To weaken steel under load you do not need 1800 degrees. It can take 1000 for any length of time. You only need 1 failure for the rest of the structure to fail. How do you expect the floors below the impact zones to with stand the force of the floors falling on them?
I never said 1800, I said 1100. I also mentioned that the ONLY evidence to support temps above 480 come from a model that the NIST has never allowed to be peer reviewed, aside from when the jet fuel burned - NIST confirmed in their report that the jet fuel fire lasted no longer than a few minutes. The buildings stood for much longer than a few minutes. The theory is that the trusses were weakened enough to sag, which pulled the perimeter columns inward enough to break them. But how could a truss pull the big outer columns in enough to break them, esp if the trusses were weakened by the fire? The only explanation is that the inner columns collapsed first, pulling the trusses downward. But that's not what the NIST report says! Could enough of the inner columns have been taken out by the impact that the inner columns collapsed first? Doubtful. How could the floors below the impact zones withstand the force of the floors falling on them? Because the resistance would have killed their momentum. Without momentum, it is just a matter of straight load, right? (Ben? Am I right? I dunno)....the undamaged floors below were designed to support the weight of the floors above. Go to 1:18:50 in part two of the movie to see their explanation. I'm out of my league on this part of the story, but the explanation in the movie makes sense to me. the only variable they didn't allow for is the heat generated by the collapse itself. I still don't see how that could destroy the columns below quickly enough that they offered virtually no resistance to slow the fall.
I just don't see a reason to lie about what happened at the pentagon. if it was a smaller plane why not report it? i'm still not buying a missile because what the hell was it shooting at? and would a drone cause that much damage?
the only plane I look at with a little bit of skepticism is flight 93. to me it is possible that a missile could have brought it down. but if that's the case why not come clean? There's an easy sell with the possibility of it heading to the white house and the only way to take it down was by lethal force. and if there was a cover up think about all the people involved. you are talking about someone giving the command, to someone radioing it in, to the pilot, to the person rearming the plane, to the people looking at the video of the shot... I always go under the assumption of when a cover up occurs someone eventually slips and says something. fourteen years later "no smoking gun" from an employee/witness. just my .02
To weaken steel under load you do not need 1800 degrees. It can take 1000 for any length of time. You only need 1 failure for the rest of the structure to fail. How do you expect the floors below the impact zones to with stand the force of the floors falling on them?
I never said 1800, I said 1100. I also mentioned that the ONLY evidence to support temps above 480 come from a model that the NIST has never allowed to be peer reviewed, aside from when the jet fuel burned - NIST confirmed in their report that the jet fuel fire lasted no longer than a few minutes. The buildings stood for much longer than a few minutes. The theory is that the trusses were weakened enough to sag, which pulled the perimeter columns inward enough to break them. But how could a truss pull the big outer columns in enough to break them, esp if the trusses were weakened by the fire? The only explanation is that the inner columns collapsed first, pulling the trusses downward. But that's not what the NIST report says! Could enough of the inner columns have been taken out by the impact that the inner columns collapsed first? Doubtful. How could the floors below the impact zones withstand the force of the floors falling on them? Because the resistance would have killed their momentum. Without momentum, it is just a matter of straight load, right? (Ben? Am I right? I dunno)....the undamaged floors below were designed to support the weight of the floors above. Go to 1:18:50 in part two of the movie to see their explanation. I'm out of my league on this part of the story, but the explanation in the movie makes sense to me. the only variable they didn't allow for is the heat generated by the collapse itself. I still don't see how that could destroy the columns below quickly enough that they offered virtually no resistance to slow the fall.
I once saw an entire documentary about how the towers fell the way they did (can't recall what it's called) and it was filled with independent engineers, architects, etc., and they all acknowledged that the way they fell made perfect sense under the specific circumstances.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
To weaken steel under load you do not need 1800 degrees. It can take 1000 for any length of time. You only need 1 failure for the rest of the structure to fail. How do you expect the floors below the impact zones to with stand the force of the floors falling on them?
I never said 1800, I said 1100. I also mentioned that the ONLY evidence to support temps above 480 come from a model that the NIST has never allowed to be peer reviewed, aside from when the jet fuel burned - NIST confirmed in their report that the jet fuel fire lasted no longer than a few minutes. The buildings stood for much longer than a few minutes. The theory is that the trusses were weakened enough to sag, which pulled the perimeter columns inward enough to break them. But how could a truss pull the big outer columns in enough to break them, esp if the trusses were weakened by the fire? The only explanation is that the inner columns collapsed first, pulling the trusses downward. But that's not what the NIST report says! Could enough of the inner columns have been taken out by the impact that the inner columns collapsed first? Doubtful. How could the floors below the impact zones withstand the force of the floors falling on them? Because the resistance would have killed their momentum. Without momentum, it is just a matter of straight load, right? (Ben? Am I right? I dunno)....the undamaged floors below were designed to support the weight of the floors above. Go to 1:18:50 in part two of the movie to see their explanation. I'm out of my league on this part of the story, but the explanation in the movie makes sense to me. the only variable they didn't allow for is the heat generated by the collapse itself. I still don't see how that could destroy the columns below quickly enough that they offered virtually no resistance to slow the fall.
Why is that the only explanation?
HOw else does a truss pull a column inward until it snaps, if it's heated to the point of weakening?
I once saw an entire documentary about how the towers fell the way they did (can't recall what it's called) and it was filled with independent building engineers, architects, etc., and they all acknowledged that the way they fell made perfect sense under the specific circumstances.
I guess that's the thing...pretty easy to be convinced one way or another if it's out of our field of expertise. Over 2000 architects and engineers disagree that it makes sense (of course they're from a broad range of fields, but they're still more qualified than most of us). All we can do is go by what we're told. After watching the sections of this movie, which picked apart the NIST report pretty cleanly imo, I have serious doubts. If their heat model is accurate and there is reason for them to believe the temps required to weaken steel for a significant enough time were achieved, why not publish their model? Why was only the initial collapse investigated, and not the total failure? Makes no sense to me that they wouldn't investigate the entire thing.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier – if you believe the commission report, the NIST report, and popular science told us all we need to know about this topic, you’re a conspiracy theorist too.... I don’t subscribe wholesale to everything in the movie I keep mentioning, but since not one person other than Last 12 has bothered to click the link (or has said they did, anyway), instead preferring to keep challenging me on the filmaker’s suppositions, I’m more than happy to play devils advocate and post the alternative theory. I couldn't have come up with this shit myself, so send that guy your porky emojis. One thing you guys should remember….even the most out-there, looney tune 9/11 truther’s heart is in the right place. They feel most of the same emotions you do about that day (Cliffy, I know you’re in NYC so this is different for you, but there are looney truthers in NYC too), only they feel no one has been brought to justice. All I believe enough to say unequivocally is that there are enough holes in the above mentioned reports to justify a REAL investigation. Independent. Peer reviewed science. Subpoenas. Grand juries. Adequate funding. If you guys don’t think so, fine. I won’t insult you or group you in with ‘the sheeple’ or any other group of idiots. But I have no problem earning only my second warning in like 15 years to push back against that kind of thing, esp when you have contributed a grand total of fuck all to the thread.... Off to the 'im a victim thread'....
I’ll repeat what I said earlier – if you believe the commission report, the NIST report, and popular science told us all we need to know about this topic, you’re a conspiracy theorist too.... I don’t subscribe wholesale to everything in the movie I keep mentioning, but since not one person other than Last 12 has bothered to click the link (or has said they did, anyway), instead preferring to keep challenging me on the filmaker’s suppositions, I’m more than happy to play devils advocate and post the alternative theory. I couldn't have come up with this shit myself, so send that guy your porky emojis. One thing you guys should remember….even the most out-there, looney tune 9/11 truther’s heart is in the right place. They feel most of the same emotions you do about that day (Cliffy, I know you’re in NYC so this is different for you, but there are looney truthers in NYC too), only they feel no one has been brought to justice. All I believe enough to say unequivocally is that there are enough holes in the above mentioned reports to justify a REAL investigation. Independent. Peer reviewed science. Subpoenas. Grand juries. Adequate funding. If you guys don’t think so, fine. I won’t insult you or group you in with ‘the sheeple’ or any other group of idiots. But I have no problem earning only my second warning in like 15 years to push back against that kind of thing, esp when you have contributed a grand total of fuck all to the thread.... Off to the 'im a victim thread'....
Well said bud. I would love an independent commission but I doubt it would ever happen.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier – if you believe the commission report, the NIST report, and popular science told us all we need to know about this topic, you’re a conspiracy theorist too.... I don’t subscribe wholesale to everything in the movie I keep mentioning, but since not one person other than Last 12 has bothered to click the link (or has said they did, anyway), instead preferring to keep challenging me on the filmaker’s suppositions, I’m more than happy to play devils advocate and post the alternative theory. I couldn't have come up with this shit myself, so send that guy your porky emojis. One thing you guys should remember….even the most out-there, looney tune 9/11 truther’s heart is in the right place. They feel most of the same emotions you do about that day (Cliffy, I know you’re in NYC so this is different for you, but there are looney truthers in NYC too), only they feel no one has been brought to justice. All I believe enough to say unequivocally is that there are enough holes in the above mentioned reports to justify a REAL investigation. Independent. Peer reviewed science. Subpoenas. Grand juries. Adequate funding. If you guys don’t think so, fine. I won’t insult you or group you in with ‘the sheeple’ or any other group of idiots. But I have no problem earning only my second warning in like 15 years to push back against that kind of thing, esp when you have contributed a grand total of fuck all to the thread.... Off to the 'im a victim thread'....
Well said bud. I would love an independent commission but I doubt it would ever happen.
Thanks....and ya, it's a pipedream. besides....as is the case with JFK, where there has been no smoking gun, at least not one that was widely accepted (still most people do believe there was a conspiracy and the Warren Commission was a sham)...even if there WAS a new indy commission, people would continue to poke holes in the new one, and others would continue to question their sanity. So I guess none of this really matters.
Depressing. I actually just spent like 10 minutes reading Nietzsche quotes time for a break....
Depressing. I actually just spent like 10 minutes reading Nietzsche quotes time for a break....
"Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
"God damn you Walter! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about?"
Good stuff drowned out. So many questions. Like how about the anti-high jacking units put into airplanes after the 81 Iran hostage crisis. Why weren't they used? Plenty of more questions. Like if a plane hit the pentagon, why wasn't the windows destroyed where the wings would've hit the building, say 100 feet each side? And if they collapsed back from impact, where's the debree? Plane is taller then the building yet the roof was intact with a fireman hosing the building. And let's not get started on how a plane went through 27 feet of concrete and 9 feet of steel and came out a perfect circle. And I remember hearing news reporter Dan Brown doing a live Show ontop of a building close to the towers and he says,"there's another bomb going off now. We just heard bombs going off again." Live on TV. Things def make you go hmmmm
And yet these same people couldn't find a way to plant some shred of WMDs in Iraq. Seems like they were awfully smart in the 1st phase under the watchful eye of hundreds of million of people. You would think they could have found a way to close the plan out in a country where they controlled all of the airspace.
And yet these same people couldn't find a way to plant some shred of WMDs in Iraq. Seems like they were awfully smart in the 1st phase under the watchful eye of hundreds of million of people. You would think they could have found a way to close the plan out in a country where they controlled all of the airspace.
And yet these same people couldn't find a way to plant some shred of WMDs in Iraq. Seems like they were awfully smart in the 1st phase under the watchful eye of hundreds of million of people. You would think they could have found a way to close the plan out in a country where they controlled all of the airspace.
hmm ...
You know you're right. They did plant a passport on the streets on NYC after the planes hit the towers. You'd think somehow they can plant wmd.
Comments
How could the floors below the impact zones withstand the force of the floors falling on them? Because the resistance would have killed their momentum. Without momentum, it is just a matter of straight load, right? (Ben? Am I right? I dunno)....the undamaged floors below were designed to support the weight of the floors above. Go to 1:18:50 in part two of the movie to see their explanation. I'm out of my league on this part of the story, but the explanation in the movie makes sense to me. the only variable they didn't allow for is the heat generated by the collapse itself. I still don't see how that could destroy the columns below quickly enough that they offered virtually no resistance to slow the fall.
the only plane I look at with a little bit of skepticism is flight 93. to me it is possible that a missile could have brought it down. but if that's the case why not come clean? There's an easy sell with the possibility of it heading to the white house and the only way to take it down was by lethal force. and if there was a cover up think about all the people involved. you are talking about someone giving the command, to someone radioing it in, to the pilot, to the person rearming the plane, to the people looking at the video of the shot...
I always go under the assumption of when a cover up occurs someone eventually slips and says something. fourteen years later "no smoking gun" from an employee/witness. just my .02
I don’t subscribe wholesale to everything in the movie I keep mentioning, but since not one person other than Last 12 has bothered to click the link (or has said they did, anyway), instead preferring to keep challenging me on the filmaker’s suppositions, I’m more than happy to play devils advocate and post the alternative theory. I couldn't have come up with this shit myself, so send that guy your porky emojis.
One thing you guys should remember….even the most out-there, looney tune 9/11 truther’s heart is in the right place. They feel most of the same emotions you do about that day (Cliffy, I know you’re in NYC so this is different for you, but there are looney truthers in NYC too), only they feel no one has been brought to justice.
All I believe enough to say unequivocally is that there are enough holes in the above mentioned reports to justify a REAL investigation. Independent. Peer reviewed science. Subpoenas. Grand juries. Adequate funding. If you guys don’t think so, fine. I won’t insult you or group you in with ‘the sheeple’ or any other group of idiots. But I have no problem earning only my second warning in like 15 years to push back against that kind of thing, esp when you have contributed a grand total of fuck all to the thread....
Off to the 'im a victim thread'....
Depressing. I actually just spent like 10 minutes reading Nietzsche quotes
Just had to say that that up there is, oddly (and in a complimentary way), surprisingly unsurprising
And yet these same people couldn't find a way to plant some shred of WMDs in Iraq. Seems like they were awfully smart in the 1st phase under the watchful eye of hundreds of million of people. You would think they could have found a way to close the plan out in a country where they controlled all of the airspace.
hmm ...
compressed air?
come on now.