[quote=name:Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:Fierce]Honestly, people died. Why does it matter? :ermm:[/quote] Are you kidding? It makes a HUGE difference whether they were killed by terrorists, or by our own gov't, or by our own civilians... That's why it's so important to understand that this was an act of terrorism. People from other countries attacked us, that's why we're at war. That's why I can't understand people when they say they don't wanna be at war. Well, WHO THE HECK DOES?? We had to go and take their troops out, to send a message that we are immovable. You cannot walk on the US.[/quote] Doesn't matter who killed who. People died no matter what, and this was 7 years ago. Why not just honor the people that died, instead of being assholes and saying the gov. planned this and that. What are you going to do if you knew the gov. did do it anyway?

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from Fierce

Honestly, people died. Why does it matter?

Are you kidding? It makes a HUGE difference whether they were killed by terrorists, or by our own gov't, or by our own civilians... That's why it's so important to understand that this was an act of terrorism. People from other countries attacked us, that's why we're at war. That's why I can't understand people when they say they don't wanna be at war. Well, WHO THE HECK DOES?? We had to go and take their troops out, to send a message that we are immovable. You cannot walk on the US.

Doesn't matter who killed who. People died no matter what, and this was 7 years ago. Why not just honor the people that died, instead of being assholes and saying the gov. planned this and that. What are you going to do if you knew the gov. did do it anyway?

[quote=name:Fierce]Doesn't matter who killed who.[/quote] I lol'd. Can people really be this stupid? If Hitler was killing people, we wouldn't just have mass funerals and leave it be. What we did was fight against him to get him to stop killing people. That's what America did in Iraq, but the Iraq War (Which is NOT the war on terrorism) was badly planned and against the wrong people at the wrong time. I believe an appropriate response would have been having small strike forces go in and kill terrorist cells and leaders.

Quote from Fierce

Doesn't matter who killed who.

I lol'd.
Can people really be this stupid? If Hitler was killing people, we wouldn't just have mass funerals and leave it be. What we did was fight against him to get him to stop killing people. That's what America did in Iraq, but the Iraq War (Which is NOT the war on terrorism) was badly planned and against the wrong people at the wrong time. I believe an appropriate response would have been having small strike forces go in and kill terrorist cells and leaders.

You've taken my point differently than I meant it to be. People think the gov. set it up, and they have no proof of the gov. doing it (but, for those of you, we don't have proof of them [b]not[/b] doing it). That still doesn't take away the fact people died, and people will always die. It is truly sad in the eyes of the people that actually knew the people (that died) and loved them. Still, death happens every day and if you really want to think you're own gov. is so s***ty to do kill their own, go for it! Have fun! Sure, sacrifices always are made for something to occur, but I'm still sure the gov. wouldn't do that. They have no reason to.

You've taken my point differently than I meant it to be. People think the gov. set it up, and they have no proof of the gov. doing it (but, for those of you, we don't have proof of them not doing it). That still doesn't take away the fact people died, and people will always die. It is truly sad in the eyes of the people that actually knew the people (that died) and loved them. Still, death happens every day and if you really want to think you're own gov. is so s***ty to do kill their own, go for it! Have fun! Sure, sacrifices always are made for something to occur, but I'm still sure the gov. wouldn't do that. They have no reason to.

Everything I've seen about the explosions in the bottom floors, were BEFORE the planes hit. And I can vouch that I've seen a good bit of video accounts. Can't find 'em again though, blame inactivity.

Everything I've seen about the explosions in the bottom floors, were BEFORE the planes hit. And I can vouch that I've seen a good bit of video accounts. Can't find 'em again though, blame inactivity.

[quote=name:Impeached]Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html[/quote] And they later expanded it into a full length book. [url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/[/url] So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT. And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true.

Quote from ws-Impeached

Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

And they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT.

And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true.

[quote=name:Fierce][quote=name:Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:Fierce]Honestly, people died. Why does it matter? :ermm:[/quote] Are you kidding? It makes a HUGE difference whether they were killed by terrorists, or by our own gov't, or by our own civilians... That's why it's so important to understand that this was an act of terrorism. People from other countries attacked us, that's why we're at war. That's why I can't understand people when they say they don't wanna be at war. Well, WHO THE HECK DOES?? We had to go and take their troops out, to send a message that we are immovable. You cannot walk on the US.[/quote] Doesn't matter who killed who. People died no matter what, and this was 7 years ago. Why not just honor the people that died, instead of being assholes and saying the gov. planned this and that. What are you going to do if you knew the gov. did do it anyway?[/quote] Who are you fighting? I never said that the gov't did it... I've been arguing that it was terrorism from Jihad the whole time. And yes, it really does matter. If it wasn't Jihad, we might be at war with another group instead.

Quote from Fierce

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from Fierce

Honestly, people died. Why does it matter?

Are you kidding? It makes a HUGE difference whether they were killed by terrorists, or by our own gov't, or by our own civilians... That's why it's so important to understand that this was an act of terrorism. People from other countries attacked us, that's why we're at war. That's why I can't understand people when they say they don't wanna be at war. Well, WHO THE HECK DOES?? We had to go and take their troops out, to send a message that we are immovable. You cannot walk on the US.

Doesn't matter who killed who. People died no matter what, and this was 7 years ago. Why not just honor the people that died, instead of being assholes and saying the gov. planned this and that. What are you going to do if you knew the gov. did do it anyway?

Who are you fighting? I never said that the gov't did it... I've been arguing that it was terrorism from Jihad the whole time.
And yes, it really does matter. If it wasn't Jihad, we might be at war with another group instead.

[quote]Quote from ws-Impeached Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/ So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT. And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true. [/quote] So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold? Nice reasoning there buddy.

Quote

Quote from ws-Impeached
Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT.

And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true.

So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold?

Nice reasoning there buddy.

[quote=name:Kellimus][quote]Quote from ws-Impeached Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/ So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT. And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true. [/quote] So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold? Nice reasoning there buddy.[/quote] (off topic)thats how a lot of people think *cough*religion*cough* (onwards) I'm not fighting anyone specifically, Jello. I'm pointing towards the people that believe it. I didn't mean to say it as if you believe it, so my bad.

Quote from Kellimus

Quote

Quote from ws-Impeached
Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT.

And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true.

So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold?

Nice reasoning there buddy.

(off topic)thats how a lot of people think *cough*religion*cough*
(onwards)
I'm not fighting anyone specifically, Jello. I'm pointing towards the people that believe it. I didn't mean to say it as if you believe it, so my bad.

To reply to Kellimus' responses to MA's more recent posts, shutting off the gas lines to a building doesn't suck the gas that was already inside back out, and yes, turning on an air conditioner or a heater would have an effect, but an extremely small one, not comparable with full jet fuel tanks burning at once. [quote=name:Darkling]Everything I've seen about the explosions in the bottom floors, were BEFORE the planes hit.[/quote] Why didn't you say that earlier then? It sounds like you're changing your argument so it fits. If a plane crashed into a large building, I'm pretty sure I would feel some shaking and hear a boom too. Occam's Razor, please.

To reply to Kellimus' responses to MA's more recent posts, shutting off the gas lines to a building doesn't suck the gas that was already inside back out, and yes, turning on an air conditioner or a heater would have an effect, but an extremely small one, not comparable with full jet fuel tanks burning at once.

Quote from [Darkling]:]

Everything I've seen about the explosions in the bottom floors, were BEFORE the planes hit.

Why didn't you say that earlier then? It sounds like you're changing your argument so it fits. If a plane crashed into a large building, I'm pretty sure I would feel some shaking and hear a boom too. Occam's Razor, please.

[quote=name:Kellimus]Hmm.. From every source I've came across, gas lines were cut once the building was impacted... Which could explain why there were no 'explosions' after the plain impacted..[/quote] Gas doesnt immediately leave pipes. [quote=name:Kellimus]Didn't the building collapse from the floors where the plane hit? That's what every single video from anywhere has shown to me... So why are you saying the floor beams collapsed if the top half of the building fell upon the lower?[/quote] A building's structure affects the WHOLE building... Too much stress and heat on the inside support beams caused them to collapse. The ground floor of a building can affect the top of the building. [quote]Hmmm... Doesn't this quote: [quote]Any engineer will know that just slight temperature changes will affect a building's components.[/quote] basically state that A/C units, heaters, computers, etc.. can cause this 'thermal effect'? Well, using that logic and reasoning couldn't one say that a simple tempurature change within the building would cause a 'thermal effect' on the structure E.G. Someone changing the A/C a notch up/down? ....That's honestly what it sounds like to me.[/quote] They do. But not to the extent of a oil fire caused by a plane crash. Most engineers take all of these usual heat sources into consideration. You're pulling information out incorrectly...

