9/11 Conspiracy Thread

[UT-Rex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UT-Rex View Post
I'm sure you've seen em all, but here's a good one --


9/11 Collapses Violated Fundamental Laws of Physics - Explained - YouTube

lol. got 1 minute into that video and had to stop because of my laughter. "the top 15 floors wouldn't be there after collapsing". uhm hey numbnuts you see the debris. its all right there. the stuff didn't disappear. take out momentum for the moment because there is a lot of math there. just look at the mass of stuff. that mass has weight, duh. the floors below have to support that extra weight that they weren't designed for. his example of cars colliding is laughable and displays a clear lack of honesty of the situation.

1. these were not equal forces being applied to equal objects.
2. these objects were not acting in opposite directions to cancel each other out. they were acting in the same direction (down) gravity was the only load on the other floors, and you are ADDING the force of the floors above. not subtracting. yes some "disappears" but there is still going to be some that stacks. he is getting velocity confused with total mass. to use his analogy it would be like saying a car at rest is hit by a car moving, what happens? And in this case its a VW Beetle getting smashed by a Mack Truck. at some point that VW stops apply any noticeable resistance and the Mack Truck continues on at will with a little more mass added to it.

apologies to GV, but these are incredibly dishonest videos meant to sway opinion without actually providing any truth.

He's saying, the 2nd level of top-15 floors, floors 70-85, is an equal force that absorbs the fall of the top level of 15 floors, floors 86-100, then once absorbed the falling all stops once it reaches floor 70 -- "and so there's nothing left now to crush the rest of the bldg" as in, once floors 86-100 are crushed against floors 70-85, there's no more falling-energy / no more motion at this time (it's already equalized), and therefore floors 1-70 could not be crushed entirely (so assuming nothing else is going on below it, then there's now no motion above it for floor 70 to be an equal, opposing force against, and the struct engineer claims the per walls can support roughly 2000% above it, presumably if resting).

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UT-Rex View Post
I'm sure you've seen em all, but here's a good one --


9/11 Collapses Violated Fundamental Laws of Physics - Explained - YouTube



He's saying, the 2nd level of top-15 floors, floors 70-85, is an equal force that absorbs the fall of the top level of 15 floors, floors 86-100, then once absorbed the falling all stops once it reaches floor 70 -- "and so there's nothing left now to crush the rest of the bldg" as in, once floors 86-100 are crushed against floors 70-85, there's no more falling-energy / no more motion at this time (it's already equalized), and therefore floors 1-70 could not be crushed entirely (so assuming nothing else is going on below it, then there's now no motion above it for floor 70 to be an equal, opposing force against, and the struct engineer claims the per walls can support roughly 2000% above it, presumably if resting).

I have tried to break this down to the simplest explanation for these people, but they continue to buy into the narrative. Just as the video said and I said yesterday, if you consider one tower as a closed system, there they kinetic energy needed to drop a building like that all the way to the ground would have to be less than the kinetic energy available after the first set of floors collapse.

I've also tried to tell them that a floor collapsing on to the floor below it will be an inelastic collision. The kinetic energy from the floors falling on the floor below has have a certain amount of that energy converted into the energy needed to critical fail the support structures below, and so on as you cascade down the building.

 

[Grand Vol]

apologies to GV, but these are incredibly dishonest videos meant to sway opinion without actually providing any truth.

Don't know what you're apologizing to me about. I was merely making the comment that regardless of what happens in the world, some people are going to twist it into a massive conspiracy theory.

I mean, considering everything that went on with 9/11 and the fact we are in the middle of the information age and you would think someone would have blabbed about it by this point. For crying out loud, someone would have talked by now.

But some choose to believe in the most obscure theories they can and push it on others.

 

[LouderVol]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UT-Rex View Post
I'm sure you've seen em all, but here's a good one --


9/11 Collapses Violated Fundamental Laws of Physics - Explained - YouTube



He's saying, the 2nd level of top-15 floors, floors 70-85, is an equal force that absorbs the fall of the top level of 15 floors, floors 86-100, then once absorbed the falling all stops once it reaches floor 70 -- "and so there's nothing left now to crush the rest of the bldg" as in, once floors 86-100 are crushed against floors 70-85, there's no more falling-energy / no more motion at this time (it's already equalized), and therefore floors 1-70 could not be crushed entirely (so assuming nothing else is going on below it, then there's now no motion above it for floor 70 to be an equal, opposing force against, and the struct engineer claims the per walls can support roughly 2000% above it, presumably if resting).

Except the falling didn't stop. there was nothing to stop them. it wasn't 15 vs 15. it was 15 vs 1. then it was 16 vs 1, and 17 vs 1. how the frick would one undamaged floor "equalize" even 5+ floors. If you watch the tower fall on the damage floors they don't stop each other, they are too weak, so there is nothing to stop, or to use your word: equalize, those first couple floors. once that falling object has built up additional mass of the floors it took out and gained momentum from nothing stopping them single floors are not going to even slow it down.

The only structural walls (unless you are considering the exterior columns a wall system) were the inner core. And this is where it gets incredibly dishonest with what he is arguing. the inner walls might be that strong but the clip system attaching floor to wall or column isn't going to be anywhere close to that. Its a chain system, look for the weakest link, that is where the failure happens. and that 2000% is a dead or resting load, but again that is a completely irrelevant number to the real problem. address the clips. not one video I have seen posted has even attempted to explain that; because they can't, that is the problem the rest of it is window dressing brought up to confuse the situation.

and again his argument of equal and opposite reactions is a bold faced lie. there was no active force acting in the opposite direction, there was a passive one but seeing as the lower floors weren't moving up to meet falling floors there is no way that statement could be applicable.

 

[LouderVol]

I have tried to break this down to the simplest explanation for these people, but they continue to buy into the narrative. Just as the video said and I said yesterday, if you consider one tower as a closed system, there they kinetic energy needed to drop a building like that all the way to the ground would have to be less than the kinetic energy available after the first set of floors collapse.

I've also tried to tell them that a floor collapsing on to the floor below it will be an inelastic collision. The kinetic energy from the floors falling on the floor below has have a certain amount of that energy converted into the energy needed to critical fail the support structures below, and so on as you cascade down the building.

Lets just say the falling floors exert about 101kips on the next floor down. but that floor below can only support an additional 100kips, that 1kip doesn't disappear. it keeps going. now that falling is about 202kips (100kips first floor, 1kip as its speed that wasn't stopped, plus that again for the second floor that is coming along for the ride) the floor below again can only support 100kips, now there is 102 unaccounted for kips. that extra force doesn't disappear with each collision.

I am simplifying the crap out of the math but it quickly gets laughable to assume the energy just disappears into the structure.

again look at the clips. the clips are the only thing that matters. Doesn't matter if the middle of those k-joists can hold up a million times its own weight, once the clips fail its game over.

 

[Pacer92]

Except the falling didn't stop. there was nothing to stop them. it wasn't 15 vs 15. it was 15 vs 1. then it was 16 vs 1, and 17 vs 1. how the frick would one undamaged floor "equalize" even 5+ floors. If you watch the tower fall on the damage floors they don't stop each other, they are too weak, so there is nothing to stop, or to use your word: equalize, those first couple floors. once that falling object has built up additional mass of the floors it took out and gained momentum from nothing stopping them single floors are not going to even slow it down.

The only structural walls (unless you are considering the exterior columns a wall system) were the inner core. And this is where it gets incredibly dishonest with what he is arguing. the inner walls might be that strong but the clip system attaching floor to wall or column isn't going to be anywhere close to that. Its a chain system, look for the weakest link, that is where the failure happens. and that 2000% is a dead or resting load, but again that is a completely irrelevant number to the real problem. address the clips. not one video I have seen posted has even attempted to explain that; because they can't, that is the problem the rest of it is window dressing brought up to confuse the situation.

and again his argument of equal and opposite reactions is a bold faced lie. there was no active force acting in the opposite direction, there was a passive one but seeing as the lower floors weren't moving up to meet falling floors there is no way that statement could be applicable.

