Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

#351
#351
Someone mentioned earlier that we did not land on the moon. I agree with them. I also believe that we never actually dropped nuclear bombs during WWII. I think that was one of the greatest cover ups ever.

I just googled this and not surprisingly I found a conspiracy theory titled "No Nuclear Bombs Conspiracy".

Please everyone google this. haha
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#352
#352
volprof said:
Look, if you want to live your life in a fantasy world, you go right ahead. We'll all chip in and get you a few dolls and a Barbie Dream House for Christmas too. Just let us know what address to ship them to.
Click to expand...

You are a walking fantasy. I mean the way you blame Cheney for everything. I bet Cheney is responsible for El Nino huh?
 
#355
#355
Rasputin_Vol said:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings
Click to expand...

This is your source? Zero scientific evidence - just another conspiracy theorist blog.

An examination of the evidence which remains leads inexorably to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by elements within the US government, with Israeli assistance (probably going back before Bush came to power in 2001) in order to justify US military aggression against any country which stands in the way of its aim of global economic, financial and political domination. Maybe you think that the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the bombing of any country that the US chooses to bomb, thousands of deaths and injuries among US soldiers, and the contempt of all other countries for the US, are worth it to maintain US global domination; but what about the mass murder of around 3000 people, mostly US citizens, in New York City on 9/11? A small price to pay? This website presents much of the evidence that elements within the US government carried out this atrocity, and there are also many other websites which do so. If you can read then there is now no excuse to plead ignorance.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#357
#357
Rasputin_Vol said:
Imagine how strange it would be if Columbus made a few trips over to the Americas (Or East Indies as he thought) and then Spain just suddenly stopped funding new explorations after 4-5 years?

Isn't that what we pretty much did with The Moon?
Click to expand...

Did the moon have coconuts and loose native women?


Didn't think so.
 
#358
#358
Pacer92 said:
Even if so, that does nothing to explain the pancaking of 80 stories below that were totally unharmed, peckerhead...
Click to expand...

do I need to dig my book out again???? there is NO STEEL CONNECTION FOR THAT TYPE OF LOAD!!!!!!!!!!! If one falls on the next they are all coming down, which is why we work so hard at making sure that never happens. the first couple floors are going to offer some resistance but once you get over a certain load factor it is going to straight shear through whatever is holding it up. no bending, just straight collapse. there were no forces at play at the time of collapse for it to bend over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#359
#359
hog88 said:
Since we have so many structural experts in this thread I have a question. I need to span 17.5' on a deck, would I need to 2ply or 3ply 2x12s to be safe?
Click to expand...

doubling them up should be fine. you are right on the edge of a single one. you might be able to get away with 12" centers and a single, but if you want to be sure doubling would be a safe bet and you could stay at 16-18" spacing. but I will always defer to someone else.
 
#360
#360
BigOrangeTrain said:
You are the one who quickly dismissed the experts who disagree with the ones who do agree. I have never discredited or ignored any of the experts who agree with 9/11. I honestly do not know who is right and neither do you. As I have stated, we do not have access to every piece of information relevant to 9/11. Therefore, none of us can make any real claims. Only speculation.

You can say people see what they want to see all you want, but that doesn't mean those who disagree aren't right. The bottom line is this, there have been experts who disagree with the 9/11 reports. Are their explanations correct? Who knows? we will likely never know with absolute certainty what really happened on 9/11. To say that the US government doesn't have the capability to cover something like this is fallacious. To blindly say that those who are exercising different opinions are seeing what they want or are just conspiracy nuts is also fallacious.
Click to expand...

considering that I am close to being one of those "experts" I would say my opinion, or if one felt inclined, my professional opinion gives me some weight in this area. While dismiss might be the wrong word, my background allows me to discount their opinion based on the numbers I have run. they may have ran different numbers, they might have made a mistake, I might have made a mistake, they may just have the fingers in their ears. there is enough information out there where anyone of the engineers or architects should be able to run some darn quick calculations to come up with some pretty conclusive proof on the collapse.

and again my whole point is the collapse isn't bull. that happened exactly as it should have. and that is what the original video brought up. then the retort video brought in other areas and the argument evolved from there. the OP is correct. and while it doesn't dispense any 9/11 theory it goes a long way speaking towards the collapse.

because I apparently have to repeat myself I am waving off the governments lack of intervention and action.
 
