lol but drop that pencil in water and it falls on it's side.. stop likening a skyscraper to air. It's embarrassing..
Conspiracy Debunker Challenge!!
- Thread starter Deadtosin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
lol but drop that pencil in water and it falls on it's side.. stop likening a skyscraper to air. It's embarrassing..
The whole pencil thing is moot anyhow. The pencil wouldn't have a break in it to cause it to have the top part swing down and outward. She doesn't seem to understand that the undamaged side of WTC 2 would have acted as a fulcrum to cause the part above the impact zone to swing around that axis. It should have kept going, but the building below the impact point mysteriously crumbled.
That experiment has nothing to do with this. Your experiment has to do with free fall only.... the top of the building had something under it to stop the freefall.... unless it was free falling already on its own.
I really wished you would do some real investigating instead of looking for anything that seems to agree with you....
It seems important to me that all of the witnesses say heard explosions before either tower collapsed.
Also, if the building collapsed like rachel said, witnesses would have felt a jackhammer effect on the ground as each floor was crushed. It didn't happen.
This jackhammer effect would have slowed the fall significantly....fall slowly at first, speeding up as the debris above gets heavier.
Here's something else..... such a crushing effect would have done two things to the building:
1. Crushed the bottom floors before the rest of the building disintegrated due to all the overload on it....never happened.
2. The crushing effect would have pushed the bottom floor/basement/foundation into the ground, like a fence post attachment on a backhoe works. Such force would have also raised the ground around the building, breaking up concrete & asphalt. All the streets & even the vehicles were sitting perfectly level in the pics, proving there was no jackhammer impacting during the collapse.
Also, if the building collapsed like rachel said, witnesses would have felt a jackhammer effect on the ground as each floor was crushed. It didn't happen.
This jackhammer effect would have slowed the fall significantly....fall slowly at first, speeding up as the debris above gets heavier.
Here's something else..... such a crushing effect would have done two things to the building:
1. Crushed the bottom floors before the rest of the building disintegrated due to all the overload on it....never happened.
2. The crushing effect would have pushed the bottom floor/basement/foundation into the ground, like a fence post attachment on a backhoe works. Such force would have also raised the ground around the building, breaking up concrete & asphalt. All the streets & even the vehicles were sitting perfectly level in the pics, proving there was no jackhammer impacting during the collapse.
If you will notice the other buildings falling due to the shaking of earthquakes, They ALL give way at the ground first, falling over onto other buildings. This proves the towers, & especially building 7, were detonated. If 7 fell from trauma, the other buildings closer to the towers should have fallen also, yes?
You're being willfully ignorant, at this point. The phenomenon of progressive collapse as it applies to the WTC's towers has been well-established, and you've failed to produce a single shred of actual data that discounts this phenomenon. If you'll go back a couple of pages and read a response I posted to Deadtosin, it'd clarify a few things for you. Once again, you're using your own intuition -- in other words, what *you* think ought to have happened -- to contend that the official account, which is corroborated by years of analytical study from multiple organizations, "couldn't have happened."
How in the world can you not see the utterly and fundamentally egregious logical errors you're making here? It's baffling. It's to the point that you're actually implying that the widely-circulated photographs you've posted irrefutably disprove the official account, and that there's no possible explanation that could ever be given to explain the point of view you're attempting to sell, and that the vast, overwhelming majority of specialists associated with structural engineering haven't seen the photographs, don't want to see them, or are on some sort of mystic kool-aid that you've somehow managed to evade. It's ridiculous.
You'd get laughed out of any credible tertiary program dealing with structural engineering, and you'd probably end up with the imprint of a boot on your fanny on the way out.
Last edited:
I think it's kinda strange that the tower that got hit second, was the first to fall. You would have thought the one that got hit first, would have fallen first. Just an observation..lol..
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
See my post #85.
I had to jump in here again because there is so much tension going on.
I see you calling people ignorant, and others saying the same back to you.
My point is that reading through the blog I have seen people give you well known and asked questions from thousands of architect's, demolition experts, and others that the towers could not have fallen like they did.
Then I myself even showed you in my post 85 how your mention of the McCormick building comparison to the towers is a flawed comparison. You never responded to that.
A flat warehouse style building can not be compared to a skyscraper.
More angle-cut iron with melted edges.
I'm guessing you just happened to miss the photographs and videos of the cleanup effort, which do indeed show angled cuts being made. The video below effectively refutes the vast majority of photographs you've posted thus far.
