Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Dublo 7

Bin Laden denied he was guilty for 9/11

Recommended Posts

tehhunter
Thank you Mortukai.

However he will probably ask for credible links for that official information.

 

sneaky2.gif

You wish to know a credible source? Try ones without an agenda or bias (or at most, very little). www.NoGW.com does not seem very reputable. If you might have noticed, we did not post www.onwardchristiansoldiers.org or www.fox.com.

 

This is coming from a previous republican--turned liberal who hates biased liberals/conservatives. I used to work at a f*cking anarchist site. I don't know what the hell you are arguing for, but its mind blowing how someone can take a tragedy like 9/11 and pump some hot air into it so it becomes a conspiracy.

 

For f*cks sake, what more do you want? Radical islamic militants take hold of four planes and use them as missiles against America, destroying public moral and the economy? I mean, jesus. Thats the only real conspiracy. Nuts like you believe JFK was killed by a second shooter, or that the moon landing was fake.

 

But listen, I am gentle man. If you have the means, go watch "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t! - Conspiracy Theories".

 

And last but not least, the fact that you could even begin to believe that the people on those planes were working for the government and are still alive somewhere is possibly the worst thing that could ever be said for shock value. My friends dad was on the plane that hit the pentagon, you f*cking douche. I live in Washington D.C. Don't be lecturing me about finding the way around this place. As if years of planning and clear skies werent enough to find the f*cking only building with five sides.

 

All that aside, I hope that Dublo and missile drown,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dublo 7
Thank you Mortukai.

However he will probably ask for credible links for that official information.

 

sneaky2.gif

You wish to know a credible source? Try ones without an agenda or bias (or at most, very little). www.NoGW.com does not seem very reputable. If you might have noticed, we did not post www.onwardchristiansoldiers.org or www.fox.com.

 

This is coming from a previous republican--turned liberal who hates biased liberals/conservatives. I used to work at a f*cking anarchist site. I don't know what the hell you are arguing for, but its mind blowing how someone can take a tragedy like 9/11 and pump some hot air into it so it becomes a conspiracy.

 

For f*cks sake, what more do you want? Radical islamic militants take hold of four planes and use them as missiles against America, destroying public moral and the economy? I mean, jesus. Thats the only real conspiracy. Nuts like you believe JFK was killed by a second shooter, or that the moon landing was fake.

 

But listen, I am gentle man. If you have the means, go watch "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t! - Conspiracy Theories".

 

And last but not least, the fact that you could even begin to believe that the people on those planes were working for the government and are still alive somewhere is possibly the worst thing that could ever be said for shock value. My friends dad was on the plane that hit the pentagon, you f*cking douche. I live in Washington D.C. Don't be lecturing me about finding the way around this place. As if years of planning and clear skies werent enough to find the f*cking only building with five sides.

 

All that aside, I hope that Dublo and missile drown,

Aww you broke my heart.

 

dozingoff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender
How could he be certain it was a plane, When its travelling at 400MPH, Deafining, And the vibration would cause your liqud in your eyes to vibrate, Therefore making you close your Eyes!
Did you ever even bother to pay attention during Biology?

 

 

Building 7 was one of the Most strongest buildings in the world

If you seen the Pics of Steel colums inside that Buidling, Youd realize a fire would not even damage it

And for the fire that was there? By the way, How did fire randomly start in that floor?

Err, the WTC was made of steel also. Steel doesn't need to melt; it needs to warp and lose structural integrity (you won't be an architect, I can tell you that).

 

 

Yeah, True there, Lucky... Makes loads of sence  dozingoff.gif

What was it? 800-2500 Degrees for a Jet crash? So what your saying is, Its capible of destorying 100% Steel, But not Human life?

...People were in stairwells on the bottom floor. You do know the record for the farthest fall with survival was by an airline stewardess, don't you? Some 5000 feet.

 

 

And im an idiot? By showing you these points, What other reasons is there fore these points ive proven?

Your embarrasing yourself...

The moment you can form an entire post without some sort of an idiotic grammatical error, you can start saying other people are embarrassing themselves. Your points are all from stupid conspiracy books like Painful Questions.

 

Here is the break down of how a conspiracy theorist works:

 

They like to believe that it is impossible that anyone could suddenly attack us; that there is order, and a system. Conspiracy theorists bring two facts that have nothing to do with each other together to try to form something remotely tangible.

 

By the way, you might be one of the slowest and (nothing personal, but) dumbest people I've ever seen on this forum. Did you even bother to read the Popular Mechanics thing? Its the same thing as PBS: Non-biased media. They gain nothing from support for either side.

Im sorry clearly you havnt bothered to read the 3 long posts i wrote, Come back when you read them wink.gif

 

Also, Just to take the piss outta ya, Theres a pic of people alive in the Impact crater in the site of WTC, So, Youve missed what i was talking about dozingoff.gif

 

And, Can you be certain bout something flying by you at 400MPH? I doubt it,

It Obviously wasnt a plane, More likely a Global Hawk...

 

And, Wrong about the steel

If steel can bend and buckle like that, Holy sh*t, Everyone in a office is at risk.

This is an office fire in Philadealphia (Sp?)

This was much worse than WTC fires... There were only a few in sight at WTC

 

user posted image

 

Im the most dumbest person on this Forum? sarcasm.gif

Look at yourself, Ive proved you dead wrong, N i dont plan to be a Air cabin crew, Or A architect, I dont see you being one either, Cuz, By the sounds of it, Youd make buildings outta poor quailty steel, The stuff that made WTC was 100% Steel frame

So, If the "fires", as shown in my 3 long "Conspiacry" posts, are real, Then why did all 4 corners of WTC break at the same time? And there was Bearly anyfires... As shown in the pictures

 

Please read yawn.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Look, I'll be the first one to admit I don't have an answer to every question in the world (IE the time to google said answers). What I will say though is that the evidence is FAR more in favor of a few mishaps on the part of the US government rather than the US government committing one of the most horrible crimes against humanity ever. Therefore, I'll side with reason.

Ok, well if you don't have time to seek sources to answer criticisms about your position, it would be best to not reply at all, than to reply with only "nuhuh!".

 

As to the second portion of your post, let's consider an analogy. Let's say someone came up to you and described this big whole story about how the universe started and humans got here. They tell you about this dude called God, and his magical powers, and how he not only made us, but also loves us and only wants to do good for us.

 

Now let's imagine (hypothetically, of course), that there are many holes in this story. That perhaps a few things don't click with how you know the universe works. That maybe some explanations that this God is supposed to offer don't make sense. But it does sound like a tempting and wonderful story, to believe that there's this big God guy up there who's looking out for you and loves you.

 

Would "siding with reason" in this case require rejecting the God story, or accepting it because it sounds good despite all the holes in it?

 

I think you can see what I'm saying here, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining the analogy and how it applies to 9/11.

 

 

Err, the WTC was made of steel also. Steel doesn't need to melt; it needs to warp and lose structural integrity (you won't be an architect, I can tell you that)

Ok, there's a few things about steel and the WTC buildings that people like to forget.

 

Thing #1: Steel, like all metals, conducts heat very well. What this means, is that if you heat one end of a piece of steel, the other end will heat up very quickly too. This is why welders have to use special equipment to apply extremely high temperatures to a precise location fast enough that only that one location melts, and not the whole piece of metal. You can test this effect out yourself quite easily. Grab any longish piece of solid metal, like a knife, or a spoon, or whatever. Now hold it on one end, and hold a lit cigarette lighter underneath the other end. See how long you can hold the metal. If you want to be really tricky, you can test different lengths of metal an plot graphs with the lengths of the metal and the time you could stand to hold them.

 

The point is, in the WTC towers, only near the tops, and potentially the bottoms of the steel were being heated (if flammable material fell down the base of the steel supports). That leaves a pretty significant length of steel which can absorb the heat. The fire would have had to be hot enough for long enough that it could raise pretty much the whole length of the steel supports to about 1000°, which is where steel starts losing it's integrity. This is because, as explained above, if you heat one area, the heat dissipates rapidly through the whole thing, to to raise any given area to a given temperature, you pretty much have to raise the whole thing to that temperature (not quite, because it still takes time for the heat to move, but close enough).

 

And I'm completely ignoring the fact that all the jet fuel would have been exhausted within a few minutes, leaving only everyday office equipment to burn.

 

Thing #2: The WTC buildings were NOT, as it seems most people believe, built with only the minimum amount of steel supports required to keep them from collapsing. That would have been stupid. Instead, the clever engineers decided to make them strong enough to withstand pretty much anything they could feasibly be made to withstand. Earthquakes, hurricane winds, and airliners crashing into them at full speed. And yes, fires too. After all, they were making two of the tallest buildings in the world. It wouldn't look very good to have the falling down for any reason, least of all something as common as a fire. There were many steel supports. Big ones. The whole building could almost certainly survive in normal conditions with a couple of them missing.

