Oxrock Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 No, softened steel would not "hold up" a building, however unless that softened steel was on every structural support beam on every floor of the building it would not permit a controled inward collapse at freefall velocity. The building would have twisted where it was structurally damaged, the outer walls would have buckled, and the weight of the structure above the damaged area would have fallen outward, away from the building, or "tipped". It's the whole reason we have demolition engineering to begin with, rather than just detonating cylinders full of accelerants on the upper floors of buildings we're trying to bring down. Buildings don't come down like that on their own. !@#$. You're a 9/11 truther? Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 TYTT, did OJ do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 List them, and provide details, or STFU. Excuse me....youve done NOTHING but post your own completely uninformed out-of-your-ass opinion in this thread but someone comes back at you and you demand facts and figures? Go back to The View couch, Rose O'Donnell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) !@#$. You're a 9/11 truther? Idiot. No, I just understand the science behind demolition engineering. You, apparently, do not. TYTT, did OJ do it? I believe he did, yes. The forensic science bears it out. He got off because the forensic science also bore out evidence tampering. Excuse me....youve done NOTHING but post your own completely uninformed out-of-your-ass opinion in this thread but someone comes back at you and you demand facts and figures? Go back to The View couch, Rose O'Donnell. The hard physics behind freefall velocity vs.structural resistance is an uninformed "opinion", but the fiat declaration that airplanes vaporize when they crash, despite the anti-science absurdity of that claim, must go unchallenged? What !@#$ing planet is this? Edited February 3, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The hard physics behind freefall velocity vs.structural resistance is an uninformed "opinion", but the fiat declaration that airplanes vaporize when they crash, despite the anti-science absurdity of that claim, must go unchallenged? What !@#$ing planet is this? So what do you believe happened that day in Pennsylvania? This should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 So what do you believe happened that day in Pennsylvania? This should be interesting. Other than losing a family friend who was on that flight, I don't know. I don't have enough information to say, and I don't like to speculate, as speculation without evidence is just as absurd as claiming that steel vaporizes on impact when it's traveling at 500 mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Other than losing a family friend who was on that flight, I don't know. I don't have enough information to say, and I don't like to speculate, as speculation without evidence is just as absurd as claiming that steel vaporizes on impact when it's traveling at 500 mph. I don't recall anyone official saying "vaporized" No identifiable parts of wreckage yes vaporized no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I don't recall anyone official saying "vaporized" No identifiable parts of wreckage yes vaporized no. Donald Rumsfeld for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) If these are legitimate pictures then Flight 93 didn't vaporize: Edited February 3, 2013 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Donald Rumsfeld for one. That's called poetic license. Like a football player getting "smashed" Doesn't support your vast conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 That's called poetic license. Like a football player getting "smashed" Doesn't support your vast conspiracy theory. I don't have a conspiracy theory at all, much less a vast one. I don't have enough information to formulate a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The twin towers were the first tall building that Yamasaki designed. It was revolutionary in that it did not have either four corner steel pillars nor a center concrete core. He designed in what some call the "screen art" style first expressed by LeCorbusier. The lattice work of the screen helps to solidify the structure from sheer and torque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I don't have a conspiracy theory at all, much less a vast one. I don't have enough information to formulate a theory. Yet you suspect 9/11 was what? "Arranged?" "facilitated" By whom? Who gained from placing explosives in the world trade towers? Bush? Al qaeda? Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 No, softened steel would not "hold up" a building, however unless that softened steel was on every structural support beam on every floor of the building it would not permit a controled inward collapse at freefall velocity. The building would have twisted where it was structurally damaged, the outer walls would have buckled, and the weight of the structure above the damaged area would have fallen outward, away from the building, or "tipped". It's the whole reason we have demolition engineering to begin with, rather than just detonating cylinders full of accelerants on the upper floors of buildings we're trying to bring down. Buildings don't come down like that on their own. There was nothing "controled" about the collapse of the buildings you moron. Ten floors of a building are going to flip over from the point of failure (which is clearly seen on the video) rather than just falling straight down once they are no longer supported?? Good grief, I didn't realize suspension of the laws of gravity were a further requirement for nutty 9-11 conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) You been doin "shine'? Nope. Just a serious question. I know it would be criminal. I know it would one of the worst events of the world if the Gov was