Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » More General Categories » Misc. » Can a STEM brah explain how the twin towers completely collapsed? [srs] [kufon]
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 108
  2. Page 3 of 4
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  10. Last

Thread: Can a STEM brah explain how the twin towers completely collapsed? [srs] [kufon]

post 1450129173 06-28-2016, 12:10 PM
-
#61
  1. DancerInTheDark
  2. Registered User
  1. DancerInTheDark
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2015
  4. Age: 37
  5. Posts: 498
  6. Rep Power: 827
Actually AFAIK the building was designed to resist similar extreme conditions, but a massive investigation with lots of head-scratching and numerical simulation found that the temperature caused the joints which linked together the pillars to dilate (due to thermal dilation) and, consequently, dislodge, which eventually phucked up the entire stability of the building and led to catastrophic collapse.

So basically it's not
Thermal stress -> Reduction in buckling resistance -> Collapse
but more like
Thermal stress -> Thermal dilation -> Linking elements dislodging -> Massive overcharging of already strained elements -> Collapse.
post 1450130343 06-28-2016, 12:17 PM
-
#62
  1. keyrat786
  2. Registered Goober
  1. keyrat786
  2. Registered Goober
  3. Join Date: Jul 2015
  4. Posts: 2,763
  5. Rep Power: 5375
I hear it has something to do with aluminum from the plane and water from the tower.

My understanding is that aluminum begins to melt at a certain temperature, and the contact with water creates some kind of chemical reaction (explosion).

This is what i'm talking about:



Apparently this liquid metal is hot enough to melt the steal beams of the tower.
"6'2" master race crew"

"Neg Martin545 & BaconBackBrah on sight crew"
post 1450130403 06-28-2016, 12:17 PM
-
#63
  1. Cleveland33
  2. Registered Gooner
  1. Cleveland33
  2. Registered Gooner
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  5. Posts: 66,951
  6. Rep Power: 497617
Originally Posted By Jibt3ch⏩
Torn on the whole 911. I believe that planes hit the wtc (watched it live abd seen the planes hit. Seen some CT people recently saying planes never even hit the wtc?? Wut m8??)but the entire thing is so fuking shady. Not a single plane part or evidence that a plane hit the pentagon though.

It's amazing that the collapsed on top of each other though. For both towers to collapse like that was something else. Was insane watching that chit live and seeing people Jump out the fuking windows.


being flown into something is very different than crashing into the ground
post 1450130653 06-28-2016, 12:18 PM
-
#64
  1. NattyCory
  2. Das it mane
  1. NattyCory
  2. Das it mane
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  5. Posts: 3,165
  6. Rep Power: 6811
It's to do with the building being made out of Asbestos which doesn't burn
Make America Great Again Crew
Trump for Canada Crew
post 1450131863 06-28-2016, 12:25 PM
-
#65
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By DancerInTheDark⏩
Actually AFAIK the building was designed to resist similar extreme conditions, but a massive investigation with lots of head-scratching and numerical simulation found that the temperature caused the joints which linked together the pillars to dilate (due to thermal dilation) and, consequently, dislodge, which eventually phucked up the entire stability of the building and led to catastrophic collapse.

So basically it's not
Thermal stress -> Reduction in buckling resistance -> Collapse
but more like
Thermal stress -> Thermal dilation -> Linking elements dislodging -> Massive overcharging of already strained elements -> Collapse.
The towers were built to withstand a plane crash, but under very different circumstances.

The heat caused the floor-supporting steel beams to become weaker and they started to bend under the weight

This bending pulled the outer steel beams to which the floor-supporting steel beams were attached inwards

These snapped at some point and caused the pancaking process to start
post 1450132123 06-28-2016, 12:26 PM
-
#66
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 2,463
  5. Rep Power: 2026
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
It did not fall at free fall.
Again, it collapsed from top to bottom. The supporting structures at the very point it is currently falling have to give way for the building to continue falling, not some structures a few 100m below.
Then, with this logic, you will realize that you would need explosives on every single floor
if we are discussing building 7,

building 7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds. which is roughly 1/3 of the total collapse of the building. about 8 stories.
post 1450132223 06-28-2016, 12:27 PM
-
#67
  1. ugottabjoshinme
  2. Registered User
  1. ugottabjoshinme
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 40
  6. Posts: 3,327
  7. Rep Power: 53024
Originally Posted By dingler⏩
Civil engineers = the liberal arts majors of engineering, wouldnottrust/10
Environmental Engineering Crew

LMAO
post 1450132513 06-28-2016, 12:28 PM
-
#68
  1. NotBigEnough206
  2. S1NN3R G0N3 G00D
  1. NotBigEnough206
  2. S1NN3R G0N3 G00D
  3. Join Date: Jun 2008
  4. Age: 45
  5. Posts: 7,908
  6. Rep Power: 22861
Too many variables on the beams and jet fuel.