Quote from Kellimus

Hmm.. From every source I've came across, gas lines were cut once the building was impacted... Which could explain why there were no 'explosions' after the plain impacted..

Gas doesnt immediately leave pipes.

Quote from Kellimus

Didn't the building collapse from the floors where the plane hit? That's what every single video from anywhere has shown to me... So why are you saying the floor beams collapsed if the top half of the building fell upon the lower?

A building's structure affects the WHOLE building... Too much stress and heat on the inside support beams caused them to collapse. The ground floor of a building can affect the top of the building.

Quote

Hmmm... Doesn't this quote:

Quote

Any engineer will know that just slight temperature changes will affect a building's components.

basically state that A/C units, heaters, computers, etc.. can cause this 'thermal effect'? Well, using that logic and reasoning couldn't one say that a simple tempurature change within the building would cause a 'thermal effect' on the structure E.G. Someone changing the A/C a notch up/down?

....That's honestly what it sounds like to me.

They do. But not to the extent of a oil fire caused by a plane crash. Most engineers take all of these usual heat sources into consideration. You're pulling information out incorrectly...

[quote=name:Fierce][quote=name:Kellimus][quote]Quote from ws-Impeached Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/ So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT. And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true. [/quote] So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold? Nice reasoning there buddy.[/quote] (off topic)thats how a lot of people think *cough*religion*cough* (onwards) I'm not fighting anyone specifically, Jello. I'm pointing towards the people that believe it. I didn't mean to say it as if you believe it, so my bad.[/quote] It's not your bad. Jello just kept assuming that you were disagreeing with him for no reason; when you were actually just making your own point. People do that kind of stuff sometimes.

Quote from Fierce

Quote from Kellimus

Quote

Quote from ws-Impeached
Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT.

And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true.

So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold?

Nice reasoning there buddy.

(off topic)thats how a lot of people think *cough*religion*cough*
(onwards)
I'm not fighting anyone specifically, Jello. I'm pointing towards the people that believe it. I didn't mean to say it as if you believe it, so my bad.

It's not your bad. Jello just kept assuming that you were disagreeing with him for no reason; when you were actually just making your own point. People do that kind of stuff sometimes.

[url=http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons]Read[/url] I can't believe believe you people actually think it could be a conspiracy..

Read

I can't believe believe you people actually think it could be a conspiracy..

[quote]Hmm.. From every source I've came across, gas lines were cut once the building was impacted... Which could explain why there were no 'explosions' after the plain impacted..[/quote] The crash alone won't necessarily cause anything. What the crash does is it creates a hole in the structure and knocks off much of the beams, columns, girders, etc. So yes it may be true that some gas lines were cut, but probably not all of them. But you see, the crash isn't the only thing. Now you've got the fire and the jet fuel produced thrown into the mix. Like I've said before, fire burning at high degrees for certain periods of time will eventually start deforming objects and creating thermal effects which will throw the design and mechanics of the building into total disarray. They won't explode immediately, such materials like steel or reinforced concrete will slowly start deforming and once they start fatiguing, they will buckle and mess up the rest of the MEP (mechanical, electrical and plumming) systems throughout the whole building. A simple leak due to gas lines being cut from the initial impact will not create as much of an explosion or effect as would entire floors of the tower crashing down onto the lower levels and smashing the systems and hidden flammables behind the walls. [quote]It kind of sounds like an observed opinion to me.. Are you a Sociology major, and do you have the credentals to prove the quote?[/quote] It is an opinion. But that statement of mine was used to back up my point that just because people heard explosions doesn't automatically mean that what they heard were really bombs. Oh and no, I am a Civil/Structural engineering major. [quote]......Didn't the building collapse from the floors where the plane hit? That's what every single video from anywhere has shown to me... So why are you saying the floor beams collapsed if the top half of the building fell upon the lower?[/quote] [quote=what i said in my first post] Now you see, [color=#CE091D]when a plane crashes into a building, it's bound to destroy some girders, columns, and beams. The destruction of these in itself may seem negligible compared to the whole building, but these elements will cause a change in the remaining structure's stress, strain, and force components, possibly making them unsafe now[/color]. The safety factor for the building code has probably been breached, or is near it's dangerous limit, and now once you have a plane with hundreds of gallons of gasoline ignited by fire, this temperature will affect a structure's no-longer-safe design. Like i said earlier, fire may not necessarily affect a perfectly free-standing, unaffected, and holeless steel building that has undergone meticulous engineering design, but in EVERY conspiracy video i've seen, people have failed to mentioned this point. Whether it be ignorance, or purposely leaving this out, i don't know.[/quote] [quote=what i said in my second post] And the ground floor's columns hold the most weight and undergo the greatest axial/shear stresses. Like i said in my first post, [color=#CE091D]a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes[/color]. So once you throw in that airplane, it's bound to mess up pretty much the entire building's stress, strain, and force measurements, thus making the design unsafe. [color=#CE091D]In the realm of structural engineering, even the slightest tweak to a beam or girder on the 100th floor can drastically affect the mechanics of a beam or girder on the ground floor; every component of a structure or system is dependent of each other[/color]. The physical damage from the falling debris/airplane or the fire that burned for hours alone wouldn't necessarily cause the buildings to collapse, but once you combine these two elements, it can easily cause the ground floor's members to fail. Once the columns and walls cave in, so will the windows but since they are much more brittle than steel or reinforced concrete, they will shatter. [/quote] The floors where the airplane crashed apparently have taken physical damage so of course they will collapse. And when you are saying floor beams, you have to be more specific. Like are you referring to the girders and floor plates on the ground? On the 80-100th floors? Or do you actually mean columns which stand upright and hold the weight of the whole building? But anyways the issue i was addressing in the previous post was that the ground floor's columns and beams failed because as I've also mentioned, all members of a structure are dependent of each other (you can prove this through static analysis of all the beams and trusses throughout the structure). What was claimed by conspiracists is that the ground floors seemed to have simply "explode" and crumbled like as if it were a controlled demolition. The reason it seemed like that to an untrained eye is that the ground floor's members/columns/beams hold the most weight and have the greatest stress and strain acted upon them and so once you mess up the system's design, these are probably the first to fail by exceeding the safefy factor. [quote]Hmmm... Doesn't this quote: [Quote] Any engineer will know that just slight temperature changes will affect a building's components.[/Quote] basically state that A/C units, heaters, computers, etc.. can cause this 'thermal effect'? Well, using that logic and reasoning couldn't one say that a simple tempurature change within the building would cause a 'thermal effect' on the structure E.G. Someone changing the A/C a notch up/down? ....That's honestly what it sounds like to me. [/quote] The coefficient of thermal expansion for steel is 8.0*10^-6/degrees F or 14*10^-6/degrees C. Other materials like Glass have a 4.5*10^-6/degrees F or 8*10^-6/degrees C coefficent of thermal expansion (all of this can be found straight from any engineering mechanics text or even online). A few degree drops aren't going to do anything (if it does, then this has to be some weak ass shit material lol.) But when you have fire burning at 1200 degrees fahrenheit (this is straight from video 8 posted in the first link ;) ), it's going to have an effect on the building, especially if you're dealing with long members/columns/beams. A 1/100th fraction of an inch in displacement/strain may not sound much, but trust me, it really does have a drastic affect. [quote]And honestly, I really don't see why people debate this anymore, what use is there to it? For people to go google things and seem like they know what they're talking about? To talk crap on people who stick to their beliefs and opinions?[/quote] I don't know why people debate this anymore, but do note exactly what I am debating about. I'm only talking about aspects that deal with the physical/engineering nature of this conspiracy like the collapse/demolition of the buildings. Other things like "oh the government did this or that" or "Why didn't they prevent this or that in the past" or "Oh we are now waging war on countries that have nothing to do with 9/11" and all, I do not discuss.

Quote

Hmm.. From every source I've came across, gas lines were cut once the building was impacted... Which could explain why there were no 'explosions' after the plain impacted..

The crash alone won't necessarily cause anything. What the crash does is it creates a hole in the structure and knocks off much of the beams, columns, girders, etc. So yes it may be true that some gas lines were cut, but probably not all of them.

But you see, the crash isn't the only thing. Now you've got the fire and the jet fuel produced thrown into the mix. Like I've said before, fire burning at high degrees for certain periods of time will eventually start deforming objects and creating thermal effects which will throw the design and mechanics of the building into total disarray. They won't explode immediately, such materials like steel or reinforced concrete will slowly start deforming and once they start fatiguing, they will buckle and mess up the rest of the MEP (mechanical, electrical and plumming) systems throughout the whole building. A simple leak due to gas lines being cut from the initial impact will not create as much of an explosion or effect as would entire floors of the tower crashing down onto the lower levels and smashing the systems and hidden flammables behind the walls.

Quote

It kind of sounds like an observed opinion to me.. Are you a Sociology major, and do you have the credentals to prove the quote?

It is an opinion. But that statement of mine was used to back up my point that just because people heard explosions doesn't automatically mean that what they heard were really bombs.

Oh and no, I am a Civil/Structural engineering major.

Quote

......Didn't the building collapse from the floors where the plane hit? That's what every single video from anywhere has shown to me... So why are you saying the floor beams collapsed if the top half of the building fell upon the lower?

Quote from what i said in my first post

Now you see, when a plane crashes into a building, it's bound to destroy some girders, columns, and beams. The destruction of these in itself may seem negligible compared to the whole building, but these elements will cause a change in the remaining structure's stress, strain, and force components, possibly making them unsafe now. The safety factor for the building code has probably been breached, or is near it's dangerous limit, and now once you have a plane with hundreds of gallons of gasoline ignited by fire, this temperature will affect a structure's no-longer-safe design. Like i said earlier, fire may not necessarily affect a perfectly free-standing, unaffected, and holeless steel building that has undergone meticulous engineering design, but in EVERY conspiracy video i've seen, people have failed to mentioned this point. Whether it be ignorance, or purposely leaving this out, i don't know.

Quote from what i said in my second post

And the ground floor's columns hold the most weight and undergo the greatest axial/shear stresses. Like i said in my first post, a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes. So once you throw in that airplane, it's bound to mess up pretty much the entire building's stress, strain, and force measurements, thus making the design unsafe. In the realm of structural engineering, even the slightest tweak to a beam or girder on the 100th floor can drastically affect the mechanics of a beam or girder on the ground floor; every component of a structure or system is dependent of each other. The physical damage from the falling debris/airplane or the fire that burned for hours alone wouldn't necessarily cause the buildings to collapse, but once you combine these two elements, it can easily cause the ground floor's members to fail. Once the columns and walls cave in, so will the windows but since they are much more brittle than steel or reinforced concrete, they will shatter.

The floors where the airplane crashed apparently have taken physical damage so of course they will collapse. And when you are saying floor beams, you have to be more specific. Like are you referring to the girders and floor plates on the ground? On the 80-100th floors? Or do you actually mean columns which stand upright and hold the weight of the whole building? But anyways the issue i was addressing in the previous post was that the ground floor's columns and beams failed because as I've also mentioned, all members of a structure are dependent of each other (you can prove this through static analysis of all the beams and trusses throughout the structure). What was claimed by conspiracists is that the ground floors seemed to have simply "explode" and crumbled like as if it were a controlled demolition. The reason it seemed like that to an untrained eye is that the ground floor's members/columns/beams hold the most weight and have the greatest stress and strain acted upon them and so once you mess up the system's design, these are probably the first to fail by exceeding the safefy factor.

Quote

Hmmm... Doesn't this quote:

Quote

Any engineer will know that just slight temperature changes will affect a building's components.

basically state that A/C units, heaters, computers, etc.. can cause this 'thermal effect'? Well, using that logic and reasoning couldn't one say that a simple tempurature change within the building would cause a 'thermal effect' on the structure E.G. Someone changing the A/C a notch up/down?

....That's honestly what it sounds like to me.

The coefficient of thermal expansion for steel is 8.0*10^-6/degrees F or 14*10^-6/degrees C. Other materials like Glass have a 4.5*10^-6/degrees F or 8*10^-6/degrees C coefficent of thermal expansion (all of this can be found straight from any engineering mechanics text or even online). A few degree drops aren't going to do anything (if it does, then this has to be some weak ass shit material lol.) But when you have fire burning at 1200 degrees fahrenheit (this is straight from video 8 posted in the first link ), it's going to have an effect on the building, especially if you're dealing with long members/columns/beams. A 1/100th fraction of an inch in displacement/strain may not sound much, but trust me, it really does have a drastic affect.

Quote

And honestly, I really don't see why people debate this anymore, what use is there to it? For people to go google things and seem like they know what they're talking about? To talk crap on people who stick to their beliefs and opinions?

I don't know why people debate this anymore, but do note exactly what I am debating about. I'm only talking about aspects that deal with the physical/engineering nature of this conspiracy like the collapse/demolition of the buildings. Other things like "oh the government did this or that" or "Why didn't they prevent this or that in the past" or "Oh we are now waging war on countries that have nothing to do with 9/11" and all, I do not discuss.

