Where were you? - September 11, 2001

#226
#226
ETV said:
I can take a 02/acetylene torch from my shop, attach a rosebud tip and apply heat to steel, after some time and with heat applied, the steel will glow orange and at that point, I can twist it and reshape the material.

Imagine with heat applied to a steel structure, a fire that has materials to continue feeding it and allowing it grow and continuously burn for 7 hours straight. Steel that is structural support for a building begins to heat up, allowing it's composition to break down and weaken. Anything that is weight supporting will fail and create a domino effect.
Click to expand...
7 hours? The first 2 buildings fell around an hour later.
 
#227
#227
BisonVol said:
No worries. I think even though you lean left and I lean right, we probably agree on several things.
Click to expand...
The sad part is that I bet 50-60% of all of us Americans would agree on a lot more if we removed party labels and just looked at the issues by themselves and if we didn't play cheerleaders for the (R)/ red team or (D)/ blue team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64, ajvol01 and 3 others
#228
#228
ajvol01 said:
What you’re describing would’ve resulted in the building leaning to one side and most likely not falling.

There’s an enormous difference between the deformation of steel and the simultaneous catastrophic failure of all building columns resulting in a free fall collapse inside its own footprint.

Did you know that WTC 7 is the first steel structure to collapse solely due to fire?
Click to expand...
I've tried having the conversation of metal yielding under heat vs catastrophic failure. They don't want to understand the difference.
 
#229
#229
landscapingvol said:
That is complete nonsense that has been refuted by engineers repeatedly like Popular Mechanics and MIT. The collapse of the Twin Towers is precisely at the impact zones or are you suggesting that the fake pilots hit the Towers at precisely the same point the building was wired to detonate? The buildings operated 24/7 and would have required significant closure to wire it to detonate and demolition. When they set charges to demolish a relatively small structure as compared to the Twin Towers requires significant prep work. They don’t just tape explosives to the side of the wall, walk out, and push a large cartoonish red button. The prep work required to demolish several dozen floors of a 1700’ building would take several days if not weeks. Maybe you believe these dastardly individuals snuck them in over time disguised as a fake sandwich or coffee mug? Was Clinton involved in this ill conceived conspiracy to blow up the Twin Towers? Bush was only in office about a year and a half. Were the FBI/CIA agents tracking Osama bin Laden and the other members of Al Qeada a smokescreen? Were the families who were impacted by the loss of life in the buildings and on the planes part of the conspiracy? The sheer numbers of people it would require to pull off an idiotic conspiracy like this would be in the tens of thousands. It’s human nature to be skeptical. It’s why people can’t accept the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK and Area 51 is housing UFO’s. The truth is less exciting
Click to expand...
With regards to JFK, it is more likely that Governor Connerly was hit by 2 bullets than it is that he was hit by a single Magic Bullet. Also, explain to me which of Oswald's shots hit James Tague, who was standing under the Triple Bypass?
 
Last edited:
#232
#232
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, only a few were airphone calls. There are multiple accounts of cellphone calls. Even the woman that was speaking to Todd Beamer and prayed the Lord's prayer with him acknowledged that other passengers were made aware of the WTC attacks by other passengers cellphones.
Click to expand...

The majority of the calls were the airplane phone calls. Most seats had a flight phone to use back then. If there were any calls from cell phones made, you have to take into account how the phones worked back then and the planes altitude.
 
#233
#233
USMC-TNVOL said:
The majority of the calls were the airplane phone calls. Most seats had a flight phone to use back then. If there were any calls from cell phones made, you have to take into account how the phones worked back then and the planes altitude.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. A majority of the calls were not from airplane phones. The testimonies and narrative clearly states that a good number of the calls were from (personal) cellphones.

but either way, you do admit that there were at least some cellphone calls made, even if you think that they were not the majority of calls. Has Todd Beamer's audio call been released?
 
