Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on February 13, 2006, 07:31:44 PM
-
For your amusement.
Please by all means. Debunk away ;)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://www.st911.org/)
-
9-11 tribute video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7642314423700541371&q=9-11)
-
The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.
(http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~paulmont/CE60/steel%20alloy/img002.gif)
You would think a Phd would understand he above diagram which shows the different crystalline phases of steel with respect to temperature and carbon content.
The horizontal line at about 740 C shows a beginning of change from ferrite structure to an austenitic crystal structure. Steel rapidly loses its elastic properties and goes more plastic above this temperature line, which is the property a blacksmith takes advantage of in his furnace.
a 1000 C fire will cause steel to go to this more plastic structure and while nowhere near "melting" it is well above elastic failure.
It looks as though Phd does not stand for intelligence.
-
Being an Architectural Engineer (i'll say it if I damn well want to!) everything McGroin said is true.
Steel becomes ultimately malleable at 1200 degrees, but begins losing significant strength at 600 degrees (fahrenheit).
-
Thank you, thank you.
Was sent to me I suspect, as a dig. Just thought some of you might like to help me fling back.
Nice guy and all. In fact he's one of my best friends.
Just a bit gullable. Lives in a Wayyyyyyy left town and typically surrounded by wayyyyyyy left people. So often information he gets is skewed just a bit.
I have fun mess'n with him though.
Now if I could just get him to understand that our Solar system is part of the milky way. LOL
-
Tower 1 collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1051022303200842888&q=tower+1)
Tower 2 collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1933144795949289773&q=tower+2)
Tower 2 hit (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8737962996036061371&q=tower+2)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It looks as though Phd does not stand for intelligence.
Phd stands for educated, education and intelligence are not synonymous.
-
These type of people will never go away. I saw with my very own eyes a team recreate the JFK shooting (the so called "magic bullet") right down to every last detail and it was completely possible. People still think it was a big conspiracy and such when a team proved in real time that oswald could have made the shot.
-
:O
(http://21c-online.com/photoface-2.JPG)
Devils face in smoke at the wtc
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Being an Architectural Engineer (i'll say it if I damn well want to!) everything McGroin said is true.
Steel becomes ultimately malleable at 1200 degrees, but begins losing significant strength at 600 degrees (fahrenheit).
actually Im kinda surprised the guy doesnt realise this inasmuch as he is a welder.
And the Metal didnt have to reach a molten state. It just had to become too soft to support he weight above. Which given the weight it supported. Would have happened well before it reached a molten state anyway.
Figured you guys would enjoy it for amusments sake
-
I could make a couple photoshoped pictures of britney spears with a noodle and put a CNN logo on them as well. It doesnt mean it actually happened.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I could make a couple photoshoped pictures of britney spears with a noodle and put a CNN logo on them as well. It doesnt mean it actually happened.
Could ya please!
Would make a great Email lmao
-
I watched the towers collapse while the tv cameras filmed it. I didnt see any explosions coming out of the building. You would think that with the explosions you see in those pics that I would have noticed that when I watched both towers collapse. /shrug
-
The steel would be designed with safety factors. Every single piece would be able to hold 1.2 times the Dead load (self weight, equipment weight, i.e. weight you specifically know will be there) PLUS 1.6 times the Live Load (people weight, non fixed fixtures, desks, paper, so on and so forth) without yielding.
But if the steel starts losing strength, it'll suddenly start yielding. If it starts to yield and the weight isn't taken off a little bit, it'll fracture suddenly.
So as the fire was burning hotter and hotter, it was turning the steel into string and the concrete was being burned through. The main problem with the concrete being burned through was the reinforcement steel. Without it, the concrete can only hold weight in exactly one direction.
That's not forgetting buckling. All the columns that weren't on fire wouldn't be able to hold all that load, which is what I suspect (i'd have to check) is also why the building collapsed suddenly.
And one more thing. Fireproofing isn't really fireproof. All it does is delay the heat transfer. A good layer of fireproof would take 2 hours to burn through. This means the occupants have 2 more hours to get out safely (give or take). However, the fireproofing was all blown off of the columns when the planes hit. Thus the steel was instantly exposed to the fire.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
[IMG]
It looks as though Phd does not stand for intelligence.
