Blacksmith debunks 9/11 conspiracy theory

[TheCrusader]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

No, absolutely not, this is standard building practice in New York it's part of a safety system designed to cause floors that collapse not to also collapse wall supports.

You wouldn't understand, but you've never worked around building collapses, I have worked a number of rubble piles in my life.

What they are trying to say is the floors breaking away tore down the core, but as I have said else where this is about as stupid as saying branches falling out of a tree would tear the whole tree down...think about that for a second. How stupid does that sound? That's how dumb this "pancaking floor" theory sounds.

But I do offer an alternative explanation that can explain why the core became so weak on such large scale.

Remember, 18 floors is not a lot of weight or size for a building that is for 92 floors, completely strong and unbroken....

The top SHOULD have just fallen off like a top heavy cake breaking off the base.

All that being said let's criticize your "resource".

They say:

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web

Are they fucking stupid? Who do they fucking think they are kidding?

The WTC are specifically and WELL KNOWN to have been designed to withstand AT LEAST a 707 Jet impact.

And structurally it was capable of withstanding the impact. What it was not capable of, and the designers had no clue about in the 1960's was the result of a multi story jet fuel powered inferno and the effect that it would have on the steel structure. Add to that the fact that at the altitude where the jets impacted there is a constant high velocity wind blowing and the 1500 degree flames were increased to much higher levels by the blast furnace effect of the blowing wind.

It's all pretty simple.

No, again, absolutely not. First of all I question the concept that you will design a building to withstand a plane impact, then forget about all the jetfuel and forget what temperature it burns at.

Look I'm not disagreeing with you that the WTC came down on its own (without explosives or conspiracies).

What I'm disagreeing with is your mechanism. Look at my other thread and you'll see all the reasons why you think it came down are wrong.

Unless we explain a reason that makes sense, the conspiracy theorists will persist.

I'm crafting a hypothesis currently.

The Biggest reason the jet fuel theory is wrong is because so what?

So what if the jet fuel burns away all the supports on the 93rd-98th floors?

So the top falls over, or collapses onto floor 92 and then falls off like shingles from a high-pitched roof.

It doesn't destroy the whole building that was holding it up the whole time without the whole building itself being some how damaged.

You tell me how you think the other 92 floors became damaged enough that the top collapsed the whole core? I have an answer, but it's not "jet fuel".

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

No, absolutely not, this is standard building practice in New York it's part of a safety system designed to cause floors that collapse not to also collapse wall supports.

You wouldn't understand, but you've never worked around building collapses, I have worked a number of rubble piles in my life.

What they are trying to say is the floors breaking away tore down the core, but as I have said else where this is about as stupid as saying branches falling out of a tree would tear the whole tree down...think about that for a second. How stupid does that sound? That's how dumb this "pancaking floor" theory sounds.

But I do offer an alternative explanation that can explain why the core became so weak on such large scale.

Remember, 18 floors is not a lot of weight or size for a building that is for 92 floors, completely strong and unbroken....

The top SHOULD have just fallen off like a top heavy cake breaking off the base.

All that being said let's criticize your "resource".

They say:

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web

Are they fucking stupid? Who do they fucking think they are kidding?

The WTC are specifically and WELL KNOWN to have been designed to withstand AT LEAST a 707 Jet impact.

And structurally it was capable of withstanding the impact. What it was not capable of, and the designers had no clue about in the 1960's was the result of a multi story jet fuel powered inferno and the effect that it would have on the steel structure. Add to that the fact that at the altitude where the jets impacted there is a constant high velocity wind blowing and the 1500 degree flames were increased to much higher levels by the blast furnace effect of the blowing wind.

It's all pretty simple.

No, again, absolutely not. First of all I question the concept that you will design a building to withstand a plane impact, then forget about all the jetfuel and forget what temperature it burns at.

Look I'm not disagreeing with you that the WTC came down on its own (without explosives or conspiracies).

What I'm disagreeing with is your mechanism. Look at my other thread and you'll see all the reasons why you think it came down are wrong.

Unless we explain a reason that makes sense, the conspiracy theorists will persist.

I'm crafting a hypothesis currently.

The Biggest reason the jet fuel theory is wrong is because so what?

So what if the jet fuel burns away all the supports on the 93rd-98th floors?