But what about pentagon and building 7? This is what I am really wondering about.
Where are the plane parts, pictures, videos of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon?
How did building 7 collapse, and why?
Why did no other building collapse too?
EX YU Mafia #1 ----Cant Touch Us----

(OO==[][]==OO)

Its not important what they say behind my back, what is Important is whether they stop talking and look down when I turn around.
post 1450133003 06-28-2016, 12:31 PM
-
#69
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By Growbag⏩
if we are discussing building 7,

building 7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds. which is roughly 1/3 of the total collapse of the building. about 8 stories.
Which 2.25 seconds do you mean?

post 1450133233 06-28-2016, 12:32 PM
-
#70
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 2,463
  5. Rep Power: 2026
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
Which 2.25 seconds do you mean?




1.20:00 - Freefall
post 1450133273 06-28-2016, 12:33 PM
-
#71
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By NotBigEnough206⏩
Too many variables on the beams and jet fuel.

But what about pentagon and building 7? This is what I am really wondering about.
Where are the plane parts, pictures, videos of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon?
How did building 7 collapse, and why?
Why did no other building collapse too?
There are pictures of plane parts at the pentagon

the NIST report explains why WTC7 collapsed.

It sounds weird, but for some illuminati reason there were not only WTC 1, 2 and 7, but also 3,4,5,6. All of those were destroyed too, although none of them were hit by a plane
post 1450133533 06-28-2016, 12:35 PM
-
#72
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  3. Join Date: Dec 2003
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 10,333
  6. Rep Power: 43444
Just dropping in to mention that only 3 steel-framed skyscrapers in history have ever collapsed due to fire, and all 3 of those were on 9/11. Might also be worth mentioning the dozens of skyscrapers which burned from top to bottom, for much longer timeframes, and yet the structures always remained standing by the end.

No CT, but when you see such a truly unprecedented anomaly it's not surprising people are skeptical.
I break into old ladies' homes, steal biscuits from their tins and replace them with sewing materials for maximum grandkid confusion.
post 1450133633 06-28-2016, 12:36 PM
-
#73
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By Growbag⏩



1.20:00 - Freefall
See, thats why it is hard to take these 911 truthers seriously.

The "initial collapse of the penthouse" was actually the complete collapse of the inner structure, so that bascially only an outer shell was left. Of course that shell collapses quickly since there is basically no resistance left on the inside of the building.

Yet, for some reason, the stopwatch starts with the collapse of the outer shell, not with the penthouse. Do you know why that is?
post 1450134493 06-28-2016, 12:40 PM
-
#74
  1. BusterMudd
  2. Registered User
  1. BusterMudd
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Posts: 5,328
  5. Rep Power: 14202
Originally Posted By MassiveLoads420⏩
(if u throw a rock thru a glass window, which way will the glass shards fly? the way u threw the rock or will the glass shards magically fly backwards from point of impact)
You know how I know you've never thrown a rock thru a glass window?
post 1450134703 06-28-2016, 12:42 PM
-
#75
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By 5htp⏩
Just dropping in to mention that only3 steel-framed skyscrapers in historyhave ever collapsed due to fire, and all 3 of those were on 9/11. Might also be worth mentioning the dozens of skyscrapers which burned from top to bottom, for much longer timeframes, and yet the structures always remained standing by the end.

No CT, but when you see such a truly unprecedented anomaly it's not surprising people are skeptical.
How many fires in skyscrapers that were build using basically only steel, not concrete, have the tube design the WTC had, had their fire insulation blown off, were hit by a plane before and burned for several hours were there in history?

Btw, your numbers are off. If you want an example of a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire, look at WTC5.
post 1450134883 06-28-2016, 12:43 PM
-
#76
  1. tfwnogfsrs
  2. Registered User
  1. tfwnogfsrs
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2015
  4. Age: 32
  5. Posts: 584
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By chilloppy⏩
for the jet fuel argument:

1800 degrees ≠ 1500 degrees.
A forge ≠ an open fire.
Bending steel ≠ a controlled demolition.
post 1450136023 06-28-2016, 12:49 PM
-
#77
  1. MBisonSon
  2. Registered User
  1. MBisonSon
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2016
  4. Posts: 39,767
  5. Rep Power: 166638
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
See, thats why it is hard to take these 911 truthers seriously.

