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

[Pacer92]

 

[hndog609]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkWFDiYgig

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Maybe it was some super secret future military technology that took down the buildings?

All I know is jet fuel and office fires don't reduce a steel frame building into fine dust at free fall speed.

Something took down those building (esp Building 7) and it wasn't office fires.

You apparently don't have the education, experience, or understanding to successfully join this conversation by adding scientific or engineering truths. "All you know" is totally inadequate. Don't open yourself up to being further exposed.

You know nothing about the jet fuel capabilities. It is absolutely fully adequate to soften the particular pieces of steel in question into little more than "chewing gum". And it certainly does not have to get that soft to fail, rupturing an already compromised structural support system from the catastrophic demolition of the jet producing a compromised catenary joist system pulling inward on the exterioor walls. (Similar to 11 kids with a sheet. 10 hold tight and pull outward to have a flat surface. One kid gets in the middle, now you have all 10 kids being pulled on. If the let themselves, all would fall inward.)

As to "fine dust" go get a piece of ordinary wallboard and hit it with a hammer. Go get a chunk of light weight self leveling concrete. Hit it with a hammer.

Once one floor fell in on itself and gave way to allow at least the equivalent of a 12 story building to fall 12 ft (1 story).
Each 110 story tower weighed half a million tons, so each story weighed about 4545 tons. The weight above collapse then is about 54,545 tons falling 12 feet onto compromised joist bearings.

I'm gonna say thats enough, as I said before, to cut through that, and as the weight of each floor is added, minus the expulsed detritus, like a scythe through hay. And that is what we see.

 

[Pacer92]

You apparently don't have the education, experience, or understanding to successfully join this conversation by adding scientific or engineering truths. "All you know" is totally inadequate. Don't open yourself up to being further exposed.

You know nothing about the jet fuel capabilities. It is absolutely fully adequate to soften the particular pieces of steel in question into little more than "chewing gum". And it certainly does not have to get that soft to fail, rupturing an already compromised structural support system from the catastrophic demolition of the jet producing a compromised catenary joist system pulling inward on the exterioor walls. (Similar to 11 kids with a sheet. 10 hold tight and pull outward to have a flat surface. One kid gets in the middle, now you have all 10 kids being pulled on. If the let themselves, all would fall inward.)

As to "fine dust" go get a piece of ordinary wallboard and hit it with a hammer. Go get a chunk of light weight self leveling concrete. Hit it with a hammer.

Once one floor fell in on itself and gave way to allow at least the equivalent of a 12 story building to fall 12 ft (1 story).
Each 110 story tower weighed half a million tons, so each story weighed about 4545 tons. The weight above collapse then is about 54,545 tons falling 12 feet onto compromised joist bearings.

I'm gonna say thats enough, as I said before, to cut through that, and as the weight of each floor is added, minus the expulsed detritus, like a scythe through hay. And that is what we see.

I see that you're keen on architectural engineering...not sure of your level of expertise?

I just want to hear your response to the almost 3,000 well educated people(that have come public) with advances degrees in architecture and engineering that disagree with you? What are they thinking?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Do you ignore the fact that there were many samples taken at ground zero that contained nano thermite?

Of course. Anybody who even entertains the possibility of alternate theories is uninformed, uneducated and a conspiracy theiry nut. Even though there are physcists, structural engineers, architects, mathematicians and others who have said controlled demolition was the cause. Also, firefighters, police and general eye witness accounts are just ignored and treated as bunk. Like I said, people want to call the government completely untrustworthy, yet believe it unconditionally when it comes to 9/11.

Either all possibilities exist or no possibilities exist.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I see that you're keen on architectural engineering...not sure of your level of expertise?

I just want to hear your response to the almost 3,000 well educated people(that have come public) with advances degrees in architecture and engineering that disagree with you? What are they thinking?

I would like to know as well. How are those scientists opinions somehow invalid or just wrong?

 

[Pacer92]

Of course. Anybody who even entertains the possibility of alternate theories is uninformed, uneducated and a conspiracy theiry nut. Even though there are physcists, structural engineers, architects, mathematicians and others who have said controlled demolition was the cause. Also, firefighters, police and general eye witness accounts are just ignored and treated as bunk. Like I said, people want to call the government completely untrustworthy, yet believe it unconditionally when it comes to 9/11.

Either all possibilities exist or no possibilities exist.

Exactly...we are being conditioned as Americans that only what we are told/instructed is possible...

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Exactly...we are being conditioned as Americans that only what we are told/instructed is possible...

Have you ever seen the movie They Live? That should sum up the majority of American society today. Never question anything. Just do as your government commands.

 

[Pacer92]

Have you ever seen the movie They Live? That should sum up the majority of American society today. Never question anything. Just do as your government commands.

I've heard of it, but never have..

Will check it out..

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

You apparently don't have the education, experience, or understanding to successfully join this conversation by adding scientific or engineering truths. "All you know" is totally inadequate. Don't open yourself up to being further exposed.

You know nothing about the jet fuel capabilities. It is absolutely fully adequate to soften the particular pieces of steel in question into little more than "chewing gum". And it certainly does not have to get that soft to fail, rupturing an already compromised structural support system from the catastrophic demolition of the jet producing a compromised catenary joist system pulling inward on the exterioor walls. (Similar to 11 kids with a sheet. 10 hold tight and pull outward to have a flat surface. One kid gets in the middle, now you have all 10 kids being pulled on. If the let themselves, all would fall inward.)

As to "fine dust" go get a piece of ordinary wallboard and hit it with a hammer. Go get a chunk of light weight self leveling concrete. Hit it with a hammer.

Once one floor fell in on itself and gave way to allow at least the equivalent of a 12 story building to fall 12 ft (1 story).
Each 110 story tower weighed half a million tons, so each story weighed about 4545 tons. The weight above collapse then is about 54,545 tons falling 12 feet onto compromised joist bearings.

I'm gonna say thats enough, as I said before, to cut through that, and as the weight of each floor is added, minus the expulsed detritus, like a scythe through hay. And that is what we see.

Lets do a thought experiment.

What happens if I stack 10 bricks on top of one another, magically pulverize the 2nd brick from the top into ash so that it completely disappears? This means the top brick will fall into the rest of the bricks that are stacked on top of one another.

Does that one brick on top now drive through the remaining 8 bricks at free fall speed reducing them to rubble?

Where does that one brick get such kinetic energy? How come the other 8 bricks don't provide any resistance? Does the law of conservation of momentum suspend itself again during this experiment like it presumably did during 9/11 if the official story is true?

To believe the official story, you would have to believe that if 10 bricks were stacked one another and one of them disappeared, the top brick would pulverize it's way through the rest of the bricks as if it was a hot knife through butter. That's something I know is physically impossible. Not because I'm a structural engineer but because I did the experiment in my backyard and didn't get the result the NIST claims happened on 9/11.

 

[CMvol]

Lets do a thought experiment.

What happens if I stack 10 bricks on top of one another, magically pulverize the 2nd brick from the top into ash so that it completely disappears? This means the top brick will fall into the rest of the bricks that are stacked on top of one another.

Does that one brick on top now drive through the remaining 8 bricks at free fall speed reducing them to rubble?

Where does that one brick get such kinetic energy? How come the other 8 bricks don't provide any resistance? Does the law of conservation of momentum suspend itself again during this experiment like it presumably did during 9/11 if the official story is true?

To believe the official story, you would have to believe that if 10 bricks were stacked one another and one of them disappeared, the top brick would pulverize it's way through the rest of the bricks as if it was a hot knife through butter. That's something I know is physically impossible. Not because I'm a structural engineer but because I did the experiment in my backyard and didn't get the result the NIST claims happened on 9/11.

Here is a thing where your argument fails. Bricks are complete solid, whereas floor are supported by beams which means there are spaces between beams, so there were multiple floors that were fragile because of weaker beams, and when one floor collapsed that led to the other weaker floor collapsing, and the weight of multiple floors led to a chain reaction. Additionally there was not just one floor that caught fire.
So yeah, your analogy is not even close!

