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

[zidanefan]

Questioning doesn't bother me at all. pushing a line (evil government conspiracy) along with those questions is an agenda and not looking for the truth.

and my "expertise" doesn't go as far on the Pentagon. I never did the math on that one.

depending on what your question is I am not sure I can answer it. the pentagon is a concrete structure and has gone through multiple rounds of reinforcing (it is THE military building of our nation so its not some weird insurance angle). being a solid building (steel beam or truss vs a concrete beam) it is going to withstand blunt force trauma a lot better than a steel building. More mass to absorb it and distribute the force. any concrete building has expansion and control joints (all buildings do but concrete and masonry have more) and it looks like the damage cuts off. imo that could easily be a joint that was already in the building on the left side.

on the right side you see where the masonry is more jagged where it has pulled away from itself. this is because that is at a bump out in the building plan and there isn't a join in that location. you place your joints on corners and long lengths, there isn't one at that location.

as to where/how the plane hit idk. what happened to it, also idk. but if it was a missile it would have been a bunker buster (in my very uneducated opinion on missiles) to take out the pentagon. if it had been we see debris outside the building. in the picture it looks like the wall got knocked in as if it had been hit from the outside. again not knowing how a missile works but even if it had been a "normal" missile (again going off movies and video games so no idea if thats real world) i would expect a lot more collateral damage from the explosion. the damage seems to be straight line, blunt force consistent with the story.

Interesting stuff, thanks!

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Here is a good computer simulation of the events at the Pentagon and then photos of what happened. Plane debris is also shown.


https://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8

Note especially the extremely low angle of approach, as if to land. This resulted in components of the plane clipping:

1. Five seperate light poles with the light fixture (luminary) of one sucked into the engine such that a smoke trail follows.

2. An emergency generator such that it's knocked off and partially rotated around one end of it's foundation.

3. Cable reels and miscellaneous equipment knocked around.

So the incoming JET PLANE did this damage, and it's glide path is easily determined from height of wing impact on the light poles. A missle would not have caused any damage to light poles, or the easily identifiable impact rotation of the generator, or the cable reels.

Loudervol does a really good job describing how the impact into the Pentagon's concrete and steel structural system with the designed in structural expansion joints would react to the impact.

A jet plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

 

[SamRebel35]

Wtc was not a demolition by any means. I will, however, entertain the notion that the government may have known something like this was going to happen and that due to the money involved with Saudi Arabia, the threats may have been ignored or even covered up. There are plenty of ties between certain political camps and Saudi funded terrorist organizations.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Fair enough. The only problem with that is you are completely ignoring and failing to even entertain the idea of an alternate theory of how the towers went down. Thats just illogical. Especially when there are scientists, demolition experts, structural engineers, architects, physcists and others who have offered up their theories. Why are their theories somehow less valid compared to the governments theories? Now you are just assuming that the theories you believe are true because of bias. If a structural engineer offered you an alternate theory of the towers that included controlled demolition, seems like you would just ignore it because you believe the government reports.

Here is the main problem, what if the government was wrong? What if their reports are just lies? we know the government lies to us constantly, so why is so hard to fathom for them to lie about 9/11?

Take a moment. Wipe the conspiracy theories and government stories from your mind. Just clear it from all that clutter.

Now, just think about other demolition jobs in your mind. They tend to be old hotels, stadiums, and office buildings, right? They tend to already be gutted, right? They are also way smaller than Tower 1 or Tower 2, correct? Now, think about what was required to bring down those buildings efficiently. The amount of workers, wires, explosives, holes being drilled, etc. Think of the time and planning that went into those demolitions.

Now, think of a working office building the size of Tower 1 and Tower 2. Think of the time scale needed, the manpower, the logistics, the equipment, etc. Think of the time and planning needed. Think of the fact that this is a working office building vs an already gutted structure. Think of the size differentials. Think also that all of this must be done in a COVERT manner.

Now, with that in mind, think about both theories. It should be pretty easy to dismiss one of them. You know which one.

 

[LouderVol]

Take a moment. Wipe the conspiracy theories and government stories from your mind. Just clear it from all that clutter.

Now, just think about other demolition jobs in your mind. They tend to be old hotels, stadiums, and office buildings, right? They tend to already be gutted, right? They are also way smaller than Tower 1 or Tower 2, correct? Now, think about what was required to bring down those buildings efficiently. The amount of workers, wires, explosives, holes being drilled, etc. Think of the time and planning that went into those demolitions.

Now, think of a working office building the size of Tower 1 and Tower 2. Think of the time scale needed, the manpower, the logistics, the equipment, etc. Think of the time and planning needed. Think of the fact that this is a working office building vs an already gutted structure. Think of the size differentials. Think also that all of this must be done in a COVERT manner.

Now, with that in mind, think about both theories. It should be pretty easy to dismiss one of them. You know which one.

also all of the above done in such a way to make it not look like a controlled demo.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Still funny to see people desperately trying to convince themselves and others that islam isn't evil.

 

[FLVOL69]

Still funny to see people desperately trying to convince themselves and others that islam isn't evil.

It boggles the ****ing mind

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Still funny to see people desperately trying to convince themselves and others that islam isn't evil.

I don't think the 9-11 truth movement has anything to do with Islam. In fact some of it's biggest proponents like Alex Jones are huge bigots with a history of Islamaphobia.

The 9-11 truth movement is more about the fact governments lie and the official story about 9-11 makes no sense.

As for me, I have a hard time believing that some turban wearing idiots in a cave in Afghanistan could take down the most powerful country on earth (for even a few hours). The whole Bin Laden did it narrative never made sense to me. Sure these morons are capable of blowing up themselves in a street. But using a plane as a projectile missle into building? Nah. That's too elaborate for them.

 

[Pacer92]

I don't think the 9-11 truth movement has anything to do with Islam. In fact some of it's biggest proponents like Alex Jones are huge bigots with a history of Islamaphobia.

The 9-11 truth movement is more about the fact governments lie and the official story about 9-11 makes no sense.

As for me, I have a hard time believing that some turban wearing idiots in a cave in Afghanistan could take down the most powerful country on earth (for even a few hours). The whole Bin Laden did it narrative never made sense to me. Sure these morons are capable of blowing up themselves in a street. But using a plane as a projectile missle into building? Nah. That's too elaborate for them.

I'd like to expand on this...some time ago when we were desperately looking for OBL and we couldn't find him anywhere. Ironically, CNN went to Afghanistan and interviews him in a "secret cave" while the best military intelligence in the world couldn't find him. It was laughable....

There's a video showing this somewhere...

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I'd like to expand on this...some time ago when we were desperately looking for OBL and we couldn't find him anywhere. Ironically, CNN went to Afghanistan and interviews him in a "secret cave" while the best military intelligence in the world couldn't find him. It was laughable....

There's a video showing this somewhere...

Exactly. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are classic patsies.

Sure they would like to attack us but they don't have the capability. Only our government would have the capability to organize what they claim happened on 9-11.

 

[LouderVol]

Exactly. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are classic patsies.

Sure they would like to attack us but they don't have the capability. Only our government would have the capability to organize what they claim happened on 9-11.

box cutters? even in the new safety era I have gotten a knife through security. what else was there. teach these guys how to fly a plane? it is my understanding the most difficult part is take off, they waited until after that; and landing, they didn't have to get that far. the pilots on here have talked about these planes flying themselves for the most part. what is complicated?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

box cutters? even in the new safety era I have gotten a knife through security. what else was there. teach these guys how to fly a plane? it is my understanding the most difficult part is take off, they waited until after that; and landing, they didn't have to get that far. the pilots on here have talked about these planes flying themselves for the most part. what is complicated?

- Why were there military excercises for hijacked planes going on the same time as the real hijackings leading to mass confusion for the responders?

- Why were there only 4 military jets left to patrol the entire eastern seaboard on 9/11 while the rest of the fleet was sent to Canada and over the Atlantic?

- Why were so many top ranking military and government personell MIA during 9/11?


I know some of you don't want to believe the worst. You don't want to believe your government conspired to kill 3000 of it's own citizens. But if you study everything that happened that day and don't at least find this stuff unusual then your just lying to yourself.

