GK and Raoul, for your review and comments
- Thread starter Bankerreturns
- Start date
The steel heated up and expanded. It bowed out and peeled like a banana. The steel would no remain uniform or in tact at those temperatures. The external walls swelled out.
That is what happened and th conspiracy folks did not mention that in the video. They are misleading people by not stating this.
That is what happened and th conspiracy folks did not mention that in the video. They are misleading people by not stating this.
Headman, how did a fire at the top of the building heat the metal in the bottom 40-50 floors?
I don't think it was some government conspiracy, but I found the points in this video interesting and believe structural engineers probably understand this better than I do.
I don't think it was some government conspiracy, but I found the points in this video interesting and believe structural engineers probably understand this better than I do.
Get a steel rod or pole. Heat it at the top. It becomes pliable. Then leans out. The inner floors collapse. Basically a mushroomjng effect.
The people who continue to send this crap out have no grasp of general engineering principles or physics for that matter.
Take off your tin foil hat and come back to reality.
Take off your tin foil hat and come back to reality.
I don't either, so how about an explanation in layman's terms explaining how the towers fell at a freefall rate?
I won't watch it. I think it's all crap. The second I saw the second plane hit I knew the towers were coming down. And I still swear the first (second to fall) was leaning ever so slightly before it fell.
The only 9/11 conspiracy I will entertain is Flight 93 was shot down as the cabin was being stormed by passengers. There were two E4 B's in the air that day for planned exercises. One over DC, one over the Elkins WV region. Eyewitnesses told the Elkins newspaper that one was flanked by two fighters (and that article has disappeared from the internet, but I have read the actual paper from that day.) From there to PA is mere minutes in a fighter. The Pentagon story that assets never were close enough to intercept Flight 93 are bullshit. Given that bullshit, it is plausible it was shot down. And if it was, I don't blame the government for lying about it; first, it reveals specifics of the training exercise that day, and second we all know a large percentage of our dumbass citizens would be outraged.
The only 9/11 conspiracy I will entertain is Flight 93 was shot down as the cabin was being stormed by passengers. There were two E4 B's in the air that day for planned exercises. One over DC, one over the Elkins WV region. Eyewitnesses told the Elkins newspaper that one was flanked by two fighters (and that article has disappeared from the internet, but I have read the actual paper from that day.) From there to PA is mere minutes in a fighter. The Pentagon story that assets never were close enough to intercept Flight 93 are bullshit. Given that bullshit, it is plausible it was shot down. And if it was, I don't blame the government for lying about it; first, it reveals specifics of the training exercise that day, and second we all know a large percentage of our dumbass citizens would be outraged.
The fuel went all the way to the lobby. It burned from almost to the top to the bottom.
I just explained it.
The metal beams heated and expanded. They became like hot wet noodles. The outer vertical beams spread out and the inner floors had nowhere to go but down.
Wouldnt the bottom floors have to crumble previous to the upper floors falling to allow for freefall rate?
If the bottom floors didn't crumble first, it seems there would still be some resistance that would disallow freefall rate.
F=ma
Google it. Structure is weakened by fire. Floor above collapses on floor below since the floor below was weakens it couldn't support the mass above. Now instead of one fooor falling you have two on to the floor below. That floor is also weaker due to fire and can't support weight of two floors collapsing above. It's a domino effect explained by simple physics. The mass keeps getting bigger and bigger meaning force keeps getting bigger and bigger, thus the entire building collapsing.
Google it. Structure is weakened by fire. Floor above collapses on floor below since the floor below was weakens it couldn't support the mass above. Now instead of one fooor falling you have two on to the floor below. That floor is also weaker due to fire and can't support weight of two floors collapsing above. It's a domino effect explained by simple physics. The mass keeps getting bigger and bigger meaning force keeps getting bigger and bigger, thus the entire building collapsing.
I believe the discovery channel (maybe History channel) had a special on this several years ago. The architect of the TT was included on the episode. He explained exactly how the building was designed and how exactly each floor caved in (starting towards the top) dropping straight down.
He (the architect) also explained how the building was only designed to take a direct hit from a Boeing 707. Said it was probably a miracle they stood as long as they did based on the force of impact and explosion.
