The Story of 9/11

[RyanTheRhino]

Trying to argue for the sake of arguing but its hard to support a side that's losing lol.. this is the only thread with people posting no fun

 

[kelly4]

turns out they didn't account for the fuel

REALLY?!?!?! Turns out I'm not the dunce.

Who's the dunce?....c'mon
Who's the dunce?....


LOL!!

 

[MellowFarmer]

We irrefutably had advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam war was conducted on a lie in the Gulf of Tonkin, and operation Northwoods was conspired to be executed. What reason is there to believe the government may of not been involved in 9/11?I see the "facts" from both sides, but when I see someone who absolutely finds no reasoning as to why the US government would get involved, I see that person as someone who screams ignorance on a level that is hard to comprehend. There is absolutely nothing hard to comprehend about the US government potentially being involved in a terrorist attack, as they have proven to have conspired terrorism on this country before in the past.

It's called brainwashed.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

They were engineered for the lateral force of wind.

They were NOT engineered to have the top 20-30+ stories suddenly drop a couple of stories.
Once the initial drop occurs, there's no stopping it. For every story it dropped, it had that much more mass coming down on itself.

You have no proof this happened and NIST doesn't support this theory anyway. And even if that did happen, it still wouldn't come down with no resistance at all (it fell at free fall speed, not herky jerky).

Do you imagine 3 floors just suddenly disappeared allowing for this to happen as well as all the support structures that existed on these 3 floors moments prior to the collapse (clearly as evidenced by video) ?

 

[NoDrama]

That's like comparing jumbo jets to paper airplanes. Come on.

Soooo.....you've seen house fires, now you're an expert on how the worlds most massive building should perform under extreme duress?

There are other people on your side of the debate who claim to be EXPERTS because of the EXACT same thing. HA HA.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

the towers didnt fall at freefall speeds you can tell that by looking at the debris falling at a quicker rate compared to the towers

Yes, they did. The tops of the buildings are at ground level in approximately 11 seconds in both cases, which is consistent with free fall plus a little bit of wind resistance.

have you any idea of how much weight was above the burning areas? and have you any idea how much force that weight translated into once it started its downwards journey?

Except it would never start it's downward journey unless there was a massive symmetrical failure caused by an external force, and even then it would be slowed greatly by the remaining structure and would have been a much more disastrous collapse unless the rest of the supports were taken as well. You can see it standing strong right up until the button is pressed or the timer goes off. Then it all instantly fails at the same time.

Do you have any idea that most skyscrapers are designed to hold up multiple times their own weight? Do you know how much potential force that is? I'll just answer for you, a fucking lot. But that all magically instantly disappeared all at once.

 

[kelly4]

You have no proof this happened and NIST doesn't support this theory anyway. And even if that did happen, it still wouldn't come down with no resistance at all (it fell at free fall speed, not herky jerky).

Do you imagine 3 floors just suddenly disappeared allowing for this to happen as well as all the support structures that existed on these 3 floors moments prior to the collapse (clearly as evidenced by video) ?

Not ALL of the support structures have to go bad, only enough to not support the massive weight above it.

Once again, as somebody else pointed out, it didn't free fall!

So, you think the building should hesitate in it's fall every 5 or 10 floors, or what?

 

[NoDrama]

Cela a peu de sens pour un Québécois, je suis peut-être dans le besoin de pratique. Êtes-vous d'accord qu'il parle de son pénis trop?

Listen to this, you might get it.[video=youtube;yX6FsTIq6ls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX6FsTIq6ls&feature=related[/video]
It isn't about a penis
Quebec isn't the best place to learn French I guess, got their own dialect.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

There are other people on your side of the debate who claim to be EXPERTS because of the EXACT same thing. HA HA.

You don't need to be an expert to know this whole scenario is absurd. Just basic understanding of physics, a willingness to be objective and a strong understanding of how to think clearly. Most people have been taught how to run to a book or authority figure for an answer. Not how to think. And most people tend to avoid subjects like physics in school as well. So, it is what it is.

I've never claimed to be an expert. But I am quite well informed and have researched this subject extensively.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Trying to argue for the sake of arguing but its hard to support a side that's losing lol.. this is the only thread with people posting no fun

lol i see your problem you too honest. you should take some tips from the old masters they dont let silly things like the truth get in the way of them keeping this going

nodrama for an example been posting this half truth for years now while completely ignoring the part where a fucking skyscraper hit it

I saw a cute couple kissing in the Park. How many people am I talking about?

PS. who said anything about the pentagon? I don't remember it being totally destroyed.?

so you wanna get good at this game follow his example. lie, twist, ignore, bring out ridiculous analogies and once you gone far enough you can go straight back to square one

its a merry old dance when you get good at it

 

[kelly4]

Yes, they did. The tops of the buildings are at ground level in approximately 11 seconds in both cases, which is consistent with free fall plus a little bit of wind resistance.



Except it would never start it's downward journey unless there was a massive symmetrical failure caused by an external force, and even then it would be slowed greatly by the remaining structure and would have been a much more disastrous collapse unless the rest of the supports were taken as well. You can see it standing strong right up until the button is pressed or the timer goes off. Then it all instantly fails at the same time.

Do you have any idea that most skyscrapers are designed to hold up multiple times their own weight? Do you know how much potential force that is? I'll just answer for you, a fucking lot. But that all magically instantly disappeared all at once.

Yep. Engineered to hold themselves up, everybody agrees. Even engineered to fly a plane with no fuel into it.

Engineered to resist 20 some stories making a sudden drop down ward? NO.
Once it started, it gathered mass with every foot it fell.
To think it would meet extra resistance somewhere on the way down, is pure nonsensical.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Yes, they did. The tops of the buildings are at ground level in approximately 11 seconds in both cases, which is consistent with free fall plus a little bit of wind resistance.

.

The towers where 1,368 ft.

X = 1368 ft
Vo = 0 ft/s
ac = 32.2 ft/s

x = x[SUB]o[/SUB] + v[SUB]o[/SUB] t + ½ a t[SUP]2[/SUP]
(1368*2/32.2)^1/2 = t

t = 9.22 seconds

 

[NoDrama]

Not ALL of the support structures have to go bad, only enough to not support the massive weight above it.

Once again, as somebody else pointed out, it didn't free fall!

So, you think the building should hesitate in it's fall every 5 or 10 floors, or what?

The massive weight above it that its been holding up with no problem for over 30 years? Did we forget that the core is what supports the weight? The core can't crumble and remove it's support without the aid of explosives or some other kind of outside force. The fires were not that hot, people were standing there after the plane crashed...[video=youtube;px-nflAtHJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px-nflAtHJY&feature=related[/video]

If the fires were hot enough to melt the steel so badly that the entire floor collapses at the same moment, then that woman would have been a charcoal briquet, it would be impossibly hot to stand where she is without bursting into flames.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Not ALL of the support structures have to go bad, only enough to not support the massive weight above it.

Once again, as somebody else pointed out, it didn't free fall!

So, you think the building should hesitate in it's fall every 5 or 10 floors, or what?

What should happen is a much more asymmetrical failure (if a failure at all). Where supports remained tremendous resistance would also remain causing an uneven distribution of loads resulting in an initiation of collapse where those supports disappeared where it would continue on that path until it met the remaining supported building (of which it was an overwhelming %) and then topple in the direction of least resistance (not into the building, but off to the side).

That's assuming the collapse is even plausible in the first place.

What you and your friends are suggesting is that two objects don't influence each others rate of travel. Any basic physics experiment will tell you otherwise and in a case like this the rate of travel would be influenced very strongly by the resisting force as the resisting force is by far the strongest of all of them (it had to be to withstand all the forces the towers were subjected to). It's a force much stronger than gravity. Much stronger than the wind that blew the building back and forth.

Anyway, you're at the point where you're denying reality when you say it didn't free fall. Straight up.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The towers where 1,368 ft.

X = 1368 ft
Vo = 0 ft/s
ac = 32.2 ft/s

x = x[SUB]o[/SUB] + v[SUB]o[/SUB] t + ½ a t[SUP]2[/SUP]
(1368*2/32.2)^1/2 = t

t = 9.22 seconds

Wind resistance and they actually fell in less than 11 seconds but I am being generous.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Wind resistance and they actually fell in less than 11 seconds but I am being generous.

I didn't say anything that is just the theoretical free fall time under ideal conditions.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Yep. Engineered to hold themselves up, everybody agrees. Even engineered to fly a plane with no fuel into it.

Engineered to resist 20 some stories making a sudden drop down ward? NO.
Once it started, it gathered mass with every foot it fell.
To think it would meet extra resistance somewhere on the way down, is pure nonsensical.

I guess in your world pool balls just run through each other and never stop due to the resisting forces.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Yes, they did. The tops of the buildings are at ground level in approximately 11 seconds in both cases, which is consistent with free fall plus a little bit of wind resistance.

i suggest you watch the video of the collapse again. pay carefull attention to the debris that has been thrown clear of falling building. that debris is falling at freefall it is moving faster than the building that is collapsing that is all you need to blow away your claim of wtc falling at free fall

Except it would never start it's downward journey unless there was a massive symmetrical failure caused by an external force, and even then it would be slowed greatly by the remaining structure and would have been a much more disastrous collapse unless the rest of the supports were taken as well. You can see it standing strong right up until the button is pressed or the timer goes off. Then it all instantly fails at the same time.

the first tower to fall leant at a 20% angle before its downward descent that shows clearly that it waasnt a simulatnius faliure

Do you have any idea that most skyscrapers are designed to hold up multiple times their own weight? Do you know how much potential force that is? I'll just answer for you, a fucking lot. But that all magically instantly disappeared all at once.

can you tell me the difference between static and dynamic load?

your right the potential force is huge en to rip the building apart when that static loading turned dynamic

 

[NoDrama]

nodrama for an example been posting this half truth for years now while completely ignoring the part where a fucking skyscraper hit it

You trying to convince us that one of the WTC towers fell onto #7, this is going to be fun to watch you try and prove that one. The fact that WTC towers fell 5 hours before WTC#7 did pretty much proves you wrong right there.

 

[kelly4]

The massive weight above it that its been holding up with no problem for over 30 years? Did we forget that the core is what supports the weight? The core can't crumble and remove it's support without the aid of explosives or some other kind of outside force. The fires were not that hot, people were standing there after the plane crashed...[video=youtube;px-nflAtHJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px-nflAtHJY&feature=related[/video]

If the fires were hot enough to melt the steel so badly that the entire floor collapses at the same moment, then that woman would have been a charcoal briquet, it would be impossibly hot to stand where she is without bursting into flames.

Without some kind of outside force......Like a giant plane full of fuel?

We were already told that the main supports were on the inside. That woman is standing on the outside wall. FAIL!