Quake3World.com Forums
     General Discussion
        building fire in madrid proves 911 hoax...
Post new topicReply to topic
Login | Profile | | FAQ | Search | IRC




Previous topic | Next topic 
Topic Starter Topic: 
chopov
The Afflicted
The Afflicted
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 915
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:26 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


SplishSplash wrote:
You still haven't told me how your magic inertia works.


If 1/2 up in a tower (whith the static system of WTC) the static system fails (by which cause ever) the above 1/2 will sag down practically vertical, crushing the floors below. Why should it drop to any side? To deflect the inertia of these hundrets of thousands of tons weight on their way straight down you would need an immense force from a side. Tell me where this force hides in your common sense theory?



_________________
I'm a pervert. But in a romantic kind of way.
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:33 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


why should have fallen at all? the answer...it should not have...one of the engineers of the building said each tower could have several jumbo jets hit it and it would not fall...of course the fires have been ruled out by everyone but morons and govt shills...
Top
                 
Fender
Jesus of Suburbia
Jesus of Suburbia
Joined: 14 Jan 2001
Posts: 12713
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:36 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


From Puff's link:

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.




Last edited by Fender on 02-16-2005 10:43 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:38 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


i say in order to really get to the bottom of this, the us should reconstruct the towers and remotely fly some planes into them and study what happens...it would cost alot less then the useless wars we are fighting now...



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
Maiden
Immortal
Immortal
Joined: 20 Nov 2001
Posts: 2249
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:39 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
one of the engineers of the building said each tower could have several jumbo jets hit it and it would not fall


wow there is some solid proof, i bet you can find a handfull of engineers that will tell you the freeways in California are Earthquake proof as well.
Top
                 
chopov
The Afflicted
The Afflicted
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 915
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:42 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


The impact of a jumbo releases not more energy on a building like the WTC than a storm. To believe towers would fall over just by such an impact is plain stupid.



_________________
I'm a pervert. But in a romantic kind of way.
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:42 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


what u morons keep missing is the towers were designed to take the impacts of these types of planes and not fall...easily...the building swayed less from the planes then they did in winter storms...the cores of the buildings were intact and the fires did not get hot enuff to do shit...hence the black smoke(which means low temp fires)..

if u wanna believe the govt conspiracy theory go ahead...

and remember they blamed osama but have never shown any proof at all that he was behind it...none...



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:44 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
what u morons keep missing is the towers were designed to take the impacts of these types of planes and not fall...easily...the building swayed less from the planes then they did in winter storms...the cores of the buildings were intact and the fires did not get hot enuff to do shit...hence the black smoke(which means low temp fires)..

if u wanna believe the govt conspiracy theory go ahead...

and remember they blamed osama but have never shown any proof at all that he was behind it...none...


you said yourself the planes went in one side and come out the other so how could they not of damaged the core ?

that link puff posted i believe said there was reports of the building swaying for an entire 10 seconds in 1 direction
Top
                 
redfella
The Illuminated
The Illuminated
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1498
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:45 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
what u morons keep missing is the towers were designed to take the impacts of these types of planes and not fall...easily...the building swayed less from the planes then they did in winter storms...the cores of the buildings were intact and the fires did not get hot enuff to do shit...hence the black smoke(which means low temp fires)..

if u wanna believe the govt conspiracy theory go ahead...

and remember they blamed osama but have never shown any proof at all that he was behind it...none...


Congrats on starting to make more intelligent posts. :drool:



_________________
black & white blanket logic
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:46 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


did u see it swaying in the videos? no u didn't...read up on the core and u might undertsand...maybe...doubtfully...



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
chopov
The Afflicted
The Afflicted
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 915
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:47 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
...the cores of the buildings were intact ...


Any proof of that? Nobody has...



_________________
I'm a pervert. But in a romantic kind of way.
Top
                 
R00k
straight at you
straight at you
Joined: 18 Dec 2000
Posts: 27931
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:49 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
R00k wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
i do

edit @ rook


Can you tell me why, exactly?


Why they fell?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html a good explaination is found here...

