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

#876
#876
jamesd1628 said:
I don't doubt any of that one bit. But how many things have to be done incorrectly for a building to collapse straight down at free fall speed from a fire? Has that ever happened before? And the videos of the WTC7 collapse look exactly like every controlled demolition video I've ever seen. I just haven't seen any credible theory that debunks the proposition that it was a controlled demolition. And that's especially true in light of some of the audio we have surrounding its collapse.
Click to expand...

So, what should a collapsing building look like?

The Bldg 7 traditional design using steel beams for floor support was HEAVIER per square foot than the towers that used trusses.

Think about "factor of safety". Lets say a piece of steel begins to bend in elastic deformation when a 5000lb load is applied, but it will go back to it's original shape with no damage or permanent plastic deformation that stays bent. Now while I know most precisely virtually every load this piece will ever see. I don't know them all, like how bad an earthquake it will see, or tornado winds. So I say I want my final design to be several times stronger than I think it needs to be, just in case. Because life has taught the designer he HAS to think about factors of safety. Buildings collapse. Planes crash. Bridges fall down.
Building codes say I have to. And I have to use theirs.

No designer has ever, ever designed the structural steel connections between the verticle columns and the horizontal beams of a building system with a factor of safety that could absorb the equivalent of the tonnage of the Queen Mary being dropped on it.

Take a Tinker Toy kit outside and build a tower with every piece. Set a cement block on it. Now, take sandpaper and make lots of pieces 1/2 the original diameter (fire weakened steel), take out a vertical column under the cement block.

Inertia (an object in one place must have force applied to move it to another) is really really hard to overcome. So is gravity. Things fall straight down.

There is nothing to stop the buildings collapse once it gets started. And each of the connections between floors members that gets snapped, or jerked, or whatever, in two is going to give off a report you'd liken to a cannon shot. But analysis of those actual bangs recorded does not meet with building demolition charge audible signatures.

I know it looks like "free fall" and some portions may indeed approach it. But it's not true free fall. Each floors connections are going through impact failure.
 
Last edited:
#877
#877
The Trump video from 9/11 I posted a few days ago showed Trump talking about visiting the basement of the WTC with the actual WTC engineers 3-4 days after the bombing in the early 1990s and noticing entire sections and columns being blown away. So no... one section of a building missing doesn't necessarily mean the civil engineer will be leaving a load in his Depends.
 
#878
#878
Rasputin_Vol said:
The Trump video from 9/11 I posted a few days ago showed Trump talking about visiting the basement of the WTC with the actual WTC engineers 3-4 days after the bombing in the early 1990s and noticing entire sections and columns being blown away. So no... one section of a building missing doesn't necessarily mean the civil engineer will be leaving a load in his Depends.
Click to expand...

Lawdy, lawdy, you just shiet yerself with that one Ol'Son.
The bomb was on the 2nd level of the parking facility UNDER THE VISTA HOTEL and NOT UNDER either one of the towers.

And as for the design of the sub levels vs the towers. You don't know enough to have even a casual conversation of design and construction techniques.
 

Attachments

  • WTC 4_1.jpg
    WTC 4_1.jpg
    50 KB · Views: 64
#879
#879
Any of you steel won't melt guys see pics of some of the fire damage in Gatlinburg? I saw a couple of warped I-beams sticking out of burned out homes and buildings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#880
#880
Orangedogsrule said:
Louder makes very reasonable observations. Case in point is when the author questions why AIG and Marsh & McLennan would deploy the Silverstream "paperless office" business and accounting system.

And then, to foster his conspiracy theory, tells us what to think about that thus:
------------------------
..."and what you should take away from that is this: it means that no other companies were doing this type of transaction,
------------------------
Well gee, there was a "first" XXX company to employ Visi-Calc, the "first" PC based spreadsheet.

There was a "first" YYY company to deploy Oracle database.

There was a "first" ZZZ company to deploy Microsoft Office Professional.

And so, this should really, really make your inquiring mind wanna have an answer to:

..."the question in your mind should be- what then were XXX, YYY, & ZZZZ doing, and why did they need to leverage technologies that no other commercial entity on the face of the earth needed to conduct business"...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This book about terrorism and Bin Laden, along with hundreds of other books, white papers, and memorandums written by non-partisan advisors to presidents, congress, and the military, was published before the 9/11 attacks.


'Bin Laden The Man Who Declared War on America'

Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble®

Here is a review posted at Barnes & Noble
--------------------------
☆☆☆☆☆ Required Reading

5513 days ago
Guest
This is an extremely informative and chilling book about the past and present chain of events. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the 'why's'. A warning though..after reading about Bin Laden, his motives and beliefs and the intricate details of the countries and individuals who've helped to further the Islamic jihad which drives him, you may be left feeling perhaps ignorance is bliss after all. However if, like me, you want to 'Know your enemy'...then read this book...get an education and a reality check.
-------------------------
The end of the Ottoman Caliphate declared by the westernized Ottoman Calif himself, the partitioning and repartitioning of the middle east through two world wars, the renewal of the nation of Israel, the Gulf war... unbelievably immense wealth from oil...the USSR/Afgani war...all have been included in the fury of the mujahadeen; the warrior jihadists.

Everyone has heard the old medical saying, "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". But, of course rule out the zebras ... and rhinos.

So, if you want me to hear zebras, instead of the existing hoofbeats of Islamic jihad, thundering around the world and back through history to the origination of what is basically, fundamentally a murder cult, you better have every postulation supported with reasonable fact.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that you are willing to assume that Bin Laden was mastermind behind 9/11, yet make no such declaration about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia having a hand in the attack.

Most of the 19 hijckers were from the KSA... so we ended up bombing and attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. Makes sense...
 
#884
#884
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is interesting that you are willing to assume that Bin Laden was mastermind behind 9/11, yet make no such declaration about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia having a hand in the attack.

Most of the 19 hijckers were from the KSA... so we ended up bombing and attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. Makes sense...
Click to expand...

Read all I wrote.

Bin Laden's father helped the Saud family build the new Arabia with petro dollars and became fabulously wealthy. Osama inherited millions.
He went yo Afganistan as a mujahadeen against the Soviets. He became radicalized. He helped fund the beginning of "The Base" or Al Queda. 'The Base' because upon the destruction wrought by 'The Base'
on existing regimes throughout the muslim world which is Dar al Islam or the Sphere of Peace. Then the Arab Spring can occur in Dar al Islam and around the world; targeting the kaffir (non-islamics) in Dar al Harb (The Sphere of War). All this yo re-establish the Islamic Caliphate. The Caliphate is not a state or empire in a political sense, but more of a cross border religious structure more like the Catholic Church is worldwide with a pope as it's head. The caliph is the head of the Caliphate.

Islamics believe that once a nation and their land is absorbed into Dar al Islam, the Caliphate, it's Allah's will that it is forever so.Therefore any lands conquered for the caliphate like Spain, Kosovo, Palistine, etc. can never be relinquished.

Afganistan and the Taliban sponsored and succored Al Queda. Yes, support came from some Saudi Arabian sources, but they weren't the only ones in the Middle East supporting the mujahadeen.
 
#885
#885
Not one, not two, but three buildings collapse at free-fall speed into their own foot print. And one wasn't even hit by a plane. Sure, science this, science that, scientific models - a "scientific" argument can be made for anything. Really, what are the odds that all three of those buildings suffered the exact same fate from such a chaotic incident, especially considering one was never hit by a plane? It's all just so neat and tidy. Well, the government told us what happened, flashed some "science" at us, and got all the controlled news sites on board - so it must be true.
 
#886
#886
jamesd1628 said:
Not one, not two, but three buildings collapse at free-fall speed into their own foot print. And one wasn't even hit by a plane. Sure, science this, science that, scientific models - a "scientific" argument can be made for anything. Really, what are the odds that all three of those buildings suffered the exact same fate from such a chaotic incident, especially considering one was never hit by a plane? It's all just so neat and tidy. Well, the government told us what happened, flashed some "science" at us, and got all the controlled news sites on board - so it must be true.
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time in here. The ones you are debating with will not even entertain the notion that the official government findings about 9/11 could be wrong. WTC building 7 being brought down by "office fires" is just beyond silly. But it fits the agenda for those who do not want to question the NIST report.

As I have said before, the same people who blindly accept the official government findings about 9/11 are the same ones who call the US government an untrustworthy and corrupt entity. So basically, dont trust the government about anything EXCEPT 9/11.
 
#888
#888
Carl Pickens said:
Most likely the same ones that say it was a government conspiracy and a controlled demolition
Click to expand...

I would like to see a link or a quote that proves that one of these people said that heat doesn't weaken metal. I never knew there was such nonsense being posted until you made this claim.
 
#889
#889
jamesd1628 said:
Not one, not two, but three buildings collapse at free-fall speed into their own foot print. And one wasn't even hit by a plane. Sure, science this, science that, scientific models - a "scientific" argument can be made for anything. Really, what are the odds that all three of those buildings suffered the exact same fate from such a chaotic incident, especially considering one was never hit by a plane? It's all just so neat and tidy. Well, the government told us what happened, flashed some "science" at us, and got all the controlled news sites on board - so it must be true.
Click to expand...