[video=youtube;LJyBuANVkQ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyBuANVkQ4[/video]
Thermite doesn't make clean cuts, regardless. Although a thermite reaction is highly exothermic, it's nearly impossible to effectively channel it sideways to cut a vertical beam, since it tends to pour straight down as it burns. Other proposals, such as thermite "straps" and thermate, raise more problems than they solve.
You people do realize that you have the choice of whether or not to respond to lizathrose's responses or not, right? And she has the option of whether or not to respond to any of your responses. Just sayin', because all I'm seeing here lately is alot of back-n-forth on who is right and who is wrong. The sad truth is, we may never know exactly what brought down the towers that day, and we can only speculate about it. Personally I believe that it was a mix of things: the jet fuel probably not so much because that burns off fairly quickly. I think that explosives DID help the building fall, and I believe one or both of the planes that hit the towers had explosives attached to the underside of the planes. I believe it was an inside job and that the government knew about it beforehand. This is only my own opinion, however, and it may not necessarily be how it happened. It's only what I believe to have happened.
I know some of you have the same belief I do, and I know some of you believe the ludicrous "official" story that you heard on television. That is fine and you have every right to believe whatever you believe about 9/11. Just keep in mind that we all have different opinions on this subject so of course we're gonna all disagree on it. That does not mean we need to get all snotty and uppity and know-more-than-you about it, though. I've been seeing alot of name-calling on this thread of late, and it really is sadly pathetic that some of you have resorted to that simply because others don't agree with your versions of how and why 9/11 happened. Let's be more Jesus-like, and stop the name-calling and just agree to disagree with others on the events that brought down the towers on 9/11.
I know some of you have the same belief I do, and I know some of you believe the ludicrous "official" story that you heard on television. That is fine and you have every right to believe whatever you believe about 9/11. Just keep in mind that we all have different opinions on this subject so of course we're gonna all disagree on it. That does not mean we need to get all snotty and uppity and know-more-than-you about it, though. I've been seeing alot of name-calling on this thread of late, and it really is sadly pathetic that some of you have resorted to that simply because others don't agree with your versions of how and why 9/11 happened. Let's be more Jesus-like, and stop the name-calling and just agree to disagree with others on the events that brought down the towers on 9/11.
That's why they keep debating.
To begin with, the "thousands" of specialists you're referring to seems to reference a petition that was posted earlier in the thread, which represents an extremely small minority of the overall community -- and which could easily have a large quantity of false signatures, or signatures from self-proclaimed specialists that actually know very little in terms of structural engineering and architecture in general. The overall consensus is that the towers could've indeed "fallen like they did" as per the official conclusion to the investigations following the tragedy, and what I've stated thus far has yet to be comprehensively, analytically refuted. Again, "got'cha!" rhetoric that's entirely devoid of substance isn't substantive evidence, and certainly doesn't warrant a reconsideration of the official account.
You've stated that the McCormick building and the WTC's towers are a flawed comparison. They are. Contextually, I was responding to Deadtosin's assertion that "no other steel-framed building in history" has collapsed due to "fire alone," which is demonstrably untrue. The McCormick Place's exposition hall was at the time largely thought to have been fireproof due to its steel and concrete construction -- it clearly wasn't. It demonstrates that steel is clearly prone to the effects of fire, and that it doesn't have to reach its melting point in order to substantially weaken. Here's an excerpt from SteelConstruction, an informational encyclopedia on steel as it's used in structural engineering.
All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C the most common grades (S275 and S355) of hot rolled structural steel retain about 60% of its room temperature yield strength.
Popular Mechanics, a widely-acclaimed engineering magazine, cites an estimate that most of the steel exposed to the fire would've lost over half its strength under direct contact with the inferno that ensued after the planes impacted the towers.
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
Again, this has to be taken into context with my original response to Deadtosin, who again asserted that "fire alone" couldn't have brought the structure down -- a claim that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Fire's potential for structural damage in all types of buildings should never be overestimated, and this doesn't take into account the tremendous force and subsequent damage imparted by the initial impact of the airliners, or the structural damage imparted by falling debris that impacted WTC 7 that caused the structure's south facade to fail.
Let's investigate another side of 9/11: the missiles or government planes that some eye-witnesses say they saw that were flown into the towers. What do you all think about that? I've seen some footage of the planes hitting and one of the planes did not look like a commercial jetliner at all, but rather like a government plane. If the planes were commercial jetliners, why would the eyewitnesses say they were missiles and/ or government planes, and vice-versa??