Any conspiracy theorists should just refer to MA.

Well there aren't any powerful conspirators to assassinate, and assassinating a conspirator would'nt create a conflict necessary to suggest the goals of the NWO. Also it would create suspicions, and have no contributory effect to a one country world.

They needed a conflict to start so they can 'solve' it, or have the solution involve a critical step to achieving a NWO. It's really not that complicated, it just sounds ridiculous.. But after you research it, and study the bible.. a lot of things make a lot of sense >.>

Im sure i said it in an earlier post, but a clear example would be the great depression. Look at the causes behind the depression, vague and ridiculous at best! And the outcome?? SSID for everyone, that sounds critical for a NWO to be successful.



Well why would they make look like a bombed building?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 17 2008, 5:15 am by CecilSunkure.

Ok, so the workers are the best, they say the building shouldn't have fell. But the thing is, the building did fall, and it fell inward, as in it didn't topple sideways. Now the chances of that happening are going to be much worse than a sideways fall.. Since this buildings was built so well, i dont think it should have fallen, espaically inwards.

When analyzing the load bearing capacities for the structure's columns, beams, girders, and floor panels, the closer they are to the middle or centroid of the building the more stress/strain/loads they withstand. So when a combination of an airplane crash and raging fire come into play, it ruins the structural integrity of the building, thus pushing many heavily dependent members past their margin of safety. And when this happens, the first ones to fail are the ones that hold the greatest stresses/strains/loads, thus the innermost members. Once these fail, it will create what's called a "progressive collapse." As one member fails, it will heavily affect another dependent member even more, and so on. This to a normal person's eye would visually seem like a building collapsing inward. Buildings aren't like trees where if something comes at them from the side it'll topple sideways. Buildings have hundreds of thousands of beams and columns which brace each other.

Yes I've thought of this before -the pillars near the outside have half of the amount of building above them to hold up compared to the pillars near the middle, and the corners half as much as those on the sides. But the thing is, these pillars were nearer to the upper half of the building and not the complete bottom, so the stress wasn't as intense near the bottom floors. Also the plane hit from the side of the building and did not exit the other end, so a whole middle side, and interior were destroyed. This would in theory result in a building with a hole, and a fire. Nothing more. But if the building were to fall, it makes little sense that entire thing would collapse straight downward.

These bars im sure are extremely strong, and a fuel fire composed of hydrogen peroxide and diesel shouldn't be able to melt thick metal, or barely weaken it at all. As for explosions caused by the fuel, the fuel would need to be in a compressed environment to result in a devastating explosion, like a fuel tank truck, or fire hydrant. Yes fuel can cause an explosion from a plane, but not a plausible explosion to emit major damage to the structure. In my mind, the fires created had little to do with the building crashing.. So fires playing a major roll seems to be besides the point.

I'm not saying its impossible for a downward collapse, it just doesn't seem probable.

With these things in mind.. I still don't believe that this was planned purely by terrorists.



Yes its tilting, but the building didn't topple over into other buildings in a single general direction. That would be a sagging.. Is that what you meant?

You pretend to know what you're talking about when you really don't. Go back through the entire thread and the links provided and you'll see that all this have already been addressed. And no one said anything about the metal melting- the heat decreases the metal's holding capacity.

I have discussed everything you have mentioned in my previous posts. But i guess I'll recap on some crucial things people don't know as well as some other things:

1) People seem to believe that only when steel melts would it have a physical effect on a building. If fires burn at a hot enough temperature, it will create what's called a thermal misfit. According to research done, the fires burning in the buildings ranged somewhere between 600-1200 degrees Fahrenheit. This is way more than enough to create an elongation or a change in length in the members. A few inches may not seem alot, but this will create what's similar to "forcing a member into place" during construction. This will create a shear, axial, and torsional force/stress, which may push the bearing limits way past it's marginal safety factor. Few degree changes aren't going to do much, but raging fire spread throughout entire floors will start slowly fatiguing the members.

