Read this page, it's completely debunks the base of your one of the best articles... http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html
Hmm.. Ok one plane -> assume accident. 2nd plane just after that -> assume coincident Building collapsing at a free fall speed, as if controlled demolition -> ass-u-me that some one is trying to make an ass out of u and me.
You know. You're right. When buildings are hit by airplanes, they fall upward because planes fly upward.
Free fall speed. - Do some research for Pete's sake! If you want to be seen as a complete fool from those who have even a small grasp of physics - keep saying stuff about free-fall speed. You should go to a physics symposium and get on stage with that - if you want to be the opening comic. You could get an idea just by watching numerous controlled demolitions and compare it to the "free-fall speed" of the towers.
I don't know.. Sounds like a conspiracy to me... Not that I have crashed a plane into a building before, but I have had a few impacts with motor vehicles.. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if my car had thousands of gallons of jet fuel in it and I crashed it into something stationary at a high rate of speed, there might just be a flash.. Even the folks in Reolinda probably know what an "EXPLOSION" is. What mis-wording.. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. That you are an idiot? Well, I did not say that before, but if you leave me to assume, I really don't know if I want to answer that yet. There is nothing to debunk here. You've made a silly statement in contradiction to raw facts about a real event witnessed live, by MYSELF and thousands of other people, both on TV and in person. Just because you say it, does not make it so... Why on earth would anyone be so stupid as to controvert reality is beyond me. Could it be an acid trip perhaps?
Small world innit? Wasn't always a webmaster. Used to specialise in the Munroe Effect.~ Sponsored college boy me. Talking through ass mate. Those buildings were cut with a shaped charge. Built using girders that do not collapse even with a 20 tonne bomb. Has to be sliced, since girders simply deflect a det. It would take a week to wire a building that size and a bit of drilling as well. As I said earlier You are pretending to be GTECH without actually bringining anything to the battle other than personal insults. He would research and come back and try to win.~ You step in like a fool. PMC rule!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html You DA.. read it carefully
Stop making an ass of yourself... Structural steel loses half its strength at just 900 degrees... Given temps were above 2000 degrees, it does not take anyone with more than 1 oz of brain to realize that the steel was going to fail.. Especially since it was truss, not girder. With all those open spaces and long spans, much of the steel probably melted almost on impact... But then again, I was alive and there back in 2001.. I watched it happen. Reality is a difficult thing to change. Just because you say so, does not make it so!
Are you blind by eyes, or by mind, or by both? The FLASH occurs just before the plane crashes, not after it. After the crash, it not a flash, its explosion. Now that sounds like conspiracy?? So that shows what you are in this discussion for! I am here to prove what is right, but you are here to find out who is right. That's a typical behavior of those who have opinions but no arguments. Next time when you wana 'witness' do it with your eyes as well as your mind open, which in this case was deliberately shut , it seems. That's a question I should have asked to you. Well, when you have set your own question paper, now try answering them.. Perhaps..
I'd be interested in a piece of video that shows this "flash" before the plane hit. It's not often we get a no-planer around these parts, so this could get interesting. It's amazing, that after all the planning done on 9/11. that bush/cheney would shoot their wad a 1/2 second too early and explode the plane just before impact. All that planning, gone to naught.
* High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure. * If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures. * The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. These are not my words. Its a copy paste from 911 research site. Here it is. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html Now you stop putting those lame attempts to debunk with true but insufficient facts. I mean stop being childish.
WTc was designed to withstand an impact from a smaller plane at landing speeds, similar to what hit the Empire State Building. It was not meant for a fully loaded passenger plane going at cruising speeds. Nor was fuel taken into account during its construction. Steel loses 1/2 of its structural integrity at about 1400 degrees (jet fuel) which weakened the inner core. Also given the damage to the top part of the building; I'm surprised that the cause is in doubt. Our first admission that he isn't thinking for himself. First of many, I'm sure
Then how did it bear the impact? Didn't you see the building standing still after the crash? Well, for your information, there are people who can make a better debunking attempt that you, and they won't use the kind of arguments you used. They would say the the building could bear the impact, but not the heat. The reason was mentioned just after the passage for which you responded this way. For your convinienc, here it is, again: * The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. It needs a few grams of brains to understand what someone has said(in this case 911 research). Do you have that?
Just because something stands immediately after impact doesn't mean its not going to fall. The combination of the the plane impact, the fires that ensued and the lack of firefighting on the top floors (because they couldn't be reached) all contributed to it. It's not difficult. Do you have any evidence to actually dispute my comment or are you just going to move on to the next topic? No-planers are typically the moronic bottomfeeding members of the truther movement and I think you've brought your a-game today See post above. This is an error anyways. Here's more structures: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm Ho-hum. Boring. I'll follow your own advice here Who, just moments ago said: Then, in every consecutive post you resort to ad hominem attacks. Poor guy. We are just get started too.
Sorry, I'm not a patsy for moonbat conspiracy theories.. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s. That's pretty damn fast... I'd imagine people heard the explosion "after" the flash, given the speed of sound is only around 700 or so MPH.. Nothing strange about a flash of light occurring before you think an impact took place. ah, you have to "disprove" the facts... I have nothing to either prove or disprove... Read up on the scientific method... You have made a claim contrary to a fact already in existence, therefore it is up to you to disprove the original hypothesis. Go to it.. Knock yourself out. Ah, I did.. I was alive back then, and watched it as it was happening.. I remember quite clearly what happened, as I witnessed it first hand, live. Are you sure it is not crack you are taking? Figures.
Not sure if I understand much of what you are trying to say, but I will give it a shot... later. Except - pretending to be Gtech? Huh? Personal insults? please show me where. You may want to change interpreting programs, because the rest is almost complete gibberish.
* The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores. * The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds. * Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then. * The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground. * Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces. * Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling. * The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building. * Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud? * The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup. * The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered. * The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.