Do We Dare Discuss 911 With Poll

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
so what really happened?

you gonna just keep ignoring the question?

can't argue out an answer so you're stuck.

try coming up with your own scenario, without having to use a youtube link. ;)

i am really curious as to what actually happened and how it all transpired. can you clue me in? with details please?
Click to expand...
You don't have any questions that can be answered dude. I never put people on Ignore either.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
You don't have any questions that can be answered dude. I never put people on Ignore either.
Click to expand...
my question was "what do you feel REALLY happened"? help me understand it all a little better. try to do it in a neutral way. i ask the question openly and honestly.

you don't have an opinion?

we have an "official" story/timeline. how about another "option"?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I really feel that those buildings were not brought down by either the plane collision or the ensuing fire. How have you not been getting this? Why do you need a timeline? In case you hadn't heard this all happened on a single day in 2001, it was on September ( The 9th month) eleventh, thats how they get the 9/11 moniker. It has nothing to do with 9-11 emergency.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I really feel that those buildings were not brought down by either the plane collision or the ensuing fire. How have you not been getting this? Why do you need a timeline? In case you hadn't heard this all happened on a single day in 2001, it was on September ( The 9th month) eleventh, thats how they get the 9/11 moniker. It has nothing to do with 9-11 emergency.
Click to expand...
i understand that you have an opinion of what DIDN'T happen. what i want to know is what DID happen.

i say "timeline" because i have heard people speak of "planted explosives" and i assume this would have to have been ahead of time. maybe days prior.


so my question still stands "what really happened"?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Your right, WTC had damage equal to almost 1% of the building, HUGE!!!!! WTC#7 had absolutely no structural damage at all, the outside walls are not weight supporting, the interior box columns are what give it strength, not glass windows and aluminum frames on a cement facade.
How fast does weight accelerate in speed in 15 feet? Objects fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. The collapsing floor took less than 1 second to impact if in freefall. Its not a major increase in Kinetic energy. Its not like the floors were falling at 30MPH, they initally would have met resisitance at a max speed of 7mph Those steel columns didn't just disappear or lose all structural properties all at once across the entire floor. It would have been much much more likely that any collapsing floors would have slowly deformed and then collapsed where the greatest damage was. You don't see this, what you see is absolute 100% failure on all 110 floors all within 10 seconds. Impossible. Angular momentum isn't even being taken into account here, top floors would have fallen at an angle due to the localized damage, that angle would have caused the top floors to fall off to the side, but you don't see this happen, what you see is the floors falling then turn to dust before they even impact anything. You should have seen the top of tower 2 snap off and fall to the side but you see it turn to dust in midair. The rest of the building just all fails all withion 10 seconds. A building designed to be unaffected by 245 KPH wind loads adding 5000 tons of lateral force.

[video=google;-736262871641918799]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799#[/video]
Click to expand...
i see you added a bit since i posted last.

i think you'l find the kinetic energy of 20floors of skyscraper going even 7 miles an hour to be rather large
lets see weight of world trade center was about 450000tonne lets say top 20 floors weighed 70000tonne
now that going at 7mph

EK = (1/2)mv2
(1/2)x70000000kgx 3.12928m/s/2 = 342733766.144 joules
now you may think thats meaningless numbers lets look at http://www.mhi-inc.com/Converter/watt_calculator.htm

if you enter the 342733766.144 joules in with say a generous impact time of .1 seconds the the results you get are

3427000[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kilowatts
4596000[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Horsepower
11700000000[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BTU/hr[/FONT]
975200 tons (884 686.558 tonne)

notice the weight of 884 686 tonne thats over 12x the standing weight of the top section of wtc

thats what 7 mph of falling skyscraper can do...

and they took longer than 10 seconds to fall
in this video theres clearly plenty of floors still there at 11 seconds into the film
[video=youtube;smreRx51cus]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smreRx51cus&feature=related[/video]
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Well sure, if it were explosives it would have to have been done prior to 9/11, plenty of evidence out there that can provide some reasonable doubt as to the official story. In fact it fits the evidence BETTER than the NIST story does. Hell even a energy beam weapon could have done it, who knows, have you seen the aerial pics of the site? Huge multi story holes in the buildings. I can tell you that the US does have assets that are many decades ahead of tech that the common person can get. You have to realize that skyscrapers are built for the specific reason of staying upright no matter what you throw at them. Ever notice the skyscrapers in Los Angeles don't fall over when hit by magnitude 6.7 earth quakes? What do you think exerts more external forces on a building? A 6.7 scale quake or a 757?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i see you added a bit since i posted last.

i think you'l find the kinetic energy of 20floors of skyscraper going even 7 miles an hour to be rather large
lets see weight of world trade center was about 450000tonne lets say top 20 floors weighed 70000tonne
now that going at 7mph

