The IMPOSSIBLE didn't happen on 911

[SAYIT]

The design of the building was unchanged.

First of all, you ignored the actual question (for obvious reasons I might add). let me repeat it for you. What was the safety factor of the floors after being impacted by the jet? Was it still a 4?

You really have no clue do you? See your next quote for proof of this...

Really? The downward movement of the upper structure at collpase initiation did not increase the load/force at all????

Are you friggin' stupid?

Hmmmm. Let's try an experiment. Place a 20 pound weight on a scale. 20 pounds right? Now drop the same weight from ten feet and tell me what the impact registers.

In other words the structure was still capable of supporting the damaged floors.

When the load was static you moron!!!

Jesus H. Christ!!

No wonder you believe controlled demolition and all the other bullshit.

Sounding a little shrill there.

Don't forget that the direction of impact of the falling upper floors was through the line of most resistance and there is what engineers refer to as the conservation of momentum. The point being that without something weakening the lower structural columns the fall of the upper floors would have been arrested. The pancaking theory doesn't hold water because with each successive floor impact the momentum would have been reduced. Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four. It would have slowed down, not continued at near free fall speed in a symmetrical fashion.

You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions which have negatively impacted on your conspiracy theory.
Since neither you nor I are scientists I will once again post the opinion of one who is:

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.
Steven Dutch - (Nutty 9/11 Physics)

 

[SAYIT]

I choose the latter. Like usual, they distort to suit their agenda.

Just look at eots' old posts regarding James Quintiere. He'll quote nine things from him to support his bullshit, yet ignores the fact that James still believes that fire caused the collapse.

Go figure.

You can't fix mendacious.

You can't rebut the fact that nothing explains WTC7 other than controlled demolition. You can't point to another example of a steel frame high rise suffering total collapse due to fire. The NIST and you are making extraordinary claims but you know that means you need extraordinary proof and all you have is the equivalent of the fairies did it.

And you know I'm right because now you're left with nothing more than calling me a lier.

Your conspiracy theory is debunked.

Now look who's sounding shrill.
The fact that no other steel framed buildings have collapsed is not proof of your conspiracy theory ... a controlled demo.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” - Steven Dutch (Nutty 9/11 Physics)

 

[candycorn]

Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.

In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.

We are to believe that the highjacker was with very little flight training able to make a very tight descending spiral turn and slam into the Pentagon. Professional pilots have attested to the difficulty of this maneuver and doubted an amateur could pull it off. Then the plane punched thought the side of the Pentagon which is two feet thick steel reinforced concrete, the wings folded back but remained attached to the fuselage as well as the tail section and were dragged into the building where it continued on through the structural support columns (these are very substantial as it is a three story structure) and all the way to where it punched another hole in the "C ring" wall in the interior of the Pentagon. Then the entire plane along with the passengers and baggage almost completely burned up, leaving only a couple of pieces of wreckage which could have come from an airliner. Pictures taken immediately after the impact make clear that the exterior wall was still intact and the large structural failure was due to the ensuing fire so what ever hit the pentagon punched through the exterior as it did the "C ring" wall. I noted that one would expect to find at least the tail section on the ground outside the building and much more debris. The conspiracy theorists (defenders of the official story) pointed to a video of a fighter jet on a rail being slammed into a block of concrete as evidence that the plane would have been obliterated, but the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to tell what was left of the plane, besides if the plane was obliterated upon contact how did it punch through the exterior wall, the structural columns and the "C"ring wall? Additionally, even if all these improbable events did occur, the idea that the plane was almost entirely consumed by fire is silly. Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires. There should have been large globs of melted aluminum inside the pentagon but the pictures of the aftermath don't show this. Finally I pointed out that there is YouTube video of an airliner of like size and weight which crashed on takeoff in Lagos Nigeria. It slammed into the side of a much less substantial wood frame apartment building. It did not penetrate all the way through. The tail section as expected was almost untouched and though the plane exploded and burned the airframe is easily recognized, and passengers and luggage are clearly evident. The conspiracy theorists want to hang their hat on the fact that some debris which looks similar to airliner parts were found and that light poles out side the Pentagon were knocked down or that DNA was "found" inside the Pentagon days later. Clearly, this was a conspiracy and if as I am saying it was not as a result of the official conspiracy theory, then the real conspirators had every motivation to plant phony evidence to cover their tracks.

Then there is WTC7, the smoking gun as it were. Here, if it weren't so monstrously evil it would be laughable. The evidence which can be gleaned overwhelmingly points to controlled demolition. Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at near free fall speed into its own footprint. This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor. The chances of this happening from a random event are so vanishingly small that it must be considered IMPOSSIBLE! The NIST report asserts that this was the result of a moderate office fire but presented no science to back it up. They may as well have blamed it on fairies. Again YouTube video provides an example of what structural failure due to fire looks like. Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire. It rages uncontrolled for nearly two days and finally there is some structural failure. This failure is as would be expected, near the top (heat rises), slow in developing and asymmetrical. The aftermath shows a burned out wreck but with the structural frame largely in tact. The building did not simply collapse entirely in seconds.
If you are honest with yourself you simply can't ignore the obvious, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!

For the 3rd time the bldg was missing 18 floors at one corner.

Again....explain the wreckage on the pentagon lawn and the downed light poles if AA77 didnt crash there...as well as the DNA.

CHECKMATE

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....

Wow, you can not point to a single instance of what you are claiming in the case of WTC7. NOT ONE! Please show me where it has ever happened.

Oh you can't, you just have your totally debunked theory that somehow a moderate office fire caused the sudden, immediate and total collapse of the type of building which is the most engineered in history.

Your theory is as plausible as claiming fairies did it.

As for the Pentagon, again it is your theory that somehow a plane punched through two feet of steel reinforced concrete, plowed through major support columns and somehow caused the punch out hole in the "c" ring wall and then completely burned up leaving only a couple small parts behind.

None of that theory was ever proven, but that is the theory you have chosen to defend.

You are the conspiracy theorist.

What am I claiming? What are you claiming? There was no Moderate office fire in Bldg 7 there was a uncontrolled office fire if you would get off the truther sites and find real proof, but you don't want real proof do you. Take a look at the south side of WTC 7 instead of the north side....Moderate office fire? i think not.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Afb7eUHr64U#]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]!

A couple small parts at the pentagon? And the DNA evidence? Do you understand how the pentagon is built? What the walls are like after the reinforced Facade? Once the plane was through that it was nothing for the blast of the fuel to reach the C ring wall. Besides all the parts that were found of the plane and the bodies...

I bet you think a missile did it, And you want to know why the Air defense systems didn't stop it...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

5 farts in a row from the paid trolls.

 

[Gamolon]

Don't forget that the direction of impact of the falling upper floors was through the line of most resistance

Most resistance? Are you friggin' nuts?! You must be. Explain how the floor below the descending upper section is the "path of most resistance"? Each floor is designed to handle the load of people, computers, desks, cubicles, etc., not handle the descending force/load an entire upper third of the building.

And you claim to understand structures???

and there is what engineers refer to as the conservation of momentum.

You have no clue what this means do you? According to you, if I throw a baseball at the window of a house, the window should resist the baseball and not shatter.

The point being that without something weakening the lower structural columns the fall of the upper floors would have been arrested.

What do the columns have to do with ANYTHING? The upper section impacted the floor directly below. There is no way the truss connections could handle this force and were ripped apart. You idiots seem to think the structures are solid objects, what you fail to realize is that these structures were designed to handle static loads, not loads in motion.

Since you claim to know and understand so much about structural engineering, please show us how much of a load/force was generated by the upper descending section and how it compares to what the "safety factor of 4" load limit was. I'll bet you that you have NO CLUE and are just parroting the words of other delusional people.

The pancaking theory doesn't hold water because with each successive floor impact the momentum would have been reduced.

Who said anything about a pancake theory? The upper section was ripped apart, but it STILL was a descending mass. Each floor it impacted ADDED to the mass.

Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four.

And this is where you are COMPLETELY incorrect. As explained above, each floor was designed for live loads, not the support of the entire structure above. Your stupidity is really beginning to show. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

The weight of the floor's live loads are transferred to the columns, which is transferred to the grillages set on bedrock at the base.

Are you trying to tell me that the floor my desk is sitting upon right now has the entire weight of the above section of the building (floors, people, columns, everything) placed upon it?

 

[Gamolon]

Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four.

Time for your lesson wihosa...

Here is a diagram showing just how much bullshit your "understanding" of structural loads, floors, columns, and load distribution really contains.

As I stated earlier, the floors are designed for live loads. Live loads are changing loads consisting of people, cubicles, computers, etc. The floors, trusses, and truss connections are calculated and designed to support/distribute those live loads for THAT FLOOR ONLY!

Do you get that part? FOR THAT FLOOR ONLY.

Let that sink in before going on.

Tell us why, using your vast structural engineering wisdom, were the floor trusses and connections of floor number 1 in the twin towers not more robust than the floor trusses and connections of floor 98 in the same tower if the floors took care of the loads of the building structure above? Look at the diagram above again. The arrows pointing downward to the floors represent the live load. The arrows pointing left/right beneath the floors is the live load from the floors being distributed to the columns. The arrows point downward on the columns are showing the combined loads of everything being distributed down to the foundations (grillage components in this case).

The point were the live load of the floor meets the column is were the connections (floor truss connections) are at. All of the connections and trusses are designed to work together to distribute the live load of THAT FLOOR ONLY to the columns they are attached to. They are NOT designed to handle the entire structure above as you so stupidly claim.

It was the core columns and perimeter columns that increased in size and strength the further down you went. That's because those core columns (and to some extent the perimeter columns) were responsible for supporting/and transferring the loads of the building above to the grillages, NOT the floors. Here is a grillage to be used at the base of one of the columns. This grillage component was set on bedrock.

 

[Gamolon]

So, based on my post above wihosa, how much of a load was each floor able to support/resist?

Next, figure out how much of a load was imparted on the immediate floor below the descending upper section?

Let us know what you get.

Hopefully you'll begin to see that the floor below was no match for the upper descending section's load and sheared the floor connections from the perimeter and core columns. This happened all the way down the towers. This is why you see the perimeter columns falling outward like a peeled banana. Once the floors were sheared away, there was no lateral support to keep the perimeter columns from falling outward from the tower itself.

That's why you see many of the perimeter columns in the debris with their floor truss connections sheared off.

What looked like these, circled in red:

Now look like this:

 

[Gamolon]

You have demonstrated that it is you who does not know the meaning of symmetrical.

Yeah. One section of the building, followed by the next, followed by the next...

That's symmetrical all right...

You obviously don't know what symmetrical means. It means that some think that the whole structure of WTC7 came down at the same time. This is why idiots like eots and Gage show only the remaining facade coming down and neglect showing the east penthouse. It's so that they can lie to people and claim a "symmetrical collapse".

 

[Gamolon]

What experience do you have with structural steel?

What experience?

I've dealt with structural steel and much more. Below is just a little of what I have done.

I did on-site damage assessment studies for the following two disaster sites:

IMC/Angus Chemical
NHRA News: Plant explosion leads to nitro shortage

Shell Oil
Fatal Shell blast may disrupt TPEs. (Shell Chemical Co. explosion in Belpre, Ohio, thermoplastic elastomers) - Chemical Week | HighBeam Research

I was a construction supervisor for blast furnace relinings. I designed, supervised the installation of, and the cleaning of an oxygen line in the River Rouge Complex. I design the hydraulic system for a slab mill. I've done thickness testing on vent stacks in steel mills. I designed and installed piping modules for Anhueser Busch. I designed pipe supports for the The Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele Utah. I've done design work for all the various disciplines such as structural, mechanical, architectural, process piping, and civil, working directly with engineers who did all sorts of calculations and analysis.

Good enough for you?

 

[eots]

What experience do you have with structural steel?

What experience?

I've dealt with structural steel and much more. Below is just a little of what I have done.

I did on-site damage assessment studies for the following two disaster sites:

IMC/Angus Chemical
NHRA News: Plant explosion leads to nitro shortage

Shell Oil
Fatal Shell blast may disrupt TPEs. (Shell Chemical Co. explosion in Belpre, Ohio, thermoplastic elastomers) - Chemical Week | HighBeam Research

I was a construction supervisor for blast furnace relinings. I designed, supervised the installation of, and the cleaning of an oxygen line in the River Rouge Complex. I design the hydraulic system for a slab mill. I've done thickness testing on vent stacks in steel mills. I designed and installed piping modules for Anhueser Busch. I designed pipe supports for the The Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele Utah. I've done design work for all the various disciplines such as structural, mechanical, architectural, process piping, and civil, working directly with engineers who did all sorts of calculations and analysis.

Good enough for you?

No...

 

[SFC Ollie]

What experience do you have with structural steel?

What experience?

I've dealt with structural steel and much more. Below is just a little of what I have done.

I did on-site damage assessment studies for the following two disaster sites:

IMC/Angus Chemical
NHRA News: Plant explosion leads to nitro shortage

Shell Oil
Fatal Shell blast may disrupt TPEs. (Shell Chemical Co. explosion in Belpre, Ohio, thermoplastic elastomers) - Chemical Week | HighBeam Research

I was a construction supervisor for blast furnace relinings. I designed, supervised the installation of, and the cleaning of an oxygen line in the River Rouge Complex. I design the hydraulic system for a slab mill. I've done thickness testing on vent stacks in steel mills. I designed and installed piping modules for Anhueser Busch. I designed pipe supports for the The Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele Utah. I've done design work for all the various disciplines such as structural, mechanical, architectural, process piping, and civil, working directly with engineers who did all sorts of calculations and analysis.

Good enough for you?

You don't have to prove yourself to the CT'rs. They are the ones who have no proof...

 

[daws101]

wow deja vu' !
I feel like I've been here a 1000 times before and everything the CT'S posted then as now was:[ame=http://youtu.be/-JFfN5pKzFU]That is one big pile of shit. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jon_berzerk]

Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.

In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.

We are to believe that the highjacker was with very little flight training able to make a very tight descending spiral turn and slam into the Pentagon. Professional pilots have attested to the difficulty of this maneuver and doubted an amateur could pull it off. Then the plane punched thought the side of the Pentagon which is two feet thick steel reinforced concrete, the wings folded back but remained attached to the fuselage as well as the tail section and were dragged into the building where it continued on through the structural support columns (these are very substantial as it is a three story structure) and all the way to where it punched another hole in the "C ring" wall in the interior of the Pentagon. Then the entire plane along with the passengers and baggage almost completely burned up, leaving only a couple of pieces of wreckage which could have come from an airliner. Pictures taken immediately after the impact make clear that the exterior wall was still intact and the large structural failure was due to the ensuing fire so what ever hit the pentagon punched through the exterior as it did the "C ring" wall. I noted that one would expect to find at least the tail section on the ground outside the building and much more debris. The conspiracy theorists (defenders of the official story) pointed to a video of a fighter jet on a rail being slammed into a block of concrete as evidence that the plane would have been obliterated, but the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to tell what was left of the plane, besides if the plane was obliterated upon contact how did it punch through the exterior wall, the structural columns and the "C"ring wall? Additionally, even if all these improbable events did occur, the idea that the plane was almost entirely consumed by fire is silly. Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires. There should have been large globs of melted aluminum inside the pentagon but the pictures of the aftermath don't show this. Finally I pointed out that there is YouTube video of an airliner of like size and weight which crashed on takeoff in Lagos Nigeria. It slammed into the side of a much less substantial wood frame apartment building. It did not penetrate all the way through. The tail section as expected was almost untouched and though the plane exploded and burned the airframe is easily recognized, and passengers and luggage are clearly evident. The conspiracy theorists want to hang their hat on the fact that some debris which looks similar to airliner parts were found and that light poles out side the Pentagon were knocked down or that DNA was "found" inside the Pentagon days later. Clearly, this was a conspiracy and if as I am saying it was not as a result of the official conspiracy theory, then the real conspirators had every motivation to plant phony evidence to cover their tracks.

Then there is WTC7, the smoking gun as it were. Here, if it weren't so monstrously evil it would be laughable. The evidence which can be gleaned overwhelmingly points to controlled demolition. Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at near free fall speed into its own footprint. This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor. The chances of this happening from a random event are so vanishingly small that it must be considered IMPOSSIBLE! The NIST report asserts that this was the result of a moderate office fire but presented no science to back it up. They may as well have blamed it on fairies. Again YouTube video provides an example of what structural failure due to fire looks like. Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire. It rages uncontrolled for nearly two days and finally there is some structural failure. This failure is as would be expected, near the top (heat rises), slow in developing and asymmetrical. The aftermath shows a burned out wreck but with the structural frame largely in tact. The building did not simply collapse entirely in seconds.
If you are honest with yourself you simply can't ignore the obvious, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!

the jet didnt vanish most of it turned to plasma

as for the harder pieces

you can see parts laying all over the place

that day

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

The whole plane was vaporized? Even the engines? From a hydrocarbon fire?

.

no the pictures i posted show engine parts landing gear and other parts of the plane

most of the "vaporizing" was plasma that occurred before the fire

as for a "hydrocarbon" fire it is the available 02 that dictates the temp

of the fire

 

[SFC Ollie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4]Jet crash into wall - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

jet crash into wall - youtube

this is the most pointless video ever

 

[SFC Ollie]

It shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....

I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia-j1PLEzIk]Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

It shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....

I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon

its a incomplete clip that ends while the explosion is still occuring

 

[eots]

it shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....

I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon

why didint it punch a nice round hole before it disappeared ?