2) How would it not make sense for a building to not fall downward? Look at the basic physics here:
ss
The red squiggly line denotes the portion in which the airplane crashed into the building. Point C denotes the center of gravity of the portion of the building above the red squiggly line. This is called a centroid. Every object/body in this universe has a center of gravity which indicates the "center" of your weight. Now we'll treat point A as a joint which allows some form of rotation (because this is where the plane made a hole in the building).

There's this term we use called moment. It can also be known as torque. Take the moment/torque about point A, you'll see that the force is on the right side and that there will be a clockwise motion. And with this motion, this will create a downward collapse. The only way for a building to collapse sideways is for the top portion to rotate counterclockwise about point A. And in order for this to happen you have to either have:
- a REALLY strong horizontal force, like wind or something, so strong that it exceeds the clockwise moment created by the center of gravity (wind is a distributed force, so the centroid would be located at the mid point of the height of the building.)
- or have the top portion of the building tilted so that the center of gravity is ultimately located horizontally (in the x direction) to the left of point A. This will then create a counterclockwise moment about point A.

Now the building is actually a thousand times more complicated than this, but the general idea remains the same. Now if this building were super ass skinny like a tree, then yes it would be very plausible for it to topple sideways as just a slight angle change at one of the corners can easily shift the center of gravity to either side. Or if the airplane were to have crashed literally at a place like 5 or 10 stories above the ground, then a sideways topple would seem probable.

3) When you said this:
you were exactly right. I've said this many many times in my previous posts, but all members (columns, pillars, beams, girders, floor slabs, etc) are dependent of each other. This network of members is a static system where they all support each other. Take out some members, all the others will be affected. And we both agree that the closer you are to the middle of the building, the more stresses, strains, and forces there will be right? Well now that the middle is gone, all the other members are even more affected, possibly pushing their bearing capacities past their ultimate strength.

Now you see, many structural engineers have pointed out that the plane crash itself won't cause the building to collapse. When you throw fire into the equation it will create enough damage.

You're probably thinking that because there's a hole in the side of the building that this gap will create a sideways collapse. Refer back to the picture i drew. Now this may be true for skinny things like trees but not for buildings. I could draw a picture to illustrate this but if you really insist that I prove this to you, i'll do it another time.

4) Take a few classes in Engineering mechanics of materials and Structural Analysis and you'll realize that the collapse of the towers were completely independent of controlled demolitions.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 18 2008, 5:24 am by MillenniumArmy.

I didn't mean that I thought the building would collapse completely sideways, the upper intact while it fell like a log. More of a sideways collapse, resulting in the rubble falling mainly in a single direction, as it crumbled downward at an angle, instead of directly downward.

I looked up the general melting point of steel and it's around 2750°F. So a fire about 600-1200°F would create swelling and effect the buildings whole stability to an extent. But fuel tanks lie in the back of airplanes, and the airplane did not go out the other end. So I assume the fire is nearer to the entry point than the opposite end of the building.

As the building starts to collapse at the weakest point, being near the hole, much more weight is pressed onto the pillars lieing at the other end, causing them to collapse after the ones near the hole collapse. The difference in time of each side collapsing shouldn't be that great, because the weight transfer would be almost instant, but as the pillars on the opposite end collapse away from the hole, before they collapse they sustain some weight of the building while near the hole no weight is being held up (or very little is). So that means there is less resistance for the building to fall near the hole than near the opposite end, pushing the building to topple towards the general direction of the point of entry. Now, I want to clarify I don't think the thing should have fallen like a tree, I think it should'nt have fallen at all, and if it did, it would topple MAINLY downwards, but the part of the building above the plane hit should lean towards the point of entry and create a pile a of rubble in the shape of an oval, rather than a circle with the center point being that of which the original buildings center point laid.

My main point is I don't think the building should have fallen, and if it did I don't think it would fall so conveniently.



http://www.911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

These people think the metal melted. I disagree. You think they were weakened, I agree, just not enough to collapse the building.

I was referring to the discussion in this thread. Of course there are people who think the steel melted.

No I scanned through and saw some people mention melting a while ago, but thats besides the point.. As for the point being addressed already, I can agree and disagree to whatever I choose. If your mind is made up already on this subject, please don't tell me I don't know whats going on when I'm still discussing things.

Truth isn't defined by opinions

And has what to do with you telling me:

The coefficient may be a little different on wikipedia, but the point is that 600-1200 degrees F is more than enough to create a strain. Even a few inches will make things unsafe. And the longer a member is, the more it'll displace.
That's not how structural mechanics works...
Well it did topple mainly downwards, and there was leaning as shown in that picture posted earlier.

Well it did. And through structural analysis, the fall did seem "convenient." We've done lots of studies like this in our structural engineering classes.

That's not a complete thought, I can't even tell what you are trying to say

ok



As one part of the building breaks, the rest standing still apply resistance until they break. So with the part of the building that collapsed not supporting any weight, there is a slight change in weight distribution. If an entire side of a building, or tree, or anything is not being supported, and the center of gravity is shifted then, if the item were to fall it would fall in a different path than when it had an entire base.

An example would be you have a box held up by four sticks, one in each corner. If you take all 4 sticks away at once, the box falls striaght down. If you take two sticks away from the box that lay under the same side, the box falls sideways. This is an extremely inaccurate example, and the effects on a building would be very different. But the main idea is still there, being a less convenient fall.

If i'm missing something.. tell me

Weight distribution does change if you take out some supports, yes. Center of gravity does not. Center of gravity changes only when the object changes. Like in a human body, your center of gravity should be located somewhere near or around your belly button. If you chop off your legs, your center of gravity will shift upwards towards your chest area. But anyways...

Your example would be somewhat applicable only if the main reason for the tower's collapse were the physical damage of the plane itself. However that was not the case as many structural engineers and sources have pointed out. Because if it did, the towers would've collapsed almost immediately after the planes crashed that day. Fire is the reason for the collapse. Without fire, the building would probably still be standing even to this day (because of the great design of the building) but who the hell has ever heard of a huge boeing airplane crash in which no fire is present? The fire simultaneously affects all the remaining structures, and thus after time it will create the collapse we've all seen.

If you consider the bars holding up the building apart of the object, and the building before it was hit, yes the center of gravity was shifted due to a rearrangement of matter.

Also, with fire, without fire, my example would apply however the building fell, if the final bar holding the building warped too far, then the nearest bars would be the most affected, and the farthest bars away would apply resistance the longest.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 18 2008, 6:58 am by CecilSunkure.

And now we go back to what I was saying before. So say this building now has a hole in it. Many members are knocked out and cease to function properly, but the structure still stands due to the remaining members left. The forces, stresses, and strains would be redistributed, that's the key here (Only that this building would be considered unsafe and prone to collapse if another variable like fire is added.) If the building collapsed purely due to the physical damage, we might've seen something a little different in the way it fell. However, the fact of the matter is that fire was the cause (the physical damage assisted in it's downfall, but was not a primary cause). Thus it affects all of the remaining already-redistributed members simultaneously and the first ones to fail will be the ones closest to the center near the cavity where the plane stopped.

But even using your example... you have to take into account the dimensions of the box. The width and lengths can be disregarded for the moment, but take into account the height. Just try this: If your box is only a few inches high and you take away one or two of the stands, the box might slant for a very very brief moment in time, but the absence of these supports will make the model unstable and the other supports will fail almost instantaneously. In the end, the fall will still be downwards for the most part.

HOWEVER, if your box is a few feet high and do the exact same thing, the box will not fall as straight downwards as the box that is only a few inches high. This is because the center of gravity in the taller box is located much higher, and by geometry if you rotate the box, the point further along the rotating lever will travel a much greater distance.

The WTC situation resembles more the short box example. But remember, a building has thousands of supports. The airplane only took out a handful of them, thus why the building was still standing.

Yes the fire affects all supports at once due to heat expansion, but i believe the building fell as it did because there were pre-planted demolitions inside the building, creating a convenient collapse, and a CERTAIN collapse.

If there were no demolitions, then I believe what I am saying should happen, which you seem to agree with for the most part.