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

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

World Trade Center | Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives

And don't forget there was alot of "construction work" on the elevator system of the WTC in the weeks leading up to 9/11. This would've given whoever did the controlled demolition access to the core structure of the buildings. Plus bomb sniffing dogs were "randomly" removed from the building at that time.

The skeptics can try to deflect and deny this as much as they want. But there was ample opportunity for whoever did 9/11 to plant explosives in the buildings.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

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.

Is the top 20% of the WTC made of different stuff than the bottom 80%?

You can try to couch your argument in some false expertise of structural engineering. All I need you to tell me is how can 20% of something pulverize 80% of the same stuff at near free fall speed with almost no kinectic energy?

Its not like the top part of the WTC fell at 500 mph into the rest of the building. Even if the jet fuel made the steel beams supporting 20% of the building disappear, there is still 80% of the structure below ready to bear that load. For such a small portion of the building to pulverize the rest of the building would require incredible amounts of kinetic energy. And there was simply not enough space for that kinetic energy to arise.

For what happened on 9/11 to be possible without explosives in the building, you would need to drop the top portion of the WTC from a mile in the air so that it gets the kinetic energy necessary to drive through the other 80% of the building at free fall speed and reduces everything to rubble. Outside of that scenario (which obviously didn't happen on 9/11) the only way for what happened on 9/11 to happen was controlled demolition. NOTHING ELSE. Any other suggestion is just IMPOSSIBLE.


And you know it.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Your concept is false. You DON'T have the whole mass below to consider. All that has to be overcome is the floor truss bearing points and the columns buckle as the building comes down. The first occurance of impact load is somewhere near the explosive force the as the bomb that destroyed the exterior face of the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City.

The way it occured is that the collapse is incremental and cumulative. One floor at a time. And each floor adds mass as it is absorbed into the falling structure.

Look, Click this link to download an initial analysis. It is very much as I describe because this is what any competant engineer would arrive at. I won't argue with a stump. I bet neither will the ASCE.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
By Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant1, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou2

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

But hey, ignore it. Go ahead, scratch each others ignorance and find the and reptilianssss who are taking over. Be fun to watch. But this is craziness. I got better things to do. I'm an old man and I should be sleeping at 3:20 in the middle of the night.

By the way. I have either designed, planned, and/or constructed steel components for:
•Several petroleum cracking furnaces.
•Three coal fired steam plants
•Many structures at all the plants (X-10, Y-12, & K-25) in the Oak Ridge DOE complex.
•Four dams
•Four nuclear plants.
And that is only heavy industrial and doesn't include commercial or institutional.

 

[Pacer92]

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.

I'll just leave this here...

https://youtu.be/aAVd2txjNEc

 

[hndog609]

Your concept is false. You DON'T have the whole mass below to consider. All that has to be overcome is the floor truss bearing points and the columns buckle as the building comes down. The first occurance of impact load is somewhere near the explosive force the as the bomb that destroyed the exterior face of the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City.

The way it occured is that the collapse is incremental and cumulative. One floor at a time. And each floor adds mass as it is absorbed into the falling structure.

Look, Click this link to download an initial analysis. It is very much as I describe because this is what any competant engineer would arrive at. I won't argue with a stump. I bet neither will the ASCE.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
By Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant1, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou2

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

But hey, ignore it. Go ahead, scratch each others ignorance and find the and reptilianssss who are taking over. Be fun to watch. But this is craziness. I got better things to do. I'm an old man and I should be sleeping at 3:20 in the middle of the night.

By the way. I have either designed, planned, and/or constructed steel components for:
•Several petroleum cracking furnaces.
•Three coal fired steam plants
•Many structures at all the plants (X-10, Y-12, & K-25) in the Oak Ridge DOE complex.
•Four dams
•Four nuclear plants.
And that is only heavy industrial and doesn't include commercial or institutional.

You've shown the patience of Job but they aren't interested. (We've even still got the "free fall speed" lunacy cited again. If they're still buying that one you know you're wasting your time.)

Short of new and relevant information (not holding my breath) it's just 50 First Dates in these discussions. Claims made, claims refuted, wait a bit and we're back to the same cycle again. This is just the baby thread, only 628 posts as I type this. The big one has over 1500. It's all been gone over (and over and over and over) before.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If these people would lie about child sex rituals, wouldn't they lie about how 3000 people were killed?