Piled higher and deeper?
-
footage of CNN coverage on 9-11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5165579631272708143&q=wtc)
-
What is the flash that appears right before the plane impacts? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813788561630372050&q=wtc)
-
Raider, I hope you aren't ****ing serious.
You ever bang metal against metal? You get a spark.
You bang a plane up against thousands upon thousands of pounds of steel, I'd expect you get a big spark.
-
ok yeah on the top right viewer it shows that the aircraft's nose impacted the building cuaseing the flash
9-11 Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7614450509687459999&q=pentagon+9-11)
-
didnt see any flash. what I did see si what looks like a possible reflection off a couple of the windows above and just before the plane hits
-
you can only imagine what the people on the plane were thinking when they looked out the window and saw they were headong right at a building or what the people in the offices at the wtc were thinking when they saw the plane coming right at them
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
didnt see any flash. what I did see si what looks like a possible reflection off a couple of the windows above and just before the plane hits
that was probaly the sun reflecting off the AA plane and onto the tower
-
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
-
Complete bull**** by someone who doesn't know their bellybutton from a hole in the ground.
First off, metal that is red hot [SIZE=8]IS NOT MOLTEN METAL[/SIZE]. When the metal becomes red hot, that means it has reached the magic number, 1200 degrees (fahrenheit). Most of the knives you own are of higher quality steel. They turn red at 1412 degrees.
WHEN this happens, it means that the metal is completely malleable. I can take a piece of metal, fold it upon itself and the two pieces would merge if I put decent amounts of force on it. Sorta like a stick of gum.
Doing my basic conversion, 1000 degrees centigrade is 1823 degrees Fahrenheit. Way more then enough to make the highest grade of steel malleable.
Next, this ****** compares the grey dust clouds to the reaction of thermite.
Never once did it occur to this handsomehunk that CONCRETE IS GREY.
Lastly, this retard tries to compare the way the buildings fell down to how buildings fell down from earthquakes. I'm not even going to respond to this.
I would continue going through this article and dismantle it piece by piece with ease, but in doing so I would become more and more aggravated by how STUPID some people are and never get to sleep.
One last edit:
Not once in any of these conspiracy theories doe these handsomehunkes ever consult with someone who actually builds these things. I mean, what would those who build skyscrapers know about constructions and failures?
-
Pretty crazy, but if you watch this film at about 1:00 in it, you see the above series of images Raider posted.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5165579631272708143&q=wtc
Wierd (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/128_1139922298_odd.jpg)
-
This one's interesting... it's almost two hours long.
Loose Change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194
-
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
SOURCE (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)
-
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
No. He's either misquoted or completely wrong. All Steel literally becomes bendable like a stick of gum at no higher than 1412. You go even higher it becomes easier.
Sorry the use of huge letters and caps earlier. I was a little bit drunk and definately pissed off.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. He's either misquoted or completely wrong. All Steel literally becomes bendable like a stick of gum at no higher than 1412. You go even higher it becomes easier.
(http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire/pics/graph1.gif)
source (http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire/)
At temperatures of 120 degrees C (248 F) until 300 degrees C (500 F) or so, there is no change in the properties of steel or concrete, no loss of strength. Beyond that, steel loses strength. At 800 to 1,000 degrees C (1,472-1,832 F) it is 20 percent of what it should be. - Dr. Saeed Mirza, professor of civil engineering and applied mechanics at McGill University, Montreal, Canada
source (http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____)
-
Conspiracy theories stem from the fact that people do not want to willingly accept the simple explanation. Two symbols of America brought down by a group of men armed with the simplest of tools, driven by religion and hate, fueled by terrifying determination... or....
A very complex plot involving oil companies, the president, drone aircraft, all the passengers being government employees (now in hiding), hidden explosives, saudi nationals, halliburton, and weapon releases from USAF interceptors.
I'd almost like to see one of these "experts" tell somebody who had a relative in the towers, on the first 2 planes, on flight 93... that their relative is part of the conspiracy and either wasn't on the plane, or didn't exist to begin with.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Conspiracy theories stem from the fact that people do not want to willingly accept the simple explanation. Two symbols of America brought down by a group of men armed with the simplest of tools, driven by religion and hate, fueled by terrifying determination... or....