I dont claim to know anything about architecture...my question is strictly physics..

Say you had a ten ft high by 4 ft wide stack of bricks...2 or 3 feet from the top of the stack a row or 2 was structurally compromised...knocked out..

Would that 3 ft high section create enough energy to pancake the remaining 6.5 feet section?

 

[LouderVol]

I dont claim to know anything about architecture...my question is strictly physics..

Say you had a ten ft high by 4 ft wide stack of bricks...2 or 3 feet from the top of the stack a row or 2 was structurally compromised...knocked out..

Would that 3 ft high section create enough energy to pancake the remaining 6.5 feet section?

to make this applicable it wouldn't be brick stacked on brick. in this case your analogy should read each course of brick is separated by 1x6s. in which case yes the collapsing brick could be enough to collapse those 1x6 (clips). the bricks themselves aren't failing. (floors). and then you have a couple stacks of bricks collapsing on single stacks of 1x6

 

[Orangedogsrule]

I have tried to break this down to the simplest explanation for these people, but they continue to buy into the narrative. Just as the video said and I said yesterday, if you consider one tower as a closed system, there they kinetic energy needed to drop a building like that all the way to the ground would have to be less than the kinetic energy available after the first set of floors collapse.

I've also tried to tell them that a floor collapsing on to the floor below it will be an inelastic collision. The kinetic energy from the floors falling on the floor below has have a certain amount of that energy converted into the energy needed to critical fail the support structures below, and so on as you cascade down the building.

Well, you just keep on breaking it down Ol' Son because that be making nonsense. It does not take into account several load conditions; thermal creep of floor joist bearings, thermal expansion of the joists with thermal catenary deformation.

In particular, impact rupture of the structural components in EACH floor below those thermally affected. The falling mass of the floors above the impact regions is at least equal to the weight of the Queen Mary at 68,000 tons. Drop that through say 40 feet of gravitational acceleration (4 floors at ~10ft/flr) and add the mass of each additional floor minus the materials expulsed out the sides. What you have posted there is not accepted structural analysis methodology and assumes no instantaneous brittle impact failures of components or welds.

Within the last month or so, addendums & revisions to the official WTC Report has been published. Most notably the finalized failure mode for WTC7.

They reinforce the previous findings and show nothing to change the fact that fire and thermal creep-deformation
and thermal expansion were the instigating mechanisms of catastrophic failure.

I'm done here. This is boring.
You all remember that there are weirdos out there. Some even with PhDs in the hard sciences and engineering. Often winding up as professors because they can't engineer their way out of a paper bag. To often the old saw of 'Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach' is all to true.

 

[Obsessed]

Since you brought it up...

Don’t be silly. Every one knows it’s mixed in with the fuel.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Figured my sarcasm would have been detected without the blue font.

Sarcasm? Looked pretty legit to me. :dance2:

 

[hndog609]

This WTC should all actually be shunted over into that particular thread, where God knows all of this has been covered in exhaustive detail. (some must have anterograde amnesia issues as the same silliness just keeps popping up)

I'm just going to leave this as it's the best source I've found that combines hard physical science with the kind of explanations that most reasonably intelligent people can grasp. There are several chapters which break down specific aspects.

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: How Does a Building Crush Itself?

 

[UT-Rex]

Except the falling didn't stop. there was nothing to stop them. it wasn't 15 vs 15. it was 15 vs 1. then it was 16 vs 1, and 17 vs 1. how the frick would one undamaged floor "equalize" even 5+ floors. If you watch the tower fall on the damage floors they don't stop each other, they are too weak, so there is nothing to stop, or to use your word: equalize, those first couple floors. once that falling object has built up additional mass of the floors it took out and gained momentum from nothing stopping them single floors are not going to even slow it down.

The only structural walls (unless you are considering the exterior columns a wall system) were the inner core. And this is where it gets incredibly dishonest with what he is arguing. the inner walls might be that strong but the clip system attaching floor to wall or column isn't going to be anywhere close to that. Its a chain system, look for the weakest link, that is where the failure happens. and that 2000% is a dead or resting load, but again that is a completely irrelevant number to the real problem. address the clips. not one video I have seen posted has even attempted to explain that; because they can't, that is the problem the rest of it is window dressing brought up to confuse the situation.

and again his argument of equal and opposite reactions is a bold faced lie. there was no active force acting in the opposite direction, there was a passive one but seeing as the lower floors weren't moving up to meet falling floors there is no way that statement could be applicable.

If it's "15 vs 1. then it was 16 vs 1, and 17 vs 1" as you're saying, then it's car 1 vs car 2 upon initial impact, then car 1+10% of car 2 vs 90% of car 2, then car 1 + 20% of car 2 + 80% of car 2, and so on, so that car 1 is doubled in weight, and continues in motion -- but it's not, as car 2, in its entirety, is the equal/opposite force directly in front-horizontal (of car 1) which stops the motion of car 1. Likewise, per vid, the top 15 floors will be stopped by the 15 floors directly beneath it (in front of, but turned sideways vertical).

Yes, perimeter walls 40%, and interior core 60% (per vid, beyond minute 1). Were both the 2 corners (of impact side) completely sheered upon impact / I don't think so (even if so, the engineers say, the bldg was designed to stand / i.e. to with-stand / remain standing even if 2 corners sheered and 1 side removed, even in high winds).

The 2000% is relevant, in that the (assuming it to be) uncompromised structure of floors 1-70 would hold the rubble / the falling rubble/structure of top 30 floors, rather than that 15 floors being capable of crushing the next 85 floors entirely. Without something else going on below it, then floors 70-85 are the only equal, opposing force necessary to making the top 15 come to rest / where 71-100 remain on-top of floors 1-70 (presumably some rubble, like the tower, would, like water, find a path to fall on down thru the shafts or off the sides). So, floors 100-86 are absorbed by / come to a stop by the equal/opposite force/weight of floors 71-85 pushing against it -- it only takes the weight of floors 71-85 to stop the fall of 86-100, and it all rests atop floors 1-70 (per, according to the vid, "high school physics" that is, but I'm not in high school as of the time that vid was made).

 

[LouderVol]

Looked for the old thread, didn't find it. As one of the offenders for arguing this issue I figured I could create a new thread where the argument could take place.

the Vegas shooting is its own topic, with separate victims and different questions so lets keep them separated.

 

[MG1968]

Truthers are morons.

 

[LouderVol]

If it's "15 vs 1. then it was 16 vs 1, and 17 vs 1" as you're saying, then it's car 1 vs car 2 upon initial impact, then car 1+10% of car 2 vs 90% of car 2, then car 1 + 20% of car 2 + 80% of car 2, and so on, so that car 1 is doubled in weight, and continues in motion -- but it's not, as car 2, in its entirety, is the equal/opposite force directly in front-horizontal (of car 1) which stops the motion of car 1. Likewise, per vid, the top 15 floors will be stopped by the 15 floors directly beneath it (in front of, but turned sideways vertical).

Yes, perimeter walls 40%, and interior core 60% (per vid, beyond minute 1). Were both the 2 corners (of impact side) completely sheered upon impact / I don't think so (even if so, the engineers say, the bldg was designed to stand / i.e. to with-stand / remain standing even if 2 corners sheered and 1 side removed, even in high winds).

The 2000% is relevant, in that the (assuming it to be) uncompromised structure of floors 1-70 would hold the rubble / the falling rubble/structure of top 30 floors, rather than that 15 floors being capable of crushing the next 85 floors entirely. Without something else going on below it, then floors 70-85 are the only equal, opposing force necessary to making the top 15 come to rest / where 71-100 remain on-top of floors 1-70 (presumably some rubble, like the tower, would, like water, find a path to fall on down thru the shafts or off the sides). So, floors 100-86 are absorbed by / come to a stop by the equal/opposite force/weight of floors 71-85 pushing against it -- it only takes the weight of floors 71-85 to stop the fall of 86-100, and it all rests atop floors 1-70 (per, according to the vid, "high school physics" that is, but I'm not in high school as of the time that vid was made).

.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I think people forget the buildings were slammed into by airplanes going pretty fast..

So for science try this one on for size. Stand straight up. Have someone slam a baseball bat into your head. See how long before you collapse.

 

[hndog609]

9/11 Conspiracy Thread

 

[10NCVol88]

I think people forget the buildings were slammed into by airplanes going pretty fast..

So for science try this one on for size. Stand straight up. Have someone slam a baseball bat into your head. See how long before you collapse.

Well one thing is for sure your body definitely wouldn't go into free fall and collapse on itself

 

[ClearwaterVol]

We've got a government that is so inept that it is incapable of making a simple phone call, but we're supposed to believe that they were able to sneak into these buildings undetected and rig them with thermite. And to what end? Was two planes slamming into the towers not enough to garner support for a war?

 

[MG1968]

We've got a government that is so inept that it is incapable of making a simple phone call, but we're supposed to believe that they were able to sneak into these buildings undetected and rig them with thermite. And to what end? Was two planes slamming into the towers not enough to garner support for a war?

Well, according to some Truther Morons, there were no planes on 9-11.

 

[LouderVol]

the only reason the failed floors are acting together is because they have collided. the floors below are still separated. they are not holding themselves up. they are acting individually.

again walls/floors are irrelevant. the clips holding the floors in place are what matters. you are looking at the strongest piece of the puzzle, saying yes this can hold everything up, and stopping. Keep going, get to the weakest piece, see that it fails and it all makes sense. if the weakest piece can't hold up, then the whole system fails, as seen.

there is no OPPOSITE force from the floors below. They are not rising at the speed of gravity. they are being held in place therefore they can't be acting in an opposite manner. the mass of the individual floors are equal, but several floors are acting on one floor at a time, so the combined failed floors have a mass GREATER than the floor below. again the floors below are acting independently from each other. you could delete one of those floors and not have an impact on the others. Even looking at the first collapse what you have is MASS of floor * gravity going down. the floor below does have an equal mass at this point, but it also has a gravity load, going down. so there is no opposite force. because of that you see the stacking affect. there is still a "force" from the floor below but it is not acting in an opposite direction and it doesn't have a speed, something the floor above does.

the floors didn't fail, the walls didn't fail, the only columns that failed were the bisected ones. The clips failed. address the clips.

 

[hndog609]

This (and ensuing chapters) does the best job of merging hard science and simple explanation I've yet found on the matter.

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm

Also note in post #5 I link the original (all 1500+ glorious posts) thread and all it's mayhem. This has all been covered before, more than once, in just that thread.

 

[theFallGuy]

We've got a government that is so inept that it is incapable of making a simple phone call, but we're supposed to believe that they were able to sneak into these buildings undetected and rig them with thermite. And to what end? Was two planes slamming into the towers not enough to garner support for a war?

exactly

 

[LouderVol]

thanks I couldn't find it and a search didn't pull up anything.

 

[UT-Rex]

I think people forget the buildings were slammed into by airplanes going pretty fast..

So for science try this one on for size. Stand straight up. Have someone slam a baseball bat into your head. See how long before you collapse.

Well beforehand, add these steps to the experiment:

dig a 1' hole in the ground; stand in the hole, and set 4 (eight total) 6'6"-7'6"' #4 or 5 rebar around each leg and have someone wrap them around your body, up to your head, with wire; then have someone pour wet quikcrete in the hole/around your legs to ground level; let dry a full week and remain calm -- now have someone "slam" as you've described (or, maybe even saw partially through, to the head, or better yet for this comparison, within your chest area), and then let them see if your entire body and all rebar collapse straight down to the ground, or rather if most of the body remains standing (and only the top section (if sawed) collapses over).