 

So not only, as I mention in Thing #1, do you have to heat the entire length of a steel support in order to weaken it, but you have to heat enough of all of the steel supports that the aggregate weakening was sufficient to do the same sort of damage as removing a handful of the steel beams. In other words, by my reckoning, you'd have to heat the entire lengths of at least half of all the beams to over 1000° (at least. That's the temperature at which steel starts to lose integrity), using only regular office equipment and supplies for your fire (because all the jet fuel ran out within minutes).

 

Thing #3: Steel, like pretty much everything, is weakest when force is applied perpendicular to its thinnest cross-section. You can snap a pencil in half by bending it at both ends (applying force across its thinnest cross-section). Try breaking a pencil (not a sharpened one, unless you are a shaolin monk) by standing it on end and pressing down on the top (applying force onto its thickest cross-section: it's length). Now try doing the same thing with a handful of pencils bundled together. Notice how it's pretty hard to do?

 

The WTC towers collapsed straight down, perfectly in on themselves. Now, I've read both sides of crap on this, about how it was "pancaking" due to the weight of the higher floors on each floor as they fell. Yes, that makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense, is what happened to all the steel supports running down the middle? I don't care how weakened those steel supports were, because unless they were melted, they would have resisted the force against their thickest cross-section (ie: resisted the force bearing down on their lengths from the weight), and would have, if anything, started bending one way or another. But instead, we're led to believe that these steel beams collapsed in on themselves like a concertina. Remember the pencils above? Yeah. They're made of wood, and so they splinter (steel bends or snaps, it doesn't splinter), but I'd still be surprised if you could get a handful of pencils to collapse in on themselves by applying force to the top. In fact, if you can do that with 10 pencils, I suggest you ring the guinness book of records. Either that or lay off the PCP.

 

Mutliple steel beams to do not collapse in on themselves under any circumstances. They bend. ESPECIALLY when the force being applied to them is only exactly the same force they've always supported, and the only reason they're even supposed to be collapsing is due to the heat from a fire heating them enough to weaken them. This would have resulted in, you guess it, the buildings tipping over and crashing down onto many other buildings. Exactly what didn't happen.

 

Until someone can show me that ordinary office equipment can burn hot enough to heat the entire lengths of multiple steel beams to AT LEAST 1000° enough that they collapse under the weight they were designed to carry, and that multiple steel beams can all collapse in on themselves like a concertina, until then, I won't buy the official story of how the towers collapsed.

 

 

They like to believe that it is impossible that anyone could suddenly attack us; that there is order, and a system. Conspiracy theorists bring two facts that have nothing to do with each other together to try to form something remotely tangible.

That's a pretty broad generalization don't you think? What if I said something like this:

 

"Here's how government fanboys work: they like to believe that their government works in a democratic manner, and only ever has their best interests in mind. They like to believe that politicians are above suspicion, and would never allow harm to come to their people (despite indisputable official military plans to do exactly that). They also like to believe that politicians only ever tell the truth, and never have any agendas. Mentally, they prefer to take the path of least resistance, and so will always accept whatever they are told by their governments in order to avoid having to think or realise that maybe their government isn't the innocent shining beacon of hope that they want to believe it is."

 

But that would be a broad generalization, so I wouldn't say such a thing.

 

 

And last but not least, the fact that you could even begin to believe that the people on those planes were working for the government and are still alive somewhere is possibly the worst thing that could ever be said for shock value. My friends dad was on the plane that hit the pentagon, you f*cking douche.

I don't know who made the claim that the people on the planes are still alive (which would be ridiculous: a much more sensible assumption would be that they were killed and their bodies incinerated), but don't bring emotions into this debate. I don't care if your friend's dad died. Really, I don't give a f*ck. Your friend could rape his dad's rotting corpse every night for all I care. He could cut it up, bake it into pies, and feed homeless people with his dad's carcass. It has no bearing on the logic of any debate about 9/11. Nothing changes just because you personally knew someone who died. To assume it does, or worse, to use it as something to strengthen your position is irrational and futile. It'd be like me yelling about how my grandpa died of stomach cancer if someone started talking about how cancer is some conspiracy by the government to increase medical profits by filling milk with carcinogens. I don't do that, because I'm not a stupid bitch.

 

If what I just said made you feel anger/offence/whatever random emotion, then do us all a favour, and grab a tissue, cry me a river, and then post something rational and considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tehhunter
How could he be certain it was a plane, When its travelling at 400MPH, Deafining, And the vibration would cause your liqud in your eyes to vibrate, Therefore making you close your Eyes!
Did you ever even bother to pay attention during Biology?

