Author Topic: A reason for pause... (Read 10007 times)

kappa · « **Reply #45 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:34:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thankfully the little world I live in isnt your sad deluded maniac life where you dont think the airplanes had anything to do with 911 collapses....

I do like threads because they are good opportunity to ridicule you. You bring out the bad in me....

Since you believe that they are soley responsible, how about shinning your light and illuminate how?

Before you regurgitate the 'accepted' idea, you might take a moment to read what I've posted first.. Just the first link. Read about the structual integrity of steal and at what tempurature it will fail... Also, the differences in static and dynamic load bearing structures, the minimum rated weight each must hold..

O, and the WTCs were static load bearing structures...

kappa · « **Reply #46 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:45:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thankfully the little world I live in isnt your sad deluded maniac life where you dont think the airplanes had anything to do with 911 collapses....

I do like threads because they are good opportunity to ridicule you. You bring out the bad in me....

And in fact they had nothing to do with WTC#7's collapse.. Not my thinking... That is fact............

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #47 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:47:43 PM »

Kappa.

Based on all the evidence you have considered is it your belief that the WTC Towers were rigged with demolition explosives on or before September 11, 2001?

Kieran · « **Reply #48 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:49:10 PM »

I've not seen such tunnel vision since Beetle's one-man anti-gun crusade. Well, at least this time Kappa admits he doesn't believe it was terrorists who committed 9/11. He's getting closer to making that full admission of a conclusion he's long since reached, but continues to deny...

Other than that, same crap, different day.

NUKE · « **Reply #49 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:51:57 PM »

http://www.dailyillini.com/sep01/sep20/news/stories/news_story02.shtml

Quote

The buildings were designed for a three-hour fire rating, which means the buildings could resist a fire up to three hours without serious structural damage.

Quote

"If it weren't for the extreme fire, I believe that the towers would still be standing today," Aminmansour said, although he added the towers still would be seriously damaged and unsafe to enter, even if they were still standing.

Quote

He added that a flame burning jet fuel and air generates an approximate temperature of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit — "more intense than any fire code scenario."

Keith Hjelmstad, professor of civil and environmental engineering, said there was more oxygen — another element required in burning — because of the entrance hole created by the impact. He also speculated that the impact caused the fire doors to burst open, allowing an increased flow of oxygen.

The fire caused entire floors to fail, Hjelmstad said. This created a large amount of energy that was enough to destroy the floors below the initial point until the building was completely destroyed.

"It's like trying to stop a freight train ... once the mass gets moving, it's hard to stop," Hjelmstad said.

So you can beleive that bombs were placed in the WTC or you can choose to believe that 2 big planes with lots of fuel crashed into them causing a major fire and structural damage that caused them to fall. Which one requires a leap of faith to believe?

A typical consiracy buff will ALWAYS choose the explaination requires huge leaps of faith and asumptions.

Yeager · « **Reply #50 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:59:58 PM »

There is an old saying, very relevant in this debate:

"It is better for people think your an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt".

I dont buy into the theory that any building on 9/11 was brought down by any action other than the terror attack. I simply dont feel compelled to defend that fact against koo koo conspiracy theories.

kappa · « **Reply #51 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:07:39 PM »

Quote

But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.

Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air — as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.

Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.

Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 F), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks — nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.

The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?

Furthermore, they did not burn for 3-4 hours which was their ratings..

Also again, No steel framed building in over 100years of engineering has collapsed from fire..

And even furthermore.. 720C is not the failing tempurture of steel. Its the critical temp that reduces structual steel to 20% of its cool strenght. In compliance with static load structures, 20% would still support itself.. Static load beams are required to hold 5x there rated weight. That is a bridge rated at 1 ton, should support 5 tons..

That is also, each floor with unadulted support, would be able to hold the next 4 floors above it on its own..

kappa · « **Reply #52 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:09:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
There is an old saying, very relevant in this debate:

"It is better for people think your an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt".

I dont buy into the theory that any building on 9/11 was brought down by any action other than the terror attack. I simply dont feel compelled to defend that fact against koo koo conspiracy theories.

I agree 100%.. It was a terror attack...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #53 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:13:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kappa
I agree 100%.. It was a terror attack...

Good. Al Qaeda placed the explosives there, end of story. The bastards!!!!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #54 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:15:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Kappa.

Based on all the evidence you have considered is it your belief that the WTC Towers were rigged with demolition explosives on or before September 11, 2001?

Answer the question Kappa.

With the "evidence" you've read.

(Then we can peacefully ignore any further posts from you like we have with MG and Weazel)

NUKE · « **Reply #55 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:25:19 PM »

Here is my theory:

The WTC needed to be destroyed and desguised as a terror attack so Bush could go to war with Afghanistan.

In order fool the public into thinking it was caused by Arab terrorists, actual Arab terrorists were employed to hi-jack airliners and fly them into the WTC.

Airliners had to be hi-jacked in order to make people believe Arab terrorists flew them into the WTC and caused the buildings to collapse, because no one would ever beleive that Arab terrorists would be smart enough to bomb the WTC and try to bring it down, despite having tried exactly this before.

Hey kappa, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just plant the bombs and blow up the buildings rather than bring the planes into the building, then detonating the bombs? What was the reason for even using the planes?

If the bombs could be planted and nobody detected them, why not just set them off and blame terrorists?

Can I borrow your foil hat sometime?

Steve · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:46:36 PM »

is the the same kappa who I love to wing in his 38?

Oh my, oh my.

Kieran · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:46:45 PM »

Take it up to 100 posts, Kappa will declare we are idiots (while carefully ignoring or tiptoeing around the hard questions), then say he is moving on.

Then he will start another similar thread in a couple of days. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Grunherz has him nailed on the explosives question. Nuke has him on the explanation for the collapse, and the heat generated. Nuke also buried him with the "Occam's Razor" point of "what is the most obvious answer?".

Score:

Kappa 0, Crowd 2... and climbing.

type_char · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:55:32 PM »

It was the fire that melted the steel and caused the building to collapse. Bomb theory is interesting but it sounds a bit waco to me.

I guess well just have to wait and see what happens.

Thrawn · « **Reply #59 on:** February 03, 2004, 08:35:58 PM »

If kappa is an such an idiot and the physics in the article such crap...why hasn't anyone actually refuted it yet?