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

#102
#102
itsme said:
What are your "facts" in which you determine your "theory"? In what field of work are you?
Click to expand...

I was a machinist for several years while I was studying electrical engineering. I've had several materials science electives and had to take statics and dynamics in undergrad.
 
#104
#104
volprof said:
It doesn't take a structural engineer to figure out that skyscrapers, no matter how well-built, are not designed to withstand full-force impacts from commercial jet-liners.

But if some people want to present themselves publicly as what I call "head in rectum" folks, then, by golly, that's their god-given right as Americans. Be the best damn "head in rectum" human being you can be. It's your patriotic duty.
Click to expand...

They were designed to collapse in on themselves however..Like most modern buildings..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#107
#107
I'll give a simplistic example of how the towers fell and then I'll shut up.

When you lay a heavy object down on something and it doesn't collapse it can support that weight. If you drop the same object 20 feet and it collapses, guess what happens?

This is what happened to the twin towers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#110
#110
The thing is that most Americans can't even fathom a scenario where their govt was complicit or knowingly disregarded info that would've prevented such attacks.

I was totally convinced of the official explanation at once too, but it's definitely not something just black and white. A LOT of it is worth debate...
 
#111
#111
VolStrom said:
I'll give a simplistic example of how the towers fell and then I'll shut up.

When you lay a heavy object down on something and it doesn't collapse it can support that weight. If you drop the same object 20 feet and it collapses, guess what happens?

This is what happened to the twin towers.
Click to expand...

A force 10 times greater was pushing up on the stories where the planes hit.

In simple physics, 3 brick ole blocks does not have the weight or energy to pancake 12 cemented blocks. They would have had to be dropped from many a hundred feet to achieve total collapse...
 
#112
#112
Pacer92 said:
A force 10 times greater was pushing up on the stories where the planes hit.

In simple physics, 3 brick ole blocks does not have the weight or energy to pancake 12 cemented blocks. They would have had to be dropped from many a hundred feet to achieve total collapse...
Click to expand...

OK I'll play. What is the force exerted when several floors of the world trade center fell 20 feet on the floor below?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#113
#113
VolStrom said:
OK I'll play. What is the force exerted when several floors of the world trade center fell 20 feet on the floor below?
Click to expand...

The same as if you dropped 3 cinder blocks on 12 cemented ones from a foot high...

You tell me...
 
#115
#115
VolStrom said:
Yep, you win.
Click to expand...

Not trying to win. Just open eyes. Physics doesn't lie no matter how big or small...

Build a 20 ft replica of the the wtc out of ANTHING you want. Try 1/2 inch rebar for example. Compromise the top 6-8 ft of it in any fashion you want....the bottom will remain. Science doesn't lie..
 
#116
#116
VolStrom said:
OK I'll play. What is the force exerted when several floors of the world trade center fell 20 feet on the floor below?
Click to expand...

The kinetic energy of several floors collapsing on another floor would lead to that kinetic energy being dissipated and distributed to the lower floor. That means you would need enough energy to make not only the floor below yield, but all the remain floors below to yield.

The summation of the kinetic energy of several floors falling 20 feet = summation of all of the energy needed to yield and collapse each of the remaining lower floors

When you sit down and really think about one floor or even a set of floors having enough kinetic energy to pile drive an entire building with nothing more acting on it than gravity, you have to come to the conclusion that the equation in RED violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in this particular case...
 
#117
#117
Pacer92 said:
Not trying to win. Just open eyes. Physics doesn't lie no matter how big or small...

Build a 20 ft replica of the the wtc out of ANTHING you want. Try 1/2 inch rebar for example. Compromise the top 6-8 ft of it in any fashion you want....the bottom will remain. Science doesn't lie..
Click to expand...

No... asymmetrically compromise 3 similar structures and see it if they all fall in the normal direction or if at least one of the structures doesn't fail asymmetrically and fall like a tree with notches cut in it.
 
#118
#118
Rasputin_Vol said:
The kinetic energy of several floors collapsing on another floor would lead to that kinetic energy being dissipated and distributed to the lower floor. That means you would need enough energy to make not only the floor below yield, but all the remain floors below to yield.

The summation of the kinetic energy of several floors falling 20 feet = summation of all of the energy needed to yield and collapse each of the remaining lower floors

When you sit down and really think about one floor or even a set of floors having enough kinetic energy to pile drive an entire building with nothing more acting on it than gravity, you have to come to the conclusion that the equation in RED violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in this particular case...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Kinetic energy is moveable energy. There was simply not near enough from either to pancake the remaining 70-90 floors to the ground.
 
#119
#119
Rasputin_Vol said:
No... asymmetrically compromise 3 similar structures and see it if they all fall in the normal direction or if at least one of the structures doesn't fail asymmetrically and fall like a tree with notches cut in it.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. Not enough force regardless. They fall off asymmetrically every time unless the base has been compromised...
 
#120
#120
Pacer92 said:
Exactly. Kinetic energy is moveable energy. There was simply not near enough from either to pancake the remaining 70-90 floors to the ground.
Click to expand...

Yes there was and you're an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Once one floor collapsed the others didn't have the strength to support them. 10 or more floors collapsed and their entire energy fell on the floor below.

It was a house of cards and once one floor buckled the rest were sure to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#121
#121
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, it does not. I'm not sure what that has to do with myself since I worked with lathes, mills, CNC machines, welding/brazing and jig/fixture making.
Click to expand...

I know. I was just messing with you. Were you a machinist in middle TN? What was the name of the company?
 
#124
#124
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#125
#125
VolStrom said:
Yes there was and you're an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Once one floor collapsed the others didn't have the strength to support them. 10 or more floors collapsed and their entire energy fell on the floor below.

It was a house of cards and once one floor buckled the rest were sure to follow.
Click to expand...

No your wrong simpleton. The energy pushing up is far greater. Try again...

It's not a house of cards.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top