The "initial collapse of the penthouse" was actually the complete collapse of the inner structure, so that bascially only an outer shell was left. Of course that shell collapses quickly since there is basically no resistance left on the inside of the building.

Yet, for some reason, the stopwatch starts with the collapse of the outer shell, not with the penthouse. Do you know why that is?
I think what the video is saying is that regardless of the upper levels collapsing onto the lower levels the building can not fall that fast because there will still be resistance from the ground up from the structure.

Freefall can only be achieved in the absence of resistance, so in order for something to fall at those speeds it would have had to been taken out from the bottom up, not top down.

I could be wrong but that's what I got from the video.
The billionaire and the beggar both have 24 hours in a day.

That's why grandma's apple pie rocks and yours sucks.
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn
At least it will thunderstorm tonight, and we know how they feel about water. :)
^^^Racist police officer who also cries about how racism doesn't exist, also cries reverse racism and typifies the stupidity of the racist right, referring to black people as "they" and regurgitating racist stereotypes.
post 1450136213 06-28-2016, 12:50 PM
-
#78
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 2,463
  5. Rep Power: 2026
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
See, thats why it is hard to take these 911 truthers seriously.

The "initial collapse of the penthouse" was actually the complete collapse of the inner structure, so that bascially only an outer shell was left. Of course that shell collapses quickly since there is basically no resistance left on the inside of the building.

Yet, for some reason, the stopwatch starts with the collapse of the outer shell, not with the penthouse. Do you know why that is?
so i am a "truther now am i? for quoting the offical story?

i was quoting NIST, which is in fact the goverment version of events. as written in their own report quote "A freefall descent over 8 stories at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds"

i am just interested in keeping to the facts. you said there was no free fall, yet there was. jut saying
post 1450136303 06-28-2016, 12:51 PM
-
#79
  1. derkerkjerk
  2. Registered User
  1. derkerkjerk
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 2,593
  5. Rep Power: 3636
Originally Posted By NotBigEnough206⏩
Too many variables on the beams and jet fuel.

But what about pentagon and building 7? This is what I am really wondering about.
Where are the plane parts, pictures, videos of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon?
How did building 7 collapse, and why?
Why did no other building collapse too?
Please review my post on top post of page 2 and halfway down somewhere my post page 1 with pictures, they cover pentagon and wtc 7

what remains of the plane (some identifiable parts) are found at the pentagon and there is an in-depth review of how WTC 7 collapsed
post 1450136613 06-28-2016, 12:52 PM
-
#80
  1. kcadrenalin
  2. Permanent Vacation
  1. kcadrenalin
  2. Permanent Vacation
  3. Join Date: Jun 2007
  4. Posts: 24,727
  5. Rep Power: 349124
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
The towers were built to withstand a plane crash, but under very different circumstances.

The heat caused the floor-supporting steel beams to become weaker and they started to bend under the weight

This bending pulled the outer steel beams to which the floor-supporting steel beams were attached inwards

These snapped at some point and caused the pancaking process to start
Repped. This has been explained so many times yet people still would rather believe it's some giant conspiracy.
________

MFC

________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
Tits and Beer
post 1450136853 06-28-2016, 12:54 PM
-
#81
  1. mikenorwood961
  2. Banned
  1. mikenorwood961
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Location: Rhode Island, United States
  5. Posts: 2,947
  6. Rep Power: 0
There are 2 possibilities:
#1) the buildings fell because of the crash and the fire
#2) the buildings fell because of a reason other than what is written in #1

If #1 is false and #2 is true, then explain #2. There is no credible explanation other than explanation #1, and explanation #1 is sufficient to explain the collapses of the buildings.

Incidentally the buildings did not both fall completely 'straight down'. There was toppling, which caused severe damage to surrounding buildings.

post 1450137023 06-28-2016, 12:54 PM
-
#82
  1. xxAchillesxx
  1. xxAchillesxx
  3. Join Date: Sep 2008
  4. Posts: 19,525
  5. Subscribers: 2
  6. Rep Power: 389901
Originally Posted By 5htp⏩
Just dropping in to mention that only 3 steel-framed skyscrapers in history have ever collapsed due to fire, and all 3 of those were on 9/11. Might also be worth mentioning the dozens of skyscrapers which burned from top to bottom, for much longer timeframes, and yet the structures always remained standing by the end.

No CT, but when you see such a truly unprecedented anomaly it's not surprising people are skeptical.
No other steel-framed skyscrapers were hit by almost fully fueled 767's going 600mph either. Not exactly a fire starting in a cubicle's garbage can.
"The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed."

