Author Topic: Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11 (Read 81713 times)

Game Time · « **on:** April 04, 2013, 01:44:48 PM »

This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?

Only element missing is jet fuel.

Nails · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2013, 01:46:17 PM »

its missing George Bush and Dick Channy

#1 Klaus fan · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:01:11 PM »

arce1988 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:01:52 PM »

CIA took down the twin towers

bebop396 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:21:13 PM »

What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?

DroppingPlates · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:24:48 PM »

Mass243 has a meltdown, that's all folks

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Game Time on April 04, 2013, 01:44:48 PM

This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?

Only element missing is jet fuel.

This answer is easy - no demolition.

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:34:03 PM »

Quote from: bebop396 on April 04, 2013, 02:21:13 PM

What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?

Then it would have collapsed outright or partially after impact.

In fact, the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 would have been partial if it was natural failure. Not free fall demolition style as what happened.

arce1988 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2013, 02:56:22 PM »

Controlled Demolition

cart@@n · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2013, 03:02:38 PM »

"Where did the Towers go?"

ukjeff · « **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2013, 03:03:28 PM »

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Sophus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 04, 2013, 04:09:59 PM »

Sophus · « **Reply #12 on:** April 04, 2013, 04:13:48 PM »

Nails · « **Reply #13 on:** April 04, 2013, 04:21:33 PM »

No worries, the FBI found one of the Terrorist passports on the streets of new york right before the towers fell

The Magical Passport found its way out of the terrorists pocket, out of the plane before it exploded in the plane and towers

arce1988 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 04, 2013, 04:22:51 PM »

Nails is a GREAT poster

Irongrip400 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 04, 2013, 04:32:06 PM »

I'm not an engineer, but have a general understanding of how this went down. These towers were built like a cage, with the reinforcement of the building being the outside skeleton. It does have support beams inside, but it was mostly held together by the exterior. Plane crashed into that. Then, you have jet fuel burning so hot, it weakens the integrity of the steel. Once it starts weakening, it's like a domino effect. Think about bending a metal spoon back and forth at the neck, and eventually it breaks. Not because you're so strong, but because steel is significantly weaker when heated. Now I know most getbiggers won't understand this analogy, as we dine with only sterling silver.

Kwon_2 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:19:05 PM »

Quote from: galeniko on April 04, 2013, 04:36:44 PM

10 years later and noone brought this to court succesfuly?

are the courts in on it too?

look, the cia cant be trusted, and govt cant be trusted each one loves themselves the most, but wheres court proof evidence?

the whole government was in on it

The only ones not in on it was the people

Overload · « **Reply #17 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:24:46 PM »

I'm a Structural Engineer.

Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure.

Irongrip400 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Overload on April 04, 2013, 05:24:46 PM

I'm a Structural Engineer.

Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure.

I don't know where you got your info, as the 747 wasn't even invented when these things were built, let alone when they were conceived. Being a structural engineer, you'd know these things were probably drawn up no less than two years before the first excavator was brought on site. I am not a structural engineer, but have been around enough bridge and building projects to have talked to people in the know, and all of them say the same thing, there was no "controlled demolition". And as far as structural engineers go, I've seen some pretty stupid ones, who on jobs I had to tell them the correct way to do something. You're a structural engineer, shit, you could just be a dude who fixes foundation cracks on residential houses and is spouting off as an expert. Not attacking you, as I'm sure it comes off that way, but don't believe the conspiracy theory hype.

Overload · « **Reply #19 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Irongrip400 on April 04, 2013, 05:32:45 PM

I don't know where you got your info, as the 747 wasn't even invented when these things were built, let alone when they were conceived. Being a structural engineer, you'd know these things were probably drawn up no less than two years before the first excavator was brought on site. I am not a structural engineer, but have been around enough bridge and building projects to have talked to people in the know, and all of them say the same thing, there was no "controlled demolition". And as far as structural engineers go, I've seen some pretty stupid ones, who on jobs I had to tell them the correct way to do something. You're a structural engineer, shit, you could just be a dude who fixes foundation cracks on residential houses and is spouting off as an expert. Not attacking you, as I'm sure it comes off that way, but don't believe the conspiracy theory hype.

He talked about the 747 after the 9/11 attack. He's on record about the entire thing. Lot's of QA/QC for a buildings of that magnitude.

A licensed structural engineer can do anything, you are right about that. BUT, they are legally liable for when it FAILS. You can go to jail if someone dies due to a design flaw.

I don't care if it was a demo or not, just giving my experience.

#1 Klaus fan · « **Reply #20 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:39:55 PM »

Quote from: Irongrip400 on April 04, 2013, 04:32:06 PM

I'm not an engineer, but have a general understanding of how this went down. These towers were built like a cage, with the reinforcement of the building being the outside skeleton. It does have support beams inside, but it was mostly held together by the exterior. Plane crashed into that. Then, you have jet fuel burning so hot, it weakens the integrity of the steel. Once it starts weakening, it's like a domino effect. Think about bending a metal spoon back and forth at the neck, and eventually it breaks. Not because you're so strong, but because steel is significantly weaker when heated. Now I know most getbiggers won't understand this analogy, as we dine with only sterling silver.

Ok the exterior has a hole on one side going almost from corner to corner and some of the floors missing and some core columns damaged. But. Think how the massive torque gets distributed. The building distributes it on every side that is intact going up the building and down the building.

There probably was a minimal amount of jet fuel present at the impact floors since the building was not designed to hold large amounts of liquid inside. What burned was furniture and maybe some parts of the building itself. Every floor on average weighed about 5000 tons or 11 million pounds. There has never been any talk about concentrated heating effect on a specific support structures so we are lead to believe the building heated up fairly evenly on the crash floors and above. Heat energy and output estimations would be fairly easy to calculate but I don't bother. Simple logic dictates that if the building came down naturally it was on the absolute brink of failure right after the plane crash. What a coincidence right.

syntaxmachine · « **Reply #21 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:45:05 PM »

Here's a cluster of very basic questions those would subscribe to a CT theory need to answer before they can be taken seriously. The plausibility of the answers proffered will set how seriously we can take such persons:

What do you know about structural engineering that structural engineers don't? What do you know about how the federal government functions and how this functionality could make a 9/11 conspiracy viable that political scientists, historians, and those who work for the federal government don't? How did you come to acquire this knowledge?

How has every single conspirator remained silent on the matter, despite the hundreds that would have been necessarily and the inability of the Bush Administration to keep a lid on literally everything occurring under its auspices? Why did Al Qaeda act exactly as if it had carried out the attacks -- its operatives confessing to the operation, its leader declaring it a success, its insistence on carrying out similar such attacks, and its being virtually exterminated in response -- if they in fact did not? How did you come to acquire this knowledge?

Thanks in advance

GigantorX · « **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2013, 05:48:15 PM »

Quote from: Game Time on April 04, 2013, 01:44:48 PM

This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?

Only element missing is jet fuel.

Not all buildings are built the same. Unless we know how the Russion building was constructed, what it was constructed out of, the quality of engineering/materials, heat of the blaze and on and on you can't quite do a straight up comparison.

It's a lot more complex than saying "both buildings on fire and one didn't collapse. WTF?"

arce1988 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2013, 06:02:27 PM »

I'm a Structural Engineer.

Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure.

Overload just crushed the correct ^

Disgusted · « **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2013, 06:21:13 PM »

From what I've read the WTC had a pretty solid core structure that "should" have survived the collapse so who knows.

Author Topic: Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11 (Read 81713 times)

ukjeff