Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Was 911 An Inside Job?


  • Please log in to reply
519 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think 911 was an inside job? (87 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think 911 was an inside job?

  1. Yes (23 votes [26.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.14%

  2. No (65 votes [73.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#346 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,110 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:35 PM

The average house fire runs between 500-650 degrees. Temps in the towers could have reasonably reached 650 and didn't likely exceed 800.

Don't need jet fuel for a fire to be hot enough to weaken the steel.

Structural steel begins to soften at 475 and at 650 is only about half as strong. This coupled with the stresses of any wind, other damaged structural supports, and uneven expansion of the steel for the uneven heating is why the remaining steel failed.


Building 7 failed structurally after nearly 1 million tons of building material collapsed across the street doing considerable damage to floors 8-18. Subsequent fires on floors 5-7 further weakened the structure to the point of failure.


Now stop that....you know that logic and fact are not allowed here. This is a forum of pot smoking, pill popping, conspiracy theory nut jobs.:D

I envision many of you sitting in a dimly lit basement....wearing fatigues....smoking pot....cleaning your gun....watching the Sci Fi network. Am I close? :D

Edited by MadHatter, 07 April 2010 - 03:37 PM.


#347 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,043 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:35 PM

Why didn't the pentagon burn or blow up like the other buildings if that plane had around the same amount of fuel? Why can you see books and desks and computers unscathed by fire or heat right where the impact was? The area where the Pentagon was hit was supposedly under construction, which usually makes that area a little more susceptible to such things, no?

#348 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,212 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:51 PM

Why didn't the pentagon burn or blow up like the other buildings if that plane had around the same amount of fuel? Why can you see books and desks and computers unscathed by fire or heat right where the impact was? The area where the Pentagon was hit was supposedly under construction, which usually makes that area a little more susceptible to such things, no?


alright chucktown, its your turn on the chopping block, haha. being that your views on this are a bit different on this than mine (in the sense that you believe they allowed it to happen), do you think the planes were the sole cause of the collapse, or do you think there were explosives that influenced this?

#349 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,095 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:01 PM

The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.

It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.

Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

This proves controlled demolition.

#350 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,095 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:04 PM

The World Trade Center towers are designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for about an hour. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers.

If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has not been explained.

#351 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,212 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:07 PM

i dont care how fast the planes were traveling, nor how long the buildings were able to sustain before their eventual collapse. those buildings couldve burned for 4 hours each before they fell and it wouldnt make a difference. the fact that the top sections had fallen in a seperate direction makes sense, considering the damage the planes had inflicted...kinda like how a tree falls to the side it was primarily cut on. anyways the bottom line is this: there were a solid 90 or so floors under each of the crash sites. you cant tell me that they would just collapse all at once due to this damage caused near the tops of each building.

#352 PanthersFanNY

PanthersFanNY

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:12 PM

When were these explosives planted for this controlled demolition?

#353 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,095 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:15 PM

When the new guy got the lease in........get this........April 2001

#354 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,095 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:15 PM

All kinds of remodeling done and poo everywhere being worked on. Would've been kinda easy as a "remodeling team"

#355 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,043 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:18 PM

alright chucktown, its your turn on the chopping block, haha. being that your views on this are a bit different on this than mine (in the sense that you believe they allowed it to happen), do you think the planes were the sole cause of the collapse, or do you think there were explosives that influenced this?


Hey man, the way I see it. I'm open to anything because the Govt won't give us any answers to the questions WE ask and wouldn't let the 911 commission have or tell everything they needed to.

I'm not convinced it was not demolitions but I'm even less convinced they didn't know about it.

I just want answers.

#356 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,212 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:37 PM



busted.

#357 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,212 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:48 PM

When were these explosives planted for this controlled demolition?


not sure. however, marvin p. bush - bush's brother, was director of securacom (now named stratesec), which was responsible for the security of the world trade centers. hmmmmm...

#358 SorthNarolina

SorthNarolina

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,406 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:49 PM

i dont care how fast the planes were traveling, nor how long the buildings were able to sustain before their eventual collapse. those buildings couldve burned for 4 hours each before they fell and it wouldnt make a difference. the fact that the top sections had fallen in a seperate direction makes sense, considering the damage the planes had inflicted...kinda like how a tree falls to the side it was primarily cut on. anyways the bottom line is this: there were a solid 90 or so floors under each of the crash sites. you cant tell me that they would just collapse all at once due to this damage caused near the tops of each building.


So you don't care about how long the buildings were able to sustain before the collapse, but in your very next sentence you say the buildings should have been able to sustain for at least 4 hours. I thought you didn't care about how long they could sustain?

Whether or not you care about how fast the planes are traveling you can't deny that two large commercial airliners have never hit skyscraper before. Ever. Everyone trying to say "the first time a steel building collapsed from fire...etc." just leaves that plane impacts out of it.

The top portion leaning makes a lot of sense. I've never seen a controlled demo building just lean over for 5 seconds before falling.

They didn't collapse all at once. Even in the controlled demolition theory they show the videos asserting that charges are going off successively down the tower. A building that was brought down by controlled demolition shows movement in the whole structure.

The top portions were stable after the impacts because the tower was over engineered and could support the static load. Static loads are things like walls/columns. It could also support the dynamic loads (people, furniture). But when the tower started to lean it went from a static load to a dynamic load which is a big problem. All structures act a lot different under a dynamic load. They can't take as much dynamic load and static. When the tower starts to move the entire thing becomes 100% dynamic which is a bad bad thing.

Also most controlled demolitions I've watched show the charges going off from bottom to top as well. The controlled demolition folk say the charges are going off from top to bottom according the the video evidence.

Then you add in the video evidence in my previous posts showing large parts of the towers that remained standing during the collapse. Seems like if the demo crews were so brilliant to sneak in explosives on April 2001 then they would have been brilliant enough to make sure all parts of the towers were rigged with explosive so they wouldn't have large parts of it remain standing.

#359 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,544 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:51 PM

WTC is the only building to get high by airliners at a speed range of 400 to 590mph. That's never happened. Ever.

The towers withstood the impacts and would have stayed standing if not for the fires. If you put 10000 gallons of jet fuel in the building without the plane impact then they probably would have stayed standing as well

Just because other buildings are made of steel doesn't mean they are exactly like the WTC. The WTC had a very unique construction with a strong central core and the outer steel structure supporting a good amount of the loads.

Find me a building designed in the same method and same height of the twin towers that got hit by an airliner at a speeds ranging from 400 to about 590/600mph. Then burned for at least 56 minutes. With jet fuel as an accelerant to the fires. If you can find a building that satisfies most or all of these common variables then maybe you will have a valid comparison.


As SLJ noted 3 buildings collapsed.

#360 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,110 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:51 PM

i dont care how fast the planes were traveling, nor how long the buildings were able to sustain before their eventual collapse. those buildings couldve burned for 4 hours each before they fell and it wouldnt make a difference. the fact that the top sections had fallen in a seperate direction makes sense, considering the damage the planes had inflicted...kinda like how a tree falls to the side it was primarily cut on. anyways the bottom line is this: there were a solid 90 or so floors under each of the crash sites. you cant tell me that they would just collapse all at once due to this damage caused near the tops of each building.


And you know that they could burn for 4 hours and not collapse because of.........? I assume you hold a Phd in Physics, Stuctural Engineering, etc.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.