See OptimusTrajan' sig
post 1450138353 06-28-2016, 01:00 PM
-
#83
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By Growbag⏩
so i am a "truther now am i? for quoting the offical story?

i was quoting NIST, which is in fact the goverment version of events. as written in their own report quote "A freefall descent over 8 stories at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds"

i am just interested in keeping to the facts. you said there was no free fall, yet there was. jut saying
When someone talks about a building falling at free fall, I naturally assume that the whole process is meant and not just part of the fall. I never disputed that.

In the video is says that after the initial collapse of the penthouse,the entire structure came down in 6 seconds, which is simply not true. And with this, I am also quoting NIST:

post 1450138503 06-28-2016, 01:01 PM
-
#84
  1. lildave
  2. Registered User
  1. lildave
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: Calgary, BC, Canada
  5. Age: 44
  6. Posts: 9,719
  7. Rep Power: 26068
Originally Posted By keyrat786⏩
I hear it has something to do with aluminum from the plane and water from the tower.

My understanding is that aluminum begins to melt at a certain temperature, and the contact with water creates some kind of chemical reaction (explosion).

This is what i'm talking about:



Apparently this liquid metal is hot enough to melt the steal beams of the tower.
I've been around welders before when they are welding over puddles. When the slag falls off and into the water its like a small gun shot. Cant imagine if huge chunks of molten metal were going into water.
post 1450138643 06-28-2016, 01:02 PM
-
#85
  1. JeenyusJr
  2. Registered User
  1. JeenyusJr
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2014
  4. Location: Germany
  5. Posts: 4,548
  6. Rep Power: 5722
post 1450138993 06-28-2016, 01:04 PM
-
#86
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By lildave⏩
I've been around welders before when they are welding over puddles. When the slag falls off and into the water its like a small gun shot. Cant imagine if huge chunks of molten metal were going into water.
Before someone mentions that that is steel molten by thermite: it is molten aluminum and its melting point is in line with the office fire temperatures
post 1450139013 06-28-2016, 01:04 PM
-
#87
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  3. Join Date: Dec 2003
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 10,333
  6. Rep Power: 43444
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
How many fires in skyscrapers that were build using basically only steel, not concrete, have the tube design the WTC had, had their fire insulation blown off, were hit by a plane before and burned for several hours were there in history?
lmaostrongmental gymnastics right here... either that or:

I break into old ladies' homes, steal biscuits from their tins and replace them with sewing materials for maximum grandkid confusion.
post 1450139073 06-28-2016, 01:05 PM
-
#88
  1. y0lked
  2. CEO 10k/yr
  1. y0lked
  2. CEO 10k/yr
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Location: Sacramento, California, United States
  5. Posts: 11,833
  6. Rep Power: 23214
Originally Posted By mikenorwood961⏩
There are 2 possibilities:
#1) the buildings fell because of the crash and the fire
#2) the buildings fell because of a reason other than what is written in #1

If #1 is false and #2 is true, then explain #2. There is no credible explanation other than explanation #1, and explanation #1 is sufficient to explain the collapses of the buildings.

Incidentally the buildings did not both fall completely 'straight down'. There was toppling, which caused severe damage to surrounding buildings.

your symbolic logic is utterly terrible.

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.co...nd-before-911/
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (NSCA)

**Dallas Cowboys**
**Sacramento Kings**
**San Jose Sharks**
post 1450139263 06-28-2016, 01:06 PM
-
#89
  1. Frank Drebin
  2. Cutting
  1. Frank Drebin
  2. Cutting
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Posts: 24,590
  6. Rep Power: 86323
Originally Posted By MassiveLoads420⏩
ialso pretty sure its 100% impossible to melt a steel beam without some type of pressure (IE torch)
bruh...
post 1450139333 06-28-2016, 01:06 PM
-
#90
  1. y0lked
  2. CEO 10k/yr
  1. y0lked
  2. CEO 10k/yr
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Location: Sacramento, California, United States
  5. Posts: 11,833
  6. Rep Power: 23214
Originally Posted By xxAchillesxx⏩
No other steel-framed skyscrapers were hit by almost fully fueled 767's going 600mph either. Not exactly a fire starting in a cubicle's garbage can.
a jet cannot go 600 MPH at sea level! If you cant debate with factual information then GTFO
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (NSCA)

**Dallas Cowboys**
**Sacramento Kings**
**San Jose Sharks**
Quick Navigation Top Misc
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts