Was 911 an INSIDE JOB?

conceited

Thats video had nothing new to show us except what Shazbot said sensationalism.

I know one thing about 9/11 and that is them buildings did not fall by themselves and thats a fact.
Everything else about that day is only a theory no matter how many videos are made.

tricky D

derry wrote: »

Most engineering ensure that there is five times the strength needed for the job

Most of your analysis is plain bad, but the quote above takes the biscuit for complete and utter bullsh1t.

Live loads have a 60% safety factor and dead loads have a 40% safety factor. Basic safety and economics.

Now we know how qualified your analysis is.

C\m\C

personally, i don't like this debate simply because we will probably never know the full truth of 9/11

we can certainly theorize and monopolize on the vulnerabilties of those who wish to believe it was an inside job.

distraction is something i would focus on for the sake of my self.
individuals in society prefer to concentrate on the outcome..and continuously on those responsible for it.

consider your own history first of all, which is easily forgettable for some.
the logic for your ancesstors failure to react can be linked to your own apathy today.

i would not believe that 9/11 was an inside job..perhaps it was a personal job from within our selves.

of course i cannot say we wanted it to happen..

bonkey

derry wrote: »

The twin towers were designed to include a large airliner colliding into them

Both towers withstood a large airliner colliding into them.

Neither tower withstood the combination of that damage and the ensuing fires, but they weren't designed to do so. They couldn't have been designed to do so, because neither the models of fire behaviour nor the computing power to evaluate such models existed when the towers were designed.

The famous Empire State building in the 1950s era was hit by a large 4 engines bomber plane in fog which set fire to the building

No, it wasn't.

The famous Empire State building, in the 1940s era was hit by a medium-sized, 2-engined B-25, travelling at low speed and low on fuel.

Then on what basis can you claim the Madrid building is not the same materials as the Twin towers

I worked on lots of building sites from Germany to UK and skyscrapers are all roughly the same
They got a strong metal girder box from which floors and walls often made from lighter weight materials hang onto

So I fail to where you figure the Madrid building is any different than the WTC towers

Some basic research would show that the Madrid building was a hybrid construction. The central core of the building was a conventional, reinforced concrete structure. There were, additionally, some steel-support sections.

WTC 1 and 2 did not have any conventional, reinforced concrete structure. It was entirely a steel-support structure.

In the Madrid fire, one section of the building collapsed, while another remained standing. The steel-support sections failed completely, while the reinforced concrete parts remained standing.

Thus, it can be reasonably said that the parts of the Madrid tower which were comparable to WTC 1 and 2 failed, and the parts which were not comparable did not fail.

You cant go much higher than 6 to 8 stories without a steel framework as the weight of the bricks and roof and stuff on the top crush the bricks down below

You can, however, use reinforced concrete to build the tallest building in the world (Burj Dubai - over 700m and climbing).

Most super-massive skyscrapers use reinforced concrete.

The Towers didn't use reinforced concrete.

Then some months later the burned out hulk of the skyscraper would be destroyed with suitable explosive charges

I doubt it. Anyone familiar with building demolition would know that the tallest buildings ever taken down with explosive charges were roughtly 1/3 the height of the towers. The man in charge of that record has gone on record saying he wouldn't have a clue how to safely bring down buildings the height of the towers.

As for Sulfur that is just not a material you can find in most skyscrapers

Drywall contains calcium sulfate. There was no shortage of drywall in WTC 1 and 2.

Baruim is a not a metal that one expects to find in normal planes or in skyscrapers or down town new york

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium

I recommend you read the link you supplied. A number of the uses of barium compounds would be perfectly normal to expect in a skyscraper....like their use in glass or fluorescent lightbulbs for example.

The fuel in the planes as one can see in the 911 Vidio was mostly burned very quickly outside the building in a fire ball which generated a short heat blast which would not last long enough to melt or soften big steel girders

The fuel didn't last long, nor did it melt of soften big steel girders. It did, however, last long enough to create a massive office fire. That was not outside the building, and did last long enough to weaken the already-damaged structures.

What might happen is after some few days of burning the top floors might fall over side wards like a tree falling over to one side

No, its not. That would require impossible feats of load-bearing on remaining supports. Skyscrapers are not like jenga towers.

Whatever chance one building could fall like what it did that two doing it like the world towers did is absurd

Two buildings of the same structure suffered almost-identical damage, and you find it absurd that they behaved in a remarkably similar manner to each other?

But the third building 7 which had a few minor fires and mild damge to the facade naw count me out I wont swallow that idea that it decided to commit hari Kari and fall so precislily for no logical reason

Good. No-one's trying to sell that idea, so we're all happy.

The French banned planes over Paris after 1994 when one french hijacked plane was stormed by special forces while on the ground refueling in France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969

They found out the plan was to crash the plane into the Eifel tower so the whole international world was aware of the concept to use planes crashing as suicide wheopons

Indeed. What with the Pentagon being a whole mile away from a major airport, and almost completely in line with runway 15 of said airport, its amazing the Americans never thought of creating a no-fly-zone there.

C\m\C

asbestos doesn't burn

bonkey

C\m\C wrote: »

asbestos doesn't burn

Who claimed it did?

Worztron

I would say yes.

Yitzhak Rabin

Really, you resurrected a 3 year old thread to say that! :rolleyes: