International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

abaddon 20th January 2020 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12960674)
It seems a waste of time to do an FEA of the jet hitting the towers. Why? Because the damage appears to engineers to be exactly what such an impact would look like.

There was mutual destruction when a moving plane part hit a static part of the building. The liquids inside the plane were massively destructive, the fuel exploding was as well. Some of the heavy dense parts passed through the building passing without being stopped, but being slowed down and landing only a few blocks away.

Steve believes that something looks odd to him. He appears to not have the physics and engineering background to comprehend the crashes. His naivete has led to incredulity to a belief that we were lied to and that it was all an FX event by "the powers that be... and that every witness was an actor, none of which has leaked in 20 years. His conception is so outside of reality... it cannot be taken seriously...and lacks any affirmative evidence.

Anyone who believes the "official story" has had the wool pulled over their eyes... and lack critical thinking skills.

Oh the irony!

That is a question of philosophy.

Are some weird theories posted here that are plainly bat crap nutty? Yup. And lots of them.

Can you or I or anyone point out that those theories are, in fact, bat crap nutty? Nope. Thus the MA is perforce opposed to truth or facts. It is an unfortunate consequence.

I give, for example, PeaceCrusader, long since banned. The guy was a flat out fruit loop, but it was a long long time before the mods acted to ban him. Too long. That wingnut polluted everything. Including getting other members a ban.

It seems the wingnuts are a protected class, and the rational members are an endangered species. Odd position for a skeptics forum, no?

curious cat 20th January 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960526)
According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. .......................

Your ability to find perfectly logical things incredulous is beyond stupid. It has to be a geniality.:D

curious cat 20th January 2020 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960540)
Okay, so compare the sites.

Also, the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and explosives. It is reproducible, and predictable, according to NASA. In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!

Perfectly plausible. About 10 missiles would be able to create this size of crater easily.

Robin 20th January 2020 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960499)
Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

Firstly, you have the plane heading in the wrong direction. You have it ploughing straight in whereas it impacted at 12.5 degrees to the right.

Secondly, the wing is not one big solid thing that it can wedge things apart, it will be disintegrating on impact.

Here is an scenario of the equal and opposite reactions of the front wing spar impacting a single column (shown in cross section) at the correct direction and wing orientation . Steel and aluminium here have approximately the correct ratio of weight, strength and flexibility.

Note the forces travel through the material in a finite time and so the metal can be breaking up as the broken wing spar bounces off
https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-14.png?w=789
Animation (biggish gif):

Or:
https://youtu.be/kW0rVooIl2E
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

pgimeno 20th January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960499)
Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

Just to think that some pages ago you were saying that the aluminium of the wings was too weak. :rolleyes:

The wing spars are not like wedges; they impacted frontally, with the flat side hitting the columns. Some of the strongest parts of them did cut some columns.
[Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood because the image didn't load for me. I thought you were thinking of the wings as wedges horizontally.

As I already said, friction. For wedging the way you propose, the friction must be low so that the columns can slide outwards. Remember there are ribs, for example. Wings that are disintegrating as they penetrate are not going to just slide, they are going to have an enormous friction force.]

So there, I've shown how it's indeed physically consistent that the aluminium cladding could survive and how the wing could cause the lateral displacement of the columns; therefore your claim of impossibility is debunked.

Now you have the answer to the question in the OP: the videos weren't faked.

The Common Potato 20th January 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960608)
It is likely the same tripod as the TV I didn't have and never existed. Fantasy can be whatever one wants.

The odds of that are a million to one, they say.

Robin 20th January 2020 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960182)
The air frames of the missiles would shatter on impact, leaving the warhead to do it's thing.

The starboard side of the missile has nothing to impact so it won't shatter until after that point, or perhaps simply rebound off the side.

It is still going to heading towards that piece of cladding

Robin 20th January 2020 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12960869)
The starboard side of the missile has nothing to impact so it won't shatter until after that point, or perhaps simply rebound off the side.

It is still going to heading towards that piece of cladding

JASSM on impact:
https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...-15.png?w=1014

From:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

Itchy Boy 21st January 2020 12:30 AM

The planes DID bend and crumple (and disintegrate) completely and catastrophically - upon impact, not sooner. Almost all of that bending and crumpling took place on and inside of the buildings' surfaces.

None of the videos depict any crumpling or bending of the plane upon impact. The plane just goes through like a ghost. To say the crumpling happens after the plane has penetrated the exterior is beyond absurd
Likewise the claim that aluminum mere millimetres thick is stronger than 1/4 inch steel.
the videoa are laughably fake.

Elagabalus 21st January 2020 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960927)
The planes DID bend and crumple (and disintegrate) completely and catastrophically - upon impact, not sooner. Almost all of that bending and crumpling took place on and inside of the buildings' surfaces.

None of the videos depict any crumpling or bending of the plane upon impact. The plane just goes through like a ghost. To say the crumpling happens after the plane has penetrated the exterior is beyond absurd
Likewise the claim that aluminum mere millimetres thick is stronger than 1/4 inch steel.
the videoa are laughably fake.

Indeed, that's why the airplane wing goes right through the Aluminum. Next.

Nay_Sayer 21st January 2020 12:35 AM

I was watching the Jeopardy goat tournament and playing at home I missed some easy questions. I felt pretty dumb but then I remembered this thread exists and reveled in being a genius in comparison to the op.

So thanks for that.

Elagabalus 21st January 2020 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer (Post 12960932)
I was watching the Jeopardy goat tournament and playing at home I missed some easy questions. I felt pretty dumb but then I remembered this thread exists and reveled in being a genius in comparison to the op.

So thanks for that.

You see, I didn't even know that they had a Jeopardy Goat Tournament!

curious cat 21st January 2020 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12960881)

Fake. No crumpling. :D

Nay_Sayer 21st January 2020 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12960936)
You see, I didn't even know that they had a Jeopardy Goat Tournament!

James Holzhauer v Ken Jennings v Brad Rutter

Cosmic Yak 21st January 2020 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12960674)

Steve believes that something looks odd to him. He appears to not have the physics and engineering background to comprehend the crashes. His naivete has led to incredulity to a belief that we were lied to and that it was all an FX event by "the powers that be... and that every witness was an actor, none of which has leaked in 20 years. His conception is so outside of reality... it cannot be taken seriously...and lacks any affirmative evidence.

Anyone who believes the "official story" has had the wool pulled over their eyes... and lack critical thinking skills.

Oh the irony!

Indeed.
It is noticeable that he is unwilling or unable to provide any details, or any supporting evidence beyond that photo, which I assume we're all (with one obvious exception) heartily sick of seeing.
"yankee451, where were the missiles launched from?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"How many missiles were used?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who fired them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why was no missile debris found in the wreckage?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What software was used to fake the videos?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who faked them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"When was this done?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What are the names of the witnesses who changed their stories after having a TV shoved in their faces?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you citing witnesses who claim they saw missiles, whilst discounting part of their testimony and also ignoring your previous claim that they had all changed their testimony?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What happened to the planes, and their passengers and crew, that took off that day and never came back?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if the Naudet video was made by actors, has no-one from the fire department come forward to say those two men never worked there?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if missiles exploded inside the building, is the damage bent inwards, not outwards?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you using a photo you claim was altered as your only evidence?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"

As you say, dialogue seems to be somewhat pointless when confronted with this kind of delusional monomania.
That said, it is kind of fun, though! :D

GlennB 21st January 2020 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12960960)
Indeed.
It is noticeable that he is unwilling or unable to provide any details, or any supporting evidence beyond that photo, which I assume we're all (with one obvious exception) heartily sick of seeing.
"yankee451, where were the missiles launched from?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"How many missiles were used?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who fired them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why was no missile debris found in the wreckage?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What software was used to fake the videos?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who faked them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"When was this done?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What are the names of the witnesses who changed their stories after having a TV shoved in their faces?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you citing witnesses who claim they saw missiles, whilst discounting part of their testimony and also ignoring your previous claim that they had all changed their testimony?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What happened to the planes, and their passengers and crew, that took off that day and never came back?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if the Naudet video was made by actors, has no-one from the fire department come forward to say those two men never worked there?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if missiles exploded inside the building, is the damage bent inwards, not outwards?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you using a photo you claim was altered as your only evidence?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"

As you say, dialogue seems to be somewhat pointless when confronted with this kind of delusional monomania.
That said, it is kind of fun, though! :D

Especially delusional given that the vital photo is from a source that the o/p constantly criticises for fakery.

Jack by the hedge 21st January 2020 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960510)
So he could capture footage of the undamaged tower, and use it as a mask layer to hide what really cut the hole. And he had to have the center position saved on the dolly in order to be able to spin around and still be centered.

And yet there is no trace of this effect being used on the video and there is no trace of the camera moving and stopping at an index point in the way it moves. It is very clearly a handheld camera.

You're like someone trying to figure out how a magic trick was done, inferring the existence of some oververcomplicated hidden mechanism without really understanding how that would assist the magician, yet by circular logic the existence of the mechanism is evidence of the trick.

But there was no mechanism and there was no trick. You are only fooling yourself.

Jack by the hedge 21st January 2020 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960540)
Okay, so compare the sites.

Also, the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and explosives. It is reproducible, and predictable, according to NASA. In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!

Remind us: Did NASA also confirm your belief that the cruise missiles your crazy idea relies on would have been able to swerve around the surrounding trees on their run in to the target?

JSanderO 21st January 2020 04:50 AM

1 Attachment(s)
A more accurate depiction of the geometry of the steel col, alum. cladding. This is not the actual details. Steel plate thickness shown as 1/2 for flanges, 1/4" for webs. Alum cladding shown 1/4" thk - likely was as thin as 1/8".

I am wondering if the insulation wasn't applied to the alum cladding U shaped and slipped over the steel and bolted to the two flanges and the outside web (through the window cleaning track grove)?

bknight 21st January 2020 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960495)
Like the other sites, the damage left is not consistent with it.

Yes the damage is consistent with an airplane hitting the building.

waypastvne 21st January 2020 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12961025)
A more accurate depiction of the geometry of the steel col, alum. cladding. This is not the actual details. Steel plate thickness shown as 1/2 for flanges, 1/4" for webs. Alum cladding shown 1/4" thk - likely was as thin as 1/8".

I am wondering if the insulation wasn't applied to the alum cladding U shaped and slipped over the steel and bolted to the two flanges and the outside web (through the window cleaning track grove)?


The insulation was sprayed onto the columns. You can see a thin layer of the remnants stuck to the exterior columns in the post collapse photos.

My understanding is that the column flanges at the impact levels were 1/4" not 1/2"

Trojan 21st January 2020 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960540)
Okay, so compare the sites.

Also, the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and explosives. It is reproducible, and predictable, according to NASA. In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!

Steve - how did you confirm the ground in Shanksville is consistent with the soil on the moon?

Itchy Boy 21st January 2020 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12960342)
Please explain the discovery of charred bodies in burned seats their se, later ID's by DNA as passengers of the flight? How do you explain that fact during the Pentagon investigation?

As I said, all that's necessary to know the event was staged is to know part of it was faked. Do you have to know all the details of how a magian's trick is accomplished to know it was an illusion?

Do you believe the wings could have folded back into the fuselage on impact as Mike Walter says?

What I know for a fact is that the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower do not depict reality. In reality, parts of the plane, such as wing tips would have broken off and fallen to the ground. Not pass through steel columns as if they didn't exist.

And if the event was real, they wouldn't have had to show us fake plane 'crashes'. It couldn't be more obvious. But, no doubt, everyone here already knows that.

Itchy Boy 21st January 2020 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12960939)
Fake. No crumpling. :D

Bad comparison. A misile is built to pentetrate structures. A passenger jet is not.

DuvalHMFIC 21st January 2020 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961437)
What I know for a fact is that the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower do not depict reality. In reality, parts of the plane, such as wing tips would have broken off and fallen to the ground. Not pass through steel columns as if they didn't exist.

You know this, how?

Captain_Swoop 21st January 2020 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961450)
Bad comparison. A misile is built to pentetrate structures. A passenger jet is not.

How is a missile built?

Why would you expect to see crumpling in the time it took for the impact?

bknight 21st January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961437)
As I said, all that's necessary to know the event was staged is to know part of it was faked. Do you have to know all the details of how a magian's trick is accomplished to know it was an illusion?

Assertion without any proof, noted, followed by red herring.
Quote:

Do you believe the wings could have folded back into the fuselage on impact as Mike Walter says?

