Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

No but it was great enough to cause structural damaged the fires weakened the steel enough to fail under load the the DYNAMIC load on the floor below made that fail repeat the process and the towers ripped themselves apart .

I will post links later to fire test data and other info later.

You know, every time I've seen the towers fall, and it's a lot, I could swear they're falling from the base (both of them).

Interesting. Do you genuinely believe this?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

No but it was great enough to cause structural damaged the fires weakened the steel enough to fail under load the the DYNAMIC load on the floor below made that fail repeat the process and the towers ripped themselves apart .

I will post links later to fire test data and other info later.

You know, every time I've seen the towers fall, and it's a lot, I could swear they're falling from the base (both of them).

Interesting. Do you genuinely believe this?

They certainly ain't falling from the top down, if you'd quoted everything else I said, then at the very least you should know, I don't believe the official line, no matter how it's spun

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

"Thanks for all your evidence. I'm just going to ignore it in favor of what I think happened. Also, I am not required to provide evidence for any of my theories." Truthers suck.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

"Thanks for all your evidence. I'm just going to ignore it in favor of what I think happened. Also, I am not required to provide evidence for any of my theories." Truthers suck.

You've been hiding under a rock, everything in this thread has been covered over & over previously, on many occasions and nothing changes anything. Additionally, I'm not a truther, I'm a free thinker who's bored

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


YOU have just repeated the CLASSIC truther quote collapse by fire it WASN'T just by fire you people ignore the damage to the structure do you really thing that wouldn't be a problem seriously

The collapse in each tower started at the aircraft impact points.

There has been discussion about the fire not being hot enough to melt the steel structure of the towers. It didn't have to melt the steel, it just had to reduce it's yield strength enough that it failed.

Last September the Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh caught fire. The fire wasn't as hot as the fires in the WTC, nor did they burn as long. Take a look at the damage to one of the trusses.



Engineers stated that if the fire had lasted much longer, there was a good chance that the structure of the bridge would have had a total failure.

When you consider the structural damage to the towers, the number of welds, bolts and rivets that were broken or damaged from the impact, I'm surprised that the towers did not collapse on impact.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

No but it was great enough to cause structural damaged the fires weakened the steel enough to fail under load the the DYNAMIC load on the floor below made that fail repeat the process and the towers ripped themselves apart .

I will post links later to fire test data and other info later.

You know, every time I've seen the towers fall, and it's a lot, I could swear they're falling from the base (both of them).

Interesting. Do you genuinely believe this?

They certainly ain't falling from the top down, if you'd quoted everything else I said, then at the very least you should know, I don't believe the official line, no matter how it's spun

I'm asking you a straight question. Having watched the videos of the collapse lots of times do you genuinely believe that both towers collapsed from the bottom?

a reply to: verschickter

It's not about being closed minded. Is about proof and the same arguments over and over again on ATS, Redit, Metabunk, Skeptic International for the last fifteen years.

The bottom line Gauge / Jones put themselves in a box claiming the witnessed collapse speed could only be achieved by the floor by floor use of demolitions. Just four devices on each floor of one tower would be 440 demolition devices. And the system of demolitions survived when the tower elevators and fire sprinkler systems were severed? Then survived the fires?


You people have watched too many Hollywood films and base everything on fantasy movie physics.

a reply to: neutronflux

WTF read my posts before you jump to conclusions. You´re ridiculous.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: neutronflux

WTF read my posts before you jump to conclusions. You´re ridiculous.

Little touchy? Maybe you are emotional way to deep into this.

Sorry that I was open minded about the WTC. Sorry I watched debates and have done as much research as possible. Sorry I try to see if there are credible facts and evidence to back what I post.

And for all my effort?

Found the same arguments have played out for the last fifteen years on multiple sites.

Found it laughable there are no sounds of a floor by floor demolition of the WTC.

Found it laughable the implied complex system of floor by floor distribution of demolitions would servive the jet collisions and wide spread fires. Especially in the context the collisions severed elevator cables and fire water mains.

Sad persons overlook the hard work of individuals that hand shifted through WTC debris at the pile and by conveyor belt. Efforts that reclaimed evidence, personal items, and over 19000 remains used to identify over 1000 missing persons. No proof of explosives shrapnel nor steel worked on by explosives/ incendiaries at the WTC

Bewildered in the fact because I did not find evidence the towers were built with a self destruct option, did not find evidence the WTC was rigged to blow, did not find evidence of WTC controlled demolition, did not find evidence of thermite I am accused of being a government agent?

Bewildered because not believing the USA government physically and directly caused the WTC destruction I am accused of not questioning the official narrative and complacent in 3000 deaths.

Then the movement's lake of intellectual honesty and transparency. After 15 years, you still have to fight tooth and nail to prove the hand sorting of WTC debris by conveyor belt took place. The same arguments with the same people. To have them act like it's the first time every time.

a reply to: neutronflux

You´re totally wrong, and it shows that you lack reading comprehension. I said the stored energy brought the building down, not explosives or anything else. DUH!

a reply to: neutronflux

Anyone who has a little idea about physics knows that for example the argument "but why would the other floors collapse, they were holding the load all the time" is factual wrong because there is stored energy in terms of the energy that was needed to pull that stuff up. If you take an apple from the floor and put it on the table, you stored that energy. The gravity is pulling on the apple and the desk can be seen as pushing it up, so it stays there. If you pull that table away, the stored energy is released while the apple accelerates down.

So, don´t be so close minded and jump to conclusions about people so fast. The world is not black and white, gladly.

That´s the post you replied to. Learn to read.

So, don´t be so close minded and jump to conclusions about people so fast. Fits to you, too.

a reply to: verschickter

A reply to me that ends in closed minded with out specifically stating who is closed minded? Very ambiguous..... just saying

a reply to: neutronflux

You still don´t get it, don´t you? If you´ve read more than the last sentence, it would have been clear. That´s what I ment and you are the perfect example. The ultimate fail. You did not even read my post but went on on your preset opinion that I must be a so called "truther".

That´s why I find you ridiculous. It´s even more ridiculous that you now try to blame me for you lack in reading comprehension. Well done, you delivered the best example I could ever come up with.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: neutronflux

So, don´t be so close minded and jump to conclusions about people so fast. The world is not black and white, gladly.

Yes, it not all the quote. But this is what was communicated and what I perceived.

This was misfortunate.

a reply to: neutronflux
But a perfect example of what I was talking about from the start. See the irony? Many people from both sides are guilty of that and that´s what I was talking about in the first pages. Attitude.. and that´s why I went for the WTF. Not because I´m "emotionally tied" to this but it´s like voicing opinion A and the second you turn around the other one tags you with opinion B...

a reply to: verschickter

I'm not the one that used WTF, just saying.....

a reply to: neutronflux
It was called for, because it was a real WTF moment. It´s not like I insulted you. Emotionally tied much?

a reply to: verschickter

Still don't quite get why you would end a quote to me saying don't be close minded? You do realize that was in a reply calling out my username? Did you address any other person by username? And you honestly don't understand the confusion?

a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks for all your hard work. Sorry people basically say you suck to try to discredit you, but runaway from any intellectual debate. It roots out those that take the conspiracy theories on faith, and have no interest using intellectual debate to get to the truth.

Close minded in terms of you´re thinking people are running from an intellectual debate, when it´s not possible because of his attitude. Hope that explains it.