100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A 9/11 Challenge/Experiment | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. It was stated that the concrete and insulation was blown away. Anyway the flames at the window could be a different temperature than at the center of the building. I assume it was pretty hot because weren't people jumping off the building? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. It was stated that the concrete and insulation was blown away. Anyway the flames at the window could be a different temperature than at the center of the building. I assume it was pretty hot because weren't people jumping off the building? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poppycock. All the reputable Engineers agree that the weakened steel
frame was bound to collapse from the heat and load. Every study has this finding. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence which suggests that the WTC structure could withstand those impacts and fires. 
It was Al-Qaida hijacked planes alone which brought down the WTC complex. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The building would have fallen this way or that way and not straight down with all struts and support collums failing simultaneously. Think about it, one side of the building had a huge hole in it. That undoubtedly weakened those trusses. Then with the trusses weakened you are asking the other intact trusses to hold the damaged portions weight too. Now I don't hold and engineering degree, in fact my degree is in graphics. But I can still see how more than one truss can fail at the same time. It's the domino effect. How can you not see this? Do you expect two or three to fail and there be no effect on the entire structure? The floors themselves weighed like 13,000 tons a piece. This would be no ordinary demolition! Do you realize how friggin many explosives it would take to hurt WTC. If they were there, everyone within miles would have heard them! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The building would have fallen this way or that way and not straight down with all struts and support collums failing simultaneously. Think about it, one side of the building had a huge hole in it. That undoubtedly weakened those trusses. Then with the trusses weakened you are asking the other intact trusses to hold the damaged portions weight too. Now I don't hold and engineering degree, in fact my degree is in graphics. But I can still see how more than one truss can fail at the same time. It's the domino effect. How can you not see this? Do you expect two or three to fail and there be no effect on the entire structure? The floors themselves weighed like 13,000 tons a piece. This would be no ordinary demolition! Do you realize how friggin many explosives it would take to hurt WTC. If they were there, everyone within miles would have heard them! Bunny is not listening! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The building would have fallen this way or that way and not straight down with all struts and support collums failing simultaneously. Think about it, one side of the building had a huge hole in it. That undoubtedly weakened those trusses. Then with the trusses weakened you are asking the other intact trusses to hold the damaged portions weight too. Now I don't hold and engineering degree, in fact my degree is in graphics. But I can still see how more than one truss can fail at the same time. It's the domino effect. How can you not see this? Do you expect two or three to fail and there be no effect on the entire structure? The floors themselves weighed like 13,000 tons a piece. This would be no ordinary demolition! Do you realize how friggin many explosives it would take to hurt WTC. If they were there, everyone within miles would have heard them! The trusses also had bridging which distributes the load laterally. The bridging also forces the floor to fall as a unit by tying the trusses together. The trusses failed by sagging making a curve instead of a straight line (catenary). Since the sagged trusses cannot stretch, they pulled the columns inward causing the load above the column to no longer pass through the center of the column. This eccentric load buckled the columns inward and down came the building. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. It was stated that the concrete and insulation was blown away. Anyway the flames at the window could be a different temperature than at the center of the building. I assume it was pretty hot because weren't people jumping off the building? Metal conducts heat. The heat will travel down the metal. Weakening will travel down the metal. The fail did start at the impact sight as you can see in the collapse. Once that happens and the building is in motion the Force keeps multiply as its velocity increases. Thus the weakened structure cant support that force and starts to collapse. This adds more mass to the falling mass which also increases the force. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. It was stated that the concrete and insulation was blown away. Anyway the flames at the window could be a different temperature than at the center of the building. I assume it was pretty hot because weren't people jumping off the building? Metal conducts heat. The heat will travel down the metal. Weakening will travel down the metal. The fail did start at the impact sight as you can see in the collapse. Once that happens and the building is in motion the Force keeps multiply as its velocity increases. Thus the weakened structure cant support that force and starts to collapse. This adds more mass to the falling mass which also increases the force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Wed 08/17/11 02:23 AM
|
|
Still waiting for someone to try and debate why on earth the people around the scene of the crime felt the need to remove much of the evidence from it. That alone is suspicious. I answered that above! Didn't you read my post? Why should we bother to answer your questions if you don't even read them? "There was an unknown number of people trapped under thousands of tons of steel and debris. The order was given to contract the removal of material as fast as possible. As the material was removed, it was taken to the usual salvage yards and treated as any other salvage. No police order was given to save the building as evidence, nor should there have been." But it's a CRIME SCENE. You're not supposed to mess with a crime scene! How the hell are they supposed to know who did it if they aren't testing the materials left in the wake of the crime?? Does that make any sense? If you ask me, the fact that they did this anyway shows they had something to hide. Why else would they get rid of it for? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Wed 08/17/11 02:26 AM
|
|
Still waiting for someone to try and debate why on earth the people around the scene of the crime felt the need to remove much of the evidence from it. That alone is suspicious. Does the term 'Triage' mean anything to you? "the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where funds and other resources can be best used, are most needed, or are most likely to achieve success " Priority 1: Safety of rescuers .... wounded / dead rescuers are just more victims Priority 2: Save the living ..... treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors Priority 3: Conserve forensics Clear the debris to render rescue safe, remove debris that prevents rescue, clear an area for triage of rescued victims, keep 'obvious' pieces of evidence aside. Should they save a slab of concrete or a living person? Rescuing the people is one thing, but outright DESTROYING the evidence speaks to something much more sinister. If the remains were gonna vindicate their truth why not let it be investigated?? Hell they spent more money on investigating CLINTON than they did on this! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Shy_Emo_chick
on
Wed 08/17/11 03:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just something i've been observing since it happened (though not in an obssessed way at all), that ever since all the bombing, and people jumping from windows, etc, it humbled people to a point, but the world just hasn't felt right since. People have become meaner. I thought a tragedy was meant to pull people together. Maybe it did at first, but then everything turned crappy. And people these days are just out to see what they can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone explain why there were showers of sparks (thermite) coming out of the building? wtc
there were no marks outside the pentagon because the plane couldnt penetrate it? concrete yet it could penetrate through more concrete in the wtc towers? also the outer tubes were 4 inch thick steel the top half would have slid off the building not fallen staight down you should watch the movie to see how they were built a steel building outside a concrete core the jet fuel would have burned off in the first 5 minutes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone explain why there were showers of sparks (thermite) coming out of the building? wtc there were no marks outside the pentagon because the plane couldnt penetrate it? concrete yet it could penetrate through more concrete in the wtc towers? also the outer tubes were 4 inch thick steel the top half would have slid off the building not fallen staight down you should watch the movie to see how they were built a steel building outside a concrete core the jet fuel would have burned off in the first 5 minutes
Sparks coming from a large office tower aflame and billowing shooting debris as it collapses is not evidence of man-made set explosives. Your assumptions about the construction and failure of the WTC buildings are just wrong and the experts who wrote the official reports are right. Read the reports and they correctly address the construction and failure issues for both the Pentagon and WTC attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone explain why there were showers of sparks (thermite) coming out of the building? wtc there were no marks outside the pentagon because the plane couldnt penetrate it? concrete yet it could penetrate through more concrete in the wtc towers? also the outer tubes were 4 inch thick steel the top half would have slid off the building not fallen staight down you should watch the movie to see how they were built a steel building outside a concrete core the jet fuel would have burned off in the first 5 minutes "Jet fuel would have burned off in five minutes"? That is absurd! Where on Earth do you people come up with this crap? The "top half would have slid off..."? There is no way that would even be possible under any circumstances! IF every single structural member was instantly sliced through, it still would only fall straight down. If they weren't cut, it couldn't move laterally. Thermite? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. It was stated that the concrete and insulation was blown away. Anyway the flames at the window could be a different temperature than at the center of the building. I assume it was pretty hot because weren't people jumping off the building? Metal conducts heat. The heat will travel down the metal. Weakening will travel down the metal. The fail did start at the impact sight as you can see in the collapse. Once that happens and the building is in motion the Force keeps multiply as its velocity increases. Thus the weakened structure cant support that force and starts to collapse. This adds more mass to the falling mass which also increases the force.
No thats what physics dictates. did you ever study physics? I mean you learn that much in High School Physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Wed 08/17/11 08:26 AM
|
|
Still waiting for someone to try and debate why on earth the people around the scene of the crime felt the need to remove much of the evidence from it. That alone is suspicious. I answered that above! Didn't you read my post? Why should we bother to answer your questions if you don't even read them? "There was an unknown number of people trapped under thousands of tons of steel and debris. The order was given to contract the removal of material as fast as possible. As the material was removed, it was taken to the usual salvage yards and treated as any other salvage. No police order was given to save the building as evidence, nor should there have been." But it's a CRIME SCENE. You're not supposed to mess with a crime scene! How the hell are they supposed to know who did it if they aren't testing the materials left in the wake of the crime?? Does that make any sense? If you ask me, the fact that they did this anyway shows they had something to hide. Why else would they get rid of it for? please site examples with evidence of other huge buildings blown up by terrorists where they kept the rubble of the building as evidence. What are they gonna find in the rubble of a collapse building? The collapse would pretty much destroy any evidence. Its scrap there is no point storing it. Not to mention it was contaminated by rescue workers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. It was stated that the concrete and insulation was blown away. Anyway the flames at the window could be a different temperature than at the center of the building. I assume it was pretty hot because weren't people jumping off the building? Metal conducts heat. The heat will travel down the metal. Weakening will travel down the metal. The fail did start at the impact sight as you can see in the collapse. Once that happens and the building is in motion the Force keeps multiply as its velocity increases. Thus the weakened structure cant support that force and starts to collapse. This adds more mass to the falling mass which also increases the force.
No thats what physics dictates. did you ever study physics? I mean you learn that much in High School Physics. Just a note. If the plane had hit the top floor, the fire would have brought the roof down but the weight of the roof probably would be insufficient to bring down the floor below and subsequently the rest of the building. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone explain why there were showers of sparks (thermite) coming out of the building? wtc there were no marks outside the pentagon because the plane couldnt penetrate it? concrete yet it could penetrate through more concrete in the wtc towers? also the outer tubes were 4 inch thick steel the top half would have slid off the building not fallen staight down you should watch the movie to see how they were built a steel building outside a concrete core the jet fuel would have burned off in the first 5 minutes How did they keep the thermite from reacting to the fires that burned off in 5 minutes? How did the fail sequence initiate at the exact locations of the plane impacts when it would be obvious to any idiot that explosives would have been either blown out of the building or strewn about in a way that they would have failed to detonate due to the cables being burned or cut? It would have been extremely risky to attempt this type of detonation because of all the variables and the possibility that they don't collapse. Someone would have found miles of cable and tons of explosives. Yeah.. I am sure it was an inside job.. NOT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse?
We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. |
|
|
|
|
