IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof, Debunkers claims finally destroyed

trimble
post Nov 15 2010, 01:02 PM
Post #41





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 15 2010, 10:32 AM) *
Considering the nearly free fall rates of collapse, I see nothing whatsoever, including your random chaos theory, that would act as anvil to the hammer.

I make no theory. I am merely stating basic mechanics.

To change the velocity of an object (ie apply an acceleration to it) requires a force. The resistance to that force is the object's inertia. The force is proportional to the object's mass and acceleration being applied. In the case of a floor slab, this inertial force is huge. An object travelling at 60mph is moving at around 30ms-1. A rigid floor is accelerated to this,despite a large safety factor, after what ... a 10cm drop? If you plug that into the standard motion equations (which is to make all sorts of invalid assumptions -- yes, yes, I am aware of this, but the purpose is to illustrate, not provide accurate numbers), you will get an acceleration of around 3000ms-2 over a hundredth of a second. Inertia = m.dv/dt . Once there is no more acceleration, there is no more inertial force -- ie the "anvil" is in existence for only as long as the debris from above is accelerating it. But for that fraction of a second, it is one hell of an anvil (and indeed one that in turn shatters) for the lower layer of debris and the slab itself.

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 15 2010, 10:32 AM) *
The concrete was not broke into smaller pieces, it was pulverized into a pyroclastic flow. An anvil of large proportions would have been required. The dust was so fine that it drifted for blocks in the air.


Concrete is a brittle aggregate material susceptible to fractures. If you hit a block of concrete, shock waves will travel throughout the material, and there will be localised stresses resulting in shattering and dust. Hit it hard enough, and vigorously tumble your small pieces together, and you are going to get more dust than chunks. Comparable to a giant commercial VSI crusher, I suppose.

I am not, however, going to make any argument or point of how concrete is turned to dust. I am not a materials scientist (my field is far removed from anything related to 9/11). The sole point I am making (and that SanderO is making) is that there is no *need* for anything additional to help the building on its way, after collapse is initiated. Whether additional help is required to explain other observations (ie. the dust) is a completely different matter.

Unrelated niggle : do please avoid inaccurate terms like "pyroclastic flow" and "chaos theory". You dont mean either, thus its inaccurate and lazy language that may confuse another reader (probably fall into laziness myself sometimes, but I hope not over such specific terms).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 15 2010, 04:26 PM
Post #42





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (trimble @ Nov 16 2010, 02:32 AM) *
I make no theory. I am merely stating basic mechanics.

To change the velocity of an object (ie apply an acceleration to it) requires a force. The resistance to that force is the object's inertia. The force is proportional to the object's mass and acceleration being applied. In the case of a floor slab, this inertial force is huge. An object travelling at 60mph is moving at around 30ms-1. A rigid floor is accelerated to this,despite a large safety factor, after what ... a 10cm drop? If you plug that into the standard motion equations (which is to make all sorts of invalid assumptions -- yes, yes, I am aware of this, but the purpose is to illustrate, not provide accurate numbers), you will get an acceleration of around 3000ms-2 over a hundredth of a second. Inertia = m.dv/dt . Once there is no more acceleration, there is no more inertial force -- ie the "anvil" is in existence for only as long as the debris from above is accelerating it. But for that fraction of a second, it is one hell of an anvil (and indeed one that in turn shatters) for the lower layer of debris and the slab itself.



Concrete is a brittle aggregate material susceptible to fractures. If you hit a block of concrete, shock waves will travel throughout the material, and there will be localised stresses resulting in shattering and dust. Hit it hard enough, and vigorously tumble your small pieces together, and you are going to get more dust than chunks. Comparable to a giant commercial VSI crusher, I suppose.

I am not, however, going to make any argument or point of how concrete is turned to dust. I am not a materials scientist (my field is far removed from anything related to 9/11). The sole point I am making (and that SanderO is making) is that there is no *need* for anything additional to help the building on its way, after collapse is initiated. Whether additional help is required to explain other observations (ie. the dust) is a completely different matter.

Unrelated niggle : do please avoid inaccurate terms like "pyroclastic flow" and "chaos theory". You dont mean either, thus its inaccurate and lazy language that may confuse another reader (probably fall into laziness myself sometimes, but I hope not over such specific terms).


I think a building would have to be very strong to arrest it's own collapse if you where to remove say ten or so floors cut of
the top lift it up and drop down on the remaining floors i think the case of a steel skyscraper you would have to have very thick
out core columns you would have to have very thick floor trussed more like thick long metal beams supporting the underneath of
the floors you would have to have very strong bolted connections you probably even have to have very strong welds as well just think
about like in the case of the wtc you have like 100 tonnes or probaly even more than that maybe like 300 tonnes of upper floors
suddenly dropping and hitting the floors below i think in order to arrest such a collapse you would have to have a building that
can support more than it's static load i think you would have to have a building that could support 1.5 times it's static load or maybe even
almost twice it's actual static load because when you take the top of a building and drop it you have a tremendous amount of energy
and weight that want to go only one way the way the gravity is pulling it and that is straight down, and in order to have a building that could areest it's own collapse it would have be strong enough to catch and hold the entire weight of the upper floors all without buckling having and bolts shear
come out due to the entire weigh of the upper floors that have just been dropped on it, and for a building to arrest it's own collapse in this
manner would be an incredible feat and i dont think most buildings could do it, anyway just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Anyway that's just a few thoughts of mine from a non engineer pretty good huh?

thumbsup.gif welcome.gif welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 15 2010, 04:36 PM
Post #43





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 16 2010, 05:56 AM) *
I think a building would have to be very strong to arrest it's own collapse if you where to remove say ten or so floors cut of
the top lift it up and drop down on the remaining floors i think the case of a steel skyscraper you would have to have very thick
out core columns you would have to have very thick floor trussed more like thick long metal beams supporting the underneath of
the floors you would have to have very strong bolted connections you probably even have to have very strong welds as well just think
about like in the case of the wtc you have like 100 tonnes or probaly even more than that maybe like 300 tonnes of upper floors
suddenly dropping and hitting the floors below i think in order to arrest such a collapse you would have to have a building that
can support more than it's static load i think you would have to have a building that could support 1.5 times it's static load or maybe even
almost twice it's actual static load because when you take the top of a building and drop it you have a tremendous amount of energy
and weight that want to go only one way the way the gravity is pulling it and that is straight down, and in order to have a building that could areest it's own collapse it would have be strong enough to catch and hold the entire weight of the upper floors all without buckling having and bolts shear
come out due to the entire weigh of the upper floors that have just been dropped on it, and for a building to arrest it's own collapse in this
manner would be an incredible feat and i dont think most buildings could do it, anyway just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Anyway that's just a few thoughts of mine from a non engineer pretty good huh?

thumbsup.gif welcome.gif welcome.gif


What are they talking about when they mention buildings and elastoplastics is that like how much strain a particular piece of steel like
steel beam or column can take before it begins to bend buckle fail? Just interested that's all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 15 2010, 04:57 PM
Post #44





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I guess WTC 7 must have used the same grout, eh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 15 2010, 05:36 PM
Post #45





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I don't know for sure the floor specs, but the concept was to not use shoring and to create a composite system and the concrete was lightweight and the trusses resisted deflection (concrete in compression).

I don't know what the system used in 7 was, haven't looked into it. The structural system was similar though with a core whose perimeter columns support the outside the core floors with a series of columns just inside the curtain wall. I believe there were girders and beams and perhaps trusses as well. But it likely used metal pans since shoring is too expensive and the underside appearance of the slab was not critical. Open web joists facilitate placement of ducts / services etc which are concealed inside suspended ceilings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Nov 15 2010, 06:23 PM
Post #46





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



QUOTE
I guess WTC 7 must have used the same grout, eh?

WTC7 collapsed in a totally different manner, so is (potentially) a different beast. But yes, any concrete floors in any building are generally going to be lightweight and unreinforced: there is no reason for anything else.

But really, why make the question? Who cares? The big point here is that if it is not necessary to "help along" the collapse, anyone trying to achieve total collapse would have done some sums and been sure of this. This was not an operation worked out over lunch. They wouldn't bother chopping the entirety of the towers up into nice 30' sections (the logistics of which are ridiculous, and are often cited in favour of a full CD being 'impossible'), so why look for it when it (probably) isn't there? If initiation is all that is required, and that initiation cannot be explained from the plane and fires (I can't see how it can be), let's expend effort investigating something odd, rather than something obvious (though, in truth, I think there is sufficient evidence already that has not been countered in support of thermite involvement).

