9/11 Fourteen Years Later

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,490
9
0
Everywhere
I don't design buildings but I do know that the vast majority of the strength in a building is to deal with vertical forces. Horizontal forces such as caused by the plane crash, the weakening of the fire heated beams, and the elements above it collapsing will easily shear the bolts.
Hey Basketcase, why don't you answer my question above.
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,490
9
0
Everywhere
Well to be fair, comparing the two towers to a suspension bridge is about as accurate as comparing them to a tradition building design.
????? the fugi man was comparing the floor pans in the buildings to that of a suspension bridge ???????????
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd

No resistance = free fall.

The towers below the impact site for WTC 1 and 2 seemed to have no floors and core below it.
Just poof! Gone and the top floors above the impact site meet no resistance and fall at the speed of freefall.

WTC 7 a little fire, nothing so big that the fires are coming out the windows raging like crazy, you don't see that all around the building at all.


2 planes hit 2 buildings.
The buildings fall SYMMETRICALLY down at freefall speed with ZERO resistance below the impact sites.

A third building falls SYMMETRICALLY down because of fires which in the videos from all angles are not raging, there is no major smoke show as can be seen in the videos.

.....ANNNND the building falls SYMMETRICALLY.

2 planes, 3 buildings, all perfectly straight down.
If you believe that.....lol
Your claims about the WTC were thoroughly destroyed because they were totally inconsistent with what everybody can see in the YouTube videos. Why are you still posting this ignorant garbage?

Are you planning to use bluster to escape the truth?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Where did you come up with this crap, Suspension Bridge ???

This is a suspension bridge. These structures with re-enforced cables are built to support roadways in high wind areas, making the roadways more flexible during these conditions. The floor pans of WTC 1 and 2 were attached (bolted) from
the front steel columns to the inner re-enforced steel cores. No cables in sight. Why would you ever compare this to a suspension bridge ??? You have no clue what your talking about.

The point was to highlight to you that unlike 99.9% of towers where the floors are held up by columns that support their weight, the floors in the WTC were essentially hung from a frame. There were only a couple of buildings EVER built that way, and most of them collapsed on 9/11. No one is claiming it was set up with ropes. However, how it resists wind forces in fact is an issue in a building that tall.

In any case:

To compare what happens in a conventional compression structure to the WTC is just stupid.

And a look at YouTube videos of the collapse immediately tell you that it did NOT come down the way a building does when explosives are used to destroy internal support columns this building didn't even have. Any YouTube expert claiming otherwise is quite bluntly a bullshit artist.

You can visibly see with your own eyes that the bottom of the building does not move downwards as the falling part above travels downward and crushes it.

Since anyone can see that with their own eyes I don't know why you are still blithering on about this indisputably debunked conspiracy claim. Trolling?
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
Really? In all your extensive research you don't understand the basics of the building construction?

To put it simple enough for you, floors were suspended between the core and the exterior so as soon as the fastenings failed, all that is left is gravity.
GPIDEAL posted an excellent site and it shows how it's astoundingly impossible for the floor which is like a "suspension" (bridge, sic: Fuji LOL) to simultaneously be weakened by fires AND be able to drag the outside columns of the building in.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html
YOU SERIOUSLY think that's possible?

Let me quote you "I don't design buildings but I do know that the vast majority of the strength in a building is to deal with vertical forces".
If that's the case, why did the core (which is at the center and goes up aka - "vertical") just collapse so easily?



http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html
"On the one hand we are being told that the steel of the trusses was weakened by the heat of fires, and on the other hand we are being told that this weakened steel was strong enough to pull the perimeter walls inwards until the structure failed. This is self-contradicting nonsense."





When Flight 11 flew into WTC 1, one of two things should have happened:

If the building had nothing more than steel trusses bolted between the inner core and perimeter walls there should have been an immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors (but the core should have remained intact).

If the building was solidly constructed it should have remained standing.
Neither of the above occurred.
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
Your claims about the WTC were thoroughly destroyed because they were totally inconsistent with what everybody can see in the YouTube videos. Why are you still posting this ignorant garbage?

Are you planning to use bluster to escape the truth?
2 planes, 3 buildings = 3 buildings collapsing PERFECTLY straight down in perfect symmetry.

LOL okay there Fuji.
Where are those huge fires in WTC 7? You know the ones big enough to compromise steel and coincidentally bring down a building ...........again, straight down.
Not big huge raging fires all around the building, just a few pockets.


Even if you INTENTIONALLY tried to heat steel beams and columns to uniformly to weaken a structure, it's incredibly improbable for it to fall straight down.
Can you imagine the logistics behind something so calculated???????

Instead, you're believing (although I don't think you can be THIS incredibly stupid) ........that something SO CHAOTIC....
....you're going with the "debris" and "office fires" and ONE weakened column IN THE CORNER of the building theory eh?
LOL


Add to that, no other buildings collapsed because of the debris and fires either.
What are the odds huh? Astronomical, seriously astronomical.