 

 

Building 7 was one of the Most strongest buildings in the world

If you seen the Pics of Steel colums inside that Buidling, Youd realize a fire would not even damage it

And for the fire that was there? By the way, How did fire randomly start in that floor?

Err, the WTC was made of steel also. Steel doesn't need to melt; it needs to warp and lose structural integrity (you won't be an architect, I can tell you that).

 

 

Yeah, True there, Lucky... Makes loads of sence  dozingoff.gif

What was it? 800-2500 Degrees for a Jet crash? So what your saying is, Its capible of destorying 100% Steel, But not Human life?

...People were in stairwells on the bottom floor. You do know the record for the farthest fall with survival was by an airline stewardess, don't you? Some 5000 feet.

 

 

And im an idiot? By showing you these points, What other reasons is there fore these points ive proven?

Your embarrasing yourself...

The moment you can form an entire post without some sort of an idiotic grammatical error, you can start saying other people are embarrassing themselves. Your points are all from stupid conspiracy books like Painful Questions.

 

Here is the break down of how a conspiracy theorist works:

 

They like to believe that it is impossible that anyone could suddenly attack us; that there is order, and a system. Conspiracy theorists bring two facts that have nothing to do with each other together to try to form something remotely tangible.

 

By the way, you might be one of the slowest and (nothing personal, but) dumbest people I've ever seen on this forum. Did you even bother to read the Popular Mechanics thing? Its the same thing as PBS: Non-biased media. They gain nothing from support for either side.

Im sorry clearly you havnt bothered to read the 3 long posts i wrote, Come back when you read them wink.gif

 

Also, Just to take the piss outta ya, Theres a pic of people alive in the Impact crater in the site of WTC, So, Youve missed what i was talking about dozingoff.gif

 

And, Can you be certain bout something flying by you at 400MPH? I doubt it,

It Obviously wasnt a plane, More likely a Global Hawk...

 

And, Wrong about the steel

If steel can bend and buckle like that, Holy sh*t, Everyone in a office is at risk.

This is an office fire in Philadealphia (Sp?)

This was much worse than WTC fires... There were only a few in sight at WTC

 

user posted image

 

Im the most dumbest person on this Forum? sarcasm.gif

Look at yourself, Ive proved you dead wrong, N i dont plan to be a Air cabin crew, Or A architect, I dont see you being one either, Cuz, By the sounds of it, Youd make buildings outta poor quailty steel, The stuff that made WTC was 100% Steel frame

So, If the "fires", as shown in my 3 long "Conspiacry" posts, are real, Then why did all 4 corners of WTC break at the same time? And there was Bearly anyfires... As shown in the pictures

 

Please read yawn.gif

So it seems you are yet to do your homework. To answer everything you just said, think of a beetle. It has an exoskeleton, which means it has a hard outside that supports the inside.

 

The World Trade Centers were built like this: The steel on the outside provided the neccessary support for the other side of the building. So, when one side of the building, and the the other side (as was the case with building 2). This removes two sides of the square of balance that was holding the building up, so its relying partially on friction and the balance of the building. On the first building it went through two sides that were right next to each other, so it leaves that building to fall down in an angle.

 

If you recall, one building fell down with its side leading eventually. The other fell nearly straight down.

 

By the way, you haven't proved anything. Don't be going on tangents about how you proved everything and we are government agents. Thats what fascists do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

The World Trade Centers were built like this: The steel on the outside provided the neccessary support for the other side of the building.

Erm... I don't think so. NO building that tall would be built like that. It would be absolutely retarded to even consider building the WTC buildings so that they are supported by their external skeleton. For starters, this makes it incredibly difficult to withstand earthquakes, high winds, fires, or plane crashes. And the WTC buildings were built specifically to withstand these things and more.

 

Instead, the WTC buildings had all their main structural supports running down the middle, and like all such buildings, they were built to do some nifty counter-balancing, so that if the building begins to tip in one direction, the supports pull it in the other direction, thus keeping it upright. This is extremely important because on a building that tall and wide, high winds can actually bend them a lot. The main structural supports are a bunch of incredibly strong steel beams running up through the middle, and then you have "ribs" coming off of them which hold each floor up, so that each floor is supported both by the floor underneath it, and by its attachment to the central supports.

 

If all it took to build extremely tall buildings was a strong exoskeleton, then we'd see a hell of a lot more extremely tall buildings. Unfortunately, it requires much more clever techniques than that, to counter weight shifting (high winds) and base movements (earthquakes) and structural damage (fires, plane crashes, etc).

