Funny that, Les Robertson the WTC structural engineer says in a TV interview that the towers were designed to withstand a crash of a FULLY laden 707. He then goes on to say they didn`t consider the fuel load. Seriously, a man who designs 2 modern towers overlooks this fact.
He didn't, he considered a fully laden 707 at the end of it's flight flying slowly. So light on fuel. Actually the videos I just watched didn't mention fuel at all.
The core of the building in his words was a steel cage made up of 47 steel beams. A cage not a tube! A cage which load bearing capacity would be too strong to just collapse in under 10 seconds!
Please provide your sources sources showing that the building was too strong.
BTW, even the youTube conspiracy video says it was a tube! Check out
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CNskClIyGfY and go to 1m30s.
Next the construction of the building was in 3 tiers! so at 1/3 and 2/3 the floors were reinforced to take the load. The pancaking would have had a very hard time getting through the first one let alone the second one.
Please provide your sources saying that the pancaking isn't a viable theory.
The jet would never have been full of fuel(not a long haul flight) and most of that would have burnt off in the initial impact. Then we see fire with dark smoke signifying a low temp fire with little oxygen.
The fire could never have been the cause to melt the steel core or warp it to the point it would fall in on itself neatly in under 10secs!
The fuel thing is discussed in the FEMA report including how much fuel was on the plane, how much initially burnt, how much remained and where it went. Please supply your sources showing how much fuel the plane had and why most if it would have burnt off in the initial impact.
The FEMA report doesn't mention melting, just loss of strength. Loss of strength occurs at a much lower temperature than melting of steel - ie melting being when it turns to liquid.
The melting point of steel is way above the maximum temperature that the fire could have reached. Pancaking of the floors would have had a slowing effect as resistance comes into play but yet you think it`s plausible scientifically that it would suddenly neatly collapse in it`s own footprint in under 10 seconds. Surely based on scientific models you must come to the conclusion that it would have taken well over a minute to fully collapse with your pancaking theory.
Again sources please showing that pancaking should slow down and also for the mentioned scientific models.
Again talk of melting. Melting isn't an issue, loss of strength is.
I've read and heard many people saying that the buildings fell into their own footprint. This is false as both towers badly damaged surrounding buildings when they fell. Very sloppy if it was controlled demolition. This
link defines footprint as "the total area at the base of the building".
The FEMA report contains many facts that have had science bent in it`s favour. You can say the conspiracist use antiscience, and they do. That report is so full of holes and pushed as scientific fact. It`s disgraceful and the people who propagate it are the conspiracists who try to pull the wool over the sheeples eyes by assuming they can use antiscience that will never be questioned.
Please provide sources showing bent science.
I don't quite understand the 2nd sentence, but I think you just said that the conspiracy theorists use anti science - errr, isn't this something you would not want to admit to?
Actually, what is anti-science? I can't find a good definition.
And Oyuki please watch the following video that uses scientific facts that can be verified by the science community to disprove the official story.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=911%20mysteries&hl=en&sitesearch=
I'm not Oyuki, but I watched this video anyway. It was a clip that reviewed aspects of that day with many sound bites in it from prominent figures. No interesting facts at all - for or against.
Spacefrog, I understand that you are totally convinced that 911 was a conspiracy. I get that. I also understand that you would like to show others who do not believe it was a conspiracy where they went wrong. I understand this too. I cannot speak for anyone else, but to get me to change my mind, and I am prepared to do so, you will have to show me opinions and theories backed up with solid evidence. So far you have shown me opinions and theories but none of the evidence. Until you show me the evidence you have very little chance of changing my views.
Ok so you think you can conclude I am a conspiracy theorist. And you think I am trying to convince everyone to conclude it was a conspiracy. Well you couldn`t be farther from the truth. I am purely refuting the official theory and not offering any other in place. The opposing theory is no more amusing than the official one. Except the official one was carefully packaged for everyone to swallow without questioning it.
And really let`s be honest, this is coming from a country that was born out of false flag terror and has a long of false flag operations.
And JM please research by yourself about operation Northwoods.