 

[PKT_VOL]

If these people would lie about child sex rituals, wouldn't they lie about how 3000 people were killed?

How they were killed or that they killed them? Big difference there.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

How they were killed or that they killed them? Big difference there.

Believing the government on something this major is, to use your verbiage, profoundly unwise.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

How they were killed or that they killed them? Big difference there.

You act as though this country or the Israelis have never engaged false flag events.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You act as though this country or the Israelis have never engaged false flag events.

Yep. Comical isnt it? Our government is trash about everything EXCEPT 9/11. I am sure the obligatory "tin foil hat" comments will insue with you bringing up false flags.

 

[LouderVol]

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

thermite is iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. take steel, insert a big plane and add a whole bunch of heat and wahlah you have something very similar to thermite. and it is my understanding that thermite doesn't stop burning. how is that going to survive a BA fire?

Thermite

 

[LouderVol]

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.

1. you actually don't know anything. I wouldn't make that statement and I know a lot more than you. there are ZERO other cases of jet fuel being involved in a high rise fire. there are very few cases of planes hitting high rises (all but one that I have seen were radio towers and the other building didn't survive either). so what are you basing your knowledge on?
2. seriously on your first statement? I bet the aliens used transporters to get it all in position. why add that complication to it? We know some commercial planes slammed into the towers, that is enough. why add "secret military technology" to it?
3. We have covered it time and again on how the buildings come down. look at the other buildings surrounding the WTC. when I was there a year later some of them were still being worked on. you guys act like there was no collateral outside of WTC 7.
4. You keep ignoring a plane slammed into the freaking buildings. WE DON'T/CAN'T design buildings to survive that. I challenge you to find any high rise anywhere and go in and remove just 1 column, just 1. see what happens. Or ask an engineer if they would be comfortable removing just 1 of their columns from a project.

 

[LouderVol]

also let me drop some more information on you people. Sprinkler systems DON'T put out fires.

 

[LouderVol]

Not convinced. Thermite is powdered iron and aluminum.
Nanothermite is very fine thermite.
Nano thermite burns to form tiny globules.

Go to youtube and find a guy burning a broken mag (aluminum) wheel. He ignites it with wood.

See my above posted link to a Scientific American article about the M.I.T. scientist discussing burning aluminum Iraqi jets embedding themselves in their concrete pads and using the H20 in the concrete to crack out the oxygen by heat of combustion and so continue to burn inside a cocoon of powder, also producing hydrogen which itself burns.

Long ago I had to locate an environmental scientist to perform a "Catastrophic Explosion Toxic Compound Formation, Reaction, Dispersion, and Reuptake Analysis" to get a permit from the EPA. That's not the real name but it is what is done.

1. Catastrophic Explosion: produces high heat and every little thing close to it is vaporized or set on fire, etc.

2. Toxic Compound Formation: Since the proposed plant processes toxic chemicals, they along with cleaning, hydraulic, water, etc. fluids, and particulate mater from solid compounds are thrown up into the inferno and free form new compounds, toxic or otherwise.

3. Reaction: The remaining original chemicals: fluids, gasses, particles can then RECOMBINE to form new toxic compounds otherwise not available by mixing with some of the already formed new ones.

4. Dispersion: This chemical soup is carried away by the wind. Heavy particles just fall right down and so it goes on to very light particles and gasses carried miles or even states away.

5. Reuptake: What gets into the foodchain.

So...having an inferno, fed a draft from the service core and broken exterior walls, aluminum which most certainly ignited.

From Reddit-
("When sufficiently heated in the presence of oxygen, unactivated aluminium will burn with a VERY hot flame. That's why you keep aluminium foil away from a hot stove.
The material making up the can has a thin layer of aluminium oxide coating it which will initially prevent it from burning, so if you want to rig the question, scratch the surface of the can ("activate" it) before putting it in the flame. Either way, the can will BURN before it MELTS.")...

Melting steel "soft like gum" contacting melting and burning aluminum.

THE VERY TWO ELEMENTS IN NANO THERMITE now together in a superhot cauldron and at these temps some of the surface crystaline lattice structures of the steel (to free up elemental iron, and the aircraft aluminium will vaporize; RECOMBINING into ...guess what?...tiny globules.

Nope: Gotta do more to convince me.

dang, should have kept reading.

 

[LouderVol]

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

how are ours wrong? can't have it both ways. their expertise trumps ours just because you agree with them?

