip - how come none were found in the wreckage of the collapsed buildings ? I mean, there must have been thousands of em in the twin towers.
Well, I don't care. I try to help at least one person out a day, whether it in a game with hints, or helping someone with a personal problem, or a technical one. Whether on this forum, another forum, MSN, phone, face to face, or anwhere else for that matter. It helps me get through life.
I don't do it for recognition. I don't expect people to be like "omg you're so kind". Thanks is all I ask for, and is often all I get
O....M....G.... I can't believe you used these as examples....
Bad example. Why? The conclusions on the last two pages. I can't believe you compare this to the towers yet rubbish the "in-trays" experiment. Amazing. It was incomplete, very little mild steel(I doubt there was alot of strong? steel or they wouldn't bother commenting on how little mild steel there was) so it wasn't structurally capable of holding an incomplete structure with frozen concrete and lateral soil pressure. Also, one thing I notice in this which should be present at the towers, in some form, is the concrete floors stacked on top of each other. Of course in some places the concrete would be crushed but these floors were huge spaces and to think not one section, even from the top floors, would survive the collapse is ludicrous.
Yet another bad example. Well atleast for the towers. It is exactly what happened WTC7. Columns cut near the bottom and the rest comes down. Not one part of that building crushed another part.
Now this is getting closer, but it still isn't close enough for me to believe the towers crushed themselves. Ok, the blast happened on the 18th, as you can see the damage gets less as it reaches the ground and the ground floor columns are still intact. I would have to find out more on that building because there's not much about it in that article. It says what happened and then goes off on one. I need to see more.
Interesting... It has quotes from the person who wrote the previous .pdf you linked to, so it's more of the same, a lot of talk and no meat(graphs, images, documents, quotes from other sources). Although I did get one good quote from it, "The only thing that everyone could agree on was that the World Trade Center performed very well in resisting progressive collapse," now there's a quote from Jon Magnusson, CEO of structural engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, who was at a 2002 workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Science & Technology no less. NIST, the people who didn't/couldn't document how the buildings acted DURING the collapse.
They had 10,000 pages of info about how they thought the buildings got damaged, how the fire acted, everything except how each floor got pulverised, how the massive core box columns got squished. Also, not even 1 page set out for WTC7, not 1. It only got a couple of lines in a FEMA report which stated that their best hypothesis only had a low probability of happening.
But enough of that, Jon Magnusson then goes on to say, "Its collapse was progressive, but it didn't fit the traditional definition." Of course it didn't, 9/11 started a whole new list of definitions. I think the NIST official gave him a kick under the table when he heard him saying they did well preventing the progressive collapse.
I love this thread Come on seriously, demonstrating a collapse with plastic trays
Anyway, for the desktop researchers over here, here's another video of a building that partially collapsed due to fire. I work nearby, so I saw it from the beginning to the very end.
And this is what happened when they took it down.
That failed demolition video btw is the Zip Feed Mill. It was intended to blow up only the base, but the timing was off. One side should have gone first, causing a tilting momentum and the second load should have snapped the base off, allowing it to fall on it's side and crush on it's own weight. They went both at the same time, causing the building to sink through it's own basement And keep in mind this was an industrial building, not a civil building. It wouldn't surprise me if it was heavily overdesigned to house heavy equipment. Civil buildings are designed to support around 500KG/m2, that's nothing.
I'll try not to post anymore about this, cause it is kinda disrespectfull and i didn't want that... I will just try and believe that human race can't do such a thing to their own citizens, it just sounds impossible, hundreds of people would need to be involved, plus i don't believe that various US Embassy attacks across the world are also caused by CIA or whatever, terrorists DO exist, they are not made up, it's just that there are LOTS of holes and inconsistencies in the official story and lots of questions that the governement still won't answer, which they should if they didn't have anything to do with it, Bin Laden SHOULD have been wanted by the FBI for 9/11, yet it isn't, etc... i just hope that the real thruth will be revieled one day...
You shouldn't stop, I mean, if a family member of yours died in the attacks and you knew what you know now, would you stop questioning? Even with the slightest doubt you would want to know exactly what happened. I feel it disrespectful to the dead that we just take the Comission Reports word for it and don't even question the inconsistancies in their story. The way they leave out eye witness reports and they don't cover all the buildings. This is in the OFFICIAL story man come on people. Wtf...
Anyway, it's totally up to you though, at the end of the day. I can't just agree to disagree on this one.
@ kingfag - Some nice footage there, I hadn't seen that. How long were the fires burning, just out of curiosity? And in the first video it does seem to destroy the floors below, but I'm not sure how far down or how much damage there is. Is there more about this anywhere? And since I get this given to me I'll say it to you. It isn't really to the scale:height:mass of the towers so technically it can't be compared to the towers.
Offcourse, but it seems some people found themselves offended by our couriosity.
Can you tell me this, does it sounds possible to you, that, in order for this to be an internal job, how many people would there be for this to work? Can you imagine the massive organization and all those people being quite all this time, can you imagine the burden if you knew that you could stop 5000 of your citizens being killed and not do anything about it? Or the lifes lost from Iraq and Afgan wars, and you know that you participated in it? At least someone would talk, no way you can be that much of a monster and have all that on your soldiers just for a bigger bill on your banking acount... Only that part seems impossible to me, majority of other things just screems "inside job"