Originally posted by sasquatch672You'll find that "math" dont give all the answers. Im getting a degree in aviation science, and I use simulation for airplanes, to caculate wing strength, max speed before the planes breaks apart etc, I even have some space training in simulaters, and I can tell you that the data from the simulaters are often completly wrong, one variable that you might miss will mess up the entire thing, Mr. Cessna proved that with his airplane
Just do the math.
Originally posted by PocketKingsAn ex girlfriend of mine was in the towers: What has that to do with anything?
This is ridiculous. Two of my friends died and my father was actually on a plane at the time over Washington D.C. Our government would never do something like that. wake up people, your so anxious to attack Bush and the government that you make up conspiracy theories of how they killed so many of their own citizens in such a terrible, terrible act of te ...[text shortened]... hey were two good friends, my teammates on many teams. our government would not do that, so stop
Oppressive regimes have never been too reticent about killing its own people for its own gain. I'll refer you to Tianeman Square and Kent State University, 1970.
D
Originally posted by sasquatch672Didn't the Twin Towers have a hollow centre where all the lift shafts were? That might explain it.
Buildings just don't drop like that. They just don't. Every single simulation we did that predicted a collapse demanded that the portion of the buildings above the hits fell in most cases in the direction of the impact and in some cases in the direction the planes were travelling. We could not predict a drop straight down unless we ignored physical realities.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorakyea, like that compares. you actually believe our government had something to do with 9/11?
An ex girlfriend of mine was in the towers: What has that to do with anything?
Oppressive regimes have never been too reticent about killing its own people for its own gain. I'll refer you to Tianeman Square and Kent State University, 1970.
D
Originally posted by sasquatch672we possessed knowledge of an enemy attack before pearl harbor also. possessing knowledge of a possible coming attack does not mean you had something to do with it or that you let it happen
I'm sorry for your loss, but is it really so hard to believe that a certain number of people in the government would have advance knowledge of an attack planned against an American target and instead of preventing the attack, would actually let the attack proceed, even maximizing its effect, in an attempt to galvanize the American people?
Do you t ...[text shortened]... theory - it happened. It's documented.
So maybe - just perhaps - history repeats itself.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Do you think your simulation would stand for a more thorough scrutiny? If so, why don't you try and involve people who actually has the means to test your theory?
I'm not prepared to say "yes" to your question. But, well...the official story also states that Flight 77, also a Boeing 757 loaded with about 9,000 gallons of jet fuel, crashed into the Pentagon. I think the questions regarding the Pentagon incident bear some scrutiny. Specifically: not a single media photo, including those taken just minutes af ...[text shortened]... the public documentation of the attack or follow the laws of physics. They just don't add up.
Understand, I'm not on anyone's side here. I'm just puzzled. Can there be no natural cause (well, as natural as can be under the circumstances) that would explain the clear drop of the towers?
Also, consider this. Usama being able to plant charges at the bottom of the building to detonate them simultaneously with the planes crashing into the scrape. The charges wouldn't have worked alone (as evident from the earlier 199? attack) but in conjunction with the plane destabilizing the building from above?..
I really don't know about such things, but it seems to me, you must be pretty damn sure before saying anything with even remote certainty, or most will consider you a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
No offense.
Originally posted by sasquatch672published? ...
We actually tried that. When we built our model, we used official NIST and FEMA accounts, as well as the Congressional report of the 9/11 report, as well as much video and photographic evidence that we could find. These included the reports from demolition experts and the WTC architects. And the WTC architects stated that the WTC was constructed to w ...[text shortened]... truth. I am the farthest thing you'll ever find from a conspiracy theorist. Just do the math.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672sasquatch672, I really cant believe that somone with the intregity you got actually believe this. And Yes PHD's are wrong sometimes, theres some that believe that the moon landings are a hoax, there are educated wackos out there. It people like you that come up with all these conspiracy's, and your simulations are a joke, Amature simulations always are.
Buildings just don't drop like that. They just don't. Every single simulation we did that predicted a collapse demanded that the portion of the buildings above the hits fell in most cases in the direction of the impact and in some cases in the direction the planes were travelling. We could not predict a drop straight down unless we ignored physical realities.
Let me try to answer some of your arguments
A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."
it would cost about 10 percent more than the original building cost to install floor joint reinforcements for greater redundancy. "According to analysis, it could add several more hours to the evacuation period," "If each tower cost about $1 billion to build, then an extra hundred million dollars could have saved most of the occupants. Though it's horrible to contemplate," he continued, "a human life is valued for insurance purposes at about a million dollars apiece, so this helps put the extra investment into perspective. After all, the World Trade Center was retrofitted with 10,000 viscoelastic dampers to reduce its swaying, so safety improvements can't be ignored. The Towers were NOT rofitted with viscoelastic dampers -- they were part of the original design. Building clients have to become more demanding, even if the probabilities of a repeat disaster are very slim.
lively discussion then ensued about whether the terrorist pilots knew where to hit the buildings for maximum effect. McNamara opined that the position of impact seems significant. "They hit them at just the right place—about two thirds to three quarters of the way up. Actually the planes hit them about three fourths and six sevenths of the way up. The earlier [truck bomb] attack showed that the explosion at bottom had little effect and that it's much easier to collapse a building from the top than the bottom. If they had hit the very top of the building, the fire damage wouldn't have had such a catastrophic effect. At the bottom, the columns are much heavier and stronger and so they would have taken a much larger load." Connor offered that one would "need graduate-level engineering training to choose the prime target location."
John Young, a veteran architect, believes that the towers were structurally unsound and shook to pieces following the impact of the jets
Osama seems to admit planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:
"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[2]
Later Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh were captured. Both were known al Qaeda members and both admitted participating in the planning of the attacks. They also indicated bin Laden's direct participation
Read these links
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/546397/posts
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
It feels like Im arguing with a moon conspiracy theorist. No wonder your a GWB hater, if you think he did this, everyone would be if they believed your "simulation"
If the Jets didnt cause the callaspe, what did?
1 edit
The fact that friends of mine wouldn't even consider the option of it been a controlled explosion, spurred me on to see just what this community of what I would call a generally 'informed bunch'-compared to the average Joe thinks on the subject. When I really really really thought about it, I reckon that the two towers would of withstood 3 planes crashing into it-without it collapsing. I think that its easy to underestimate the design structure of the buildings if you have no knowledge of structures themselves. It was built with the intention of withstanding terrorist attacks and I just cant believe that the fuel that CANT physically burn hot enough to melt structural steel has been accepted for the reason of collapse.
The cheek of the site been called Ground Zero, which is what demolition experts call the site where a building lands after been brought down with explosives os just too much for me.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html