Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: kappa on February 03, 2004, 12:02:59 PM
-
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm )
Interview with Dr. Michael Elliot. A Canadian Physicist (http://www.radiofreeamerica.tv/video/2003-12-12/911-group.swf)
For example, Peter G. Peterson, chairman of the CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that his Blackstone Group had purchased, in October 2000, the mortgage on 7 World Trade Center, the 47-story building built by Larry Silverstein in 1987. Silverstein is the person who obtained 99-year leases on the twin towers shortly before 9-11 and who insured the property and its future income against terrorism. He is seeking some $7.2 billion claiming the attacks were two separate events.
WTC 7 mysteriously collapsed at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11, in what appears to have been a controlled demolition. John Wholihan, a firefighter with Rescue 5 from Staten Island was near WTC 7 when it collapsed. Wholihan told American Free Press that he heard "many explosions" just before the building collapsed neatly within the perimeter of its foundation. Silverstein received some $441 million in insurance money for WTC 7 although the cause of the collapse remains officially unexplained
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen11.html
One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.
"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.
http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm
2) There is no official testimony on the collapse on Building 7, only a study, which doesn't come to any single conclusion, why B7 collapsed. http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf In September 2002, Con Edison therefore decided to sue Building 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/11/nyregion//11BLAS.html
3) The former footprints of Building 7 can not be visited by tourists, it's the only side, which was still closed at the end of 2002. Federals watching the outside of the former building.
4) Blackstone Group, a subsidiary of military company TRW, obtained a mortgage on Building 7 in October 2000. http://www.blackstone.com/news/press_releases%255C7_world_trade_oct_2000.pdf
5) 34 km north of WTC, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University registered a 0.6 Richter earthquake at the begining of collapse. -Isn't it a bit strange to register it 20 km far away? In the beginning of the fall?
6) The building fell down in an ALMOST PERFECT free fall. As it was 174 m high it's free fall would be 5.956 s. It fell in 6 s. That is difference of 0.05 s! -It is maybe the most promising physical fact that has to be considered! Simple equation says it. t= sqrt(2h/g) And look how it violently starts to sink! Without any tensity or cracking of the facade.
7) It fell DIRECTLY in its own footprint. The debris was spread only a bit more than 10m around. The pile of debris was less than 15m high. Normally, it should TILT and destroy a block, or another building, like Verizon, or US Post Office. It should collapse slowly. And the pile would consist of many big pieces of floors-none found. There were only few "big" pieces of facade maybe 3-4 floors big. Everything else was MUSHED. It is extremelly dumb to even think that EVERYTHING would be broken. Simple collapses (like when we just sewer the building's foundations) should be pretty caotic (even more for a LOCAL fire).
8) It was burning (not so vigorously as media says, I saw the pictures) for 7 hours. Those fires were local, spread on 2 floors. Not AS CLOSE as the First Interstate Bank in 1988 L.A. (it's FOUR floors were burning for 18 HOURS! The fires were great). Someone at other forum mentioned diesel explosions. I ask you: Do you think that diesel fuel (oily and heavy) could EXPLODE and throw of balance a STEEL tower? I think no. Neither car gas could. Diesel doesn't create so much flamable steam that could get into a proper mix with O2. And there have to be good conditions. Car gas is volatile and it would explode, but NOT with such vigourosity as for example TNT. No way.
9) It's penthouse sank first, meaning that the center of the building was destroyed first. I think the center was mushed, then the facade broke down while falling.
10) Chain squibs are visible going on ~10 floors. Did you see them on your video that you posted a link to? Again mushing. I wonder sometimes why would the bad guys that did this plant SO MUCH detonators inside-it is useless. There could be less of it.
11) This would be the first steel-framed building in history to fall because of fire. Compare: http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/Collapse_update.htm http://www.wjhl.com/videopopup/videos/MGBDMPD7IRC.html http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestionsLinks.html http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7collapse.html http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7big.rm Another video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi And another video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://ontario.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/wtc-7_collapse.mpg And yet another video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://www.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/wtc-7_cbs.mpg
-
Well that settles it. Bush engineered 9/11.
-
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
-
A reason for pause...
or not.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Well that settles it. Bush engineered 9/11.
LOL! :)
-
OH NO not this again.
-
I talked to a guy just last week that was involved with clearing the frequencies to be used by the real pilots flying all four jetliners that day. Fact is they were not pilots in the sense you ordinarily think of. These guys were sitting in vans traveling under the flight paths controlling the jets by remote radio transmission. Those 19 Sauds were actually quite innocent. Just grasp the power of media if you can.
-
Kappa
If this was all a big conspiracy, you and all the people who run those web sites would disappear or be in jail.
There are more then enough REAL issues to dislike Bush on why keep pushing this BS?
-
whew... I thought he was gonna say we missed stalins birthday or something.
lazs
-
They were trying to cover up evidence of Hoffa's murder! They blew it up because Jimmy was in Column #3 in the center section!
-
767's are a lot bigger then 707's.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I talked to a guy just last week that was involved with clearing the frequencies to be used by the real pilots flying all four jetliners that day. Fact is they were not pilots in the sense you ordinarily think of. These guys were sitting in vans traveling under the flight paths controlling the jets by remote radio transmission. Those 19 Sauds were actually quite innocent. Just grasp the power of media if you can.
You're not serious right???????
also do you really live on the muroc dry lake bed?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
767's are a lot bigger then 707's.
yes they are.. It was the amount of fuel each carried that I thought relevant since the burning fuel was suppose to be the culprit... Much of this idea is covered in my first link. It is an excellent essay..
I would feel it easy to be cynical like you guys if these theories and ideas could be easily dismissed or proven false. I have been unable to. You guys do not attempt to. WTC #7 remains unanswered. This following statement alone should raise many question among you, yet it fails to. Perhaps it is too large to fathom.
The building fell down in an ALMOST PERFECT free fall. As it was 174 m high it's free fall would be 5.956 s. It fell in 6 s. That is difference of 0.05 s! -It is maybe the most promising physical fact that has to be considered! Simple equation says it. t= sqrt(2h/g) And look how it violently starts to sink! Without any tensity or cracking of the facade.
The simple idea that it JUST fell to fall is accepted..
A few more questions:
Where is OBL? When was the last time our government mentioned him? Why can we not catch him?
Does this alone not inspire thought? Does it seem right? Of course not, yet it is accepted..
Governments are evil. We all know this to be true. There are simply too many unanswered questions to sit back and be complacent To accept whatever is given to you..
-
You post a bunch of BS, then call us stupid, and wonder why we do not take you seriously??
You are a piece of work Kappa.
If we are all so dumb why don't you go find a new forum? I bet if you within a few days they won’t take you seriously either.
You are NOT the only sane man in a sea of fools.
-
There was this guy once named Velikovski (or something like that) who claimed that Venus was actually just a chunk that broke off Jupiter and that this chunk was the explaination for the earth standing still (The sun stopping) in the Old Testament. He also had the nerve to write a whole book about it called "when worlds collide".
This is kinda like that.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You post a bunch of BS, then call us stupid, and wonder why we do not take you seriously??
You are a piece of work Kappa.
If we are all so dumb why don't you go find a new forum? I bet if you within a few days they won’t take you seriously either.
You are NOT the only sane man in a sea of fools.
I called no one stupid.. Please stop commenting things I did not do..
I simply ask others to read what I have posted and tell me how my ideas are incorrect.. How I couldnt possibly be thinking correctly. To dissprove the theories given..
Personnally, I believed in terrorist for 2 years..
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There was this guy once named Velikovski (or something like that) who claimed that Venus was actually just a chunk that broke off Jupiter and that this chunk was the explaination for the earth standing still (The sun stopping) in the Old Testament. He also had the nerve to write a whole book about it called "when worlds collide".
This is kinda like that.
I fail to see the relevance.. please explain..
-
Not to defend kappa. :::GULP:::: but I havnt seen anyone on this board actually prove him wrong yet on his bldg #7 theory
please dont hurt me!
-
BS
"Perhaps it is too large to fathom."
You made that statement. It is a subtle way of saying we are stupid.
Go away.
-
When you can snatch the obvious point from my hand... you too may be a BBS Shaolin.
(http://images.allposters.com/images/77/039_44363.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
BS
"Perhaps it is too large to fathom."
You made that statement. It is a subtle way of saying we are stupid.
Go away.
Again Gtora.. I dont mean to argue.. It is too large for me to fathom.. But I am trying...
Besides, you say that as if you took me serious before hand..
-
wow MT.. thats just too good..
I said I fail to see the relevance.. The ideas in your book are easily disproved..
-
Is there only to be mockery and cynicism found here? Nothing else?? Not even one challenge to any of these ideas??
-
I did not even pause long enough to read the whole article.
-
Is there only to be mockery and cynicism found here? Nothing else?? Not even one challenge to any of these ideas??
Yes, now go away.
Maybe if it was posted by someone who was not you, people might bother reading it. You killed your own credibility Live with.
-
How typical.. for both of you.. Gtora.. why dont you go away.. this is my thread.. no one is forcing you to read it.. Your own childish behavior brings you back and makes you post.. How about you exercise some self control and stay away..
-
Originally posted by lazs2
whew... I thought he was gonna say we missed stalins birthday or something.
lazs
:D
-
Hey your the one who is crying about how no one cares. I am just trying to tell you why.
I won't bother posting anymore. I am going to do what I am sure most people here have done.
Put you on ignore.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hey your the one who is crying about how no one cares. I am just trying to tell you why.
I won't bother posting anymore. I am going to do what I am sure most people here have done.
Put you on ignore.
thanks..
-
Here you go guys....
Rip this one apart. This should be easy for this group...
The two F-15s were scrambled at Otis ANGB at 8:46 a.m. as the first tower at the World Trade Center was struck. By 8:52 they were airborne and according to one of the pilots flying at full speed to New York City.
Told "This looks like the real thing," Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two planes flew the 153 miles to New York City at "supersonic speeds," according to an Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW) article of June 3, 2002. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," Duffy said.
The F-15 Eagle is capable of flying 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5+) and has a range of 3,000 nautical miles. At full speed the Otis F-15s should have reached New York City in about 5 minutes, by 8:58 a.m. The armed fighter jets would then have been in position to intercept the second hijacked plane, which struck the south tower at about 9:02 a.m.
The F-15s from Otis were "cocked and loaded, and even had extra gas on board," according to Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) commander Col. Robert K. Marr. Air Force Capt. Wes Ticer, spokesman for Air Combat Command told American Free Press that an F-15 at "full power" reaches 1,875 mph, although its velocity varies depending on the plane's weight and altitude.
Col. Alan Scott (Ret.) presented NORAD's timeline to the commission on May 23. In this timeline the F-15 fighter jets are said to be 71 miles, "about eight minutes out," from the World Trade Center at 9:02 a.m. when the second tower was struck. This indicates the fighters had traveled only 83 miles in some nine minutes, flying about 550 mph (Mach 0.9). Scott told the commission that the interceptors jets, which would have been flying at less than 30 percent of their full speed, were "going very fast" - and nobody questioned it.
-
And while your at it, do a Yahoo search on Louie Cacchioli and see what kind of hits you get.
-
I read the report, makes some interesting points. As for attacking kappa, it seems americans are all for freedom of speech when it suits them, why cant kappa bring this point up without being attacked?
-
According to my references, the F-15's top speed is 1875 mph though my main aircraft encyclopedia shows 1650 mph. According to the article, the aircraft were carrying extra gas which would mean external fuel tanks. This would further incumber their top speed.
How long can an F-15 on Full afterburner fly before exhausting its fuel?
-
Originally posted by Furball
I read the report, makes some interesting points. As for attacking kappa, it seems americans are all for freedom of speech when it suits them, why cant kappa bring this point up without being attacked?
Oh stop.
A person is free to speak their minds as much as they like in America.
We're exercising our right to free speech by calling these claims ridiculous.
-
yep, claiming they are ridiculous is fine, its the personal attacks i was referring to.
-
Here's my numbers...
The F-15C carries 13,455 lbs fuel internal
11,895 ext.
At full afterburner, each engine will burn .7 lbs per fuel per hour per lb of thrust.
Each engine is rated at 23,930 lbs of thrust at full burner.
So I've got the plane eating 33,502lbs of thrust per hour.
or 558 lbs per minute.
So if all the above is correct, would'nt the F-15 be tanks dry in just over 24 mins?
Unless they were carrying external tanks, the earlier mentioned article seems highly unlikely.
-
ok, i have the real story from a un-named source...
the boosh/chaney/halburton/oil cartel some how got control of 4 airplanes and crashed them into buildings that were loaded with high explosive charges to bring down the buildings, after waiting some time after the colisions to set a alibi, they set off the charges and brought down the buildings. the boosh/chany/etc then used that as an excuse to invade iraq to grab it's oil in spite of the heroic efforts of france and germany to defend iraq...
did i get it right kappa????
-
Muck, I'm not sure what your driving at and your figures are probably correct. I have not done the calculations as I'm not sure what you are trying to disprove. But the paragraphs you are citing only call for 5 mins of afterburner flight. They are basically saying that 2 F-15s, by reports of the pilots, were possibly on scene with the ability to stop the second plane...