And it is a declassified US military document that can be found and verified. The crashing of remote controlled planes into buildings and blaming it on the cubans to foment war.
As for my second sentence, well if you don`t get that you never will so it`s pointless to explain.
You think that those huge buildings falling in on themselves don`t constitute a controlled demolition because they managed to damage surrounding buildings. Well since we could all see how they collapsed I would say that they fell straight in on their footprint. The top of one of the towers was slanted and if we apply the laws of gravity then it could never have fallen straight down and should have deviated however it fell straight down.
As for the construction of the building, search for the plans!!!!! They can be found online so go do it, I won`t in case you attack the sites I give.So go research by yourself.
You will see that the outside structure of the towers was a tubular structure and the inner was a 47 beam steel cage structure. So you can see that the lightest part of the structure are the floors which apparently had enough mass to pancake. If you look at the plans for the building you can see that the building is 3 tiered and to support the weight there are 2 layers of strengthening in the structure.
So we know that the building collapsed in under 10 seconds then we are to conclude that all the rivets popped at the same time to let the trusses and light weight floor collapse onto the next one then why do the outside tubular structure and inner steel core collapse? Surely if you apply logic then you and you believe the pancake theory then the core and outer tubular frame should be left standing. OK well if we decide the trusses let go only on the core you might be able to argue the outer tubular frame might go with the floors. However you cannot argue the 47 beam steel cage just going in under 10 secs.
Furthermore Les robertson says clearly that they planned to resist an impact of a fully laden 707 which means full of passengers and luggage/cargo, flying slowly o and empty LOL.
Yeah passenger planes fly on empty and with the absolute minimum fuel. Seriously look at the Civil aviation requirements and look at united airlines requirements and you will find :
5. MINIMUM FUEL REQUIREMENTS - AEROPLANES OTHER THAN FLOATPLANES
OPERATION UNDER VFR
5.1 The minimum quantity of fuel required to be on board before the aeroplane departs,
should be calculated and recorded. Only those procedures that are specified in the
Operations Manual and approved, may be used.
5.2 The minimum fuel carried in an aeroplane before flight shall be at least the sum of the
amount of fuel as indicated below.
(a) start-up and taxi fuel;
(b) sector fuel
(c) alternate fuel i.e. fuel for a missed approach procedure and then from overhead
the intended destination airfield to a suitable alternate.
(d) holding fuel, i.e. fuel to hold and make an approach at the alternate airfield
calculated as follows.
(i) in the case of propeller-driven aeroplanes, fuel to hold for 45 minutes and
carry out an approach and landing;
(ii) in the case of turbo-jet aeroplanes, fuel to hold for 30 minutes at 1500 ft
above the airfield under International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions
and carry out an approach and landing;
(e) contingency fuel i.e. not less than 5% of the sum of Sector fuel and Alternate fuel.
Note 1: Account should be taken also of additional amounts of fuel such as those
required for power checks, lengthy standard departure and arrival procedures and
to compensate for potential delays enroute such as weather avoidance.
yes and now you realise that Les robertson says they didn`t calculate the fuel part of the 707. OK so the 767 was never empty nor completely full fo fuel. So we are to believe Robertson that he never even thought that the plane they calculated to crash into had any fuel in it.
And as for the resistance in the pancaking theory, well what resistance could that be sheeple? Of course each floor will resist the next and the whole anti science theory that it would accelerate is just unjustifiable. The whole structure is light and if we examine building code for the towers then we should conclude that each floor would be able to carry alot more weight than necessary. I don`t have the figures right now but I am trying to get them. But we should assume that they would be able to hold at least twice the weight they are supposed to for safety and insurance underwriting. That coupled with the 2 fortified layers in the structure and we are still supposed to think the whole tower collapsed neatly on itself in under 10 secs.
I really can`t understand how you can think that credible. Anyway this still doesn`t explain the foundations and the molten metal for weeks at the bottom of ground zero nor the sulphur found. And really it explains nothing about the fire crews and eyewitnesses that reported explosions and other anomalies over their 2 ways during the whole event. Obviously they are 911 nutters.
)
Previous Topic
Index