#234
#234
Rasputin_Vol said:
I've tried having the conversation of metal yielding under heat vs catastrophic failure. They don't want to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

List the other buildings similar in size and shape that have been hit by a commercial airline. Simply because you don’t believe steel can or should behave in the manner it did doesn’t mean it didn’t. The evidence supporting the fact that 19 hijackers carried out 9/11 is a mountain high like where they came from, how they got here, flight schools, flight simulators in the case of one in particular, their flight paths, statements made by Muhammad Atta in flight, statements and recordings have been released by the flight attendants on board Flight 11 and 175, statements and interviews of multiple individuals inside the Twin Towers who worked near the impact zones who survived, Flight 175 was on multiple live networks striking the 2nd Tower, multiple individuals working in and near the Pentagon witnessed the plane hitting the building as well as images from security cameras, the collapse of the buildings has been captured by numerous camera angles, and Tower 7 fell much later coincides with the fact that it was damaged by the collapse of the main two Towers. Questioning the accuracy of cell phones and the behavior of steel under unique, never before seen circumstances isn’t proof of a government conspiracy
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#235
#235
landscapingvol said:
Questioning the accuracy of cell phones and the behavior of steel under unique, never before seen circumstances isn’t proof of a government conspiracy
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with you. You simply don't understand the difference between yield strength and ultimate tensile strength.
 
#236
#236
landscapingvol said:
List the other buildings similar in size and shape that have been hit by a commercial airline. Simply because you don’t believe steel can or should behave in the manner it did doesn’t mean it didn’t. The evidence supporting the fact that 19 hijackers carried out 9/11 is a mountain high like where they came from, how they got here, flight schools, flight simulators in the case of one in particular, their flight paths, statements made by Muhammad Atta in flight, statements and recordings have been released by the flight attendants on board Flight 11 and 175, statements and interviews of multiple individuals inside the Twin Towers who worked near the impact zones who survived, Flight 175 was on multiple live networks striking the 2nd Tower, multiple individuals working in and near the Pentagon witnessed the plane hitting the building as well as images from security cameras, the collapse of the buildings has been captured by numerous camera angles, and Tower 7 fell much later coincides with the fact that it was damaged by the collapse of the main two Towers. Questioning the accuracy of cell phones and the behavior of steel under unique, never before seen circumstances isn’t proof of a government conspiracy
Click to expand...
Questioning NIST’s conclusions isn’t saying they’re part of a government conspiracy.

It is quite a coincidence that WTC 7 aka the Salomon Brothers Building was the first steel frame building that collapsed solely due to fire.

Add the free fall collapse into its own footprint as another amazing coincidence.

I don’t understand why some people get so offended by others questioning the NIST report’s conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#237
#237
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is not the case. A majority of the calls were not from airplane phones. The testimonies and narrative clearly states that a good number of the calls were from (personal) cellphones.

but either way, you do admit that there were at least some cellphone calls made, even if you think that they were not the majority of calls. Has Todd Beamer's audio call been released?
Click to expand...

So do you have anything that states they were mostly cell phones? Not everyone carried a cell phone back then.
 
#239
#239
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm not going to argue with you. You simply don't understand the difference between yield strength and ultimate tensile strength.
Click to expand...
The high temps would contribute to ductile fracture, not brittle fracture

I find it extremely hard to believe all columns could fail simultaneously with this type of failure

1599940511897.jpeg
 
#240
#240
ajvol01 said:
Questioning NIST’s conclusions isn’t saying they’re part of a government conspiracy.

It is quite a coincidence that WTC 7 aka the Salomon Brothers Building was the first steel frame building that collapsed solely due to fire.

Add the free fall collapse into its own footprint as another amazing coincidence.

I don’t understand why some people get so offended by others questioning the NIST report’s conclusions.
Click to expand...

Well when the sprinkler system no longer works that’s a lot of heat that goes unchecked.
 
#241
#241
ajvol01 said:
The high temps would contribute to ductile fracture, not brittle fracture

I find it extremely hard to believe all columns could fail simultaneously with this type of failure

View attachment 306041
Click to expand...
Well, not just that, but you had asymmetrical damage done to the building. So although you would have some weakened structures on the side of the impacts, the other sides and regions of the buildings should have ben intact and the fires on the higher floors should not have caused the bottom 80 floors to weaken so much, that they fail critically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#242
#242
I've argued before about the strength of steel when being exposed to fire before on this thread. The steel got hot, the steel turned to rubber and then couldn't support the weight above it. Millions of tons then started to fall 20 feet at a time until it hit the next floor. The Kinetic energy of millions of tons of steel and concrete collapsed every successive floor below it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and ETV
#243
#243
VolStrom said:
I've argued before about the strength of steel when being exposed to fire before on this thread. The steel got hot, the steel turned to rubber and then couldn't support the weight above it. Millions of tons then started to fall 20 feet at a time until it hit the next floor. The Kinetic energy of millions of tons of steel and concrete collapsed every successive floor below it.
Click to expand...
You’re talking about WTC 7?
 