Furthermore, the paragraphs cited by you call into question the timeline given by Col. Alan Scott of NORAD and the pilot's own account of their speed. Adding further question to that day.......
I'm not sure how you are reading it or what you are trying to say...
-
To be honest, Kappa, I did not read much of the articles. The only things we can prove or disprove are hard physical facts. Thats why I'm exploring the F-15 angle. There are constants here I can calculate.
-
Agreed... But the article talks of the time it would take an F-15 to fly the 153 miles to NYC and estimated that time to be 5-6mins at 'full blower' which the pilot said was his speed...
-
Skuzzy please ban Kappa from the BBS, he wont take it bad at all. Seriously it will just help him prove that these conspiracy ideas are being supressed amd that will make him happy!!!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Skuzzy please ban Kappa from the BBS, he wont take it bad at all. Seriously it will just help him prove that these conspiracy ideas are being supressed amd that will make him happy!!!!
Very patriotic and american of you grunherz....
-
I'm just trying to make you happy kappa. And you know getting banned would make you very happy, then yu could go to another BBS saying that "I was banned for posting this info - LOOKEEE HERE"
That would be a win-win for everyone.
We wouldnt have to put up with your insane posts any more.
And you would have a lot more evidence that thsi is indeed an evil conspiracy that is being supressed by DA MAN!!!
WIN-WIN BABY!!!
Whats more neighborly and american thatn that?
-
No one is forcing you to read or post grunherz.. If you choose not to attempt thought on what I've posted, by all means stay in your own little world for both of us..
-
Originally posted by kappa
No one is forcing you to read or post grunherz.. If you choose not to attempt thought on what I've posted, by all means stay in your own little world for both of us..
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.... :lol
-
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.... :lol
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...
-
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.... :lol
And in fact they had nothing to do with WTC#7's collapse.. Not my thinking... That is fact............
-
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?
-
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.
-
http://www.dailyillini.com/sep01/sep20/news/stories/news_story02.shtml
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.
"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.
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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...
-
Originally posted by kappa
I agree 100%.. It was a terror attack...
Good. Al Qaeda placed the explosives there, end of story. The bastards!!!!
-
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)
-
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?
-
is the the same kappa who I love to wing in his 38?
Oh my, oh my.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If kappa is an such an idiot and the physics in the article such crap...why hasn't anyone actually refuted it yet?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If kappa is an such an idiot and the physics in the article such crap...why hasn't anyone actually refuted it yet?
Because sane men don't have arguements with nutcases, as the website proves this.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If kappa is an such an idiot and the physics in the article such crap...why hasn't anyone actually refuted it yet?
refuted what specifically? please list a few examples that need refuting.
Millions of people saw the planes crash into the WTC. How many people witnessed the people planting bombs in the buildings?
Im pretty sure that the planes had something to do with the buildings going down. What do you think?
-
This is destined to be another "They never really went to the moon" conspiracy theory. No amount of arguing or evidence will change the minds of those who WANT and NEED to believe such nonsense.
-
I hear you Grun...
kappa is gone..... he edited one of his posts well after about 7 other replies to his last post. He decided to keep editing an old post rather than reply to any current responses.
He's alone anyway....... who has even slightly concured with kappa's theory? I say "kappa's theory but in reality it's just another idiots theory that kappa has attached himself too.
-
How come these guys never get the clue? No one cares what he thinks but he keeps coming back..
Is it our fault for even posting to his threads?
-
Isnt this one of those "impossible to prove a negative" situations?
I hope you take it.....
-
Huh? Take what Grun?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Huh? Take what Grun?
I offered kappa a way out, maybe.... It would still be embarrsing for him, but less so than this.
-
LOL
Grun, he wont... Maybe he will come back with a new ID though...
Are you in Cali?
-
Yea I live in cupertino.
-
We should have a beer after work sometime! lol I work in mountain view live in fremont.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
We should have a beer after work sometime! lol I work in mountain view live in fremont.
Sounds good! I'm very busy now and this weekend I'm going to LA, but how's your schedule next week?
-
I am free most evening, next week should be good for me!
I know of a bar that has killer fish and chips, all you can eat on mondays lol!
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am free most evening, next week should be good for me!
I know of a bar that has killer fish and chips, all you can eat on mondays lol!
Should we invite kappa? It wouldnt take him too long to drive down from Berkely or was it up from Santa Cruz? Hmmm....
Yea monday would be cool.
-
LOL
You joking about him in Berkely right? That would be too funny!
-
I R TEH TERRAR!
-
Saur
You rigged the buildings to blow?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
LOL
You joking about him in Berkely right? That would be too funny!
Yea I was joking, kappa is obviously outta this world...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If kappa is an such an idiot and the physics in the article such crap...why hasn't anyone actually refuted it yet?
I have before.
Kappa's physics are based on theory, or controlled tests. As far as I know, no one has ever conducted a controlled test on the effects of crashing airliners into skyscrapers.
Vaporising fuel? That assumes it all burns at once, which wouldn't necessarily be true if it spilled into the building and down stairwells and such.
No steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire? No steel framed building has ever been hit by something as large as an airliner. That day, two were, and both fell. 2 for 2.
Surely you of all people, Thrawn, must understand the Occam's razor aspect of this discussion. You must also surely sense Kappa's overt message of conspiracy as well.
-
Hmm, let's think about this.
Office Building.
With people working in it.
Lots and lots of paper.
And you wonder why it was burning?
Cmon Conspiracy Theory guys. I was pretty sure you would understand that.
-
The F-15 angle is interesting, all the same. The pilots seem to be saying they had the pedal to the metal all the way, but the official timeline says they were practically cruising?
-
AND
the world is flat
the sky is falling
and the moon landing was fake
kappa, put down the lefties before you are so paraniod you'll refuse to go outside...
the "reason to pause" is to actually realize how strangely some ppl's thought processes work or fail to work ... amazing
-
Kappa.....asking questions is always good.
to solely rely on what some Govr 'Expert' would say would be foolish indeed.
keep asking your questions:aok
I have a friend who is a Struct. Eng....and we discussed this at length one night at his house....
the WTC where very big buildings....BUT.....the FLOORS where STACKED LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS....the words used by my friend.
from the info he collected....once the 1st floor colapsed, the rest followed....pancaked one on top of the other...Hence the BOOM BOOM BOOM as the floor colapsed....
don't forget the floors where attached very lightly....my friends term....
and the FIRE RESISTENCE protection inside the buildings had but all vanished with the years....
just for a little INFO....
the WTC architect was a very good friend of OBL's Family....hence the middle eastern arches at the bottom of the WTC....
-
The F15 angle smacks of coverup............they could have prevented the 2nd impact.............they didnt........... they flew subsonic and got there late whilst general confusion still reigned......... story is smudged to avoid embarrassment.
To speculate.(because thats all this is really)
Collapse time............ I think this should be checked again. If the inner core had collapased or totally lost integrity then indeed the outer shell would be very close to free fall (indeed it may even be in a "forced fall"state where the inner core is pulling it down).
Total collapse would then be the time from which the core started to collapse, not the time the outer shell began its cascade.
There are many questions regarding the core design, which if I remember was a cross laticed square donut (in plan view)extending up the centre of the tower. It could be argued that the construction was strong in both compression and tension yet comparatively weak under torsion, were the structure be heated to its plastic phase. As the steel (at the offending floor) gave way under heat the structure was more likely to twist than to topple in this particular zone.
Given that the steel would be approaching a plastic zone at the temperatures quoted the structural tie work would still be in place but "soft"and indeed a twisting collapse is then more likely.
This (a twisting collapse) seems to be the only way the core can collapse without toppling . To achieve this with explosives would be still very difficult as even when this is performed the structure is mechanically weakend in advance to achieve the proper effect ......... I think that folk with sledge and kango hammers preparing the building for demolition may have been noticed.
The fact that the weakend zone was mid way up the tower would have been "worst case". There will be a point some way up the tower where a collapsing floor (or floors) will have the momentum gained by the weight of the floors above to over come the structural integrity of the floor (singular floor) below.
Rubble height. This building extended many floors below "ground" level. The rubble height has little bearing when one considers the massive structures that collapsed and fell below ground level.
And so if we must muse over the irony of thinking the unthinkable we can specualte with equal credibility that there is an equally plausible (non conspiritorial) explanation for the sequence of events that occurred.
One would wonder over what speculation would occur had the two towers toppled with perfect timing into each other to leave a massive arch of destruction upon the NY sky line.
Equally implausable??? well ..........less likely......... but not inplausable.
No more so than trying to understand the miriad of events that occur under such a complex structural failure and then trying to draw conclusions soley from the unanswered questions.
We do know that a group of people flew two planes into the twin towers.
We do know they collapsed shortly afterwards.
The weight of evidence supporting this as the work of Al Qeada far out ways the evidence originating from unanswered questions which (if answered) may either explain or confuse present understanding as much as it (those answers) might refute it.
-
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. kieran
Here you go again with this bs.. What questions have I ignored??
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?".
lmao Grunherz nailed me by asking when explosives were put in the buildings? This challenges the presented theories how??
Nuke's explanation is regurgitated answers. All of which are delt with in my first article posted.. Occam's Razor? lmao good if the reason given can be proven without question. One reason here does not explain everything. i.e. Why did Building #7 fall? <--everyone is ignoring this...
Kappa's physics are based on theory, or controlled tests.
Not true. Required structual integrity of static objects is not theory. Failing temperature of structual steel is not theory. Boiling/evaporating temperatures of jet fuel is not theory. Required heat energy to melt 200,000 tons of steel is not theory. Buildings falling at FREEFALL speeds is not theory. Building #7 falling is not theory. Eyewitness accounts of that day are not theory. I could go on.. None of these points have been challenged.
There are test conducted of the temperatures obtained from jetfuel fires. They do not come close to the temperature required in any circumstance to heat (even uninsulated) structual steel to the failing point. You know, acetylene torch hot. What is required to heat a blow torch to melting steel temperatures?? The idea that jetfuel alone could do it is absurd.
Jetfuel is not a nuclear meltdown were as heat builds and builds. Eventually it flash ignites or boils/evaporates away. The hotter the ambient temp, the faster this happens. Certainly office furniture would not produce the heat necessay. Nor could piles of paper. If heat were that easy to produce, energy would be free.
I dont believe many here have actually taken into consideration the scope and amount of heat energy required. As well as the cooling properties of metal. How heat will not focus on any one point of a metal surface.
The buildings falling at near freefall speeds means the entire structual integrity of all THREE buildings (THREE BUILDINGS) failed at one time...
If the floors compacted each other, where was the stack of floors at the bottom of the pile? What happed to the quarter mile long center support colums? Why were they not left standing?
None of these ideas are challanged here and cannot be explained with the the given reasons..
Vaporising fuel? That assumes it all burns at once, which wouldn't necessarily be true if it spilled into the building and down stairwells and such. kerian
Again talking with ignorance. That fuel is just simply to lye along side with a supposed ambient temp above 2000deg F? 800deg C? If it spills down stairways, etc.., does it produce nuclear fires? Why would it not produce an everyday run-to-the-mill fire?
Because sane men don't have arguements with nutcases, as the website proves this. ripsnort
Lmao clearly we have found the intellectual mind of the board. with his ability to just dismiss something without any thought of it. what a stunning ability..
No amount of arguing or evidence will change the minds of those who WANT and NEED to believe such nonsense. grunherz
The amount of irony in that statement is amazing... I've tried to believe your way.. I tried for 2 years. With just a few basic scientific principles applied the accepted story does not add up and is proven debunked. i.e. melting temp of steel, fall time of buildings, WTC#7 falling..
If kappa is an such an idiot and the physics in the article such crap...why hasn't anyone actually refuted it yet?Thrawn
Makes me wonder too.. The four people attacking me obviously lack the ability/desire.. The difference is marginal..
-
tell ya what I believe... I believe that everything you read on kappas lefty nutball sites is a total lie. I believe they feel that lying is justified. I believe that the canadian is mistaken. I believed carl friggin sagan was mistaken about the effect of the sadman lighting all the kuwait oil fields on fire but he had a lot of data and computer models to rove him right.
I believe he lied too.
lazs
-
I think I'll start with this one
Originally posted by kappa
It fell DIRECTLY in its own footprint. The debris was spread only a bit more than 10m around. The pile of debris was less than 15m high.
Spot the 10 m debris spread
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/wtc.Sept16.2001.usgs.r091011.plume1.lowermhtn.tgif.gif)
Spot the 15m debris pile
(http://www.galluzzo.com/wtc/rubble/Crane_WEB.jpg)
I D I O T
-
so.... you are saying that the guy writing the article.....lied? That the facts don't bear out his lefty paranoid theory?
what a surprise
but just think of it this way... if kappa can put doubt in the mind of just one Bush voter.... all the lying and effort is worth it.
lazs
-
Thankyou Tilt!
There are many questions regarding the core design, which if I remember was a cross laticed square donut (in plan view)extending up the centre of the tower. It could be argued that the construction was strong in both compression and tension yet comparatively weak under torsion, were the structure be heated to its plastic phase. As the steel (at the offending floor) gave way under heat the structure was more likely to twist than to topple in this particular zone.
Given that the steel would be approaching a plastic zone at the temperatures quoted the structural tie work would still be in place but "soft"and indeed a twisting collapse is then more likely.
Would you think the amount of steel approaching the 'plastic' zone would be the entire length of the inner core colums? Or a small area? With this twisting idea, what would you consider the possibilities of the building collapsing straight down and not rolling to the side then falling?
The fact that the weakend zone was mid way up the tower would have been "worst case". There will be a point some way up the tower where a collapsing floor (or floors) will have the momentum gained by the weight of the floors above to over come the structural integrity of the floor (singular floor) below.
I have thought about this much and give a lot of credence to the idea. If this were the case, could we not expect to see a pile of floors at teh bottom? Much like (from my link) LP records stacked on a spindle? If the floors did cascade down, what of the quarter mile long center colums?? Would they not still be basically intact? Perhaps standing?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tell ya what I believe... I believe that everything you read on kappas lefty nutball sites is a total lie. I believe they feel that lying is justified. I believe that the canadian is mistaken. I believed carl friggin sagan was mistaken about the effect of the sadman lighting all the kuwait oil fields on fire but he had a lot of data and computer models to rove him right.
I believe he lied too.
lazs
Without question I believe you. Without question, you believe..
-
Let's try it like this then, Kappa... can you point out any research documenting what happens when airliners are crashed into skyscrapers, and the attendant controlled tests to prove those results?
Engineers design airplanes, but they must still be testflown, because so much unknown is involved. Your whole argument is pinned on a small and focused set of criterion. That isn't logical, because pragmatically you cannot account for all the factors that were involved, and you must surely realize this. But you don't want to. That's your bag, not mine.
The funny aspect of this is you're trying to act as if you are being unbiased and scientific, and you aren't. You say you haven't made up your mind, but you have. You accidentally let things slip here and there and it tips your hand, but it was easy to see the very first time you posted this. Got all upset when I suggested you come clean right away, but here we are, piece by piece, getting to what you're really after. Could have saved a lot of time if you'd simply said it from the beginning.
You think it's a government coverup, and you think the Bush administration is involved. You believe the al Quaida link is a sham, and it was orchestrated by our own CIA.
Now I have that fully on record, so when you finally make a full breast of your feelings I will be able to say "I told you so."
-
Hortland, I believe that was 10m beyond its footprint all around with an average of 15m high. But really, is this the best you can do with so much presented? keep tryin..
-
well... ya gotta admit.... this incident is so far different than all the other cases of airliners crashing into twin tower sized buildings that it does look suspicious.
lazs
-
kieran, the entire collapse of the towers are contributed to fire... NOT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES... Agian.. NOT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES... Should I type it again?
The only logic needed to be applied is the simple logic that jetfuel will not and can not alone reach tempertures required to melt steel.. In every test ever conducted temperatures do not reach even the first critical temperature level of structual steel.. That is uninsulated steel at that..
-
kieran, the entire collapse of the towers are contributed to fire... NOT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES... Agian.. NOT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES... Should I type it again?
LOL! Yup, no way the impact of airliners had anything to do with the collapse! See, there it is, completely disregard the conflicting arguments, or distort them. I said no research has been done to document the effects of airliners impacting skyscrapers. The impact would only be ONE effect.
Engage your head.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... ya gotta admit.... this incident is so far different than all the other cases of airliners crashing into twin tower sized buildings that it does look suspicious.
lazs
the tower fellings are not attributed to the impact of airplanes. WTC#7 was not impacted by an aircraft.. NOONE here attempts to think or consider WTC#7..........
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Saur
You rigged the buildings to blow?
Yes.
But it was difficult to get the proper explosives. We had to use millions of M80's.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Without question I believe you. Without question, you believe..
kappa why not simplify it for everyone and tell us in your own words what you believe happened to the WTC?
Let's see how much sense you can muster up in explaining what you think happened. Please no links or quotes, just tell us what you have come to beleive.
As an example, this would be my answer :2 big planes, hijacked by Arabs and filled with fuel crashed into the WTC 1 & 2 , causing major damage and their eventual collapse.
See how easy it can be for one to spell out what they believe happened? Now let's here yours and compair it to my answer. Let's see who looks more like the looney conspiracy buff.
-
Originally posted by kappa
The only logic needed to be applied is the simple logic that jetfuel will not and can not alone reach tempertures required to melt steel.. In every test ever conducted temperatures do not reach even the first critical temperature level of structual steel.. That is uninsulated steel at that..
They conducted tests that simulated the tower impacts variable for variable? They actually used similar volumes of fuel on a structure that vented air the same exact way as the towers would, given the conditions of 9/11, adding the element of a jet impact on the structure?
I see the point you're making, Kappa, but I just don't see how they can claim to have accounted for every condition that contributed to the collapse. With the jet fuel acting as an accelerant, and the interior of the building(with everything inside acting as fuel) burning on several floors simultaneously, unique air currents could have played a role in raising the temperature. Of course we've established that the steel didn't actually need to melt, rather buckle, and given the fact that the heating was probably anything but uniform throughout the affected area, some steel members may have expanded more than others, destablizing the whole structure even more. Massive temperature variations throught the length of the central column may have caused it to crack as well.
I know I'm gonna get ridiculed for this, but I think that as in any situation where there are multiple theories as to what happened, the truth is usually in the simplest, most straight forward explanation. Massive impact followed by a period of accelerated heating led to just enough softening of load-bearing members.
-
Nuke you lack the required brain power to reason my ideas.. You challenge none of the theories placed here. You only serve to add to background noise.. Please leave my thread before you make a fool of yourself as you did in my last thread.. I actually felt sorry for you then.. I dont want to feel that way again..
My own words and ideas have no impact on what happened..
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
They conducted tests that simulated the tower impacts variable for variable? They actually used similar volumes of fuel on a structure that vented air the same exact way as the towers would, given the conditions of 9/11, adding the element of a jet impact on the structure?
I see the point you're making, Kappa, but I just don't see how they can claim to have accounted for every condition that contributed to the collapse. With the jet fuel acting as an accelerant, and the interior of the building(with everything inside acting as fuel) burning on several floors simultaneously, unique air currents could have played a role in raising the temperature. Of course we've established that the steel didn't actually need to melt, rather buckle, and given the fact that the heating was probably anything but uniform throughout the affected area, some steel members may have expanded more than others, destablizing the whole structure even more. Massive temperature variations throught the length of the central column may have caused it to crack as well.
I know I'm gonna get ridiculed for this, but I think that as in any situation where there are multiple theories as to what happened, the truth is usually in the simplest, most straight forward explanation. Massive impact followed by a period of accelerated heating led to just enough softening of load-bearing members.
ty capt.. excellent post.. I ask this.. What color was the smoke eminated from the towers?? How much smoke? What does black smoke usually mean?
Open holes in the towers for ventilation I thought was valid. Did the impact holes extend thru the entire tower? I mean to ask was there an gapping entrace as well as exit holes? Albeit these hole would have ventilated small portions of the flame, but throughout the entire floor? The second tower was struck only in a corner. Leading to the idea only 1 corner of the building could have been ventilated..
Again, all the properties of jet fuel suggest that with an ambient temp high enough to fail structual steel, the fuel would not be around for very long in any case. it would evaporate from lack of O2 or would flash ignite and explode consuming all fuel ...
-
Originally posted by kappa
Furthermore, they did not burn for 3-4 hours which was their ratings..
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.
Yes but if the center walls where the elevator shafts were breached by the impact of the planes would have created a huge vacuum effect feeding the fires from below at the center where the main support columns are very much like oxygen is added to a blowtorch which would have raised the temperatures significantly
this would work alot like a chimney on a fireplace
The fact that after the plane impacts not all of the elevators were working support the idea that at least some of those central shafts were indeed breached.
Having to endure educational seminars on fire ratings and firestop and the proper application of Firestop material and
Having personally worked with fire rated and firestop material I can tell you through my own experience that that argument doesn't carry a whole lot of weight.
These ratings are assuming a typical fire where firedoors would automatically close most windows would be shut and that most firewalls would not already be breached which is unlikely to happen when an airliner slams into the side of a building at a couple hundred miles an hour. and the fact that plane debris exited the opposite side of the buildings is at the very least conclusive evidence that at least 2 of the main firewalls had indeed been breached if not totally blown out
Most fire rated material is designed to stop smoke more then fire and the items that truly are "fire rated" are only rated up to a specific temperature for a specific time at that temp. provided they haven't been compromised. A crack, even a very small crack in a wall ruins its fire rating. Also the hotter the fire the lower the rating
there are other factors to consider when talking about fire rating
This so called firestop material which is used to block what are called "smoke and fire penetrations" Which basically are any cracks in "firewalls" which more often then not are little more then doubled up standard 3/4 inch sheetrock. (hardly anything that would withstand the impact of an airliner)
As I was saying this firestop material that is used or SUPPOSED to be used to patch or fill in around any "penetrations" which is the gap you see around pipe, electrical wire air ducts that run through walls. Is supposed to be used any time a "penetration" is created.
More often then not contractors or maintenance people will either leave the penetrations open or fill them in with standard speckle which is incorrect and does not meet national firecodes. And even when the fire stop is used often it is used incorrectly. This in itself is enough to ruin the fire rating on a wall.
This fire stop material itself is not infallible.
I've done some experiments with it myself and have found that typically most fire rated firestop material does not even meet its own rating, being easily lit with a standard lighter in less then 2 min. And once lit, burns very very well.
While not the exact stuff I used to use you can conduct this very same experiment for yourselves. Home depot sells firestop dont remember the specific brand but its with the caulk.
Just pump some out. let it harden and hold a lighter to it.
Soon you will see it burning nicely letting off wonderful clouds of black smoke.
Drediock
-
Originally posted by kappa
Thankyou Tilt!
Would you think the amount of steel approaching the 'plastic' zone would be the entire length of the inner core colums? Or a small area? With this twisting idea, what would you consider the possibilities of the building collapsing straight down and not rolling to the side then falling?
I have thought about this much and give a lot of credence to the idea. If this were the case, could we not expect to see a pile of floors at teh bottom? Much like (from my link) LP records stacked on a spindle? If the floors did cascade down, what of the quarter mile long center colums?? Would they not still be basically intact? Perhaps standing?
Beware when speculation is heaped upon the findings of speculation.
In essence your arguement is based upon the use of "reasonable doubt" (ie unanswered questions) when infact it is "reasonable" to use "most probable cause" from the evidence available.
However the plastic zone would only have needed to be in the initial zone of collapse to create a massive momentum.
Neither would it have all nicely spralled down like a collapsing spring or lace tube ...........whilst the forces established might have been torsional and have been applied in the form of a near continuous helical momentum the actual "plains" of shear force on local structures would have been at all odd angles as the collapsing structure twisted and buckled.
Even the basic Rankine column formulae shows this (1st year ONC mechanical engineering).
The question "why didnt it topple?" might best be looked at from the other view............. "why would it have toppled?"
Pronounced toppling suggests an out of plain force or (more likely) an out of plain resistance to force. If we return to the theorem that the whole sequence could only start with an in plain collapse of the core structure over a set of local floors then indeed we see that from this specualtion the tower was less likely to topple. It had good anti topple structure.
There are other considerations. The surrounding structural work had considerable mass. (just no structural role other than locally supporting its own weight) This would form a sleeve withing which the core would initiate its fall. Very little (comparable) corrective force would have been required to maintain an in plain collapse in its plain.........
Again it would be more unsual to have the total structure neatly compressed into its collapsed state locally (between several floors) like your stack of LP's analogy. Indeed the rubble from the lower floors would be at the bottom of the pile and the stuff at the top of the pile would have (generally) come from nearer the top..........
I would return to the heat balance equations listed............ whilst temperature is the medium of heat transfer it should be noted that thermal capacity is what is required to cause objects to increase in temperature to a point of failure.
Hence the jet fuel would have started a fire with significant temperature and (comparibly) moderate capacity. But would not have had on its own sufficient thermal capacity towreek all the destruction to cause such massive failure. This (high temperature)would have started other fires the like of which should never be underestimated.........which would have overwhelmed conventional fire systems igniting objects usually thought to be incombustable. Generating massive thermal capacity.
I note even last year that the US considered a "flame proof/resistant polystyrene" as an acceptable fire retardent. Yet one of my custmers has just lost an entire plant due to the inferno that ensued once this material was raised to its eventual ignition temperature.
Whilst construction companies and standard agencies smudge the edges of definitions of combustable and fire retardency then there will always be a temperature at which these definitions are defeated.
The quarter mile column. We can be sure that the builders did not hoist up some god like sky hook and then winch up a series of single unit columns to stand side by side some quarter mile high.
It was constructed.The unit columns would have been no longer than the longest vehicle allowed on NY roads. 40 metres? the joints would have been bolted or rivited. Welds would have only been used to tack the columns in place prior to bolting / riviting.
In additon to this it would have been pre stressed with a multitude of "tensioned" structural members.
To refer to it as a mile high column is really (IMO) the designer trying to describe the end effect of the construction he has created.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Nuke you lack the required brain power to reason my ideas.. You challenge none of the theories placed here. You only serve to add to background noise.. Please leave my thread before you make a fool of yourself as you did in my last thread.. I actually felt sorry for you then.. I dont want to feel that way again..
My own words and ideas have no impact on what happened..
Nice try, but I'm simply asking you to tell us what you have come to believe happened. Make it simple so my little brain can grasp it. I just want to know what happened and you seem to know, so please tell me what happened.
My bet is that you will not post what you believe happened because it would sound too foolish .
-
Just pump some out. let it harden and hold a lighter to it.
Soon you will see it burning nicely letting off wonderful clouds of black smoke.
Drediock
Indeed much if not all of the fire walls , fire breaks were comprimised on impact of the airliners. Yet none of these materials, even under extrodinary circumstances, will burn to the heat required to produce failing of structural steel.. Certainly not the heat energy required to fail the massive quarter mile long center colums that even if they were heated, would act like a heatsink and dissipate the heat down their entire length.. A common property of metal...
-
kappa is telling us what he thinks didn't happen. Mind telling us what you think did happen?
You think that bombs were planted right kappa?
-
I'm a bit slow, so bear with me. Are you trying to say that this guy bought the #7 tower, rigged it with explosives, then waited until 2 jets crashed into the twin towers to detonate the explosives and collect insurance money? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Nuke you lack the required brain power to reason my ideas..
:rofl :rofl :rofl
You, sir, are an idiot.
-
Originally posted by kappa
You challenge none of the theories placed here.
Here it goes moron. I usually refrain from just copy and paste and links because it's stupid and pointless to do as you have proven over and over with those links of yours. I began to read through your first link when I immediatly saw so many things incorrect and speculative, that i realised you are beyond reasoning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ex=1076043600&en=909f57db34de69ff&ei=5070
The investigators, who are carrying out a two-year, $16 million analysis of the collapses, made it clear that they had not yet settled on a final explanation. They said, though, that their findings gave new weight to a theory that the failure of the floors weakened the towers' internal structure to the point that the entire buildings came down.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires.
WTC fireproofing not tested to hold up to code, panel says (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/5811932.htm)
New York Fireproofing on the steel floor supports in the World Trade Center was never tested and might have been too thin to hold up in a fire for the two-hour minimum set by the city building code, federal investigators said Wednesday.
The towers were built with an innovative floor system, and investigators said they have not found any evidence that it was tested with fireproofing to meet the two-hour standard.
I have tons more if you want kappa. I will ask you to disprove all of these like you ask us to disprove your whacky theories.
-
most lefty conspiracy theories have, at their base, a "fact" that ..... "so and so is impossible therefore, the right wingers are the real cause of..."
An example is the kennedy silliness... the lefties and other wackos claim that it is impossible for a riffle bullet to go through flesh and bone and remain realitively unmarked ... "pristene" therefore... blah blah blah..
Anyone who has ever spent 2 minutes looking at spent bullets that impacted a dirt bank (much worse thatn flesh and bone) will find many relatively "pristene bullets but... the wackos depend on people simply believeing them... they occassionaly find a like minded wacko like kappa who ifinds their lies fit with his outlook on life and he goes on to preach their gospel and.... make a fool of himself.
lazs
-
Tilt,
Given the idea that intial failure was due to 'torque' or twisting of structure beyond it's limits, this twisting certainly did not continue the entire distance to the ground. At some point the cascadeing floor into floor theory is energy transmitted directly towards the ground. And what of there being no stacks of floors?
Again, the entire length of the massive center colums must be called to question. All metal tends to dissipate heat. A good analogy given in my first link was like pouring syrup on a plate. It will spread to all directions possible. In order to make the syrup stack the least bit you must poor it faster and faster but still with little stacking effect. No matter how the columns were attached together (i did not mean to make them out as a single piece of steel) they were together. If the twisting motion could not carry to the ground, the center columns could not have been comprimised to the ground? Does this make sense?
Also, did the towers not have inter and outter support columns? From the pictures I have seen I believe they did.
Furthermore, what are your theories on the fall speed of both the twin towers? With the cascading theory one floor fell into the next building momentum on the way down. Even with this idea, does it seem right to consider since the towers fell at very near freefall speed that each consecutive floor presented no affect in slowing the fall? Does it also go to reason that near the top, before the fall built momentum, that each floor would have presented some sort of force to slow the fall? If this were true, and the buildings fell at freefall speeds, doesnt that mean the lower floors must break the laws of physics and fall faster than gravity accelerated them??
-
Nuke, you still have not grasped that jetfuel alone could not produce the heat required to fail the structual steel of an entire floor.
The WTCs were built to withstand the impact of a 707 which carrier roughly the same amount of fuel a 767 does.. No one questions that the airliners impacts alone could not have brought down the towers. Jetfuel is what is suppose to have heated the towers to failing point. That cannot and has not been reproduced because by definition of the physical properties of jetfuel, it can not and will not burn to the required temperature.. None that I have found. If i could be convinced differently of that I would not call into question WTC 1 and 2... Only WTC #7 which remains unanswered even by FEMA.
Raubvogel please attempt to explain WTC #7.
Life is said to be what compared to fiction??
-
The towers were built to withstand the IMPACT of a 707, they were never designed to withstand the fire that an airliner full of fuel would cause. Jet fuel+airframes composed of magesium and aluminum alloys=extremely hot fires.
How about you explain to me how #7 fell? I'm not the one questioning it. You're saying that because it fell .0005 seconds too slowly that it was brought down with explosives? There are about 10000000 variables that could account for a time span like that. Was there any explosive residue? Was the debris tested for explosive residue?
Maybe Fox Mulder can help, he thinks the truth is out there too.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
most lefty conspiracy theories have, at their base, a "fact" that ..... "so and so is impossible therefore, the right wingers are the real cause of..."
An example is the kennedy silliness... the lefties and other wackos claim that it is impossible for a riffle bullet to go through flesh and bone and remain realitively unmarked ... "pristene" therefore... blah blah blah..
Anyone who has ever spent 2 minutes looking at spent bullets that impacted a dirt bank (much worse thatn flesh and bone) will find many relatively "pristene bullets but... the wackos depend on people simply believeing them... they occassionaly find a like minded wacko like kappa who ifinds their lies fit with his outlook on life and he goes on to preach their gospel and.... make a fool of himself.
lazs
so basically what your saying is there WAS a magic bullet....
so...3 shots....6.5 seconds...at a moving target....thru branches and leaves.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
The towers were built to withstand the IMPACT of a 707, they were never designed to withstand the fire that an airliner full of fuel would cause. Jet fuel+airframes composed of magesium and aluminum alloys=extremely hot fires.
How about you explain to me how #7 fell? I'm not the one questioning it. You're saying that because it fell .0005 seconds too slowly that it was brought down with explosives? There are about 10000000 variables that could account for a time span like that. Was there any explosive residue? Was the debris tested for explosive residue?
Maybe Fox Mulder can help, he thinks the truth is out there too.
First paragraph was good.. I had not considered magnesium from the aircraft. Aluminum, however, does not burn..
I dont know how #7 fell. I just know what it looks like. I'd bet much of my fortune that you have read nothing on the fact. For certain not FEMA's conclusion which had no conclusion.. They could find no conclusive reason for it's collapse. Have you seen any video of it falling? I bet not.
Nothing was tested from #7 which you would know had your read a small amount. Even to this day the area is still guarded off. As with all the 'evidence' from WTCs 1,2, and 7, the material was shipped to foreign countries and recycled before independent investigations could be carried out.. If any of these materials were around to be tested they would be and there would be evidence for or against. Either way would be good.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
they occassionaly find a like minded wacko like kappa who ifinds their lies fit with his outlook on life and he goes on to preach their gospel and.... make a fool of himself.
lazs
wacko like half the countrie's population should not vote? Com'on mr. kettle.. thats pretty foolish imo..... Com'on lazs.. you have already stated to me that you are incapable of thinking along these lines...That you were too old.. How about just staying away.. I'd just assume rearrang my sock drawer as mince with a fascist like yourself...
-
I think I answered most in the last reply however i would go further with respect to the local heat model.
Steel is a very good thermal conductor (when concidered across the range of known materials)
However thermal transfer by conduction is not very efficient.
Particularly when we see that it is subject to delta T (Td), the thermal conductivity of the material (K) the cross sectional area (L1^2)and the thickness (L2)
Energy transfered (w)= Td * K *L1^2 / L2
In fact in a structural steel latice work even with high Td the L1^2 is very low compared to L2 and so the temperature will elevate rapidly locally given that its heat source is a mass thermal radiation source from near white body emmisivity (flame) to near black body receptivity (steel).
Thermal radiation is far more efficient under these circumstances than the ability of thermal conductivity to conduct the heat energy away.
The fact that it takes more energy to heat a thick rod is as much due to its ability to conduct the heat away as the fact that there is more mass in the area to be heated.
The steel work in any construction is very low in cross section compared to its length. A steel member could have easily been taken to red heat on one floor and been quite touchable on the floor above. Given the massive failure that occured its reasonable to assume that several floors were so effected.
In essence however I dont have to come up with a fool proof alternative theorem to explain every thing in detail conventionally.
I only really have to show that one could exist.
Your (Van Daniken type) approach to this debate is that if we cannot explain everything beyond reasonable doubt then we will choose an explanation (no matter what its probability) that does fit and then argue its logic.
However if we ignore "probability" we can create a myriad of explanations depending upon which probable circumstances we wish to ignore.
In fact the model of the collapse I have explained may not be the detailed actuality. It is (I would argue) very plausable and an alternative to the one that it was induced artificially and separately to the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent fire whilst explaining possible solutions to the unanswered questions you raised.
I return therefore to "most probable cause" and leave some of the detail to those best briefed in "chaos theorum".
If a butterfly in Australia can truely induce a hurricane in America then to attempt to model the WTC collapse in detail would be surely futile.
Similarly I note that (40 years on) JFK's magic bullet has now been shown not to be magic at all thanks to the aid a computer simulation not a lot more sophisticated than AH.
-
Originally posted by kappa
the tower fellings are not attributed to the impact of airplanes. WTC#7 was not impacted by an aircraft.. NOONE here attempts to think or consider WTC#7..........
Trouble is... when you say fire was what caused the collapse of the towers, you open the door to discussion on the towers. The second someone points out what happened with the towers was completely unprecedented, you change the subject and say, "No one has dismissed #7". You ARE avoiding the hard questions, aren't you?
But... I'll try again since you are entertaining me so. Show me the research where several millions of tons of debris fell to earth in such close proximity to another building. Those two towers weren't just any buildings, you know, they were the tallest man-made structures on earth. You cannot dismiss that point out of hand as you keep doing.
-
The WTCs were built to withstand the impact of a 707 which carrier roughly the same amount of fuel a 767 does..
Show where this has actually ever been tested.
-
Kappa you cant quite stake any claim to supeor intellect in this discussion...
In your first thread part of your evidence for bombs being involved was saying that it was odd WTC 2 fell first even though it was hit second. Of course you held on to your bomb theory despite the fact that WTC 2 was hit about twice as low as WTC1 and thus had doule or more weight pushing down on its damaged structure. I guess your master knowledge of physics did not include the force of gravity...
Plus you arent really coming up with any of these kook aregumets yourself arent you? I'm sure you are gainfully employed or otherwise productivly engaged and not living in your mother's basement like the people who put up those websites....
-
There may be some truth to the conspiricy. However, as I learned from the JFK killing, one will never prove it. So what is the point of worrying about it? There are, and always have been, a class of people above and beyond the law. The hidden cabals control a lot more than one cares to know about.
-
Tilt,
How does this statement hold true:
Thermal radiation is far more efficient under these circumstances than the ability of thermal conductivity to conduct the heat energy away.
when the thermal conductivity properties of steel are so much higher than that of air (which is very low). Am I correct in thinking that the heat energy would be past through heat radiation? Not conducted between 2 solid surfaces? Also, is it true the more heat energy an object absorbs the faster it will dissipate that energy?
In fact in a structural steel latice work even with high Td the L1^2 is very low compared to L2 and so the temperature will elevate rapidly locally given that its heat source is a mass thermal radiation source from near white body emmisivity (flame) to near black body receptivity (steel).
For clarification, I am probably wrong. But would the cross-section not be high compared to the thickness? Explain please what cross-section is.. In my work, lenght is apart of cross-section. I'm sure it could be a terminology error on my part and I have tried with little success to define it.
In essence however I dont have to come up with a fool proof alternative theorem to explain every thing in detail conventionally.
I only really have to show that one could exist.
And I believe you have.. I appreciate your input...
