Honest question about 911

[PredFan]

The whole "controlled demolition" garbage never made any sense at all. The buildings were burning and there was no way to stop the fires, they would have fallen at some point. Steel girders are made by fire, they can be unmade by fire. Rosie O'Donnell and the truther morons evidently have never seen a steel mill.

Just more proof fires do not melt steel. The buildings came down very quick and so did #7, all freefell pretty much.

Fire does in fact melt steel. It is how steel is formed, with FIRE.

 

[PredFan]

The whole "controlled demolition" garbage never made any sense at all. The buildings were burning and there was no way to stop the fires, they would have fallen at some point. Steel girders are made by fire, they can be unmade by fire. Rosie O'Donnell and the truther morons evidently have never seen a steel mill.

Just more proof fires do not melt steel. The buildings came down very quick and so did #7, all freefell pretty much.

A basic understanding of engineering will show you how the collapses occurred. Once one floor gave way the rest was inevitable. What people think was demolition, was fire being squeezed out as the spaces between the floors closed.

There is a lot that can be hypothesized surrounding the events that transpired before that day, and what certain intelligence agencies may or may not have known, but there is no mystery about what happened after the planes hit the towers.

No planes hit the # 7 and it free fell. Planes with thermobaric bombs, and nano thermite would of done it right?

 

[PredFan]

Truthers make me laugh. The gullibility of some people is comical.

 

[SAYIT]

In terms of accounting for the aircraft, how much of each was recovered & accounted for - FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 & FLT93 ?

I can't im

WHY is it that there is such a HUGE contrast between the way that aircraft bits were accounted for say in the case of Pan Am 103
and the airliners allegedly hijacked on 9/11/2001?

Why is it you are ignoring every photograph of airplane wreckage at any site, any eye witness account that affirms passenger jets, the ASCE report affirming the damage to the pentagon was consistent with a passenger jet collision and lays out the location of the bodies of the passengers of Flight 77, and the positive identification of the bodies pulled from the Flight 93 and Flight 77 crash sites as being the passengers of the respective flights?

You're certainly big on insinuation. But you haven't given us a rational reason to ignore the *legion* of evidence that contradicts you. You simply ignore it all...

.....for no particular reason.

No thank you.

NoSpAm must have a reason for acting the persistent fool in this matter.
He has just been persistently unwilling to share it.

 

[n0spam4me]

Does anyone know of a paper, or video, written or produced by structural engineers that support the view of a plane causing a building to collapse and why the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? And why a building not hit by a plane could collapse from a fire?

Considering the fact that in the case of one total failure of a structure
The Tacoma Narrows bridge is commonly cited as an example in Eng. school, however the ever so famous and problematic failure of WTC1,2 & 7 on 9/11/2001 isn't discussed in Eng school ... WHY?
heavy controversial stuff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_Collapse

 

[Skylar]

Truthers make me laugh. The gullibility of some people is comical.

Many of them are emotionally invested in their conspiracies. And

Does anyone know of a paper, or video, written or produced by structural engineers that support the view of a plane causing a building to collapse and why the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? And why a building not hit by a plane could collapse from a fire?

Considering the fact that in the case of one total failure of a structure
The Tacoma Narrows bridge is commonly cited as an example in Eng. school, however the ever so famous and problematic failure of WTC1,2 & 7 on 9/11/2001 isn't discussed in Eng school ... WHY?
heavy controversial stuff?

Um, you've never been to Engineering school. You have no idea what is being discussed or isn't. You're literally making up your narrative as you go along. And as you've already demonstrated, you're still stumped by the basics of physics.....having laughably claimed that there can be no acceleration if there is resistance.

Alas, acceleration under gravity is entirely possible in the face of resistance. And in fact, almost all acceleration that occurs does so in the face of resistance.

When you finally get how basic physics works, then you can move on to Engineering school. But you're kinda putting the cart before the horse the way you're doing it now.

 

[SixFoot]

Does anyone know of a paper, or video, written or produced by structural engineers that support the view of a plane causing a building to collapse and why the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? And why a building not hit by a plane could collapse from a fire?

Are you really young and just now thinking of these things, or do you have an axe to grind?

 

[Skylar]

Does anyone know of a paper, or video, written or produced by structural engineers that support the view of a plane causing a building to collapse and why the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? And why a building not hit by a plane could collapse from a fire?

Are you really young and just now thinking of these things, or do you have an axe to grind?

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. Truthers run into problems when they ignore answers.

Brock didn't, seeming genuinely interested in seeing the NIST reports on the collapse.

 

[SixFoot]

Does anyone know of a paper, or video, written or produced by structural engineers that support the view of a plane causing a building to collapse and why the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? And why a building not hit by a plane could collapse from a fire?

Are you really young and just now thinking of these things, or do you have an axe to grind?

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. Truthers run into problems when they ignore answers.

Brock didn't, seeming genuinely interested in seeing the NIST reports on the collapse.

I specifically remember watching live, as one of the cameras were zoomed in on the breech point of the tower, seeing a giant steel beam buckle under the flames, followed by the catastrophic collapse of the first building.

Some years later, someone had posted that same video clip during one of the hundreds of truther threads on another board. I wish I had saved it.

I wish the first thing people would realize is that buildings that tall are built to fall exactly like that. You don't want the twin towers or anything similar falling like a tree.

 

[daws101]

In terms of accounting for the aircraft, how much of each was recovered & accounted for - FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 & FLT93 ?

Which of course, means nothing. That any of the wreckage was found at all indicates planes crashed.

And you never did answer ... if there were no hijackings, what happened to Barbara Olsen? She hasn't been seen since that day.

The issue as to what happened to any given "passenger" if indeed they ever boarded the flight in question ( or for that matter did said flight exist at all ) is a tangent and not pivotal to the discussion. The real issue here is do you believe that its possible to simply make tons of aircraft wreckage disappear? what happened to it, did a mad wizard wave his wand and make all the aircraft bits go away?

what an asshole..

 

[n0spam4me]

May I ask, were is the DOCUMENT that is the bit that explains exactly how much of said aircraft & luggage & human remains was recovered?
Physical material is not destroyed, if an airliner containing 50 tons of aluminum crashes and burns, were are you gonna hide 50 tons of aluminum oxide? or for that matter 50 tons of melted aluminum? So the whole story of how the airliners were completely destroyed in the various events of 9/11/2001 is a crock! the fact is that there was a magic trick done, lets make 4 airliners disappear! .... and the trouble is, all too many people were fooled by the scam.

 

[n0spam4me]

".....having laughably claimed that there can be no acceleration if there is resistance."

Please provide the quote ..... Also note that acceleration at 9.8 m/s^2 is the bit that is acceleration of gravity without any resistance under the falling bit, and note that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2.

Please don't misquote me

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The whole "controlled demolition" garbage never made any sense at all. The buildings were burning and there was no way to stop the fires, they would have fallen at some point. Steel girders are made by fire, they can be unmade by fire. Rosie O'Donnell and the truther morons evidently have never seen a steel mill.

Just more proof fires do not melt steel. The buildings came down very quick and so did #7, all freefell pretty much.

Fire does in fact melt steel. It is how steel is formed, with FIRE.

as always predfan troll has to LIE to avoid facts,hee hee.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Truthers make me laugh. The gullibility of some people is comical.

oh the irony.

this coming from a guy who ditched junior high school science classes fellow truthers.

 

[Skylar]

".....having laughably claimed that there can be no acceleration if there is resistance."

Please provide the quote ..... Also note that acceleration at 9.8 m/s^2 is the bit that is acceleration of gravity without any resistance under the falling bit, and note that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2.

Please don't misquote me

Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.

n0spam4me
Post: 290

911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition Debunkers Grab Your Ankles Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I quote you better than you do. You started with 'the WTC buildings'. Only now that you've been proven ludicrously, stupidly wrong about basic physics do you start desperately backpedalling with 'the WTC buildings' magically morphing into only the WTC 7. Yes, Spammy.....acceleration can occur in the face of resistance. And in fact virtually all acceleration does.

Second, your time line is off. 19 seconds before the facade of the WTC 7 collapsed, the Penthouse on the top of the building began collapsing. 6 seconds before the collapse, the penthouse fell into the middle of the WTC 7. Not 'off of'. But INTO. Demonstrating undeniably and undebatably that the WTC 7's internal structure was already collapsing long before the facade fell. Putting your time line off by nearly an order of magnitude.

Third, the collapse initiated on the 13th floor. 33 floors beneath the penthouse. And 15 floors beneath the 18 or so stories that we saw collapsing. When the 13th floor collapsed, all floors above it would fall. You insist this is impossible. Play a game of jenga one day and knock out all piece from the middle of the stack. If the pieces in the upper half don't continue to float in the air, your theory is disproven.

Fourth, bombs were virtually impossible. The building was on fire on virtually every floor. And any system of explosives would have been on fire as well. Melting or detonating them haphazardly before they could have brought down the WTC. The collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in near perfect silence where actual controlled demolition is ludicriously loud. There are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza. The WTC plaza had been swept for bombs only a week before the collapse by the Port Authority bomb squad.

