A conversation about 9/11 between myself and a friend of mine on Facebook.

[Tankbot85]

Obviously I did not adequately explain my use of that video. It was to show that uncompromised support beams will give resistance to the momentum of the falling structure upon impact. Should one of the uncompromised parts buckle, something not shown in the video, the energy that is required to buckle the structure comes from the momentum of the falling structure resulting in a loss of momentum. Because no two beams are exactly the same and the forces exerted on them are not exactly the same at each point in time, it is impossible for them to buckle uniformly during a collapse unless they are cut on every level at the same time. This also means that unless controlled, it is astronomically unlikely that the building will fall straight down. The point I am attacking is the fact that the buildings collapsed at free fall speeds, directly into their own footprint, meaning that there was no resistance given by the uncompromised lower floors. It is a precise science to get a building to do this under controlled conditions.

I am not sure what to believe, but after watching both of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth documentaries i have a hard time believing the official story.

 

[idiom]

You have to remember to account for the chemtrail substances that both planes would have been carrying as a matter of routine. They burn much hotter than regular aviation fuel.

 

[Tankbot85]

You have to remember to account for the chemtrail substances that both planes would have been carrying as a matter of routine. They burn much hotter than regular aviation fuel.

What Chemical substances?

 

[ninepointfive]

You have to remember to account for the chemtrail substances that both planes would have been carrying as a matter of routine. They burn much hotter than regular aviation fuel.

ohh man - don't even go there. One conspiracy at a time, please!

 

[KMX]

Anyone that has seen the evidence and thinks it's not a inside job. Slap yourself. Easy to see but hard to digest.

 

[Danke]

"The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower."

No way.

 

[Danke]

You have to remember to account for the chemtrail substances that both planes would have been carrying as a matter of routine. They burn much hotter than regular aviation fuel.

Good point.

 

[asurfaholic]

That video didn't prove anything of what you are claiming. This is the problem with truthers. They overreach. That structure and WTC are apples vs oranges architecturally.

And to say impact has no effect is to say tornadoes cause no damage.

Im sick of people calling others "truthers" as if there is something perverted and sick about asking very legitimate questions. No matter how absurd the govt explanation is, somehow we are all supposed to just accept it.

Instead of taking the pathetic and childish path of calling names, either present your reasoning or case one way or another, or get out. Insulting others seems to be the only goal of some here.

 

[DavidK]

It's an inside job, you're a damn fool if you think otherwise. I am not un-american. I am pro-american. The families deserve to know the truth about why their loved ones did not come home to them that night.

 

[jmdrake]

Are you a structural engineer? I'd love to see a sketch of your central supporting beams.

Your first statement is dumb. I'll tell you why.

-At 500 miles an hour a toothpick can do some damage. Think momentum. More on momentum in a second.
-As far as no steel structure collapsing because of fire. Well that's bullshit. How do you think steel if forged? What is forging? Its plastic deformation, and this plastic deformation is helped by heat.....
-Finally if you have the mass of, lets say two stories of glass, concrete, and steel above a story that's structural integrity has been compromised then you have the mass of those two stories, combined with the velocity of them falling creating enough momentum to then collapse all below. Its pretty much common ingenuity that you cant build a building that holds falling floors up. It goes against physics. And if you could, it would not function for anything else except that purpose.

WTC was not designed or and engineered to withstand high speed impacts from 747's 707's loaded with jet fuel.

Fixed it for you.



And yes, a 747 is significantly bigger than a 707. But the towers were designed to be able to withstand multiple 707 hits. Oh, and the fire that steel is forged from is much lower than the simple office fires (no jet fuel or diesel fuel) in WTC 7. With WTC 7 you have damage to one corner of the building, yet the building falls straight down. Makes no sense.

 

[ninepointfive]

Fixed it for you.



And yes, a 747 is significantly bigger than a 707. But the towers were designed to be able to withstand multiple 707 hits. Oh, and the fire that steel is forged from is much lower than the simple office fires (no jet fuel or diesel fuel) in WTC 7. With WTC 7 you have damage to one corner of the building, yet the building falls straight down. Makes no sense.

Glad you were able to source those materials - I just sat here and shook my heat at how wrong those statements were.

 

[Liberty Rebellion]

 

[ninepointfive]

That last video is the one to post - the others are only conjecture

 

[Liberty Rebellion]

That last video is the one to post - the others are only conjecture

The other videos show some strange behavior from objects that are supposed to be falling and/or part of a collapse caused by fire, so definitely worth looking at and analyzing

 

[ninepointfive]

The other videos show some strange behavior from objects that are supposed to be falling and/or part of a collapse caused by fire, so definitely worth looking at and analyzing

True - the force alone would blow debris out from the side though. 50mph seems about right with all that mass.

There are better videos though - like this one which shows detonations on the structural members of WTC7, and blowing windows out with fiery detonations right before collapse and has sound:

 

[Professor8000]

I was actually kinda liking arguing with the skeptics. At least they argued better than the girl in the OP.

 

[fisharmor]

Jet-A open-air burn temperature maxes out at about 600F.
In order to bend steel easily you need to get up to about 1500F.
It is possible to use kerosene-like fuels to heat steel to working temperatures, provided there is refractory involved.

If you heat a 1" bar of steel to orange heat and put it on an anvil, and swing at it with a 10-lb sledge, you will be able to bend that bar in a controlled fashion.
If you put that orange-hot bar on a hot cut hardy designed for cutting stock, you will need to swing that 10-lb sledge at least 3-4 times (with all your might) to shear it in half.
There is no hand tool in the world you can use to get a 1", 2000F degree steel bar to fail instantly. You need to up the ante to multi-ton three-phase power tools.

Steel does burn. Quite well, actually. You need a shit-ton of oxygen to do it. In the absence of oxygen steel does not burn. It will eventually crumble when it gets up close to 3000 degrees.
Burning also does not cause steel to fail instantly. It slowly eats it away, almost as if it's rusting in fast motion, and pieces of it ablate away.
The structural integrity of the steel erodes over time. A 1" round bar would become roughly 7/8", then 3/4", etc.

I am not a truther, by the way, only a part-time blacksmith.
I'm not quoting engineers. I'm only relating things I have witnessed first hand.
1" bars are NOT structural girders.

 

[RickyJ]

Her ~ "If you HONESTLY believed that, why the fuck are you still living in America? Better get out before they get you next, right?"

Actually you didn't really answer her question there. I guess the only response would be that there are many of us that believe our government had a hand in 9/11 and they can't kill us all without making the others wake up and realize who the real enemy is.

 

[anaconda]

My friend: And the integrity of the buildings was compromised by the impact of a plane.

Me: The only parts of the plane that could have damaged the building significantly were the titanium engines. However, the planes did not sever the central support beams on every floor, which is the only thing that can allow a building to fall at freefall speeds. Building 9 was never hit with a plane and had a design similar to the Windsor building, and was actually reinforced. It was never struck with debris from the first two towers. Reporters were saying that it collapsed 10 minutes before it came down. Fire personnel were recorded saying that they were going to bring the building down. The one guy that witnessed the explosions inside building 9 and was willing to testify died of a heart attack.

Her: Dumb.

Me: I see I have won the argument.

Classic. You're preaching to the choir. I have been recently Facebook "unfriended" by both a Romney supporter and an Obama supporter. And I was confronted very negatively by a women's rights/Hillary advocate that didn't like me posting the video of her Peter Paul campaign contributions scandal.

 

[anaconda]

I really like this video. The demolition squibs popping out at perfectly even intervals several floors below the destruction front is so obvious that it is unimaginable that anyone denies that this is a controlled demolition..