Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

What's your opinion regarding the 9/11 attacks?

  • The official story makes the most sense

    Votes: 48 40.7%

  • The attacks were allowed to happen

    Votes: 28 23.7%

  • Inside job by US/shadow Government

    Votes: 42 35.6%
  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

In that video, plane crumpled into reinforced concrete wall.

On 9/11, plane penetrated a reinforced concrete wall, and proceeded to penetrate more reinforced concrete walls. Only a missile can do such things, especially when each wall penetrated was a perfectly round hole all the same dimension that fits the dimensions of a missile
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GG.exe said:
In that video, plane crumpled into reinforced concrete wall.

On 9/11, plane penetrated a reinforced concrete wall, and proceeded to penetrate more reinforced concrete walls. Only a missile can do such things, especially when each wall penetrated was a perfectly round hole all the same dimension that fits the dimensions of a missile
Click to expand...
I used to think so, but now believe it was explosives that were already rigged in the specific section they wanted to go up.
 
WATCH: What Does It Take To Explode Through A Concrete Wall?

1657506867242.png

Ranging from a breaching charge to hand grenades, there are several methods to breakthrough.

If you were ever interested in knowing what it asks for to get through a concrete wall with explosives, then this video by the Youtube channel ‘Beyond the press’ is set to amaze you.

The team of three said about having plenty of options for a concrete wall’s destruction. Starting, they try hand grenades which are like the M67 grenade. The difference is that the hand grenade has a plastic shell to reduce shrapnel, and they told it isn’t the best way. Still, it doesn’t stop them from doing it.

What are your expectations? Would a hand grenade be enough? Or would it ask for a breaching charge such as in videos like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 to destroy the concrete wall?

Although, a hint for you is that the wall really was pretty strong enough. Given the kind of forces and explosion it went through, and still stood firm. Enjoy the following video watching as to which explosive gave it the maximum damage.

 
GG.exe said:
In that video, plane crumpled into reinforced concrete wall.

On 9/11, plane penetrated a reinforced concrete wall, and proceeded to penetrate more reinforced concrete walls. Only a missile can do such things, especially when each wall penetrated was a perfectly round hole all the same dimension that fits the dimensions of a missile
Click to expand...

Bullshit, the plane goes right through it.
You need to keep watching, the nose crumples, but then as the mass of material keeps coming it punches through.
Momentum.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
A 57 tonne plane travelling at 850Km/h has around 1600MJ of Kinetic Energy.
All this energy needs to be dispersed in the collision.
Its similar to around 400Kg of TNT, which is a decent missile.

( I just worked that out, so has not been peer reviewed ).
Click to expand...

Mathematics and factual information has never rated highly with 9/11 conspiracy theorists who to be fair are now almost non existent.


Quite funny some of them say "but the fighter jet didn't breach the wall in the test video".


That "wall" is a reinforced protection wall built around nuclear reactors in the US to protect them in the case of a collision or worse deliberate action. No such design existed at WTC 1 / 2 or any building for that matter because it would simply be too heavy and have no windows. Imagine how hot it would get in summer too!!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lebbo73 said:
🙄
Click to expand...

You really can't see that concrete wall smashed to bits at around the 2 second mark?
Again at the 23 second mark.
the 36 second mark.

What do you think the grey cloud of rubble is? Oh i know, its a smokescreen to hide the truth that only you can see.
Its not about facts, its about faith isn't it?
Anything that doesn't confirm your faith is a lie.
 
GG.exe said:
The twin towers were a mesh of iron beams externally, and also internally an even more tight-knit deeper embedded spine of iron beams.

View attachment 1444904

View attachment 1444906
Click to expand...

We're going round in circles here. The impact of either aircraft did not sever enough columns to cause collapse by itself. All official reports state this. Collapse only happened after massive fires on multiple floors started by jet fuel combusting weakened enough columns (note weakened, not melted like a lot of CT believers like to say) to the point where progressive collapse was a mathematical certainty.


This should explain this better for you

theconstructor.org

World Trade Center: Reasons Behind the Failure of Building After 9/11 Attack

The World Trade Center (WTC) complex was composed of seven buildings (WTC-1 to WTC-7) on a site toward the southwest tip of Manhattan Island. The two buildings, WTC-1 and WTC-2 built in the early 1…
theconstructor.org theconstructor.org

Fires started instantly in an area of 4000sqm upon impact. No designer ever anticipated that in the design of WTC 1/2. The building was designed for a fire that spread slowly due to sprinkler failure.
 
The fires didn't burn hot enough nor long enough to appropriately melt steel or a significant amount of bolts to cause a "free fall" like collapse -- where the entire central iron beams gave way at the same time and rate to allow for such "free fall" like efficacy.

Steel melts at 2,800 deg F. Jet fuel and subsequent added internal office fires burns at 1,500 deg F. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200 deg F, but again, that wouldn't allow for the "free fall" like effect where the entire central columns all gave way simultaneously and into themselves to allow that rate of speed.

Normally, portions of buildings would break off and collapse over, leaving the rest of the underneath core and skeleton (embedded) still standing or largely intact.

Instead, we saw WTC 1,2 and 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) all collapse "free fall" like, like controlled demolitions, imploding in and down simultaneously, meticulously, a network of rigged military-grade explosives.
 
GG.exe said:
The fires didn't burn hot enough nor long enough to appropriately melt steel or a significant amount of bolts to cause a "free fall" like collapse -- where the entire central iron beams gave way at the same time and rate to allow for such "free fall" like efficacy.

Steel melts at 2,800 deg F. Jet fuel and subsequent added internal office fires burns at 1,500 deg F. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200 deg F, but again, that wouldn't allow for the "free fall" like effect where the entire central columns all gave way simultaneously and into themselves to allow that rate of speed.

Normally, portions of buildings would break off and collapse over, leaving the rest of the underneath core and skeleton (embedded) still standing or largely intact.

Instead, we saw WTC 1,2 and 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) all collapse "free fall" like, like controlled demolitions, imploding in and down simultaneously, meticulously, a network of rigged military-grade explosives.
Click to expand...

What makes you think anything was meant to have melted.
Do you claim that there was not enough heat for steel to expand?

This is what the official story has always been, so please stop talking about steel melting.
 
GG.exe said:
The fires didn't burn hot enough nor long enough to appropriately melt steel or a significant amount of bolts to cause a "free fall" like collapse -- where the entire central iron beams gave way at the same time and rate to allow for such "free fall" like efficacy.

Steel melts at 2,800 deg F. Jet fuel and subsequent added internal office fires burns at 1,500 deg F. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200 deg F, but again, that wouldn't allow for the "free fall" like effect where the entire central columns all gave way simultaneously and into themselves to allow that rate of speed.

Normally, portions of buildings would break off and collapse over, leaving the rest of the underneath core and skeleton (embedded) still standing or largely intact.

Instead, we saw WTC 1,2 and 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) all collapse "free fall" like, like controlled demolitions, imploding in and down simultaneously, meticulously, a network of rigged military-grade explosives.
Click to expand...


Neither WTC 1 or 2 collapsed at freefall speed, that's an absolute lie usually spread by conspiracy theorists.



WTC 7 suffered a partial collapse at freefall speed but this was mostly due to part of the building having an atrium located in it (no resistance). The total WTC 7 collapse was not at freefall speed either, once resistance was encountered on lower floors it slowed to less than freefall speeds.


This has been mathematically calculated in the following report:



So in summary all of your claims are factually incorrect and backed up by no data whatsoever.
 
You guys have a habit of misappropriating what others say.

I said "free fall"-like to describe the manner which they fell. They didnt pancake, meeting resistance each floor down. They didnt topple over. A section of the building didnt break off and fall.

They feel into their footprints, imploding internally, at the same kind of rate of speed and little resistance as controlled demolitions do.

Thats how they fell, you cant seny thats how they fell because thats how they fell. They didnt pancake and slow down over time. They didnt topple over. And a portion of the building impacted by plane/fire didnt break apart and topple, leavibg the rest of it underneath.

So, how can such steel buildings, especially the central grid system of WTC design, fall in such a manner? No lresistance of floors beneath, slowing down the entire collapse process, no falling apart and breaking off leaving the stems and half the building intact. No toppling over to one side.

There's no practical explanation except if it quacks like a duck then it is a duck.
 
Again, i used the steel and jet fuel data to illustrate that if 1500 F is reached causing 50% weakening of steel (1200 F) that does not align with such a collapse. If they were weakened by 50%, and consider too only the top portion where the planes hit was burning really, then how did that cause a "free fall"-like collapse? Certainly instead, normally, logically, the affected area would've instead collapsed down, and as it hit each floor and grid of columns, still unweakened the further you go down, then it wouldve been a pancake-like collapse instead....where eventually so much resistance was met that the collapse stopped halfway down, sections of floors skewering sideways and falling over.

Thats why the 1200 vs 1500 is mentioned, because a collapse due to weakening of steel integrity due to fire wouldve seen a pancake collapse, resistance met, collapse stops, building halfway intact.
 
GG.exe said:
You guys have a habit of misappropriating what others say.

I said "free fall"-like to describe the manner which they fell. They didnt pancake, meeting resistance each floor down. They didnt topple over. A section of the building didnt break off and fall.

They feel into their footprints, imploding internally, at the same kind of rate of speed and little resistance as controlled demolitions do.

Thats how they fell, you cant seny thats how they fell because thats how they fell. They didnt pancake and slow down over time. They didnt topple over. And a portion of the building impacted by plane/fire didnt break apart and topple, leavibg the rest of it underneath.

So, how can such steel buildings, especially the central grid system of WTC design, fall in such a manner? No lresistance of floors beneath, slowing down the entire collapse process, no falling apart and breaking off leaving the stems and half the building intact. No toppling over to one side.

There's no practical explanation except if it quacks like a duck then it is a duck.
Click to expand...

So in a case of controlled demolition, i knock out some members.
As the building falls, why do the remaining structural members , above the destroyed members not slow the collapse of the building?

Now tell me why all these building "didn't" free fall?



Its ridiculous to make a comment like "it looks like controlled demolition so that must be what it was".

You simply don't have enough experience observing demolitions , controlled or otherwise.
 
Controlled Dem is done by blowing out supporting columns and beams and floors, in a systemic pattern, not exploded all at once. Detonated from top to bottom at say a second apart intervals. Especially key is blowing out the vertical columns, so that everything is broken apart into small segments and because the very horizontal floors and horizontal beams are contingent on the vertical supports. If the vertical ones arent blown apart, the horizontal would start falling sideways out outways. Controlled demo is everything inside gutted away to allow the external to fall in and down (footprint).

If WTC top affected floors got weakened by 50% and thus horizontal floors started collapsing, again, thered be too much resistance below 70+ floors unaffected, the collapse down would eventually slow down and start sliding sideways and outways. Even more damning is that huge grid of vertical columns in the core, they would still be standing 50+ floors whilst everything else above (concrete etc) fell away to the sides and down. That grid would in fact prevent a pancake collapse from continuing to happen, thered be half a building left largely intact.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

Back
Top