Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
17 Comments
Enzobluesays...When you see these videos you get a really good perspective on how big these buildings are. You see all that metal and how much was put into building them and how tiny the people look hanging out of the windows. I honestly can not believe a reasonable man could conclude that these massive structures were brought down at freefall speeds by a single plane and it's burning fuel. It defies common sense any way you look at it.
gorgonheapsays...Actually it doesn't Enzoblue, Buildings are built to stand against high winds, minor quakes and forces of nature. Forces of nature do not include a 130 ton, 45' high, 125' wide plane filled with highly flammable fuel. The world trade centers are not massive solid structures. They are a framework of carefully balanced and threaded beams, girders and columns.
Saying a skyscraper is an indestructible testament to strength and durability is bogus. You take out one column and it affects the entire structure of the building. it puts weight on columns that are not supposed to share the load of the missing one. And judging from the impact, it took out more then one column.
So really it makes sense when you have a clue about physics, or weight loads, or structure.
Enzobluesays...Hmm.. funny because all the physics, weight load and structural engineers (asked by non neocon sources) agree with me, but this argument is tired I guess.
That aside, it would take an incredible amount of extremely well places explosives to bring these buildings down at freefall speeds like that, and not from the top down. 130 tons sounds impressive, but that's 130 tons vs god knows how many tons of steel and reinforced concrete. It's like shooting an arrow into a tree.
pho3n1xsays...It's like shooting an arrow into a tree.
best analogy ever...
daniel1113says...It's like shooting an arrow into a tree.
Best analogy ever... if you're an idiot that doesn't know a damn thing about building systems.
gorgonheapsays...Enzo, I'm a licensed architect, I think I know just a few things about building systems. And it's nothing like shooting an arrow into a tree, buildings have HUGE empty spaces inside to shelter tiny little people and post-it notes. A tree is a tight web of fibers that an arrow couldn't penetrate, and arrows don't slam into trees at 500+ miles an hour. If they did I would guarantee that it would be in pretty deep.
Edit: you seriously think that all the tons of concrete and steel in a building are focused at whatever area the plane hit at?
gorgonheapsays...Oh and doing research, what structural engineers agree with you? And who are "all of them" because I can't seem to find that many.
pho3n1xsays...idiot that doesn't know a damn thing about building systems -->
kennnsays...footage looks like it was shot in the 80s
kennnsays...oh and the conspiracy implying guy is a dumbass.. im sorry, but if you are older than 18 i would highly reconsider the material you consume .. if you are under 18 .. thats ok .. i believed anything a well written pamphlet and a an Anti-Flag CD would tell me .. and if you dont know Anti-Flag, then you should because with that particular mind set you would find paranoid leftist punk enjoyable ..
Enzobluesays...Wow, ad hominem attacks. No surprises here.
To gorgon- the arrow in a tree was tongue in cheek, but as an architect wouldn't you say that a pancake collapse at freefall speed is a bit improbable? That that the core and surrounding floors would at least fall at different speeds being structured differently? That there would be SOME kind of delay as it fell, given that the floors below are made to hold more weight that the floors near the top? How can a chaotic completely un-controlled demolition fall so uniformly.. and twice that day! Two buildings hit in different places with different planes and yet both freefall straight down at the same speed and within 20 minutes of each other.
choggiesays...“It looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolitions Contractors in Doylestown, Pa.
“If there’s any good thing about this it’ that the towers tended not to weaken to one side, “said Taylor. “They could have tipped onto the other buildings…”
The collapse of the WTC Towers mirrored the strategy use by demolitions experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but on several consecutive floors..the explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors ion a snowballing effect.
It cascaded down like an implosion” Says Taylor.
-New Scientist, 12 Sept. 2001
Stingraysays...*dead
siftbotsays...This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Stingray.
siftbotsays...Awarding oritteropo with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.
oritteroposays...*length=14:42
siftbotsays...The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 14:42 - length declared by oritteropo.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.