Bin Laden is dead!

GoRdOn_B said:

i am also a welder by trade. the claim that unregulated fire melted steel is just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

the fire only had to weaken it

Krogith said:

Nothing other than explosives can make molten pools like that.

Click to expand...

Really :thinking: I thought explosives were meant to explode (not melt metal into clean puddles )I see no evidence of that
and the fire only has to weaken the steal
Watch this
YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained

Krogith said:

What Turned the concrete into Powder?

Click to expand...

The shear tonnage of one floor pounding into each other and the ash from all the stuff the fire burned
Look familiar >>> YouTube - Destroyed in Seconds: Apartment Building Collapse

Krogith said:

And They were designed to take a bigger airplane to each tower.

Click to expand...

No... when those towers were build they were only designed to handle small fires not a freaking plane flying into them.
No one could of known that.

@LORDJET Yea.
Obama didn't want to anger any Muslims.... What about angering the American people?
He should do an online poll to see if he should release them or not lol.

dyethor said:

@LORDJET Yea.
Obama didn't want to anger any Muslims.... What about angering the American people?
He should do an online poll to see if he should release them or not lol.

Click to expand...

I agree, I feel that they should have done a poll or something before they outright said " no photos " :scowl:

Well... they are kissin butt to keep the fanatic terrorists at bay...
No sense in stirring it up... it will only smell worse...

I'm wondering if/when they buried that someone at sea... was the body
uncovered so we could see the identity of the individual that actually
when into the drink... or was he covered and draped as I've seen in a
sea burial before... :thinking:

Jerry

From reports I've seen they are already stirred up by what has happened. I really wish I could say to hell with them, but we have too many troops out there in harms way.
Its sad that we have to step on pins and needles for these people as not to anger them.

Trevor said:

Funny, I melt aluminum with a torch all the time. :thinking:

aluminum and structural steel are 2 very different things

When you have more than ten stories (plus more and more) of a building crushing everything below it, it's going to fall quickly.


-Trevor

Click to expand...

i only see an outward force..
:thinking:

GoRdOn_B said:

i only see an outward force..
:thinking:

Click to expand...

I'm asserting that the pools of "molten metal" were molten aluminum, not molten steel. NIST concluded this, and it is certainly the most logical conclusion. Even if temperatures reached a level high enough to liquefy steel (they did not), those temperatures would not have been sustained long enough to keep those pools molten. However, aluminum melts at a much lower temperature and would therefore be easier to keep molten in the hot, insulated conditions at ground zero.

Second, when a building violently collapses in a non-controlled manner, do you expect all of the material to stay nicely localized like you do in a controlled demolition?

No. The upper parts of the building must crush through the lower parts, inevitably expelling debris outwards.

Tell me, what happens when you hit an apple with a sledgehammer? You're only exerting force straight down, yet debris still goes outward.

Try it. Even drop a wine glass on pavement. All of the force is going downward, but a lot of the energy is dissipated outward.

Basic physics.

EDIT: To those talking about how the building was "designed to withstand a plane crashing into it," read the first blurb on this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

-Trevor

Trevor said:

I'm asserting that the pools of "molten metal" were molten aluminum, not molten steel. NIST concluded this, and it is certainly the most logical conclusion. Even if temperatures reached a level high enough to liquefy steel (they did not), those temperatures would not have been sustained long enough to keep those pools molten. However, aluminum melts at a much lower temperature and would therefore be easier to keep molten in the hot, insulated conditions at ground zero.


Second, when a building violently collapses in a non-controlled manner,do you expect all of the material to stay nicely localized like you do in a controlled demolition?




No. The upper parts of the building must crush through the lower parts, inevitably expelling debris outwards.

'the top is whats exploding outwards.. so whats doing the crushing?


-Trevor

Click to expand...

if it was so hot in there then how come people were clearly seen in the entrance hole?
[/URL]

Second, when a building violently collapses in a non-controlled manner, do you expect all of the material to stay nicely localized like you do in a controlled demolition?