Oh man, so blatantly in your face and you still deny it. But I think this is simply about pro-America/Israel for you, that's all.

Thanks for the intentional dishonesty, again. Awesome stuff! LOL
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
If you take a look at actual reports and because of the debris and buildings around, there is no way to actually measure the time it took.

But photos clearly show debris falling past parts of the intact building so the building wasn't collapsing at free-fall.
Here's a picture for you.
The WTC 5 got a few lumps of debris, the US Postal building looks pretty damn good to me and VERIZON which is right next door to WTC 7 looks unscathed as well. AMAZING!
Looks to me like the debris and fires were pretty selective in how and where they fell.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
2 planes, 3 buildings = 3 buildings collapsing PERFECTLY straight down in perfect symmetry.

LOL okay there Fuji.
Where are those huge fires in WTC 7? You know the ones big enough to compromise steel and coincidentally bring down a building ...........again, straight down.
Not big huge raging fires all around the building, just a few pockets.


Even if you INTENTIONALLY tried to heat steel beams and columns to uniformly to weaken a structure, it's incredibly improbable for it to fall straight down.
Can you imagine the logistics behind something so calculated???????

Instead, you're believing (although I don't think you can be THIS incredibly stupid) ........that something SO CHAOTIC....
....you're going with the "debris" and "office fires" and ONE weakened column IN THE CORNER of the building theory eh?
LOL


Add to that, no other buildings collapsed because of the debris and fires either.
What are the odds huh? Astronomical, seriously astronomical.

Oh man, so blatantly in your face and you still deny it. But I think this is simply about pro-America/Israel for you, that's all.

Thanks for the intentional dishonesty, again. Awesome stuff! LOL
A bunch of blithering nonsense.

You still have no answer to the fact that everybody with eyes can see that the building below the impact site remained motionless as the building above collapsed, crushing it, totally destroying your controlled demolition claim.

You are a troll.
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,490
9
0
Everywhere
A bunch of blithering nonsense.

You still have no answer to the fact that everybody with eyes can see that the building below the impact site remained motionless as the building above collapsed, crushing it, totally destroying your controlled demolition claim.

You are a troll.
Fugi you yourself have no answers, especially to my post #293 above. BTW with your 61,000 + posts, your in no position to call anybody a TROLL !!
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I want to bring across four very important points.

What kind of energy -

1 - Can pulverize two buildings into minute powder and dust ?





2 - Can turn the foundation into molten rock and metal ?





3 -Can fuse different materials into one solid mass ?





4 -Can sustain heat to the point of melting steel, for three months ?







Look it up and you'll find your answer. But don't insult my intelligence by telling me it was the mere falling of buildings.
A building with the mass of the WTC falling has that much kinetic energy.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Fugi you yourself have no answers, especially to my post #293 above. BTW with your 61,000 + posts, your in no position to call anybody a TROLL !!
I have answered your question but let's take a moment to reflect that all those YouTube experts you trotted out have been PROVEN to be bullshit artists.

Rather than run from that to some new claims you should actually just stop and recognize that the majority of your sources have been PROVEN WRONG: the building did NOT fall the way they claimed, and everybody can see that is true just by going to YouTube.

You can certainly go create a never ending series of questions, all of which can be answered, but at what point do you realize that you have been had? When the majority of what you have posted to date gets refuted so thoroughly doesn't that cause you to question your sources?

You can't win the debate by running from your own arguments as they collapse, constantly throwing out new claims, hoping something eventually sticks. You just demonstrate that you are an unreasonable person when you do that.

Let's agree that when the controlled demolition with bombs on support columns claim is debunked that the whole conspiracy theory can be dismissed, for having had the credibility of its adherents destroyed. Otherwise you will just run from one ludicrous claim to another without ever admitting you were wrong and frankly create a boring never ending thread.

(Yes, I'm moving in for the kill.)
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,490
9
0
Everywhere
Fugi I understand you like to read technical documents. Well then why don't you read this document. I know it goes against your grain, but you know what, too bad.
I'll post a video afterwards too make my point about what I posted above. Whether you disagree or not is insignificant to me. Btw nuclear demolition was approved
by the US Government years ago. ;) Also this was documented by a Dimitri A. Khalezov a Russian military who was in charge of investigating all nuclear test sites.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
A bunch of blithering nonsense.

You still have no answer to the fact that everybody with eyes can see that the building below the impact site remained motionless as the building above collapsed, crushing it, totally destroying your controlled demolition claim.

You are a troll.
2 buildings 3 planes, all fall down perfectly straight down.

You're going on about this bottom half remaining motionless, is this all you have now?
Since your "suspension" bridge-like theory seems to be out the window - so to speak.

Newton's 3rd Law.
4:44 in the video below.
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
A building with the mass of the WTC falling has that much kinetic energy.
I would believe that MAYBE if it were from floors 20 through to 110.
This was not the case though.
The planes hit at the 81st floor which would be 1/5th of the entire building. Which really is laughable, let's be serious for a moment.

WTC 1 - impact zone was between floors 93 and 99 out of 110. 15% of the building
WTC 2 - impact zone was between floors 77 and 85 out of 110. 30% of the building

BOTH planes hit different areas, different speeds, angles, velocity if you will, BUT the end results were IDENTICAL.
You wanna talk about insane probability, there you have it.

Oh yeah, WTC 7 not hit by a plane at all, but ended up falling straight down like the 2 big guys did.

More insane probability.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
2 buildings 3 planes, all fall down perfectly straight down.

You're going on about this bottom half remaining motionless, is this all you have now?
Since your "suspension" bridge-like theory seems to be out the window - so to speak.

Newton's 3rd Law.
4:44 in the video below.
A building built with floors suspended from a frame really can't collapse any other way than straight down.

And your primary claim has been indisputably refuted.

Why are you still posting?

Trolling?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I would believe that MAYBE if it were from floors 20 through to 110.
This was not the case though.
The planes hit at the 81st floor which would be 1/5th of the entire building. Which really is laughable, let's be serious for a moment.

WTC 1 - impact zone was between floors 93 and 99 out of 110. 15% of the building
WTC 2 - impact zone was between floors 77 and 85 out of 110. 30% of the building

BOTH planes hit different areas, different speeds, angles, velocity if you will, BUT the end results were IDENTICAL.
You wanna talk about insane probability, there you have it.

Oh yeah, WTC 7 not hit by a plane at all, but ended up falling straight down like the 2 big guys did.

More insane probability.
By the time the top 1/5th crushed the lower floors they were falling too, twit. The entire gravitational potential energy of the building was converted into heat.

Your non stop ignorance and inability to grasp simple concepts makes this thread boring.

So let's draw the line:

You spent pages and pages posting those stupid collapse videos claiming it was a controlled demolition, bit it wasn't. You were wrong, your sources were shown to be bullshit artists.

That ends the credibility of the conspiracy. That ends YOUR credibility. That ends the credibility of your sources.

Running to new claims now just shows you to be a desperate and unreasonable troll.
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
15% and 30% of the tops of the buildings hit at different angles, speeds, floors, velocity, cause the exact same damage in that they buildings fall perfectly straight down due to randomly tied events.

Let's try another one, not trolling, the science is all the same here.

You can't end my credibility, if anything, you're trying to discredit scientific fact, Newton's Laws. LOL
I'm teaching you what is online, we all can learn something Fuji, it's never too late, even for "twits" like myself and you.
Don't get mad.
Just accept you can't know everything.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
15% and 30% of the tops of the buildings hit at different angles, speeds, floors, velocity, cause the exact same damage in that they buildings fall perfectly straight down due to randomly tied events.

Let's try another one, not trolling, the science is all the same here.

You can't end my credibility, if anything, you're trying to discredit scientific fact, Newton's Laws. LOL
I'm teaching you what is online, we all can learn something Fuji, it's never too late, even for "twits" like myself and you.
Don't get mad.
Just accept you can't know everything.
The buildings didn't collapse because the planes knocked them over, that is retarded. They collapsed because fire weakened the structure causing it to drop a floor.

And why are you still posting? You and your sources proved to be bullshit artists. Why should we believe any more blog posts or YouTube videos given that the ones you showed us so far had zero credibility?

Your main claim was proven to be nonsense, you don't get to go running to new claims. You lost, your credibility is shot, your sources aren't believable.
 

TESLAMotors

Banned
Apr 23, 2014
2,404
1
0
The buildings didn't collapse because the planes knocked them over, that is retarded. They collapsed because fire weakened the structure causing it to drop a floor.

And why are you still posting? You and your sources proved to be bullshit artists. Why should we believe any more blog posts or YouTube videos given that the ones you showed us so far had zero credibility?

Your main claim was proven to be nonsense, you don't get to go running to new claims. You lost, your credibility is shot, your sources aren't believable.
Newton's 3rd Law is bullshit? Are you serious?

I had to work my way to the core here, basic science. You forced me into it, I can't let this one go.

Let's try Newton's 3rd law in relation to beer. Maybe this will work?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
No one called Newton's third law bullshit. It is you and your sources that are bullshit. The buildings were NOT knocked over. The kinetic effect of the impact was over long long before the collapse.

You would have to be a MORON to think Newton's third law was relevant here.

You and your sources were already discredited. You and your sources said the building fell in a way it simply didn't. You were proved wrong and your sources are not believable.

The debate is over. The only question is how long you will carry on dancing (trolling?) before you admit defeat.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts