The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

DGM said:
ETA: That was a funny slip, I said "we" created instead of "were".

Did I just admit this out loud?
Click to expand...

You're going to lose your corner office and keys to the executive washroom in NWO towers for that little slip up, Agent 4359!
 
Dave Rogers said:
That sentence doesn't even mean anything.

Dave
Click to expand...

Buckling is a deformation process. Steel will not go through this process at gravitational acceleration.

A W Smith said:
Sorry, but under no circumstances has a controlled demolition resulted in gravitational acceleration.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly know this? And how would this even help your case? If controlled, coordinated explosive charges fail so often to produce free fall then why would you expect fire to do it?
 
tempesta29 said:
Buckling is a deformation process. Steel will not go through this process at gravitational acceleration.
Click to expand...

You're still not making any sense.

Acceleration = change in velocity / time

How does one measure the velocity of "buckling"?

If one COULD measure the velocity of "buckling", how are you so certain it cannot occur at gravitational acceleration? Have you done the measurements and experimentation yourself?

Please show us your data and calculations.
 
tempesta29 said:
Buckling is a deformation process. Steel will not go through this process at gravitational acceleration.

How can you possibly know this? And how would this even help your case? If controlled, coordinated explosive charges fail so often to produce free fall then why would you expect fire to do it?
Click to expand...


Temp,

Steel is a very heavy element, gravity will have an effect on it reguardless of your delusions.

Why in the hell would people rig a building when it's on fire? Explain that to us Temp! :rolleyes:
 
tempesta29 said:
Buckling is a deformation process. Steel will not go through this process at gravitational acceleration.
Click to expand...
Since no one who has been part of any thorough investigation into the collapses has ever claimed that's what happened, who cares?

It's become clear that no matter how many times it's explained, in no matter how many different ways, you are never going to understand the findings of NIST's investigations. Trying to poke holes in something you don't understand is pointless and hopeless. It's tilting at windmills.
 
1337m4n said:
You're still not making any sense.

Acceleration = change in velocity / time

How does one measure the velocity of "buckling"?

If one COULD measure the velocity of "buckling", how are you so certain it cannot occur at gravitational acceleration? Have you done the measurements and experimentation yourself?

Please show us your data and calculations.
Click to expand...

If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable. That load will still be resisted by the steel during its failure and therefore never experience free fall. What I think is being suggested is that the load was so great on all of these columns that it produced such rapid failure as to be unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall, despite the fact that so much of the load was the columns themselves and the rest was building materials that had comprised the rest of the structure for decades.
 
tempesta29 said:
If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable. That load will still be resisted by the steel during its failure and therefore never experience free fall. What I think is being suggested is that the load was so great on all of these columns that it produced such rapid failure as to be unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall, despite the fact that so much of the load was the columns themselves and the rest was building materials that had comprised the rest of the structure for decades.
Click to expand...

Could you please be a little more specfic? What load was supported by buckling columns and then fell at a speed "unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall"? None of the WTC buildings fell at any speed near free fall.

ETA - technically, I suppose it should be "accelerated at a rate close to that of free fall," but whatever. 9.8 m/s/s :)
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable. That load will still be resisted by the steel during its failure and therefore never experience free fall. What I think is being suggested is that the load was so great on all of these columns that it produced such rapid failure as to be unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall, despite the fact that so much of the load was the columns themselves and the rest was building materials that had comprised the rest of the structure for decades.
Click to expand...
And that measurement would be?


(The rest of the post is like.....WOW :jaw-dropp)
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable. That load will still be resisted by the steel during its failure and therefore never experience free fall. What I think is being suggested is that the load was so great on all of these columns that it produced such rapid failure as to be unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall, despite the fact that so much of the load was the columns themselves and the rest was building materials that had comprised the rest of the structure for decades.
Click to expand...

Define "free fall".
 
carlitos said:
Could you please be a little more specfic? What load was supported by buckling columns and then fell at a speed "unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall"? None of the WTC buildings fell at any speed near free fall.
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus. Are we really doing this over again?

DGM said:
And that measurement would be?
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question?
 
tempesta29 said:
If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable. That load will still be resisted by the steel during its failure and therefore never experience free fall. What I think is being suggested is that the load was so great on all of these columns that it produced such rapid failure as to be unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall, despite the fact that so much of the load was the columns themselves and the rest was building materials that had comprised the rest of the structure for decades.
Click to expand...


What if the buckling led to breaking and separation of joints, welds, flanges, etc? Then nothing is supporting the load.
 
tempesta29 said:
If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend.
Click to expand...
Do you think it takes more force to initiate the buckling, or to continue the buckling once initiated?

If you pick the latter, you are saying a buckled structural member is stronger than one which has not buckled, surely even you realize this isn't the case?

So why wouldn't the collapse occur at an accelerating rate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom