Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

1. A fire has never been known to bring down a steel framed structure.
2. Have you wondered why WTC7 was on fire in the first place?
Did it start on fire from being hit by tower debris? How does that happen?
3. Is it possible that there was an explosion inside the building to cause damage and a fire?
4. Why did BBC report WTC7 (even with live footage in the background) as being down 35 minutes before it fell?
5. The photo showing the damage to the exterior columns on the one side indicate that if that was the reason for the collapse, how come the building didnt fall obviously to that side?
6. No surrounding buildings came down as a result of the WTC7 collapse.........

1. Fire could bring down a steel framed structure that just had a building fall on top of it.
2. Fire starts for a number of reasons - gas rupture, electrical short, a building falling ontop of another building.
3. It is possible - but insanely unlikely that they planted explosives in the building. It is also possible that it was an alien conspiracy because the towers had invisible giant laser beams on top of them.
4. There was a great deal of confusion on September 11th. No one knew what was happening and that lasted for a long time afterward. Could it be that the wrong news had reached BBC considering they are based half way around the world and that instead of building #7 there was an error in the info that was reported to them. Remember a number of buildings in that area were destroyed in the fall of the twin towers. Plus if it was a press release wouldn't CNN, NBC, FOX, CBC and the rest of them also report the same news at the same time? Why would this group even send out press releases saying that a building collapsed.
5. The stress on the remaining steel supports gave way due to the fire so it collapsed in the middle first (most stress) and then the rest gave way. It wasn't as though something kicked the building down godzilla style.
6. Should we post those pictures again of those destroyed buildings you thought were still good?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well...except for WTC 1 & 2 which were designed differently than almost any building like them.

Fire alone did not bring tower 1 and 2 down. Did you look at my video with the architect? The fire has to be hot enough to compromise the steel.
Interestingly, nano-thermite is hot enough to melt steel, you just have to get enough of it in the building to set 'er off.

I did see your video and it was less than a minute long of a fireman talking to the camera.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

1. Fire could bring down a steel framed structure that just had a building fall on top of it.
2. Fire starts for a number of reasons - gas rupture, electrical short, a building falling ontop of another building.
3. It is possible - but insanely unlikely that they planted explosives in the building. It is also possible that it was an alien conspiracy because the towers had invisible giant laser beams on top of them.
4. There was a great deal of confusion on September 11th. No one knew what was happening and that lasted for a long time afterward. Could it be that the wrong news had reached BBC considering they are based half way around the world and that instead of building #7 there was an error in the info that was reported to them. Remember a number of buildings in that area were destroyed in the fall of the twin towers. Plus if it was a press release wouldn't CNN, NBC, FOX, CBC and the rest of them also report the same news at the same time? Why would this group even send out press releases saying that a building collapsed.
5. The stress on the remaining steel supports gave way due to the fire so it collapsed in the middle first (most stress) and then the rest gave way. It wasn't as though something kicked the building down godzilla style.
6. Should we post those pictures again of those destroyed buildings you thought were still good?

Your very first point was incorrect, then you started talking about aliens and lazer beams...............way to make yourself look ######ed.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Fire alone did not bring tower 1 and 2 down. Did you look at my video with the architect? The fire has to be hot enough to compromise the steel.

I did see your video and it was less than a minute long of a fireman talking to the camera.

I agree 100%. Fire alone didn't bring down the building. Fire as well as a plane filled with jet fuel, traveling hundreds of miles per hour when hitting the building brought down the building. The steel doesn't have to melt - it just has to be sufficiently weakened due to the fire and the stress on the remaining support beams being increased due to a number of them being severed.

The fireman video is better evidence than the guy who owned the building saying pull it, which is a term used by some people in demolition. Something I assume he was not.

[photon]

[transplant99]

Fire alone did not bring tower 1 and 2 down. Did you look at my video with the architect? The fire has to be hot enough to compromise the steel.

You just answered your own question...it wasnt "just fire" that brought that building or any of them down. It was the massive freaking hole in them that compromised the entire structural integrity along with the fire that had the top floors start to fall which pancaked everything else below it. Its just freaking common sense fer chrissakes....what part of that is so unbelievable to you?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Your very first point was incorrect, then you started talking about aliens and lazer beams...............way to make yourself look ######ed.

Prove to me it wasn't aliens? No I don't need to see scientists or reason. I think it was aliens and I am a free thinking guy. I am cynical and I think for myself all the time....

Are you saying that a building falling on top of another building, wouldn't have any impact on it's structural integrity?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Prove to me it wasn't aliens? No I don't need to see scientists or reason. I think it was aliens and I am a free thinking guy. I am cynical and I think for myself all the time....

Are you saying that a building falling on top of another building, wouldn't have any impact on it's structural integrity?

You are bring pretty general there. The towers did not "fall on it"..................pieces of various sized debris did.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You just answered your own question...it wasnt "just fire" that brought that building or any of them down. It was the massive freaking hole in them that compromised the entire structural integrity along with the fire that had the top floors start to fall which pancaked everything else below it. Its just freaking common sense fer chrissakes....what part of that is so unbelievable to you?

Okay so if the fire was not hot enough to compromise the steel, then the fire meant nothing. It was just burning peoples desks and papers, partitions etc.

