9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,726
#1,726
LouderVol said:
Bunch of things here.

1. thanks for bringing this up AGAIN.
2. This report does little to actually dismiss or argue NISTs findings, they only present other alternatives.
3. the things they do argue they don't back up with numbers which NIST has.
4. They even mention that the fire in the building would have been hot enough to cause failure 660 degrees.
5. the fire insulation was being replaced in the building as what was there was not sufficient. what was there was mechanically attached which doesn't meet code. there wasn't spray applied as is needed.
6. Hilarious that the engineer who designed it believes the only thing to take it down would be demo. This is a case of orangedogs Masters of Disaster. Someone that confident has not built enough buildings to be taken seriously or is putting on a brave face for something.
7. they mention redundancy, the only redundancy that would have mattered is if there was another clip system. there literally couldn't be. I would really like to know what they are claiming is actually redundant.
8. the one chart they do show doesn't take into any consideration any of the damage done. how could it? so them saying a floor would stop another is once again looking at the strongest case and saying "See it would hold up".
9. Their measurements on the fall are based on videos which they admit you can't tell the difference in the change in acceleration because of the quality of video.
10. without being able to do their own investigation I have no idea where these guys are pulling their assumptions from. It really boils down to they didn't like NISTs report so they went and found answers they were looking for instead of looking for the truth.
Click to expand...

Just as i suspected. Because they question, their findings are invalid. Yet because the government put their findings, everything is completely legit and accurate.

The government clearly has your best interest at heart and has never lied to you. Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,727
#1,727
Orangedogsrule said:
NO! It will NOT slow.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will have to slow down. Again, if an object continues with constant acceleration after it collides with another object, you have violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. With each floor collision, you will have aan energy transfer from kinetic energy to the energy needed to deform/fail the support structure below. With this conversion of energy, you have a time element in it and a loss of acceleration (not just rate of change of velocity, but also some change in the directional vector). Yet, for the Twin Towers to fall, assuming the Towers are a closed system, you have constant acceleration in the normal direction. In others words, they fell straight down at near free fall speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,728
#1,728
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes, it will have to slow down. Again, if an object continues with constant acceleration after it collides with another object, you have violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. With each floor collision, you will have aan energy transfer from kinetic energy to the energy needed to deform/fail the support structure below. With this conversion of energy, you have a time element in it and a loss of acceleration (not just rate of change of velocity, but also some change in the directional vector). Yet, for the Twin Towers to fall, assuming the Towers are a closed system, you have constant acceleration in the normal direction. In others words, they fell straight down at near free fall speed.
Click to expand...

:banghead2:

I've not only provided a whole link exactly examining this but even an excerpt that addresses most of it. If that's just too much to read how about just one little snippet that sets you in the right direction.
 

Attachments

  • wtc2.jpg
    wtc2.jpg
    79.2 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,729
#1,729
BigOrangeTrain said:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

I am sure this will be dismissed because these scientists are skeptical. Because we all know, anyone who questions the NIST report obviously doesnt know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

So I start reading, check out the photo caption, and the first thing I see is:

" Weeelll... WTC Bldg 5 burned fer a loong ass time an it dint fall! How 'bout dem apples"??!

This is the very thing I'm talking about where even educated people with advanced degrees couldn't engineer posthole.

WTC1&2 had similar mechanisms of failure, not least of which were central core column severing and jet fuel burning.

WTC7 mechanism of failure was thermally induced by fires started by flaming debris from the tall tower 310 feet away.

The long span floor girder design subject to l alpha delta t (thermal expansion over the temperature excursion). There is also a significant reduction of Youngs modulus (strength factor of materials) that occurs in structural steel at temperatures approaching 600°F. This was easily obtained in several areas. But it only took the thermal growth of one long span girder to exceed the capabilities one significantly strength compromised thermally girder to column connection. The loss of the connection was a loss of lateral support resulted in in a doubling of the column's distance between lateral support in that plane. This changed the column slenderness ratio and the column buckled resulting in a total loss of the girder supporting one end of a floor, thus the floor failed catastrophically. Failure of the column destroyed support for all the girders attached to it. Loss of these girders and the resulting loss of column lateral support at their other end failed more columns. A progressive failure (domino effect) was thus initiated and continued in the building's interior until it collapsed.

WTC5 does not have the structural scheme of WTC7.

It is especially interesting to note how materials behave when they have minor flaws and/or are subjected to conditions not designed for. Also design configurations have previously resulted in catastrophic failures when subjected to temperature extremes.

Liberty ship - Wikipedia

..."Early Liberty ships suffered hull and deck cracks, and a few were lost to such structural defects. During World War II, there were nearly 1,500 instances of significant brittle fractures. Twelve ships, including three of the 2,710 Liberties built, broke in half without warning, including the SS John P. Gaines,[17][18] which sank on 24 November 1943"...
 
#1,730
#1,730
Are there REALLY people who think 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy? Anybody who does is completely and utterly mental and should immediately return to elementary school and start the educational process all over again, and also get psychological/mental health assistance. Maybe drugs. It's a pity that there are a block of people in America who have some bizarre need to question the obvious. To them, I say: Seek help--and in doing so spare the rest of the trouble of having to engage with this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
#1,732
#1,732
armchair said:
Are there REALLY people who think 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy? Anybody who does is completely and utterly mental and should immediately return to elementary school and start the educational process all over again, and also get psychological/mental health assistance. Maybe drugs. It's a pity that there are a block of people in America who have some bizarre need to question the obvious. To them, I say: Seek help--and in doing so spare the rest of the trouble of having to engage with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Aaaaayiiiiii .... for once we agree.
 
#1,733
#1,733
Orangedogsrule said:
NO! It will NOT slow.

Imagine you and a buddy. Assume you're two big strong men in New York City with a piano moving business. You two can pick up a piano from the back of your truck and move it to a pulley system. Its rigged from the roof of a building to the sidewalk. When the piano is beside a window made ready 5 floors up (50ft) you pull it in and set it up. Its a windy day.

So, you two are working together pulling that piano up. Its 20feet in the air and a heavy gust starts it swinging, even though you aren't directly under it, the rope breaks as the piano swings and it lands right on top of both of you.

Greasy spots on a dirty sidewalk is all you'd be.

But hey, you two could pick up that piano!
Click to expand...

Really?!? A piano on a pulley/rope? How does that equate to this?!?

Of course nothing will slow down with just air underneath...
 
#1,734
#1,734
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes, it will have to slow down. Again, if an object continues with constant acceleration after it collides with another object, you have violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. With each floor collision, you will have aan energy transfer from kinetic energy to the energy needed to deform/fail the support structure below. With this conversion of energy, you have a time element in it and a loss of acceleration (not just rate of change of velocity, but also some change in the directional vector). Yet, for the Twin Towers to fall, assuming the Towers are a closed system, you have constant acceleration in the normal direction. In others words, they fell straight down at near free fall speed.
Click to expand...

By your own admissions and postings you are highly susceptable to the various conspiracy theories.

You have had a very few introductory college courses in the hard sciences. Then you quit/left college for whatever reason to become a machinist. Truly, good for you.

BUT, You do not have enough formal training to be able to properly apply the concepts people with advanced engineering or architecture devrees have acquired. You repeatedly mis-apply momentum to available impact resistance to the point it's becoming tragic for you. You're only makeing yourself look pigheadedly ignorant, and proud of it. Please stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,735
#1,735
Orangedogsrule said:
So I start reading, check out the photo caption, and the first thing I see is:

" Weeelll... WTC Bldg 5 burned fer a loong ass time an it dint fall! How 'bout dem apples"??!

This is the very thing I'm talking about where even educated people with advanced degrees couldn't engineer posthole.

WTC1&2 had similar mechanisms of failure, not least of which were central core column severing and jet fuel burning.

WTC7 mechanism of failure was thermally induced by fires started by flaming debris from the tall tower 310 feet away.

The long span floor girder design subject to l alpha delta t (thermal expansion over the temperature excursion). There is also a significant reduction of Youngs modulus (strength factor of materials) that occurs in structural steel at temperatures approaching 600°F. This was easily obtained in several areas. But it only took the thermal growth of one long span girder to exceed the capabilities one significantly strength compromised thermally girder to column connection. The loss of the connection was a loss of lateral support resulted in in a doubling of the column's distance between lateral support in that plane. This changed the column slenderness ratio and the column buckled resulting in a total loss of the girder supporting one end of a floor, thus the floor failed catastrophically. Failure of the column destroyed support for all the girders attached to it. Loss of these girders and the resulting loss of column lateral support at their other end failed more columns. A progressive failure (domino effect) was thus initiated and continued in the building's interior until it collapsed.

WTC5 does not have the structural scheme of WTC7.

It is especially interesting to note how materials behave when they have minor flaws and/or are subjected to conditions not designed for. Also design configurations have previously resulted in catastrophic failures when subjected to temperature extremes.

Liberty ship - Wikipedia

..."Early Liberty ships suffered hull and deck cracks, and a few were lost to such structural defects. During World War II, there were nearly 1,500 instances of significant brittle fractures. Twelve ships, including three of the 2,710 Liberties built, broke in half without warning, including the SS John P. Gaines,[17][18] which sank on 24 November 1943"...
Click to expand...

Like I said, those who question anything about the official report are immediately invalidated.

The government has never lied and its especially not lying about 9/11. Keep thinking your training is better than other peoples though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,738
#1,738
armchair said:
Are there REALLY people who think 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy? Anybody who does is completely and utterly mental and should immediately return to elementary school and start the educational process all over again, and also get psychological/mental health assistance. Maybe drugs. It's a pity that there are a block of people in America who have some bizarre need to question the obvious. To them, I say: Seek help--and in doing so spare the rest of the trouble of having to engage with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

About half of all Americans don't believe in the official story...dickhead!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,739
#1,739
Pacer92 said:
Feathers? Wtf?
Click to expand...

You're stating absolutes and it's obvious you have nothing but YouTube videos and blog posts to base your conclusions upon.

Air in the form of wind resistance slows down objects all by itself.

You've made up your mind and it's pretty obvious you're not interested in learning anything contrary to the conspiracy theory version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,741
#1,741
ajvol01 said:
You're stating absolutes and it's obvious you have nothing but YouTube videos and blog posts to base your conclusions upon.

Air in the form of wind resistance slows down objects all by itself.

You've made up your mind and it's pretty obvious you're not interested in learning anything contrary to the conspiracy theory version.
Click to expand...

Everything on YouTube never happened...it's not real...

Who's the conspiracy theorist?
 
#1,744
#1,744
hndog609 said:
Since people apparently can't be bothered to read links here's an excerpt. There's lots more but hopefully this will at least be enough to encourage people to look.
Click to expand...

So from the the first impact to the second impact, not only did the mass increase, but the velocity increased as well (from 18 mph to 24 mph)?


How is this conservation of energy? Conservation of energy would be m1v1 = m2v2. But in this example, m1v1 < m2v2.

Does this make sense? :crazy:
 
#1,745
#1,745
Rasputin_Vol said:
So from the the first impact to the second impact, not only did the mass increase, but the velocity increased as well (from 18 mph to 24 mph)?


How is this conservation of energy? Conservation of energy would be m1v1 = m2v2. But in this example, m1v1 < m2v2.

Does this make sense? :crazy:
Click to expand...

Excellent, you've read enough to have a synapse fire. Now go to the full links and read ALL of it.
 
#1,749
#1,749
Pacer92 said:
Nah...but, since you brought it up...

When you continually try and slander your opposition with words like ignorant, idiotic, stupid, poser, and not expect it to be reciprocated....shows you don't have the intelligence that you claim...

So....carry on...
Click to expand...

Oh,... I'm not 'trying'. I am. And ignorant poser is not slander when its readily apparent the shoe fits.
 
#1,750
#1,750
Just dropping these links in here regarding WTC7:

WTC7

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

Brief quote: "At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously."

Study conducted by engineers, but funded by "truthers", so I'm sure it will be criticized for all of the usual reasons.

On a more general note, it's difficult not to notice in this thread, and at other places where the topic is discussed, that people frequently rely on models, simulations, experts, superior experts, consensus among experts, etc. That goes for sources on both sides of the aisle, including the ones I've posted above. Over the years, I've developed a serious distrust of anyone who relies too heavily on such things. Any time a computer model or expert is trotted out in support of something, I immediately start with the premise that I'm being misled (at best) or outright lied to. Chaos theory suggests that, to successfully model anything that happens in reality would require an exact replica of the entire universe. An even basic understanding of that concept should put to rest any reliance on computer modeling to prove anything. And where to even begin with "experts" and any so-called consensus among such experts? It's laughable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top