Observation
By Vegas
20 Apr 2023 2:43 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
19 posts • Page 1 of 1
20 Apr 2023 2:43 pm
After looking through many images of buildings that were hit by missiles, in different areas like Ukraine, or the Middle East, I noticed that they had an expected hole with surrounding destruction, but they never fell straight down. Most of the structures are still standing.
These buildings are not even nearly structurally sound as was the twin towers, nor were they nearly as tall. The missiles were full of explosives. Yet, somehow, they remained standing. They had a huge holes obviously with structural damage, but they never fell. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It took 1/3 of the FBI building out, but the rest never fell. And there was a **** load of explosives used.
These buildings are not even nearly structurally sound as was the twin towers, nor were they nearly as tall. The missiles were full of explosives. Yet, somehow, they remained standing. They had a huge holes obviously with structural damage, but they never fell. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It took 1/3 of the FBI building out, but the rest never fell. And there was a **** load of explosives used.
20 Apr 2023 4:09 pm
And WTC7 was not even hit by a plane...burned for a few ours and then....pure free fall.Vegas » 20 Apr 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑ After looking through many images of buildings that were hit by missiles, in different areas like Ukraine, or the Middle East, I noticed that they had an expected hole with surrounding destruction, but they never fell straight down. Most of the structures are still standing.
These buildings are not even nearly structurally sound as was the twin towers, nor were they nearly as tall. The missiles were full of explosives. Yet, somehow, they remained standing. They had a huge holes obviously with structural damage, but they never fell. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It took 1/3 of the FBI building out, but the rest never fell. And there was a **** load of explosives used.
20 Apr 2023 4:12 pm
20 Apr 2023 5:55 pm
ACTUALLY, THE TWIN TOWERS WERE A COST SAVING AND POORLY CONSTRUCTED DESIGN.THE SCHEMATICS SHOWED THE BUILDINGS WERE SUPPORTED ALMOST COMPLETELY BY THIN STEEL BEAMS AROUND THE OUTSIDE AND VERY LITTLE SUPPORTIVE STUCTURE ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS. THICKER BEAMS ON THE EXTERIOR AND MORE CONCRETE SURROUNDING THE STAIRWELLS WOULD HAVE ADDED AT LEAST 30 MILLION TO THE COST OF THE BUILDINGS BUT COULD HAVE SAVED HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF LIVES AFTER AIRLINERS HIT BOTH TOWERS. THE THERMITE FOUND IN THE BUILDINGS ATTRIBUTED TO THE OVER 1000 DEGREE FIRE WHICH EASILY DESTROYED THE STRUCTURESVegas » 20 Apr 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑ After looking through many images of buildings that were hit by missiles, in different areas like Ukraine, or the Middle East, I noticed that they had an expected hole with surrounding destruction, but they never fell straight down. Most of the structures are still standing.
These buildings are not even nearly structurally sound as was the twin towers, nor were they nearly as tall. The missiles were full of explosives. Yet, somehow, they remained standing. They had a huge holes obviously with structural damage, but they never fell. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It took 1/3 of the FBI building out, but the rest never fell. And there was a **** load of explosives used.
THE SEARS TOWER IN CHICAGO BY COMPARISON IS MUCH STRONGER.
20 Apr 2023 6:14 pm
I was working with many mechanical and structural engineers on 9/11. Not long after the second tower was hit, the consensus among them was the towers would go down. Jet fuel burns very hot and the steel beams in the towers would not be able to withstand that heat. I'm not an engineer, so I'll take their word for it.Vegas » 20 Apr 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑ After looking through many images of buildings that were hit by missiles, in different areas like Ukraine, or the Middle East, I noticed that they had an expected hole with surrounding destruction, but they never fell straight down. Most of the structures are still standing.
These buildings are not even nearly structurally sound as was the twin towers, nor were they nearly as tall. The missiles were full of explosives. Yet, somehow, they remained standing. They had a huge holes obviously with structural damage, but they never fell. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It took 1/3 of the FBI building out, but the rest never fell. And there was a **** load of explosives used.
20 Apr 2023 6:37 pm
Vegas » 20 Apr 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑ After looking through many images of buildings that were hit by missiles, in different areas like Ukraine, or the Middle East, I noticed that they had an expected hole with surrounding destruction, but they never fell straight down. Most of the structures are still standing.
These buildings are not even nearly structurally sound as was the twin towers, nor were they nearly as tall. The missiles were full of explosives. Yet, somehow, they remained standing. They had a huge holes obviously with structural damage, but they never fell. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It took 1/3 of the FBI building out, but the rest never fell. And there was a **** load of explosives used.
That's a very interesting observation. Makes a guy think.
20 Apr 2023 6:41 pm
I'm not an engineer either but do you know who is?ConsRule » 20 Apr 2023, 6:14 pm » wrote: ↑ I was working with many mechanical and structural engineers on 9/11. Not long after the second tower was hit, the consensus among them was the towers would go down. Jet fuel burns very hot and the steel beams in the towers would not be able to withstand that heat. I'm not an engineer, so I'll take their word for it.