[quote=name:Darkling]Everything I've seen about the explosions in the bottom floors, were BEFORE the planes hit.[/quote] Why didn't you say that earlier then? It sounds like you're changing your argument so it fits. If a plane crashed into a large building, I'm pretty sure I would feel some shaking and hear a boom too. Occam's Razor, please.[/quote] I did mention it, but it was deleted because it was in a spam post.

Quote from [Darkling]:]

Everything I've seen about the explosions in the bottom floors, were BEFORE the planes hit.

Why didn't you say that earlier then? It sounds like you're changing your argument so it fits. If a plane crashed into a large building, I'm pretty sure I would feel some shaking and hear a boom too. Occam's Razor, please.[/quote]

I did mention it, but it was deleted because it was in a spam post.

[quote=name:"MillenniumArmy"]a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes.[/quote] Yes it was. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

Quote from "MillenniumArmy"

a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes.

Yes it was. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

[quote=name:ClansAreForGays][quote=name:"MillenniumArmy"]a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes.[/quote] Yes it was. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/[/quote] Do you personally believe the World Trade Centers resistance against airplanes are fully 100%?

Quote from Mafia.ClansAreForGays

Quote from "MillenniumArmy"

a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes.

Yes it was. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

Do you personally believe the World Trade Centers resistance against airplanes are fully 100%?

[quote=name:ClansAreForGays][quote=name:"MillenniumArmy"]a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes.[/quote] Yes it was. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/[/quote] [quote=from the source]Shocked by the building's collapse, structural engineers pointed to [color=#CE091D]fire [/color]as the likely cause of the structural failure. "Fire melts steel," Burns said. In addition, he said, the impact of the plane could have severely damaged the building's sprinklers, allowing the fire to rage, despite fireproofing supposed to protect steel columns and beams.[/quote] The impact of the jet alone won't do anything which was what I and the people in that source have been saying, but when I said what I said, I was implying that when an airplane of a large magnitude like a boeing will be accompanied by fire due the enormous amount of jet fuel present.

Quote from Mafia.ClansAreForGays

Quote from "MillenniumArmy"

a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes.

Yes it was. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

Quote from from the source

Shocked by the building's collapse, structural engineers pointed to fire as the likely cause of the structural failure.

"Fire melts steel," Burns said. In addition, he said, the impact of the plane could have severely damaged the building's sprinklers, allowing the fire to rage, despite fireproofing supposed to protect steel columns and beams.

The impact of the jet alone won't do anything which was what I and the people in that source have been saying, but when I said what I said, I was implying that when an airplane of a large magnitude like a boeing will be accompanied by fire due the enormous amount of jet fuel present.

[quote=name:Kellimus][quote]Quote from ws-Impeached Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/ So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT. And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true. [/quote] So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold? Nice reasoning there buddy.[/quote] So because someone made a website on it, it's automatically truth behold? Nice reasoning there buddy. It's a well researched book, with all 300+ sources documented. It discusses all the theories mentioned in this thread so far, and more. It uses a variety of sources such as engineering experts, rather than cherry picking witnesses who say something "sounded like a bomb".

Quote from Kellimus

Quote

Quote from ws-Impeached
Years ago, there was a magazine called Popular Mechanics that killed the 9/11 conspiracy. Not that it wasn't already dead anyway.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.htmlAnd they later expanded it into a full length book. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
So please read this before you go OMG WTC 7 FELL DOWN BUT NO PLANE HIT IT.

And just a few years ago, Skeptics Magazine, which is dedicated to "resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs", ran an issue on 9/11 conspiracies. Their result? No 9/11 conspiracy theory is true.

So because someone has written a book on it, its automatically truth behold?

Nice reasoning there buddy.

So because someone made a website on it, it's automatically truth behold?

Nice reasoning there buddy.

It's a well researched book, with all 300+ sources documented. It discusses all the theories mentioned in this thread so far, and more. It uses a variety of sources such as engineering experts, rather than cherry picking witnesses who say something "sounded like a bomb".

What makes an expert an expert? Were they the ones who worked on the WTC buildings or just bunch of cherry picked people who work on buildings?

What makes an expert an expert? Were they the ones who worked on the WTC buildings or just bunch of cherry picked people who work on buildings?