DM me. This forum isn't secure. Hee - haw!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
So was 9/11 an inside job or not? (merged)
- Thread starter Wrong-Direction
- Start date
DM me. This forum isn't secure. Hee - haw!
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #62
Also those calling people conspiracy nuts, most of the evidence comes from eye witnesses that where there such as fireman that said they heard the explosions going off, it's all on film, why would they lie as people are dying around them?
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Ignoring all the conspiracy theories for a second: if you were the US government and were planning a "false flag" attack on your own people, why the hell would you go the trouble of flying passenger planes into a building? Why not just plant some explosives, blow it up, arrest a couple of Middle eastern chaps and fabricate the evidence? Job's a good'un
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,795
Not this shit again. Same old conspiracy theories as per the 7/7 bombings over here, which I know were total bollocks.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
No, what they did was progressive collapse which has happened in other situations. The towers were quite complex structurally, given the failures through the impact of the aircraft coupled with the fires, the type of collapse was what an engineer might predict.
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #66
Paul Reids Sock
Well-known member
You seem to have come to these conclusions recently yet are now so convinced by then that you are flinging insults around at anyone that questions them.
Two questions - 1) did you believe before that it was an inside job and now are convinced? If so what changed your mind?
2) are you a structural engineer or do you just have the videos to have watched to go on?
Ok, that was three, I lied but I also used to be in a council so am used to cover ups
Not trying to be an arse, just trying to figure out what has convinced you so strongly that you would be this adamant
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
Where's Dr No when you need him?
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #69
I was always skeptical over the years and maybe only watched one programme on it years ago, but when you're watching ACTUAL structural engineers saying there's no way the buildings should've come down like that, it makes you think hmmm
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Would have been the biggest secret ever ,to bring down the towers like a demolition lots and lots of TNT would have been needed when the buildings had thousands of people going to work every day and not one of them saw anything
martin tyler
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2013
- 5,844
They would. They would never of toppled sideways.
laws of science convince me more than a theory made up by a bunch of loons.
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h
People like you have suggested it should of fallen sideways.
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Or as you say.
a small select group stole 4 planes, planted explosives in 4 different buildings, crashed another plane into a field, got Bin Laden to take responsibility, fooled millions of people and killed or murdered thousands. And we believe that as the buildings didn't topple how we wanted them to
And we wonder how people are brainwashed and recruited by terrorists over the internet
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #72
As I said, months before all the lifts were out of action getting an "upgrade"Would have been the biggest secret ever ,to bring down the towers like a demolition lots and lots of TNT would have been needed when the buildings had thousands of people going to work every day and not one of them saw anything
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
They make a bit of cash on these things you know. Most of them aren't even practicing engineers when you do a bit of digging, which I'm sure you've done...
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #74
A plane did not hit the pentagon! Fact
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
As we lost one of our own Robert Eaton , and quite a few of my work colleagues, not really sure this thread is entirely appropriate.
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #76
And how the f*** did a bunch of terrorists know how to fly a plane!?
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,416
- Thread starter
- #77
My dad played football with him which is partly why I started this thread, there's too many fishy unanswered questions for me but each to their own
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Well said. The outer skin forming a structural purpose was pretty much reduced by 25% across 3 or 4 floors, just by the impact of the plane. Most fire protection resists fire, not a plan crash so plasterboard, linings etc. completely and instantaneously stripped by the impact. Then you add a simultaneous intense fire across multle floors - even on the day itself, I was with architectural colleges and honestly the surprise was how long they stayed stood up. The weight of everything above the impact zone, the damage from the crash and subsequent fires, the cumulative failures that added up to the eventual catastrophic collapses, people want some alternative narrative, but it really is what it is.
They enrolled in a flying school. This information is freely available if you care to look for it.
a) When has the US needed an excuse to declare war?
b) Would blowing up the World Trade Centre with everyone in it not be enough to cause public outcry then?