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

#177
#177
BigOrangeTrain said:
Maybe the goverment was responsible. Its not like the government has such a great track record when it comes to the truth.
Click to expand...

Who in the government was behind it? Mind you that it would take hundreds if not more to be involved and never say a word.

Bush was only in office for like 8-9 months too, so that's amazing planning if he was in on it.
 
#178
#178
tumscalcium said:
Who in the government was behind it? Mind you that it would take hundreds if not more to be involved and never say a word.

Bush was only in office for like 8-9 months too, so that's amazing planning if he was in on it.
Click to expand...

The gay, corporatist Jew Nazis never sleep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#183
#183
volfanhill said:
40 years isn't old? What do you consider old?
Click to expand...
I was in my mid-late 20's when that movie came out. Old movies were made before I was born, or before I was old enough to remember them. Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Grand Hotel, and African Queen are old movies.
 
#184
#184
tumscalcium said:
Dr. No is 53 and that's not old because it's Bond. And Bond is awesome.
Click to expand...

Bond is timeless no doubt. Network on the other hand is very dated. I can watch the pivotal clips and be really interested, but I don't think I could watch the whole movie in one sitting.
 
#185
#185
red butler said:
Bond is timeless no doubt. Network on the other hand is very dated. I can watch the pivotal clips and be really interested, but I don't think I could watch the whole movie in one sitting.
Click to expand...
I didn't particularly care for Network. I was just joking about it being called an old movie. Any movie that comes out before you are born is an old movie. Believe it or not, they made movies before I was born.
 
#186
#186
1972 Grad said:
Believe it or not, they made movies before I was born.
Click to expand...

I didn't know they called this a "movie:"

1183490366_593c93b1eb_b.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#190
#190
tumscalcium said:
Who in the government was behind it? Mind you that it would take hundreds if not more to be involved and never say a word.

Bush was only in office for like 8-9 months too, so that's amazing planning if he was in on it.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no clue. But I think if the government wanted to cover it up, they could do so easily.
 
#191
#191
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh wait... he gets debunked in less than 1 minute.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQub5-lYIdk[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I am sure it has been said, but you sir are an idiot. collateral damage, seismic loads, a building collapsing nearby (or two of them), could easily upset the structure of nearby buildings. there is a reason we have zoning setbacks and clear spaces around buildings. Manhattan doesn't have this as much and there is only so much you can do to deal with/ plan for the collapse of the WTC. honestly I am surprised more buildings didn't fall down or suffer major damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#192
#192
volfan_89 said:
No one should be surprised that steel loses strength when heated. You heat up metal, it gets more bendy, duh. The thing is the buildings didn't 'bend' over, they collapsed in on themselves in an instant.
Click to expand...

playing catch up so forgive me if this was already posted, but high rises are designed to collapse in on themselves. especially when you consider the design of the WTC with the major structural steel on the outside of the building. the interior got weak and collapsed (pancaking is one thing people never seem to consider), once the internal bracing was gone the outside steel is going to fall in.
A-A-8_3.png


hopefully the image attaches. see all those columns on the outside? and you expect it to bend over????? compare it to the inside, much greater column spacing, open plan design, much less structure in the middle and I am willing to bet a higher percentage of the interior structure was damaged than the exterior. meaning the inside weak, outside strong. once the middle goes it pulls the building with it (to the inside).

but please ignore myself and others who actually have some level of expertise in this field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#193
#193
volfan_89 said:
They were hit by a plane near the top levels. Yet the whole building sustained enough damage to collapse in on itself the way a timed demolition does?

I'll never remember the documentary since I was young when I saw it, but there was an interview with one of the trade centers engineers who said that a plane hitting the building shouldn't cause it to collapse and that it would be similar to punching a pencil through a screen door.
Click to expand...

that plane wasn't a jumbo jet. and when he said shouldn't he is saying that because if everything was in place things would have gone better. and its not the impact that one has to worry about. The structural steel was supposed to have on specific type of insulation on it. it didn't. they were replacing that insulation while it happened, the process had started a year + before 9/11. but it takes a while to get to ALL the structural steel in the WTC and they started from the ground up. meaning the upper portion was vulnerable.

the insulation they were replacing didn't bond well with steel and could be shaken off by earthquakes. a jet liner impact is a lot more direct force, more than capable of removing said insulation.
 
