9/11 what do you think?

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
bigriddik said:
Lmao. Anybody ever c a planned demolition? No? Well u saw one on 9/11. The building was actually designed to survive just such an impact. The designers knew it was tall enough to be hit so it was actually built to withstand that. It is virtually impossible for a structure like that to pancake at that speed without first removing the floors below....via thermite loaded explosives. Which is why the streets ran with molten metal weeks later. That's the only way to melt steel! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough! No way.
Click to expand...
Unless he lied the the City and city councils were paid off in New York City. This man had no idea. And if a 767 can do it. It did. I saw it. He, the building designer lied, in a corrupt, Big Money City.

And no one has said melted steel. Do you know the thermal expansion of those floor members? You don't.

When steel lengthens in heat what else happens? It gets rubbery. Yep. It wll sag across the span. And for a Structural Sq Tube building, depending only on those cross members, now sagged away, that was a disaster.

And since you enjoy your proselytizing with scorn, your snivel drivel. You remind me of the early Christians who burned the Library at Alexander.
 
Mike Young

Mike Young

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;PCv35l1uegY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCv35l1uegY[/video] Did somebody say molten steel?
 
bigriddik

bigriddik

New Member
Really, Megabrain? Explain how its a free-fall with 100 floors and steel framework in the way! Wait lemme guess...none of that matters cause u say so!?! So what do u think hit the pentagon? A passenger plane? Lmao. Guess all u need to demolish a skyscraper is a really hot fire on a top floor. Hmmmmm
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Mike Young said:
Yeah, I suggest our big-brained friends look into conservation of energy & conservation of momentum. Those are scientific terms, so take your time. 110 story building falling at free-fall speed (10 seconds) meets ZERO resistance on the way down, therefor is not subject to these LAWS. Who the conspiracy theorist? Really!
Click to expand...
OK, fine. What you don't understand is that the building above was in free fall, those, how many megatons, Mr. Young? You don't know.

And when the structure crumbles into powder it is all in free fall, every thing it touch, below it, is in free fall, until the crash.

Why does the Lobby look like a bomb went off with enormous energy? It did. The upper building, in free fall landed there. With how many MJ, Mr?

You don't have the science, you can't visualize the miliseconds.
 
bigriddik

bigriddik

New Member
Lol good stuff. Not really, but didn't u ever wonder how they knew who to blame? And how its possible that they somehow had identification of the hijackers from a plane that supposedly burnt down to nothing? Little strange if u ask me. But u know what, just dismiss it all
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
bigriddik said:
Lmao. Anybody ever c a planned demolition? No? Well u saw one on 9/11. The building was actually designed to survive just such an impact. The designers knew it was tall enough to be hit so it was actually built to withstand that. It is virtually impossible for a structure like that to pancake at that speed without first removing the floors below....via thermite loaded explosives. Which is why the streets ran with molten metal weeks later. That's the only way to melt steel! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough! No way.
Click to expand...
DOER already made the hypothesis that the aluminum from the Airplane disintegrated itself into aluminum dust, which then mixed with RUST from all that metal somewhere in the building, then some very very high temperature flame ( not from fire cuz it takes temps of 3000F to ignite thermite) ignited it all which is what really happened. That explains it all.

Do you think DOER might be a fool?

I do.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
And when the structure crumbles into powder it is all in free fall, every thing it touch, below it, is in free fall, until the crash.
Click to expand...
how do you make steel and steel reinforced concrete crumble?

This is steel reinforced concrete with a jet hitting it REAL hard. notice lack of crumbling.

[video=youtube;RZjhxuhTmGk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk[/video]
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
bigriddik said:
Really, Megabrain? Explain how its a free-fall with 100 floors and steel framework in the way! Wait lemme guess...none of that matters cause u say so!?! So what do u think hit the pentagon? A passenger plane? Lmao. Guess all u need to demolish a skyscraper is a really hot fire on a top floor. Hmmmmm
Click to expand...
So, do the math.

Gross Weight of the upper floors?

Something just gave way in those buildings, I saw it.

Upper floors fell a certain distance in mass, in free fall.
How far? 4 floors, 5?

So, do the math.

What is the force in MJ imparted by the falling mega mass, after falling that far? 32 meters per second squared.

Next, what is the force resistance of the undamaged floor this fell on?... an open but, undamaged floor (no structure above)

Now when those smack at that energy (do the math) you will see that the undamaged floor had much less resistance to the falling upper building, than when you step on a cruton. Floor after floor added to the mass and persevered the velocity of near free fall and dust. Very much mass was blasted out and not in the way any more that a big box full of jinga block tossed off the building.

Finally, when you hit a thin carpet of crutons from free fall, what happens to your brain? :)
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
nope. ...........
Click to expand...
No, you're right, I just looked again and I transposed numbers on the chart I was looking at. My apologies.

Of course, as I already said, I don't think it matters, since I don't think any steel was actually melted. The balance of the witness accounts is overwhelmingly against that idea. You've got one or two that say something about the elevators being "melted" and then you've got dozens that say something else.
 
bigriddik

bigriddik

New Member
Doer said:
OK, fine. What you don't understand is that the building above was in free fall, those, how many megatons, Mr. Young? You don't know.

And when the structure crumbles into powder it is all in free fall, every thing it touch, below it, is in free fall, until the crash.

Why does the Lobby look like a bomb went off with enormous energy? It did. The upper building, in free fall landed there. With how many MJ, Mr?

You don't have the science, you can't visualize the miliseconds.
Click to expand...
R u suggesting that demolition crews have been doin it wrong this whole time? That skyscrapers n the surrounding buildings can be destroyed by starting a fire on the roof? Neat
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Drama, I like you guy, I really do. If you are a no shit Naval Aviator I mean. But, if your dad was that......

Do the math. Those buildings are not similar to a tilt up reinforced concrete wall. Nice try. The powdering forces for the columns comes from above. Do the math.

(We had to retrofit CA freeway column because they powdered in earthquakes.)

Now, what about that fuel empty, must come aboard, combat theater stall speed for your F4?
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Well of course that isn't your argument NOW. You would look like a complete idiot now to keep your original argument that the walls did all the load bearing.

Dance, backpedal, spin.
Click to expand...
Since I already explained this way back in the thread, it was certainly my argument then. I still stand by it: the walls held the building up. Period. It's an absolute and undeniable fact; you deny engineering if you deny it and expose your ignorance for everyone to see. The building could not stand without the outside walls. This only came up because it was claimed that the outside walls had no vital structural function. Not true. Because this is a tube structure we're talking about and not a typical steel frame skyscraper, the outside walls literally hold the building up.

There's no dancing, no backpedaling, no spinning. I've been debating this topic for years; I've seen tons of documentaries on the World Trade Center. That fact that you took my words to mean something other than what I meant means that you misunderstood them. In this case, you thought I was denying the existence of the core when I was doing no such thing.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
bigriddik said:
R u suggesting that demolition crews have been doin it wrong this whole time? That skyscrapers n the surrounding buildings can be destroyed by starting a fire on the roof? Neat
Click to expand...
No I'm suggesting you suffer from reeling constipation.
 
bigriddik

bigriddik

New Member
Doer said:
So, do the math.

Gross Weight of the upper floors?

Something just gave way in those buildings, I saw it.

Upper floors fell a certain distance in mass, in free fall.
How far? 4 floors, 5?

So, do the math.

What is the force in MJ imparted by the falling mega mass, after falling that far? 32 meters per second squared.

Next, what is the force resistance of the undamaged floor this fell on?... an open but, undamaged floor (no structure above)

Now when those smack at that energy (do the math) you will see that the undamaged floor had much less resistance to the falling upper building, than when you step on a cruton. Floor after floor added to the mass and persevered the velocity of near free fall and dust. Very much mass was blasted out and not in the way any more that a big box full of jinga block tossed off the building.

Finally, when you hit a thin carpet of crutons from free fall, what happens to your brain? :)
Click to expand...
Lol. Whaaaat? R u telling me the mass of the undamaged floors wouldn't slow down the small percentage that was damaged? What math r u doing? It hast slow or deviate. Not like it was at terminal velocity with sturdy I beams still in place. Not feelin ur math brother
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
No, you're right, I just looked again and I transposed numbers on the chart I was looking at. My apologies.

Of course, as I already said, I don't think it matters, since I don't think any steel was actually melted. The balance of the witness accounts is overwhelmingly against that idea. You've got one or two that say something about the elevators being "melted" and then you've got dozens that say something else.
Click to expand...
No hard feelings brother, mistakes are made by all.

I never said the steel melted, the witnesses did.

These steel beams are covered with asbestos, one hell of a good insulator. Of course it is mere speculation that the plane "Knocked it off" and there is no evidence to suggest this actually happened. Plus a sprinkler system. Plus people standing inside the hole that supposedly was hot enough to bend steel due to the heat. Humans cannot survive in that environment, except in reality they were waving at us.

woman_wtc.jpg

woman_in_blackhole.jpg
 

Attachments

T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
LOL got it all hinged on a model eh? Oh not just any ordinary model, but a really "Comprehensive" one at that. Get serious, when you input into the model that a plane hit the building and the building pancaked, what do you think the model is going to spit out? Too much cranberry sauce was used?
Click to expand...
That's not how the model worked at all. If you had ever bothered to examine it--the product of real experts with relevant academic credentials--you would know that.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
You of course, don't realize those are a few people that were trapped and cut off. Many of them, most? jumped as the heat grew. Heat Grew. HEAT GREW. You want all to happen and be over at once. Demo charges. Oh hell no.

The SCAC only works if fact are ignored and then innuendo and fools logic inserted.
 
bigriddik

bigriddik

New Member
tokeprep said:
That's not how the model worked at all. If you had ever bothered to examine it--the product of real experts with relevant academic credentials--you would know that.
Click to expand...
And exactly who do these experts work for? Oh wait.....nvmnd don't answer that
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
bigriddik said:
Lol. Whaaaat? R u telling me the mass of the undamaged floors wouldn't slow down the small percentage that was damaged? What math r u doing? It hast slow or deviate. Not like it was at terminal velocity with sturdy I beams still in place. Not feelin ur math brother
Click to expand...
Well, puppy-dog. You are saying you don't know. You have not measured it precisely to the percentage have you?

Oh, you think virtually at free fall, means exactly at terminal velocity for the upper structure? Oh, no no. Sorry.

Oh, so, given the size and shape of the upper structure (pick one) and the altitude, pressure density gradient etc, exactly what is the terminal velocity, anyway?

I wish to make a note of it.

In fact I don't see that anywhere

So if you have calculated the exact terminal velocity of the free fall portion, let me know.

We can go thru the math from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top