9/11 Conspiracy Thread

[Rasputin_Vol]

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.

At some point, the kinetic energy will not be enough to overcome the energy needed to cause a failure. I do not know how much more simple I could explain it to you. The bottom 50 floors WTC #1 and #2 should have at the very least still been standing.

Still no explanation as to why Building 7 came to complete collapse, however, using your scenario above. What plane hit Building 7 that caused it to fall straight down?

 

[VolStrom]

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.

I've tried to explain that to a few people and the feeble minded don't get it.

 

[VolStrom]

I've tried to explain that to a few people and the feeble minded don't get it.

Just to follow up. If you take a 10 pound sledge hammer and lay it on a surface not much happens. If you take that same 10 pound sledge and drop it 10 feet what happens? That's what happened to the world trade center. A floor gave out and everything above it dropped and everything below had to support the weight it wasn't designed to support. Down it came.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

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.

WRONG!!!!!!!!

Are YOU a structural engineer trained in building design?

Answer that question.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

At some point, the kinetic energy will not be enough to overcome the energy needed to cause a failure. I do not know how much more simple I could explain it to you. The bottom 50 floors WTC #1 and #2 should have at the very least still been standing.

Still no explanation as to why Building 7 came to complete collapse, however, using your scenario above. What plane hit Building 7 that caused it to fall straight down?

You are NOT trained in engineering mechanics, strength of materials, structural statics and dynamics.

You have NO training in advanced structural analysis techniques nor in stress analysis.

This was my career. Your statements are no more than wild ass guesses or robbed from conspiracy site run by "engineers" possibly with advanced degrees who are considered by my collegues to be no more than Masters of Disaster. The have no understanding that they have no understanding so are real dangers in the real world.

As are you when you spout off about engineering topics you don't really understand but your mistaken foolishness fits your conspiracy theories.

ALL your errors have been proven over, and over, and over again to be errors. So often that to continue to spout them makes them lies.

 

[hndog609]

At some point, the kinetic energy will not be enough to overcome the energy needed to cause a failure. I do not know how much more simple I could explain it to you. The bottom 50 floors WTC #1 and #2 should have at the very least still been standing.

Every single time you state this (and the fact you keep repeating it only makes it worse) you shine a huge "I don't understand the subject" light on yourself. If you don't understand the mass and energy involved and how they interacted with the angle clip/joist construction of the buildings then you badly need to avail yourself of that information or recuse yourself from comments on the matter.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

WRONG!!!!!!!!

Are YOU a structural engineer trained in building design?

Answer that question.

No, studied strength of materials, statics and dynamics while in college. I was also a machinist for several years. I have plenty of experience and understanding of metals and Newtonian physics.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You are NOT trained in engineering mechanics, strength of materials, structural statics and dynamics.

You have NO training in advanced structural analysis techniques nor in stress analysis.

This was my career. Your statements are no more than wild ass guesses or robbed from conspiracy site run by "engineers" possibly with advanced degrees who are considered by my collegues to be no more than Masters of Disaster. The have no understanding that they have no understanding so are real dangers in the real world.

As are you when you spout off about engineering topics you don't really understand but your mistaken foolishness fits your conspiracy theories.

ALL your errors have been proven over, and over, and over again to be errors. So often that to continue to spout them makes them lies.

All three buildings collapsed in the exact same manner. Two buildings were damaged asymmetrically by a plane collision on the top floors. One building was (allegedly) catastrophically damaged at the base to such an extent that it weakened its base. The two twin towers, although similar, were slightly different. Yet, in all three cases, we have 3 buildings fail in exactly the same manner in the direction of the most resistance at near free-fall speed. The possibilities of 3 unique buildings collapsing in that manner and resulting in a complete and total collapse are astronomical.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You are NOT trained in engineering mechanics, strength of materials, structural statics and dynamics.

You have NO training in advanced structural analysis techniques nor in stress analysis.

This was my career. Your statements are no more than wild ass guesses or robbed from conspiracy site run by "engineers" possibly with advanced degrees who are considered by my collegues to be no more than Masters of Disaster. The have no understanding that they have no understanding so are real dangers in the real world.

As are you when you spout off about engineering topics you don't really understand but your mistaken foolishness fits your conspiracy theories.

ALL your errors have been proven over, and over, and over again to be errors. So often that to continue to spout them makes them lies.

All you have done is shouted, yet you still have not countered at any moment what I have continued to explain to you about the inelastic collisions of each floor and how the transmission of kinetic energy from each successive collision would have to be enough to overcome the force needed to shear and catastrophically fail the more resilient support structures on the lower floors. Not only that, but you would have to explain how each of these inelastic collisions (assuming you believe in the mainstream 9/11 narrative) could have occurred at near free fall speed. And lastly, with the amount of asymmetrical damage done to 3 unique buildings, you have failed to thoroughly explain how these three individual events were able to produce symmetrical failure in all 3 cases.

Those 3 items (the kinetic energy needed to collapse each of the 3 buildings completely), the speed of the building failure, and the same nature of failure on 3 unique buildings is very hard for you to ignore and explain away. At the very least, since you are a structural engineer, you could find some of your peers or some university group to do a simple study on just one building. Pick any building and treat it as a closed loop. Simply calculate the amount of energy needed to have each structure in that building to fail... hell add in the weight of the plane if you want. A team of first year civil engineering grad students could do this relatively easily.

 

[UT-Rex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputin_Vol View Post
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.

Are you a structural engineer?

And are you a demolition contractor? Even if not, every structural engineer knows, that the most effective and economical way, worldwide, to bring an entire 100 story steel structure straight down or topple it sideways (including the outer walls and interior elevator shafts) is to pour and ignite jet fuel ONLY between floors 77-85, right? That's how demolitions are performed, right, with jet fuel?

Top 10 Demolitions Gone Wrong - YouTube

 

[tumscalcium]

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.

This coming from the guy unable to understand how the towers collapsed. You can’t dismiss something just because you don’t want it to be true. Lol

 

[tumscalcium]

Just to follow up. If you take a 10 pound sledge hammer and lay it on a surface not much happens. If you take that same 10 pound sledge and drop it 10 feet what happens? That's what happened to the world trade center. A floor gave out and everything above it dropped and everything below had to support the weight it wasn't designed to support. Down it came.

Indeed. It’s not like only the very top floor was destroyed. The planes didn’t destroy the very top of the building.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This coming from the guy unable to understand how the towers collapsed. You can’t dismiss something just because you don’t want it to be true. Lol

Lets be clear. I fully understand how the towers collapsed. My issue is that it could not have fallen in the manner described. 3 unique buildings, damaged in 3 different manners failing in the exact same way.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This coming from the guy unable to understand how the towers collapsed. You can’t dismiss something just because you don’t want it to be true. Lol

Lets be clear. I fully understand how the towers collapsed. My issue is that it could not have fallen in the manner described. 3 unique buildings, damaged in 3 different manners failing in the exact same way. Astronomical odds for that to occur.

 

[tumscalcium]

Lets be clear. I fully understand how the towers collapsed. My issue is that it could not have fallen in the manner described. 3 unique buildings, damaged in 3 different manners failing in the exact same way. Astronomical odds for that to occur.

Who downed the buildings?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

As a steelworker for the past 24 years I know a thing or two about steel. I always laugh when I hear jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Truth is, it doesn't have to. Steel becomes significantly weakened at around 1000 degrees. The force of the top floors falling onto the remaining structure is enough to cause what we all saw on 9/11.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

As a steelworker for the past 24 years I know a thing or two about steel. I always laugh when I hear jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Truth is, it doesn't have to. Steel becomes significantly weakened at around 1000 degrees. The force of the top floors falling onto the remaining structure is enough to cause what we all saw on 9/11.

That is why I have been very clear in my statements by saying "yield". However, even with that being said, the fact still remains that as you move further away from the source of the fire and zone of impact by the planes, you will steel that is not within the range of showing significant yielding or weakening. There is no way you are going to convince me that on the 50th floor and below, some 30 floors below the crash point of the twin towers, that the steel was weakened. And again, we still have the mystery surrounding Building 7...

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Who downed the buildings?

No idea who did it. Nor is there a clear motive. Who did it and why is a discussion open for debate. The point is that the story that is being told doesn't make sense if you sit back and think about it.

5-6 years ago, I wouldn't have believed a conspiracy regarding 9/11 and would have laughed in your face if you even suggested such a thing.

 

[tumscalcium]

That is why I have been very clear in my statements by saying "yield". However, even with that being said, the fact still remains that as you move further away from the source of the fire and zone of impact by the planes, you will steel that is not within the range of showing significant yielding or weakening. There is no way you are going to convince me that on the 50th floor and below, some 30 floors below the crash point of the twin towers, that the steel was weakened. And again, we still have the mystery surrounding Building 7...

The entire building doesn’t have to be weakened. You believe the second floor is supposed to hold up the other 100 floors crashing down? You keep bringing up the heat source when it doesn’t matter. At all.

 

[tumscalcium]

No idea who did it. Nor is there a clear motive. Who did it and why is a discussion open for debate. The point is that the story that is being told doesn't make sense if you sit back and think about it.

5-6 years ago, I wouldn't have believed a conspiracy regarding 9/11 and would have laughed in your face if you even suggested such a thing.

Did the Saudis rig the buildings would th explosives?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The entire building doesn’t have to be weakened. You believe the second floor is supposed to hold up the other 100 floors crashing down? You keep bringing up the heat source when it doesn’t matter. At all.

You still do not understand. Treat each floor collapsing on the the floor below as an individual event. The kinetic energy of the floor above has to be enough to not only catastrophically fail the steel and whatever other supports that may be in place, but it has to do it at the speed of gravity (or near the speed of gravity). Each collision requires an impact and a transfer of the kinetic energy into the support structure below. You will have energy losses along with each successive collision, along with entering a region of stronger and stronger steel and supports.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Did the Saudis rig the buildings would th explosives?

I'm not sure about the Saudis doing that. Mossad or the CIA? Maybe.

The Saudis were the ones who hijacked the planes.

 

[tumscalcium]

You still do not understand. Treat each floor collapsing on the the floor below as an individual event. The kinetic energy of the floor above has to be enough to not only catastrophically fail the steel and whatever other supports that may be in place, but it has to do it at the speed of gravity (or near the speed of gravity). Each collision requires an impact and a transfer of the kinetic energy into the support structure below. You will have energy losses along with each successive collision, along with entering a region of stronger and stronger steel and supports.

You’ve never knocked anything down? Ever?

YOU aren’t understanding. This is like telling a toddler that the stove is hot and you put your hand on it anyway and burn your hand and now you’re still arguing that it wasn’t hot.

This is so weird.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

All three buildings collapsed in the exact same manner. Two buildings were damaged asymmetrically by a plane collision on the top floors. One building was (allegedly) catastrophically damaged at the base to such an extent that it weakened its base. The two twin towers, although similar, were slightly different. Yet, in all three cases, we have 3 buildings fail in exactly the same manner in the direction of the most resistance at near free-fall speed. The possibilities of 3 unique buildings collapsing in that manner and resulting in a complete and total collapse are astronomical.

It's your ignorance that is astronomical.
You are so totally ill prepared (even with the underclass course work you claim) to address the load cases involved in bringing down the towers its hysterically not funny you continue in your ill concieved BS.

And make no mistake. I am seriously calling your descriptions of the mechanisms of how the buildings came down BS. Piled high, hot and steaming BS.

You can take the tac that I'm "yelling" and it is you who are being reasonable. And that too is BS. In the 9/11 thread I and others addressed EVERY SINGLE ONE of your conspiracy tbeory BS points. Every one. You won't accept real engineers telling you that (as I alluded to earlier) the towers DID NOT FALL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT. And that there was extreme compromise of the central core in each of the towers by the inpact. This so weakened the primary structural integrity and secondary systems designed to transmit loads from weakened core columns to others that any other structural system failures at those floors would bring the entire tonnage of the uncompromised ten+ floors crashing STRAIGHT DOWN on the weakened sections and the clips giving way under instaneous catastrophic impact failure would sound like cannon shots.

We tore your conspiracy BS to pieces.
Yet here you are with your BS again claiming your few tech courses and machinists certificate is enougb for you to act knowledgable.

No it is not! You are like the kid that's had 2 weeks of karate and goes to town and gets his ass handed to him by a street fighter.

Most everything you say shows how little you truly understand.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

It's your ignorance that is astronomical.
You are so totally ill prepared (even with the underclass course work you claim) to address the load cases involved in bringing down the towers its hysterically not funny you continue in your ill concieved BS.

And make no mistake. I am seriously calling your descriptions of the mechanisms of how the buildings came down BS. Piled high, hot and steaming BS.

You can take the tac that I'm "yelling" and it is you who are being reasonable. And that too is BS. In the 9/11 thread I and others addressed EVERY SINGLE ONE of your conspiracy tbeory BS points. Every one. You won't accept real engineers telling you that (as I alluded to earlier) the towers DID NOT FALL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT. And that there was extreme compromise of the central core in each of the towers by the inpact. This so weakened the primary structural integrity and secondary systems designed to transmit loads from weakened core columns to others that any other structural system failures at those floors would bring the entire tonnage of the uncompromised ten+ floors crashing STRAIGHT DOWN on the weakened sections and the clips giving way under instaneous catastrophic impact failure would sound like cannon shots.

We tore your conspiracy BS to pieces.
Yet here you are with your BS again claiming your few tech courses and machinists certificate is enougb for you to act knowledgable.

No it is not! You are like the kid that's had 2 weeks of karate and goes to town and gets his ass handed to him by a street fighter.

Most everything you say shows how little you truly understand.

Then explain Building 7?