conspiracy

[–]FisherOfMen 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5日前 (34子コメント)

Has anyone looked into the possibility of half the 9/11 truther movement being a limited hangout to distract from the "real" issue?

The way I see it, the real issue is almost certainly "because of malice/incompetence the government caused/couldn't stop this from happening."

But now most of the energy of the truther movement is going into "can fire melt metal, google it" and "invisible elves wired up the building with thermite between 12:00 and 12:01 am the day before" and "the planes were actually holograms (wtf???)"

Now if you go out and say "I think 9/11 was allowed to happen, one way or the other" you get tarred with the same brush as "planes are holograms and buildings never ever collapse from having explosions of jet fuel in the middle of them!!!!!"

It's a limited hangout, guaranteed.

Here's the handbook

[–][削除されました] 5日前* (8子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]HoboLaRoux 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 5日前 (6子コメント)

[–]JamesBearded 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]RenaKunisaki 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Playaguy 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 5日前 (7子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

[–]Akareyon 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]conzorz 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]phillybilly 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Brodusgus 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]gertrudeChickens 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]LinearFluid 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5日前* (14子コメント)

This building did collapse...

First I will say the usual, we are dealing with two different structural supports. WTC were steel structural support, this building is Concrete structural support. see the columns and the floors are concrete HUGE difference when it comes to fires.

Now lets get back to this building did collapse. If you notice on the tiered top all of the debris that is stacked up at the bottom of the Tier. All that debris is COLLAPSED steel. So you see here that what survived in this building was the structural concrete parts and as proven by the debris field around the bottom of the top tiered part that any structural or facial steel was compromised and collapse into a pile.

EDIT: as a second notice that only the tiered part did the structural Facade collapse. This shows where the fire was most intense. It is just like building a campfire that you build it to create a draft to get the wood burning better and this creates more intensity at the top, This is the same with the WTC but on a different scale. Multiple floors were engulfed, drafting and natural winds at the upper height fueled the fire's intensity causing the intensity needed for the top most floors to collapse from melted steel and then the cascading effect took over.

So thank you for posting this as it better supports the 9/11 happened as said than the 9/11 denyers

[–]funmuffins 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (10子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

[–]firestorm76 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 5日前 (66子コメント)

[–]woozlew[🍰] 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]laliluleno 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]InactiveUser 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (26子コメント)

Ha, love it. /u/Sans-Culotte already did the math for the cost, it's actually dirt cheap if you go with one tower and one plane; half a billion dollars should do the trick if you leave away elevators, HVAC, marble etc.

The problem of course is that the tower will NOT collapse like debunksters claim is inevitable, so they will say it was built too strong or something. OTOH, they never proposed an experiment or model to show HOW the replicas would have to be built to stand for ~ an hour after being hit before they completely, inevitably turn to dust.

Although it explicitly says in the conclusion of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse":

It is proposed to monitor the precise time history of displacements in building demolitions [sic!] — for example, by radio telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or high-speed optical camera — and to engineer different modes of collapse [sic!] to be monitored.

The Challenge

THE TOWER

It should have at least 20 (twenty) floors.
It should somewhat fulfill the definition of a tower (in terms of slenderness ratio λ).
It should be somewhat stable.
It must stand up on its own.
It may have any scale.
It may be of any material.
It may have any density.
It may have any structural layout.

THE COLLAPSE

You may initiate the "collapse" by picking up the top fourth of the tower and let it drop on the lower three fourth. You may drop it from whichever height you like.
- BONUS POINT CHALLENGE: initiate a delayed, sudden total progressive collapse by setting it alight with any amount of gasoline, kerosene or diesel. It must not move (non-negligibly) for at least ten minutes.
The "collapse" must be complete, vertical and roughly radially symmetric (no falling over) and happen within 300% free fall time.
It must work 100%.

This shit needs to be proved without a shadow of a doubt so that the masses will hopefully open their fucking eyes.

They'll find an excuse, they always do. Their investment is too big.

