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

#51
#51
Yet, the official investigation has not and will not release their modeling data to be peer reviewed to prove the fire theory...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
The funniest thing is the people screaming conspiracy and inside job are the same people that refuse to question government on anything else. It's hilarious.
 
#60
#60
Grand Vol said:
Look up the floor load theory...

It didn't start at free fall speeds, but when thousands and later hundreds of thousands of tons of material is plopped onto a floor that's not capable of handling it, you are going to get a progressively faster destruction rate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#62
#62
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...

So based on your experience in the field (and probably dabbled in the 9/11 report I'd bet) does the theory hold about the lateral support not holding which is what brought the building down in such a manner as to look controlled?
 
#63
#63
Obsessed said:
How much fuel does a 767 carry?

I'm curious...I know that jet fuel is nothing more than diesel. So I could see how it would burn longer than say gas.
Click to expand...
It depends on the length of the flight and expected weather, but normally from the east coast to west coast we only have the wing tanks full which would be about 82,000 lbs or 12,000 gallons +/-. if we need the center you can add almost double that amount. That's why johnny jihad is gonna go after big airplanes.

And yeah, it's diesel, but high grade diesel. We can't afford flameouts due to impurities.
 
#64
#64
Grand Vol said:
So based on your experience in the field (and probably dabbled in the 9/11 report I'd bet) does the theory hold about the lateral support not holding which is what brought the building down in such a manner as to look controlled?
Click to expand...

I have not read the report. That theory does make sense when you consider the towers were designed as basically a solid "slender" core inside of a "tube". The core is very slender with relation to its height. Slender columns need lateral support at frequent intervals in order to reach their compressive capacity. The outer tube was compromised which took out bracing points for the slender core, thus the core lost its compressive capacity.
 
#65
#65
SpaceCoastVol said:
It depends on the length of the flight and expected weather, but normally from the east coast to west coast we only have the wing tanks full which would be about 82,000 lbs or 12,000 gallons +/-. if we need the center you can add almost double that amount. That's why johnny jihad is gonna go after big airplanes.

And yeah, it's diesel, but high grade diesel. We can't afford flameouts due to impurities.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thank you sir.

I'll have some questions for you in the off topic thread as well about flying. If and when you have time.
 
#66
#66
Oh sweet bearded baby jesus. Please if you can't spell physics or comprehend basic science don't ever try and discuss why the towers fell. You just look dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#67
#67
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I never said they didn't have prior knowledge of an impending attack. I think that's the most likely scenario. Google operation able danger.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that particular operation, but this is essentially what I've always thought. Well-documented evidence shows that the Bush Administration was briefed numerous times by the security establishment on the threat posed domestically and internationally to American assets/interests by al-Qaeda. Time and again, they chose to ignore the warnings, only meeting as a cabinet to discuss the threat in earnest a week before 9-11. Clearly, the administration did not do what it could to prevent the attack.

That being said, it is unreasonable and highly unlikely that the administration knew of this specific attack or even that it (or other shadowy American figures) were involved in the attack. I think it is reasonable and, given the Bush Administration and its apparent values, even highly possible, that they knew about an impending terror attack but did nothing to stop it so that it would allow them a lot of lead way, domestically and globally, to achieve certain aims they wanted accomplished. I do not, however, believe for one second that, even if they knew of an impending 9-11 scale attack, that they allowed it to happen. I don't think a 9-11 scale attack was needed to accomplish such goals. A Paris-scale attack would have sufficed. Why waste so many of your assets in the WTC and in global trade if this is some vast, evil neo-liberal conspiracy? Doesn't make sense.

As for the Israel conspiracies, I can't speak to that, but I find it highly unlikely. In life, as in philosophy, typically the simplest explanation that still makes sense, given probability of physical phenomena, is the answer. What's the simplest explanation: that a well-organized, well-funded Islamic terror organization, like al-Qaeda, was able to pull off a large scale attack, or that Mossad and the global Zionist cabal was able to do it without ever being found out, before or after? Personally, I think the former is the simplest.
 
#68
#68
FLVOL_79 said:
Oh sweet bearded baby jesus. Please if you can't spell physics or comprehend basic science don't ever try and discuss why the towers fell. You just look dumb.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#70
#70
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
About building 7.
Here is a picture of the side of building 7 that never gets talked about. Building 7 was very close to the north tower and sustained major damage during the collapse of the north tower.
Click to expand...

Asymmetric damage doesn't give you the kind of symmetric collapse we saw for Building 7. It shouldn't have fallen straight down at free fall velocity. Instead, the weaker side would have given way while the undamaged side should have held strong.
 
#71
#71
Abe Hoffman said:
Aren't jet fuels kerosene-based, not diesel?
Click to expand...

We mixed 50/50 of diesel and kerosene in the winter for the tractors so they would start easier. I'm sure winter blend diesel has kerosene in it. Hence my lower mpg's in the winter in my pick up truck.

My shop heater will burn both kerosene and diesel. So their properties must be pretty close.
 
#72
#72
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's all about grades when it comes to steel. Basically what he was showing you is that steel loses its strength when heated. It doesn't have to melt, it just has to lose the ability to hold the load that is on it.

I think people in government knew an attack was coming. I don't think they knew exactly what would happen. The able danger operation is very damning though.
Click to expand...

I think most people realize and understand this. However, there are 2 things that people cannot believe. Firstly, that in 3 separate events that day, you had 3 buildings with asymmetrical damage that all fell symmetrically down in the normal direction. Secondly, even with the metal strength weakened by heat, metal doesn't yield at free fall velocity, nor would you expect to see the inelastic collisions of each floor compounding on to one another occur at free fall velocity. At the very least, the first floors or set of floors that fell in each case should have had their kinetic energies converted to the energy needed to bend the weakened metal on the floor below it once the collision occurred, then the next floor would have experienced that same thing and so on... not at free fall speed.
 
#73
#73
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Again, that's a lot of weight falling. It would be a pancake effect. With one floor and the numerous floors on top of it falling on the rest of the structure.
Click to expand...

Inelastic collisions... on floor on top of another on top of another, with the kinetic energy of the falling floor(s) being converted to the energy needed to bend the steel of the floor below it, and so forth. That would take a lot longer to occur than at free fall speed.
 
#75
#75
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...


Again, it will be very hard to explain asymmetrical damage leading to symmetrical failure in the normal direction at close to free fall velocity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top