QUOTE
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Toppling is only ever possible if the centre of gravity of an object lies outside its vertical projection. A pivot is also required. A building would surely need to be extremely strong to survive significant symmetrical collapse if there is no toppling (think 'pile-driver'). Or rather less strong to survive a collapse if there is toppling (the KE of the upper section no longer has to be absorbed by the lower), but this would necessitate an asymmetrical collapse (either by design or accident) AND a pivot capable of withstanding enough force for the falling block to obtain sufficient angular velocity to clear the lower section.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Nov 15 2010, 06:27 PM
Post #47





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



I mean horizontal projection, ofc wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 15 2010, 06:29 PM
Post #48





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



[quote name='Paul' date='Nov 15 2010, 02:26 PM' post='10791123']
just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.


Paul that is exactly what should have happened. When you see the video the top starts to fall over right before something pulls it's legs out from under it. But really this is all just something to talk and nit pick about. We can talk for eternity about how and why. I'm sure everyone on this forum is in agreement they were brought down by something other than jet fuel. What we need to be doing is deciding if and what we are going to do about it.

I'm going to save you all a lot of trouble of asking me. I don't know what. But I can tell you voting is not going to fix it. Greed will just replace one with another. Think about this. Who the hell in there right mind would want to be in politics? We are losing OUR country to these crooks and pysco's more and more as everyday goes by.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 15 2010, 07:14 PM
Post #49





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The entire top could not have tipped over the side... certainly not as integrated mass. When the SE support was destroyed the NW columns were taking all the load for a bit as the SE side came down. Still connected to the core and the floors the entire top hung together for a few seconds and it tilted and dropped. But the load buckled the NW columns and there was no longer any support for the top and it had no resistance to drop vertically. The CG was well within the footprint and ther was not enough momentum nor a strong enough hinge to sustain continued rotation.

The SE corner of the top dug into the SE corner or the bottom and the collisions of the two sent shockwaves through the top and the joints broke apart and it seemed to turn to dust. Most of it had descended into into the debris cloud created as the SE corners collided and gave the illusion that it simply turned to dust when in fact it was hidden in the dust and debris created a few moments earlier.

Bit the material which had made it over the side... the top SE section did continue to drop down and landed outside the footprint.

Claiming the top should have continued over the side is incorrect and shows no understanding of the force distribution of collision of the two masses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Nov 15 2010, 08:11 PM
Post #50





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



SanderO -

I've just watched a video presentation by Gordon Ross (whose work I am otherwise not familiar with), who makes the observation that the antannae sitting at the top of the North Tower drops before any other part of the structure, making it the first visible phase of the collapse. In other words, no other damage to the corners of the buildings was evident prior to the downward movement of the antannae.

He then makes the startling claim that "all 47 core columns had to be severed - had to be disassociated - in order for the antennae to begin to move downwards."

At least, it struck ME as being somewhat controversial, given that these columns are presumably quite fundamental to the overall structure.

I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that particular statement. I'm not in a position to make any qualified comment myself, but I was interested in whether or not it conflicts with your own theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 15 2010, 09:31 PM
Post #51





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 15 2010, 08:11 PM) *
SanderO -

I've just watched a video presentation by Gordon Ross (whose work I am otherwise not familiar with), who makes the observation that the antannae sitting at the top of the North Tower drops before any other part of the structure, making it the first visible phase of the collapse. In other words, no other damage to the corners of the buildings was evident prior to the downward movement of the antannae.

He then makes the startling claim that "all 47 core columns had to be severed - had to be disassociated - in order for the antennae to begin to move downwards."

At least, it struck ME as being somewhat controversial, given that these columns are presumably quite fundamental to the overall structure.

I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that particular statement. I'm not in a position to make any qualified comment myself, but I was interested in whether or not it conflicts with your own theory.

This series of pictures illustrates what happened to the top section of the building at the start of the collapse.



The yellow and red bars are exactly the same in each picture. You can see that the top of building compressed in on itself before the floors below the fire were effected at all. There is some additional movement of the antennae into the core. This would indicate that the hat truss started to descend as a unit holding the very top floors together, when the explosives knocked out the core and the bottom corners of the hat truss at the same time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Nov 15 2010, 10:34 PM
Post #52





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 13 2010, 10:11 PM) *
SanderO -

I've just watched a video presentation by Gordon Ross (whose work I am otherwise not familiar with), who makes the observation that the antannae sitting at the top of the North Tower drops before any other part of the structure, making it the first visible phase of the collapse. In other words, no other damage to the corners of the buildings was evident prior to the downward movement of the antannae.