#245
#245
VolStrom said:
I've argued before about the strength of steel when being exposed to fire before on this thread. The steel got hot, the steel turned to rubber and then couldn't support the weight above it. Millions of tons then started to fall 20 feet at a time until it hit the next floor. The Kinetic energy of millions of tons of steel and concrete collapsed every successive floor below it.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that as each floor fell on top of the next, you had less and less heat and damage from the impact... meaning that the lower floors should have been stronger than the higher floors. As a result, common sense would suggest that as the floors collapsed, there should have been some added resistance from the lower floors. But no... they continued to fall in the direction of the most resistance at the speed of gravity.
 
#246
#246
Rasputin_Vol said:
The problem with that is that as each floor fell on top of the next, you had less and less heat and damage from the impact... meaning that the lower floors should have been stronger than the higher floors. As a result, common sense would suggest that as the floors collapsed, there should have been some added resistance from the lower floors. But no... they continued to fall in the direction of the most resistance at the speed of gravity.
Click to expand...
I'll say it again, kinetic energy. Lay a hammer on the hood of your car and it doesn't hurt it. Drop it successively from 5 foot increments and see what it does. Add a new hammer to it every time you drop it and see what happens. Drop your car on top of another car and then drop both of them on top of another car and see what happens. This is what happened on 9/11 in every building that collapsed. Fires weakened the structure and the kinetic energy destroyed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#247
#247
VolStrom said:
I'll say it again, kinetic energy. Lay a hammer on the hood of your car and it doesn't hurt it. Drop it successively from 5 foot increments and see what it does. Add a new hammer to it every time you drop it and see what happens. Drop your car on top of another car and then drop both of them on top of another car and see what happens. This is what happened on 9/11 in every building that collapsed. Fires weakened the structure and the kinetic energy destroyed them.
Click to expand...
I completely understand kinetic energy.

But the likelihood of a 100+ story building completely within its footprint is not something I'm buying. In you car drop analogy, imagine you had 100+ cars stacked on top of each other... and you dropped our car on top, what are the odds you car falls all they way through to the bottom and the pile of cars collapses within a narrow footprint? My argument is that if you dropped your car on a pile of 100+ cars, that that tower of cars would eventually tip over like a falling tree.
 
#248
#248
Rasputin_Vol said:
I completely understand kinetic energy.

But the likelihood of a 100+ story building completely within its footprint is not something I'm buying. In you car drop analogy, imagine you had 100+ cars stacked on top of each other... and you dropped our car on top, what are the odds you car falls all they way through to the bottom and the pile of cars collapses within a narrow footprint? My argument is that if you dropped your car on a pile of 100+ cars, that that tower of cars would eventually tip over like a falling tree.
Click to expand...
What if the stack of cars had a large diameter steel rod running up the center of the giant stack?
 
#249
#249
McDad said:
What if the stack of cars had a large diameter steel rod running up the center of the giant stack?
Click to expand...
Then you still wouldn't have seen the entire stack of cars flatten down to a footprint. You would have instead had a 80 or 90 car tower with maybe some of the higher cars falling off to the side.
 
#250
#250
Rasputin_Vol said:
I completely understand kinetic energy.

But the likelihood of a 100+ story building completely within its footprint is not something I'm buying. In you car drop analogy, imagine you had 100+ cars stacked on top of each other... and you dropped our car on top, what are the odds you car falls all they way through to the bottom and the pile of cars collapses within a narrow footprint? My argument is that if you dropped your car on a pile of 100+ cars, that that tower of cars would eventually tip over like a falling tree.
Click to expand...
It's the flow of energy Ras. Why would a building fall sideways if the energy is flowing down?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top