A reason for pause...

[NUKE]

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?

[Raubvogel]

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.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by kappa
Nuke you lack the required brain power to reason my ideas..

You, sir, are an idiot.

[NUKE]

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

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.

[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

[kappa]

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??

[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??

[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.

[SLO]

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.

[kappa]

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.

[kappa]

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...

[Tilt]

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.

[Kieran]

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.

[Kieran]

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.

[GRUNHERZ]

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....