I see your idea on the fall time of the buildings. I seem to have missed that initially. Very good reasoning you have too. However, with that conclusion reasoning would dictate that the center portions of the buildings both fell first? They both fell but both were not hit in the center. It is, however, still a possibility..
If one new the dimensions of the support columns, how would you calculate the amount of heat energy required to heat them to the required temperature of plasticity? <-- right word? hehe I think you know what im saying..
Thanks
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Kappa you cant quite stake any claim to supeor intellect in this discussion...
I do not mean to.. But I do bring intellect to the discussion.. Unlike many who can only mock, be cynical, or basically call me an idiot for trying to understand.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Trouble is... when you say fire was what caused the collapse of the towers, you open the door to discussion on the towers. The second someone points out what happened with the towers was completely unprecedented, you change the subject and say, "No one has dismissed #7". You ARE avoiding the hard questions, aren't you?
Again kerian, what hard questions am I avoiding? Please point them out?
I'm looking for reasonings behind WTC 1,2, and 7. There are somewhat reasons for 1 and 2. There are none for 7. Aren't YOU avoiding the hard question? #7 is the hard question... If #7 does not add up, how can you lay claim the rest of the day does???
-
True, the fuel alone would not produce enough heat.
That is if you took a bucket of fuel and lit it up. That fuel as is would not produce enough heat to cause failure.
But, Add oxygen to that and it becomes an entirely different story. With the elevator shafts breached as I previously said would have created a vacuum effect causing more and more air to be sucked up the shaft and feed the fire and raise the temperature of the fire significantly. and concentration of that heat would certainly be enough to cause metal to weaken if not fail outright.
A melting point was not needed to cause failure it only needed to be heated enough to weaken them to the point where they could no longer handle the load they were supporting. And not all the supports had to fail because of heat. Each support can only handle so much load. several supports failing because of heat would have been enough to cause the remaining supports to fail under a load they were never intended to carry.
you can do a simple experiment with nothing more then a tank of oxygen, a lit cigarette, and a piece of 2X4
The cigarette alone int hot enough to burn through a piece of 2X4 but if you add oxygen to it you can bore a hole clean through.
With all due respect. You have obviously never worked with metal. If we were to follow your rules of heat dissipation on metal a blowtorch should never be able to heat metal enough in a specific area to cut through it neatly. Either it would never cut because of the metals heat dissipation or the whole length of metal would melt. and we know that's just not true
You might want to try taking that fuel and adding oxygen to the fire. Then take temp readings and see what you come up with Propane burning by itself wont produce enough heat to melt metal either. But when you add oxygen its and entirely different story.
Originally posted by kappa
Nuke, you still have not grasped that jetfuel alone could not produce the heat required to fail the structual steel of an entire floor.
The WTCs were built to withstand the impact of a 707 which carrier roughly the same amount of fuel a 767 does.. No one questions that the airliners impacts alone could not have brought down the towers. Jetfuel is what is suppose to have heated the towers to failing point. That cannot and has not been reproduced because by definition of the physical properties of jetfuel, it can not and will not burn to the required temperature.. None that I have found. If i could be convinced differently of that I would not call into question WTC 1 and 2... Only WTC #7 which remains unanswered even by FEMA.
Raubvogel please attempt to explain WTC #7.
Life is said to be what compared to fiction??
-
Originally posted by kappa
I do not mean to.. But I do bring intellect to the discussion.. Unlike many who can only mock, be cynical, or basically call me an idiot for trying to understand.
Something wrong with being cynical? I thought that's what you were doing.
Account for building #7? Unlike you, I wouldn't even pretend to know everything that contributed to the fall. I keep saying you have no way to know what a couple of million tons of debris falling next to this building would have done to it. You don't know, do you? That is one of the questions you keep avoiding. You also won't answer where any tests of airliners striking buildings were conducted. Go ahead, act like that question hasn't been posed to you four or five times.
Anyway, why not answer Raub's comment- you know, "do you think the owner had the building rigged to explode in the event Arab terrorists decided to hijack two airliners and hit the world trade center?". It doesn't add up, does it... unless of course you are ready to admit you believe the whole thing was staged. Still doesn't answer the question of why you would need airliners to make it happen if the bombs were already in place- and they would have to have already been in place, because there is no way there was enough time on that day to set the charges.
No, better to ignore the obvious and dig for some deep, sinister, but somehow mysteriously kept secret from investigation answer that would connect Bush to Osama- or better yet, Bush to oil. But you'll get there, I'm sure. I'm here for the long haul, it will be fun. :D
-
hehe Drediock... I missed all the O2 bottles that were obviously laying around everywhere in the towers.
Purged elevator shafts? Did the air just miracle in them? What feed air to the elevator shafts? Did they open the first floor doors as well as elevator shafts to feed air up to the fire? Apply abit more logic to your statements..
As far as cutting torches, do they use jetfuel or something else? And is the O2 injected or simply O2 from the open air?? A big difference in say windy conditions and O2 injection.. As far as I'm aware of there were no O2 tanks feeding the WTC fires.. I could be wrong..
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Account for building #7? Unlike you, I wouldn't even pretend to know everything that contributed to the fall. I keep saying you have no way to know what a couple of million tons of debris falling next to this building would have done to it. You don't know, do you? That is one of the questions you keep avoiding. You also won't answer where any tests of airliners striking buildings were conducted. Go ahead, act like that question hasn't been posed to you four or five times.
I have answered this question.. I have found no siesmic data to support that falling debri from towers 1 and 2 produced enuff damage to fall Building #7. Can you? There is none..
Have you taken even a second out of you blind pursuit to account for the 2 buildings RIGHT next to #7? They recieved no structual damage kieran.. None... We are to believe that siesmic tremors are to topple one building but not affect 2 buildings right next? You have not even looked at the photos.. Your wasting both our time...
-
Originally posted by kappa
hehe Drediock... I missed all the O2 bottles that were obviously laying around everywhere in the towers.
Purged elevator shafts? Did the air just miracle in them? What feed air to the elevator shafts? Did they open the first floor doors as well as elevator shafts to feed air up to the fire? Apply abit more logic to your statements..
As far as cutting torches, do they use jetfuel or something else? And is the O2 injected or simply O2 from the open air?? A big difference in say windy conditions and O2 injection.. As far as I'm aware of there were no O2 tanks feeding the WTC fires.. I could be wrong..
You want respect, whine about not getting it, and act like a smartass. Sweet. Dreidock hadn't said anything to warrant such an answer from you- he simply disagreed.
-
Originally posted by kappa
I have answered this question.. I have found no siesmic data to support that falling debri from towers 1 and 2 produced enuff damage to fall Building #7. Can you? There is none..
Have you taken even a second out of you blind pursuit to account for the 2 buildings RIGHT next to #7? They recieved no structual damage kieran.. None... We are to believe that siesmic tremors are to topple one building but not affect 2 buildings right next? You have not even looked at the photos.. Your wasting both our time...
You can't find it so it doesn't exist? Since you can't find seismic data there can be no other explanation than explosive charges? That doesn't sound arrogant and shortsighted?
Ready to admit you believe it was a Bush conspiracy yet?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You want respect, whine about not getting it, and act like a smartass. Sweet. Dreidock hadn't said anything to warrant such an answer from you- he simply disagreed.
I dont want your respect.. I dont care for respect from anyone on this board.. Thats simply silly.. I typed nothing bad to him..
-
A wise man once said.. "If you hear hoofbeats coming, it's most likely horses......not zebras".
Planes hit buildings... they fell. Trying to prove that the planes didn't matter is like assuming the hoofbeats are zebras.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A wise man once said.. "If you hear hoofbeats coming, it's most likely horses......not zebras".
Planes hit buildings... they fell. Trying to prove that the planes didn't matter is like assuming the hoofbeats are zebras.
A wise man indeed.. Unless he lived in africa I suppose.
I, however, am not trying to prove the impact of airplanes into the towers had nothing to do with them falling.. But it is widely accepted that the impact of the planes alone would not have fell the towers.
Again, building #7 was not impacted by a plane and received very little cosmetic damage and no structual damage from the falling towers as it was 2 blocks away.
-
Originally posted by kappa
If one new the dimensions of the support columns, how would you calculate the amount of heat energy required to heat them to the required temperature of plasticity? <-- right word? hehe I think you know what im saying..
Thanks
In my previous life I designed furnaces for melting metals.....I have the formulae at work.
Simply put now however....if we considered one vertical structural member which was open to the fire and extending thru the building above and below the fire.
We can then make some assumptions to simplify the calculation.
Energy (kw) is being absorbed by the structural member over its whole length that is open to the radiation source (the fire)
The rate of (thermal) energy absorbsion is a function of
surface area of the member, its black factor, the surface area of the emmitter (the stuff thats on fire all around it or the flames them selves) the emmisivity (inverse of black body factor) and the Delta T (temperature difference). There is an adjustment for the radiated distance when the size of the emmitter is small.
However we can assume that distance is irrlevant and the surface area of the emmitter is massive.
The calculation will then give you a heat transfer rate based on KW.
We then have energy loss from the system. As we are only considering radiant heat thermal losses from the rest of the environment are ignored. However as you point out there will be conductive losses along the steel member, and these will potentially limit the total energy state the member may attain locally.
To do this simply we could just take the member failure temperature and test if we can achieve an energy balance or even surplus at this point.
So we take eg 800 degrees C
We know the cross sectional area of the member lets say its an I beam 1 m x .5 x .1 thick = 0.2M^2
lets say that a sprinkler system is 2meters below and 2 meters above our inferno is cooling the steel to near ambient so delta T = 760 degrees C.
Wl=w/2= 780 *K *.2/ 2 where k is the coefficient of thermal conductivity of steel and Wl is the total conductive energy loss.
If the energy taken away is less than the energy absorbed we can safely say that the steel will exceed this temperature at a rate which is immediately calculated from the coefficient of heat capacity wattsdegreesC/kg. This coefficeint changes with temperature so as it heats up the system balance changes as all the Td's change etc.
The air temperature in there will be much hotter......but air is a lousey conductor however the environment will have ignited any combustable material that can burn including all so called fire retardent polycarbons to say nothing of the lower level plastics that abound in every environment these days. Basic organic combustables (paper and wood) will play a very small role compared to the massive thermal out put as hydro carbons start to break down at elevated temperatures. Acting like a massive candle.
The structural engineer will have been trying to achieve the maximum structural strength from the minimum weight of steel. Particularly from a very tall structure with no taper.
This would mean he is attempting to minimise cross section in his steel members. Using tubes, I beams and c sections rather than increasing basic section. if you were to take a giant razor and cut across the building horizontally you would find that the total steel cross section you have cut thru could well be less than 5% of the total. Made up of many comparatively "thin" sectioned columns.
-
LMAO Plenty of logic to my statements. Ya just need to look a bit farther then the end of your nose to see em.
Up until this point I have not attacked or tried to insult you in this discussion. It would be greatly appreciated if you would refrain from making attacks or insults to me and reserve your insults if you simply must make them to those who have attacked you.
If you can make a point. You may make it
If you can debunk my points you may do that also.
I do enjoy a spirited debate.
But kindly do so in a civil and at least semi mature manner. And I will do likewise.
Try spending some time in an elevator shaft and you will see just how much air passes through them.
And it doesn't have to be CO2. You don't need to use CO2 to operate a kiln either but metal workers have been using them for centuries to heat bend and yes even melt metal, steel included. Oddly enough they even manage to heat up only one end of a metal rod enough to bend it from time to time
So you dont need C02 just air and the last time I checked Air contained oxygen. I was using the torch as an example
What I am saying is a giant kiln was possibly created as it is possible and even probable that at least some of the elevator doors were indeed open on the lower levels. Even had they not been. there are service areas below that may have supplied air.
Either way there has to be adequate ventilation in the shaft in order for the elevator to work freely.and properly without letting out or sucking in huge blasts of air whenever the doors opened
Try plugging up the business end of a syringe and see how well the plunger moves back and forth.
Originally posted by kappa
hehe Drediock... I missed all the O2 bottles that were obviously laying around everywhere in the towers.
Purged elevator shafts? Did the air just miracle in them? What feed air to the elevator shafts? Did they open the first floor doors as well as elevator shafts to feed air up to the fire? Apply abit more logic to your statements..
As far as cutting torches, do they use jetfuel or something else? And is the O2 injected or simply O2 from the open air?? A big difference in say windy conditions and O2 injection.. As far as I'm aware of there were no O2 tanks feeding the WTC fires.. I could be wrong..
-
Would the gigant holes made by thae airplaners provide air?
Kappa your respnse to drediock is great, the second somebody with real knowledge oof the things you recite comes here and disproves or contests yiour spewage you attack him and make fun of him.. Makes this post of yours quite funny.
"I do not mean to.. But I do bring intellect to the discussion.. Unlike many who can only mock, be cynical, or basically call me an idiot for trying to understand."
Anyway I know it wont open your eyes or anything, but I thought it a good idea to point out the contrast nicely...