It is a lie that they actually go at "free fall".
It's been proven they don't.

I'm curious. Have you got any education in the sciences at all? Or, are you just blowing smoke out your azz?

I'm a retired stress engineer. I do not work for the gubbuhmint. I've never taken a serious look at the "truther" shiest out there until I got involved in THIS thread. Every conspiracy site I've visited, every one, (I'm sure I haven't seen them all) has problems.

If you want to understand what actually happened, check out all the links I've included in my posts. Of course you may have too much emotional investment in some conspiracy other than the Al Queda muhajadeen. If you have a question about what I've done, I'll answer it, or get the answer if it's available on the web.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#890
#890
Orangedogsrule said:
It is a lie that they actually go at "free fall".
It's been proven they don't.

I'm curious. Have you got any education in the sciences at all? Or, are you just blowing smoke out your azz?

I'm a retired stress engineer. I do not work for the gubbuhmint. I've never taken a serious look at the "truther" shiest out there until I got involved in THIS thread. Every conspiracy site I've visited, every one, (I'm sure I haven't seen them all) has problems.

If you want to understand what actually happened, check out all the links I've included in my posts. Of course you may have too much emotional investment in some conspiracy other than the Al Queda muhajadeen. If you have a question about what I've done, I'll answer it, or get the answer if it's available on the web.
Click to expand...

So because you are a retired stress engineer, that makes you somehow more qualified than any other engineer that disagrees with the governments findings? If so, how?
 
#892
#892
BigOrangeTrain said:
You are wasting your time in here. The ones you are debating with will not even entertain the notion that the official government findings about 9/11 could be wrong. WTC building 7 being brought down by "office fires" is just beyond silly. But it fits the agenda for those who do not want to question the NIST report.

As I have said before, the same people who blindly accept the official government findings about 9/11 are the same ones who call the US government an untrustworthy and corrupt entity. So basically, dont trust the government about anything EXCEPT 9/11.
Click to expand...

BOT, you sound like a third grader. Somebody doesn't agree with the government conspiracy angle and they now have an agenda? Couldn't you just both disagree? If everyone agreeed, there would be no conspiracy theory.

The guy who you are debating, if you take him at his word as I do, has no agenda, is no special pleader for the government, and (unlike most of us here) is qualified to speak intelligently about the theories as it relates to engineering.

And it hasn't been much of a debate really. He brings facts and expertise to the table whereas you bring links. You misrepresented his position. He didn't say office fires were solely responsible for Tower 7 falling. I don't recall him ever referencing the official government findings as gospel. And I don't recall him saying he trusted the government (whether he does or not is immaterial since he's not citing their work but bringing his own).

Why don't you have a debate with him instead of trying to marginalize his opinion. I would have thought this is the type of person you have been waiting to talk to.
 
#895
#895
jamesd1628 said:
Not one, not two, but three buildings collapse at free-fall speed into their own foot print. And one wasn't even hit by a plane. Sure, science this, science that, scientific models - a "scientific" argument can be made for anything. Really, what are the odds that all three of those buildings suffered the exact same fate from such a chaotic incident, especially considering one was never hit by a plane? It's all just so neat and tidy. Well, the government told us what happened, flashed some "science" at us, and got all the controlled news sites on board - so it must be true.
Click to expand...

you watch too many movies. There is no Michael Bay explosion fest, there is no dramatic lean and fall. these are simple shaped buildings and there is no force being applied that would cause it to lean over. Gravity only works in one direction, straight down.
 
#896
#896
BigOrangeTrain said:
You are wasting your time in here. The ones you are debating with will not even entertain the notion that the official government findings about 9/11 could be wrong. WTC building 7 being brought down by "office fires" is just beyond silly. But it fits the agenda for those who do not want to question the NIST report.

As I have said before, the same people who blindly accept the official government findings about 9/11 are the same ones who call the US government an untrustworthy and corrupt entity. So basically, dont trust the government about anything EXCEPT 9/11.
Click to expand...

and you are being willfully ignorant of what the other side is saying.

I question everything up to the events of that day, and even some things afterwards. I have plenty of reason too, 28 missing pages being a big part of it. but that does nothing to the argument that these buildings cant fall straight down in the situation they are in. even on the big break down on the money article I said there is stuff I agree with in there.
 
#897
#897
DC_Vol said:
BOT, you sound like a third grader. Somebody doesn't agree with the government conspiracy angle and they now have an agenda? Couldn't you just both disagree? If everyone agreeed, there would be no conspiracy theory.

The guy who you are debating, if you take him at his word as I do, has no agenda, is no special pleader for the government, and (unlike most of us here) is qualified to speak intelligently about the theories as it relates to engineering.

And it hasn't been much of a debate really. He brings facts and expertise to the table whereas you bring links. You misrepresented his position. He didn't say office fires were solely responsible for Tower 7 falling. I don't recall him ever referencing the official government findings as gospel. And I don't recall him saying he trusted the government (whether he does or not is immaterial since he's not citing their work but bringing his own).

Why don't you have a debate with him instead of trying to marginalize his opinion. I would have thought this is the type of person you have been waiting to talk to.
Click to expand...

Because its impossible to have a debate with someone who believes there is absolutely ZERO chance for any kind of alternate outcomes. He does not entertain the notion that his calculations or the government's could be wrong. His facts and expertise is nothing than cannot be found with a simple google search. Sorry, but when it comes to an internet message board, I always assume people are lying.

There have been engineers, architects, physicists and other scientists who have brought up their calculations and theiries about 9/11. Those differ from what the official story says. Yet, somehow, these trained professionals are just wrong because their findings differ from others?

I could be totally wrong and the governments findings could be correct. But with all of the questions and inconsistencies that have been brought up by scientists, family members of the ones killed and even some media, to not even entertain the possibility of a differenet outcome than what we have been presented is just foolish.
 
#898
#898
LouderVol said:
and you are being willfully ignorant of what the other side is saying.

I question everything up to the events of that day, and even some things afterwards. I have plenty of reason too, 28 missing pages being a big part of it. but that does nothing to the argument that these buildings cant fall straight down in the situation they are in. even on the big break down on the money article I said there is stuff I agree with in there.
Click to expand...

The fact is because there are all these questions surrounding 9/11, I believe the only things we can agree with the government's reports on are: planes hit the towers, they fell and WTC building 7 fell. As far as the exact reasoning behind the ways those buildings fell, will likely always be disputed. And thats my point. We dont know for sure.
 
#899
#899
BigOrangeTrain said:
Because its impossible to have a debate with someone who believes there is absolutely ZERO chance for any kind of alternate outcomes. He does not entertain the notion that his calculations or the government's could be wrong. His facts and expertise is nothing than cannot be found with a simple google search. Sorry, but when it comes to an internet message board, I always assume people are lying.

There have been engineers, architects, physicists and other scientists who have brought up their calculations and theiries about 9/11. Those differ from what the official story says. Yet, somehow, these trained professionals are just wrong because their findings differ from others?

I could be totally wrong and the governments findings could be correct. But with all of the questions and inconsistencies that have been brought up by scientists, family members of the ones killed and even some media, to not even entertain the possibility of a differenet outcome than what we have been presented is just foolish.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion as someone following the thread, he was having a debate and brings a very valid angle. He just doesn't agree with you. And he did say that he began with an open mind. He's making a very specific counter argument to the theories you've posed. I don't know what more can be asked for.

The same argument you make about 9/11 can be made for global warming but, if I recall correctly, you don't subscribe to that theory just because a lot of scientist and most of the media run with it.
 
#900
#900
DC_Vol said:
Just my opinion as someone following the thread, he was having a debate and brings a very valid angle. He just doesn't agree with you. And he did say that he began with an open mind. He's making a very specific counter argument to the theories you've posed. I don't know what more can be asked for.

The same argument you make about 9/11 can be made for global warming but, if I recall correctly, you don't subscribe to that theory just because a lot of scientist and most of the media run with it.
Click to expand...

He did claim to be a stress engineer, so I would assume that he has some understanding of strength of materials. However, he does very little to address the fact that the fires were essentially localized and asymmetric in both of the twin towers, and therefore, those metal structures that were closest to the point of impact would indeed see critical failure... yet does nothing to explain how the lower floors would have failed so catastrophically without being as close to the heat source. At the very least, we should have seen yielding or bending of metal as we got further away from the point of impact. But instead, we saw uniform failure throughout the entire range of the building.

Also, we then have to explain how WTC 7 was able to sustain damage totally differently than the other two buildings, yet fail in the exact same manner.

I myself was one of those people that didn't believe the so-called "truther" story. But as I looked at the evidence and reflected back on my material science/strength of materials studies, as well as physics, it begins to unravel.

All I was asking of these people was to at least entertain the idea that just maybe the story we are being told isn't quite how it went down.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top