And no girders were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

Fifth, the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC due to fire and structural damage hours before it came down. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. They were witness to the massive structural damage the building had sustained when chucks of the collapsing WTC 1 had torn massive holes in WTC 7. They listened to the building groan as the fires grew out of control until nearly every floor was on fire.

The FDNY abandoned their fire fighting effort, pulled their people back and waited for the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage. And they nailed it, with the building coming down within about an hour of their prediction.

And you already know all of this. You just really hope we don't. And how do you deal with this obvious and conspiracy killing contradiction of your little theory? You ignore it entirely, pretending it never happened.

So, um...how's that working out for you?

 

[n0spam4me]

I did NOT allege that acceleration at all required no resistance
I did say that the acceleration of gravity requires that there be no resistance under the falling mass.

The problem here is that people are very busy attempting to negate the 2.25 sec of acceleration that WTC7 very clearly fell at 9.8 m/s^2 for that period of time and at the same time the North & West walls kept their shape. Just exactly how is that done with chaotic fires? Was the building constructed with some sort of magic internal zipper so as to make it fall straight down in the case of catastrophic fire & damage?

Like a tapestry with a pulled thread, the very fabric of society has been distorted.
This will become more apparent as time passes.

 

[Skylar]

The problem here is that people are very busy attempting to negate the 2.25 sec of acceleration that WTC7 very clearly fell at 9.8 m/s^2 for that period of time and at the same time the North & West walls kept their shape. Just exactly how is that done with chaotic fires? Was the building constructed with some sort of magic internal zipper so as to make it fall straight down in the case of catastrophic fire & damage?

That's been explained to you exhaustively. The center columns had already collapsed. Remember the penthouse that collapsed INTO the WTC 7 that you've tried so desperately to ignore? It fell because the central columns were already gone BEFORE the facade collapsed. And the first full floor to go was the 13th. Below the portion of the building you saw falling, which was floor 30 or so up. When the 13th floor collapsed, all the floors above it fell. Which at that point was little more than the facade of the structure.

And since you just admitted 'chaotic fires' you've negated even the possibility of explosive demolition. As no system of explosives can operate while on fire. Detonators would have detonated, wires would have melted, transmitters, control boards or timers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. You just disproved your own silly conspiracy. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

None of the girders were cut. So where's the 'demolition' in your explosive demolition? And why when the collapse of the WTC 7 began....was it in virtual silence? There are no such thing as silent explosives. The NIST looked into controlled demolition and found no evidence of it. You have no physical evidence, nothing backing your theory.

Sorry.....but your explanation sucks. While the NIST's matches the evidence. You've never even given us a reason to ignore the FDNY and their assessment that the building was going to collapse due to fire and structural damage. You just ignore them too.

But why would anyone interested in what actually happened? You're more interested in polishing your turd than you are in the truth. As you'll ignore anything, even the theory killing holes in your own conspiracy, to continue to cling to your debunked nonsense.

No thank you.

 

[n0spam4me]

Keep it simple ...... asymmetrical damage + fires, caused three steel framed skyscrapers to "collapse" straight down. Thats a good one!

 

[Skylar]

Keep it simple ...... asymmetrical damage + fires, caused three steel framed skyscrapers to "collapse" straight down. Thats a good one!

Keep it simple: bombs were a virtual impossibility. Your theory requires bombs. Thus, your theory is virtually impossible.

And what direction was the building 'supposed' to fall? Diagonally? Sideways? Up?

When you've folded *gravity pulling downward' into your conspiracy, clearly you've gone a bit too far down the conspiracy rabbit hole.

 

[n0spam4me]

did you actually watch the news coverage of the day? There were LOTS of sounds of explosions and an abundance of reporters talking about the explosions and the secondary explosions and the speculation that there may be devices in the buildings not to mention a seasoned news reporter who said that the fall of WTC7 constituted the third time today that a building has "collapsed" reminiscent of the events we have all seen were an old building is intentionally destroyed by well-placed dynamite.

as for what direction the building was supposed to fall,
the straight down nature of the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 clearly indicates that ALL of the structural elements gave way exactly on-time, in order to produce the result. If say the connections on the west side of the tower had held on just a bit, and resisted, the center of gravity of the upper mass would have shifted to the east and tipped and the whole thing would become unstable such to dump mass quantities of material over one side of the tower thus stopping the action. What magic kept the upper mass aligned above the center of the tower?