[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 104 KB, 540x650, wtc-9-11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3597009 [Reply] [Original]

This is not a conspicary bullshit thread.

I was watching this video about 9/11 and, to my utter surprise, in the beginning there was an engineer who said IT WAS A CONTROLED DEMOLITION! without any calculations to back that up whatsoever. The video continued in that manner until I saw this: (05:06) in the video. Can anyone explain to me in mathematical details how the buildings on 9/11 collapsed so quickly compared to those older ones? In fact, any explanation would do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#!

>> No.3597032

>there was an engineer who said IT WAS A CONTROLED DEMOLITION

An international committee of demolitionists researched into this and determined, no, it fucking does not look like one at all.

>Can anyone explain to me in mathematical details how the buildings on 9/11 collapsed so quickly compared to those older ones

Because controlled demolitions are NOT supposed to enter fucking freefall and scatter burning dust clouds over the city.

>> No.3597035
File: 1.49 MB, 270x224, lol-truthers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Can someone please explain to me why so many of the public buy the official story of the collapse of these storage shelves?

The fork lift truck didnt move with enough force to displace all those items on the shelves and the structural damage to a single support would not have been enough to weaken all shelves to the point of collapse.

The way the shelving fell into its own footprint despite the fact we are told and "shown" it was struck from the side is clear evidence of foul play

The neighbouring storage shelves were not even hit by the fork lift truck but they also collapsed. If that does not prove to you this was a field test for optical stealth anti-shelving clean demolition missiles then you are a deluded sheep

>> No.3597041

>>3597009
What, hotter-burning fires didn't bring buildings down?
Yeah, a building will retain its structural integrity better in a fire IF IT WASN'T JUST HIT BY A FUCKING AIRPLANE.
Why are you watching such garbage?

>> No.3597051

Engineers and architects are not the people to ask about demolitions.

Bomb squads are.

>> No.3597063
File: 727 KB, 1269x2216, barney.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

When the structure fails unsupported material will ofc enter free fall. If the building failed at the bottom like WTC7 then it could seem the top of the building is in freefall for quite some time untill it collides with something considerably rigid and supported.

Hope that helps you understand OP

>> No.3597085

>>3597041
fires can take down buildings with metal supportting structures quite easily (without a plane hitting anything). Thats why fire prevention systems are so important.

If you heat the supports they expand, then your metal supports are longer than your concrete building, which isnt particularlly good the structure

>> No.3597098

>>3597085

That, and steel loses its tensile strength REALLY quickly when heated, even if not near its melting point.

>> No.3597100

>>3597009
OP, if you read the NIST reports, or other independent engineering reports, you'll find that the video is lying when it says the fire caused it. The structural damage was the main cause. The beams that were weakened by fire also had their fire insulation blown off by the explosion. The engineering analysis focuses on what supporting beams were damaged or broken in the initial collisions (with the planes or in the case of wtc7, with the falling parts of wtc1). And it goes without saying that the "fell into its own footprint" canard is absolute bullshit.

>> No.3597118
File: 199 KB, 902x936, 1283814714923.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

When are you sheep going to open your eyes? 9/11 was clearly planned by Tolkein.

>> No.3597164

impact blew the fireproof coating off the beams
burning fuel heated beams causing them to sag
sagging beams sheared small bolts on the end connections(they were not designed to withstand shear - I think they were only 5/8" bolts)

>> No.3597206

>>3597164

WTC 7 Wasn't hit by a fucking plane

>> No.3597214

>>3597206
It was hit by a building that was hit by a plane.

>> No.3597230

I'm no expert but I think gravity played a part

>> No.3597232

>>3597230

Amazing, I don't think anyone has thought of that