behind it, but at this point, looking back, I do not see what difference it makes. Proving the the terrorists did it makes us afraid. If we proved the Gov did it, we'd be more afraid. There would still be millions who would never believe it, there would be millions who said it was worth it, and there would be those that would just go on with life. So many events have happened since 9/11 and so many of them were pointless. Debating it mercilessly does not solve much of anything and perpetuates just as much fear as being told we have dirty bombs, underwear and shoe bombers, Saddam with WMD's, and OBL planning to poison our water troughs. As a side note: Some people go through life like my grandpa did. OJ was innocent and framed by the drug cartel - Nicole and the guy were running drugs and doing dope. NASCAR is rigged. WWE is the most pure sport out there and McMahon is ruining the company. The President is always struggling, but Democrats are always going to fight for his needs over the Republicans (he was a Southern Democrat/DixieCrat). Clinton lied to protect Monica from looking like an impure woman, trying to let her save her reputation since she was a woman and all. Coolidge was fine - Southern industry didn't suffer in his eyes (and it didn't here). Vietnam, Nixon, and any Republican President was a shame. Hoover was a good president because he didn't overlook the little man, though. Eisenhower was a crook. The 9/11 tragedy was because our President was Bush, but Pearl Harbor was because those damn Japs lied to us and then got whats coming. And if you do not take away my point from my gramps immediately, then I will just say this. If he believed all of that, whether factual or not, he still blames whatever happened on Bush and that is why he never accepted what happened to be the entire series of events also known as the truth. He believed OBL was getting us back for the Cold War, or something along that lines - I forgot the details. Edited February 3, 2013 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) Nope. Just a serious question. I know it would be criminal. I know it would one of the worst events of the world if the Gov was behind it, but at this point, looking back, I do not see what difference it makes. Proving the the terrorists did it makes us afraid. If we proved the Gov did it, we'd be more afraid. There would still be millions who would never believe it, there would be millions who said it was worth it, and there would be those that would just go on with life. So many events have happened since 9/11 and so many of them were pointless. Debating it mercilessly does not solve much of anything and perpetuates just as much fear as being told we have dirty bombs, underwear and shoe bombers, Saddam with WMD's, and OBL planning to poison our water troughs. As a side note: Some people go through life like my grandpa did. OJ was innocent and framed by the drug cartel - Nicole and the guy were running drugs and doing dope. NASCAR is rigged. WWE is the most pure sport out there and McMahon is ruining the company. The President is always struggling, but Democrats are always going to fight for his needs over the Republicans (he was a Southern Democrat/DixieCrat). Clinton lied to protect Monica from looking like an impure woman, trying to let her save her reputation since she was a woman and all. Coolidge was fine - Southern industry didn't suffer in his eyes (and it didn't here). Vietnam, Nixon, and any Republican President was a shame. Hoover was a good president because he didn't overlook the little man, though. Eisenhower was a crook. The 9/11 tragedy was because our President was Bush, but Pearl Harbor was because those damn Japs lied to us and then got whats coming. And if you do not take away my point from my gramps immediately, then I will just say this. If he believed all of that, whether factual or not, he still blames whatever happened on Bush and that is why he never accepted what happened to be the entire series of events also known as the truth. He believed OBL was getting us back for the Cold War, or something along that lines - I forgot the details. I'm not saying you are wrong about it being terrible either way, but I think that it would have made a difference to those servicemen and women who died in Afghanistan for one thing. It would also make a difference as to who we need to fight. It sure would make a difference in this 2nd ammendment debate. Edited February 3, 2013 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 So grampa calls the civil war the war between the states and you think it's OK to carry that forward and say who cares if 9/11 was government plot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 John Adams, B-Man, and KD in CT: I'm not going to have an argument about it with you, And finally, we do have plenty of data on plane crashes in remote fields. Those crashes create wreckage, not empty craters left by planes which "vaporize" on impact. I can't believe that I am responding again to this bullcrap. In your previous "empty field" plane crashes, the planes were attempting (as best they could) to live. In this case you have a jet accelerating straight into the ground......................thus, sadly, not much remains. I think that from now on, I am going to pretend that you are just trying to jerk us around (for responses) and don't really believe this nonsense bye . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 So grampa calls the civil war the war between the states and you think it's OK to carry that forward and say who cares if 9/11 was government plot? I believe the southern name is War of Northern Aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I believe the southern name is War of Northern Aggression. What ever grandpa says. Good thing he's a Democrat, he skipped the part about FDR having advance knowledge about Pearl harbor and ignoring it so we would go to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts