Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Sotos:

But based on what you told us those engineers should never have worried about a fully loaded 707 because such thing wouldn't affect the building in any way more than a usual fire would.

Of course it would be considered, the same as they considered hurricane force winds on the buildings. They consider everything. An impact by an aircraft is not the same as a ‘usual’ fire because it involves various degrees of structural damage as well. Burning office furniture alone will not bring down a steel framed building because it will not get hot enough. We have seen recently in Dubai(?) a tower burning with sheets of flame up the whole of one side. The fire gutted the building and burned for hours but the structure did not collapse.

It is obvious that those smart engineers knew that a fully loaded 707 COULD bring such a building down which is why they even mentioned such a scenario.

Not correct! They considered the possibility and designed for it into the structure. It had happened before and in New York, when a Mitchel B25 crashed into the Empire State building, killing several people and doing structural damage. But even then the design allowed for distribution of the load in case of support column failure. The twin towers were designed to cope with the unexpected.

You may also remember that it was not the first time the WTC Tower had been attacked. A truck bomb was driven into the underground car park and exploded killing several. The building didn’t collapse but more by luck than judgement. Had the bomber parked against the column as he was told to, the blast would have taken out one of the main support columns. I read a report that said had he not parked 12’ away from the column, they were convinced it could have caused the structure, or at least part of it, to topple. (The details are on the Internet somewhere.)

Engineering can be an exact science only if you know all the variables and you make the correct calculations and no mistakes are made in the execution. However we have seen many times where engineering goes wrong... buildings and bridges collapsing, spaceships blown to pieces, space missions failing, airplane failures etc.

Many of these are unforeseen circumstances or multiple failures. The fact that both buildings stood for a long time before a very symmetrical collapse says their calculations were correct. Neither the impact or the following fires bought the building down .... so what did?

This becomes even more strange when this is applied to WTC 7, as there was no impact, no fuel fires and nothing but minor office furniture fires. Some critics point out that the side of WTC 7 facing the twin towers was badly damaged and it was. So, why did it not collapse on the weak side of the building, why did it go straight down into its own footprint, just like 1 and 2?

In this case the variables of such event were possibly not fully known because such event was never tested in the real world. Theoretical models are often different from reality (especially in the 60s when they had far less computing power). Furthermore I doubt that they spend a great amount of time and resources to protect against such a scenario because the likelihood of such thing happening was rather small

.
Believe me they do take even the most unlikely causes into account ..... a sort of ‘what-if’ scenario. I know because I spent many years doing this same probability assessment on chemical plant control, safety and shut down systems. We even had to consider double jeopardy!

But the evidence that the official explanation is not correct and full of holes is hidden in full view!

All three buildings collapsed at something approaching free fall acceleration, that is a fact ...... and this is impossible if there is a structure that is creating a force to oppose the vertical descent of the structure above. In this case that was the central core of the building which below the impact point was completely undamaged and was designed to support the full weight, + some, of the whole tower structure. It was as if it didn’t exist! Had it been there the probability was 99% plus the towers would have toppled in another direction as it would be an inevitability that the load would at some point in the descent, become unequally distributed i.e. unbalanced. It would fall in the direction of least resistance.

From the point the collapse starts you go into the realm of theory and guesswork based on known parameters as it becomes increasingly obvious that what was happening was impossible ............ without some help! Strangely enough the 911 Commissions brief was to only look into what happened leading up to the impact .............. not the result!

[Pyrpolizer]

The twin towers fell because of controlled demolition, FULL STOP.
There has been evidence for that both the various explosions heard before the collapse as well as videos showing the little blasts at various points
There have been hundreds of fires on similar steel structures all over the world, not even one fell.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.p ... ding_Fires





At the worst scenario the core of the steel structure should remain intact.

Imo the US KNEW it would happen. They decided to let it happen to capitalize on it in various ways. First to start the war in Afganistan, secondly to destroy Building 7 for reasons nobody knows ,and thirdly because of the huge amounts of gold in the basement, that were removed/lost/ who knows?

As for the supposed attack at WDC and the various evidence for that that's only good for cartoon movies.

