CrackerJax
New Member
so naive.... they sense a way out to blame the USA on this one..... a way out given by YOU NUTJOBS! Like I said, they aren't stupid...... they see an opportunity.
You guys are so naive.
Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
- Status
so naive.... they sense a way out to blame the USA on this one..... a way out given by YOU NUTJOBS! Like I said, they aren't stupid...... they see an opportunity.
You guys are so naive.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Funny, they keep saying "just look at the video; it was obviously a controlled demo based on the rate the buildings fell."
What they never mention is that this would be the only controlled demolition in history in which the building started falling from the top instead of the bottom. That is part of the conspiracy mindset; ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.
What they never mention is that this would be the only controlled demolition in history in which the building started falling from the top instead of the bottom. That is part of the conspiracy mindset; ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.
wyteboi
Well-Known Member
uh oh, you might have us on somthing ricky.... i doubt it but i WILL look into it. Thats why you are good for this thread, at least u can come with a half way reasonable argument. By the way CJ is makin you look bad with all the un-reasonable bullshit he comes with.
wb
wyteboi
Well-Known Member
i guess if that is why i am here then u have a good reason to call us "nutjobs"
just a way out, yea that sounds good would love a way out of.......WHAT?
It would also be the first time in history that a fire caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.
Yes, an opportunity to make massive piles of cash off 911 truth t-shirt sales. Get real now.
Like I said, they aren't stupid...... they see an opportunity.
You guys are so naive.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Oh really? And what's your excuse?kiss-ass
top down demolition
[youtube]VZ1E2NPl-s8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Hello? Are we awake now?
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
A fire just brought down a freeway overpass on I75 and 9 mile road. This overpass is light years stronger than any building. It is designed to hold millions of pounds and it isn't very long and yet had massive support. This is Detroit so they anticipate super heavy loads. Why is it the overpass fell?
Did you know steel loses 60% of its strength at half of its melting temperature? At this point it can not hold its own weight - it is like putty. The fire in the WTC was more than sufficient to cause failure - this is well established.
Besides this, the fact still remains that the WTC started collapsing from the area where the jet hit and not from the bottom. This proves a controlled demolition could not have taken place.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
I'm not in favor of more government control.
You must have me confused with someone else.
I do believe we were lied to (or at least "misled") as to who was behind the attacks on 9/11. I'm not convinced the government was behind it (though I wouldn't put it past George W.), but I don't think it was Al-Qaeda, either.
K
Keenly
Guest
yeah im with you on that one doob
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
How do you figure that? We need the government to pay for the investigation, but we don't need them to do the investigating ... if we did we wouldn't get anywhere. We want an independent investigation non-partisan, with subpoena power, and sever penalties for lying while under oath. No disregarding important evidence. You have to explain how this would give the government more power.
Been there done this ... way back on page 38 ... several pages on it, was proven to be bogus. The bridge and the skyscraper were not design the same. You have nothing to support the government's conspiracy theory.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
How was this proved bogus? I drive past this spot twice a day. Can you elaborate?How do you figure that? We need the government to pay for the investigation, but we don't need them to do the investigating ... if we did we wouldn't get anywhere. We want an independent investigation non-partisan, with subpoena power, and sever penalties for lying while under oath. No disregarding important evidence. You have to explain how this would give the government more power.
Been there done this ... way back on page 38 ... several pages on it, was proven to be bogus. The bridge and the skyscraper were not design the same. You have nothing to support the government's conspiracy theory.
You guys think a building meant to support only the weight of a given amount of people, with a full load is designed with as much overhead as an empty freeway overpass designed to hold the weight of semi trucks pounding across it with 100,000 pound payloads?
How does that even begin to sound logical? Simple intuition should tell you that engineers design bridges with far more overhead than a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are not designed to hold massive payloads last I checked.
But regardless, the fact is that the massive steel I beams used to construct the overpass were weakened by fire enough to bring it down, and this was with no load on it. How exactly does this not demonstrate that significant fires can cause steel structures to fail? Please be specific.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Better check again. A skyscraper not only has to support the weight of the people and objects inside of it, but IT'S OWN WEIGHT AS WELL. (experts calculate the weight of the WTC towers at around 500,000 TONS)
A 100 story skyscraper is exponentially heavier than a 20 ft tall, 30ft long highway overpass.
Highway overpasses are constructed of steel REINFORCED concrete. They are not constructed of solid steel.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Around here they are mainly steel I beam construction as they are old. The concrete goes on top. And they are more like 100' long or more.
I don't know why I need to explain something so simple but evidently I do.
The question is not which is designed to hold more of its own weight, the question is what is designed to hold more ADDITIONAL force.
Also, a building distributes the weight straight down. The center of mass is directly over its base. A freeway overpass is designed to support weight along its span. This little fact of physics means that the overpass must be capable of loads a building would never see.
Think of an 8' 2X4. Will it hold more weight when placed on its end like a table leg or when laid flat spanning two objects with the weight on the center?
Compared to an overpass, a skyscraper is downright fragile. But regardless of which is stronger, the fact is fire did weaken the steel sufficiently to cause it to collapse under nothing but its own weight. This blows the "fire not hot enough" theory out of the water.
I checked back to page 38 and while this point was brought up it was never refuted. The one guy did say that everything had been debunked but never showed anything to support that claim.
Bottom like, the steel in the WTC would lose at least 60% or more of its strength at the estimated temperatures. Why is it difficult to see how a building hit by a jumbo jet and losing more than 60% of its strength would collapse? BTW, at 40% strength steel will sag under its own weight.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Just start on page 38 and work your way up until it was proven to be bogus. There was a lot of discussion concerning the bridge, it was just use as a strawman argument to side step the real issue.
NoDrama already posted a source to prove your theory is wrong.
Source? Link?
Not the entire bridge, and there is no question about what happen with the bridge, because there was nothing unusual about what happen. Unlike the WTC towers.
Because if it were true ... other steel frame fireproof skyscrapers would have fallen it their own footprint in seconds due to fire ... and that hasn't happen.
- Status