 

I think, with your last statement, that it is you who have demonstrated your need to do your homework. No engineer with half a brain would build a tower that is only supported by its exoskeleton, because no matter how strong they make it, there's no way it'd be able to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, or, most especially, plane crashes. Which, I think you keep forgetting, the WTC towers were actually specifically designed to be able to withstand.

 

 

By the way, you haven't proved anything. Don't be going on tangents about how you proved everything and we are government agents. Thats what fascists do.

What the hell are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

Just a note:

 

In terms of the structure of the building, Mortukai is correct. The newspapers the day following 9/11 detailed the structure of the WTC towers, and had images showing the steel beams running down the middle of buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender

Exactly, You cant build a building, That tall, And that important, and not put any strength in it

 

Like many buildings, It was made to withstand more than needed

 

Only when its intentionally broke apart from thought out Demolition can it fall, and fall like it did.

 

Btw. Of course planes can withstand Planes smashing into them

 

Recall Back when a jet fighter mashed into the Empire state Building?

 

Also, If youve listened to some of the Phone calls made from WTC while it was still standing after the planes hit, You can hear many people say a bomb went off, This was supposidly ment to be the plane that they had mistaken

 

I dunno bout you, But i can be pretty sure about a plane hitting a building, Or a bomb going off!

Its intresting...

Edited by MissileDefender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tehhunter
Exactly, You cant build a building, That tall, And that important, and not put any strength in it

 

Like many buildings, It was made to withstand more than needed

 

Only when its intentionally broke apart from thought out Demolition can it fall, and fall like it did.

 

Btw. Of course planes can withstand Planes smashing into them

 

Recall Back when a jet fighter mashed into the Empire state Building?

 

Also, If youve listened to some of the Phone calls made from WTC while it was still standing after the planes hit, You can hear many people say a bomb went off, This was supposidly ment to be the plane that they had mistaken

 

I dunno bout you, But i can be pretty sure about a plane hitting a building, Or a bomb going off!

Its intresting...

Two things:

 

The empire state has more than double the amount of iron it needed.

 

The WTC were designed actually to be able to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707. Not a much larger 747.

 

By the way Mork, that was directed at missile, who seemingly thinks he disproves evis and I every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jersiq

 

Recall Back when a jet fighter mashed into the Empire state Building?

Please recall Newtonian physics: Force=Mass * Acceleration, and don't forget you have the mass of two planes.

 

Also, If you’ve listened to some of the Phone calls made from WTC while it was still standing after the planes hit, You can hear many people say a bomb went off, This was supposidly ment to be the plane that they had mistaken

Funny story that helps out on this one, the other day I was sitting in my study doing some work when a car in the street in front of my house backfired. Well to me it sounded like a gunshot. Upon further investigation (asking my wife who has a different frame of reference as she was in the front yard) I found that it wasn't actually a gunshot, but rather a car backfiring. You see, because I was not there at the time of the backfiring, my frame of reference was different. Although compelling, the phone calls made by the people in the towers, may not have been in sight of the second plane crashing. Those of us as bystanders do have a definite distinct frame of reference because we have footage of the second plane crashing into the tower. This will of course bring forth arguments that the time stamp of the call doesn't coincide with the crash. I'll go ahead and put this one to bed, as I work for a telecommunications company, and have a lot of familiarity with switching telephone calls. In the basement of the towers was a phone company’s central office (the location through which landline, and cell phone traffic will go through. I know for a fact that the switch handling the traffic was bogged down as everyone was making calls at the same time. In conjunction with this is the fact that the cellular companies’ switchboards were flooded at the same time. Now the only proper way to do a call trace is to look in a log file and review the time stamp for the call. Phone switchboards work has established priorities as follows. 1. call processing and 2. Accounting for calls to properly bill the customer in necessary. Now I apologize for my long-windedness, but the fact remains that due to a high call volume and increased caller activity, the switch maintained its priorities, and switched the calls then accounted for them later as processor time permits. This means that the time stamps on the calls are inaccurate.

 

Steel, like all metals, conducts heat very well. What this means, is that if you heat one end of a piece of steel, the other end will heat up very quickly too. This is why welders have to use special equipment to apply extremely high temperatures to a precise location fast enough that only that one location melts, and not the whole piece of metal.

Well actually it is a time and cost saving feature. It is cheaper and quicker to provide a quick amount of heat energy, than to provide a lower, sustained amount of heat energy. The thing you are failing to remember that the spot where the flame is placed on your spoon will be hotter than the terminal end of the spoon.

 

Until someone can show me that ordinary office equipment can burn hot enough to heat the entire lengths of multiple steel beams to AT LEAST 1000° enough that they collapse under the weight they were designed to carry, and that multiple steel beams can all collapse in on themselves like a concertina, until then, I won't buy the official story of how the towers collapsed.

Well, considering anyone would be an idiot to burn a large building, we would have to look at smaller scale fires. In a study conducted before 9/11 (1999 to be exact) a fire department conducted a test to see the temperatures of a burning home. It is a .PDF file so you need acrobat as you can see the common household items are able to be raised to a peak temperature of 1200. Certainly, now you can agree that it is possible to have a fire in a building at 1100 degrees. Now that was conducted pre-911, let’s go ahead and look at a quote from a website for a Fire Department.

 

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Source

Perhaps that is not enough evidence though. Let's look at American Institute of Steel Construction where they say

 

The strength of steel remains essentially unchanged until about 600°F. The steel retains about 50% of its strength at 1100°F. The steel loses all of its capacity when it melts at about 2700°F. However, for design purposes, it is usually assumed that all capacity is lost at about 2200°F.

Further:

 

The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment depends on several factors including the amount and configuration of available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°

The fire was already in a post flash stage as the fuel had already ignited. Also, we can only CONJECTURE the several mitigating conditions of having a lower temperature fire, as we had no scientists or engineers handy to run up to the floors and take some measurements. But I want to go back to the spoon analogy for a second. You Said

 

Steel, like all metals, conducts heat very well. What this means, is that if you heat one end of a piece of steel, the other end will heat up very quickly too.

Yet they say:

 

The connections usually contain more material (additional plates, bolts, etc.) than the connected members. Also, connections often have less exposure to heat and higher capacity for heat dissipation because of their proximity to other members. Therefore, temperatures are likely to develop faster in members than in connections, making connections less critical for fire-protection design.

Now I don't mean any offense sir, but if it was a psychology problem, then I would say that you are correct. I think you understand what I mean.

 

But then again maybe all my research is for naught. It is entirely feasible that this site was bought off by the Men in Black, and used to hinder the search of the truth through these avenues.

Conspiracy theories are also very suspect in tenability in the fact of the sheer amount of "conspiracy" required to "cover up" a destruction of this magnitude would be amazing. Just consider for a moment that the amount of people involved in the U.S. prisoner scandal in Gitmo Cuba, and yet that story was released. Surely, a conspiracy on this scale would involve someone with moral integrity who would "come forth" and expose it. It would require the silence of at least 100 individuals I would imagine (from planning to commitment phases). And as we all know the more people who know a lie, the higher the potential of someone talking about the lie. Unless you are postulating that Rumsfeld himself planted the charges?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirty Sanchez

For some reason, I feel that MissleDefender will come back in here, disregard the statements above, spout out some more "facts" and ramble on in a largely non-sesical fashion about how he has proved everyone wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Yet they say:

 

The connections usually contain more material (additional plates, bolts, etc.) than the connected members. Also, connections often have less exposure to heat and higher capacity for heat dissipation because of their proximity to other members. Therefore, temperatures are likely to develop faster in members than in connections, making connections less critical for fire-protection design.

 

Now I don't mean any offense sir, but if it was a psychology problem, then I would say that you are correct. I think you understand what I mean.

I'm not sure that you fully understood what you read. They say, quite clearly, that the connections between the members have a higher capacity for heat dissipation. This means they conduct heat more readily, because they are more fully enclosed to other members. Think of a heat sink on your CPU. The more surface area contact the chip has with the heat sink, the more heat is efficiently transfered from the chip to the heat sink. The larger the heat sink, the more energy it takes to raise it to a given temperature. This is basic physics here.

 

So what they are saying in that quote, is that the members (major elements of the structural supports) don't dissipate heat as fast as the connections. This means that heat will transfer from one member to another at least as fast as if there were no connections and the two members where instead one and the same. This is great for engineers, because it means that the connections are NOT the weak point. Here's my little illustration of this fact:

 

====:====:====:==== This is how the structures were made: seperate steel beams (====) connected together (: ). The connections (: ) carry heat faster than the beams because they have a large surface which is in contact with other members, meaning they don't retain the heat: they pass it on. Thus the weakest links in the chain in terms of heat are the big steel beams.

 

================== This is not how the structural supports were made: one single solid beam. In this design, heat would only dissipate as fast as the base material could conduct it.

