atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Phil]

BTW I noticed how you failed to respond to my simple question. A plane hit a building near the top of the building (not its foundation) yet it crumbles IN PLACE (similar to controlled demolition). Please explain...

This is very simple. The planes crashed into the WTC travelling in excess of 500 mph. The initial collision dislodged fire retardant insulation that was on the steel beams of the structure. The planes were also loaded with fuel. Remember, the terrorists specifically hijacked planes taking cross country flights so there would be lots of fuel on board. This fuel spattered all over the building and began to burn. As the fuel burned, it weakened the steel superstructure because the insulation was gone. As the steel weakened, it began to sag. Once the critical point was reached, the supports gave way and the top floors pancaked onto those below. Once begun, nothing could stop it and the building collapsed in place.

Understand now?

You are wasting your time and breath.

---

The fires are near the top, not at the top. If the weight of the detached structure, meaning the very top floors crashed down, which it did, it would only need to crash down to the next floor in order for more weight to then be applied, thus collapsing the next floor and so on. It's not rocket science. If the top floor of my house collapsed, it would likely collapse the next floor, despite there being steel beams in my cellar. If there were another floor beneath that, it would just keep going. In short, it only needed to be heavy enough to collapse the next floor. The structure of the entirety of the building didn't have a chance once the structure of the affected floors was compromised. There was more than enough weight to take it all down. I was in those trade centers. Each story was massive in its own right. Also, terrorists can think too. In a way, it was controlled demolition, just not done with construction explosives. It was done with fuel.

---

Take this photo for example.



See where the plane hit? There are several floors above that area. How much do you suppose that weighs? I'm guessing that is more than each of the houses of the people in this thread combined.

Shell,

There is a video of one tower collapsing that was taken from Trinity church's lot. You can clearly see the walls of the tower bowing and you can see the twist of the entire corner that started the collapse. What you said is definitely correct but I like to illustrate it with something we are all fairly familiar with. That is tipping a vending machine. A vending machine may only weigh 500-600 lbs so many people feel they can tip the machine (since it is lighter when balanced on an angle) but people also forget when that tipped machine falls approximately two feet, there is maybe .01% of the human population that can safely stop the machine from falling. In a like manner in the video from Trinity church we see evidence of the beams weakening and the top of the tower rotating. Once the beam between the floors was weakened enough and the top portion of the tower fell freely for about 2 seconds, there was not a power on Earth that could stop the collapse.

9/11 Truthers are really a bunch of idiots.

---

Excuse me? Are you practicing critical thinking or just parroting what you were told? There is plenty of debris from the planes at the wold trade centers and in the pentagon.

ok, fine, where was any single piece of debris, from a plane, large enough to not be able to carry with one's hands? perhaps there are some, but if there is, then you certainly will post a video of it, right? and i hope it's not one of old rumsfeld running into a flaming hole in the pentagon and coming out with a piece of a rudder with a blue tarp over it.

i'm not looking for validation for what i think, i don't even have a complete thought on this entire subject and apparently i'm just taking shots in order to see who is who and why on here. what i'm wondering is why do people not look at papers like i'm posting below. everyone is posting videos, i can do that all day, it's now answering anything, it's at most entertaining. if you HAVE looked at studies that convince you one way or another and it leads you to believe anyone else hasn't quite gotten it right, then that's great. sounds to me like most parrots are the ones who just watch the news and chant in unison, "yeah they're all dummies".

what didn't i see? everything i know and don't know, i was told by somebody. papers i've read, documentaries i've watched (granted, movies are made for sensationalism) and any other form of input. it's all been told to me. if you didn't work on the site, then it's all been told to you as well. you may have heard different into and may have come to different conclusions with that partial that you received. fine.

richard gage? please! he's an architect, not an engineer of any sort. no, i haven't watched his video. does he have any relevance?

here is byu professor steven jone's study: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volum...llapse.pdf

here is an mit study against the previous one posted: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

they're both valid papers from reputable programs that give very valid hypothesis as to what happened.

No I won't post a video or pictures. You can look them up yourself as most of them were exhibits in the Moussouai trial. The exhibits are at this link http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecase.../exhibits/

As far as the pentagon debris, look at the picture of the punch out hole in the C ring and you will see plenty of debris. Inside the pentagon there was also debris like the landing gear and seats from the plane with passengers. At the world trade center, there was debris in the streets and on top of world trade center 5. There was even debris of the plane you claim vaporized at Shanksville.

---

Before anyone says, but, but, they found molten (as in liquified) metal at the base of the WTC, that is not true. The "evidence" for this is red hot hunks of metal that look like they could have been puddles in photographs. Believe me, steel that had gone through a collapse like that would be malformed with or without melting temperatures and red hot is not melting. If that were true, we would be unable to weld anything, as the metal around a weld tends to get red hot during the weld, yet it does not melt. White hot is melting or about to melt.

Shell,

Hunks of aluminum that were melted (then solidified) were found. I even held a chunk. Anyway, tremendous pressure creates lots of heat so it wouldn't be much of a surprise to find evidence of melted aluminum and other metals. As a matter of fact, there is a picture somewhere of what is called the meteorite that is a few floors from one of the towers that was compressed during the collapse. As the floors compressed, everything caught between (furniture, people, computers, etc...) were melted, crushed and burned. Why the 9/11 deniers make a big deal of anything melted in a fire is a hallmark of stupidity.

---

(this isn't research that i read, this is what i know as a builder. there are dampers between verticals, firestop applications between horizontals, so much protection to keep fires from spreading, but that's neither here nor there.)

To be honest, I would be afraid to set foot into a building of yours after reading your posts. here.

Tell me, being in construction you should know this, why are we to avoid grinding a ferrous metal in the presence of aluminum and most importantly water?

Or let's make it simpler with a concrete example....

Aluminum planes, aluminum facade, rusty steel beams (yes, there are plenty of photographs if you look) and as an added bonus - water from the broken main. What does that lead to?

---

Oh... like an explosive. I get it.

No actually you don't and as long as you want to believe explosions equals explosives you never will.

In a fire in an office building, things go boom. Hell, in a fire in any building (except an empty abandoned one), things go boom but there will always be some idiot to claim it was an explosive.