TheresNoSolution.com

Laxman 41 wrote:It is not a hoax, I can't believe people would think its a hoax! I'm majoring in civil engineering and its all simple mechanics of materials, when the steel is heated it expands depending on its modulus of elasticity, I agree that heat could not "melt" the steel, but the very fact that is caused expansion in the steel, forced other members in the truss to expand also, all of the expansion led to the collapse of the structure, building were not built to deal with heat of that magnitude.

Our hearts go out to those who lost loved ones on that day.

the building's were made to withstand airplane strikes, they had that in mind while building it. also i just dont understand how the buildings fell at freefall speed down to the ground.

dm_rick wrote: i just dont understand how the buildings fell at freefall speed down to the ground.

Here you go mate, glad i could help:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

hahaha i love how the first word you say is "NIST" the whole thing they wrote is complete bullshit and no, the cores of the building fell WITH the outside. and i know i said this before but you cant ignore the fact that the ONLY three buildings in the history of mankind to collapse because of a fire all occured in the same day. there is more behind companies and government that we choose to ignore just because we dont want to here it.

i don't really know much about the third building, but what you're saying is retarded.
no shit sherlock, two buildings with exactly the same design, which were attacked in the same way, both fell down...
'ZOMGZ CONSPRACYZ!!!!1'

buildings have been hit by airplanes before fires have raged inside them for over 24 hours. they still DO NOT fall. and them falling at free fall speed, without explosions, it defies physics. the literal insides of the buildings burst out. i know i am no professional guy to be telling you all of these things, i just want you to do a little research, don't be ignorant and just go along with what people are saying. find out things for yourself. then make your judgment.

but your going along with what those douchebags who made loose change etc are saying..
now i'm no physics expert, but here's what i think (i might be wrong).
the buildings were hit by the planes which causes fires, this didn't cause the metal to melt, but it weakened it enough for it to fall.
when something is high up, for example the top half of a tower, it has a shitload of gravitational potentional, and alot of weight, which in itself is a measure of gravity. so if that potential is released, there is enough energy for it to force through the lower half of the building, which was already weakened alot, and fall at a high (maybe even free fall) speed.

buildings have been hit before... but not on purpose... and not gigantic planes filled with feul.

i saw this thing on KTWU about new evidence where they originally thought the support snapped from the fire and fell, but it actually was teh support sagged and snapped the outer support and then it fall.

and why did it fall so fast you ask?

let me answer that in one word



Gravity

This is ridiculous. A debate that can be pulled from each and every perspective, but it will never end.

Great opinions, but frankly, it won't solve a thing.

edit: I'd also like to be a hypocrite and say jonny's right (so is the video I posted), the only people who say it melted are there conspiracy theorists themselves!

Kylio wrote:This is ridiculous. A debate that can be pulled from each and every perspective, but it will never end.

Great opinions, but frankly, it won't solve a thing.

edit: I'd also like to be a hypocrite and say jonny's right (so is the video I posted), the only people who say it melted are there conspiracy theorists themselves!

HYPOCRITE!!! YOU DIEZ!


Lol.

I'm just saying, and when I say it, like ive said I dont mean to sound like Mr. Expert and decider of everything.

It's just this debate will never end. If it could, it would've ended wayyy before now. It's been 6 years, so if it could've ended, it would've. But who knows.

Seriously though, just stop talking about shit. It happened, finale. Yes, Bush is a sucky leader, but he's getting replaced next year. Fuck, I mean, thousands of people are moaning about the losses they suffered but you are just arguing. It happened 6 years ago, face it, whether it was a set-up won't change the past.

Zam speaks truth.
Lock?

*locks* (thats what i would say if i was a mod. but im not. but i dont care. and im still talking...)

we're just wasting our time arguing about this. no one knows fo sho what happened, and nothing will be gained from just arguing about it.

i really don't think that this is worth locking, and thats with all thread creating bias aside. i mean its just an argument/telling what you think. just for fun.

dm_rick wrote:i really don't think that this is worth locking, and thats with all thread creating bias aside. i mean its just an argument/telling what you think. just for fun.

although i disagree with you're opinions i agree it shouldn't be locked.

Jonny wrote:

dm_rick wrote:i really don't think that this is worth locking, and thats with all thread creating bias aside. i mean its just an argument/telling what you think. just for fun.

although i disagree with you're opinions i agree it shouldn't be locked.

well, we're agreeing on something.

Okay, I agree, slightly!
You started this thread for the fact that it was the anniversary of 9/11, to remember the ones who died.

Now I personally think conspiracy theories and anything like that should be under a new thread.
I like to debate, so that would be fine.

BUT. Debating with someone who just sits there after your post and says "GUESS WHAT!1 YOUR WRONG! THE STEEL MELTED!"
That shows that person is not worth debating with.
I'm not saying that's how you are, but I'm saying it's no fun to debate with someone like that.

i can kind of see where your coming from, but for the record, i never once said that the steel melted.

Lol I know.
Like I said, I said that's not what I thought of you.
To be honest...well, if there's a new thread I'd be glad to tell you what I think. I ALWAYS have two of my own opinions on something collide, and I can never decide.

alright well feel free to make a new topic. the official 9/11 argument topic, or just pm me about what you think or something.