Remembering 9/11

[papasmerf]

and let's not forget then, the RESISTANCE that's met upon impact as well.

The rate at which the top portion of the building tore down into the rest of the building is insanely fast, considering there were 70 floors below to go through.

You need to consider the initial amount of mass dropping and the weight rating for the first undamaged floor.
From there you add the additional mass from each floor added to the mix and you will see the increased failure rate as it occurs.
Also the structure will be bowing outwards as the more failures occur. this changes the dynamics of the structure and further weakens the skeleton of the building.

There problem here is people are seeing this as a clean vertical collapse and not structural failure caused by the upper structures collapse due to terrorist attack.

 

[Jubee]

Yes. I am dismissing your bullshit YouTube videos.

Okay, then I'm dismissing any questionable bullshit brought on by that sleazy U.S. government and bodies (NIST).
Hey, that's easy, now I see why you say what you say, just say "fuck you" and run away. Thanks for the lesson.

You have had many of these videos refuted

Actually, no, you didn't refute or even actually address the video in question about WTC 7 and how it managed to receive some of the residual damage and fall STRAIGHT down, meanwhile a building RIGHT NEXT door and in fact a bit closer to buildings 1 & 2 went unscathed in the whole ordeal that day.

Here's one of the videos (oh nosss a video with footage of firefighters talking about what THEY SAW AT THE SITE THEMSELVES)
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?576250-Remembering-9-11&p=5646151&viewfull=1#post5646151

and there is no reason to believe that your source is credible. It's just a stream of bullshit from fake experts who don't have any fucking clue what they are talking about. Random videos on YouTube are NOT credible.

Yeah, Dr. Steven Jones, expert on thermite, not a credible source at all. lol
So again, no you didn't refute anything. Read above.

Stuff blows up in any building fire. So what?

Yeah, you're right, Xerox machines, fax machines, elevators, water coolers, highly explosive things found in buildings, watch out.

Yes they were. By multiple posters, and in some cases very thoroughly. Once the first few were totally discredited there's no reason to believe the next one.

Appealing to logic Fuji. "Never seen an alien spaceship before. Therefore, aliens must not exist".

What's your M.O. here? Each time one of your nonsense videos is disproven just go find another? Try to "win" by wearing everybody out with spam?

The anger is strong with this one (fuji). None of the videos have been "disproven", you're just ignoring them because they're hard to explain as to why people heard and seen (firefighters hearing explosions and seeing molten lava streams at the site).
What's so wrong about that in a video, ...............from FIRST RESPONDERS who were actually there?

NIST DENIED MOLTEN LAVA did they not? Firefighters ON THE SCENE say otherwise.
So you blindly believe whatever the government tells you? Wow, your intellectual curiosity must be off the charts (thank God for Google huh?).

Up thread that theory was disproven. We know the building did NOT collapse from the basement.

"We know" this how exactly? NIST? lol The same guys that denied molten lava existing on the site? lol
The same guys that changed their model as to what happened when engineers called them on their bullshit explanation using empirical evidence, aka, SCIENCE. lol

We know for an absolute fact that it collapsed from the impact floor. This guy you are quoting is a fucking idiot, as anybody with eyes can see in any video that the building collapsed from the impact floors, not the basement.

Oh okay, so because you say "the guy you're quoting is a fucking idiot" makes the point invalid?

Just more appealing to ignorance. Good one.

Your WYC7 theory was annihilated. People saw the building buckling, firefighters knew it was about to collapse, there's no mystery at all.

Not not really, that's the smoking gun actually, building 7. Everyone with some level of intelligence raised an eyebrow to the whole thing and it was because of #7 collapsing due to "random" fires, all equally melting across the floors and miraculously it fell straight down much like a controlled demolition building would have.

You lost the debate above, your main points were refuted. Coming back with different points and alleging a different conspiracy is spamming.

Stick to one theory and when it's disproven go away.

Keep appealing to ignorance. "She called me back, that must mean she wants to marry me" type mentality.

