|
|
Post by deembastille on Aug 26, 2018 3:07:15 GMT
You dont have to be a structural engineer to know that a game of jenga does not suddenly end after just a few blocks from the top are removed. Let's fly a plane into your Jenga game at any speed and we'll see what happens. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 3:09:16 GMT
It's ultimately pointless to try to argue rationality with truthers. They believe what they believe, even though I'm willing to bet 99% of conspiracies aren't conspiracies. It's just a way of making the world seem easier for them to deal with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 3:19:49 GMT
You dont have to be a structural engineer to know that a game of jenga does not suddenly end after just a few blocks from the top are removed. You have to be a structural engineer to know if that's a valid comparison, though. Or, you know, you could read up on it a bit. But why do that, everyone is surely lying about it. That's what experts do. Just go with your gut, man. |
|
|
|
Post by ᵗʰᵉᵃᵘˣᵖʰᵒᵘ on Aug 26, 2018 4:35:49 GMT
Let me guess: he never went to college.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caesar Roberto on Aug 26, 2018 4:49:45 GMT
What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 26, 2018 5:42:05 GMT
Face it, if 9/11 had occurred at 3am with zero tv cameras &/or live audience, ppl today would still swear they saw UFOs, or a Russian spy plane, or a Russian sub launching missiles...
There's a vid online somewhere showing in slo mo exactly how plausible the plane impacts in fact did more damage than ppl know about. Nearly everything on every single impacted floor was flammable. The plane's force itself deteriorated many of the load bearing steel beams - not disintegrating them or whatever, but shifting them enough to erase their purpose. All the weight above the floors ended up sitting on broken jointed beams & hot as hell inferno below.
It's been years since I saw that vid, & frankly I don't care to rabbit hole 9/11 on youtube any more ever to find it.
As for the buildings that weren't crashed into still standing, exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 1, 2018 16:57:20 GMT
You people are so cute. Why is is so implausible? A plane going hundreds of mph hits a building with immense force, said building catches on fire. Fire spreads, destroys intregrity of said building, building collapses as upper floors crush lower floors. What about this is so difficult to believe? the build oil ng stood For an hour before it suddenly collapsed entirely like a controlled demolition. During that hour, the only fire and smoke came from the point of impact spanning maybe several floors at most, the rest of the building was unaffected, so the only structural compromise was in around the 70th floor. So unless that smoldering fire somehow teleported to the bottom of the building and still remained completely invisible from the outside, how could the building just die like that? If you set a tree branch on fire, does the whole tree suddenly fall down? No. Your understanding of physics is flawed in this instance. One cannot compare a tree to the twin towers. Even the largest trees in the world never reached the height and weight of the twin towers.
The fire didn't ONLY damage the buildings structure with its actual burning capability. It also damaged the buildings structure with the tremendous HEAT it generated. If it was JUST the burning, the building might not have fallen. But the heat actually made the beams and internal structure "wobbly", not quite "melting", but on its way towards that.
So there was this huge part of the middle of each building that was in that wobbly almost melted state. The upper part no longer had support and fell on the lower part which fell under the sudden weight and kinetic energy. All the weight that was above the "70th floor" you mention was more that enough to do the trick.
I don't see why that's hard to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 23:11:54 GMT
the build oil ng stood For an hour before it suddenly collapsed entirely like a controlled demolition. During that hour, the only fire and smoke came from the point of impact spanning maybe several floors at most, the rest of the building was unaffected, so the only structural compromise was in around the 70th floor. So unless that smoldering fire somehow teleported to the bottom of the building and still remained completely invisible from the outside, how could the building just die like that? If you set a tree branch on fire, does the whole tree suddenly fall down? No. Your understanding of physics is flawed in this instance. One cannot compare a tree to the twin towers. Even the largest trees in the world never reached the height and weight of the twin towers.
The fire didn't ONLY damage the buildings structure with its actual burning capability. It also damaged the buildings structure with the tremendous HEAT it generated. If it was JUST the burning, the building might not have fallen. But the heat actually made the beams and internal structure "wobbly", not quite "melting", but on its way towards that.
So there was this huge part of the middle of each building that was in that wobbly almost melted state. The upper part no longer had support and fell on the lower part which fell under the sudden weight and kinetic energy. All the weight that was above the "70th floor" you mention was more that enough to do the trick.
I don't see why that's hard to believe.
the building fell as a whole, as one mass. If you look at the video, you should notice the lower floors also begin to fall at the same time as the entire building begins to fall. |
|
|
|
Post by Caesar Roberto on Sept 2, 2018 14:59:00 GMT
What is a truther?
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Sept 2, 2018 15:28:48 GMT
Bush did 9/11 I knew it!
|
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 2, 2018 23:03:16 GMT
uhhh… we were getting threats from other countries why back when big bill was sticking cigars into you know who's you know what. stop blaming things on bush! |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 2, 2018 23:04:56 GMT
@angryincelasianloser: im going to try to explain this as simply as possible...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2018 23:29:50 GMT
@angryincelasianloser: im going to try to explain this as simply as possible... I understand your attempt to divert the matter with a bit of inane humor but the issue still stands whether you hide your head in tha sand or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 2, 2018 23:35:28 GMT
Seems like it was an inside job to justify action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In September 2001, The New York Times and Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for "puzzling behavior". They were charged with illegally residing in the United States and working there without permits. The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with what was interpreted as cries of "joy and mockery".
I remember this-you can find it on internet archives. They told the cops "our problem is now your problem."
How did they know Arabs attacked the WTC?
|
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 3, 2018 1:05:46 GMT
@angryincelasianloser: im going to try to explain this as simply as possible... I understand your attempt to divert the matter with a bit of inane humor but the issue still stands whether you hide your head in tha sand or not. The issue is, the buildings burnt down and crumbled because they were filled with flammable things. Hot metal bends, shitbag. |
|
|
|
Post by Bad Snorkasaurus on Sept 3, 2018 4:50:33 GMT
Maybe they found that fireproof, indestructible passport that so conveniently was found in the streets and turned over to authorities.
Why did Cheney order the fighter jets to turn back?
All the WTC ruined metal quickly being shipped over to China to be slagged and destroyed
A couple more things I can't be arsed to post.
It's a bunch of little things that add up, not one big smoking gun.
No one ever tries to explain these nagging details. Because the answers one is likely to reach scares and depresses a person. So they just call you a kook.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 3, 2018 22:45:41 GMT
Your understanding of physics is flawed in this instance. One cannot compare a tree to the twin towers. Even the largest trees in the world never reached the height and weight of the twin towers.
The fire didn't ONLY damage the buildings structure with its actual burning capability. It also damaged the buildings structure with the tremendous HEAT it generated. If it was JUST the burning, the building might not have fallen. But the heat actually made the beams and internal structure "wobbly", not quite "melting", but on its way towards that.
So there was this huge part of the middle of each building that was in that wobbly almost melted state. The upper part no longer had support and fell on the lower part which fell under the sudden weight and kinetic energy. All the weight that was above the "70th floor" you mention was more that enough to do the trick.
I don't see why that's hard to believe.
the building fell as a whole, as one mass. If you look at the video, you should notice the lower floors also begin to fall at the same time as the entire building begins to fall. If you mean THIS video...
...THAT video is A) not depicting one of the twin towers, and B) I am willing to admit that this LOOKS like a building when it falls from demolition, and that maybe, MAYBE, that particular building was demolished because it was too badly damaged to be allowed to stay up. MAYBE!
BUT neither of us is an expert in these matters, and its very premature to jump to conspiracy conclusions.
|
|
