Watching a program on National Geographic on 9/11 Conspiracies
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Watching a program on National Geographic on 9/11 Conspiracies

  1. #1

    Watching a program on National Geographic on 9/11 Conspiracies

    I'm watching a program on 9/11 Conspiracy theories on National Geographic. I'm not trying to start a debate on whether 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy or not, but honestly, some of these conspiracy theorists are either insane or stupid. I actually hope they are insane since you can't fix stupid.

    My favorite is this kid that produced "Loose Change." What qualifies him to know whether a jetliner can bring down a skyscraper or not? I also saw another show where this guy claimed that he had been involved in building construction for 12 years and demolition for 12 years so he "knows how buildings go up and how they go down." Now he's a nurse. Wonder if that's because he sucked at his previous careers?

    While I am not trying to start a 9/11 conspiracy debate, I think people need to remember that the WTC buildings were built like no other buildings on earth and therefore will not collapse like any other building on earth.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    6
    I flipped over to it for a sec when man woman wild went to commercial. All I can say is what do you expect to be put out from a sheeple left wing org like nat geo ?

  4. #3
    the WTC buildings were built like no other buildings on earth and therefore will not collapse like any other building on earth
    .

    Could you explain this a little better. The WTC were built using the same basic design as most modern day tall buildings with the steel support structure in the center and outer walls. Gravity is a powerful force that as long as we remain here on Earth we are going to have to deal with it. The steel supporting the top of the builds went through a second annealing process when the fuel of the airliners kept burning. When the weight of the top floors finally gave way the sudden shock caused the support below to fail. If the crash had been at a much higher level the bottom structures may not have failed or at least in the way they failed because the weight would have been much less. If the crash had been at a much lower level the the upper portion would probably have toppled over rather than straight down.

    The key was that the crashes were at the proper level to cause the total failure as it did. The terrorist were probably just lucky with where they hit rather than any real intent for those floors. Just like with the Katrina conspiracist, Mother Nature and all of her laws seem to be ignored and they vastly overestimate the power of man to control her. Gravity is a part of nature and controls lots of things.

  5. Please don't take this to its most basic elements it takes the crazies out of the discussion come on gravity next thing youll say is a iceberg can sink the titanic

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinnacle Safety View Post
    Please don't take this to its most basic elements it takes the crazies out of the discussion come on gravity next thing youll say is a iceberg can sink the titanic
    Oh, and the Titanic was that unsinkable ship.
    Charlie

  7. #6

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    .

    Could you explain this a little better. The WTC were built using the same basic design as most modern day tall buildings with the steel support structure in the center and outer walls. Gravity is a powerful force that as long as we remain here on Earth we are going to have to deal with it. The steel supporting the top of the builds went through a second annealing process when the fuel of the airliners kept burning. When the weight of the top floors finally gave way the sudden shock caused the support below to fail. If the crash had been at a much higher level the bottom structures may not have failed or at least in the way they failed because the weight would have been much less. If the crash had been at a much lower level the the upper portion would probably have toppled over rather than straight down.

    The key was that the crashes were at the proper level to cause the total failure as it did. The terrorist were probably just lucky with where they hit rather than any real intent for those floors. Just like with the Katrina conspiracist, Mother Nature and all of her laws seem to be ignored and they vastly overestimate the power of man to control her. Gravity is a part of nature and controls lots of things.
    Not just annealing, the steel was greatly softened causing it to lose much of its strength after almost an hour of heating at temperatures of about 1800F, which is considerably higher than the normal annealing temperature of structural steel.

    What the conspiracy theorists failed to point out is that the EPA was in on the conspiracy starting 30 years before 9/11/01 when the agency made it illegal in 1972 to use asbestos to protect steel structures from fire. The substitute insulation that had to be used had neither the insulation qualities nor the physical integrity to withstand the tremendous fire and impacts of the planes, thereby exposing the structural steel to much more intense heat than would have occurred had asbestos been used.

    Further, the buildings had used asbestos up to about the 52nd floors when it became illegal, so the planners of the 9/11 event had that information and made use of it by flying the planes into the buildings much higher up.

    Pouring gasoline on the fires of conspiracy theories.
    Charlie

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Also to add, those planes were packed full of fuel adding to the intense heat. As the building collapsed each floor pancaked on the one below adding more weight to each floor as the building went down.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    Also to add, those planes were packed full of fuel adding to the intense heat. As the building collapsed each floor pancaked on the one below adding more weight to each floor as the building went down.
    Your second statemen is not true. They couldn't have added more weight than was there before the buildings collapsed, but the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling upper stories impacting the lower floors certainly caused the lower floors to collapse because the load on the remaining floors was more than doubled.
    Charlie

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    My point is that building was not designed to withstand a forces of that magnitude from top to bottom. I realize the weight would not change but drop a fifty pound block on a scale and tell me the scale will still read fifty pounds on impact.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post
    [/B]Your second statemen is not true. They couldn't have added more weight than was there before the buildings collapsed, but the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling upper stories impacting the lower floors certainly caused the lower floors to collapse because the load on the remaining floors was more than doubled.
    Actually his statement from a structural engineering stand point is correct. The Towers were constructed on an internal support and distribution framework. The individual floor space loading is limited by the structural weight bearing capability of the under support of the individual floors. The whole building structure is all part of the weight support and the collaps of one floor onto the next does not "add additional weight" to the total mass of the building but will "blow out" the weight capability of the individual floor structures.

    Picture a series of boxes stacked on top of each other and joined by an exoskeletal structure with minor structure connecting crosswise from corner to corner. Now drop a weight that is 2X the support capability of the floor loading into the top box. As the weight breaks through the 'floor' of the box, the cross ties will break and eventually the exterior walls will flex to the center then to the outside. Once the 'pancake' effect starts, there is nothing to stop it except a structure capable of supporting the entire mass of the colapsing structure.

    You are absolutely correct that the kinetic energy of the falling floors was part and parcel of the collaps in total.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast