World trade center video

[j2k4]

i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately, not only because of the latest "missing threads/pilfered password" debacle, but because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such as the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

[JPaul]

Now that makes sense to me. I can see that as being a reasonable and sensible description of what happened.

[j2k4]

Now that makes sense to me. I can see that as being a reasonable and sensible description of what happened.

Odd, wouldn't you say, that nobody apart from we two is so afflicted with reason and sense?

[GepperRankins]

i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately, not only because of the latest "missing threads/pilfered password" debacle, but because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

you might wanna read up on the thread about the fact that the fires were out, the heat jet fuel burns doesn't melt steel, other buildings have burned for weeks and not collapsed, the blasts seen (and caught on photo) coming out of the building below where the planes hit and many other reasons why what you just said falls flat on it's face.

[Rat Faced]

Nah... just the fact that the way they fell defy the laws of Gravity would suffice..

ie:
The buildings fell at the same speed as the rubble outside the building.

The scenario kev paints, then they would have been falling floor to floor, with a slight delay at each floor until it gave way.. in otherwords, the building would have fell slower than the unrestricted crap outside.

It also doesnt explain how the whole building fell straight down, and the fact that the insulation would only have been blown off only a very small part of the steel... not the whole structure.

The way the press hung around the skyscraper in Spain for a week while it burned at a higher temperature than the towers, waiting for a collapse that never came was an eye opener.



Now, you know we love conspiracy theories much more than kev does.

As an example, Red Dwarf adequatly explained JFK's assasination. It was, after all, more believable than the official version and most of the conspiracy theories.. I am now perfectly satisfied on that one.

[GepperRankins]

what about the motives for doing this. i doubt out of all the people supposedly involved (according to the government) none of them realised how incredibly counter productive this would be. in fact i wonder if anyone can work out how anyone but the american and isreali governments benefits from this

[JPaul]

"The building fell at the same speed as the rubble outside the building."

Please explain this and why you have a problem with it, within a Newtonian interpretation of gravity and terminal velocity.

I seriously have no idea what point people are trying to make when they post things like that.

[JPaul]

what about the motives for doing this. i doubt out of all the people supposedly involved (according to the government) none of them realised how incredibly counter productive this would be. in fact i wonder if anyone can work out how anyone but the american and isreali governments benefits from this

Is that supposed to be serious.

[GepperRankins]

didn't newton say something about equal and opposite forces or something?

[GepperRankins]

what about the motives for doing this. i doubt out of all the people supposedly involved (according to the government) none of them realised how incredibly counter productive this would be. in fact i wonder if anyone can work out how anyone but the american and isreali governments benefits from this

Is that supposed to be serious.

yeah, you gonna dispute it then?