- 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
re: Tucker Goes There With WTC Building 7 Discussion
Posted on 5/1/23 at 6:53 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 5/1/23 at 6:53 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
My dad, who is a fairly accomplished engineer, says there is zero question that jets loaded with fuel could have brought the towers down. He says it's damn fortunate the planes couldn't access the towers at a lower level, because the lower the strike, the greater the chance of the towers toppling instead of coming straight down.
Your dad was absolutely right. Any engineer or person with knowledge of the structure and forces at play agrees that the way the towers fell is exactly how such structures would collapse after that type of impact and unmitigated fire.
1
Posted on 5/1/23 at 6:55 pm to Lakeboy7
You are trash
Posted on 5/1/23 at 6:56 pm to Timeoday
quote:
My mother, who is a metallurgist, says the fuel and fires could not burn hot enough to affect the metal structure of the building.
Based on spec? Probably not.
What does your mother say after the fireproofing and other materials were blown away by a massive jet slamming into it at full power? Does your mom the metallurgist believe that compromised/bent/cracked/shattered steel holds up to the same temperature as uncompromised steel?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:03 pm to Indefatigable
What does your mother say after the fireproofing and other materials were blown away by a massive jet slamming into it at full power? Does your mom the metallurgist believe that compromised/bent/cracked/shattered steel holds up to the same temperature as uncompromised steel?
These guys don't believe that.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots.
LINK
These guys don't believe that.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots.
LINK
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:11 pm to thermal9221
quote:
So you’re telling me that when they were erecting the building there was a contractor that came in and installed charges in certain structural members to be detonated at a later date? Remotely? The building was completed in 1987 so probably installed in 1984/85? Then, on September 11 2001, the person that had the remote decided to detonate the charges after the building was on fire for like 10-12 hrs? AFTER 2 of the biggest buildings collapsed next to it? He happened to be by his remote (likely had D batteries) and decided now is the time?
Why would you assume any demolition devices would have been installed prior to/during the original construction?
I'll let you go, you've got some research to do.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:22 pm to Timeoday
quote:Your mother needs to go back to school. Steel looses almost half its strength at 500°. Guess’s what the design SF is for structural members.
My mother, who is a metallurgist, says the fuel and fires could not burn hot enough to affect the metal structure of the building.
quote:No. They don’t. Column failure is a well u derdtiod phenomena. And vertical collapse is exactly what would be expected.
Most expositions of collapse theories invoke the "tremendous energy" of falling mass impacting the floors below to explain the thorough destruction of the Towers.
How do you think the building would fail from a high strike? Laterallly? Why would you expect thst?
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:26 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:Oh, no. Please do explain.
I won't waste my time trying to explain how these aluminum craft could not have done what we have been told.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:27 pm to Taxing Authority
The buildings were a unique design where the outer skin was the primary support for the entire structure,
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:29 pm to Timeoday
quote:
My mother, who is a metallurgist, says the fuel and fires could not burn hot enough to affect the metal structure of the building.
Your mother is not a metallurgist.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:30 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Theres no better example of Dunning Krueger than 9/11 conspiracies.
Any engineer or person with knowledge of the structure and forces at play agrees that the way the towers fell is exactly how such structures would collapse after that type of impact and unmitigated fire.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:32 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:32 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:Not exactly, but it doesn’t answer the question. In fact, edge strength would increase the odds of vertical failure. Do you understand why?
The buildings were a unique design where the outer skin was the primary support for the entire structure,
Why would you expect it to fail laterally?
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:34 pm to Timeoday
Tucker..
quote:
Anything you shouldn't be allowed to ask questions about is what you should be asking questions about
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:36 pm to David_DJS
quote:
My mother, who is a metallurgist, says the fuel and fires could not burn hot enough to affect the metal structure of the building.
Your mother is not a metallurgist.
"Your mother is a metallurgist" sounds like the utmost compliment at MIT, but a lame insult everywhere else.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:45 pm to thermal9221
quote:
quote:
How much credibility does the gment have?
The government didn’t tell me what happened.
Of course they didn't. And they never will.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:50 pm to Timeoday
Posted on 5/1/23 at 7:53 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Not exactly, but it doesn’t answer the question. In fact, edge strength would increase the odds of vertical failure. Do you understand why?
Why would you expect it to fail laterally?
I'm not a structural engineer. That is why I provided a link to some, in fact many.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 8:01 pm to dgnx6
quote:
quote:
Jesus that video is fake.
Do you believe in dog people too?
Yes, biden hired one thats steals womens luggage.
F'ing brilliant.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 8:12 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:This.
Follow the money. Always about the money and power,
The problem with finding truth about 9/11 is that the elite has successfully contained the conversation to the buildings and how they fell. They don’t want the conversation to progress past that to the question of money/power and who benefits.
As long as the conversation gets bogged down with the buildings and how they fell, no truth will come of it because nothing can be proven in the court of law. The elite made sure of that when they tampered with the evidence immediately after the event.
And anyone in the media who continues to distract us, as Tucker is doing, with more blather about the buildings and how they fell, is working in concert with the Deep State/elite/TPTB (whatever you want to call them).
No truth about 9/11 will be forthcoming until the conversation moves past the buildings and how they fell. Be wary of anyone in media or politics who continues to contain the conversation to that.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 8:14 pm to SixthAndBarone
quote:First, “the government” didn’t do 9/11. Was it an inside job? Obviously. Why? Why did 9/11 happen?
The government blew up the buildings in correlation with the Arabs hijacking the planes and flying them into the building. Why?
Well, to answer that you have to go back to the 1970s and work your way up. That’s when the U.S. officially went off the gold standard and allowed for the endless printing of money without the need to back it up with gold.
In its place, the greedy elite devised a plan to tie the dollar, instead, to the buying and selling of oil – giving the dollar supreme value and keeping it as the world’s currency while freeing up the printing of it.
That’s when the U.S. sold its soul to the Saudis in an agreement to provide the world with oil – to be bought and sold ONLY in dollars.
It kept the dollar as the world’s currency for a couple of decades until a handful of countries in the Middle East decided they didn’t want to be held hostage by the dollar. They had their own Central Banks (the only independent central banks left on the planet) and their own monetary system and began to stray from the dollar, slowly gaining strength and bringing others on board.
The propaganda machine worked overtime to make those countries the hotbed of terrorism (coincidence, I’m sure).
Despite bribery and other attempts at coercion those countries didn’t budge, even after Daddy Bush attacked (Desert Storm), it only strengthened their resolve. They were beginning to get the attention of Russia and China in regards to dealing oil in currency other than the dollar.
The dollar was being threatened and TPTB had to bring that to an end. But how? The American people would never get behind a military invasion of those countries…. unless we were attacked.
9/11 happened and for the next 20 years we sent our military over there to “straighten them out” under the guise of terrorism.
It was about money (power)….It’s ALWAYS about money.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News