-
so now the little liberal weenie is calling me a fascist?
any of you guys ever use a blow torch... the ones fueled by kerosene or white gas?
slo... yeah.. it was as "magic" as all them pristene bullets I could dig out or find laying in/on the bank of the local shooting range at the hundred yard line... and, it was 3 shots in 8 seconds and nothing spectacular.
lazs
-
would be greatly appreciated if you would refrain from making attacks or insults to me and reserve your insults if you simply must make them to those who have attacked you. Drediock
my apologies. I do not believe I insulted you and it was not my intent but that is irrelevant if you believe that I did. Again, I apologize......
Simple question.. Where was all this excess air to come from in the elevator shafts to supply this furnace? Is all the air to flow upward leaving a vaccum at the base of the towers? Is that possible? Air to rush to hi-pressure from low-pressure? I think not.. Low pressure air does not rush to hi pressure air.. Rather the opposite.... Heat as we all know produces hi-pressure..
Did you mistakenly put CO2 instead of O2 in your statements? Carbon-monoxide extinquishes fires.. It does not build them.
You do however need 02 to operate a kiln and blacksmith have been using them for centuries. However, for centuries without the ability to use pure O2, kilns did not burn hot enough to produce steel..
Another point is this argument is not so relevant in the second tower hit as it was struck in the corner of the building. Most probably leaving most of the interior of the building intact..
-
Another well documented fact of the towers buring was the black smut belching from within them. Black smoke indicates a fire that is almost extinquish, starved for O2, or of very low heat. Black smoke is the presence of unburnt carbon within the smoke itself. A fire burning at the temperatures required for failure would not produce black smoke..
Tilt, I will get back to you on your last post as I can not at this time make sense the math used and I am too ignorant at this moment to call it into question...
One question though, is your 800C and 760C temps assumed ambient temperatures??
-
"to call it into question"
So you are in it for the sake of arguing? You ask people for evidince primarily with the intent to call it into question, not to consider it as valid counteragument?
Nice, at least you are being honest now....
:)
-
Kappa your respnse to drediock is great, the second somebody with real knowledge oof the things you recite comes here and disproves or contests yiour spewage you attack him and make fun of him.. Makes this post of yours quite funny. grunherz
I find it funny your idea of 'real knowledge' as his statments were no more factual than mine.. His statments were based on no fact and were all assumptions yet you consider them 'real knowledge'......... thats not bias is it grun...
-
That is intresting info Kappa. Thanks for posting it!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"to call it into question"
So you are in it for the sake of arguing? You ask people for evidince primarily with the intent to call it into question, not to consider it as valid counteragument?
Nice, at least you are being honest now....
:)
you could not begin to explain what he typed grun.. yet you would accept it for fact since it is a retort against me.. And, I thank him for it.. something real... much more than you could ever offer..
-
What would you consider real knowlege? The stuff on your conspiracy websites?
Speaking of bias, arent you the guy who is convinced that WTc was not brought down by airliner terror attacks but by some vast consipiracy where the buildings were rigged with explosives before hans and the airliners just happend to hit..
Oh no wait, I'm wrong, thats not bias thats called paranoid insanity...
-
Originally posted by Swager
That is intresting info Kappa. Thanks for posting it!!
Which part?
Sincerity is not seen much here so you will understand if I'm not sure exactly how to take that.. but thanks, I think.. 8)
-
Oh no wait, I'm wrong, thats not bias thats called paranoid insanity...
You could be right.. But then again by your thinking Iraq will attack us any day now..
-
Originally posted by kappa
you could not begin to explain what he typed grun.. yet you would accept it for fact since it is a retort against me.. And, I thank him for it.. something real... much more than you could ever offer..
Why do you suppose that? I'm a college educated 23 year old (ok degree in a few months), I have studied physics, calculus, chemistry some engineering heck even computer programming at very fine schools. None of the info here is beyond my eduactuion.
But I do like that you posted this, beacuxe it really gets back to heart of who you are. You claim to be the "open minded" guy but anyone who doesnnt acquiesse and swallow your diatriabies you immediatly call ignorant or stupid or whatever.
I hope ure trolling.
-
un - F |_| C K ing - believable.
drediok, 11:08 PM, 2/4:
Either way there has to be adequate ventilation in the shaft in order for the elevator to work freely.and properly without letting out or sucking in huge blasts of air whenever the doors opened
Try plugging up the business end of a syringe and see how well the plunger moves back and forth.
kappa, 12:33 AM, 2/5:
Simple question.. Where was all this excess air to come from in the elevator shafts to supply this furnace? Is all the air to flow upward leaving a vaccum at the base of the towers? Is that possible?
AHA! I see the problem - reading comprehension.
:rolleyes:
I guess sanctimonious conspiracy theorists are good for a laugh now and then, but this thread is getting more rediculous by the post.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Oh no wait, I'm wrong, thats not bias thats called paranoid insanity...
You could be right.. But then again by your thinking Iraq will attack us any day now..
By my thinking?
But anyway, the only respectable escape for you from this mess yiu created lies in what you just said. Again I hope its just a troll.
-
Originally posted by kappa
I dont want your respect.. I dont care for respect from anyone on this board.. Thats simply silly.. I typed nothing bad to him..
Then stop whining like a little girl when people don't take you seriously. Seriously.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Another well documented fact of the towers buring was the black smut belching from within them.
One question though, is your 800C and 760C temps assumed ambient temperatures??
it assumes steel at 800 at its hot end and 40 at its cold end.......the maths are not true of course they are just comparative.........what you see is that the typical length over cross section part of the formulae reduces the conductive effect to (in this case) .1 of the nominal temperature* k multiple.
The point being that typical steel structures are not good at conducting heat way from local hot spots because they are basically "thin".
It would be expected that the fire would have differing O2 available to it in different zones and that these zones would fluctuate as draughts changed
You could expect local fire storms sucking air from other areas as much as some areas becoming relatively low on O2.........to further complicate it one could assume that some areas were recieving super heated air from other areas still relatively O2 rich This recuperative effect can increase energy out put by upto 15% in a simple burner......our inferno is not limited to pre heat temperatures used to prolong burner nozzles it will thrive on any hot air.
........further as Hydro carbons burn they release more energy per kilogram than natural materials such as wood or paper plus they also have a high residue of excess carbon. Which will always smoke just as acetylene does when no oxygen is added.
Super heating on a forge model is probably unlikely as this would have indeed melted the steel although it would have consumed the combustable material at a very high rate to do so.
Foot note on steel making. The Bessemer steel process used air not oxygen to reduce cast iron to steel. It was only latterly that some mills used oxygen in their tuyers to enhance the process.
Hence steel was able to be made in conventional small cupulas with the aid of a set of bellows. However it would have to experience the process several times as the residue slag has to be tapped off each time prior to cooling. OK for the odd sword or suit of armour but useless for building bridges.
Higher grades of steel were later made by a process known as the double slag refining process which was able to refine liquid steel by extracting contaminating material by causing it to bond to alternate oxidizing and reducing slags........
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Then stop whining like a little girl when people don't take you seriously. Seriously.
LoL dude!! I do not whine.. I simply ask you to go away yet you still hump my leg.. Is this a fatal attraction you have for me? Prove me wrong and dont reply.. :aok
-
This is intellect?
This is reasoning?
You don't think you insulted Drei?
You're full of yourself, you don't have the courage to admit you feel the whole 9-11 event was a total conspiracy by our government, and you cannot bring yourself to admit you are being smashed by people such as Drei and Tilt who obviously do have a fair amount of expertise in their respective areas and aren't relying on the words of others (aka fringe websites) to shore their arguments.
My comments to you stand, and you will be outed. I know you hoped to build an unstoppable case based on logic, but it can be boiled down to simply these two cases:
A. Bombs were used to destroy building #7. If so, this means whoever planted the bombs knew of the 9-11 attack beforehand, and only the government could have. If they had been terrorist bombs (something you've already hinted you believe were domestic terrorists) it would still require govenment involvement. Any way you slice it, if #7 was rigged, the government was involved.
B. In an event unprecedented in history, two airliners collided with the two tallest man-made structures on earth, and the results were catastrophic and not wholely predictable by physics. Too many factors were involved to ever fully calculate to an absolute degree of certainty what the results should have been, or exactly how the events should have occured. As a result, we don't fully understand what happened for sure.
Which is more plausible... which one...
Look, I'll stop when you finally grow a pair and come out and admit you believe the Bush administration was behind the attack. Or directly deny you believe it. Halfway crap and saying "I don't know, I don't know" won't cut it, because the story you are trying so hard to sell has no other possible ending.
-
Ok.. due to Tilt's excellent post I will admit I am most likey wrong about the reasons tower 1 and 2 fell.. That it could be possible for the structure to be heated to the point of failure.. I admit the ideas are extreme in the least..
I cannot, however, accept no reason as reason for building #7's collapse. The offical government report concluded not to have a definative answer. #7 recieve only slight damage from the attacks and zero structual damage that can be seen from any photograph. Nor is any damaged cited in FEMA's report. No parts of tower 1 or 2 fell in sufficent size to produce enuff siesmic force to damage (proof is in the surrounding buildings were not damaged.. i.e. verizon building and federal post office) #7 as most of the entire structures were reduced to the fine layer of dust reported to be 1/4 inch thick covering all surrounding areas. Further more no siesmic tremors are reported, that I have been able to find, for the falling towers 1 and 2. #7 started my suspicions as the circumstances are strange in the least. The owners admission it was demolished only adds. The fact that no more investigation is being attempted adds doubt. Clearly my cup of faith needs refilling..
-
kieran, my last post, whatever you consider, has zero to do with you.. You are nothing but background noise to me.. Continue as you must..
-
Kappa-
I believe it was Nuke who asked you point blank what you think caused the towers to fall. I've not seen your answer, so I'll ask you in a different way.
What is your hypothesis for the collapse of WTC #7?
Please answer this very simple and direct question.
If you do not have a theory, I'd very much like to hear your suspicions.
Thanks.
-
If you do not have a theory, I'd very much like to hear your suspicions.
I have no theory at this time. My suspicion is there is more truth than what is common knowledge. My idea is to attempt to gather all possible reasons and form a theory from there... Good enough??
Your time and effort would be more appreciated in attempting to give plausible reasoning for the collapse of #7 rather than attempting to redicule me for my questioning..
-
Dude, you only think you're above it all. Why do you think #7 fell? Of course there's more to it than FEMA has said, but don't make that to mean they are hiding anything. But wait, they MUST be hiding something, or so you seem to say.
But you don't think anything yet... right?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Ok.. due to Tilt's excellent post I will admit I am most likey wrong about the reasons tower 1 and 2 fell.. That it could be possible for the structure to be heated to the point of failure.. I admit the ideas are extreme in the least..
Cool. You agree now there were no bombs in WTC1 and WTC2? If so that great and we are getting somewhere, shows you are open to reason. Right, no bombs in wtc 1 and 2? Correct? :)
-
So now we are down to just building 7 after all that idiocy from kappa about 1 & 2 ?
kappa, your nut-job websites didn't really pan out for you did they? Did you know that there are professional multimillion dollar studies going on regarding the WTC collapse? Did you know that the studies and some intial results are probably easier to find on the internet than your whacko web links?
You said you want to find the truth, yet ignore any truth presented to you until you can't argue anymore because you are being made a fool of, basically.
Nice Job :aok
-
Originally posted by kappa
Nuke, you still have not grasped that jetfuel alone could not produce the heat required to fail the structual steel of an entire floor.
And you never grasped that there was not "just" jet fuel involved.
Now let's get on with number 7 and the evidence of bombs which took it down.
Get your foil hat and lets play again.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So now we are down to just building 7 after all that idiocy from kappa about 1 & 2 ?
kappa, your nut-job websites didn't really pan out for you did they? Did you know that there are professional multimillion dollar studies going on regarding the WTC collapse? Did you know that the studies and some intial results are probably easier to find on the internet than your whacko web links?
You said you want to find the truth, yet ignore any truth presented to you until you can't argue anymore because you are being made a fool of, basically.
Nice Job :aok
I think Kappa admitted the possibility of his being incorrect pretty diplomatically, actually. Reading this thread, it was generally the other guy to jump down his throat first. You can call the parent post paranoid, fanatical, unfounded or just plain stupid, but I think he maintained his composure better than the average contributor to this thread.
If the pattern set here persists, I expect to be called a tard very soon.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I think Kappa admitted the possibility of his being incorrect pretty diplomatically, actually. Reading this thread, it was generally the other guy to jump down his throat first. You can call the parent post paranoid, fanatical, unfounded or just plain stupid, but I think he maintained his composure better than the average contributor to this thread.
If the pattern set here persists, I expect to be called a tard very soon.
kappa basically told me I didn't have the intelect to "understand his reasoning" He was correct, I don't understand his reasoning.
He deserves to be outed as a fool for all of the things he has said in this thread.
kappa didnt get any worse than he dished out. he didn't ever actually present his views, even when asked, yet called people names or asked them to "leave his thread" when they tried to get him to state his view. he was generally a smug smart arse and deserves being outed for what he is/was here
-
Originally posted by NUKE
kappa basically told me I didn't have the intelect to "understand his reasoning" He was correct, I don't understand his reasoning.