He then makes the startling claim that "all 47 core columns had to be severed - had to be disassociated - in order for the antennae to begin to move downwards."

At least, it struck ME as being somewhat controversial, given that these columns are presumably quite fundamental to the overall structure.

I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that particular statement. I'm not in a position to make any qualified comment myself, but I was interested in whether or not it conflicts with your own theory.


It struck me too as very odd, that SanderO completely 'forgot' to mention anything at all
about the existence of the 47 core columns, and the role these would have been playing
in the scheme of things!

So please SanderO, start all over again, but this time take mrmitosis' points and DYEW's
photos into consideration when trying to explain the initial tilting of the top section.
Otherwise, what you described above, makes no sense!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 16 2010, 08:34 AM
Post #53





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I have not gone into the initiation of the collapse in most of my comments, but rather the gravitational collapse whcih essentially begins after the top has "disappeared" into the upper part of the top section.

I can speculate based on what I observe as the collapse is initiated, but I cannot asset it with any certainty as there could be several mechanisms at work to achieve what we observe.

The fact that the antenna tilts a bit to the east and seems to oscillate before it descends does not mean that the entire hat truss is compromised, but perhaps the portion of the structure just beneath it has been. If the entire hat truss remained as a unit AND the antenna which connected to it remained rigidly connected to it we would see a measurable lift on the west side of the roof line or a drop in the east I would think. But it appears (and this is hard to see) that the antenna when it tilts and oscillates is free from the roof structure.

Again speculating... I note that as the top comes down it too has a slight tilt to the East and as it descends the West facade seems to slip past the West facade of the lower section. The West facade of the upper section I believe is then sliced off by the lower west facade columns and spandrels. And there is at least one facade panel which descends several stories ahead of the falling debris... being the first section to come off the top.

My guess is that perhaps a number of the beam stubs at 3 floors of the column just above the strike zone were severed using some incendiaries. Once these were cut free the core side of the floors were unsupported and might being to collapse. If the central core columns under the antenna had also been attacked at the same time, perhaps the dropping of the antenna in advance demonstrates this. I don't know how the core columns were displaced.. but the descending antenna might have pulled in some of the perimeter core columns. This is how a typical CD is made to implode... the central columns are taken out and the ones above them drop unsupported they pull the outer columns inward. So this mechanism might have been at work in the top of WTC 1. Central columns taken out, antenna descends signaling this, and the descent pulls in the several core perimeter columns which were no longer connected to the floors which could resist lateral movement. Now those perimeter columns are pulled "off column" and everything above is translated at bit to the west... column splices break and the entire top is freed to descend. It proceeds at free fall for a second or so and the the floor collisions start which slow it down a bit. But these collisions are what delivers more and more mass onto the upper floors of the bottom section and then they fail and the progressive runaway floor collapse ensues.

The above is speculation and since I can't see what's happening in the core I can't be certain. But there is some free fall or close to free fall descent of a second indicating that one column "length" (36') was taken out. Then the collapse slows a bit for the next 150 feet or so. This could be from the collisions every 12 feet or so?

I suspect in the "scheme" of things re collapse initiation the key columns which may have been in play were the four corner ones 501, 508, 1001 & 1008... the central perimeter columns 504, 505, 1004, 1005 and 701, 801, 708 and 807 (row 800 had 7 not 8 columns) It also may have involve the 3 columns under the antenna, 704, 705 & 804. This comes to 14 perimeter core columns and 3 at its center. None of these were box sections at that elevation - all were WF rolled sections.

Not all the columns would have to be attacked or weakened. Once a column is unloaded from some attack the other columns take up the load so perhaps only 17 columns had to be "taken out" and the remaining 30 were not string enough to carry the loads and the torques created would break all the remaining lateral beam connections so the structures integrity was completely compromised.

The top drop was not caused by sagging trusses or office fires.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 16 2010, 10:48 AM
Post #54





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Trimble

You are absolutely correct that it doesn't matter about the mixture of the concrete in either the towers or building 7. Actually, in my remark, I was being a bit smart-ass. rolleyes.gif

There might be a simple answer to this, but for this layman, it just seems odd that the concrete was about 100% pulverized. No large chunks of broken material, but a pyroclastic flow of very fine dust.