[–]DefectiveDetective 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5日前 (17子コメント)

[–]AlphaBetaOmegaGamma 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

[–]Mylon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Mylon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Justlikeus 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Portinski 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (28子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5日前 (27子コメント)

[–]5triangles1pentagon 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (23子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5日前 (22子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (22 返事)

[–]Portinski 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]1Kv47JcMMMWcaLgUciF4 -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]burningempires -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

1996 Patent Nanoengineered explosives

[–]cavallomorto 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント 5日前 (8子コメント)

[–]sir_wiggum 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (6子コメント)

[–]cavallomorto 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

[–]13toros13 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]rabidrabbity 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 5日前 (16子コメント)

[–]WurdSmyth 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5日前 (11子コメント)

[–]cbs5090 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (10子コメント)

[–]WurdSmyth 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (6子コメント)

Thermite doesn't explode...not to mention that not only does it not explode, there was no thermite found in the debris. We have been over this for the last 7+years.

Every perimeter column was accessible through the removable ceiling panels. Every core column was accessible from the elevator shafts.

A complex modulated structure of reactive elements that have the capability of considerably more heat than organic explosives while generating a working fluid or gas. The explosive and method of fabricating same involves a plurality of very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, each composed of reactive components, such as aluminum, separated from a less reactive element, such as copper oxide, by a separator material, such as carbon. The separator material not only separates the reactive materials, but it reacts therewith when detonated to generate higher temperatures. The various layers of material, thickness of 10 to 10,000 angstroms, can be deposited by magnetron sputter deposition. The explosive detonates and combusts a high velocity generating a gas, such as CO, and high temperatures.

1993 Patent "This invention relates to the fields of chemical reaction kinetics and energetic materials." ...thin layers of substances, reactions: rapidly, slowly, heat but not gasses, buffer prevents the reactions from taking place, ...desired time, ...designed to suit the application

A method for providing chemical energy and energetic compositions of matter consisting of thin layers of substances which will exothermically react with one another. The layers of reactive substances are separated by thin layers of a buffer material which prevents the reactions from taking place until the desired time. The reactions are triggered by an external agent, such as mechanical stress or an electric spark. The compositions are known as metastable interstitial composites (MICs). This class of compositions includes materials which have not previously been capable of use as energetic materials. The speed and products of the reactions can be varied to suit the application.

These look similar to what's described in the 2009 Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

We know the red gray chips are thicker than what's described in the patents but what do we know about the years of advancements in nano compositions since 1993? Any sources?

[–]cbs5090 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

Bogus paper in an open journal without peer review.

Bogus claims all.

Open Chemical Physics Journal, indexed by six services, among them Chemical Abstracts, the premiere world service for chemistry; also Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open J-Gate, Genamics JournalSeek, MediaFinder®-Standard Periodical Directory, Astrophysics Data System (ADS).*

Try again.

What's more.

The material in the red layer (Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe) consists of intimately mixed particles of iron oxide and aluminum embedded in a carbon-rich matrix. The particles range in size from tens to hundreds of nanometers. Elemental aluminum was present in thin plate-like structures, while iron oxide was present as faceted grains, roughly 100 nm across – about a thousand times smaller than a human hair. Source

From The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (Page 8 & 9)

The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company [14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in this study have apparently not been discussed in previously published reports. Source

We can see similarity between these patents from 1993 1996.

1993 Patent Energetic composites
"This invention relates to the fields of chemical reaction kinetics and energetic materials." ...thin layers of substances, reactions: rapidly, slowly, heat but not gasses, buffer prevents the reactions from taking place, ...desired time, ...designed to suit the application

1996 Nanoengineered explosives Patent

Abstract

A complex modulated structure of reactive elements that have the capability of considerably more heat than organic explosives while generating a working fluid or gas. The explosive and method of fabricating same involves a plurality of very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, each composed of reactive components, such as aluminum, separated from a less reactive element, such as copper oxide, by a separator material, such as carbon. The separator material not only separates the reactive materials, but it reacts therewith when detonated to generate higher temperatures. The various layers of material, thickness of 10 to 10,000 angstroms, can be deposited by magnetron sputter deposition. The explosive detonates and combusts a high velocity generating a gas, such as CO, and high temperatures.

Can this be explained without a conspiracy?