 

[Jubee]

You need to consider the initial amount of mass dropping and the weight rating for the first undamaged floor.
From there you add the additional mass from each floor added to the mix and you will see the increased failure rate as it occurs.
Also the structure will be bowing outwards as the more failures occur. this changes the dynamics of the structure and further weakens the skeleton of the building.

There problem here is people are seeing this as a clean vertical collapse and not structural failure caused by the upper structures collapse due to terrorist attack.

Of course I consider the mass, it's obvious it's there, but the resistance below is also there and the rate at which it fell and eventually collapsed was about a 1-2 seconds longer than free fall, there's nothing logical about that.
As for it being a "clean vertical" collapse, what other buildings were affected by the WTC 1 & 2 to the point of complete failure like 7? Only 7 was affected by it all and collapsed as well, straight down.
There's no logic behind it, actually there is, but the government seems to be hiding it from the masses........................................for a reason no doubt.

 

[Jubee]

Even a stranger claim. For your claim to work, they would have had to have known exactly how the plane would damage the structure to be able to determine where the small amounts of thermite would be required. They would also have had to have a way to prevent the thermite from igniting from the crash and resulting fire and all of it would have to have been installed without anyone noticing. It would have been far more sensible for them just to use the plane collisions and the jet fuel fires to weaken the structure enough to collapse. Oh wait, that's what happened.

That's the whole point, a plane couldn't bring down a building that size.
1) jet fuel burned up instantly.
2) any residual fires due to the jet fuel fireball could not heat up enough to start melting steel. Really, office furniture, machines? papers? desks? chairs? You really believe that?
Let's not forget there is insulation in the building as well.

Then Newton's 3rd law comes into play, over 70% of the building was fine, so you believe that the top smaller portion really got damaged so much that it tore through down to ground level and there was NO resistance?
LOL come on now.

As eznuts put it, you have to take it up with Newton.

 

[Jubee]

Dear Fuji,

I love first hand accounts + a mix up of scientific facts.

 

[basketcase]

and let's not forget then, the RESISTANCE that's met upon impact as well.....

Lets not forget simple physics either. When the accelerating mass is much larger than the mass of each stationary floor then the resistance is minimal and the new increased mass will continue to accelerate.

Then there's the whole finite element thing. As the exterior frame fell away the lower floors would start falling even before impacted by the large mass above.

Simply put you post a lot of words but clearly have little idea of the physics involved.

 

[fuji]

What everyone seems to be failing to account for is the additional mass each floor brings into the equation.

Welcome back and thanks for being a voice of reason.

 

[basketcase]

Nice discussion. If only the building was a solid object like your analogy implies. In reality it was a bunch of interconnected pieces that each would fall independently as their connections failed.


But don't worry, that's only science. I'm sure that memes like the one you posted are so much more informative.

 

[basketcase]

You seem to be forgetting Newton's 3rd law. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction....

You seem to not understand Newton's 3rd law. Just like you seem not to understand that 9.8 seconds is a measurement of time, not a measurement of the rate of acceleration due to gravity.

 

[basketcase]

Bingo.

"The ground level fireballs make sense, however, when we consider what Mark Loizeaux--the president of Controlled Demolition Inc.--has said:
"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
...

Yet the videos show that the collapse clearly started at the points the planes impacted.

 

[Jubee]

Nice discussion. If only the building was a solid object like your analogy implies. In reality it was a bunch of interconnected pieces that each would fall independently as their connections failed.


But don't worry, that's only science. I'm sure that memes like the one you posted are so much more informative.

Yeah, science. lol
Rather than type it out, have a listen to someone who seems to maybe know a thing or two about that stuff called science.

This video is full of the stuff, you should like this then.

 

[basketcase]

Your experiment made me think about something. In the case of the twin towers, it wasn't like a bowling ball fell on a house of playing cards, which is an exaggeration. I wish I could think of a better example.

It would be pretty easy to spreadsheet it out by assuming each floor was an independent mass, examining the momentum of collisions and the acceleration in the 10 ft between floors. It would be a ridiculous oversimplification but far better than when one of the tin foil crowd tried comparing the building to a candle.


Dropping a brick on a structure made of popsicle sticks would be a pretty good analogy though.

 

[fuji]

Okay, then I'm dismissing any questionable bullshit brought on by that sleazy U.S. government and bodies (NIST).

So now thousands is NIST employees and the many subcontractors involved in the investigation are all part of your crazy conspiracy? Unlike your fake YouTube non experts, the guy at NIST actually are experts.

Welcome to Kookville, population: you.

Actually, no, you didn't refute or even actually address the video in question about WTC 7

I don't care about your fake experts on your kooky YouTube videos. The collapse of WTC7 is very well explained and was predicted by the firefighters who saw the building structure deforming.

RIGHT NEXT door and in fact a bit closer to buildings 1 & 2 went unscathed in the whole ordeal that day.

And?

Yeah, Dr. Steven Jones, expert on thermite, not a credible source at all. lol

Correct, he is a ludicrous and widely mocked kook who is not really an expert on thermite.

Yeah, you're right, Xerox machines, fax machines, elevators, water coolers, highly explosive things found in buildings, watch out.

Yup. You don't want to be around things like that when they are burning. Anything pressurized explodes. Anything with batteries explodes. Fire extinguishers actually explode. HVAC systems explode. Lots and lots of things explode when a building burns which is one reason who you never want to be in a burning building.

In addition to explosions you have debris falling down elevator and ventilation shafts causing big booms.

Also the collapse of the floors above drove air and other gases down elevator and ventilation shafts at incredible pressures which would basically cause the elevator shafts to explode, blowing off their doors and any other weaker parts of the structure.

But really let's talk about you: your theory is that the building collapsed from the basement. That's what you claimed. Bombs on the ground floors. But we know that's false. It's proven the building did not collapse from the ground floor.

So your theory is fucking wrong and deserves no more airtime.

 

[basketcase]

Figures, another corporate owned mainstream media outlet....

Yep, the whole world is in on the conspiracy. Thankfully we have a few brave souls like you to enlighten us.

 

[Jubee]

Lets not forget simple physics either. When the accelerating mass is much larger than the mass of each stationary floor then the resistance is minimal and the new increased mass will continue to accelerate.

Then there's the whole finite element thing. As the exterior frame fell away the lower floors would start falling even before impacted by the large mass above.

Simply put you post a lot of words but clearly have little idea of the physics involved.

"Minimal" or not, the floors above impact did not have a huge drop and in turn managed to pick up "steam" (so to speak) or acceleration, they were above other floors which were structurally sound and strong.
Had the floors above impact been dropped at unimaginable heights, then maybe the argument/point could have some kind of validity (for argument's sake) but even then it wouldn't crash through entirely down straight to the ground.
Resistance is the keyword here.

There are more floors that are solid and still providing good structure and support (well over 2/3rds of the building) only to have some floors above it penetrate the rest like they were nothing and provided zero resistance.

 

[Jubee]

Yep, the whole world is in on the conspiracy. Thankfully we have a few brave souls like you to enlighten us.

Not the whole world, just the ones in power and capitalists, no doubt about it.

Look how Hitler gained his power or do you not know of it came to be?
One word, Reichstag.

 

[basketcase]

...
2) any residual fires due to the jet fuel fireball could not heat up enough to start melting steel. ....

Why do you keep up with this bullshit. Do you think the study I posted about tensile strength of structural steel at temperatures was part of the corporate Illuminatti conspiracy too?

Even at the temperature of an office fire, the steel would have lost much of its strength. When combined with the damage caused by the planes...



And (as was mentioned by someone) if it was a government plot with a controlled demolition they would have had no need for the planes. They could have blown up the buildings and said that another AQ nut put bombs in the parking garage.

 

[basketcase]

Dear Fuji,

I love first hand accounts + a mix up of scientific facts. ...

That is obvious. You love posting mixed up science.

 

[Jubee]

So now thousands is NIST employees and the many subcontractors involved in the investigation are all part of your crazy conspiracy? Unlike your fake YouTube non experts, the guy at NIST actually are experts.

Welcome to Kookville, population: you.

Is this against Terb policy? Name calling, insults? Nice. Stay classy. If you're mad, I understand the frustration. But it'll take time to settle in.

I don't care about your fake experts on your kooky YouTube videos. The collapse of WTC7 is very well explained and was predicted by the firefighters who saw the building structure deforming.

Firefighters seeing molten lava, hearing explosions are fake experts?
Dr. Steven Jones, well respected scientist, fake expert. Got it.

Correct, he is a ludicrous and widely mocked kook who is not really an expert on thermite.

On the contrary, he's not.
But again, I understand your appeal to ignorance on this one.

Yup. You don't want to be around things like that when they are burning. Anything pressurized explodes. Anything with batteries explodes. Fire extinguishers actually explode. HVAC systems explode. Lots and lots of things explode when a building burns which is one reason who you never want to be in a burning building.

Yes, they can all explode and therefore, they shouldn't be in buildings in the first place, because they'll burn up carpets, desks, chairs, copy/fax machines and fire insulation to temperatures that will melt steel. lol

One Meridian Plaza, 1991 - burned for 6-7 hours, 4 floors and never collapsed. That was some kind of incredible steel Fuji.

In addition to explosions you have debris falling down elevator and ventilation shafts causing big booms.

Plausible, no doubt, but, can you say that with complete certainty? Or are you just reaching here? Sort of like the furniture office fires + carpets + water coolers, burning up to temperatures over 2,500 F that are required to start to melt steel.

Also the collapse of the floors above drove air and other gases down elevator and ventilation shafts at incredible pressures which would basically cause the elevator shafts to explode, blowing off their doors and any other weaker parts of the structure.

Other gases? Like? Please do tell, elaborate and share your wisdom.
Sounds like you're describing the scene of a Michael Bay movie, except, in his films, more windows blow out than what we saw on 9/11.
More "pancaking".

But really let's talk about you: your theory is that the building collapsed from the basement. That's what you claimed. Bombs on the ground floors. But we know that's false. It's proven the building did not collapse from the ground floor.

No, we don't know that. We're told otherwise by the government via NIST, but NIST had to change their theory when science was thrown in their face and well yeah, how embarrassing for them huh?

So your theory is fucking wrong and deserves no more airtime.

[/quote]
More science stuff.
NIST lies, omits WTC 7 in their report. How convenient huh?
Go to 2:35 in the video, a comparison of the twin towers versus a building that burned for 20 hours and still stood after the fire was out, whereas WTC 1 burned for one hour and then collapsed. lol

3:25 will make you rage and you'll probably smash your keyboard, understandably so, so I'll see you tomorrow?

 

[Jubee]

Why do you keep up with this bullshit. Do you think the study I posted about tensile strength of structural steel at temperatures was part of the corporate Illuminatti conspiracy too?

Even at the temperature of an office fire, the steel would have lost much of its strength. When combined with the damage caused by the planes...
And (as was mentioned by someone) if it was a government plot with a controlled demolition they would have had no need for the planes. They could have blown up the buildings and said that another AQ nut put bombs in the parking garage.

So you truly believe that an office fire has the potential to heat up to temps of 2,500+ which is required to compromise steel?
WOW!
You sure you're on the side of science here? lol

You left out the rest of my post, quite selective if you ask me, however, I'll re-post it.

"That's the whole point, a plane couldn't bring down a building that size.
1) jet fuel burned up instantly.
2) any residual fires due to the jet fuel fireball could not heat up enough to start melting steel. Really, office furniture, machines? papers? desks? chairs? You really believe that?
Let's not forget there is insulation in the building as well.

Then Newton's 3rd law comes into play, over 70% of the building was fine, so you believe that the top smaller portion really got damaged so much that it tore through down to ground level and there was NO resistance?
LOL come on now.

As eznuts put it, you have to take it up with Newton. "