#194
#194
volfan_89 said:
I tend to believe this may be the case. Although I do also believe that those buildings or any extremely tall building may have charges in the event that their structural integrity is compromised so that they collapse in on themselves and do as little damage as possible to the surrounding building. Have nothing to back this up other than a hunch. Could be completely wrong.
Click to expand...

yes completely wrong. would never trust explosives in a building. too much chance for them to go off when they shouldn't. and too much of a chance that something goes wrong with the system and the fail or partially go off, offsetting your purpose of them. and no way that gets past an inspector.
 
#195
#195
Obsessed said:
Yet, the official investigation has not and will not release their modeling data to be peer reviewed to prove the fire theory...
Click to expand...

thats why the engineering firm, and several others, have released theirs and made it a part of structural engineering classes. had one of my professors give a non-class lecture on it. guy was almost in tears because it did exactly what it should have. and it probably saved lives.


sorry for the long string of posts. playing catch up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#196
#196
Obsessed said:
top comment;


1.) How long was your "structural steel" in the furnace?
2.) Why did you use only half inch steel?
3.) Why was the metal heated to 300 degrees MORE than Jet fuel can burn?
4.) Why didn't towers 1 and 2 simply BEND and fall over away from the healthy structure below as you demonstrated?
5.) Why did the part of the towers that WASN'T affected by jet fuel (the perfectly in tact HEALTHY STRUCTURE) decide to give out in perfect succession?
6.) WTC 7 was not subjected to jet fuel or an airplane, yet fell the same way the other towers fell.
Click to expand...

see one of my previous comments.
 
#197
#197
SamRebel35 said:
In engineering, we call this impact loading. And it is scaled up by a huge factor because a dynamic load has a much greater effect on structures than static loads. If you would like to know the physics behind it, research impulse momentum.
Click to expand...

off topic, but do you work with a structural engineering firm in Atlanta? wondering if our firms have worked together.
 
#198
#198
LouderVol said:
see one of my previous comments.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments.

Everything I've read suggests that the insulation was indeed on the structural beams. That the impact from the jets broke it off (if you will)

I just can't get passed the idea that 3 buildings all fell the same exact way. Not to mention all the molten steel.
 
#199
#199
Rasputin_Vol said:
All the structural engineers and steel workers have noted is that steel will yield and weaken before it melts.

This is already common knowledge.

What they cannot explain is how a building can fall at near free fall velocity with a series of inelastic collisions on each floor and how it can fall symmetrically when it suffered asymmetric damage. And how it could so happen to happen in the exact same way on 3 different occasions/events that day.
Click to expand...

the original damage was asymmetric. to the floors that were hit. once those were hit and collapsed it goes from asymmetric to pretty darn symmetric. because each of the collapsing floors would have been roughly the same as the one above, and the one below. and just like a chain its not the strongest part of the steel that you have to consider. its the connections. and I know of no welded or mechanical attachment designed to withstand the impact of multiple floors just like itself. Most of the time you design the connections with a safety factor of at least 2 or 3. (Sam could give a better number) unfortunately with multiple compromised floors collapsing on themselves the initial floors affected by the floor above them were already affected by the impact. so by the time you get to the unaffected floors you have multiple times the design load on those connections. and depending on the connection type I can see that impact affecting connections all over the building.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
Pacer92 said:
The same as if you dropped 3 cinder blocks on 12 cemented ones from a foot high...

You tell me...
Click to expand...

this comment doesn't make sense.

not sure why you are changing your terminology when referring to the same object.

and in this case any concrete based argument is irrelevant as its tensile and shear strength are much less than steel.

but the issue isn't 3 falling on 12. its not even 3 falling on a damaged 12. its 3 falling on 3 damaged falling on 3 damaged until you get past the initial damage and by that point you have 12/15/18/whatever falling on your arbitrary 12.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top