20 Apr 2023 6:51 pm
I know a lot of engineers.
20 Apr 2023 6:52 pm
truth be told .. that is my biggest problem with the whole thingSumela » 20 Apr 2023, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑ And WTC7 was not even hit by a plane...burned for a few ours and then....pure free fall.
20 Apr 2023 6:58 pm
The Government's findings on the collapse of WTC 7... for what it's worth.Mrkelly » 20 Apr 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑ truth be told .. that is my biggest problem with the whole thing
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and- ... estigation
20 Apr 2023 7:01 pm
Answer; An Engineer!!!
20 Apr 2023 7:07 pm
I remember thatRedheadedStranger » 20 Apr 2023, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑ The Government's findings on the collapse of WTC 7... for what it's worth.
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and- ... estigation
i also remember this
https://youtu.be/yed-A4Zayvo
20 Apr 2023 7:52 pm
Word. Okay, so a huge airliner goes through the middle of a sky scraper...hours later it collapses. Okay.Mrkelly » 20 Apr 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑ truth be told .. that is my biggest problem with the whole thing
But a simple fire brings WTC7 down exactly like a detonated pull???
20 Apr 2023 11:27 pm
ConsRule » 20 Apr 2023, 6:14 pm » wrote: ↑ I was working with many mechanical and structural engineers on 9/11. Not long after the second tower was hit, the consensus among them was the towers would go down. Jet fuel burns very hot and the steel beams in the towers would not be able to withstand that heat. I'm not an engineer, so I'll take their word for it.
I don't want to contradict the engineers either. I am not an expert. It's just the way they fell that gives me pause. Straight down, in one fall. It would seem more logical that sections would collapse intermittently. It would seem that the top of the tower, above where the planes hit, would collapse sooner. The base of the tower itself wasn't hit. How did the heat, from the fuel, melt the beams at the bottom at the same rate as it did the top of the tower where the planes hit?
21 Apr 2023 9:18 am
Sumela » 20 Apr 2023, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑ And WTC7 was not even hit by a plane...burned for a few ours and then....pure free fall.
I can't see how a building could fall like that from a fire. It's not uncommon to find fires that broke out in buildings. I never seen one, even one, that fell like that. It just burned up, as you would expect. They never fell.
21 Apr 2023 9:19 am
righteous » 20 Apr 2023, 5:55 pm » wrote: ↑ ACTUALLY, THE TWIN TOWERS WERE A COST SAVING AND POORLY CONSTRUCTED DESIGN.THE SCHEMATICS SHOWED THE BUILDINGS WERE SUPPORTED ALMOST COMPLETELY BY THIN STEEL BEAMS AROUND THE OUTSIDE AND VERY LITTLE SUPPORTIVE STUCTURE ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS. THICKER BEAMS ON THE EXTERIOR AND MORE CONCRETE SURROUNDING THE STAIRWELLS WOULD HAVE ADDED AT LEAST 30 MILLION TO THE COST OF THE BUILDINGS BUT COULD HAVE SAVED HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF LIVES AFTER AIRLINERS HIT BOTH TOWERS. THE THERMITE FOUND IN THE BUILDINGS ATTRIBUTED TO THE OVER 1000 DEGREE FIRE WHICH EASILY DESTROYED THE STRUCTURES
THE SEARS TOWER IN CHICAGO BY COMPARISON IS MUCH STRONGER.
Compare the structure of the twin towers to the **** huts in the Middle East. The towers were far more stable.
21 Apr 2023 10:03 am
AN AMERICAN DOGHOUSE IS BUILT BETTER THAN MANY A MIDDLE EASTERN HUTVegas » 21 Apr 2023, 9:19 am » wrote: ↑ Compare the structure of the twin towers to the **** huts in the Middle East. The towers were far more stable.
21 Apr 2023 10:04 am
righteous » 21 Apr 2023, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑ AN AMERICAN DOGHOUSE IS BUILT BETTER THAN MANY A MIDDLE EASTERN HUT
That's the point. Their buildings were still standing after being pummeled by missiles.
21 Apr 2023 10:09 am
depending on where you go … just like hererighteous » 21 Apr 2023, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑ AN AMERICAN DOGHOUSE IS BUILT BETTER THAN MANY A MIDDLE EASTERN HUT
https://youtu.be/8MfTZ9_2WAA
19 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
In total there are 3339 users online :: 10 registered, 16 bots, and 3313 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, *Roshambo, Blackvegetable, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, Deezer Shoove, Huey, PoliticalPopUp
Bots: LCC, DuckDuckBot, DuckDuckGo, Bolt, ADmantX, proximic, feedbot, CriteoBot, facebookexternalhit, Mediapartners-Google, Applebot, YandexBot, Googlebot, bingbot, curl/7, Baiduspider