911 contradictions

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
Post Reply
Avalancheon
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:34 pm
Contact:

911 contradictions

Post by Avalancheon » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:01 am

This video states that the official story of 911 is filled with contradictions and inconsistencys. Its based on a book by david ray griffin, which defines 25 inconsistencys with the 911 commission report. I actually own a copy of this book, and am willing to answer questions on his thesis.


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7802
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by been-there » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:33 pm

Image

Image

Image

Image

The undamaged top of the South Tower can be seen tilting over at a 22°angle.

Q. If we accept the theory that office fires caused the steel beams to weaken and buckle causing trusses to give way on two or three floors, why didn't the tower's top undamaged floors' gravitational fall take the path of least resistance and eventually fall off to the side of the tower? Why instead did its weight allegedly destroy over seventy, undamaged steel-supported floors beneath it, allegedly causing these structually sound floors to collapse at near free-fall speed into clouds of pulverised dust. And what force caused the distengration of the undamaged, central, reinforced, steel-core upon which all the floors were supported?

Image

Image

Image

Image

Q. Why didn't something like this occur:

Image
Last edited by been-there on Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Avalancheon
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:34 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Avalancheon » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:43 am

been-there wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:33 pm
The undamaged top of the South Tower can be seen tilting over at a 22°angle.

Q. If we accept the theory that office fires caused the steel beams to weaken and buckle causing trusses to give way on two or three floors, why didn't the tower's top undamaged floors' gravitational fall take the path of least resistance and eventually fall off to the side of the tower? Why instead did its weight allegedly destroy over seventy, undamaged steel-supported floors beneath it, allegedly causing these structually sound floors to collapse at near free-fall speed into clouds of pulverised dust. And what force caused the distengration of the undamaged, central, reinforced, steel-core upon which all the floors were supported?
I don't think that NIST or any other government agency has ever given an adequate explanation for that. NIST rejected the theory that the WTCs could have been demolished, because they would have heard the explosions. Yeah, that was their actual justification. They completely ignored the possibility of something like thermite being used to cut the core columns.


been-there wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:33 pm
Q. Why didn't something like this occur:

Image
I think it has something to do with the center of mass, and how a building can only tip over a certain amount. This is mainly determined by their metacentric height, IIRC. But you are right in that the collapse mechanism is inconsistent with something purely driven by gravity. Theres no way that the columns could have been heated to the degree needed for them to sag like that and set the collapse into motion.

This image goes into a bit of detail about the center of mass issue.
Image

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:12 pm

The "undamaged" top portion of the second WTC weighed approximately 180,000 TONS! The only force acting on the tower is gravity and the force vector is straight down. The fact that initially the top portion tilted 22 degrees tells us there was a torque applied for a brief period of time and that came from the undamaged exterior structure opposite the entry side holding on until it snapped. Other than that, please tell us where the lateral force to move 180,000 tons (give or take) sideways for hundreds of feet as shown in your diagram comes from?

The second plane was estimated to be going about 586 mph with a weight of approximately 140 tons. That's an approximate momentum (mass times velocity) of 82K tons-miles/hour striking the side of the building laterally. The plane in the initial crash did considerable damage to the side of the building. The top portion in the first second of its fall would have achieved an approximate speed of 20 mph taking into account some resistance. The momentum of that portion was approximately 2,800,000 (two million eight hundred thousand) tons-miles/hour striking the top of the remaining structure straight down. It's no mystery why the towers collapsed the way they did.

aemathisphd
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by aemathisphd » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm

Boy, if only someone with only a rudimentary understanding of physics gleaned from a single high school physics class taken thirty years ago (but in which, to be fair, he got an A without breaking a sweat because he's pretty God-damned smart) had expressed something along these lines at this very forum...
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7802
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by been-there » Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:10 am

aemathisphd wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm
Boy, if only someone with only a rudimentary understanding of physics gleaned from a single high school physics class taken thirty years ago (but in which, to be fair, he got an A without breaking a sweat because he's pretty God-damned smart) had expressed something along these lines at this very forum...
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Wow!
So... because THREE TOTALLY SYMMETRICAL collapses were just two seconds slower than total freefall, that means the collapse of THREE highrise buildings was to be expected??!
2 seconds!!? :o
Amazing that people who believe arguments like this dare go in to high rise buildings if they think the WTC collapses are explainable by that kind of argument.
Or this one:
“First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air...” :lol:

Then really think about the implications of this on the SPEED of collapse:
“The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1”

Even if that were correct it would NOT explain the completely symmetrical collapse of all three buildings. Nor does it explain WTC7 with all its floors collapsing simultanoeusly from the bottom up. It slightly tilted towards the north(?), which the demolition expert Tom Sullivan describes as quite in accord with a controlled demolition.







Image

N.B. "Edited" only to fix image links.
Last edited by been-there on Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Aryan Scholar » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:59 am

been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:10 am
aemathisphd wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm
Boy, if only someone with only a rudimentary understanding of physics gleaned from a single high school physics class taken thirty years ago (but in which, to be fair, he got an A without breaking a sweat because he's pretty God-damned smart) had expressed something along these lines at this very forum...
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Wow!
So... because THREE TOTALLY SYMMETRICAL collapses were just two seconds slower than total freefall, that means the collapse of THREE highrise buildings was to be expected??!
2 seconds!!? :o
Amazing that people who believe arguments like this dare go in to high rise buildings if they think the WTC collapses are explainable by that kind of argument.
Or this one:
“First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air...” :lol:
“First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air...”

This is one of the most stupid statements I ever heard about skyscraper buildings.

Yep, the airplanes hit mostly air (95%), not the tangible parts of the skyscraper buildings (5%).

This is the kind of imbecility expected from Holocaust believers like aemathisphd.

Werd
Posts: 8476
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:01 pm

Considering mathis' stupid "it's mostly just air" argument, it is time to repost this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAJrFKxyriQ
Last edited by Werd on Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.


permanent_denial
Posts: 1690
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:04 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by permanent_denial » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:01 pm
Considering mathis' stupid "it's mostly just air" argument, it is time to repost this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAJrFKxyriQ
I have doubts about the legitimacy of the "official" 9/11 commission's investigation, but honestly this video kinda just makes skeptics look like idiots. A building like either of the WTC towers is not the same thing as a solid brick of material like the guy in this video demonstrates, and there is zero reason to expect that it would act exactly like a solid brick of material. Essentially, it's more like a bunch of toothpicks all experiencing stress and strain and otherwise hollow throughout (at least in terms of structural integrity). Specifically, the cement does not provide "extra" structural integrity, as many truthers tend to insinuate. Cement is very brittle and would actually be relatively easy to crumble with the downward force implied by the failure of the upper stories. You need to focus on the steel structure. Prove the redundancies built into the structure of the WTC would certainly have prevented global collapse in the event of a local failure, then we'll talk.

I tend to think most of this Infowars-tier pseudo-physics building collapse stuff is disinformation to keep people asking the wrong questions. Follow the money if you want the truth about 9/11.
The a Wizarding World of Exterminationism...
------------------------
Cremated remains of HOW MANY CORPSES (alternatively give volume or mass of cremated remains of individually identified analysis not given) has been unearthed from the three stated locations (AR camps) and definitively identified by scientific forensic analysis to be of human origin?
Nessie: NONE
------------------------
creative1: ALL conspiracies are bullshit.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest