World Trade Center probably could not have been destroyed by planes

[shadow355]

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.

About the year 1991, 2000, 2001 or there abouts ; I most always seen cars pass me, or around me with biblical stickers. The most famous one " In case of rapture, this vehicle will be abandoned". For about eight months straight......vehicles around me ; but most generally passing me on the interstate.....with religious themed stickers.

After the 8 months......it stopped. I never seen another car with religious themed stickers again.

Now a vendor that enters the metal plant I work at, drives in with religious stickers all over his vehicle.

Hmmmmmm - yeah that's what I said.

I wonder whom he is? Seems to be consistent with someone......I used to know.


Same "M.O." as I have mentioned many times before.

Same "M.O" as well as "Ulterior motives". And the bumper sticker events was not the only thing that was "bombarding and consistant - then abruptly stop" in the late 90s - early 2000 years.


Shadow 355

 

[TheCrusader]

People just use your common sense, if you hit a brick wall with one brick you can't take down the whole brick wall...unless you used some very high velocity.

If the floors pancaked they would just have simply fallen out of the building once they hit the still standing still undamaged SUPER STRUCTURE below it.

Or the whole top would have just fallen off leaving the rest standing.

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

I believed the official story for 11 years but when I found out that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11/01 and the spy grid was put in place before 9/11? I decided maybe I should look into the events that day more carefully. If I can wake up, anyone can.

 

[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%.

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

Wrong again. It is complete consistent with the tremendous weight pressing down. Also, there was an enormous amount of debris and dust obstructing the view of the collapse.

 

[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.

Crusader,you might as well be arguing with a one month old baby,you would have better luck thats for sure. this troll put me on ignore years ago when in a JFK discussion i posted pesky facts he could not refute that there were multiple shooters and there is no way oswald could have been the lone assassin. when I kept asking him to refute it he started calling me names and has had me on ignore ever since.

ignore this troll,dont waste your breath on him.all he does is go into insult mode and whine like the hypocrite baby he is when you insult him back.he can dish it out but he cant take it.dont bother with him.move on to someone else

you have heard the old saying before-

advise i would follow with him.

 

[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.

Wrong again. It is complete consistent with the tremendous weight pressing down. Also, there was an enormous amount of debris and dust obstructing the view of the collapse.

Tremendous weight? Are you stupid?

18 floors is not tremendous compared to 92 floors.

92 floors can more than easily support an impact from the 18 floors above it that it is designed to HOLD UP.

 

[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.

Crusader,you might as well be arguing with a one month old baby,you would have better luck thats for sure. this troll put me on ignore years ago when in a JFK discussion i posted pesky facts he could not refute that there were multiple shooters and there is no way oswald could have been the lone assassin. when I kept asking him to refute it he started calling me names and has had me on ignore ever since.

ignore this troll,dont waste your breath on him.all he does is go into insult mode and whine like the hypocrite baby he is when you insult him back.he can dish it out but he cant take it.dont bother with him.move on to someone else

you have heard the old saying before-

advise i would follow with him.

Be that as it may, I sharpen my own nascent thought by arguing...so it helps me to clarify what I am starting to understand.

 

[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.

Wrong again. It is complete consistent with the tremendous weight pressing down. Also, there was an enormous amount of debris and dust obstructing the view of the collapse.

 

[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%.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

you are thinking CREATIVELY -----in accordance with the creativity of the koran----
it is OBVIOUS what happened ------DA JOOOOOS DID IT-------using Talmudic
magic. The planes were not really there. It was an animated recreation----
footage shopped

lol rosie is funny as hell

 

[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%.

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.

Because the towers are just like a tree. Right.

 

[Missourian]

Simple.

Imagine this.

Once those supports are gone, they transfer the weight of all the weight above disproportionately to the supports that remain.

Those supports buckle the supports of the floor directly beneath them.

That transfers a disproportionate amount of weight to the remaining supports and the supports beneath them...which buckles them.

It's a chain reaction.

Add the shear stress of the weight force shifting from vertical to near diagonal...a direction from which the supports were most vulnerable...only added to the collapse.

 

[TheCrusader]

Predfan, do you realize that hitting structurally sound 92 floors with the 18 floors above it that it is designed to support the weight of, is like hitting a fence post with a water balloon?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

I believed the official story for 11 years but when I found out that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11/01 and the spy grid was put in place before 9/11? I decided maybe I should look into the events that day more carefully. If I can wake up, anyone can.

Damn dude you been brainwashed THAT long by the government that 19 muslims were behind the attacks?

you mean to say you been listening to the CIA controlled media for 11 freaking years? jesus christ dude,it only took me THREE years before i spotted the bullshit lies of the 9/11 coverup commission.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Predfan, do you realize that hitting structurally sound 92 floors with the 18 floors above it that it is designed to support the weight of, is like hitting a fence post with a water balloon?

again why do you argue with this child dude?

 

[Penelope]

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.

Personally I think all 3 buildings were planned demolitions. Look at all players involved. Perfect to say terrorist attack and go to war. The way the buildings came down was not by planes, I agree. The hospitals around the areas didn't get the victims they thought, just responders. Those buildings were old and full of asbestos, would of been a fortune to fix. Killed two birds in one stone, and lots of people got rich.

 

[Indofred]

The momentum gained by falling would explain why the lower sections of the buildings were badly damaged.
My concern is why they fell from the top instead of the area of most damage and why was the fall vertical, not to the side of greatest damage?

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

I believed the official story for 11 years but when I found out that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11/01 and the spy grid was put in place before 9/11? I decided maybe I should look into the events that day more carefully. If I can wake up, anyone can.

Damn dude you been brainwashed THAT long by the government that 19 muslims were behind the attacks?

you mean to say you been listening to the CIA controlled media for 11 freaking years? jesus christ dude,it only took me THREE years before i spooted the bullshit lies of the 9/11 coverup commission.

Yeah, I was late to the reality check but I have been making up for lost time.

 

[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.

Because the towers are just like a tree. Right.

Actually yes they are, they have a central core that is like a massive bole, and they have floors supported much like a tree's branches anchored into the core bole.

Of course an idiot like you would think my analogy is "simplistic" or "ignorant" when in fact it's how sky scrappers are designed.

 

[PredFan]

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.

I believed the official story for 11 years but when I found out that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11/01 and the spy grid was put in place before 9/11? I decided maybe I should look into the events that day more carefully. If I can wake up, anyone can.

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.

Wrong again. It is complete consistent with the tremendous weight pressing down. Also, there was an enormous amount of debris and dust obstructing the view of the collapse.

Tremendous weight? Are you stupid?

18 floors is not tremendous compared to 92 floors.

92 floors can more than easily support an impact from the 18 floors above it that it is designed to HOLD UP.

I already explained that to you. It's only 18% for the floor directly under that. It grows with each collapsing floor.