9/11 Theories

 
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.




9/11 Theories

Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Reply With Quote maxtangent is offline
  #1 Old 04-10-08, 06:23 AM 9/11 Theories
maxtangent
Senior Member
maxtangent's Avatar
maxtangent's Flag is: Canada
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 232
Reputation: 1
Default 9/11 Theories

Split and moved from the God thread -G

If you think the twin towers were brought down by planes hitting them, then you need to do some real research.

Jet fuel is 4/5 kerosene. Propane burns hotter than kerosene. Why don't the grates in your barbecue melt?

Discussing religion in this context is so way off topic I felt compelled to say something.
__________________
"Yeah, and if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak."

Last edited by Galahad; 04-10-08 at 09:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply With Quote swntzu is offline
  #2 Old 04-10-08, 09:50 AM 9/11 Theories
swntzu
Senior Member
swntzu's Avatar
swntzu's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 448
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxtangent View Post
Jet fuel is 4/5 kerosene. Propane burns hotter than kerosene. Why don't the grates in your barbecue melt?
You also need to do some research into how materials work.

Steel's young's modulus decreases rapidly at high temperatures and hence loses the abiility to support a significant load. It doesn't need to melt.
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote Zeldrin is offline
  #3 Old 04-10-08, 11:29 AM 9/11 Theories
Zeldrin
Senior Member
Zeldrin's Avatar
Zeldrin's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 285
Reputation: 1
Default

Max,

I Imagine it is the 1/5 of the jet fuel that you fail to mention which makes it significant as a fuel in this case. I have done no research on the matter but that would be my gut feeling as, you understand, jet fuel isn't kerosene despite the fact kerosene is a large component in its manufacture. Small additions can radically alter the properties of the end product.

In support of the point by swntzu: I imagine a plane crashing into a structure does little for said structures integrity. This now weakened structure is expected to maintain the building whilst also ablaze? Though crude, think of a game of jenga. It only takes the removal of one brick (a perverse plane sized brick in this case) to bring the whole tower down. This, incidentally, is also true of major structrues such as bridges which can fall down thanks to the sheering of rivets during periods of stress. The severing of a 1cm piece of metal can be ultimately held accountable for the entire structure collapsing. It seems fair to suggest the planes and ensueing blaze caused the towers to collapse.

I would need to see convincing evidence to flirt with the idea of a conspiracy. My argument is not in defence of government, which, it just so happens, I dislike. it is, however, in support of a fact based analysis of the event. It is no better or worse to believe blindly a conspiracy theory than it is to believe the story we are fed by the government and its propaganda machine, the media. Always better to return to the facts and ultimately let those do the talking.

Zeldrin
__________________
"Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun"
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote Galahad is offline
  #4 Old 04-10-08, 12:25 PM 9/11 Theories
Galahad
Executive Nitpicker
Galahad's Avatar
Galahad's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,355
Reputation: 15


Default

jet fuel/kerosene burns at 825c, while it;s true that steel doesn't *melt* until 1525c, it *DOES* lose 50% of its structural strength at 648c

So what happens when you have hundreds of tons of skyscraper, sitting on steel supports that are suddenly only half as strong and, oh yeah, there's a giant bloody hole in the the building?

The remaining supports weaken slowly and then collapse. The floor pancakes down on the next one and the one below it, making the building fall straight down.
__________________
-=============]xxxxo Galahad oxxxx[=============-
Check out the Heresy Combat Calculator -- MathHammer Made Easy!



