Quake3World

SplishSplash wrote:The top would drop to the side. ...

The top actually did drop to the side.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... lapse.mpeg

To drop the entire tower to one side you would have to blow away 3/4 of the ground floors.

Freakaloin wrote:cuz they have been brainwashed by the msm and the govt...mass hypnosis...

they need to listen to noam chompsky and maybe they will wake up?

why do YOU even care?

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:i do

edit @ rook

Can you tell me why, exactly?

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

chopov wrote:

SplishSplash wrote:The top would drop to the side. ...

The top actually did drop to the side.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... lapse.mpeg

Oh, so now it's possible after all? Magic inertia out to lunch or what?

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?

also from pbs...

http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

hmmm...

losCHUNK wrote:twin towers, plane crash, big hole, a bit of screaming, bit of fire, big bang, end of story

lol...oso ignorant...

lol, such a prick

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?

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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

Any proof of that? Nobody has...

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.

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

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

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

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