[–]cbs5090 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]cbs5090 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]InactiveUser 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]nfoneo 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]DieselFuel1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]rabidrabbity 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Rockran 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 5日前 (34子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 5日前 (21子コメント)

[–]rogue780 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (19子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5日前 (14子コメント)

[–]rogue780 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (13子コメント)

The Twins were extremely lightweight.

No, they weren't.

Their density was below that of most woods.

So?

Seal them airtight, throw them into the Atlantic, and they buoy.

Water is also fucking heavy. Doesn't mean things that weigh less than water aren't heavy.

Like most other tube-in-tube designs modern skyscrapers have since it was invented by Fazlur Rahman Khan.

Different materials were used. There's a difference between steel reinforced concrete, and steel.

Which collapsed only partially, not like the Twins.

There's also a difference in how the fire started and propagated. The twin towers had a lot of mass above a weakening support. In fact there were over 11 floors above where the fire in 1 WTC was. Whereas there were only 9 floors above where the firs started in the Windsor Tower.

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (12子コメント)

The Twins were extremely lightweight.

No, they weren't.

Yes they were. Empire State Bldg is much heavier in terms of density.

Water is also fucking heavy

Not if compared to lead or gold. Your words have no meaning when they relate not to reality, but a world that consists only of air.

Different materials were used. There's a difference between steel reinforced concrete, and steel.

So you agree it's not because they both had "centralized supports going up through the middle"? Great. So it's the material. Would all steel-framed buildings behave like the Twins then?

The twin towers had a lot of mass above a weakening support

The same mass that was always there.

In fact there were over 11 floors above where the fire in 1 WTC was. Whereas there were only 9 floors above where the firs started in the Windsor Tower.

The WTC also had much more floors, which means that in relation to the Windsor Tower, the North Tower was even less affected than the Windsor Tower.

[–]rogue780 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (11子コメント)

Yes they were. Empire State Bldg is much heavier in terms of density.

I wasn't aware that the empire state building had been set on fire or been struck by a passenger get and survived.

Not if compared to lead or gold. Your words have no meaning when they relate not to reality, but a world that consists only of air.

So you think they were made of air?

So you agree it's not because they both had "centralized supports going up through the middle"? Great. So it's the material.

You're one of those people who can't hold in their mind multiple factors. I think you're mentally retarded.

The same mass that was always there.

But the difference was that previously the supports of the building weren't weakened by heat. Steel doesn't have to melt to become affected by heat. Don't believe me? straighten out a paperclip and clamp it onto a table so it protrudes perpendicular to the force of gravity. Attach 3 pennies to the end. Take a torch and heat the middle of the paperclip. It won't melt, but that fucker will bend.

The WTC also had much more floors, which means that in relation to the Windsor Tower, the North Tower was even less affected than the Windsor Tower.

That's not how physics works.

[–]Akareyon 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (10子コメント)

Look, we can't agree on basic principles of physics, like "density", so where can this possibly be leading?

You cite the weight.

But you do not mention the strength. It's at least twice as strong as it is heavy! Because Factor of Safety. While it is true that if the top falls on the bottom, deformation will occur, this energy will be dissipated by the whole structure at the speed of sound in steel.

So even when the dynamic load that results from all the jet fuel melting, uh, weakening steel beams is 8.4 times greater than the next floor is designed to carry, by the time the first floor is crushed, the whole strength of the whole structure down to the foundation carries this weight because that's what it is designed for.

Nothing just takes itself apart from top to bottom like the Twins did except domino towers.

[–]rogue780 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (9子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4日前 (8子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]InactiveUser 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]rogue780 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]InactiveUser 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]thinkmorebetterer 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]thinkmorebetterer 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[+]captbutts[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 5日前* (9子コメント)

[–]cgeezy22 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Roarian 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 5日前 (7子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

WTC actually was somewhat unusual in its design,...

