R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 8507 times)

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2007, 05:12:01 am »

This is what the experts on explosive demolition who actually had access to the site and multiple seismic readings have to say about theories of explosive demolition.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%20 8-8-06.pdf
Logged

max cooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2007, 09:35:09 am »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 01:25



SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors?




I'm sure they did.

When you're driving down the highway in your car and you hit a grasshopper, the impact slows your car slightly.  Can you feel it or see it?  Probably not.  

I think the best case against a 911 conspiracy is the fact that it would involve a hell of a lot of people and they'd all have to be keeping the whole thing a secret.  Seems unlikely.


But hey, if it keeps guys like Jeff Rense in business...
Logged
I'm infinitely baffled.

rollmottle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1246
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2007, 11:03:01 am »

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 23:25



the WTC towers had an exterior shell which was built as you mentioned with an exterior shell.

the building was externally stiffened to stop it from oscillating side-to-side.

this makes perfect sense! all of the load-bearing is carried by the central coloumn which is



had you a clue or even done some cursory research, you would know the WTC towers' shell were in fact a critical part of the load bearing structure. you know, when i visited the towers as a kid back in the early 80s, you learned that on the tour.




Quote:


why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..?


TV is a COMMERCIAL medium...

turn off your TV and use your head.




Max says: Watch the video evidence!
Max says:  But wait, don't watch TV because it can't be trusted!

Everybody says: WTF. Where do you think all those Youtube videos came from? How can you trust the very medium you mistrust for the entire basis of your evidence? So turn off your TV and watch Youtube videos instead? Nice, consistent logic as always dood.
Logged
SENTRALL Sound East
My SoundCloud | Twitter | www.sentrall.com

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2007, 04:06:34 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:13


I could say the same about you jimmyjazz, couldn't I..


Doubtful, given that I hold a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 American engineering school, not to mention the title Principal Engineer for the company where I've spent the past 14+ years of my life.  My main areas of expertise are mechanics of materials, acoustics/vibrations, rotating machinery, and structural analysis.

But enough about me.  The story in question centers on a renowned structural engineer's analysis.  Certainly you don't consider yourself qualified to refute his work, do you?  (My father, who was a Structural Engineering professor for 40 years as well as chairman of the Steel Joist Institute says the guy is right on, by the way, but again, that holds no sway with you, does it?)

Yeesh.  Rein it in a bit, will ya?
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2007, 04:11:11 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 02:25


why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..?
.
.
.
SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors?


Have you read the report which answers these very questions?
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2007, 04:44:56 pm »

Ah, Max...

Whatever would we do without you!

Watch this if you would...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c

Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living?

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2007, 04:16:25 am »

ssltech wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 22:44

Ah, Max...

Whatever would we do without you!

Watch this if you would...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c

Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living?

Keith


'the heat of the fire would have softened both the...coloumns...trusses'

bwahahahahaha!!!!

yeah!!

I suggest you go and see some welding up close friends...

Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2007, 04:17:43 am »

I love how the big chunk of tower which was falling to the side in that video disintegrated by itself as it was falling..

too much.

this whole discussion is a good lesson for ME..
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2007, 09:30:51 am »

maxdimario wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:16

ssltech wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 22:44

Ah, Max...

Whatever would we do without you!

Watch this if you would...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c

Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living?

Keith


'the heat of the fire would have softened both the...coloumns...trusses'

bwahahahahaha!!!!

yeah!!

I suggest you go and see some welding up close friends...




I suggest you learn some metalurgy.

Oh shit! sorry! Learning anything is against your religion.

"Softened" is perhaps not the best term... how about "weakened"? Will you accept (since it is a basically recognized fact in metalurgy) that the temperatures the fires are generally acknowledged to have reach would weaken the steel?

Oh, and how about expansion? Would you accept that those same temperatures would result in notable expansion of the steel beams?
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2007, 09:31:35 am »

Good.

So Max, you think that structural engineering -like audio engineering- is something that should NOT be done by professionals?

(-Not an unreasonable conclusion based on your posts in this and other threads...)

Oh, and yes. I weld. I weld enough to understand at least SOMETHING about how localised heat deforms panels and structures, and which way they would likely move.

C'mon Max... I've given you the two factors you need to answer a question that you asked (about the "45
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2007, 09:33:29 am »

Damn you John... -stop giving him clues!!! (I think we were typing replies at the same time...)

-If he can't LEARN anything from people who know something, at least he might think for himself! Wink

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2007, 09:33:59 am »

maxdimario wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:17

I love how the big chunk of tower which was falling to the side in that video disintegrated by itself as it was falling..

too much.

this whole discussion is a good lesson for ME..


By itself?

Ok, now I now you're not particularly observant, but if you look REALLY closely, you'll see a load of dust being generated at the point of collapse.... that's because the moving bit is constantly colliding with a non moving bit.

Actually if your theory that the structure was broken by explosive charges before the collapse reached it was correct, then this would make the disintegration of that top section LESS likely.

You really don't think this stuff through AT ALL, do you?
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2007, 10:18:57 am »

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 13:06


Doubtful, given that I hold a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 American engineering school, not to mention the title Principal Engineer for the company where I've spent the past 14+ years of my life.

No offense intended here, but that doesn't really mean much, does it? Goergie Bush the Lesser graduated from Yale with a degree, and has held the title CEO of a number of companies. So its not a good reference. What people actually do is what counts. I can't tell you how many well-educated EE's I've met who have contributed little to audio except attitude and degree spouting, as well as some brilliant self-taught folks who build real usable stuff.

Technically speaking, my brother is a rocket scientist. He now says his college years were a waste except that he can brag that he is one, given that he's never spent a day doing anything with it. Our father never got past 8th grade in a village in eastern Hungary, but he built analog computers in our basement in the 60's.

Your "qualifiers" may make you an expert, but they don't make you informed or correct.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2007, 11:01:22 am »

I'll accept the statements of a mechanical engineering Master's degree holder long before that of a legacy Yale C-student undergrad (you get a C just for showing up for the final.)  

Most people who get graduate degrees actually do know something about their subject.  

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2007, 11:41:10 am »

In the case of most mechanical or structural engineers, "failure is not an option".

In the case of the Texas hatrack, failure -it would seem- is not a problem.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up