#361
#361
Rasputin_Vol said:
So you telling me that WTC 7 was brought down by a regular office fire?

Is this to be expected of any other skyscraper? Are regular offices fires expected to cause them to collapse?
Click to expand...

they are expected to cause structural damage. in high rises, unless the sprinklers can take care of it or it is extremely contained, the fire department is just there to get people out. if you have a majority of a floor on fire you have a serious issue.
 
#362
#362
For me, it's the fact that this silliness constantly has to be addressed that makes the truthers ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Pacer92 View Post
Even if so, that does nothing to explain the pancaking of 80 stories below that were totally unharmed, peckerhead...
Click to expand...

LouderVol said:
do I need to dig my book out again???? there is NO STEEL CONNECTION FOR THAT TYPE OF LOAD!!!!!!!!!!! If one falls on the next they are all coming down, which is why we work so hard at making sure that never happens. the first couple floors are going to offer some resistance but once you get over a certain load factor it is going to straight shear through whatever is holding it up. no bending, just straight collapse. there were no forces at play at the time of collapse for it to bend over.
Click to expand...

Let's try it like this..... You have initial load X (the original mass of the initially collapsing floors) encountering fixed load resistance Y (floor joist clips). Now, once X (which has already been determined to be several orders of magnitude greater than the resistance of Y) overcomes the initial resistance of the first Y, the next Y has to contend with X+1 (X + the mass of the first failed floor) and fails. The next Y now has to contend with X+2 and so on.

It amazes me that someone thinks that a Y 80 floors down, undamaged or not, could deflect, in any way, a mass of X+80+.

This is really physics of the most basic sort and the fact that ANYone can't grasp this leaves me smdh.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#363
#363
Carl Pickens said:
It's always a good idea to destroy the hell out of your ships in order to have a reason to join a war:

2 battleships totally lost
2 battleships sunk and recovered
3 battleships damaged
1 battleship grounded
2 other ships sunk[nb 2]
3 cruisers damaged[nb 3]
3 destroyers damaged
3 other ships damaged
188 aircraft destroyed
159[3] aircraft damaged
2,403 killed
1,178 wounded[4][5] 4 midget submarines sunk
1 midget submarine grounded
29 aircraft destroyed
64 killed
1 captured[6]
Click to expand...

The thing that make most people believe that we allowed it to happen was the fact that no carrier groups were present at the time of the attack.
 
#364
#364
LouderVol said:
do I need to dig my book out again???? there is NO STEEL CONNECTION FOR THAT TYPE OF LOAD!!!!!!!!!!! If one falls on the next they are all coming down, which is why we work so hard at making sure that never happens. the first couple floors are going to offer some resistance but once you get over a certain load factor it is going to straight shear through whatever is holding it up. no bending, just straight collapse. there were no forces at play at the time of collapse for it to bend over.
Click to expand...

I've come to the conclusion that Pacer's need for the idea of a progressive collapse simply being impossible is integral to his core conspiracy belief. It's likely immutable in the face of any explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#365
#365
LouderVol said:
doubling them up should be fine. you are right on the edge of a single one. you might be able to get away with 12" centers and a single, but if you want to be sure doubling would be a safe bet and you could stay at 16-18" spacing. but I will always defer to someone else.
Click to expand...

Sup loud. You answered his question as if he is still going to have posts every 6 feet and is not actually spanning the 17 feet unsupported. I agree with you also bro, he would have no deflection as long as his posts are attached properly.

I answered it as if he were wanting to span the entire 17 feet unsupported, with the band being his beam and carrying all of the load of the deck. In that case he would need the PSL or at a minimum treated or painted LVL beam to span that far and not have deflection. I really posted this to clarify for hog why our answers were so different. We were answering for 2 different scenarios altogether. Hope this helps hog.
 
#366
#366
marcusluvsvols said:
Sup loud. You answered his question as if he is still going to have posts every 6 feet and is not actually spanning the 17 feet unsupported. I agree with you also bro, he would have no deflection as long as his posts are attached properly.

I answered it as if he were wanting to span the entire 17 feet unsupported, with the band being his beam and carrying all of the load of the deck. In that case he would need the PSL or at a minimum treated or painted LVL beam to span that far and not have deflection. I really posted this to clarify for hog why our answers were so different. We were answering for 2 different scenarios altogether. Hope this helps hog.
Click to expand...


I don't know why hog just don't ask the guy he's paying to build it.....

:)
 
#367
#367
marcusluvsvols said:
You can't span 17 feet with 2x12s...if you're being serious. Would need a pressure treated PSL 5and a halfx12. Those are expensive. Surely in that 17 foot span you can get a post in the ground or to something solid and cut that span down to 12 feet so you CAN use 2x12s? Then double would be fine for the band, single joists if 2x12s and spanning 12 feet or less. Post a pic and I will be happy to help.
Click to expand...

I was being a smartass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#370
#370
ajvol01 said:
This is your source? Zero scientific evidence - just another conspiracy theorist blog.
Click to expand...

Outside of the commentary, did you even look at the several examples of fires that have happened over the years? You had to pass directly over all of that evidence in order to get to that commentary at the end, so don't give me this "I stopped reading after I saw this" nonsense.

Comment on the evidence that they produced.
 
#371
#371
Rasputin_Vol said:
Outside of the commentary, did you even look at the several examples of fires that have happened over the years? You had to pass directly over all of that evidence in order to get to that commentary at the end, so don't give me this "I stopped reading after I saw this" nonsense.

Comment on the evidence that they produced.
Click to expand...

Did those buildings have sprinkler systems that worked?

Were those buildings structurally compromised in addition to the fires?
 
#372
#372
marcusluvsvols said:
Sup loud. You answered his question as if he is still going to have posts every 6 feet and is not actually spanning the 17 feet unsupported. I agree with you also bro, he would have no deflection as long as his posts are attached properly.

I answered it as if he were wanting to span the entire 17 feet unsupported, with the band being his beam and carrying all of the load of the deck. In that case he would need the PSL or at a minimum treated or painted LVL beam to span that far and not have deflection. I really posted this to clarify for hog why our answers were so different. We were answering for 2 different scenarios altogether. Hope this helps hog.
Click to expand...

respect. I generally just draw pretty little lines on pages. Which you guys in the field ignore anyway. :)
 
#373
#373
LouderVol said:
respect. I generally just draw pretty little lines on pages. Which you guys in the field ignore anyway. :)
Click to expand...

Respect to to yoh my brother.

I have local inspectors that inspect all my stuff with the IBC being the standard, then have 3rd party structural engineers that have to sign off on everything I build so I can't ignore you guys...lol.

Anytime the architects draw something that is impossible to build and I have to make a change in the field I have to document it and get a stamped letter for an "as built" approval from the engineer of record. These GCS in Charlotte usually only use 2 engineering firms, SCA or SCG so I have a good relationship with them and they go along with whatever I need to do in the field to make things work.

That said, I am not an old school house framer that tries to cut corners or make up my own rules on the fly. That would get shot down instantly and we would be rebuilding it at a loss. Anytime I have to make a change I over build the crap out of whatever it us and build in as much redundancy as possible. That's how I keep the respect and cooperation of the engineers. Archit3cts are clueless. They just draw pretty pictures and never think about things like gravity, deflection, physics etc...lol.

I never have any problems with the engineers. Owners and architects can be a pain in the butt.

Edit...you might be an architect? Lmao...hope you are a good one that doesn't ignore physics my brother. There is 1 arch. Firm in Charlotte that draws 90% of the apartments built here and they do a crap job. It seems like they have 1 or 2 architects and about 100 draftsman that actually do everything...and do it poorly. They copy and paste all the details and cut sheets from project to project and they won't work...elevation doesn't match the Floorplan...which doesn't match the cut...which doesn't match it's own detail. It's a nighmare. I have 122 pages of architectural prints,not structural, on my current project and they are garbage. Well over 100 RFI have have been submitted on my behalf. Absolutely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
#375
#375
ajvol01 said:
Did those buildings have sprinkler systems that worked?

Were those buildings structurally compromised in addition to the fires?
Click to expand...

Did you see the building that burned for 17 hours/ Obviously, the sprinkler systems didn't make much difference there. Hell, there were several on there that burned for 5 or more hours. Do you really think a sprinkler system had a significant affect on their structural integrity?

And WTC 7 didn't have any where near the type of "Towering Inferno" flame damage nor did it have a plane crash in to it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top