Since 1963, a new structural system of framed tubes appeared. Fazlur Khan and J. Rankine defined the framed tube structure as "a three dimensional space structure composed of three, four, or possibly more frames, braced frames, or shear walls, joined at or near their edges to form a vertical tube - like structural system capable of resisting lateral forces in any direction by cantilevering from the foundation ". Closely spaced interconnected exterior columns form the tube. Horizontal loads (primarily wind) are supported by the structure as a whole. About half the exterior surface is available for windows. Framed tubes allow fewer interior columns, and so create more usable floor space. Where larger openings like garage doors are required, the tube frame must be interrupted, with transfer girders used to maintain structural integrity. Tube structures cut down costs, at the same time allow buildings to reach greater heights. Tube-frame construction was first used in the DeWitt - Chestnut Apartment Building , designed by Khan and completed in Chicago in 1963 . It was used soon after for the John Hancock Center and in the construction of the World Trade Center.

A variation on the tube frame is the bundled tube, which uses several interconnected tube frames. The Willis Tower in Chicago used this design, employing nine tubes of varying height to achieve its distinct appearance. The bundle tube design was not only highly efficient in economic terms, but it was also "innovative in its potential for versatile formulation of architectural space. Efficient towers no longer had to be box-like; the tube-units could take on various shapes and could be bundled together in different sorts of groupings " . The bundled tube structure meant that "buildings no longer need be boxlike in appearance: they could become sculpture ".

The tubular systems are fundamental to tall building design. Most buildings over 40 - storeys constructed since the 1960s now use a tube design derived from Khan’s structural engineering principles, examples including the construction of the World Trade Center, Aon Centre, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall sky scrapers since the 1960s . The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest sky scraper , the Burj Khalifa.

Fazlur Rahman Khan, the father of tubular design, is the most influential structural engineer of the 20th century. He has been called the "Einstein of Structural Engineering" for his revolutionary work which remain fundamental to modern sky scraper construction.[7] His breakthroughs in structural engineering for tall and long-span buildings exerted an unprecedented and lasting influence on the profession, both nationally and internationally. With a career marked by a legacy of innovations that is unpeered, Khan has become an icon in both architecture and structural engineering.[51]

Nice chart 1/2 way down.

Source

コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

[–]Darklord_America 42ポイント43ポイント44ポイント 5日前 (202子コメント)

[–]laliluleno 30ポイント31ポイント32ポイント 5日前 (13子コメント)

[–]cgeezy22 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 5日前 (12子コメント)

[–]DishonestCartooNIST 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

The official Government report even rejects that theory.

Source:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST NCSTAR 1A, p. xxxvii

Could you stop with the coincidence theories? You should at least be on the same page as the official report as a 9/11 Faither, instead of contradicting it.

[–]billdietrich1 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]cgeezy22 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4日前 (2子コメント)

[–]cgeezy22 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (0子コメント)

[–]laliluleno 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

[–]cgeezy22 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]laliluleno 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (1子コメント)

[–]caitdrum 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]funmuffins 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 5日前 (163子コメント)

[–]HoboLaRoux 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (33子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 5日前 (30子コメント)

The Spanish tower was not hit by an airplane. That is the major difference.

It burned for 24 hours like a huge torch, the Twins did not, that is another major difference.

Why do so many truthers discount the damage caused by the plane impact?

Why do so many debunksters try to blow it out of proportion? WTC7 fell without airplane. NIST themselves say the Twins would have remained standing, and blame it on the fire. And dislodged fireproofing. Before 9/11, the word was a plane would be like a "pencil piercing a mosquito netting". Now suddenly, they were HUGE airliners, that cut through the building and did tremendous damage.

Also to you the challenge: even if the plane had cut through the building like a hot knife through butter: how do you build a tower so it completely collapses when you pick up its top 1/4 and let it drop on the bottom 3/4?

Why have I heard tuthers use the phrase "collapsed due to fire alone".

WTC7 collapsed due to fire alone. Why would planes be necessary for the Twins?

Are they trying to cover up and had the fact that a plane actually impacted the towers?

You got something wrong there. Truthers are those who claim the government covered up.

It's hard to wrap my head around that fact that anyone could think the plane impact had nothing to do with the collapse.

Fasten your seatbelts, Dorothy, 'cuz Kansas' going bye-bye:

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, perimeter columns, and floors) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multi-floor fires.

NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 174

So what you really got here is the following: debunksters who jump from "but muh plane" to "muh fire" and back with a "but muh fireproofing" thrown in-between for good measure. And truthers who say "you know what, have it all on a silver platter, your planes and your fires and your dislodged fireproofing: build a tower. Pick up the top 1/4. Drop it on the bottom 3/4. Make it collapse completely, vertically, symmetrically, without it falling over, buckling, leaning or shearing."

コメントをもっと表示する (30 返事)

[–]Benjammin123 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (1子コメント)

[–]HoboLaRoux 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (0子コメント)

[–]erix_the_tuna 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (6子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]erix_the_tuna 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]erix_the_tuna 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]erix_the_tuna 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–][削除されました] 5日前* (121子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]woozlew[🍰] 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 5日前 (100子コメント)

[–][削除されました] 5日前 (99子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]Akareyon 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 5日前 (95子コメント)

[–]FlamingEagles 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (94 返事)

https://youtu.be/CROB5p-1GjE

[–]billdietrich1 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5日前 (17子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5日前 (16子コメント)

[–]tight_lips_tony 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 5日前 (10子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Xavienth 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]DishonestCartooNIST 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]captbutts[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

[–]intergalacticvoyage 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]DishonestCartooNIST 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

Smoking Gun: Free fall occurred in Building 7's collapse for 2.25 seconds. NIST was attempting to cover this up, but a physics teacher called them out at the public draft hearing. Surprisingly, in its final report released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but dishonestly placed it in bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video series was created by the man who forced NIST to admit free fall occurred and displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 coverup.

Part 1: http://youtu.be/Rkp-4sm5Ypc

Part 2: http://youtu.be/iXTlaqXsm4k

Part 3: http://youtu.be/v3mudruFzNw

More info: http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

Danny Jowenko - Demolition Expert: https://youtu.be/0f4w8iJmn08

Mr. Jowenko concludes that WTC 7 had to have been a controlled demolition without a doubt. (RIP)

9/11 Survivor Barry Jennings Uncut Interviews (WABC-TV, 2001, LC 2007): https://youtu.be/OmeY2vJ6ZoA

Barry talks about the explosions in Building 7 and his escape from it after tying to enter the office of emergency management area on the 23rd floor. (RIP)

These professionals appeared on C-SPAN last August to discuss the demolition evidence of 9/11 -- it is now the most popular video on the site since then, and #7 all-time: http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth — 400,000 views

Some of the members:

Steven Dusterwald, S.E. - Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/I7oti6KGEf4

Mr. Dusterwald presents contradictory evidence between the NIST model and the actual sequence of failures within all the WTC Buildings.

David Topete, MSCE, S.E., Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/v9WB1A9j8f8

Mr. Topete discusses how WTC Building 7's column 79's failure could not have caused the symmetrical and simultaneous collapse into it's own footprint.

Casey Pfeiffer, S.E. – Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/V4y6cweaegI

Mr. Pfeiffer provides a in-depth look at what actually happened to the top portions of the WTC towers prior to collapse and how WTC 7 could not have experienced simultaneous connector failure without the use of controlled demolition devices.

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/3WCcSHpvAJ8

Mr. Obeid, a 30-year structural engineer explains how NIST's analysis actually disproves it's own theories on how WTC Building 7 collapsed, thereby confirming the use of controlled demolition.

Ron Brookman S.E., Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/TM_l_4sJ-sY

Mr. Brookman discusses his direct inquiries with President Obama and NIST on NIST's responsibility to find the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7 and their responses.

They have been attempting to expose the fraud in the NIST reports, along with thousands of other professionals. Here are a few:

Bob Bowman PhD, Lt. Colonel (ret.):

The former head of the Star Wars program under President Ford & Carter, has multiple engineering degrees and agrees that NIST is conducting a massive coverup. (RIP)

Lynn Margulis PhD:

https://youtu.be/O0fkDmi78Og

1999 Presidential Medal of Science award winner and Carl Sagan's first wife, Lynn Margulis, provides crucial rules and elements within an investigative scientific analysis to procure an accepted hypotheses vs. what's depicted in the NIST report. (RIP)

Rudy Dent, 9/11 survivor and former Fire Marshall:

https://youtu.be/nQrpLp-X0ws

32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD Rudy Dent, speaks about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7 and gives his professional opinion on the destruction of the buildings with his experience as a Fire Marshall.

