9/11 The New Pearl Harbour

Discussion in '9/11' started by Cornergas, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ok, so you now admit you don't know **** about structural engineering.

    and nothing about physics.

    the amount of force required to push over the towers would be tremendous.
     
  2. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you weigh the debris?
    There was over 1 million tons of concrete, and same of structure steel in the buildings, so you are out by 700,000 tons..where did they go? You like Margot are over your head on this one, go and finish watching professional rasslin', that would appear to more to your knowledge level.
     
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tell us again how the towers should have toppled over.

    LOL!!!!

    your knowledge of engineering and physics is a joke.
     
  4. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sorry, looks like there was only around 200,000 tons of steel in the WTC towers.
     
  5. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    A joke to you engineering and physics illiterate it would be a joke...but to the learned and thinking person it is a fact....so way you go back to rasslin' on TV again..it is more your speed.
     
  6. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Do you understand how little jet fuel there was compared to the volume of those two towers? And that's after most of it burned up in the initial fireball.
     
  7. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,687
    Likes Received:
    13,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Concrete? You do know the WTC weren't brick and mortar buildings.
     
  8. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tell us how the steel had to melt for the towers to collapse.

    LOL!!!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  9. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tell us how its impossible for the top 1/5th of the towers to collapse the bottom 4/5ths.

    LOL!!!!
     
  10. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    You tell me. Also tell me how it would weaken the structure unformly so it would be a "controlled demolition" at free fall speed, from jet fuel? It is impossible, but give it a try anyway. I realize you have nothing to work with, but give it a try.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its called physics.

    its called weakened steel.

    help me help you.
     
  12. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,687
    Likes Received:
    13,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aluminum weakens or melts at 600 degrees c.

    Its called cascading effect...
     
  13. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tell us how its suspicious that Larry Silverstein got terrorism insurance for the towers.

    LOL!!!
     
  14. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Why don't you change the subject? Nice try...start a new thread about Larry's insurance.....give him another building to "pull" and collect 7 billion dollars.
     
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tell us how Larry made out like a bandit with the insurance money

    LOL!!!!
     
  16. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Tell us again how a tiny amount of fuel compared to the volume of the buildings, not only burned up the floors of initial impact, but also made its way all the way down to the lobby, causing catastrophic damage.

    LOL!!!!
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pot calling the kettle black? I believe I challenged you to prove you know something and so far, nothing but hot air opinions. Margot already abdicated because she knows this is way over her head and just spews uninformed and unsupported opinions (crapola) and hopes they will stick to the wall.

    You can add this question to the questions I asked you. Why don't you explain in physics terms how it's POSSIBLE for the top 20% of the towers to NATURALLY crush the bottom 80% in an unimpeded accelerating fashion at about 2/3 G. The burden of proof is on YOU since you're strongly implying it's possible. And for a bonus question, how were ALL the interlaced core columns destroyed uniformly at the exact same rate of acceleration?

    Note that NIST never attempted to explain it by their own admission in a footnote. All they did was claim the "collapse was inevitable". But here you go Einstein, show your engineering/physics genius, perhaps you can teach me something other than the word "truther".
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  18. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what does the volume of liquid fuel compared to the volume of the buildings, have to do with anything?

    LOL!!!!

    such a strange question.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  19. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!!!

    I love it. I love it soo much.

    please post the Richard Gage video with the boxes. I love it.

    here's a hint: research "dynamic loads vs static loads".

    :)
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that supposed to be your scientifically detailed answer to ALL my questions? Thanks for showing you know zero and you're full of it. Now in your opinion, who would you say the readers are supposed to listen to, an anonymous obvious faker who says nothing (e.g. "I love it") or known experts who have done years of painstaking research and written peer reviewed papers on the subject?
     
  21. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Stop and think for a minute. Planes carry a certain amount of fuel. Very little fuel compared to the volume of the towers. The initial fireball burned up much of the fuel. Then, most of the remaining fuel was on the floors of initial impact. Then, if you believe it was poured down the elevator shafts, some of it would have splashed onto the shaft walls and other floors. That leaves barely any left to hit the lobby and cause significant explosions and visible smoke. How can this tiny amount of fuel weaken that much steel?
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  22. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i work with many architects and my boss is a PE Civil Engineer with a Masters from Cooper Union. My deputy director has a Masters in Civil Engineering from NYU.

    how about you? what experts in engineering and architecture do you associate with on a regular basis?
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you already made that unsupported claim and I asked you if your job was to shine their shoes or perhaps get their coffee (if it's even true). You still haven't answered a single one of my questions that might maybe show you actually know something other than how to post hot air.

    Not a single one but I never claimed I did nor is it relevant to anything I asked you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  24. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113

    haha!!!

    nice strawman. I love it!!!

    most of the weakened steel that initiated the collapses was at the point of impact and effected floors.

    once 1/5th of the towers starts moving down at freefall speed, there is nothing that can stop it.

    the towers were a structural system, each floor worked together to hold up the static load of the building.

    each floor was designed to hold the load of ALL the floors above them, but statically.

    no floor was capable of handling the dynamic load of 30 floors moving downwards all at once.

    30 floors all moving down at freefall speed, 10 feet? thats enough to get a total progressive collapse going.

    now, had the towers been built like regular structures, with a structural steel skeleton throughout the entire building, and not a tube within a tube, there is a much better chance the towers would not have collapsed.

    but, tube in a tube construction? made the matter soo much worse.

    the fact, the VAST majority of the footprint of each floor had ZERO structural steel. it was mostly in the outer layer and inside the core.

    looked great, very pretty, great for space, but horrible if impacted by a large plane with a majority of its fuel unused.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're asking for too much.

    Now you've gone way too far. You see what you're dealing with.
     
    nastimarvasti likes this.

Share This Page