 

[Pacer92]

Here is a thing where your argument fails. Bricks are complete solid, whereas floor are supported by beams which means there are spaces between beams, so there were multiple floors that were fragile because of weaker beams, and when one floor collapsed that led to the other weaker floor collapsing, and the weight of multiple floors led to a chain reaction. Additionally there was not just one floor that caught fire.
So yeah, your analogy is not even close!

Complete solid or not would not matter without destruction to the bottom 80% of the structure. The bottom section of the towers would oppose the top with a greater resistance than the push of the top 20%...

It's a simple physics experiment...

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Here is a thing where your argument fails. Bricks are complete solid, whereas floor are supported by beams which means there are spaces between beams, so there were multiple floors that were fragile because of weaker beams, and when one floor collapsed that led to the other weaker floor collapsing, and the weight of multiple floors led to a chain reaction. Additionally there was not just one floor that caught fire.
So yeah, your analogy is not even close!

Why did both towers fall straight down? So both towers were hit in the same place to make them both fall straight down?

 

[joevol33]

Have you ever seen the movie They Live? That should sum up the majority of American society today. Never question anything. Just do as your government commands.

I have "the glasses"

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Here is a thing where your argument fails. Bricks are complete solid, whereas floor are supported by beams which means there are spaces between beams, so there were multiple floors that were fragile because of weaker beams, and when one floor collapsed that led to the other weaker floor collapsing, and the weight of multiple floors led to a chain reaction. Additionally there was not just one floor that caught fire.
So yeah, your analogy is not even close!

Not all bricks are solid

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Lets do a thought experiment.

What happens if I stack 10 bricks on top of one another, magically pulverize the 2nd brick from the top into ash so that it completely disappears? This means the top brick will fall into the rest of the bricks that are stacked on top of one another.

Does that one brick on top now drive through the remaining 8 bricks at free fall speed reducing them to rubble?

Where does that one brick get such kinetic energy? How come the other 8 bricks don't provide any resistance? Does the law of conservation of momentum suspend itself again during this experiment like it presumably did during 9/11 if the official story is true?

To believe the official story, you would have to believe that if 10 bricks were stacked one another and one of them disappeared, the top brick would pulverize it's way through the rest of the bricks as if it was a hot knife through butter. That's something I know is physically impossible. Not because I'm a structural engineer but because I did the experiment in my backyard and didn't get the result the NIST claims happened on 9/11.

This is the same argument I made and they still haven't responded. The kinetic energy of the floor above falling on the floor below is converted into the energy needed to buckle/break loose the floor below, and then must have enough energy to do the samething on each succesive floor until the building completely collapses.

If you treat the WTC in the moments before its collapse as a closed system, the total energy needed to collapse 90+ floors into dust would need to equal the kinetic energy of the intial floor collapsing. The total summation of energy within the closed system cannot change. So that means that all of the energy needed to bend 90+ floor of steel and concrete was simply converted from kinetic energy of the original floor collapsing into the energy needed to bring it down at free fall velocity.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Complete solid or not would not matter without destruction to the bottom 80% of the structure. The bottom section of the towers would oppose the top with a greater resistance than the push of the top 20%...

It's a simple physics experiment...

They still can't wrap their minds around the simple fact that the lower floors would not have been heated enough to be near the field failure limits, and would have therefore resisted the collapse. Also, they can't wrap their mind around how symmetrical the collapse was. All 3 buildings fell within the footprint of the structures, yet all suffered asymmetrical damage.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

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.

World Trade Center | Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives

If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.

Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Two can play this game.

BOT are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is inept, inefficient, and a generally retarded group of individuals that cannot do anything correctly. Yet those same people who consider our government spectacularly inefficient, just blindly accept and trust conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

What about The Mossad?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

They still can't wrap their minds around the simple fact that the lower floors would not have been heated enough to be near the field failure limits, and would have therefore resisted the collapse. Also, they can't wrap their mind around how symmetrical the collapse was. All 3 buildings fell within the footprint of the structures, yet all suffered asymmetrical damage.

Then of course there is WTC building 7 that came down from "office fires" in near free fall. Just like almost every controlled demolition we have ever seen.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

World Trade Center | Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives

Follow the money.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Complete solid or not would not matter without destruction to the bottom 80% of the structure. The bottom section of the towers would oppose the top with a greater resistance than the push of the top 20%...

It's a simple physics experiment...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Stop, just S.T.O.P!

You have absulutely NO, NADA, NONE, ZERO, ZED..understanding of structures or stress on the building structure. You do not understand the forces it was designed to resist, the material properties of the structural elements, the actual loads over the design loads and how many different load cases there were, which were static loads, which were dynamic loads, which and how many thermal loads, nor do you understand how to combine the individual load cases into an actual picture of the stresses the structures underwent that exceeded the design capacities.

Trying to have a real discussion in here about real engineering principles is worthless. Only ONE, that has posted, Loudervol, has understanding of the engineering. If you don't. If you are not an architectural structural engineer, a civil structures or mechanical stress engineer, or have real experience in structural design and analysis, you really should leave talk about what can or cannot happen alone,

so you don't loo....hmmm I'm not coming back here,
Go ahead. Be foolish.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Stop, just S.T.O.P!

You have absulutely NO, NADA, NONE, ZERO, ZED..understanding structures or stress on the building structure. You do not understand the forces it was designed to resist, the material properties of the structural elements, the actual loads over the design loads and how many different load cases there were, which were static loads, which were dynamic loads, which and how many thermal loads, nor do you understand how to combine the individual load cases into an actual picture of the stresses the structures underwent that exceeded the design capacities.

Trying to have a real discussion in here about real engineering principles os worthless. Only ONE, Loudervol, has understanding of the engineering. If you don't. If you are not a civil structures or mechanical stress guy, you really should leave talk about what can or cannot happen alone,

so you don't loo....hmmm I'm not coming back here,
Go ahead. Be foolish.

And you say you do. By using the internet, anyone can find the things you have said. The facts are there are qualified people in the engineering field that disagree with the government reports on 9/11. Why do you think your analysis is any better?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Here is a thing where your argument fails. Bricks are complete solid, whereas floor are supported by beams which means there are spaces between beams, so there were multiple floors that were fragile because of weaker beams, and when one floor collapsed that led to the other weaker floor collapsing, and the weight of multiple floors led to a chain reaction. Additionally there was not just one floor that caught fire.
So yeah, your analogy is not even close!

Solid or not the analogy holds because the point is one part of a structure (regardless of whether that structure is solid or not) cannot drive its way through the rest of that structure like it doesn't exist. Even if the weakened floors were to pancake and fall on the rest of the building, the rest of the structure should be able to absorb and support that one floor falling since the rest of the building is made of more of the same stuff.

And FYI this isn't my argument. This is essentially the argument that the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are saying. The top part of the World Trade Center building even if it was weakened shouldn't be able to pulverize the rest of the building (which is made of the same stuff just in greater quantity) at near free fall speed.

The top of the World Trade Center after being weakened should have fallen to the side or made a small indent into the rest of the building. It should not have been able to pulverize the rest of the building into rubble like a hot knife through butter.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

They still can't wrap their minds around the simple fact that the lower floors would not have been heated enough to be near the field failure limits, and would have therefore resisted the collapse. Also, they can't wrap their mind around how symmetrical the collapse was. All 3 buildings fell within the footprint of the structures, yet all suffered asymmetrical damage.

Exactly.

Something must have destroyed the lower floors so that when the top came crashing down, they gave way like as if they weren't even there.

There was not enough jet fuel to melt or weaken the steel throughout the entire building. To believe the government story, you have to believe 20% of a building can pulverize 80% of a building to rubble with almost no kinetic energy added to the system. And that is simply IMPOSSIBLE.