He deserves to be outed as a fool for all of the things he has said in this thread.
kappa didnt get any worse than he dished out. he didn't ever actually present his views, even when asked, yet called people names or asked them to "leave his thread" when they tried to get him to state his view. he was generally a smug smart arse and deserves being outed for what he is/was here
Actually, his first hostile response came after GTO had posted his third or fourth post containing an insult(the one with the large bold font that I assume indicated shouting). After that, being on the defensive against at least a half dozen people, he periodically reacted with emotion but not always, definitely not as much as the collective opposition.
Anyway, this whole thing has reached absurdity. I'm not defending his theory, merely pointing out that given the average response, he could have been way more harsh(as I probably would have). And the fact that he assented in the face of valid evidence is also admirable(especially since some people, apparently, are still not done insulting him).
I think Kappa's an OK dude, and he's probably achieved a vastly favorable MA K/D ratio on just about everyone in this thread, which is irrelevant, but I choose to bring it up.
-
Capt Pork.
I know and admit I am or was being bellybutton to him in this thread, he more then earned it in his last thread.
I am still astounded he will not even post what he thinks. I am normaly not the attacking type up here, but his guy rubs me the wrong way so bad I have a hard time keeping it mature. At least with the other wack jobs on the board like LDV and DMDn they do not try and hide what they really think.
Not a great justification for my behavior by Kappa is by no mean the inocent here, in his other thread, he was so insulting to some people, I just did not think he deserved another chance.
-
I suppose when ones "agenda" is questioned the natural responce is to critique the alternative, and if an alternative is not presented, then demand it be, so it may be critiqued.
This is "investigation" on a court room or political type "advsersarial model". Unfortunately the out come of this method is often subject to wit, banter and popularity and not the actual logic applied.
However the questioner does not have to have an alternative, he/she may simply be unsatisfied with the data presented and its use to arrive at a conclusion.
Kappas premice led to an agenda suggesting "other dark forces" as conspiritorial agendas usually do.
Its interesting to note that 250 years ago we may have been looking very seriously for the witch that had quite obviously caused all this.
In some parts even now some will quite seriously be showing how the unanswered questions show evidence of the hand of God and promote the arguement that this diety not only axists but is active. (Was it a "miracle" that the WTC towers did not topple onto more of surrounding NY?)
A Van Danekin of the future might paint the arguement for alien intervention. This may seem very unlikely now but if turns out that we actually get know aliens over the next few hundred years our present view will then seem no more enlightened than Salems towards it "witches" does to us now.
So Kappas question remains, what could have caused WTC7 to collapse in apparant sympathy with the twin towers................
I do not know..............but I think I would start to look at the subterranean levels and common foundations first.
I would also espouse the mantra of always looking for "cockup" before "conspiracy" when trying to solve unanswered questions.
Human ability to effect its destiny through cockup out ways its ability to do the same by conspiracy by 10 to the power of a significant magnitude.
-
Was the WTC7 connected in way of another to the other wtc ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Was the WTC7 connected in way of another to the other wtc ?
straffo, not that I have been witness to. #7 sat some 300ft away from 1 & 2 squeezed inbetween the Verizon building and the Federal post office. A very tight fit between I might add. But as things go, I would not be surprised if all the WTC were connected by some sort of tunnel system. I say again, I would not be surprised as I have never read the such. Tunnels for basic movement of people and things that is, not CIA or conspiracy tunnels.. I will do some searching as I'm certain if they existed they will be documented..
Pictures that I could find:
http://wtc7.net/location.html
http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html
I might add that finding photos of such things is very difficult. If some wish to claim I use these sites for any other purpose than their photography, do so if you must. I only ask that before you do, make the attempt to find good photos of WTC #7 on a 'non-conspiracy' site. If you do, I will change the links if I believe said photos are of as good a quality. If you believe you are unable to handle these sites, DONT BROWSE to them. Also, for the sake of argument and for those that choose to believe I would influence their opinion by use of these sites, DO NOT READ the text.. Merely observe the photographs for position of WTC #7..
Gawd, i feel like a lawyer in a torts court attempting to cover his ass.. sillyness..
-
I ask this question just because if a shock wave can be propagated to another system and if this happen to be the natural resonance frequency of this other system you can have more than strange result and even destruction.
Btw it involve physic I'm no more fluent with and I will have an pretty hard time to explain in English.
Think of the Angers bridge or the Tacoma (spelling?) bridge.
-
If conspiracy...
That must have been sneaky and thorough conspirateurs to be able to place explosives on every floor of the towers. Unless they could predict which floors the airliners would hit; Thirteen floors apart.
And then blow the correct floors by remote radio control and not somewhere else where it might look suspicious.
:-/
-
what really gets my goat is teh fact that teh cia was prolly in kahoots with al-ki-A-duh. you people who think that the gov'ment wouldn't just as soon as kill us all, think of all teh money the would get if we wre all daed. there wood be billyons to be made. get your heads out of yer cracks and think for once. i think kappas onto somethin here. so clam up unless you got BETTER THEORIES!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
He's the original classiest classy man, and his absence was felt!!
-
Originally posted by kappa
kieran, the entire collapse of the towers are contributed to fire... NOT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES... Agian.. NOT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES... Should I type it again?
The only logic needed to be applied is the simple logic that jetfuel will not and can not alone reach tempertures required to melt steel.. In every test ever conducted temperatures do not reach even the first critical temperature level of structual steel.. That is uninsulated steel at that..
I haven't read the entire thread here but, the above struck me as pretty goofy.
I'm no structural engineer, but how could the impact of the plane NOT have a signifigant role in the failure of the building? It slices into the structure haulin what? 300 mph+ ?, then the fuel sprays, ignites. You've got aluminum and magesium in there cookin real good. Fuels got all kind of ventilation coming in from all four corners. The floors are held in place by L bracket mild steel. Steel doesn't have to be ANYWHERE NEAR it's "melting point". Isn't structural steel pretty much mild steel? Mild steel doesn't have to be glowing to be severely weakened by heat. The weak link was the angle holding the bar joist floor supports. Once they were heating up and stretched, fell onto the lower floor, it was all over. The floor held the outer shell rigid. Once a few of them were gone the outer cloumns had no lateral support.
I can't believe that somebody could watch what we did that day and be so easily swayed by brain-dead conspiracy theories.
-
Swayed by brain dead conspiracy theories? Easily? I suppose its a matter of opinion. These brain-dead conspiracy theorist at least attempt to apply thought to an unexplained situation even if it is extremely radical.
I for one, as many, when confronted with unanswered questions choose to consider the entire event. I can not get by the lack of reasons concluding why (and I steal Tilt's words here because its the single most elegant and graceful line in the thread) building #7 fell in apparent sympathy for Towers 1 & 2.
FEMA in it's offical government report cites that fire could be the possible cause of #7s fall. Yet no jet fuel nor jet parts nor debris from towers 1 & 2 damaged #7 structualy. Two small fires, which were of the size to be managable by the buildings local fire protection, where buring inside #7. These fires themselfs are unanswered as they burnt in some of the middle floors in the middle of the building of #7. Apparently #7 burnt in sympathy for the towers as well. Then, with pre-notification to surrounding emergency workers, #7 fell to the ground at apparent free-fall speeds and appeared to collaspe in a classic demolishtion style fall. I have yet to dispute any of these facts and seen nothing to challenge these facts.
Seven buildings that day were destroyed. All were WTC buildings. No other buildings were impacted with anymore than slight cosmetic damage. Buildings as close or closer than #7 from ground zero recieved nothing more than cosmetic damage. A plan that would leave america's greatest military strategists in awe.. A marvel, to say the least, of tactical cognitive thinking and planning. Hate the terrorist? For certain! But you must admire them for their intellectual abilty to plan such an attack. One carried out flawlessly bringing down 7 buidlings with 2 aircraft and zero bombs. Clearly an attack worthy of being studied for decades to come by the greatest of military minds.
-
FEMA in it's offical government report cites that fire could be the possible cause of #7s fall. Yet no jet fuel nor jet parts nor debris from towers 1 & 2 damaged #7 structualy. Two small fires, which were of the size to be managable by the buildings local fire protection, where buring inside #7. These fires themselfs are unanswered as they burnt in some of the middle floors in the middle of the building of #7. Apparently #7 burnt in sympathy for the towers as well. Then, with pre-notification to surrounding emergency workers, #7 fell to the ground at apparent free-fall speeds and appeared to collaspe in a classic demolishtion style fall. I have yet to dispute any of these facts and seen nothing to challenge these facts.
1. FEMA cannot conclusively say what caused the collapse. It's not the same as saying they have no clues, or that they are covering anything up.
2. What you are calling "predetermination" is how you choose to interpret the firefighters' words when they said they were "pulling it now"... which is as easily interpreted as "Let's get our boys out of there". Of all the things you've posted in this conspiracy theory, this is the most sketchy. Now you are calling it proof. Funny stuff, really.
3. Your "freefall" argument has already been defeated over and over.
You aren't listening. You aren't being honest.
-
I take comfort in the fact that they will get kappa and all his friends before they get me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I take comfort in the fact that they will get kappa and all his friends before they get me.
lazs
LoL Lazs... dont be so sure! the women could be mobalizing as you type...
Keiarn: my gawd man.. how has my free-fall idea been defeated?
Explain in your words.. lmao thats an impossibility..
When has the government ever stopped investigating something it could not explain when all the evidence lay right infront?? There are no more investigations into #7's collapse.. Not government investigation..
-
Was building 7 connected underground in any way to 1 & 2?
Could the massive impact and pressure from 1 & 2 falling have pushed burning material through underground passages and into vetilation or elevator shafts into 7?
Could debris from 1 & 2 have entered any windows into 7?
Again, I would lean toward looking for reasonable explainations before I started assuming things that seam far fetched.
A marvel, to say the least, of tactical cognitive thinking and planning. Hate the terrorist? For certain! But you must admire them for their intellectual abilty to plan such an attack. One carried out flawlessly bringing down 7 buidlings with 2 aircraft and zero bombs. Clearly an attack worthy of being studied for decades to come by the greatest of military minds.
what kappa is saying here is that he believes there is a conspiracy involved........here we go again.
-
Keiarn: my gawd man.. how has my free-fall idea been defeated?
You're being absurd. Your argument was structural collapse was not possible because the levels fell too quickly- you assumed it would take one second per floor to collapse, yet it fell at freefall speed. You have been given enumerous plausible reasons, whether you accept them or not. Your argument is totally defeated.
I've noticed that, for a man who says he likes to consider all the facts, you have an alarming tendency to ignore to data you disagree with.
Edit: "ignore" for "listen". Gimme a break, I was tired.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There was this guy once named Velikovski
Who was charged with a politburo decree
That when the towers fell
To leave no commie smell
To prove the fault was not that of the KGB
yeah I know the time frame misses by a decade or so, but the rhyme was tougher if I blamed someone else.
-
Ok I have a little insight on the former WTC area footprint. I have several customers who pump concrete and were on call 24/7 to pump concrete into the foundation areas of the WTC complex during the cleanup. Here is the information pieced together from several customers a few months ago along with my limited knowledge of metal working (after all I do work for a steel pipe fabrication company).
OK enough about that.
From what I have been told about the WTC the entire area was connected underground. With the initial fall of the twin towers the area (foundations) for all the buildings were subject to huge extremes of shift and changes in how they held together. The companies who are my customers were responsible for placing concrete within the areas of shift and had to have trucks onsite 24/7 for the duration of the cleanup. I have been told by several sources that they placed several thousand cubic meters of concrete on site at the WTC area foundation in the clean up time.
So taking into account that the entire area was linked underground wouldn't it be possible for the supporting structure of WTC #7 to have been shifted/damaged in some way with the falling of the other two towers.
In order to have weakness within a steel structure only one area has to be weakened. To bring down the towers the entire 200,000 tons of steel in the structures would not have to be heated up to what is called "movement". Only one area has to be weakened and if it is supporting other sections then it becomes the weakened zone and can not support the area as it should. Thereby the material around it can not support the load above. This would have caused the load above to shift and twist within itself and only cause a minimal debris field.
For instance if you have a substance...Steel...that is formed from the bonding of other metals in a melting process it can become annealed and brittle. Once steel has been hardened (which all steel has to be hardened to one degree or another) it doesn't take alot of heat to actually change the hardness. Now if there were areas within just a few meters of each other that had varying degrees of hardness and temperature they would have been unable to support the weight of the floors from above.
Just the other day we were showing a customer what would happen if he welded his pipes without water cooling them on the inside while welding on the outside a full 4 mm away from the heat. The result was the steel outer inner pipe became brittle and shattered when being dropped from ~3 feet high.
Geez now I need to go fly. Thanks for the intellectual exercise Kappa.
-
I'm amazed how anyone could believe some sort of conspiracy this could be, murdering 2300 people and not get caught....Clinton couldn't get awaywith a BJ but our entire govt get away with blowing up 2 world known buildings? cmon ... I'll bet it's the same conspiracy theorists that think Pearl was an american plan too.
Grow up. Get over it.
-
kappa... the women don't blow up buildings and blame eh rabs.. nor do they hide on grassy knolls or control all the worlds money in secret meetings with secret handshakes and all... no....
They will get your wussie liberal butt before they get mine.
All the women can do is take away my toys and send me to my room.
lazs
-
See its Bush ,hes smart enough to set up a plot to bring down the WTC and blame it on the poor innocent camel-jockeys so he can have global domination, YET so stupid he cant STEAL an election and not get caught.
Its of course all a plot of those Haliburton-International Zionist-Illuminati Masons that come from space ships from the secret Nazi base inside the earth at the north pole. And their goal is starting a Boosh dynasty that will rule the world.
And anyone who gets in their way will be sqooshed like a stinkbug,like Pricess Diana she had evidence of their plot and she gave it to Captain Kangaroo and look what happened to em both.
OOps a big black car just pulled up ouside and I thi-dsfadffsdddaaa
-
Damit Pooh! That base is a secret!!!! Shhhhhhhhhh!!!
-
Originally posted by Seraphim
I'm amazed how anyone could believe some sort of conspiracy this could be, murdering 2300 people and not get caught....Clinton couldn't get awaywith a BJ but our entire govt get away with blowing up 2 world known buildings? cmon ... I'll bet it's the same conspiracy theorists that think Pearl was an american plan too.
Grow up. Get over it.
I thought Pearl was bombed by a squadron of a-6 intruders, escorted by Tomcats from the deck of the USS Nimitz--on the orders of Kurt Douglas. They came back in time to pull it off.
Operation 'Final Countdown' I think it was called.
Jeez, I hope I'm not wrong.
-
Sheesh
I trusted you guys with these plans
now thats it. Next time we plan on mass destruction of our own people you guys are gonna have to stay home and write essays on why it's not nice to give alqueda plutonium half price...
*im so disappointed*
no more nerve gas for you either!!!
-
Originally posted by Reschke
From what I have been told about the WTC the entire area was connected underground. With the initial fall of the twin towers the area (foundations) for all the buildings were subject to huge extremes of shift and changes in how they held together. The companies who are my customers were responsible for placing concrete within the areas of shift and had to have trucks onsite 24/7 for the duration of the cleanup. I have been told by several sources that they placed several thousand cubic meters of concrete on site at the WTC area foundation in the clean up time.
So it was the SICILIANS!!!
Isn't it obvious, why else would they be pouring all that ceeement there? To cover up there role in the whole thing of course!!
It's already a known fact that tons of concrete was poured at the site on a 24 hour bases after the collapse. There is no real reason for that, afterall the towers already collapsed. The only conclusion one can draw is that the cement was poured to cover up any evidence of explosive charges.
Now since we've established that the cement was poured to cover up the evidence of explosive charges, and since we all know who "runs" the concrete business in NY, then isn't obvious that the SICILIANS pulled this off?
Never trust a SICILIAN!!
Hey, this conspiracy stuff is fun when you check common sense and reasoning at the door!
-
FOOOOOOOLs! :lol
-
Yeager has it right, you imbeciles. A cousin of mine has a pard who's sister's boyfriend works for the FBI. HE says that video cameras caught the culprits in the act. One of the drivers has been tentatively identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, which confirms my long-held suspicions that his "murder" on national television was "staged" by J. Edgar Hoover. The original film has been doctored to mask Hoover's presence at the scene, tastefully dressed, I might add, in a bare-shouldered evening gown, high-heeled shoes, and a dark, curly wig that draped gracefully down to his padded hips.
Imbeciles.
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Stringer
So it was the SICILIANS!!!
Isn't it obvious, why else would they be pouring all that ceeement there? To cover up there role in the whole thing of course!!
It's already a known fact that tons of concrete was poured at the site on a 24 hour bases after the collapse. There is no real reason for that, afterall the towers already collapsed. The only conclusion one can draw is that the cement was poured to cover up any evidence of explosive charges.
Now since we've established that the cement was poured to cover up the evidence of explosive charges, and since we all know who "runs" the concrete business in NY, then isn't obvious that the SICILIANS pulled this off?
Never trust a SICILIAN!!
Hey, this conspiracy stuff is fun when you check common sense and reasoning at the door!
NEVER GO IN AGAINST A SICILIAN WHEN DEATH IS ON THE LINE!!!
INCONCEIVABLE!!!
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You're being absurd. Your argument was structural collapse was not possible because the levels fell too quickly- you assumed it would take one second per floor to collapse, yet it fell at freefall speed. You have been given enumerous plausible reasons, whether you accept them or not. Your argument is totally defeated.
I've noticed that, for a man who says he likes to consider all the facts, you have an alarming tendency to ignore to data you disagree with.
Edit: "ignore" for "listen". Gimme a break, I was tired.
Kieran, you are so delusional in your attempt to prove me wrong you have no idea what you are trying to argue. You say I have argued structual collaspe was not a possibility? You are an ignorant fool. I have never said any of the like. Of course structual collapse/failure was what brought #7 down. Your attempt to distort my ideas shows not only your ignorance, but in this case your stupidity. I have said nothing about Building #7’s fall except that it was very close to free-fall and it looked like a classic demolition. It seems you are still attempting to argue WTCs 1 and 2. I merely look for reasons on #7. Please, if you can not stay with the subject please go away. I know this will not work as you have shown your ignorance over and over and over and over again. I have no doubt that you will return to do the same without even the slightest attempt at a productive conversation of the facts. But when you do return, attempt to give some plausible reason for the falling of #7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been able to find nothing of any underground tunnels connecting WTCs 1 & 2 to building #7. There are a few websites talking about underground subway tracks around the area. I find no evidence of a direct underground connecting tunnel between the twin towers and #7 after extensive search. If any among you have a link or credible evidence of the contrary, would you please post it?
Underground forces I found to be a very good idea of the reasons #7 fell. Yet I have been unable to find any underground connection. I might add that FEMA’s report states nothing of this matter. Some websites go as far as to continue to spread the misconception that diesel fuel tanks are responsible for the fires that burnt hot enough for structural failure of the building, yet they are reported to have been found largely intact in FEMA’s report.
-
Well, good thing you're above personal attack, eh? Constructive criticism? ;)
You can't tell me the exact cause for why some buildings stand and some don't after a tornado, earthquake, flood, or any other natural disaster, yet you could probably accept they were not some sinister plot by the Bush administration. FEMA didn't tell you exactly why #7 fell, so you are ready to believe is was blown up on spurious evidence you interpret... interestingly. Face it, you want it to be an internal conspiracy. Why, I don't know, but it's clear you do. I may be ignorant (or more likely, I simply disagree with your "logic"), but that much is very easy to see.
Still waiting for you to come clean.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well, good thing you're above personal attack, eh? Constructive criticism? ;)
You can't tell me the exact cause for why some buildings stand and some don't after a tornado, earthquake, flood, or any other natural disaster, yet you could probably accept they were not some sinister plot by the Bush administration. FEMA didn't tell you exactly why #7 fell, so you are ready to believe is was blown up on spurious evidence you interpret... interestingly. Face it, you want it to be an internal conspiracy. Why, I don't know, but it's clear you do. I may be ignorant (or more likely, I simply disagree with your "logic"), but that much is very easy to see.
Still waiting for you to come clean.
LoL You call yourself ignorant and say its easy to see?? I agree.
Come clean about what? What is to come clean about? I have done nothing wrong. A governmental investigation has never let no conclusive reason be reason when all the evidence was at one time right infront of it stand. There are no other government sponsored investigations into #7. Why dont you stop showing your ignorant mind and attempt something here. You have yet to do so.
Tornados, earthquakes, floods? Reasons within themselfs and they do not qualify as reason for #7. Bush lacks the brain power to conjure up 9/11.. I do not suspect Bush.. Now go away..
-
I can see why you are struggling to understand FEMA's report, as you don't understand simple english. I don't have to attempt to make you look foolish, you're doing a good job all on your own. ;)
Let me help you with your english though.
See Spot.
See Spot run.
Run Spot, run.
Get back with me when you can read it without help. Until then, I'll speak plainer to you.
FEMA no say they not have ideas.
FEMA say it no can say exact reason.
Kappa no read gud.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I can see why you are struggling to understand FEMA's report, as you don't understand simple english. I don't have to attempt to make you look foolish, you're doing a good job all on your own. ;)
Let me help you with your english though.
See Spot.
See Spot run.
Run Spot, run.
Get back with me when you can read it without help. Until then, I'll speak plainer to you.
FEMA no say they not have ideas.
FEMA say it no can say exact reason.
Kappa no read gud.
Stop twisting what I say.. FEMA gives fire as the possible reason for #7 falling..
When I say I can not except no reason as reason.. I mean no conclusive reason. Stop twisting my words kieran.
-
When I say I can not except no reason as reason.. I mean no conclusive reason. Stop twisting my words kieran.
Try putting your words in standard english then.
Do you mean "You cannot accept no reason as a reason"?
Do you mean "You cannot except (exclude) no reason as a reason"?
There's that double negative thingy too, and since I cannot be sure if you know the difference between saying it correctly or not, yeah, there's room to debate exactly what it is you're trying to say.
-
kieran your like that ***** dog that just keep coming back. Not sure where your real home is or where you belong. Its sad to see you debilitate like this. This is all you have? You turn this into an english debate and comment of my lack of reading power? How about you learn to read yourself.. How about this from my last post you moron:
A governmental investigation has never let no conclusive reason be reason when all the evidence was at one time right infront of it stand.
I understand that these tactics are at the extreme of your ability. I understand your ignorance. I understand you to be weak. I understand your stupidity. I understand. You dont have to convince me more than five times a day kieran.. Now go away and attempt an english critique to the english major. I have never claimed to be a good writer. I dont judge folk by their grammatical short comings. So, kieran, since you prove again and again that you can offer nothing, please go away..
-
Let's see if your limited english understands this sentence then...
"How much taxpayer money should be spent on searching for a conclusive answer for this event, especially when there is no reasonable cause to suspect additional foul play?"
Simple, isn't it? If there is no reason to suspect domestic conspiracies, then the time and money spent should be sufficient to conclude the general cause for the collapse of ALL buildings were the airliners. Even if it cannot be ascertained what the definitive cause was for the collapse of #7, it does not follow FEMA has no idea, nor are uncomfortable with their investigation.
You have alluded, hinted, and indirectly stated there is a coverup of some sort. I am not putting words in your mouth, you are saying it.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
This is intellect?
This is reasoning?
You don't think you insulted Drei?
You're full of yourself, you don't have the courage to admit you feel the whole 9-11 event was a total conspiracy by our government, and you cannot bring yourself to admit you are being smashed by people such as Drei and Tilt who obviously do have a fair amount of expertise in their respective areas and aren't relying on the words of others (aka fringe websites) to shore their arguments.
My comments to you stand, and you will be outed. I know you hoped to build an unstoppable case based on logic, but it can be boiled down to simply these two cases:
A. Bombs were used to destroy building #7. If so, this means whoever planted the bombs knew of the 9-11 attack beforehand, and only the government could have. If they had been terrorist bombs (something you've already hinted you believe were domestic terrorists) it would still require govenment involvement. Any way you slice it, if #7 was rigged, the government was involved.
B. In an event unprecedented in history, two airliners collided with the two tallest man-made structures on earth, and the results were catastrophic and not wholely predictable by physics. Too many factors were involved to ever fully calculate to an absolute degree of certainty what the results should have been, or exactly how the events should have occured. As a result, we don't fully understand what happened for sure.
Which is more plausible... which one...
Look, I'll stop when you finally grow a pair and come out and admit you believe the Bush administration was behind the attack. Or directly deny you believe it. Halfway crap and saying "I don't know, I don't know" won't cut it, because the story you are trying so hard to sell has no other possible ending.
Keiren...cut him some slack man...he's young.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Keiren...cut him some slack man...he's young.
lol cut me some slack? cause im young? lmao O how ideas of people change with time, no doubt...
-
As an architect reading this thread, I have to say it's pretty damn funny.
-
Originally posted by Furious
As an architect reading this thread, I have to say it's pretty damn funny.
Really? What type of architecture?Have you had any designs built? I've worked with a few architects.
Do you have any input on Building #7?? What are your thoughts on it? Have you read any of it? Have you watched video of it? Do you care to?
-
Kappa why do you think video of WTC7 makes it seem likely bombs were used?
Are you surprised the building didnt topple over to one side? Thats probably the least likely thing to happend considering gravity will be the dominant force and it will want to come straight down. Imagine how much enery it takes to push a building sideways. My guess is the only way it would tople would be if the damage was really low to the ground and literally cut off more than half of the bulding paralell to its long side. Even then I'd think that the enormous weight of the rest of the building would just crush the remaing structure and fall straight down before it would overcome inertia laterally and tip over.
-
Good point Grunherz. Well what do ya think now kappa? Have they convinced you that it was just an honest old fashioned terrorist attack? or do you think there may still be more to it?