 

Now, regarding the spoon, there are a few things you're not taking into account, which admittedly, I didn't bother to mention because it would have complicated things, but I might as well bring them up now. For starters, a spoon, being largely flat and thin, presents a pretty decent surface area to the air around it. Air which, I might add, is significantly cooler than the spoon. Air which, it is worth noting, is a pretty sh*t conducter of heat, but far, far better than a vacuum. So the simple movements of air across the spoon's surface will be sufficient to cool it, according to the laws of thermodynamics. Thus, of course, given that there is more time for the air to cool one end than the other, and that, as I said, it takes time for heat to spread through metal (but it WILL spread), then yes, we can predict that one end will be cooler than the other. But if you test the difference in temperature over time between the ends after you remove the flame (it'd still work with the flame there, but it'd be much harder to conduct this experiment), you'd see that the "hot" end cools faster than the "cool" end, because the heat is not only being removed by the air, but also is spreading to reach equilibrium within the spoon. So the cool end will cool slower, as it is being fed heat from the hot end, plus it is closer to equilibrium with the air anyway. Make sense? Study elementary chemistry and it'll make sense.

 

Re: your psychology comment: I hope you realise that psychology is not my main area of interest, but merely one of many. Likewise, I might say to you, if it was a telecommunications/military problem, then I would say you are correct. I think you'd understand what I mean.

 

 

Conspiracy theories are also very suspect in tenability in the fact of the sheer amount of "conspiracy" required to "cover up" a destruction of this magnitude would be amazing. Just consider for a moment that the amount of people involved in the U.S. prisoner scandal in Gitmo Cuba, and yet that story was released. Surely, a conspiracy on this scale would involve someone with moral integrity who would "come forth" and expose it. It would require the silence of at least 100 individuals I would imagine (from planning to commitment phases). And as we all know the more people who know a lie, the higher the potential of someone talking about the lie. Unless you are postulating that Rumsfeld himself planted the charges?

Don't go on about your generic stereotypes of what a conspiracy theorist is in an attempt to underhandedly slander and label suspect everything put forward against your position, and I won't go on about blindly believing the ridiculous claims of your "divine" government. Deal?

 

 

Well, considering anyone would be an idiot to burn a large building, we would have to look at smaller scale fires. In a study conducted before 9/11 (1999 to be exact) a fire department conducted a test to see the temperatures of a burning home. It is a .PDF file so you need acrobat as you can see the common household items are able to be raised to a peak temperature of 1200. Certainly, now you can agree that it is possible to have a fire in a building at 1100 degrees. Now that was conducted pre-911, let’s go ahead and look at a quote from a website for a Fire Department.

 

 

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Two things here. One, a house fire is quite different from building like the WTC burning. For starters, there is simply much more combustible material in a house fire. Typically, they are made entirely of wood and gyprock (you guys probably know it as plasterboard or something), are densely furnished, and have plenty of ventilation. The second thing, which I won't go on about, is that according to your source, the fire was over 5 times hotter than it needed to be to kill people, and yet people were still alive on the floors where the plane crashed into, as shown by MissileDefender's photo. I won't harp on that, but it's worth noting that this point which he has raised has yet to be contested by anyone besides someone making some irrelevant comment about a stewardess falling 5000ft and surviving.

 

Much of the WTC was steel and concrete, which tend not to burn very well. Sure there was carpet and plasterboard partitions and ceilings, but these don't burn as hot as wood, and for nowhere near as long. The only real wood was desks and furniture, which unlike in a house, would form isolated hot-spots, not an all-encompassing inferno. All the carpet, paper, fabric, and gyprock would burn up pretty fvcking quickly. Like in a few minutes. Especially if they were coated in jet fuel. Similarly, ventilation was not very good in the WTC fires. Now you may say "But Mort, there was a big-assed hole in the side!". Yes, there was, but that hole was the fire's chimney. It's hard to suck air in through where the smoke goes out. Thats why fires in combustion heaters need air coming in from another source or they'll suffocate despite having a chimney. The flames just cannot suck the air through the smoke.

 

The final thing you are missing, which is important, is that houses burning that hot (+1000°) are usually reduced to a pile of ashes inside of five minutes. Heat that hot burns things very fast, and thus runs out of fuel very fast, and thus never lasts very long. Not to mention, it also has a much greater requirement for oxygen, and releases much more light energy (visual flames, which are largely suspiciously absent in the WTC photos).

 

I used to be a pyromaniac. Sue me.