A very complex plot involving oil companies, the president, drone aircraft, all the passengers being government employees (now in hiding), hidden explosives, saudi nationals, halliburton, and weapon releases from USAF interceptors.
I'd almost like to see one of these "experts" tell somebody who had a relative in the towers, on the first 2 planes, on flight 93... that their relative is part of the conspiracy and either wasn't on the plane, or didn't exist to begin with.
Better yet...
Tell them it was 'gods will'
That'll get an interesting response.
-
Sandman, I don't know if you were trying to disprove me, but you proved what I said...
-
conspiresists? :rolleyes:
Don't you mean "conspirators" ?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Sandman, I don't know if you were trying to disprove me, but you proved what I said...
I don't understand how Farid Alfawak-hiri is being misquoted or wrong. His statement agrees with yours and every other quote I've posted since then.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
conspiresists? :rolleyes:
Don't you mean "conspirators" ?
A conspirator is one who conspires. A conspiresist (apparently a newly coined word, to my knowlege first seen in this thread) would be one who subscribes to conspiracy theory. That's what I get from it anyway.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A conspirator is one who conspires. A conspiresist (apparently a newly coined word, to my knowlege first seen in this thread) would be one who subscribes to conspiracy theory. That's what I get from it anyway.
Nope.. Stephen Colbert came up with that word first.
-
I believe Hang speaks truthiness.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I believe Hang speaks truthiness.
Great word. Can't believe others were trying to take credit. Glad Colbert set them straight :)
-
Hi all,
Actually it's rather a blessing that the Twin Tower's structure failed in the way that it did so that they both came straight down. If either building had toppled in the way that both the Hijackers and the '93 WTC bombers had hoped they would the devastation in surrounding city blocks would have been enormous and the death toll much higher. As it was, the surrounding buildings in Liberty Plaza all suffered serious structural damage. Of course not falling at all would have been the best option, but few skyscrapers could have survived that level of damage.
- SEAGOON
-
best talking head show on cable!
-
I know "truthiness", but I didn't know Colbert came up with "conspiresist" too. I watch the Colbear repore more often than not and hadn't heard him talk about "conspiresist". He broke up over the cute "Bennifer" type name for Bill Macy and Felicity Huffman the other night and it's the first time I've seen him unable to keep his straight face.
-
My bad, for some odd reason I thought the first guy was giving numbers in Celsius.
-
Web site designed by Osama Bin Arsewhole and his team of islamist for the destruction of all infadells even the ones that belive this crap we just posted on this web site!
AND THATS THE TRUTH!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi all,
Actually it's rather a blessing that the Twin Tower's structure failed in the way that it did so that they both came straight down. If either building had toppled in the way that both the Hijackers and the '93 WTC bombers had hoped they would the devastation in surrounding city blocks would have been enormous and the death toll much higher. As it was, the surrounding buildings in Liberty Plaza all suffered serious structural damage. Of course not falling at all would have been the best option, but few skyscrapers could have survived that level of damage.
- SEAGOON
the towers were designed to take a impact from a 707 so the designers thought about a plane impacting the building but unfourtanetly they did not know it would be 767s traveling close to 600mph hitting the towers
707-767 comparison (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html)
Comparison 2 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)
-
They were designed to withstand the IMPACT. The post impact fire from FULLY FUELED jets was something they did not account for.
-
they 767 destroyed most of the workthe fire just finished it off
-
thought I'd share this favourite shot (of many) that I have on NYC.
*sigh*
(http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/8416/wtc1ou.th.jpg) (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc1ou.jpg)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
thought I'd share this favourite shot (of many) that I have on NYC.
*sigh*
(http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/8416/wtc1ou.th.jpg) (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc1ou.jpg)
(http://wtc.nac.net/max/images/flippinTheWtc.jpg)
:lol
-
(http://wtc.nac.net/max/images/ual175_aal11.gif)
(http://wtc.nac.net/max/images/ual93.gif)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
This one's interesting... it's almost two hours long.
Loose Change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194
It was interesting.
-
It was interesting
yep
-
" The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.
One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.