He (the architect) also explained how the building was only designed to take a direct hit from a Boeing 707. Said it was probably a miracle they stood as long as they did based on the force of impact and explosion.
I didn't say the floors far below the fire were weakend. If you take a second and think critically of what was typed you'd understand. The floors directly where the plane crashed and fire started were weakened. The fire did spread I don't know how far down the building, but once it starts coming down the mass falling continues to increase as does the acceleration. This means the force coming down continues to increase more than likely exponentially with the increasing mass.
In terms easier for you to understand. Once it started coming down nothing would stop it PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION
Yeah I did. But I don't accept a fire that lasted less than an hour weakened steel beams 10 - 20 floors below it. You understand that?
I'm not questioning that it would come down. I am questioning that it would come down at freefall rate.
There's nothing stopping it once it gets moving. drop a brick through a window. It doesnt slow down. Once the main support structure is compromised it no longer functions properly.
I'm surprised someone hasn't chimed in with "JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS".
The floors were not load bearing, the outer frame was. It didn't take much mass to start pancaking the floors.
Are you saying there was zero resistance to those floors falling through another floor?
aviation fuel.
Put this in a perspective you might understand: someone dumps a whole quart of varnish on a counter top just beneath the poor quality cabinet you just hung. The varnish will burn through the bottom of the cabinet until all the heavy contents dump straight down. Additionally, the fire will burn through the counter top, so now you have your recycled cool whip and butter containers in a melted goo pile all the way down to the floor.
that help?
Put this into perspective. When all that stuff burns and falls through the counter top, that base cabinet under the counter top has a shelf in it attached to the sides. It meets resistance.
Here you go, you f*cking idiot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wor...ed_demolition_conspiracy_theories?wprov=sfla1
Now put 20 cabinets filled with four inch thick concrete, some steel, and a bunch of shit on fire and drop it on the counter top. Repeat with 40, then 80, then 100 and you start to get the idea. Also weaken the base cabinet sides attached to the counter top by flying a plane through them at 500 mph.
No. I said that based on the force the resistance of the floor below wasn't enough to stop the load from above. The fire was t localized to one floor or area. The plane exploded on impact sending jet fuel all over the place starting fires all over the building, not just at the impact site.
I swear you are being intentionally dense in this conversation just because. It really isn't that difficult
Good Lord. The outers supporting beams were weakened and then when the floors above starting going down it was like folding up an accordion.
Here goes go greed. Once again arguing just to argue and he looks like a tool doing it.
you would think that someone that builds stuff would know what happened and how.
Pathetic.
you would think that someone that builds stuff would know what happened and how.
Pathetic.
No, you and the others are being dense. Once again, I am questioning the possibility of the building collapsing at freefall rate. It is my understanding that physical laws state that's impossible. Do you or anyone else in this thread understand that? If physical laws allow it, let me know. Otherwise resistance would have slowed it down according to my understanding, even the brick through glass would have been slowed.
I've answered that. The force was so large that the floor underneath the collapse wasn't strong enough to slow it down enough to make a difference.
And yes the glass would slow the brick but you wouldn't be able to tell just by watching it with the naked eye
You'll have to forgive him, 429. Greed doesn't understand the physical properties of anything that's not cheap particle board.
They did not collapse at "free fall rate". To your eyes it looks like "free fall". It was approximately two seconds longer than "free fall" (this can be learned from many studies available on line.) There is your resistance...which was futile. Those floors were designed to hold furniture and humans...now other floors, which soon became lots of other floors...with very brief periods of acceleration (because it's not in a vacuum, there are very brief moments of very light resistance (and light resistance from air), and gravity is acting as the F in Newton's 2nd law of motion). And it's not a static load, it is a dynamic load. Rivets and welds had no chance. There isn't a damn thing on Earth built to take that.
You can watch videos and actually see flung debris falling faster than the building.
Never mind that if the buildings did indeed "free fall' in a controlled manner there would not have been huge pieces of shit hitting buildings up to 500 feet away.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
RIVALS NFL Draft: Where the first-rounders ranked in high school- Latest: Chris McLaughlin