Do you have specific problems with this explanation? What are they?


no, it's just hard for me to understand why people are still discussing the reason for their collapse.

if it's to get to the bottom of some perceived government negligence, or even complicity, then there is a lot of better evidence pointing to it than unavailable physical evidence. you can look at the jfk assassination to see that magic bullet theories do not make a case in and of themselves. the real proof is in the motive and means, and who benefits. cui bono.

i can understand wanting to get to the bottom of it out of curiosity, especially when there are so many things that just don't seem to fit together -- i pored over a lot of pages on the towers and the pentagon after the attacks myself -- but by now it's obvious to me that there will never really be enough evidence available to prove either side right or wrong.

i also think that anybody who suspects there may have been some sort of corrupt government complicity, is only shooting themselves in the foot by pointing to all this physical evidence, due to the simple fact that there's no way they can prove it enough to convince anyone who already believes otherwise. :shrug:
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:52 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
did u see it swaying in the videos? no u didn't...read up on the core and u might undertsand...maybe...doubtfully...


i dont think ive ever seen a tower sway and if i did see one which has swayed enough to make it visible im sure it wouldve fell over on the spot
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:54 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
did u see it swaying in the videos? no u didn't...read up on the core and u might undertsand...maybe...doubtfully...


o and i did read up on the core... it was a redundant (sp) design meaning if one sytem failed another could take the support which is why they didnt collapse immediatly

the building was damaged so much that the remaining supports eventually give way and the building fell floor by floor because of the extreme weight above it
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:57 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... lumns.html

its obviousl lochunk is really losCunt...any questions?



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
chopov
The Afflicted
The Afflicted
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 915
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 10:59 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


@Rook: agreed.
We have two separate discussions going on and mixing up in this thread. One about who initiated the attacks and one in the scientific direction, how/why the towers went down.
As for me, i don't know enough hard facts on who really was behind the attacks. But at least they were very welcome to the Bush administration...



_________________
I'm a pervert. But in a romantic kind of way.
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:04 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


yeah u must always ask urself who benefits from attacks like this...or the one in lebanon the other day...not muslims thats for sure...



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
Transient
Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 35461
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:05 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
what u morons keep missing is the towers were designed to take the impacts of these types of planes and not fall...easily...the building swayed less from the planes then they did in winter storms...the cores of the buildings were intact and the fires did not get hot enuff to do shit...hence the black smoke(which means low temp fires)..

if u wanna believe the govt conspiracy theory go ahead...

and remember they blamed osama but have never shown any proof at all that he was behind it...none...


Actually, no, they weren't. They planned for planes to hit it, but not fully loaded, fully fueled planes that were larger than the largest commercial plane at the time. They planned for an impact from a plane that was half-fueled and lost in a fog, not going full throttle at an angle to optimize structural impact.

You're right about the fires not being too terribly hot, but remember that these planes were going 500 MPH when they hit, knocking all the fireproofing right off the beams. Fire was the cause of the collapse, no doubt.

edit: that and the fuckers who flew the plane into the buildings. I'd say it was mostly their fault :dork:




Last edited by Transient on 02-16-2005 11:06 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:06 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

its obviousl lochunk is really losCunt...any questions?


Quote:
The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage.


note the key word 'apparently'

that links shit at best

also the reason why the outer core was damaged so little is because the wings are flimsy as fuck, the bulk of the plain is the fuselage which tore into the twin towers like a bullet and is why you cant see any of the wreckage in the pictures, if you cant see the wreckage then it must be deeper in the building (and if the building is basically 'air' like all these links say then it wouldve had a clear run to the core)

or like you said, went in one side and come out the other without going through the middle of the building
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:10 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


lol ur dumb..



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
SplishSplash
BLARG
BLARG
Joined: 03 Dec 2000
Posts: 11229
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:10 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


chopov wrote:
SplishSplash wrote:
You still haven't told me how your magic inertia works.


If 1/2 up in a tower (whith the static system of WTC) the static system fails (by which cause ever) the above 1/2 will sag down practically vertical, crushing the floors below. Why should it drop to any side? To deflect the inertia of these hundrets of thousands of tons weight on their way straight down you would need an immense force from a side. Tell me where this force hides in your common sense theory?


To be quite honest, now that I've watched the video and you made this post, I can see what you mean and agree with it.

I still don't believe the towers should have fallen at all though.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:11 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so
Top
                 
Fender
Jesus of Suburbia
Jesus of Suburbia
Joined: 14 Jan 2001
Posts: 12713
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:12 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


SplishSplash wrote:
To be quite honest, now that I've watched the video and you made this post, I can see what you mean and agree with it.

I still don't believe the towers should have fallen at all though.


Read page 2 of Puff's link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
Top
                 
Tormentius
The voices in your head
The voices in your head
Joined: 14 Dec 2002
Posts: 10054
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:12 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
my cuntry has gone to shit...that why i care...i have 4 kids and 1 on the way...


If you have that much of an issue with the state of the world then why don't you stop breeding?




Top
                 
Fender
Jesus of Suburbia
Jesus of Suburbia
Joined: 14 Jan 2001
Posts: 12713
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:13 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so


The same way I am. We are dumb for continuing to argue with this brainwashed moron.
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:13 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


thats a myth dude...they were designed for fully loaded planes...u just heard that on the news or something...its not true, and in fact the planes could have withstood multiple impacts from fully loaded planes...that knocking the fireproofing off the steel is only a theory which tries to explain why the steel melted when the temps were so low...just a theory...

Quote:

Actually, no, they weren't. They planned for planes to hit it, but not fully loaded, fully fueled planes that were larger than the largest commercial plane at the time. They planned for an impact from a plane that was half-fueled and lost in a fog, not going full throttle at an angle to optimize structural impact.

You're right about the fires not being too terribly hot, but remember that these planes were going 500 MPH when they hit, knocking all the fireproofing right off the beams. Fire was the cause of the collapse, no doubt.

edit: that and the fuckers who flew the plane into the buildings. I'd say it was mostly their fault :dork:




Last edited by Freakaloin on 02-16-2005 11:16 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:13 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Fender wrote:
losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so


The same way I am. We are dumb for continuing to argue with this brainwashed moron.


i agree, but everytime i see this thread at the top of the page i cant help but click it :(
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:14 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so


not worth explaining...u won't understand...
Top
                 
SplishSplash
BLARG
BLARG
Joined: 03 Dec 2000
Posts: 11229
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:14 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Fender wrote:
SplishSplash wrote:
To be quite honest, now that I've watched the video and you made this post, I can see what you mean and agree with it.

I still don't believe the towers should have fallen at all though.


Read page 2 of Puff's link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


Yeah, that's the "failing truss" theory. They kinda debunked that in the link I posted though.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:16 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so


not worth explaining...u won't understand...


try me
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:17 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


that truss theory was put out like a day after the collapse...rofl...then destroyed a little later...



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:17 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so


not worth explaining...u won't understand...


try me


no...rofl...
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:19 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Freakaloin wrote:
losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
losCHUNK wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:
lol ur dumb..


how so


not worth explaining...u won't understand...


try me


no...rofl...



cock
Top
                 
Freakaloin
Elite
Elite
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 10443
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:20 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


PWNED...



_________________
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Top
                 
Fender
Jesus of Suburbia
Jesus of Suburbia
Joined: 14 Jan 2001
Posts: 12713
PostPosted: 02-16-2005 11:21 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


SplishSplash wrote:
Fender wrote:
SplishSplash wrote:
To be quite honest, now that I've watched the video and you made this post, I can see what you mean and agree with it.

I still don't believe the towers should have fallen at all though.


Read page 2 of Puff's link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


Yeah, that's the "failing truss" theory. They kinda debunked that in the link I posted though.


This link?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/tower ... index.html
:lol: there is not one bit of science in that. Not one. Nothing in there but conjecture by another idiot on the Internet.
Top
                 
Quake3World.com | Forum Index | General Discussion


Post new topic Reply to topic


cron
Quake3World.com
© ZeniMax. Zenimax, QUAKE III ARENA, Id Software and associated trademarks are trademarks of the ZeniMax group of companies. All rights reserved.
This is an unofficial fan website without any affiliation with or endorsement by ZeniMax.
All views and opinions expressed are those of the author.