There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel. Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: It was the fire that killed the buildings. Theres nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted (Barter, 2001).[7]
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted." - PHD handsomehunk
No way is someone this dumb. Steel elongates at 1200 degrees and causes trusses to fail.( as pointed out already) There are plenty of dead firefighters to contradict "no large steel frame building has ever collasped" theory. This handsomehunk needs beat about the head and shoulders with some IFSTA manuals for a hour or so.
-
The Aviation fuel along wiyh some materials in the buildings probaly made the fires extra hot but the fires did not cuase the building to collapse the planes severely damaged the support beams and the fire melted the beams becuase the fire resistant material on the beams was blown off by the impact
-
Slash, next time please use quotes. I was starting to get pissed off thinking you actually believed that.
I have been thinking about it. It is a possibility that the steel columns melted after the collapse. Jet Fuel wasn't the only thing burning. Thousands upon Thousands upon Thousands of pounds of office materials like Paper, chemicals and other things.
Now, the heat caused column failure, but the building then fell upon itself. So the entire building itself as well as the ground and the fuel (not necessarily jet fuel) created a huge insulated fire. I'd guess (I am not perfectly certain) that because of those conditions, the fire could get hot enough to melt steel.
-
The Aviation fuel along wiyh some materials in the buildings probaly made the fires extra hot but the fires did not cuase the building to collapse the planes severely damaged the support beams and the fire melted the beams becuase the fire resistant material on the beams was blown off by the impact
No. The fires did cause the building to collapse. The fireproofing (fire resistant material) isn't necessarily fireproof. It is just insulation. Over time, heat ( /temperature differences) will get through any insulation. The fireproofing is there to extend the time occupants have to get out of the building. The fireproofing (literally a sprayed on foam) will resist heat for about 2 hours before it starts to give out in an ideal situation.
The explosion and concussion from impact blew off the fireproofing foam (you can buy solid fireproofing, but it is many times more expensive). So the steel was instantly exposed to the fire.
The word "Melt" is getting thrown around way too loosely here.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
The Aviation fuel along wiyh some materials in the buildings probaly made the fires extra hot but the fires did not cuase the building to collapse the planes severely damaged the support beams and the fire melted the beams becuase the fire resistant material on the beams was blown off by the impact
The fire did cause the collapse. The steel didnt have to melt, the steel failed because of the fire weakened it. Like Laser said, "melt" is getting tossed around way too much here.
Sorry about no quotes Laser, I was rather angry when posting. I just dragged my bellybutton off a house fire and came back to read that load of crap.:rolleyes:
-
I guess it was to hectic that tuesday morning but why didn't they think of rooftop rescues with helicopters?
-
Except for the problem of all the heat rising from the huge fires.
Again, I know very little about this specific subject, but I think piloting a helocopter over the building would be very difficult with very little reward. I.E. You can land the chopper with extreme difficulty and danger, but you can only put 3 or 4 more people on it.
-
if they had a blackhawk nearby which they probaly did patroling and you could see several helicopters flying around the towers on the news
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
I guess it was to hectic that tuesday morning but why didn't they think of rooftop rescues with helicopters?
and which 3-4 in a panicked mob of a couple hundred people will be allowed on?
-
a blackhawk can hold like 20+ people
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I have been thinking about it. It is a possibility that the steel columns melted after the collapse. Jet Fuel wasn't the only thing burning. Thousands upon Thousands upon Thousands of pounds of office materials like Paper, chemicals and other things.
Now, the heat caused column failure, but the building then fell upon itself. So the entire building itself as well as the ground and the fuel (not necessarily jet fuel) created a huge insulated fire. I'd guess (I am not perfectly certain) that because of those conditions, the fire could get hot enough to melt steel.
How could that be? Paper, chemicals, office materials, and other things burning underground? Buried beneath an entire buildings worth of concrete and dust..
What are the three essentials for fire? Seems one of them should have been in short supply.. Remember, we are talking 6 weeks after 9/11...
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
I guess it was to hectic that tuesday morning but why didn't they think of rooftop rescues with helicopters?
Smoke conditions were too dangerous for rescue attempts from the roof tops from what I understand. There is footage from a helicopter circling one of the towers and the smoke was tremendous.