EK = (1/2)mv2
(1/2)x70000000kgx 3.12928m/s/2 = 342733766.144 joules
now you may think thats meaningless numbers lets look at http://www.mhi-inc.com/Converter/watt_calculator.htm

if you enter the 342733766.144 joules in with say a generous impact time of .1 seconds the the results you get are

3427000[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kilowatts
4596000[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Horsepower
11700000000[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BTU/hr[/FONT]
975200 tons (884 686.558 tonne)

notice the weight of 884 686 tonne thats over 12x the standing weight of the top section of wtc

thats what 7 mph of falling skyscraper can do...

and they took longer than 10 seconds to fall
in this video theres clearly plenty of floors still there at 11 seconds into the film
[video=youtube;smreRx51cus]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smreRx51cus&feature=related[/video]
Click to expand...
Your energy theory only holds true if all the support for the floor disappeared all at once, or if the floors were actually suspended 15 feet away from the next lower floor and dropped through the air onto the other section of Skyscraper. That isn't what happened though, because that would be impossible.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Well sure, if it were explosives it would have to have been done prior to 9/11, plenty of evidence out there that can provide some reasonable doubt as to the official story. In fact it fits the evidence BETTER than the NIST story does. Hell even a energy beam weapon could have done it, who knows, have you seen the aerial pics of the site? Huge multi story holes in the buildings. I can tell you that the US does have assets that are many decades ahead of tech that the common person can get. You have to realize that skyscrapers are built for the specific reason of staying upright no matter what you throw at them. Ever notice the skyscrapers in Los Angeles don't fall over when hit by magnitude 6.7 earth quakes? What do you think exerts more external forces on a building? A 6.7 scale quake or a 757?
Click to expand...
yes, i know all this. i FULLY agree with you.

so what do you think really happened? there must be A LOT of evidence pointing to some type of scenario. can someone put it together for me? please?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Your energy theory only holds true if all the support for the floor disappeared all at once, or if the floors were actually suspended 15 feet away from the next lower floor and dropped through the air onto the other section of Skyscraper. That isn't what happened though, because that would be impossible.
Click to expand...
regardless of whether they all went at once all in very quick successsion that still doesnt change the fact that 7mph (your figure) does add a very large amount of kinetic energy (up to 12x the weight)
and what about the towers taking more than 10 seconds to fall?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
and what about the towers taking more than 10 seconds to fall?
Click to expand...
My mistake, 12 seconds. Just a tiny bit slower than falling through free air. Yep those huge 500,000 ton buildings sure are delicate and put up very little resistance. I mean after all wouldn't you think that the 80+ floors that were undamaged would have successively put up more and more resistance as things came tumbling down, but they didn't they just got out of the way before the top floors even got there.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
My mistake, 12 seconds. Just a tiny bit slower than falling through free air. Yep those huge 500,000 ton buildings sure are delicate and put up very little resistance. I mean after all wouldn't you think that the 80+ floors that were undamaged would have successively put up more and more resistance as things came tumbling down, but they didn't they just got out of the way before the top floors even got there.
Click to expand...
so what really happened?

i can't believe this is so hard. especially when you claim to hold such superior knowledge.

you'll immediately shoot down one theory, but can't produce one of your own to help me understand. thanks anyways.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
this is terrible to watch, but count how long it takes this person to get to the half way point after jumping . Its 10 seconds, which means a human jumping out had 20 seconds before the sudden stop at the bottom. The building has far less time than that. What falls faster? a 180 pound man, or a 500,000 tons of steel, aluminum and concrete? Which weighs more? a pound of steel or a pound of feathers?

[video=youtube;6O8iH-2xeuU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O8iH-2xeuU&feature=related[/video]
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
My mistake, 12 seconds. Just a tiny bit slower than falling through free air. Yep those huge 500,000 ton buildings sure are delicate and put up very little resistance. I mean after all wouldn't you think that the 80+ floors that were undamaged would have successively put up more and more resistance as things came tumbling down, but they didn't they just got out of the way before the top floors even got there.
Click to expand...
lol more and more resistance? each collapsed floor adds weight to the falling mass if the building cant support 20stories collapsing then 21 isnt going to get easier nor 22,23 or 24 stories

12 seconds is about 30% longer than freefall speed 9.22 seconds thats not a small amount
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
lol more and more resistance? each collapsed floor adds weight to the falling mass if the building cant support 20stories collapsing then 21 isnt going to get easier nor 22,23 or 24 stories

12 seconds is about 30% longer than freefall speed 9.22 seconds thats not a small amount
Click to expand...
Jump into a large pile of leaves, let me know if they stop your fall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top