Quake3World

@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...

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...

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

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

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

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

lol ur dumb..

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.

Freakaloin wrote:lol ur dumb..

how so

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

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?

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.

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...

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

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

losCHUNK wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:lol ur dumb..

how so

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

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.

Freakaloin wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:lol ur dumb..

how so

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

try me

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

losCHUNK wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:

losCHUNK wrote: how so

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

try me

no...rofl...

Freakaloin wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:

Freakaloin wrote: not worth explaining...u won't understand...

try me

no...rofl...

cock

PWNED...

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.

Freakaloin wrote:PWNED...

how so ?

rofl...

Fender wrote: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.

Ah, so you didn't bother to read it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/tower ... index.html

lol...truss theory gets crushed...