- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:07 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Me. Until I’m shown evidence of a massive yet covert project in which a demolition team could have set charges in a building fully open to the public & nobody noticed anything unusual.
What if the owner of the building said it was set up for controlled demolition? Would you believe it then? (Second X video down).
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Occam's Razor.
Looks like a controlled demolition, sounds like a controlled demolition, the building owner says it's a controlled demolition, it just might be a controlled demolition.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:07 pm to Toomer Deplorable
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:13 pm to Toomer Deplorable
"Because Ignorance is Strength"
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:17 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Sound of a steel specimen in a yield/tensile strength procedure:
Cool. Now do a W24 in compression. Surely it won’t be any louder.
quote:
It is very wrong to think the sound signature from the two cases are anywhere close to each other.
I’m sure you “eyewitnesses” are trained to discern the differences. This post was edited on 9/12/24 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:24 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Cool. Now do a W24 in compression. Surely it won’t be any louder.
You do not know what this sounds like. Can you provide a link to a W beam failing in ultimate tension, please?
Even if you could I seriously doubt is sounds anything close to a shape charge.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:26 pm to GumboPot
I still do
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:27 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I’m sure you “eyewitnesses” are trained to discern the differences.
Um, the link I provided above the sound is broken down by an audio engineer.
Why are you so adverse to the controlled demolition reason behind Building 7? Even the Building 7 owner Larry Silverstein subscribes to that reasoning.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:28 pm to Penrod
quote:
I still do
The Building 7 owner doesn't.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:37 pm to GumboPot
quote:Neither do you. But you are claiming it would sound different.
You do not know what this sounds like.
quote:No. I’m. not trying to “educate” you. You seem dedicated to being wrong. And tension would the wrong failure mode, as I’ve noted. But one thing is for damn sure in situ fraction be a hell of a lot louder than it would in tension.
Can you provide a link to a W beam failing in ultimate tension, please?
quote:Silly to think someone blocks away is going to be able to go “oh, that’s a model678 shape charge I hear going off!
Even if you could I seriously doubt is sounds anything close to a shape charge.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:42 pm to GumboPot
quote:Thsts nice. Compared to what?
Um, the link I provided above the sound is broken down by an audio engineer.
quote:Because there no specific evidence other than. “the building fell straight down” to prove it. I don’t feeding trolls and ignorant people a bunch of stupidity. If I did, I’d just go with “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel” and call it a day.”
Why are you so adverse to the controlled demolition reason behind Building 7? Even the Building 7 owner Larry Silverstein subscribes to that reasoning.
If the building fell over like a tree as you seem to think it should have—THAT would be suspicious as hell. It would actually be quite hard to get a building to fall over that way.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 1:48 pm to GumboPot
The same government that took 5 days to get bottled water to the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina can also do this.... Simply amazing
This post was edited on 9/12/24 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 9/12/24 at 2:02 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
No. I’m. not trying to “educate” you. You seem dedicated to being wrong. And tension would the wrong failure mode, as I’ve noted. But one thing is for damn sure in situ fraction be a hell of a lot louder than it would in tension.
You seem so certain. Should be really easy to prove. Link?
quote:
Silly to think someone blocks away is going to be able to go “oh, that’s a model678 shape charge I hear going off!
Just as silly as saying that is the sound of a W24X104 fracturing sounds like a shape charge. You don't know.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 2:03 pm to evil cockroach
quote:
The same government that took 5 days to get bottled water to the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina can also do this.... Simply amazing
Catch up in the thread. It's MOST likely was not the same government you are talking about.
This post was edited on 9/12/24 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 9/12/24 at 2:23 pm to GumboPot
A tensile failure in a lab is nothing like a large structural failure. Fast forward to about 2:30.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 3:04 pm to Flats
Flats thanks for the video but aircraft aluminum or any aluminum does not have toughness characteristics of structural steel. Additionally that video is not representative of a structural steel beam snapping. It's representative of a airplane wing snapping which is made of brittle (compared to structural steel) aircraft aluminum. Steel beams bend and twist whether the load is applied axially or laterally from either direction. They don't snap through bending. (They can snap through shearing...but that not really snapping, it's shearing.)
This is what happens to a steel W beam loaded past its yield strength:
This is what happens to a steel W beam loaded past its yield strength:
Posted on 9/12/24 at 3:57 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Don't believe me. Take the expertise of thousands of my fellow colleagues:
Why should I believe them when they doctor their videos with added audio?
The first video I watched from that site showed one of the towers collapsing with a popping or explosive sound immediately prior to the collapse.
Which couldn’t be heard in any other video.
Don’t need to read or see anything more from them.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 4:08 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Don’t need to read or see anything more from them.
Ok, then just believe what Larry Silverstein said, the owner of Building 7.
Posted on 9/12/24 at 4:09 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I'd rather stick with the science
I’ll play along. You’ve clearly researched this topic and have formed your opinions and beliefs, which is your right.
My question…what makes your sources more reliable or truthful than anybody else’s? Who said there was thermite at the WTC site? Is there a particular reason to automatically believe that if you read it on the internet?
You assume that some people in our government collaborated with a plan to knock down the building. You’ve found sources on the internet to support your theory. You can find sources to support damn near any theory these days. You posted some tweets earlier in the thread. What makes that person’s claims more valid than anybody else’s?
Posted on 9/12/24 at 4:17 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
Who said there was thermite at the WTC site?
USGS confirmed the presence of metal oxides (the main constituents of thermite). LINK
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
quote:
You assume that some people in our government collaborated with a plan to knock down the building.
Link in this thread to where I made that assertion. Read back in thread. I've explained that IMO it had very little to do with U.S. government if at all.
quote:
You posted some tweets earlier in the thread. What makes that person’s claims more valid than anybody else’s?
It's difficult to answer generalities. Can you be more specific?
This post was edited on 9/12/24 at 4:29 pm
Page 12 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News