There are so many coincidences and questionable aspects to the official 9-11 story that it becomes comical to believe.

 

[LouderVol]

- Why were there military excercises for hijacked planes going on the same time as the real hijackings leading to mass confusion for the responders?

- Why were there only 4 military jets left to patrol the entire eastern seaboard on 9/11 while the rest of the fleet was sent to Canada and over the Atlantic?

- Why were so many top ranking military and government personell MIA during 9/11?


I know some of you don't want to believe the worst. You don't want to believe your government conspired to kill 3000 of it's own citizens. But if you study everything that happened that day and don't at least find this stuff unusual then your just lying to yourself.

There are so many coincidences and questionable aspects to the official 9-11 story that it becomes comical to believe.

any chance 1, 2 and 3 are related? unless you can be specific on the individuals I couldn't begin to address that, and honestly I don't know. why is them missing a red flag?

and you know all military events are planned months in advance, years if it is outside our borders (and probably inside too). terrorists could have easily looked up this information.

this article talks a little about all the processes that go into it.
Interview: The Future of US Military Exercises in the Asia-Pacific | The Diplomat

sounds like your exercise was a yearly event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001

and that link explains where our aircraft were. In Alaska doing the training event in response to Russia performing similar practices in north east Russia.

 

[TennFan]

Where did the rest of the aircraft go that hit the Pentagon? That has me confused? I was in the Pentagon in November after 9/11 and could still smell fuel oil. There were no tail sections! Were the engines inside the Pentagon? How about the wings?

I believe planes did hit the twin towers. It was evident! But was there something else that assisted in bringing down the towers?

 

[LouderVol]

Where did the rest of the aircraft go that hit the Pentagon? That has me confused? I was in the Pentagon in November after 9/11 and could still smell fuel oil. There were no tail sections! Were the engines inside the Pentagon? How about the wings?

I believe planes did hit the twin towers. It was evident! But was there something else that assisted in bringing down the towers?

you think its strange they cleared up the debris in less than 2 months?

and you are right there was more than planes hitting the buildings that caused the collapse. A fire and a structural design more susceptible to that damage than other designs. But otherwise a great design which used a lot less steel than standard construction.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I am a stress engineer. This is so stupid as to not deserve the injury to my fingertip as I pick out this response on my smart phone.
Do that ras. Get a smart phone. You'll finally have some...smarts that is.

1. Jet fuel burns.
2. Elevator shafts developed updrafts to feed fire and it burned really well, minimum about 850°-1000°F.
3. Yeild strength of structural steel decreases with temperature.

From ASME Section II, Part D, Table Y-1 and U-1:
Temperature(°F) Yield Strength(ksi) Tensile Strength(ksi)
-20 to 100 *36.0* *58.0*
150 33.8 58.0
200 33.0 58.0
250 32.4 58.0
300 31.8 58.0
400 30.8 58.0
500 29.3 58.0
600 27.6 58.0
650 26.7 58.0
700 25.8 58.0
750 24.9 57.3
800 24.1 53.3
850 23.4 48.5
900 22.8 43.3
950 22.1 38.0
1000 *21.4* *33.4*

Although exposures above 800°F will result in the carbide phase converting to graphite. Also, above 700°F, time dependant effects (creep) become important.

