Oh I wish I was a BILLIONAIRE the 9/11 Challenge

a reply to: smurfy


Planes hit towers

Structural damage (the amount neither side can know) something the ae 911 side always forget

Fires cause THERMAL LOADING on structure not fully taken into account during design again ae 911 forget about that.

Walls buckle images/video have been shown on here before.

Due to floor design floors can fall internally that's how part of the core structure (the spire) was seen

Huge dynamic load of falling structure destroyed the Towers.

South Tower hit second falls first GREATER load above impact point.

NO DEMO REQUIRED.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Debunkology

You had better triple check your facts....

Every thing I said is born out by your own links.

The 707 is smaller and lighter than the 767.
The design was expecting a 707 at 180 mph.
Not a larger plane traveling at 500 mph.

I posted a link with of a guy debunking Robertsons lies that the Towers were only built to withstand a plane going at 180mph and his other lies said by him, and two links, which shows that the 707 had a 10% more destructive force.

Yet you post THAT as a reply??

a reply to: wmd_2008


Keep saving those pennies and I'll be the first in line. Is it Okay if I bring a pizza, beverages and a sleeping bag ?

Yes ,I am that confident ! However, when I waltz out the next day ( Yup I'll be spending the entire night ) I'd like the opportunity to kick you in the groin.

I mean ya gotta have some skin in the game, right Amigo ? Perhaps just pay for my Pizza.

originally posted by: wmd_2008



Planes hit towers

Structural damage (the amount neither side can know) something the ae 911 side always forget

NIST claimed to know. That is how they came up with their model.

Fires cause THERMAL LOADING on structure not fully taken into account during design again ae 911 forget about that.

Walls buckle images/video have been shown on here before.

Except the claim is that the outer wall buckled inward and the FOIA video released (that were posted here as well) shows the outer walls blowing outward. Whatever suites your theories though.

Due to floor design floors can fall internally that's how part of the core structure (the spire) was seen

Floors falling internally would pull the outer walls inward and anyone with 2 eyes and a brain could see the walls blowing outward. Dont trust your eyes though, trust NIST, the commission report and a bunch of pretty people on TV.

Huge dynamic load of falling structure destroyed the Towers.

Nice theory. Where is your proof? Can you post a visual simulatuon of this claim? No? Cause it would look stupid and wouldnt make any sense to anyone older than 5?

South Tower hit second falls first GREATER load above impact point.

And yet they both took nealy the same amount of time to fall once innitiated. Hmmmm.

NO DEMO REQUIRED.

Prove it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Oh I wish I was a BILLIONAIRE because I would issue a challenge to the following groups

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth members on here and also members of Joe public that think like them.

What would the challenge be SIMPLE

I would pay for the building of an EXACT REPLICA of one of the twin towers using the same materials as the original, during construction the members of those groups could monitor the whole process 24 -7 till completion, then when complete the challenge would be issued.

They would be invited to enter the building and go to a least the 10 floor (Don't want them jumping out to save themselves) they would then be locked at that floor or above depending how many have the gnads to risk their necks while a remote controlled 767 again inspected by them and their relatives would be flown into the EXACT floor level and position of impact of the North or South Tower.

Now according to AE9/11 Truth everyone would have nothing to worry about ,if a collapse occurred the upper levels would be be stopped according to them.

Meanwhile people like me on the outside could have a good old laugh at the shear TERROR on their faces as they realise they are doomed as they start to hear the impacts of floor after floor heading for them.

Now if they are right and they survive I would also like to worth their while.

I wonder how many WOULD risk there life on their belief that 9/11 was a demolition

NOT MANY I BET.

If it was built to appropriate engineering standards, I would do it in a heart beat...no problem at all.

I would even risk being on one of the floors that actually blew out that day...there were survivors of that you know...Despite those ridiculously HIGH temperatures that WERE weakening the STEEL down below, enough to allow less than a quarter of the buildings' weight to pancake the rest of the remaining building into dust...This theory is just stupid, I almost vomit from rewriting it here...

originally posted by: dazbog
a reply to: wmd_2008


Keep saving those pennies and I'll be the first in line. Is it Okay if I bring a pizza, beverages and a sleeping bag ?

Yes ,I am that confident ! However, when I waltz out the next day ( Yup I'll be spending the entire night ) I'd like the opportunity to kick you in the groin.

I mean ya gotta have some skin in the game, right Amigo ? Perhaps just pay for my Pizza.

LMFAO!!! Dude, I want the pizza money too..Do you like anchovies? I will bring the Leinies!!!

Seriously, this is kind of a douchebag OP, speculating on what someone might do...but rest assured, I am so close to the end of my life, I would flash the middle finger and a big smile out the hole in the building if I survived the initial explosion... similar to this comment:

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008



Planes hit towers

Structural damage (the amount neither side can know) something the ae 911 side always forget

NIST claimed to know. That is how they came up with their model...

Drove a stake right in the OP...dead as a doornail...DOA BABY!!!

originally posted by: neformore
You'd never be able to make an exact copy, so your experiment would be invalid.

People from all sides of this argument forget that this was a dynamic working building, had been for a long time, had been maintained, loads moved around inside it, work done on sections of it, had experienced general wear and tear and the relevant fatigues caused by those things, and was constructed in a modular fashion, with welds/bolts/rivets that might all of been in tolerance but were all different.

Both the towers were unique structures.

The key word there is unique.

Unique, but came down in the very same UNIQUE fashion? Come on...The only demonstrable difference was the initial tilt of the upper floor section of Tower Two...other than that, a very successful display of coordinated demolition on BOTH TOWERS, identical in how they came down...

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Debunkology

When a building is designed by the best architects in the world to withstand a Boeing 707 to crash into it, an airplane that has a more destructive force than the airplanes that actually crashed into the buildings on 9/11. And the chief structural engineer says he's confident that the buildings could withstand MULTIPLE crashes. Then yes, they definetely would risk there lives on science.

yes building could resist the impacts - which they did . Unfortunately nobody accounted for fires and destruction of the building systems ie. elevators and sprinklers/standpipes and effect if would have on building

Without elevators the FDNY was forced to walk carrying to 100 lbs of equipment with them up the stairs. Stairs were
designed for earlier era where building were smaller. Outer stairs only 44 inches wide, barely enough for 2 people to pass
Inner stair was slightly wider at 56 inches. FDNY rule of thumb was 1 floor per minute - reaching the impact floors
would take over 90 minutes and crews would be exhausted from climb

Impacts cut the sprinklers to the impact floors preventing them from controlling fires

Impacts also dislodged fire proofing from steel exposing it to heat from fires . Fireproofing was in some cases was only 1/2
inch to 1 1/2 inches - had a disturbing tendency to flake off Earlier fire proofing was solid masonry (like in Empire State
Building) was 4 -6 inches thick of solid concrete or brickwork.

All this together meant no way to control fires which spread an attacked steel supports.........

All of this is just pure bull# from start to finish...Fire and rescue personnel would not even go into a building if the opinion on site was even remotely close to the building was in risk of collapse...

If you were a billionaire, you would be simulating put off options on American Airlines, prior to a plane crash you 'knew nothing about'.

Who gives a # about the buildings? Billionaires care least of all, especially about the people. That's why they're billionaires.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Holiday weekend so when I get home I will reply.

originally posted by: [post=20529984]totallackey

All of this is just pure bull# from start to finish...Fire and rescue personnel would not even go into a building if the opinion on site was even remotely close to the building was in risk of collapse...

IIRC, they were trying to get out of the building when the helicopter (FDNY or Police?) radioed that he could see glowing exterior columns. This is before either tower collapsed, if memory serves....

IOW, their original opinion was that it would be safe to go in, but it changed after.

So you are correct.

a reply to: totallackey

All of this is just pure bull# from start to finish...Fire and rescue personnel would not even go into a building if the opinion on site was even remotely close to the building was in risk of collapse...

Which is what happened to WTC 7 - FDNY personnel entered building to search it for survivors/stragglers m

Found fires breaking out on multiple floors, heavy structural damage and even more important - no water as mains
had been cut by collapse of WTC towers .

Incident commanders (thats officers in charge for those of you in conspiracy land) made decision to remove personnel
from WTC 7 and later establish collapse zone when surveyors transit set up to monitor building showed it was moving

a reply to: Debunkology

and two links, which shows that the 707 had a 10% more destructive force.
Yet you post THAT as a reply??

So you believe that Newton and F=ma are wrong ?
That's why we have a 911 conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: dazbog
a reply to: wmd_2008


Keep saving those pennies and I'll be the first in line. Is it Okay if I bring a pizza, beverages and a sleeping bag ?

Yes ,I am that confident ! However, when I waltz out the next day ( Yup I'll be spending the entire night ) I'd like the opportunity to kick you in the groin.

I mean ya gotta have some skin in the game, right Amigo ? Perhaps just pay for my Pizza.

Well since you have confessed to a pizza diet I would let you just go to the first floor
and the pizza box would be ideal for your remains.

a reply to: totallackey


So you would be in, in a heartbeat that would be your last as you hear the sound
of floors collapsing towards you. As you can see from this picture BELOW the lower coulmn trees
intact yet the steel angle cleats have be removed more proof of the floors collapsing
inside the Towers.


Low level Column Trees

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What I said is true NEITHER side can ever know the EXACT damage done by the impact
or the fires they can only make assumptions.

No the were bowing inwards

Walls

Walls Again

The mass falling internally sheared/bent the truss seats & bolts many pictures have been shown on here
LONG before you arrived on the scene



Of COURSE there was HUGE dynamic loads here is a calculator give it a try I bet YOU don't

Impact Force 1

height 3.6 mtrs distance between floors
Velocity gravity so 9.81 m/s sq
mass of floorslab at least 750,000 kg just the concrete.

Once you have done that click blue text

Impact Force 2

Now distance travelled after imapct is the difficult part because as the picture above show truss seats gave way BECAUSE of the massive load.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: totallackey


So you would be in, in a heartbeat that would be your last as you hear the sound
of floors collapsing towards you. As you can see from this picture BELOW the lower coulmn trees
intact yet the steel angle cleats have be removed more proof of the floors collapsing
inside the Towers.


Low level Column Trees

Dude... LMAO!!!

Conditions exactly the same and the towers built exactly the same way they were from day one...As a bonus, you go ahead and add two more planes' capacity of diesel fuel at the same time...my bonus, I get a fireproof suit...If I survive the fire and the initial impact, I am going to walk alive the next day...That building is going NOWHERE! To quote Justin Wilson,who is telling a fish tale similar to yours here:

"I gar-on-tee!"

a reply to: totallackey

Well I would really love to put you in that spot because you haven't got a clue, I have spent many years on sites testing components sometimes to destruction and I started out in the design drawing office of a structural steel work company.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

What I said is true NEITHER side can ever know the EXACT damage done by the impact
or the fires they can only make assumptions.

No the were bowing inwards

Walls

Walls Again

The mass falling internally sheared/bent the truss seats & bolts many pictures have been shown on here
LONG before you arrived on the scene

Of COURSE there was HUGE dynamic loads here is a calculator give it a try I bet YOU don't

Impact Force 1

height 3.6 mtrs distance between floors
Velocity gravity so 9.81 m/s sq
mass of floorslab at least 750,000 kg just the concrete.

Once you have done that click blue text

Impact Force 2

Now distance travelled after imapct is the difficult part because as the picture above show truss seats gave way BECAUSE of the massive load.

actuall footage link

Here is the North tower a second before collapse initiation



here is the North tower at the moment of collapse initiation. Clearly and without any doubt the exterior structure has been forced outward. The corner rib is an excellent calibrater for this observation.



Here is another one a split second after collapse initiation.



There is some severe destruction going on a dozen or so floor above the point of impact.

These screen shots are taken from actual footage, not some silly troller site like your posting from which leads me to point out that you can never again post anything from 'Debunking 911' because they have now been caught posting doctored photos to push a hoax. I think ATS should move to ban them for all time like many hogwash "truther" sites have been.

And I "came on the scene" in 2004. I still remember Rourke was the resident OS pusher at the time and he did a lot better job than you. You post complete nonsense.

Edit to add:

No I would not go in the building you discribed in the OP because such a venture would draw a lot of attention and logic states that if explosives got planted the first time, they would be planted again. Tell me how you would secure the building to make sure nobody could enter the building during construction or maintenance to plant explosives and lets see if WTC security followed the same security measures.