World Trade Center probably could not have been destroyed by planes

[PredFan]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!

But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?

I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.

Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.

Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.

You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.

and tell me what you have left.

A moron with a stupid hypothetical.

 

[TheCrusader]

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.

And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.

Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.

Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.

Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.

Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.

You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.


Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )

This is NOT how Buildings are constructed, I'm a FFII/Hazmat Tech/AEMT, and certified B Faller....you as a fell Fire/EMS should know better than to suggest that there are not Conductivity breaks in US Building Code.

Those breaks exist for all skyscrapers in NYC and have existed for over 100 years for all buildings over 7 floors.

All NYC buildings after 1910s are coded to collapse inward as well, if a floor collapses it has purposefully built "joints" to allow the floor to break at the wall so the walls are not undulyl stressed...the WTC are no different.

So the idea that the walls would be damaged as much as they were is also idiotic.

 

[PredFan]

Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.

Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.

Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.

You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.

Because the towers were solid steel. Right.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

thats what this resident troll of USMB always does when he cant refute facts,he goes into his childish tin foil hat insults when he cant counter facts. He got pissed at me and threw tartrems and fits when i pointed out to him once facts he ignored that there were multiple shooters in the JFK assassination,he has had me on ignore ever since i took him to school on that.

 

[TheCrusader]

Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.

Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.

You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.

and tell me what you have left.

A moron with a stupid hypothetical.

I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training. What do you have?

Guess what, most NYC Fire does not believe that WTC collapsed by fucking planes.

 

[PredFan]

Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.

Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

Of course I am able to think for myself....which is why I do not believe a thing your "gubermint" tells us. I bet you believe that Oswald acted alone.....right?

Yes, in fact I do. Tell me, do you think the moon landings were faked?

 

[Dale Smith]

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.

And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.

Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.

Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.

Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.

Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.

You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.


Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )

Buildings 1, 2 and 7 fell in a free fall manner and 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. I am not buying the official story whatsoever. Anyone that believes 17 arab hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters singlehandedly defeated NORAD, the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon is living in La-La Land.

 

[PredFan]

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.

Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.

You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.

and tell me what you have left.

A moron with a stupid hypothetical.

I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training. What do you have?

Guess what, most NYC Fire does not believe that WTC collapsed by fucking planes.

After reading your OP, I'm calling bull shit. I don't have any kind of engineering degree and I can spot the enormous errors in your theory.

 

[Dale Smith]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!

But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?

I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.

If the floors had actually pancaked, it would have taken longer to collapse. WTC 1 collapsed in 9.2 seconds start to finish.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.

Explain building 7 or the fact that 83 cameras surrounding the Pentagon were confiscated and all that has been released in 4 frames that make it impossible to tell what it was that caused that small hole on the south side of the Pentagon that was being used to search for the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld said on 9/10/01 was missing? People need to wake up because things are not what they seem at all.

the official conspiracy theory apologists never can account for bld 7,they ignore pesky facts and then resort to their childish tin foil hat comments when they are cornered and backed up against the wall.

they cant get around it that bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup.everytime i post a video that exposes it that explosives brought bld 7 down,they ignore it and never watch it since they are so much in denial.

 

[TheCrusader]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!

But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?

I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.

That makes absolutely no sense. The floors themselves are held up by a structural support that is capable of holding their weight.

If a floor can't hold the weight of the floors above it, the structural core FUCKING COULD.

Again, if you drop a branch out of a tree (floors), does the whole fucking tree explode and collapse?

GOD DAMN IT, USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.

Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.

You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.

and tell me what you have left.

A moron with a stupid hypothetical.

I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training. What do you have?

Guess what, most NYC Fire does not believe that WTC collapsed by fucking planes.

After reading your OP, I'm calling bull shit. I don't have any kind of engineering degree and I can spot the enormous errors in your theory.

so says the resident troll who runs off when he cant refute facts and puts people on ignore.

 

[TheCrusader]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!

But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?

I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.

If the floors had actually pancaked, it would have taken longer to collapse. WTC 1 collapsed in 9.2 seconds start to finish.

This doesnt even fucking matter.

The core of WTC is the tree, the floors are lightweight branches.

What happens to branches falling out of a tree as they hit other branches?

They BOUNCE OUT OF THE FUCKING TREE.

They don't tear down the goddamn core.

Stop using stupid logic to refute idiots, use basic obvious real world examples.

 

[The Great Goose]

The neatness of it was just so unlikely. Compared with other bungling suicide attacks it's just not in the ball park.

it stinks.

 

[PredFan]

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.

And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.

Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.

Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.

Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.

Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.

You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.


Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )

Buildings 1, 2 and 7 fell in a free fall manner and 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. I am not buying the official story whatsoever. Anyone that believes 17 arab hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters singlehandedly defeated NORAD, the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon is living in La-La Land.

We know.

None of you Truthers ever listen or learn, or reason beyond what you want to hear.

It's more fun to just make fun of you.

 

[Dale Smith]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!

But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?

I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.

That makes absolutely no sense. The floors themselves are held up by a structural support that is capable of holding their weight.

If a floor can't hold the weight of the floors above it, the structural core FUCKING COULD.

Again, if you drop a branch out of a tree (floors), does the whole fucking tree explode and collapse?

GOD DAMN IT, USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

The inner core of WTC 1 and 2 was rebar incased in concrete. At the very least the inner core should have been left standing.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Anyone that believes 17 arab hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters singlehandedly defeated NORAD, the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon is living in La-La Land.

Spoiler: Possibly offensive

 

[TheCrusader]

How the WTC collapse should have actually occured would have been EITHER the top fell off like the top of a tree breaking off.

Or the "pancaking floors" hitting the resistance of other floors supported by a MASSIVE CORE CAPABLE OF HOLDING THEIR WEIGHT should have collapsed out and down and slid out of the whole structure like cards falling off a tipping table.

A-shape collapse is most likely, with floors sliding off like shingles on a roof.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

View attachment 58373 It was an inside job I tell ya!

Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!

But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?

I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.

That makes absolutely no sense. The floors themselves are held up by a structural support that is capable of holding their weight.

If a floor can't hold the weight of the floors above it, the structural core FUCKING COULD.

Again, if you drop a branch out of a tree (floors), does the whole fucking tree explode and collapse?

GOD DAMN IT, USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

take it from me dude,this guy is USMB's resident troll.

View attachment 58374 View attachment 58374 View attachment 58374 View attachment 58374 View attachment 58374 View attachment 58374

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.

And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.

Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.

Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.

Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.

Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.

You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.


Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )

Buildings 1, 2 and 7 fell in a free fall manner and 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. I am not buying the official story whatsoever. Anyone that believes 17 arab hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters singlehandedly defeated NORAD, the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon is living in La-La Land.

We know.

None of you Truthers ever listen or learn, or reason beyond what you want to hear.

It's more fun to just make fun of you.

so says the resident troll hypocrite who resorts to name calling whe he cant refute facts and puts people on ignore when they point out his lies.