So the top falls over, or collapses onto floor 92 and then falls off like shingles from a high-pitched roof.

It doesn't destroy the whole building that was holding it up the whole time without the whole building itself being some how damaged.

You tell me how you think the other 92 floors became damaged enough that the top collapsed the whole core? I have an answer, but it's not "jet fuel".

except only an idiot would think it came down on its own without explosives.

I could post all kinds of videos that have never been refuted but its a waste of time since you Bush dupes never bother to watch them only seeing what you want to see.

or do all these experts such as architects,engineers,witnesses who heard explosions in the basement before the plane struck above and these witnesses such as firemen experienced in explosives,mean nothing to you? and demoltion experts what they say mean nothing as well.

to call those witnesses liars and to disregard what demolition experts as well as architects and engineers say over what some idiot on the net or the government and media say is plain childish.

 

[Snouter]

They dude's theory demands the towers would have toppled over not implode.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What is ridiculous is that no engineering school has modelled anything about 9/11 in FOURTEEN YEARS. In 1940 it only took FOUR MONTHS to build a scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to duplicate the oscillations to try to find some way to stop them. But the bridge collapsed first. They did not have computers to do simulations in 1940.

It was only 12 years from Sputnik to Tranquillity Base so it is absurd for the United States to not have unequivocally resolved this by now. I do not believe a skyscraper that big could collapse even if no attempt was made for it to withstand an aircraft impact. The wind against a building that size would have greater force than the plane could apply, only less concentrated.

It is not having steel and concrete distribution data that is totally nonsensical. Neither a computer simulation nor a physical model can be done without that information.

psik

 

[Weatherman2020]

Sorry if this has been posted before. I don't frequent the forum, just thought this was interesting and present it for your consideration.

As Rossane said, it's idiotic to believe steel melts.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

They dude's theory demands the towers would have toppled over not implode.

which proves he is an idiot not aware of the facts.

so you had to go and resurrect an old dead buried thread just to tell us that? wow,just wow is all i can say.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The way the towers came down would require even heat over the whole floor for them to come straight down.
I just find that unlikely,you would think the heat would be more intense at the point of impact causing it to topple sideways.
Then you have building seven that came straight down and there was no jet fuel involved.
Kinda seems hinky to me.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The way the towers came down would require even heat over the whole floor for them to come straight down.
I just find that unlikely,you would think the heat would be more intense at the point of impact causing it to topple sideways.
Then you have building seven that came straight down and there was no jet fuel involved.
Kinda seems hinky to me.

bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they cant get around that explosives brought all three towers down.

btw,its incredible that the biggest story of the CENTURY in sports history next to USA beating Russia in the 1980 special olympics that the Rams coming back to LA is like ho hum news to you the fact i could never get you to reply to any PM i sent you on this.

i could understand you having no interest in it if you could care less about sports but i know that you ARE into sports and football though.

so i guess the next time when the next story of the century in sports comes along,not to bother talking to you about it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The way the towers came down would require even heat over the whole floor for them to come straight down.
I just find that unlikely,you would think the heat would be more intense at the point of impact causing it to topple sideways.
Then you have building seven that came straight down and there was no jet fuel involved.
Kinda seems hinky to me.

bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they cant get around that explosives brought all three towers down.

btw,its incredible that the biggest story of the CENTURY in sports history next to USA beating Russia in the 1980 special olympics that the Rams coming back to LA is like ho hum news to you the fact i could never get you to reply to any PM i sent you on this.

i could understand you having no interest in it if you could care less about sports but i know that you ARE into sports and football though.

so i guess the next time when the next story of the century in sports comes along,not to bother talking to you about it.

Oh I love football. I just care where the Rams play.
But you were right i'll give you that.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The way the towers came down would require even heat over the whole floor for them to come straight down.
I just find that unlikely,you would think the heat would be more intense at the point of impact causing it to topple sideways.
Then you have building seven that came straight down and there was no jet fuel involved.
Kinda seems hinky to me.

bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they cant get around that explosives brought all three towers down.

btw,its incredible that the biggest story of the CENTURY in sports history next to USA beating Russia in the 1980 special olympics that the Rams coming back to LA is like ho hum news to you the fact i could never get you to reply to any PM i sent you on this.

i could understand you having no interest in it if you could care less about sports but i know that you ARE into sports and football though.

so i guess the next time when the next story of the century in sports comes along,not to bother talking to you about it.

Oh I love football. I just care where the Rams play.
But you were right i'll give you that.

yeah i realise you are not a Rams fan but come on STILL,it IS the sports story of the century right after USA beating Russia.FACT!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The way the towers came down would require even heat over the whole floor for them to come straight down.
I just find that unlikely,you would think the heat would be more intense at the point of impact causing it to topple sideways.
Then you have building seven that came straight down and there was no jet fuel involved.
Kinda seems hinky to me.

bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they cant get around that explosives brought all three towers down.

btw,its incredible that the biggest story of the CENTURY in sports history next to USA beating Russia in the 1980 special olympics that the Rams coming back to LA is like ho hum news to you the fact i could never get you to reply to any PM i sent you on this.

i could understand you having no interest in it if you could care less about sports but i know that you ARE into sports and football though.

so i guess the next time when the next story of the century in sports comes along,not to bother talking to you about it.

Oh I love football. I just care where the Rams play.
But you were right i'll give you that.

yeah i realise you are not a Rams fan but come on STILL,it IS the sports story of the century right after USA beating Russia.FACT!

I dont know if i'd call it the sports event of the century in anyway,teams moving isnt historical unless it happens in your own backyard.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The way the towers came down would require even heat over the whole floor for them to come straight down.
I just find that unlikely,you would think the heat would be more intense at the point of impact causing it to topple sideways.
Then you have building seven that came straight down and there was no jet fuel involved.
Kinda seems hinky to me.

bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they cant get around that explosives brought all three towers down.

btw,its incredible that the biggest story of the CENTURY in sports history next to USA beating Russia in the 1980 special olympics that the Rams coming back to LA is like ho hum news to you the fact i could never get you to reply to any PM i sent you on this.

i could understand you having no interest in it if you could care less about sports but i know that you ARE into sports and football though.

so i guess the next time when the next story of the century in sports comes along,not to bother talking to you about it.

Oh I love football. I just care where the Rams play.
But you were right i'll give you that.

yeah i realise you are not a Rams fan but come on STILL,it IS the sports story of the century right after USA beating Russia.FACT!

I dont know if i'd call it the sports event of the century in anyway,teams moving isnt historical unless it happens in your own backyard.

Dude it was the sports event of the century next to USA beating Russia in the special olympics of course.

See you're comparing apples to oranges here when saying teams moving isnt historical because were not talking about a team leaving a city like the colts leaving baltimore for indianapolis for example,were talking about a team moving BACK to the city it left.a city that had over 5 decades of history and tradition.get with the program dude.

With the exception of the Raiders moving back to Oakland,no team in any professional sport had ever moved BACK to the city it left before.That was historical back then when the Raiders did it since it was the first time that ever happened in any sports franchise.

However the Rams moving back to LA was a MUCH bigger event than the Raiders moving back to oakland though because with the raiders,they were only in LA for just a dozen years when they moved back,plus they were part of the AFL expansion teams to join the NFL in 1960 so they did not have the historical ties to their city like the Rams did with LA.They were founded in the 1930's.

Plus the Rams were gone from LA much longer than the Raiders were.The raiders were only gone from oakland a dozen years where the Rams were gone from LA for 2 decades,21 years to be exact so it was MUCH bigger than the Raiders moving back to Oakland.it would be the same as if the yankees had left new york 20 years ago to move to new mexico and were coming back to new york,same thing.

here in my city in kansas i found out about the news because i heard someone talking on the phone to his friend saying-the rams are moving back to LA they just announced.

see he isnt even a rams fan but even HE thought it was news worth talking about.

If it wasnt such a HUGE news item,then that guy would not have been on the phone talking about it especially since he is like you,did not care one way or another.

anyways,since i never got an answer from you on this and your here now,got two questions for you that you can answer now.

1. dont you agree from watching this video here that it was pretty obvious back then jsut from looking at this video that they were coming back? I honestly think even a child would have logic and common sense from watching this video here,that they were coming back,agreed?




also check out these two videos here,wouldnt you agree they pretty much debunk they myth and propaganda over the years that LA is not a football town? these two Ram games here in these two videos look packed to me with even the upper decks full. agree?