Another prominent member from this group is:

Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer: https://youtu.be/gJy7lhVK2xE

Mr. Humenn gives us quite a unique perspective inside the elevator shafts in the twin towers and how access to the core columns could have been gained.

Click here for their series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself –including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross--should be investigated.

Did you know? NIST did not follow standard fire investigation protocol:

Erik Lawyer – Firefighter: https://youtu.be/KsbbpUA9FHM

Mr. Lawyer presents investigative directives from the National Fire Protection Standards Manual that were never followed by NIST or FEMA for the fires they claim caused all 3 WTC Buildings to collapse.

Building 7 collapsed at 5:21 pm on 9-11-2001 - it was first and only steel skyscraper in world history to collapse because of fire.

[+]captbutts[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 5日前 (18子コメント)

[–]Goredrak 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–][削除されました] 5日前 (14子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]NUZdreamer 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (13子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

From http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/world-trade-center-construction-unique.htm :

[–]akilyoung 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]kayzne 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (37子コメント)

Why WTC towers weren't like other buildings:

startquote

There were two main factors that greatly distinguished the two main towers of the World Trade Center from anything that had been built before them: their walls and their elevators.

Prior to the construction of the Twin Towers, skyscrapers were designed to support themselves through large internal columns spaced about 30 feet (9 meters) apart, which interrupted the flow of interior space. For this project however, the engineers came up with a different solution -- the exterior walls themselves would support the bulk of the structure, and they would get a boost from one single column of beams in the center.

endquote

I don't know if any or how many buildings AFTER the WTC were built like that.

[–]AlwaysTurning 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5日前 (6子コメント)

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]AlwaysTurning 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]AlwaysTurning 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

Well considering the reasoning I was told for the rest of the towers structure collapsing is that all of the support was in the core, that implies that the core shouldn't fall because it's were all of the heavy support is. However in all of the videos the only pieces of the core we see after the event are very small pieces with almost no real structure....so the towers fell because the supports were in the center but then the core collapsed because the floors collapsed.... Whatever, believe what you want just know if sounds absurd. If it were even physically possible for the floors to collapse in such a way we should at least see the strong cores left standing. I don't think I want to try and convince anyone anymore it's exhausting watching the loops people go through to make the official story possible and there's never even slight consideration of the opposite opinion.... Have a good one, believe what you want.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

Well considering the reasoning I was told for the rest of the towers structure collapsing is that all of the support was in the core, that implies that the core shouldn't fall because it's were all of the heavy support is.

You're gonna have to explain your reasoning there.

The main support was in the core, therefore the core is indestructible?

Whatever, believe what you want just know if sounds absurd.

Tell that to the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and every other organization tasked with engineering and protecting buildings in the first world.

I think you'll find if you poke your head out from circlejerk subs like this one, the absurd beliefs belong to you.

If it were even physically possible for the floors to collapse in such a way we should at least see the strong cores left standing.

Except for the massive fucking hat truss that came barrelling down the center of the building when it collapsed and kicked the shit out of the interior supports.

Except for that, right?

[–]AlwaysTurning 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]mrhappyoz 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 5日前 (13子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

[–]bgny 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

I don't know if any or how many buildings AFTER the WTC were built like that.

It's available.

Since 1963, a new structural system of framed tubes appeared. Fazlur Khan and J. Rankine defined the framed tube structure as "a three dimensional space structure composed of three, four, or possibly more frames, braced frames, or shear walls, joined at or near their edges to form a vertical tube - like structural system capable of resisting lateral forces in any direction by cantilevering from the foundation ". Closely spaced interconnected exterior columns form the tube. Horizontal loads (primarily wind) are supported by the structure as a whole. About half the exterior surface is available for windows. Framed tubes allow fewer interior columns, and so create more usable floor space. Where larger openings like garage doors are required, the tube frame must be interrupted, with transfer girders used to maintain structural integrity. Tube structures cut down costs, at the same time allow buildings to reach greater heights. Tube-frame construction was first used in the DeWitt - Chestnut Apartment Building , designed by Khan and completed in Chicago in 1963 . It was used soon after for the John Hancock Center and in the construction of the World Trade Center.

A variation on the tube frame is the bundled tube, which uses several interconnected tube frames. The Willis Tower in Chicago used this design, employing nine tubes of varying height to achieve its distinct appearance. The bundle tube design was not only highly efficient in economic terms, but it was also "innovative in its potential for versatile formulation of architectural space. Efficient towers no longer had to be box-like; the tube-units could take on various shapes and could be bundled together in different sorts of groupings " . The bundled tube structure meant that "buildings no longer need be boxlike in appearance: they could become sculpture ".

The tubular systems are fundamental to tall building design. Most buildings over 40 - storeys constructed since the 1960s now use a tube design derived from Khan’s structural engineering principles, examples including the construction of the World Trade Center, Aon Centre, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall sky scrapers since the 1960s . The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest sky scraper , the Burj Khalifa.

Fazlur Rahman Khan, the father of tubular design, is the most influential structural engineer of the 20th century. He has been called the "Einstein of Structural Engineering" for his revolutionary work which remain fundamental to modern sky scraper construction.[7] His breakthroughs in structural engineering for tall and long-span buildings exerted an unprecedented and lasting influence on the profession, both nationally and internationally. With a career marked by a legacy of innovations that is unpeered, Khan has become an icon in both architecture and structural engineering.[51]

Nice chart 1/2 way down.

Source

[–]billdietrich1 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

http://newwrh.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html

[–]funmuffins 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (9子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (8子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (7子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (6子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (5子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4日前 (3子コメント)

I believe /u/funmuffins and I would have no hard time coming to a sensible agreement that although not very often two skyscrapers are built exactly the same, many modern skyscrapers rely on the exact same design principle. Because /u/funmuffins and I are not playing a game of sophistry, semantics and shifting goalposts.

But you are.

So back to the part where you ask "Have any of those buildings burned?" and I link you to an extensive list of skyscraper fires on Wikipedia and then you ask: "Yes, but the question is 'did any buildings built the same way as WTC burn ?'"

And I say again "Even the Twins themselves burned before and did not collapse".

So: yes, at least one building built the exact same way as WTC 1&2 burned.

And you'll find that there are a few more skyscrapers with a basic design principle very similar to that of the Twins did burn - Torre Windsor, Federation Tower, Tower 42 for example.

None of which exhibited total progressive collapse, as they should according to the official "inevitability theory".

[–]billdietrich1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Akareyon 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4日前 (1子コメント)

Yeah, I ignored your "Twins burned before" comment,

You ignore a lot.

because they didn't.

Yes it did.

I assume you're referring to the 1993 bombing

Not your first wrong assumption.

correct me if you mean something else.

I mean the February 13th, 1975 fire in the North Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/14/nyregion/14WTC.html?_r=0

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/not-so-hot.htm

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/February_13_1975_World_Trade_Center_One_Fire

This should answer your question whether any building built with the same basic design approach /u/funmuffins mentioned has burned. Your argument - or lack thereof - again was one from ignorance. Yes, skyscrapers burn all the time. No, they never rapidly, completely collapse from those fires. Yes, even the WTC itself stood ablaze before, no, it did not collapse although 65% of the 11th floor was on fire, spreading to other floors as well, no, collapse was not even considered a possibility, although it should be according to the official story, where a skyscaper can collapse due to office fires alone.

Knowing you from previous debates, you'll want to have the last word and explain how you were right all along, so I'll leave it to you:

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Ikari_Shinji_kun_01 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]funmuffins 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]DishonestCartooNIST 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]costabius 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 5日前 (2子コメント)

[–]cbs5090 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]davidmyers5 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5日前 (11子コメント)

[–]iknowthatiamright 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5日前 (4子コメント)

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

[–]ThatOneGuy4 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5日前 (5子コメント)

[–]andai -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]SkullCollector 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5日前 (8子コメント)

[–]Bitvar 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)

[–]SkullCollector 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4日前 (0子コメント)

[–]billdietrich1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (1子コメント)

[–]323624915 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (0子コメント)

[–]funmuffins 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5日前 (3子コメント)