-
so that heli was probaly a rescue attempt but smoke was too toxic and thick
-
Originally posted by Slash27
" no way is someone this dumb. Steel elongates at 1200 degrees and causes trusses to fail.( as pointed out already) There are plenty of dead firefighters to contradict "no large steel frame building has ever collasped" theory. This handsomehunk needs beat about the head and shoulders with some IFSTA manuals for a hour or so.
that's about right we routinely heat steel in a forge in order make it workable. it doesn't take too much heat or very long to make it malleable. once it's glowing it's very soft. the steel didn't need to melt it just needed to annealed and I reckon it was. IIRC about 850 degrees F would be hot enough to alter the molecular composition of the steel in the shop we use the TLAR method to determine workability/maliabilty>
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
so that heli was probaly a rescue attempt but smoke was too toxic and thick
I believe, but not 100% sure, that it was a police helicopter and it just wasnt safe for them to make the attempt. Im sure it tore their guts out not to be able to help.
-
and to see those people start jumping to there death:eek:
-
Heat rises and creates air disruptions as it does, especially when it isn't consistent. I don't imagine it would have been very easy to fly a helo in there even without the smoke.
-
Heat doesn't rise.
Heated air does.
;)
-
Just a question here....
Anyone know why building seven went down? A guy I know is telling me that it was blown up then showed me a video of it....not a structural engineer so I really can't comment as to why that one went the way it did.
-
Diesel fuel reservoirs for backup power generators at Guilliani's Emergency Command Center in the building exploded and the resulting fire brought it down.
-
Originally posted by guttboy
Just a question here....
Anyone know why building seven went down? A guy I know is telling me that it was blown up then showed me a video of it....not a structural engineer so I really can't comment as to why that one went the way it did.
I was damaged from the collapse of the towers but took a while to fall
-
Originally posted by guttboy
Just a question here....
Anyone know why building seven went down? A guy I know is telling me that it was blown up then showed me a video of it....not a structural engineer so I really can't comment as to why that one went the way it did.
Excellent question.. WTC7 recieved no damaged or at the most slight cosmetic damaged from the towers falling debris.. There were no 'out of control' fires that persistently burned in WTC7 as well as no documented ignition source for such fires.. There was a quantatiy of diesel storred in the lower levels of the 47story WTC7 but even the offical FEMA report notes these tanks were largely intact.. Also noted in the offical FEMA report is that it was very unlikey (read not possible) that a fire fueled by this diesel would/could burn hot enough to bring down a steel frame highrise.. No steel highrise had ever fallen to fire... ever... untill 9/11...
Other things to note from the collapse of WTC7.. fall time and symmetry of the fall.. Random fires? You be the judge..
-
WTC7 had sustained enough damage to bring it down...don't forget there was 500 million tons of steel in EACH tower (plus glass, wires etc) and that weight came down in seconds and showed up on sizemographs 40 miles away!
-
did anyone outside of the towers die when the collapse happend?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Excellent question.. WTC7 recieved no damaged or at the most slight cosmetic damaged from the towers falling debris.. There were no 'out of control' fires that persistently burned in WTC7 as well as no documented ignition source for such fires..
I wouldnt call floors fully involved with fire "cosmetic damage".
-
wasn't there a rumor about a kid dreaming about 9-11 before it happend?:confused:
-
You know, I tried to explain this all with the first post of the phase diagram of steel, showing that steel begins to lose its elastic properties when 740 c is reached, well within the temperature of burning diesel and jet fuel, but I guess the jig is up.
I should not be telling you this, but it going to get out someday. I work for a secret government agency which prepositions demolition charges in urban buildings in just the right fashion to bring the buildings down in case a big enough aircraft ever hits it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I should not be telling you this, but it going to get out someday. I work for a secret government agency which prepositions demolition charges in urban buildings in just the right fashion to bring the buildings down in case a big enough aircraft ever hits it.
Have you guys transitioned to the new Bell X-99XLT 'Super Airwolf' black helicopter we are using for cattle mutilations over here at "Project Beefcake"?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
WTC7 had sustained enough damage to bring it down...don't forget there was 500 million tons of steel in EACH tower (plus glass, wires etc) and that weight came down in seconds and showed up on sizemographs 40 miles away!