[Cap]

it was the Pentagon hit that was mind blowing.
No aircraft debris whatsoever.

I mean for fu** sakes, if you're gonna stage it, at least do it right.

[Robin Hood]

Pyrpolizer:

The twin towers fell because of controlled demolition, FULL STOP.

That certainly is what the evidence says! There was also a dust that covered the whole of the area with a residue that is only found in Thermate, a military grade cutting agent. It doesn’t go bang .... it fizzes at a very high temperature and will cut through steel by melting it, it would only take a small explosive charge to break the final bond between each section after most of the cut had vaporised that ring of steel. There is a picture of the end of one column sticking out of the rubble and it was a clean cut at an angle of about 15-20 degrees. Certainly, it was not a twisted column end that had been snapped/torn apart.

There were also videos taken of molten ‘metal’ pouring out of the side of the building before the collapse and of course, there were the reports, again from fire fighters, that they saw rivers of molten steel flowing inside the building.

For some weeks after the event workers removing the rubble were coming across pools of molten steel and this was confimed by satellite pictures showing the hot spots.

But all this is ignored or treated as a ‘conspiracy theory’ by those who believe the official story without question.

There has been evidence for that both the various explosions heard before the collapse as well as videos showing the little blasts at various points.

The little ‘puffs’ could be explained as the pressure below a collapsing floor creating an increase in air pressure as the upper floor caused compression. So that could have an alternate explanation. IMO: Explosions would have been within the central column structure and the result would be unlikely to have been visible from outside the building.

There have been hundreds of fires on similar steel structures all over the world, not even one fell.

Very true but the structure of the Twin Towers was pretty unique i.e. a central structural core within an outer ‘light’ steel tube! If you look at the drawings it says that if the core dropped i.e. was cut though, then it would pull the outer tube toward the centre and down with it, the floor beams acting a the link between the core and the outer tube. There were a lot of them on each level and they don’t stretch. Hence the fact it collapsed vertically.

Another observation: Watch WTC1/2 collapse it was floor by floor from the top down, the whole structure did not collapse at the bottom, like it did with WTC7. I see that as more evidence it was a controlled demolition, it was also a selective sequence demolition.

[Robin Hood]

it was the Pentagon hit that was mind blowing.
No aircraft debris whatsoever.

I mean for fu** sakes, if you're gonna stage it, at least do it right.

What about the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania? I know for a fact that in aircraft it is possible to override programmed computer functions, you could not test their function on the ground otherwise. There is a theory (I repeat a theory) that the aircraft were being remotely controlled especially the one that hit the Pentagon. Top Gun pilots have said even they would have difficulty making a military aircraft perform as that flight did and this was 'flown' by a novice that couldn't even fly a Cessna!

The flight that crashed in Pennsylvania flew in almost a strait line ..... did communication updates from the ground fail; was that aircraft designated for WTC7? Did it crash or was it shot down over the Great Lakes? Like the pentagon there was no identifiable aircraft debris found at the site ..... just a big hole in the ground, even surrounding undergrowth wasn't burned by the thousands of gallons of aviation A1 fuel and according to those first at the site there was no smell of the fuel.

All very interesting and a challenge to try and work out where the official fantasy has failed to explain.

[Lordo]

The twin towers fell because of controlled demolition, FULL STOP.
There has been evidence for that both the various explosions heard before the collapse as well as videos showing the little blasts at various points
There have been hundreds of fires on similar steel structures all over the world, not even one fell.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.p ... ding_Fires





At the worst scenario the core of the steel structure should remain intact.

Imo the US KNEW it would happen. They decided to let it happen to capitalize on it in various ways. First to start the war in Afganistan, secondly to destroy Building 7 for reasons nobody knows ,and thirdly because of the huge amounts of gold in the basement, that were removed/lost/ who knows?