Understanding the constant effect of gravity, it seems to me some other energy source was involved in pulverizing that concrete.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 16 2010, 01:06 PM
Post #55





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Laymen don't know the history of skyscraper and what it was about the twin towers which made them unique. There were many new aspects to their construction.

Formerly steel framed high rises had a grid of columns at about 24' OC The twin towers had open floors with 60 column free interiors

Formerly steel framed high rises had steel beams framed into steel girders with cast in place reinforced concrete slabs of 8" thickness. The twin towers had lightweight open web trusses which supported corrugated metal pans with concrete only 2" above the top of the deck and 4" max at the bottom. The concrete was lightweight and did not have re bars

Formerly steel framed high rises had masonry enclosed fire stairs, elevator shafts and vertical duct chases. The twin towers had metal framed partitions with gypsum wall board for all these enclosures (sheetrock).

Formerly steel framed high rises had masonry exteriors and masonry enclosure and fireproofing for all columns. The twin towers had a column exterior with aluminum cladding and 1" of fire proofing sprayed on.

The twin towers used 40% less steel than had the building been framed as the Empire State Building.

The twin towers used the exterior for resisting wind loads. It was a cantilever tube made rigid as a vierendeel truss. The flexing of the facade was resisted by the vaso elastic dampers which used the stiff core to damper the sway from the wind loads.

The structure was designed to have load redistribution if the facade was structure by a large jet. The floors were not designed to sustain the loads when the top section came down on them.

Ask a civil engineer or an architect who has studied the actual structural design of the twin towers and they tell you how a progressive collapse of the floors was possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 16 2010, 04:57 PM
Post #56



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Not being an architect/engineer, I couldn't comment on the physics of the collapse or the structural integrity of the towers but I personally don't believe that the perps would leave the total collapse to chance. That they were so confident in math, physics and the nature of the structure, that they left it to gravity alone.
The core had to have been rigged to ensure this.

I'm sure gravity played its part, but on an observational basis, the core was blown and thermite/exotic explosives may have been used to cut through the beams (the massive spray of unexplained sparks so similar to the OP video and what appears to be a massive outpouring of smoke just before collapse).

Beyond that I can't say.

2cents (maybe less lol)

ETA: Are there any more quality videos of unexplained sparks, smoke, bright flashes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 16 2010, 05:10 PM
Post #57





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



There likely was some pyrotechnics used on the core to get the thing going, but it's not a matter of chance what the sort of mass dropping on the floors would do.

The core columns could have remained standing if all or most of the lateral beams were connecting them into a rigid 3 D lattice. So there may have been some mischief on the lateral beams in the lower section. But there is no evidence of the lower core columns found in the debris (photos I have examined) which show evidence of explosives or burning. The columns simply broke apart at their joints likely from oscillating and so forth absent lateral support.

I don't think the perps cared if the core stood. That would still have been shocking. That is fell shows how dependent a steel frame structure is on ALL the members to remain connected. A few local failures would be no problem. But as this become a larger percentage of failures, what remains can't seem to make it. The PE of gravity in the towers was enormous and packed quite the punch when turned to kinetic energy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 16 2010, 05:41 PM
Post #58





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 16 2010, 03:10 PM) *
I don't think the perps cared if the core stood.


Oh Really? What if the objective was to destroy the towers. You are assuming they had different motives. Maybe that was the only motive. Maybe not!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 16 2010, 05:45 PM
Post #59





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



Even he knows what it takes to bring a building down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhbFoCUx5rM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 16 2010, 05:57 PM
Post #60





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Everyone knows if you destroy the bottom - the foundation gravity will drop what's up top. This is not rocket science.

If the perps were a coup they wanted to scare everyone and put the blame on someone else and then crackdown on the people in the name of protecting them. So I don't think it mattered how complete the destruction was as long as it was a devastation never before seen. If the core remained no biggie. Building 7 might have been to destroy evidence, records or give a big insurance settlement to Larry. Hard to know. Maybe flight 93 was supposed to hit it.

It scared the American people and they bought the line and wanted to kick butt and rushed in to enlist.

Frankly, I think that the people would have been scared enough even if the towers hadn't fallen but were hit by commercial jets. But taking them down sure made it clear that the perps mean business and would stop and nothing and had the resources. Those who weren't frightened were intimidated.

That plot was way past the pay grade of Osama Bin Laden.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th November 2019 - 12:14 AM