There are many photographs of WTC7 after both towers collapse.. None of which show anything more than superficial damage.. This one for instance before the attack.. Notice buildings on both sides (both which still stand)
(http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg)
And after, I believe just before it fell..
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fig_5_20.jpg)
And finally the video.. Does this buidling fall as if it's steel supports are super heated and give way? Or does it appear to freefall like it's legs were taken away?
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
-
looks like it fell with no demolition team involved
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You know, I tried to explain this all with the first post of the phase diagram of steel, showing that steel begins to lose its elastic properties when 740 c is reached, well within the temperature of burning diesel and jet fuel, but I guess the jig is up.
I should not be telling you this, but it going to get out someday. I work for a secret government agency which prepositions demolition charges in urban buildings in just the right fashion to bring the buildings down in case a big enough aircraft ever hits it.
A good explanation it was.. But not all seems to add up..
Are these published accounts to be dismissed completely?
''There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (âTwin Towersâ) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
âThey showed us many fascinating slidesâ [Eaton] continued, âranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disasterâ. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that âAs of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.â (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)''
This is Leslie Robertson..
http://www.lera.com/robertson.htm
-
People who think theres a conspiracy remind me of a guy I recently met who thinks global warming is happening because we landed on the moon and messed things up(no, I'm not making this up lol).
-
ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disasterâ.
sounds like a false story metal cannot stay hot for that long without a constant heat source
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
sounds like a false story metal cannot stay hot for that long without a constant heat source
Thats partly the arguement made by my original cutNpaste.. the heat source..
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
sounds like a false story metal cannot stay hot for that long without a constant heat source
I dont know in shop class I reduced a pipe with an arc welder to a pile of orange slag, when we came back in the next morning. the center was still faint red.
-
keyword:faint
-
No, the key word there is INSULATION
I'm pretty sure that there were several subways running through (not under) the WTC's. It'd be a good source for oxygen.
-
I'm reading through this WTC7 stuff. Now, I know very little, but I can pick out the pieces of information that these D-Bags just assume.
First: "The straight-down collapse of Building 7 required that all of its columns be destroyed simultaneously."
No. For a building to come straight down, it requires all of its columns to FAIL near simultaneously.
I did watch some of the videos. The building did not appear to fail as it would with controlled destruction. It appeared to fail because the central columns failed.
They assume that it's a very rare occurance and the chances of that happening are very low that a symmetrical collapse would happen.
What you would need for this to happen (which is what I saw) is for the central columns to suddenly fail. Even a few of them. This instantaneous redistribution of load would cause the columns around to fail. Snowball effect. Which is exactly what I saw.
The central most columns failed, and thus brings in all the surrounding columns.
For this to happen, you would have to take out several columns. Now, I don't know what happened in WTC7. But if it collapsed at 5:30 in the afternoon, it is possible for a fire that happened from the beginning to take it out.
Remember, you need multiple columns to go. Demolition usually takes out all columns at the same time. Meanwhile WTC 93, only one column was minorly damaged. The load spread to all the other columns effortlessy.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
:O
(http://21c-online.com/photoface-2.JPG)
Devils face in smoke at the wtc
Ahhhhh yes the devils face again, sombody please give me a break, theres no devil in those pictures. Thats like seeing the face of God in a orange slice
-
I was there when it all happened attending a technical school. I had the same view as you saw on tv, but from the window of a classroom. And when the 2nd plane hit I tell you, it was freakish, kinda like watching a movie or something, cause none of us could believe it was real.
After finding out about the other planes i called home to make sure everyone was ok, and accounted for.
I was walking towards the subway-which in retrospect was probably a stupid idea- to get home. On the way there i stopped to watch the 1st tower collapse, just like you saw on tv, except they didn't have a camera showing grown men and women falling to the floor screaming, and crying for loved ones that they knew were dead.
These people with there conspiracy theories are out of there minds.
To our G.W.B. who made the call, and our military who are out there risking there lives to make sure these mother &%$^ing, &^*% sucking animals get what they deserve!
The saddest part about it is that even after something like that, people here are still too stupid to wake up. I read some other threads about lefties, and let me tell you, you aint seen nothing till you come to ny.
I feel.... like the human characters from planet of the apes must have felt.