9/11 Scientific Argument

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by waleed (London), Sep 26, 2006.

  1. .:SpY_GaMe:.

    .:SpY_GaMe:. New Member

    shit g00gle vid is banned in my area :(
     
  2. lord_neo

    lord_neo Guest

    Alright checking. Which area is that?
     
  3. shsnawada

    shsnawada Cyborgs & Pasta

    Really amazing. What people do to get attention, that is.

    *just watched the video* : Wow!! This is as dumb as it gets


    @waleed: I've decided that its pointless to discuss (especially this issue) with you.
     
  4. erutu

    erutu terminally awesome

    Who cares? I wouldn't care if Osama walked out of the White House and took a tour of Washington DC.
     
  5. Morbid_Angel

    Morbid_Angel Sid the sloth

    I thought this topic was done with.
     
  6. erutu

    erutu terminally awesome

    Never!!@#!1
     

  7. You have to back it up with reasoned argument.

    To dismiss it as 'dumb' and 'Pointless' is not reasoned argument and only exposes your inability to discuss this in detail and contest it.

    Or is it once again a case of 'Hear no Evil, See no Evil and Speak no Evil'
     
  8. shak

    shak Harrr!

    watched first 39 minutes .. and to be honest, half of it was like 'skippin stones' .. they would mention something ... and quickly prove that this had to do something with the conspiracy .. it felt as if they were forcing the conclusion ..
    the point made by that MIT guy seemed valid to me .. at 650 degrees the steel lost half its strength (and temp did reach atleast 650 degrees inside WTC) .. the pocket of fire made steel buckle at random places .. floors gave way and the building collapsed under the 'domino-effect' .... very plausible!
    the video failed to disprove this possibility ...

    however .. the 9+ second fall ... baah .. that is a very good point ... now it DOES seems as if it was a controlled explosion .. then the squibs .. they just add to notion set forth in this video ..


    overall .. i am yet not convinced but it does seems as if the collapse was far too quick and far too clean to be natural ... ...
     
  9. shsnawada

    shsnawada Cyborgs & Pasta

    Did you see that when WTC 2 was hit, the 60-whatever floor collapsed in WTC 1? So the total time should include that, and that is clearly more than half an hour. NOT 10 seconds.

    And about the "underground explosions", ever heard an elevator fall from the 50-60th floor to the basement?
    About the random fires: Can gas lines be perfectly safe then?

    And also, the domino effect: Their calculated time, which was 1:36 minutes is calculated if the 110th floor collapsed onto the floor below. In that case, the domino effect would never work. But that wasnt the case. Considering the weight of 16-17 floors above the impact zone pushing on a partially functioning infrastructure, steel isnt that strong as you think it is. And once the first floor (the 90 whatever'th) starts to even partially collapse, the force is really quite unstoppable. Remember that the main reason that steel is chosen over concrete when building skyscrapers is because of their flexibility. So the flexible steel giving way to the pressure from the top is very probable IMO.

    The Main augruement of mine: Theyre stating that only the fires brought down by the building. Did they just forget that a plane went inside the building, vapourizing itself in the process and creating a hole in the structure?

    I think that in the end of th day, the engineers of the WTC should pat themselves in the back. The building survived for about an hour after being hit, and thats something really great IMO.

    haha, "inability to discuss"!! Just know that i have zillions of other arguements with that video (and loose change) and i'm just not bothered to write it all down and waste (a lot of) my time on somebody like you. Again, i have to say: It is pointless discussing with you, for reasons that i'm not bothered to say. (if you want to know the reasons, i think that youll have to wait till june 2007).
    And please, watch "screw loose change" on youtube before you restart your perpetual rambling about this .


    And for those of you who want to know how i came to this point of view: I just looked at both the theories and find the one which is the easiest to disprove. NOT the "mass media" or whatever waleed says it is.
     
  10. shak

    shak Harrr!

    .. wait .. i think you've got it wrong ..
    the '10 second' time is the time that it took the building to collapse .. not the time to collapse+the time since plan crashed in ..
    the moment the top of the tower gave way to the instant that whole structure comes to the ground completely = 9+ seconds

    now a free falling body would take more or less the same i.e 9+ seconds to fall to the ground if thrown out from the top of the towers ..

    keeping these two things in mind, the argument is that 'if' the structure indeed collapsed under the domino effect, how come the floors didnt offer any resistance? imagine one floor dropping and hitting the one below ... transferring impact forces .. the second one giving way and so on .. so under this scenario we cannot ignore the resistance that the floor below would offer - even for an instance- to the floor above!
    this resitance would add time ... the building shouldnt have displayed the physics of a free falling body ..


    the 1:36 time caters for the resistance and the time delays that the building should have had, had it been the collapse due to domino effect ..

    now as for the steel and structure .. well thats what even i dont understand .. the theory is plausible .. but dunno something nags me ..especially those squibs .. come on, we have video footage of plumes of white smoke leading the collapse!!! how can one explain them?! AND 'flashes' before the collapse was triggered ..

    nothin conclusive though
     
  11. sam_sealion

    sam_sealion MeLoDiC ShReDDeR. . .

    i think, the momentum ( mass X velocity) of the 12 and 28 stories of the wtc1 and wtc2 collapsing, would have been so great that the floors below them offered minimal resistance.....as the weight of the falling mass increased, its momentum increased, thus resulting in least resistance by the lower floors. this is what the NIST states too.

    also significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. this wouldnt be the case if 'controlled demolition' was in the picture.

    also from witness accounts, a fireman who was on the 35th floor of the wtc2 when it collapsed, said that he 'felt' the top of the building buckle and begin to give way moments before the building collapsed. he miraculously survived the collapse.


    about the steel structure, there are arguments that 'steel can never melt at the temperature at which jet fuel burns (1000 degrees celsius), so theres no question of the structure weakening'

    well its true, the melting point of steel is 1500 degrees celsius, however, at 1000 degrees, steel is said to have only about 10% of its strength at room temperature.

    im neutral on both views, just giving a counter opinion or view.

    there are other such theories about 9/11 too, like the one which states that the pentagon was not struck by a boeing 757 but by a much smaller plane or missile. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
     
  12. shsnawada

    shsnawada Cyborgs & Pasta

    @sam: You stole my words :')
     
  13. shak

    shak Harrr!

    most of the 12 and 28 stories of wtc1 and wtc2 were nothin but dust when the buildings started to collapse (yet another mystery).. quite a lot of the material was ejected outwards instead of dropping straight down .. so most of sam's momentum (mass x velocity) went out flying .. also .. even the minimal resitance would add time ..

    as for the steel .. this idea just came to my mind .. that if steel buckled .. then it would have buckled at a corner .. not 'all' 41 or 42 girders of steel core would have buckled at the same instant right? then if a corner buckled or a side buckled then why the top of the building collapsed straight down?! it should have leaned to the side that buckled and then should have fallen down! .. the building came straight down .. honestly .. isnt this just tooo perfect?!

    still .. i am pretty much neutral .. i aint no expert ... so i wouldnt listen to myself
     
  14. Ankur_Scorpio

    Ankur_Scorpio New Member

    LOL!.....they say half knowledge is dangerous!
    for issues like this, Research before u come to any conclusion....its all on the web....i did that couple of months ago! most of the things pointed out in this video and several other videos like this have been proved wrong. Yup scientifically.....although to go through all those documents a bit of understanding of engineering principles is important, and a bit of open mindness too!
    and again, advice to some - dont believe everything you find online (including this post).....put some effort in finding the facts........

    Btw 9/11 is old, I am waiting for the video that gives "SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT" abt US govt's hand in KATRINA......... was it a man made hurricane?
     
  15. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Does GOD really exist or is it a figment of human imagination?
     
  16. erutu

    erutu terminally awesome

    ^We need some scientific evidence on that shit too.
     
  17. shsnawada

    shsnawada Cyborgs & Pasta

    Most (actually all) of the 12 and 28 floors were made of steel. So it could have easily collapsed
    I'm speculating but, my common sense says that the heavier steel fell downwards and the lighter things spewed sidewards. So not so much momentum is lost. And as each floor collapses, the 'resistance' becomes more and more irrelavent.

    It didnt come literally straight down. If you watch the video properly, then you can see that there were sections which fell sidewards. I think youre overestimating the strength of steel (in this situation anyway). :p

    And i'm no expert on this stuff either. But the conspiracy just looks laughable to me. At least, more laughable than the other theory.
     
  18. sam_sealion

    sam_sealion MeLoDiC ShReDDeR. . .

    yeah the conspiracy theory does seem laughable.. it also seems to have given a lot of diversion to the main issue, i.e terrorism.. everyones so busy blaming the US government that the 'act of terrorism' that killed so many inoocent people has taken the back-seat.. not like the american government id totally clean on this, but i think blaming them or their lack of precaution as the sole cause of it would be quite unfruitful.
     
  19. shsnawada

    shsnawada Cyborgs & Pasta

    Wait, i dont think you got what i was saying. Remember the bit where it says that when the second tower was hit, the sixty-whatever floor of WTC1 collapsed? (The plane hit the 90 something floor of the WTC1) So the total collapse started then. Of course, the majority of the work was done in the final 9-10 seconds but that was because as more and more floors get destroyed, the closer the acceleration comes to free fall.
     

Share This Page