Note that the yeild strength at which A36 steel begins to bend at 1000°F is 40.6% LESS THAN your normal 70°F strength. Above 700°F creep (slow stretching) starts and is dependant on temp and load. And man, what a load. The WTC report with "truther" comments (red) attached below at several locations and whole side commentarys linked, at times becomes so absurd as to be comical. Absolutely written by those "Masters of Disaster" I refer to who may have graduated with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering Summa Cum Laude and have aced all their structures courses. But some folk have no common sense. They couldn't engineer there way out of a paper bag. This guy wants to say the trusses referenced weren't trusses but were steel beams, and shows a photo on a lower floor where they were just that, steel beams, because of design load transfering from the many building floors above to the plaza level and basement levels, to the foundation steel. At some point these WILL transition to trusses, as the official report shows, ... decrease the weight where required by good design so as not to need even larger steel in the lower levels you know. Then he rails about the weight of steel in the building, making "generous" assumptions to "prove" beams instead of trusses were used at the high elevations where the planes struck. There's a LOT more. They try to bury you with tomes of calculations, but they are all based on the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS that the trusses were beams, and that, even though the designers accounted for the impact of an airliner, they also accounted for the combustion of jet fuel enhanced by the draft created in the compromised elevator shafts and ductwork of the service core. I actually doubt that an inferno coupled with the degree of building damage we saw was accounted for in the years the WTC was designed. They even show how little they know by ridiculing the WTC Commission's use of the term "service core"...well, even though it has several design capacities, that's what it is.

Here's what happened.

The steel clips at either ends of the floor trusses, at high temperature, began to bend as the elastic limit of steel decreased (AT LEAST 40.6% at 1000°) from heating (the steel softened). It lost nearly half it's strength. The exterior shell also warped from the heat. At some point, after exposure to these temps and bearing the weight of all the above floors, the Youngs Modulus of the softened steel reached the catastrophic failure point at 42.4% of it's normal failure strength (tensile strength) because the fire protection gunnite had been knocked away (thermal short) during impact on several joist bearings. The fire protection is not absolute and is time dependant with ratings given in 'hours'. 1/2 hr, 1 hr, .. 4 hr. Also several bearings themselves had been knocked away during impact.
And then, one floors steel JOIST BEARINGS began to bend, the fl[r began to sag, and as design for this catenary displacement was exceeded the floor gave way in catastrophic failure. At a given number of failures of individual joist supports, this would almost instantaneously "zipper" around the whole floor and total collapse begins. The weight of the building above accelerated at normal gravity to instantaneously impact load the already compromised joist bearings of the floor below, again, resulting in catastrophic failure. As the failures, floor by floor, occured in the fire compromised section, each floors mass was added to the accelerated impact force on the floor below. As the failures passed out of the fire compromised region, only the acceleration of the accumulating mass of the building above was required. And I can imagine each instantaneous failure sending out a retort as if a cannon were being fired.

Chapter 2 WTC Report (with 911 "truther" commentary.

Chapter 2 - The WTC Report.

No one is saying that heat doesnt cause metal to yield. But if you are a stress engineer, then I'm sure you have been in a strength of materials class and lab. I know have been when I was a mechanical engineer major. Yes, steel will yield, hiwever, when it does fail, it will not fail under compression in a uniform manner and most certainly not at freefall velocity. Also, what was the temperature of the steel at the point of impact vs at the 20th, 4th or even 6th floors? Surely, you are not suggesting that we had uniform heating of the steel throughout the length of the structure. Even you have to agree that the strength of the steel would have been significantly higher on the lower floors, and thus resisted compressive impacts better than the hotter floors in the impact area.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

With respect to Ras' assertion that there was a controlled demolition of WTC Tower 1 and Tower 2? Yes.

And WTC 7?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Take a moment. Wipe the conspiracy theories and government stories from your mind. Just clear it from all that clutter.

Now, just think about other demolition jobs in your mind. They tend to be old hotels, stadiums, and office buildings, right? They tend to already be gutted, right? They are also way smaller than Tower 1 or Tower 2, correct? Now, think about what was required to bring down those buildings efficiently. The amount of workers, wires, explosives, holes being drilled, etc. Think of the time and planning that went into those demolitions.

Now, think of a working office building the size of Tower 1 and Tower 2. Think of the time scale needed, the manpower, the logistics, the equipment, etc. Think of the time and planning needed. Think of the fact that this is a working office building vs an already gutted structure. Think of the size differentials. Think also that all of this must be done in a COVERT manner.

Now, with that in mind, think about both theories. It should be pretty easy to dismiss one of them. You know which one.

You could very well be correct. However, in my opinion, you are selling the governemnt way too short here. Do you honestly belive that there is no possibility that the government could pull this off?

As I have asked, why are other scientists, structural engineers, demolition experts, architects, physcists who have offered alternative explanations just wrong? If they are using the same understanding of scientific principles as those whom the government used, why are their theories anymore less credible than the governments ones? This is one of the most baffling things.

Do you even entertain that there is a possibility that the government could be lying to us about 9/11?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Exactly. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are classic patsies.

Sure they would like to attack us but they don't have the capability. Only our government would have the capability to organize what they claim happened on 9-11.

Osama bin Laden was a son of the billionare founder of The Bin Laden Construction company was founded in the mid 30's when the Sauds came to power. They employed about 30,000+ around the world in 2001. Osama inherited near $30 million.

So, yeah, he had the wherewithal to get it done.

Send men to the US to learn to fly. Choose your targets, choose your flights with full fuel tanks, and execute the plan. Money was all it took.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

but most of the steal was damage by the impact. it also had to support a large passenger air plane which i don't think the designers had accounted for when the designed the structure. that extra weight plus multiple beams that were bent, damaged etc.. couldn't hold up.

Actually, they did design for a plane impact.

 

[Pacer92]

No one is saying that heat doesnt cause metal to yield. But if you are a stress engineer, then I'm sure you have been in a strength of materials class and lab. I know have been when I was a mechanical engineer major. Yes, steel will yield, hiwever, when it does fail, it will not fail under compression in a uniform manner and most certainly not at freefall velocity. Also, what was the temperature of the steel at the point of impact vs at the 20th, 4th or even 6th floors? Surely, you are not suggesting that we had uniform heating of the steel throughout the length of the structure. Even you have to agree that the strength of the steel would have been significantly higher on the lower floors, and thus resisted compressive impacts better than the hotter floors in the impact area.

Yep...and throw in the fact that most, if not all of the jet fuel would've instantly burned off, similar to throwing gas on a fire. There would be a big initial combustion that would consume most all fuel and left office furnishings to heat steel to a collapsing point. I just don't see it..

 

[Orangedogsrule]

No one is saying that heat doesnt cause metal to yield. But if you are a stress engineer, then I'm sure you have been in a strength of materials class and lab. I know have been when I was a mechanical engineer major. Yes, steel will yield, hiwever, when it does fail, it will not fail under compression in a uniform manner and most certainly not at freefall velocity. Also, what was the temperature of the steel at the point of impact vs at the 20th, 4th or even 6th floors? Surely, you are not suggesting that we had uniform heating of the steel throughout the length of the structure. Even you have to agree that the strength of the steel would have been significantly higher on the lower floors, and thus resisted compressive impacts better than the hotter floors in the impact area.

I'm not going to much get into this with you as it is readily apparent you did not read and understand what I provided. I will only say that the impact load of accumulating mass at each floor was forcing instantaneous catastrophic failure AS THE FALLING BUILDING PASSED OUT THE COMPROMISED REGION OF IMPACT AND INFERNO into where normal temps were, and was sufficient to rupture the floor joist bearing angles like a scythe through hay.

 

[PKT_VOL]

And WTC 7?

Would it matter if it was but Tower 1 and Tower 2 weren't?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You could very well be correct. However, in my opinion, you are selling the governemnt way too short here. Do you honestly belive that there is no possibility that the government could pull this off?

As I have asked, why are other scientists, structural engineers, demolition experts, architects, physcists who have offered alternative explanations just wrong? If they are using the same understanding of scientific principles as those whom the government used, why are their theories anymore less credible than the governments ones? This is one of the most baffling things.

Do you even entertain that there is a possibility that the government could be lying to us about 9/11?

Yes, I honestly believe that there is no possibility that the government could pull that off. I tend to be a pretty skeptical person as well (you should know this).

As for the government lying, that's a whole different question and a bar/threshold that is incredibly low compared to the demolition theory of Tower 1 and Tower 2. Could the government be lying about the actors, supporting cast, what they knew, and when they knew it? Sure. Could they be lying about Flight 93? Sure.

There are a lot of things the government could have lied about, twisted, spun, or omitted. Tower 1 and 2 aren't part of that category. Yet, the thrust of 9/11 were the attacks on NYC.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

I am a stress engineer. This is so stupid as to not deserve the injury to my fingertip as I pick out this response on my smart phone.
Do that ras. Get a smart phone. You'll finally have some...smarts that is.

1. Jet fuel burns.
2. Elevator shafts developed updrafts to feed fire and it burned really well, minimum about 850°-1000°F.
3. Yeild strength of structural steel decreases with temperature.

From ASME Section II, Part D, Table Y-1 and U-1:
Temperature(°F) Yield Strength(ksi) Tensile Strength(ksi)
-20 to 100 *36.0* *58.0*
150 33.8 58.0
200 33.0 58.0
250 32.4 58.0
300 31.8 58.0
400 30.8 58.0
500 29.3 58.0
600 27.6 58.0
650 26.7 58.0
700 25.8 58.0
750 24.9 57.3
800 24.1 53.3
850 23.4 48.5
900 22.8 43.3
950 22.1 38.0
1000 *21.4* *33.4*

Although exposures above 800°F will result in the carbide phase converting to graphite. Also, above 700°F, time dependant effects (creep) become important.

Note that the yeild strength at which A36 steel begins to bend at 1000°F is 40.6% LESS THAN your normal 70°F strength. Above 700°F creep (slow stretching) starts and is dependant on temp and load. And man, what a load. The WTC report with "truther" comments (red) attached below at several locations and whole side commentarys linked, at times becomes so absurd as to be comical. Absolutely written by those "Masters of Disaster" I refer to who may have graduated with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering Summa Cum Laude and have aced all their structures courses. But some folk have no common sense. They couldn't engineer there way out of a paper bag. This guy wants to say the trusses referenced weren't trusses but were steel beams, and shows a photo on a lower floor where they were just that, steel beams, because of design load transfering from the many building floors above to the plaza level and basement levels, to the foundation steel. At some point these WILL transition to trusses, as the official report shows, ... decrease the weight where required by good design so as not to need even larger steel in the lower levels you know. Then he rails about the weight of steel in the building, making "generous" assumptions to "prove" beams instead of trusses were used at the high elevations where the planes struck. There's a LOT more. They try to bury you with tomes of calculations, but they are all based on the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS that the trusses were beams, and that, even though the designers accounted for the impact of an airliner, they also accounted for the combustion of jet fuel enhanced by the draft created in the compromised elevator shafts and ductwork of the service core. I actually doubt that an inferno coupled with the degree of building damage we saw was accounted for in the years the WTC was designed. They even show how little they know by ridiculing the WTC Commission's use of the term "service core"...well, even though it has several design capacities, that's what it is.

Here's what happened.

The steel clips at either ends of the floor trusses, at high temperature, began to bend as the elastic limit of steel decreased (AT LEAST 40.6% at 1000°) from heating (the steel softened). It lost nearly half it's strength. The exterior shell also warped from the heat. At some point, after exposure to these temps and bearing the weight of all the above floors, the Youngs Modulus of the softened steel reached the catastrophic failure point at 42.4% of it's normal failure strength (tensile strength) because the fire protection gunnite had been knocked away (thermal short) during impact on several joist bearings. The fire protection is not absolute and is time dependant with ratings given in 'hours'. 1/2 hr, 1 hr, .. 4 hr. Also several bearings themselves had been knocked away during impact.
And then, one floors steel JOIST BEARINGS began to bend, the fl[r began to sag, and as design for this catenary displacement was exceeded the floor gave way in catastrophic failure. At a given number of failures of individual joist supports, this would almost instantaneously "zipper" around the whole floor and total collapse begins. The weight of the building above accelerated at normal gravity to instantaneously impact load the already compromised joist bearings of the floor below, again, resulting in catastrophic failure. As the failures, floor by floor, occured in the fire compromised section, each floors mass was added to the accelerated impact force on the floor below. As the failures passed out of the fire compromised region, only the acceleration of the accumulating mass of the building above was required. And I can imagine each instantaneous failure sending out a retort as if a cannon were being fired.

Chapter 2 WTC Report (with 911 "truther" commentary.

Chapter 2 - The WTC Report.

What about building 7?