As for the supposed attack at WDC and the various evidence for that that's only good for cartoon movies.

says the man who was adamant a pipeline between terggy and kibris will not work. well we now have terggish water in downtown terggish nicosia.

when it comes to the twin towers, they were designed to withstand earthquake, fire and explosion. they were not designed to withstand explosion followed by fire. if you can show me a single structure that was designed in the same way and suffered the same fate in the same sequence then i will agree with you. the way the steel structure fire protection was applied did not take into account to withsatand an explosion. consequently the fire protection was stripped off the steel structure and it took hours beofre the first steel was weakened enough for one floor to collapes on the floor below. once that happened over loading on the lower floor below caused it to collapse too and the collapse begun. the sound that some people think was an explosion was the sound of the collapse of the floor. the problem is idiots like you who are clueless about the subject matter pretend to understand and influence other idiots such as yourself.

[Pyrpolizer]

says the man who was adamant a pipeline between terggy and kibris will not work. well we now have terggish water in downtown terggish nicosia.

Concentrate on THIS topic. The very small quantities of Turkish water is being thrown at the sea for the moment...

when it comes to the twin towers, they were designed to withstand earthquake, fire and explosion. they were not designed to withstand explosion followed by fire. if you can show me a single structure that was designed in the same way and suffered the same fate in the same sequence then i will agree with you. the way the steel structure fire protection was applied did not take into account to withsatand an explosion. consequently the fire protection was stripped off the steel structure and it took hours beofre the first steel was weakened enough for one floor to collapes on the floor below. once that happened over loading on the lower floor below caused it to collapse too and the collapse begun. the sound that some people think was an explosion was the sound of the collapse of the floor. the problem is idiots like you who are clueless about the subject matter pretend to understand and influence other idiots such as yourself.

Too few people can use their brains effectively and you are not one of them moron.

[Robin Hood]

LORDO:

When it comes to the twin towers, they were designed to withstand earthquake, fire and explosion, they were not designed to withstand explosion followed by fire.

Wrong; They were designed to withstand the impact of a fully fuelled Boeing 707 at its cruising speed. That implies both impact damage and fire! Fact: you cannot fly a jet aeroplane without fuel.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

if you can show me a single structure that was designed in the same way and suffered the same fate in the same sequence then i will agree with you.

Then look no further than WTC1 and WTC2. ..... the design, situation and events were identical for each building ! It had never happened before and has not happened since!

the way the steel structure fire protection was applied did not take into account to withsatand an explosion. consequently the fire protection was stripped off the steel structure and it took hours beofre the first steel was weakened enough for one floor to collapes on the floor below. once that happened over loading on the lower floor below caused it to collapse too and the collapse begun.

FYI: There was no explosion ..... jet A1 burns ...... what you saw was the fuel evaporating and igniting outside the building as a fire ball. Petrol, LPG, NG, dynamite etc. explodes ..... it is related to flame speed. Also, the fuel fire was no more after about 2 minutes, from then on it was a 'normal' office fire.

You are quoting the ‘Pancake Theory’ which came out within hours of the event, mostly touted by people who only had an opinion based on their own lack of knowledge, rather than a reasoned oinion and was subsequently withdrawn as it did not fit with the available and irrefutable evidence such as the laws of physics when looked at in detail.

the sound that some people think was an explosion was the sound of the collapse of the floor.

The explosions were heard some time BEFORE the building collapsed. That is how we know about them. Those that heard them got out before the buildings collapsed, survived and got to relate their independent stories

the problem is idiots like you who are clueless about the subject matter pretend to understand and influence other idiots such as yourself.

I am afraid the idiots are the ones that have insufficient knowledge of the Laws of Physics (Newton) and lack of an engineering background, to see that the official story does not comply with the facts.

Just ask yourself; If you are right ...... how do you explain the collapse of WTC7 in almost exactly the same way as WTC1 and 2, without the assistance of a fully loaded airliner hitting it at 600mph? That is a subject those that make the claims you have, never like to discuss, as it blows their ‘conspiracy theory’ apart! They also have a tendency to ignore inconvenient evidence supplied by experts and disingenuously refer to them as Conspiracy Theorists, when the REAL conspiracy is the official story as it does not fit with the laws of physics and proven engineering pricipals. In which case the whole official story is not accurate as it is told.