What I know for a fact is that the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower do not depict reality. In reality, parts of the plane, such as wing tips would have broken off and fallen to the ground. Not pass through steel columns as if they didn't exist.
Assertion and it requires strength of materials and the momentum of the plane. Have you done those calculations? All that mass momentum is transferred from the plane to the building. The plane begins to disintegrate as the building components do similar behaviors. The videos are way to slow to capture what really happened in this regard, but the math and physics are all you really need to understand.
Quote:


And if the event was real, they wouldn't have had to show us fake plane 'crashes'. It couldn't be more obvious. But, no doubt, everyone here already knows that.
The events were real, the eye videos and witness accounts followed by the physical evidence is proof that it did. Why do you contend "wouldn't have had to show us fake plane 'crashes'"?

Well then all the videos from many sources would have to be invented and after 19 years no one has stepped forward to spills the beans on "them". Try taking some physics courses to learn where you are indeed incorrect in what could have happened as opposed to what you believe happened.

Leftus 21st January 2020 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961450)
Bad comparison. A misile is built to pentetrate structures. A passenger jet is not.

The missile is. The wings are not. Wings would dampen the penetration power of the missile. They would be designed to sheer off. Also, they are attached on hinges. They fold for shipping.

beachnut 21st January 2020 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960927)
The planes DID bend and crumple (and disintegrate) completely and catastrophically - upon impact, not sooner. Almost all of that bending and crumpling took place on and inside of the buildings' surfaces.

None of the videos depict any crumpling or bending of the plane upon impact. The plane just goes through like a ghost. To say the crumpling happens after the plane has penetrated the exterior is beyond absurd
Likewise the claim that aluminum mere millimetres thick is stronger than 1/4 inch steel.
the videoa are laughably fake.

It is physics, and you seem to ignore physics. It is not a soft vs hard thing, it is mass going 590 mph and it breaks the WTC shell. Simple physics which you can't comprehend due to some bias, lack of knowledge or willful ignorance on this subject where physics rules.

At some speed the engines and landing gear of the 767s will break into the WTC and as seen some part break out of the WTC after entering. You think the plane does not have mass? Flight 175 had the kinetic energy of a 2,000 pound Bomb, and it was concentrated in the shape of 175, not blast effects, a kinetic energy weapon which can break the WTC shell at over 800 feet per second.

Using low resolution video and slow frames per second video to judge an impact is silly and can not be use to support your lack of knowledge of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961437)
As I said, all that's necessary to know the event was staged is to know part of it was faked. Do you have to know all the details of how a magian's trick is accomplished to know it was an illusion?

Do you believe the wings could have folded back into the fuselage on impact as Mike Walter says?

What I know for a fact is that the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower do not depict reality. In reality, parts of the plane, such as wing tips would have broken off and fallen to the ground. Not pass through steel columns as if they didn't exist.

And if the event was real, they wouldn't have had to show us fake plane 'crashes'. It couldn't be more obvious. But, no doubt, everyone here already knows that.

There you go using a witness when we have the FDR and RADAR proves it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. You ignore evidence and quibble about a witness statement you cherry pick out of context. You have no clue it does not matter what is said, the real evidence is the damage, the jet fuel fireball consistant with an aircraft impact of 483.5 knots, the FDR, and all the DNA from each passenger except the small boy. You mock the murder of thousands with faulty research skills and total lack of knowledge not limited to physics and aircraft crashes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961450)
Bad comparison. A misile is built to pentetrate structures. A passenger jet is not.

Oops, you failed to realize the 767 on 9/11 was used as a missile, and it can penetrate a structure as proved on 9/11 three times. Thus your analogy to propagate a delusional fantasy Failed.



What is your fantasy version of 9/11, and why are void of any practical knowledge of physics?

Are you on the missiles did it train of woo? What is your theory to mock the murder of thousands and apologize/ignore 19 murderers. ?

Regnad Kcin 21st January 2020 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961450)
Bad comparison. A misile is built to pentetrate structures. A passenger jet is not.

A baseball isnít built to break a window.

JSanderO 21st January 2020 01:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I doubt... but don't know when or to what the exterior insulation was applied. The interior would be applied from inside to the steel. My guess is the aluminum was delivered to the site with the insulation applied... or it was applied on site to the alum which was then slipped onto the outside of the columns. It may have been applied to the steel but that seems awkward and hard to control the thickness. It hardly matters, it was reputed to be 5cm thick

The flange steel at the impact levels was 1/2", webs were 1/4". The flanges were reduced in thickness ever 7 floors or so and were 1/4" at the top floors

yankee451 21st January 2020 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12961599)
A baseball isnít built to break a window.

Some things just need to be replied to while I'm working.

Please explain how a baseball is like a 767, and how a window pane is like a steel skyscraper.

Captain_Swoop 21st January 2020 02:25 PM

Compared to glass a baseball is soft. Like a 767 it is moving when it hits.

GlennB 21st January 2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12961716)
Some things just need to be replied to while I'm working.

Please explain how a baseball is like a 767, and how a window pane is like a steel skyscraper.

Well, glass is so hard that it takes the hardest of minerals (diamond, carborundum) even to scratch it. Baseballs are much softer than that.

The point is that hardness offers no guarantee against damage from softer materials. But we've been through this ad nauseam and you simply can't grasp the concept. Or you just refuse to, as it's inconvenient to your 'beliefs'.

Robin 21st January 2020 02:46 PM

If you look at this video, which I posted earlier and look at the impact starting at 2:19 and pause it and single frame through it It is an extreme slow motion of an impact and you can see the illusion of the wings slicing into the concrete, whereas we know in reality that they are actually disintegrating as they hit.

This is similar to what we see in the videos of 9/11, where the wings seem to slide into the building but are actually shredding and disintegrating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

curious cat 21st January 2020 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12961450)
Bad comparison. A misile is built to pentetrate structures. A passenger jet is not.

The only major difference is the missile head. Its job is to penetrate and explode inside structures. The rest of of the weapon is essentially an aeroplane. It performs the function of an aeroplane and it is constructed like one. Being one-use and disposable, the structure of this aeroplane is actually ridiculously flimsy and the design wouldn't pass any criteria for a normal aircraft. My comparison is perfectly valid.

Deadie 21st January 2020 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960967)
Especially delusional given that the vital photo is from a source that the o/p constantly criticises for fakery.

I already asked him about this and his response was more-or-less"why would they photoshop the building to make it look like a missile hit it?" Completely missing the obvious point I was trying to get across.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12961599)
A baseball isnít built to break a window.

Says you. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12961724)
Well, glass is so hard that it takes the hardest of minerals (diamond, carborundum) even to scratch it. Baseballs are much softer than that.

The point is that hardness offers no guarantee against damage from softer materials. But we've been through this ad nauseam and you simply can't grasp the concept. Or you just refuse to, as it's inconvenient to your 'beliefs'.

A better analogy may be, is that automobiles are not designed to smash through buildings. Nevertheless people seemingly do this semi routinely. Typically through glass entryways sure, but people have absolutely plowed cars through reinforced brick enclosures and even steel gates designed to stop vehicles. All occurring at speeds much, much slower than 500mph and with significantly less mass.

He is simply not understanding the sheer volume of kinetic energy a massive object traveling that fast has and refuses to do do the work in figuring that out.

The Common Potato 21st January 2020 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12943396)
yankee451,

Next time it snows go outside and throw a snowball at a window in your house. Do it with little force, some force, lots of force. Report back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12961716)
Some things just need to be replied to while I'm working.

Please explain how a baseball is like a 767, and how a window pane is like a steel skyscraper.

Arggghhhh...

Robin 21st January 2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12961650)
I doubt... but don't know when or to what the exterior insulation was applied. The interior would be applied from inside to the steel. My guess is the aluminum was delivered to the site with the insulation applied... or it was applied on site to the alum which was then slipped onto the outside of the columns. It may have been applied to the steel but that seems awkward and hard to control the thickness. It hardly matters, it was reputed to be 5cm thick

The flange steel at the impact levels was 1/2", webs were 1/4". The flanges were reduced in thickness ever 7 floors or so and were 1/4" at the top floors

I imagine that the cladding was pre-fabricated, aluminium bonded to fireproofing and molded to fit the columns.

beachnut 21st January 2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12961716)
...
Please explain how a baseball is like a 767, and how a window pane is like a steel skyscraper.

Oops, you lack a skill to see the analogy, but have the skill to make up the most incredible stupid missile theory?

Another cake for yankee451


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.