 

[LouderVol]

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.

jesus christ. not relevant at all. you are arguing about the world's best drum solos of all time and are bringing in Miley Cyrus into the conversation. your thought experiment has NOTHING to do with the WTC.

it would be more like playing Jenga (but still not a perfect analogy) and kicking out 3 of the levels. what happens to the rest? it falls too.

 

[LouderVol]

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...

are you arguing that a building that is probably something like 90% void/air space can act as a single solid object?

the top 20% was falling down, but it doesn't hit the whole 80% at one time. it hits each layer at a time and snowballs, as orangedog pointed out the layer below is NOT going to be able to stop 1 additional layer, yet alone all of them coming down.

 

[LouderVol]

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

gravity. there is no other force being applied after the initial plane hit. do i need to explain gravity? holy cow I need crayons.

wait wait wait, do you believe the world is flat? are we the center of the universe?

 

[LouderVol]

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.

again find one engineer that would be comfortable literally dropping one floor on top of the other. I can't get my structural engineer to allow me to move an RTU over five feet, why do you think these floors can survive that much loading?

 

[LouderVol]

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.

this is a very simple example of the clip mounting system that can be used on trusses. that is what failed. once that is gone there is nothing hold it up and gravity takes over. you are going to shear through those like a hot knife through butter once you add multiple floors. they are designed for the loading of their floor alone.

and probably wasn't the bottom damaged floor that fell. it was probably the one right where the plane hit that fell first. onto other compromised floors. it is going to build up momentum before it hits any real resistance, and that resistance is again not even enough to stop one floor falling.

since you guys like incorrect thought experiments lets pretend you guys worked out and got to the point where you could hold 100 pounds (arbitrary number) out in front of you. or in this case above your head. now suddenly someone drops another 100 right on top of that. are you going to be able to hold it up? remember you have worked out to hold up 100 pounds nothing more, 100 pounds is your limit, how would you handle 200 pounds?

 

[LouderVol]

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.

did you even watch the videos Pacer posted about that? showing the "demolition explosions" that looked zero like a controlled demolition. The flashes werent across the whole floor or in sequence and did not correspond to the collapse. how on earth did it act like a controlled demolition?

 

[LouderVol]

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?

I don't know what you do for a living but does everyone in your field automatically agree on everything?

the largest number I have seen for the "doubting" professionals is 3000.

Number of Licensed Architects (US)

looking at Architects alone that would be 1.5% of us if you took all of the doubters as architects, ignoring all the other fields. (3000/200,000)

civil is another 280,000Civil Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


couldn't find structural in two seconds but found a total for architects and engineers at 690,000.

Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services - May 2015 OES Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

if we take that number it is 0.4%.

as orangedog and I have pointed out we have a fair share of idiots (Masters of Disasters to borrow a term) in our field. yes I am not worried about that percentage based on my knowledge and the math I have done.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

no no no no nononononononononononononono. the columns are what is designed to hold up the entire building. not the trusses or beams. those trusses and beams are designed to carry their load alone. when two cars crash into each other why are both damaged? built of the same thing. the cars, and the buildings are built to maintain themselves, not two of themselves. gosh you got me making BS comparisons now.

stop zooming out, zoom in and look at the details. the mounting clips/weld/mechanical attachments connecting one piece to the next. that is what fails. not the truss itself. what you are wanting is for that connection to be twice as big to take the floor above, 3 times if the two floors above and so on and so forth. no one is going to pay for that.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

gravity. gravity. you are asking these floors to do two things. 1. hold themselves up (what they are designed to do. 2. hold up the floors above (not what they are designed to do). and this is a dead system. it can't organically adjust to these new loading conditions.

did the 80% collapse before the 20% got there? if it had you could argue controlled demolition. thats not what happened. we all watched one floor getting smashed at a time. it is not a single unit of 80 vs 20. its 1 vs 1 and these floors are designed to take the loading of 1 not 2 (1+1).

 

[LouderVol]

And don't forget there was alot of "construction work" on the elevator system of the WTC in the weeks leading up to 9/11. This would've given whoever did the controlled demolition access to the core structure of the buildings. Plus bomb sniffing dogs were "randomly" removed from the building at that time.

The skeptics can try to deflect and deny this as much as they want. But there was ample opportunity for whoever did 9/11 to plant explosives in the buildings.

there is no need for explosives.