9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,579
#1,579
Orangedogsrule said:
Dude, we've been ALL over this. This experiment is about as valid as saying gas won't burn because it doesn't ignite from a cigarette.

Gasoline vs Cigarette - YouTube
Click to expand...

Dude, regardless, jet fuel or diesel fuel or a normal office fire will at best weaken the metal within area of impact, but the floors that are below and further away from the heat source should have been as structurally stable as they were before. Not enough heat to cause the metal on the lower floors to yield. Notice very carefully that I use the word "yield" and not melt. Yet another distinction that I have been making before, yet most of you clowns overlook.
 
#1,580
#1,580
Rasputin_Vol said:
Dude, regardless, jet fuel or diesel fuel or a normal office fire will at best weaken the metal within area of impact, but the floors that are below and further away from the heat source should have been as structurally stable as they were before. Not enough heat to cause the metal on the lower floors to yield. Notice very carefully that I use the word "yield" and not melt. Yet another distinction that I have been making before, yet most of you clowns overlook.
Click to expand...

Have you thought about the top floors crashing into the lower floors with more and more force
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,581
#1,581
tumscalcium said:
Have you thought about the top floors crashing into the lower floors with more and more force
Click to expand...

Yes, and the floors collapsing on to the floors below them would have eventually gotten to stronger and stronger floors as it collapsed because those lower floors would have been a lot further away from the major source of heat, which should have caused the collapse to stop at some point. At the very least, we should have seen maybe the top floors possibly collapsing, but the majority of the lower floors should have still been standing. But instead, what we got is a complete collapse on 3 different buildings, 2 hit by planes and one hit by nothing.
 
#1,582
#1,582
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes, and the floors collapsing on to the floors below them would have eventually gotten to stronger and stronger floors as it collapsed because those lower floors would have been a lot further away from the major source of heat, which should have caused the collapse to stop at some point. At the very least, we should have seen maybe the top floors possibly collapsing, but the majority of the lower floors should have still been standing. But instead, what we got is a complete collapse on 3 different buildings, 2 hit by planes and one hit by nothing.
Click to expand...

Those “stronger” floors are taking on more and more weight.
 
#1,584
#1,584
Rasputin_Vol said:
Dude, regardless, jet fuel or diesel fuel or a normal office fire will at best weaken the metal within area of impact, but the floors that are below and further away from the heat source should have been as structurally stable as they were before. Not enough heat to cause the metal on the lower floors to yield. Notice very carefully that I use the word "yield" and not melt. Yet another distinction that I have been making before, yet most of you clowns overlook.
Click to expand...

Are you a structural engineer?
 
#1,585
#1,585
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes, and the floors collapsing on to the floors below them would have eventually gotten to stronger and stronger floors as it collapsed because those lower floors would have been a lot further away from the major source of heat, which should have caused the collapse to stop at some point. At the very least, we should have seen maybe the top floors possibly collapsing, but the majority of the lower floors should have still been standing. But instead, what we got is a complete collapse on 3 different buildings, 2 hit by planes and one hit by nothing.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
#1,588
#1,588
tumscalcium said:
Those “stronger” floors are taking on more and more weight.
Click to expand...

No, the actual weight does not change, but the impact load becomes significantly larger as the weight of each floor is added to the decending mass. An impact load the structural clips were not designed to carry. It becomes much like using a 9 lb. sledge (instead of an axe) to lop off branches of a small tree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,589
#1,589
tumscalcium said:
Stationary.


Try holding a 25-lb object. Now, have someone drop that same object from the floor above you, better yet, several floors above you and try to catch it. It should be easy because, you know, it’s the same weight.
Click to expand...

I have explained this time and time again, but let me try yet one more time.

As each floor collapsed onto the floor below it, it would lose kinetic energy on each collision and the kinetic energy lost would instead go towards the necessary force to buckle/fail the joints or supports of the floor below it. Eventually, as the momentum started to reach lower floors (floors that are stronger because they are further away from the heat source), you would need more energy in order to cause a failure. What you should have had is (maybe) the most affected and damaged floors near the impact zone of 2 of the buildings caving in and eventually stopping about midway down. But it should have never resulted in a complete and total collapse of the building.

Still not sure how you are going to explain the complete and total collapse of Building 7, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,590
#1,590
Orangedogsrule said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the floors collapsing on to the floors below them would have eventually gotten to stronger and stronger floors as it collapsed because those lower floors would have been a lot further away from the major source of heat, which should have caused the collapse to stop at some point. At the very least, we should have seen maybe the top floors possibly collapsing, but the majority of the lower floors should have still been standing. But instead, what we got is a complete collapse on 3 different buildings, 2 hit by planes and one hit by nothing.Where is the factual and scientific inaccuracy in the post?

Yes, and the floors collapsing on to the floors below them would have eventually gotten to stronger and stronger floors as it collapsed because those lower floors would have been a lot further away from the major source of heat, which should have caused the collapse to stop at some point. At the very least, we should have seen maybe the top floors possibly collapsing, but the majority of the lower floors should have still been standing. But instead, what we got is a complete collapse on 3 different buildings, 2 hit by planes and one hit by nothing.
Click to expand...

The floors that were far away from both the impact and main source of heat would have been as stable as before. We should have seen at least half of the building remaining standing while (maybe) the top portions collapsed/fell down to the street asymmetrically. It should have never been a complete and total failure of the entire building for WTC #1 and #2.

And again, explain the damage caused at Building #7.
 
#1,591
#1,591
Orangedogsrule said:
No, the actual weight does not change, but the impact load becomes significantly larger as the weight of each floor is added to the decending mass. An impact load the structural clips were not designed to carry. It becomes much like using a 9 lb. sledge (instead of an axe) to lop off branches of a small tree.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I poorly explained.
 
#1,592
#1,592
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes, and the floors collapsing on to the floors below them would have eventually gotten to stronger and stronger floors as it collapsed because those lower floors would have been a lot further away from the major source of heat, which should have caused the collapse to stop at some point. At the very least, we should have seen maybe the top floors possibly collapsing, but the majority of the lower floors should have still been standing. But instead, what we got is a complete collapse on 3 different buildings, 2 hit by planes and one hit by nothing.
Click to expand...

Nothing?!! NOTHING!?? NOTHING?????

You have already had your tin foil hat handed to you about this very thing in the 9/11 thread.

It has been computer modeled and shown that the 3D debris footprint of many! many! many! large pieces of the nearest tower that easily penetrated the exterior curtain wall catastrophically damaging the structural integrity and carrying burning debris that ignited fires in that building covered VIRTUALLY the ENTIRE NEAR FACE of the third building. It was a "dead man walking".
 
#1,593
#1,593
tumscalcium said:
Stationary.


Try holding a 25-lb object. Now, have someone drop that same object from the floor above you, better yet, several floors above you and try to catch it. It should be easy because, you know, it’s the same weight.
Click to expand...

The weight of the 25 lb object didn't change in either scenario, whether it was in your hand or dropped from above you.

If you are not going to use the correct terminology or understand the mechanics behind it, then maybe you need to remove yourself from the discussion. You sound silly.
 
#1,594
#1,594
Rasputin_Vol said:
I have explained this time and time again, but let me try yet one more time.

As each floor collapsed onto the floor below it, it would lose kinetic energy on each collision and the kinetic energy lost would instead go towards the necessary force to buckle/fail the joints or supports of the floor below it. Eventually, as the momentum started to reach lower floors (floors that are stronger because they are further away from the heat source), you would need more energy in order to cause a failure. What you should have had is (maybe) the most affected and damaged floors near the impact zone of 2 of the buildings caving in and eventually stopping about midway down. But it should have never resulted in a complete and total collapse of the building.

Still not sure how you are going to explain the complete and total collapse of Building 7, however.
Click to expand...

You’re way too concerned about distance from the “heat source”. The distance from the heat source doesn’t matter when all those floors come crashing down.

You keep trying to explain this because it doesn’t make sense. No one buys your wacko position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,595
#1,595
Orangedogsrule said:
Nothing?!! NOTHING!?? NOTHING?????

You have already had your tin foil hat handed to you about this very thing in the 9/11 thread.

It has been computer modeled and shown that the 3D debris footprint of many! many! many! large pieces of the nearest tower that easily penetrated the exterior curtain wall catastrophically damaging the structural integrity and carrying burning debris that ignited fires in that building covered VIRTUALLY the ENTIRE NEAR FACE of the third building. It was a "dead man walking".
Click to expand...

And that is what caused Building 7 to collapse in the same manner as the other 2 buildings earlier in the day?

If what you are saying is true, then Building 7 should have failed at the bottom floor and fallen like a tree in one direction or the other, but it should have never collapsed within its footprint similar to a controlled demolition.
 
#1,596
#1,596
Rasputin_Vol said:
The weight of the 25 lb object didn't change in either scenario, whether it was in your hand or dropped from above you.

If you are not going to use the correct terminology or understand the mechanics behind it, then maybe you need to remove yourself from the discussion. You sound silly.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who can’t counter the facts.

I’m poorly explaining this and still have a far better understanding of a building collapse than you.


Also, no, as I previously stated stated, the weight doesn’t change. How you, or rather the building handles the weight, does.
 
#1,597
#1,597
tumscalcium said:
You’re way too concerned about distance from the “heat source”. The distance from the heat source doesn’t matter when all those floors come crashing down.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell does matter when you are talking about a catastrophic failure. Outside of a controlled demotion, that building should not have failed completely in the path of most resistance (straight down).
 
#1,598
#1,598
tumscalcium said:
Also, no, as I previously stated stated, the weight doesn’t change. How you, or rather the building handles the weight, does.
Click to expand...

And I explained to you clearly how the floors below would handle the collapse with the fact that the kinetic energy of each impact (floor collapse) would have needed to be converted into the energy needed to fail each support structure on the floor below it. With each successive collision, more energy would need to be converted to a force great enough to fail each floor below it. As the collisions get further from the impact and heat source, you begin to encounter stronger support structures. Eventually, the kinetic energy from each impact would have not been enough to overcome the energy necessary to cause a failure.
 
#1,599
#1,599
Rasputin_Vol said:
It sure as hell does matter when you are talking about a catastrophic failure. Outside of a controlled demotion, that building should not have failed completely in the path of most resistance (straight down).
Click to expand...

No it does not. You’ve been working on this wacko theory for 16 years and still don’t understand the basics.

You have a major explosion 3/4 the way up a building destroying many floors. This weakens those floors. The floors above all come crashing down destroying the floors beneath. Those floors add to those top floors. Each floor failing adds far more momentum when you reach the bottom floors the entire building is crashing down on those bottom floors and your only response is that the bottom floors are unaffected by the heat source (which doesn’t mean anything at this point)?

Lmao, gtfo with your retarded ****. If you’re going to spend 16 years covered in foil you should at least bring something better than that to the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,600
#1,600
tumscalcium said:
I’m poorly explaining this and still have a far better understanding of a building collapse than you.
Click to expand...

No, you do not. You do not understand kinetic energy and how it behaves after inelastic collisions. Nor do you understand what yield strength and shear stress are.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top