If the plane truly compromised the structure, how come so much time elapsed before it came down?
It is not so black and white. This is not the only issue though. For example the last employees in WTC7 hearing explosions below them.

I have brought up many different points about the happenings of that day that have been un-answered.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Are you saying that a building falling on top of another building, wouldn't have any impact on it's structural integrity?

Not to mention that of all the buildings around the towers, WTC7 was the only one that had unchecked fires and a 40 story load on it.

[photon]

The fire was hot enough to compromise steel, and unanswered questions are not evidence.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

The fire was hot enough to compromise steel, and unanswered questions are not evidence.

The architect and many others have said no it was not.
Jet fule is said to burn at 1400-1600F........the steel in WTC1,2 needs close to 3000F to fail.............watch the 7 minute video.

I guess an architect with 20 years steel structure experience does not know what he is talking about. If office fires can bring down towers than I am scared to go to any large city.

[ResAlien]

I'm no scientist and I'll give an attempt at answering these questions using what I would consider a good application of Occam's Razor (simplest explanation) that I mentioned in my last post.

1)If the plane truly compromised the structure, how come so much time elapsed before it came down?- Well, I'd just guess that buildings are made to stand up to elements, natural disasters etc. They are pretty sturdy, of course it makes sense that after having a GODDAM AIRPLANE slam into it that it would become weakened, and maybe even buckle under it's own weight once initially compromised. NEXT

2) For example the last employees in WTC7 hearing explosions below them. - They heard explosions? Really? You mean with all the debris falling everywhere, electrical shorts, probably gas lines that were ruptured, fire....they heard explosions? That boggles the mind.

Latching on to this conspiracy nonsense is just that. Nonsense.

Is it even remotely feasible that "nano-thermite" or explosives were covertly put into the buildings? Only if the same guys who helped the Joker get all those explosives on two separate boats were working on it is that happening.

I just don't get it. And I'd not call people ######ed, imo Mustard's alien theory is just as reasonable as yours. Neither has any factual backing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If the plane truly compromised the structure how come so much time elapsed before it came down?

If?

Those airplanes weigh 400 thousand pounds and were traveling at a hell of a clip when they crashed into those buildings. There ain't no "if".

I don't know why it took an hour (or whatever it was) for them to fall down. How long should it have taken?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The architect and many others have said no it was not.
Jet fule is said to burn at 1400-1600F........the steel in WTC1,2 needs close to 3000F to fail.............watch the 7 minute video.

I guess an architect with 20 years steel structure experience does not know what he is talking about. If office fires can bring down towers than I am scared to go to any large city.

Architects aren't engineers. They do aesthetics, not physics. Besides, the fire didn't have to be hot enough to melt the steel, just compromise it enough so that the structure couldn't sustain the massive load of the building. That's why the floors pancaked.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You are bring pretty general there. The towers did not "fall on it"..................pieces of various sized debris did.

Various sized?

How about MASSIVE chunks of the worlds tallest building??

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The architect and many others have said no it was not.
Jet fule is said to burn at 1400-1600F........the steel in WTC1,2 needs close to 3000F to fail.............watch the 7 minute video.

I guess an architect with 20 years steel structure experience does not know what he is talking about. If office fires can bring down towers than I am scared to go to any large city.

Who knows, but you can't argue with physics.

Steel doesn't "fail" at 3000F, it MELTS. At 1100F it looses 50% of its strength, at 1800F 90%.

In order to compromise the strength of steel, you don't have to melt it completely. Look at any of the pictures, you can clearly see bent and twisted steel beams. You can also clearly see in pictures before the towers came down where the floors are being pulled inwards due to sagging of the floors, due to the heat causing the floor supports to sag.

This is all covered extensively in links already provided.

[transplant99]

Yeah its mind-boggling. The conspiracy crowd simply cannot comprehend that

a + b = c.

a) An airplane weighing 412,000 lbs, flying at 460 MPH, with a width of 156 ft and carrying over 35,000 liters of jet fuel slamming into a concrete and steel structure 890 feet in the air.

b) Said structure is compromised as evidenced by the massive holes all the way through the building in the affected floors, where the 1/4" steel columns are then exposed to a massive fire after having their integrity weakened which then allowed them to start to fail. Said building still on fire hits other buildings below it setting one of them on fire.


c) answer for yourself.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Who knows, but you can't argue with physics.

Steel doesn't "fail" at 3000F, it MELTS. At 1100F it looses 50% of its strength, at 1800F 90%.

In order to compromise the strength of steel, you don't have to melt it completely. Look at any of the pictures, you can clearly see bent and twisted steel beams. You can also clearly see in pictures before the towers came down where the floors are being pulled inwards due to sagging of the floors, due to the heat causing the floor supports to sag.

This is all covered extensively in links already provided.

Your numbers don't apply to all grades of steel.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Your numbers don't apply to all grades of steel.

Of course, it's an alloy so it'll change depending on the ratio of the impurities.

However I notice your reply doesn't actually contain any information. What kind of steel was used in the towers? What is the strength profile of that kind of steel? How much variation is there among different grades of steel?

Those would be important questions to answer to support your position.