Click to expand...

'Like wtc 7




ever made a campfire?
more smoke equals less heat, really hot flames produce very little smoke.
the smoke that came from wtc 1&2 was black.
:undecided:

say the steel did weaken.. wouldnt it just tip over from the weakest point?

if it was so hot in there then how come people were clearly seen in the entrance hole?

Click to expand...

Fires suck air in. Standing at a point where outside air was flowing in would be easily survivable. Even pleasant, given the conditions inside.

Basic physics.

'Like wtc 7

Click to expand...

The circumstances at building 7 were different. It was built differently, had no planes hit it, burned for a different length of time, etc.

You can't reasonably expect them to behave in exactly the same way.

Basic logic.

ever made a campfire?
more smoke equals less heat, really hot flames produce very little smoke.
the smoke that came from wtc 1&2 was black.
:undecided:

Click to expand...

A building fire has different temperatures in different areas. I feel like this should be obvious. :thinking:

Moreover, a lot of things were in the buildings that make black smoke when burned. Like piles and piles of office supplies.

say the steel did weaken.. wouldnt it just tip over from the weakest point?

Click to expand...

Inertia. It would require an enormous amount of force to push the building over. The enormous force was delivered in the form of gravity pulling on the upper floors, which led to the chain reaction collapse.

There was no force delivered that was significant enough to tip the building over.

More basic physics.

-Trevor

I have to admit, all the documentaries and footage ive seen on the collapses
still has me wondering how both fell so perfectly.. I can understand one
of them doing this, but both?

Always found that very odd.. :thinking:

wannaburn said:

I have to admit, all the documentaries and footage ive seen on the collapses
still has me wondering how both fell so perfectly.. I can understand one
of them doing this, but both?

Always found that very odd.. :thinking:

Click to expand...

Buildings have a whole lot of inertia - it would take a huge amount of force to make one tip.

-Trevor

Trevor said:

Buildings have a whole lot of inertia - it would take a huge amount of force to make one tip.

-Trevor

Click to expand...

I wouldnt look for a tipping action given the potential and forces involved.

I would expect some sort of deviation laterally though.. But on such a scale
it does make sense..

It was as if all 4 corners of both towers failed equally.. I would think that
at least one of the towers would slide a bit off the center..

When WTC 7 fell, it looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/73qK4j32iuo

The sole witness of the WTC 7 who was inside of the building was murdered in August 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kRaKHq2dfCI

I don't want to sound like a conspirator, because I'm not, but the conspirators have way more believable evidence than some of the excuses and claims the Bush administration has given us. It's not possible for the government to lie to us, and it's happened numerous times before. I don't take any concepts of any controversy easily, but I sure don't believe anything the government says anymore.

wannaburn said:

I wouldnt look for a tipping action given the potential and forces involved.

I would expect some sort of deviation laterally though.. But on such a scale
it does make sense..

It was as if all 4 corners of both towers failed equally.. I would think that
at least one of the towers would slide a bit off the center..

Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at the collapse of one of them (I forget which... sorry), you can actually see the top section start to tip to one side as the columns fail in different order and it begins to fall.

However, I don't think you can see any tilting before the collapse. I would expect any of that to be on the order of centimeters or meters; much too little to see in a Youtube video. Uneven load distribution ten or more stories down, on already weakened steel, quickly becomes bad news.

EDIT: @above: I haven't looked into building 7 much, but I would expect that sort of behavior if its internal structure was slowly failing as it burned.

-Trevor

I think the dude who built the world trade centers was smokin rocks when he said they could take a hit from an airplane

They didn't did they?

JordanPereira said:

but I sure don't believe anything the government says anymore.

Click to expand...

There's a problem when you begin to put your precious citizen's trust into youtube, more than into your own government.

Don't forget that the government is mainly comprised of those that we vote into office.