Codex: Angels Errant. Read it, please.
Heresy Forum Rules -- Read them, damnit!
Reporting: When/How/Why -- Read that too!
"...remember the Golden Rule: Chill out, they're only plastic spacemen!" -Brother Jazzman
"Galahad is 100% correct in his explanation. Anyone who says otherwise to [him] is vastly mistaken." -The Wraithlord
"You know what? Fuck DC comics." -Robert Downey Junior



Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote swntzu is offline
  #5 Old 04-10-08, 12:43 PM 9/11 Theories
swntzu
Senior Member
swntzu's Avatar
swntzu's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 448
Reputation: 1
Default

Quod erat demonstrandum. Time to close the thread?
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote maxtangent is offline
  #6 Old 04-10-08, 03:42 PM 9/11 Theories
maxtangent
Senior Member
maxtangent's Avatar
maxtangent's Flag is: Canada
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 232
Reputation: 1
Default

Even if the core structure had been weakened that much (and I do not concede the point), those floors falling would be slowed as they hit the floor below them. Each floor would slow the fall. Instead, both buildings came down at near free fall speed. A weakened steel structure does not fall straight down - it lists to the weakened side and falls over.

Also, most of the fuel was burned up in the initial explosion. There is a picture of a woman looking through the hole and yelling for help, so how hot could it have been?
That also does not explain the molten metal found at ground zero, nor how the concrete was pulverized.

Also WTC 7 was not hit by a plane yet fell at the same speed. People were warned that it was going to fall ahead of time and got out. WTC 7 was built so whole floors could be removed and replaced.
Talk to the architects who designed them and they say they were built to withstand multiple plane hits - they are like poking a pencil through a mosquito netting. There is a hole, but the structure's integrity remains.

Fire has never brought down a modern steel structure.

Remember the 32-story building that burned for more than 24 hours and did not collapse?
It did not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid.

I like how this got labeled a 'conspiracy theory' when all I did was point out inconsistencies in what we have been told.

Close the thread if you like. The evidence that we have not been told the truth out there is overwhelming if you choose to look.
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote Galahad is offline
  #7 Old 04-10-08, 03:59 PM 9/11 Theories
Galahad
Executive Nitpicker
Galahad's Avatar
Galahad's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,355
Reputation: 15


Default

If outside links were allowed here I;d link you to an article popular mechanics did on the disaster, max...it clears up a lot of the myths and misconceptions.

The buildings fell fast, Max because each falling floor added more mass, more speed and more kinetic energy. That kind of wright falling straight down isn't going to be slowed by much of anything. The fire may have gone out but the steel was still weakened by that point. It was already in the process of giving way.

As for the burning building that didn't collapose for a start, I don't remember it...but I'm also betting it didn't have a damned airplane hole in it.

It's all well and good to say "this it doesn;t make as much sense as it could' but unless you have an alternate theory to put in it;s place, it;s just so much wind.

If a giant flaming airplane hole didn't knock the building down, what did? Controlled demolition requires huge amounts of prep work, which includes blasting concrete and weakening support pillars. Not the kind of thing you could do without someone noticing.

so if a giant freaking airplane hitting a building didn;t cause it to fall down, what did? Space aliens?
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote swntzu is offline
  #8 Old 04-10-08, 04:26 PM 9/11 Theories
swntzu
Senior Member
swntzu's Avatar
swntzu's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 448
Reputation: 1
Default

I'm guessing the same lizards who faked the moon landings and control the world...
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote cccp is offline
  #9 Old 04-10-08, 04:29 PM 9/11 Theories
cccp
Ex Mod.
cccp's Avatar
cccp's Flag is: Great Britain
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,333
Reputation: 1


Default

also, the planes hit about 3/4 of the way up the building. there would have been at least 25 floors between the plane hole (which were about 3 floors on their own.)

no matter how hard you look at it, that quarter of a skyscraper is going to weigh many tonnes and it will gain weight and speed as it falls. the collapse may begin slowly, but will quickly gain momentum kind of like something rolling down a hill.
__________________
Reply With Quote

Reply With Quote Hespithe is offline
  #10 Old 04-10-08, 04:30 PM 9/11 Theories
Hespithe
Christian, by God's Grace
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,728
Reputation: 1
Default

The Towers were designed to collapse inward and were designed very very well as was evidenced when they did collapse. I have yet to hear a plausible theory contrary to what was released as 'official'. I'm sure our government is not 100% honorable, but neither is it 100% corrupt.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:34 AM.

Powered by the Emperor of Man.




vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.