I think this has been posted before. Not sure which conspiracies to believe these days. there's too many flying about.
Anyone who believes this, please add me to MSN so I can talk you out of it.
First time I saw that vid I thought "hmmmm....", but then I saw some more facts and now it seems obvious nonsense to me.
That said, it is interesing, and I'm glad people come up with these theories - there must be some "true" ones somewhere.
Yawn. Complete bull****. People's lack of full understanding is the problem. A little knowledge here and there can be a bad thing.
What mad me laugh was a comment something similar to "the building didnt do what I would have expected it to do when an aircraft crashed into it"
...........
right.....
...........
ok........
...........
So how many aricraft has he seen crashing into sky scrapers?
One thing I've ALWAYS found odd about the whole thing is the fact that both towers, and the WTC7 building, fell, completely, straight down. Buildings don't behave that way when they collapse, even under controlled circumstances.
I have to say I'm on the theorists side of SOME of the WTC elements...Some are bull though
Diablo (Main PC): Corsair Air 540; Gigabyte Z77-D3H; i5 3570k @ 4.4Ghz; 16Gb Corsair Vengeance PC3-12000; 120Gb Samsung 840 EVO; EVGA 980 Ti Hybrid; 2x Dell U2414H; Windows 10 x64.
Imperius (VM Server): 2x Intel 5640, 64Gb RAM, 2x1Tb, 6x Intel NIC, VMware ESX 5.5
Tyrael (File Server): Synology DS410 w/ 4x HD154UI; 2Gb RAM; DSM 5.2
that building shouldnt have dropped like than in my opinion.
Rig: Amd 64 3700+ San Diego | Abit AT8 | 4x512 Corsair XMS3200C2PRO | PowerColour X850XTPE / Arctic Cooled | Samsung Spinpoint 250Gig | Enermax NoiseTake 485w | Arctic Freezer 64 Pro | Coolermaster Wavemaster Silver | Dell 2405FPW | Logitech G5 / Everglide Destrukt Monstermat |
Tbh, dont think the building should have dropped at all, One thing I find strange is that even though the aircraft flew into the north tower first, the south tower dropped first.
That's obviously an informed opinion. How many years have you spent
A) In demolition and
B) Watching buildings have planes crash in to them?
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
People don't seem to understand. At the base of these "conspiracies" is a bunch of people making a LOT of money from books/movies etc. It's a complete scam.
Of course weird things will happen and things will look odd, how many times have we seen planes flying into buildings before, let alone one of the tallest buildings in the world which was designed differently to other towers.
Read this:
Then argue.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y
I don't understand why there was a fire in WTC7 when it wasn't even connected to the other buildings?
Join the HEXUS Folding at Home Team!!
Welcome to HEXUS! - Read this if you're new!
hexus trust | joshwaller.co.uk | tea review
Read the link I wrote and it'll answer it.
Not read the popular mechanics yet but questions raised by the witness accounts and video's.
1. How come other towers hit by aircraft didnt fall down
2. Why all the dust, surely there should be large chunks of rubble.
3. No sign of the middle supporting structure
4. What were the secondary explosions reported by witnesses and heard in video footage.
Every tower design is different - some are more vunerable to things than others.
A 767 is pretty much the biggest plane to ever hit a skyscraper. They have a max take off weight of 193 tonnes - couple that with a speed of between 500 and 600mph at impact, and the sheer amount of fuel that could have been on board, and it is really an unparallelled collision.
The world trade centres each weighed half a million tonnes EACH. I'm sure you have seen the pile of rubble that they left. There were not only "large chunks of rubble" but there was so much that it took weeks to remove. The dust was hardly a fraction.2. Why all the dust, surely there should be large chunks of rubble.
I haven't researched this too much before. Will maybe look it up and return.3. No sign of the middle supporting structure
I could take a while explaining this...4. What were the secondary explosions reported by witnesses and heard in video footage.
Think of the weight placed on the structural beams during collapse, and in the events leading up to it. Weak points would have developed, and result in violent stress fractures. Under the heat of the fire, the steel would expand, beyond it's limits, and burst free from it's concrete surrounds - showering concrete out from the building. Some floors also "pancaked" - collapsed. Get a book and sprinkle flour on it. Then drop another book on top. Not only will it make a loud "bang", it will also shoot the flour (or rubble) out of the sides (or windows) due to the air.
Thats just my beliefs above - feel free to question or disprove anything that I have said, or to PM me for my MSN address if anyone wishes to discuss it further.
Fireman moto (and this does exist) "Never trust a truss"
Every floor was a trussed structure in WTC 1 & 2. When the burnt and softened trusses fell, the outer skin could not support itself, the only way it could go was down.
Generally em generators use diesel, which has to be stored in thick skinned steel tanks either outside the building or in the basement in a fire control environment. And diesel doen't burn unless heated or vaporised. Try pouring diesel into a pan of burning petrol, it will extinguish the petrol.
Beer is life, life is good!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)