 

Some more facts about fire: the hotter it burns, the less smoke there is. Smoke is caused by ash and particles of whatever is burning being carried away by the heat. A hotter fire burns more efficiently, leaving less ash and other particles. If you compare the photo of the building fire that MissileDefender posted on the previous page to photos of the WTC, you'll notice that not only can you see roaring flames in the first photo (the flames aren't really belching out from the building like that, it just looks that way because they are illuminating the smoke), but also much less smoke than the billowing columns of smoke that were emenating from the WTC towers. This is clear evidence that the fires in the WTC towers were NOT hot enough to reach +1000°: there was too much smoke and not enough flames. As I've said, this makes perfect sense, because the materials in the building wouldn't be conducive to a really hot fire with the poor ventilation that they had (compare with the first photo again, and notice that all the windows on that burning floor are gone).

 

 

Well actually it is a time and cost saving feature. It is cheaper and quicker to provide a quick amount of heat energy, than to provide a lower, sustained amount of heat energy. The thing you are failing to remember that the spot where the flame is placed on your spoon will be hotter than the terminal end of the spoon.

Erm... no, you're wrong. You can't weld metal by applying a consistent lower amount of heat energy. That would only result in weakening/warping the entire piece of metal, not melting one part enough that it joins with another. I seriously have no idea how you came to your conclusion, but I suggest you read up on the chemistry of metals (specifically electron sharing: the feature that enables metals to act like they do (bend instead of break, deform instead of shatter, melt instead of be turned to ash, and conduct heat over the whole body of metal)), and how this works in welding situations. Seriously, what you said just screams "I have no understanding of the physical and chemical properties of metals".

 

As an aside, warping occurs when more heat than the metal can spread (every metal has a rating of conductivity) is applied to one area, causing that area to expland before the other areas can catch up. Thus again, welding is done like it is out of necessity, not because of time or cost.

 

 

Also, we can only CONJECTURE the several mitigating conditions of having a lower temperature fire, as we had no scientists or engineers handy to run up to the floors and take some measurements.

Actually, the reason we must conjecture is because ALL THE STEEL FROM THE WTC BUILDINGS was removed and recycled before ANY of the investigators got a chance to look at it. That's right: ALL the steel evidence. With the steel, we'd know exactly what caused the collapse, and exactly how the collapse happened, and exactly what temperatures the fires were burning, and where the heat sources were. But instead, no steel, because the evidence was destroyed before the investigators had a chance to look at it. Isn't that nice and convenient?

 

********

 

So it appears then, that no matter what evidence is brought in about steel, the WTC towers should not have collapsed as they did. Heat would have very easily dissipated along the whole lengths of the supports, without being hindered by the connections in the slightest, and without risking weakening the connections more than the beams themselves.

 

And it also seems that no matter what evidence is brought in about fires, the WTC towers should not have collapsed as they did. If you argue that the fires were very hot, then you reduce the time that they burn and you reduce the smoke and you increase the size of the inferno. All of these things are inconsistent with the photographic and timestamp evidence. It is clear that the fires must have (as one would expect, knowing how fires burn and what fuel was available) burned cooler than was needed to reduce the integrity of the steel.

 

Anyone want to add anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jersiq

 

I'm not sure that you fully understood what you read. They say, quite clearly, that the connections between the members have a higher capacity for heat dissipation. This means they conduct heat more readily, because they are more fully enclosed to other members. Think of a heat sink on your CPU. The more surface area contact the chip has with the heat sink, the more heat is efficiently transfered from the chip to the heat sink. The larger the heat sink, the more energy it takes to raise it to a given temperature. This is basic physics here.

I'm not sure you understand. We are not cooling here, we are heating things up. If the Connections have greater heat dissipation, and the connections are stronger than the member, then the relative heat required to cause structural integrity issues is less for the member than the connections.

 

So the cool end will cool slower, as it is being fed heat from the hot end, plus it is closer to equilibrium with the air anyway. Make sense? Study elementary chemistry and it'll make sense.

It's physics. Newton's Law of Cooling. Believe me I have studied it.

 

Don't go on about your generic stereotypes of what a conspiracy theorist is in an attempt to underhandedly slander and label suspect everything put forward against your position, and I won't go on about blindly believing the ridiculous claims of your "divine" government. Deal?

I can't imagine why you feel as if I am stereotyping you. Nothing in what I wrote attempted to define a conspiracy theorist. I fell that I posed a question that needs to be addressed. For such a large scale plan, how is everyone being kept quiet? Nor did I say that the governement is divine, please don't put words into my mouth or make assumptions. Deal?

 

Much of the WTC was steel and concrete, which tend not to burn very well. Sure there was carpet and plasterboard partitions and ceilings, but these don't burn as hot as wood, and for nowhere near as long. The only real wood was desks and furniture, which unlike in a house, would form isolated hot-spots, not an all-encompassing inferno. All the carpet, paper, fabric, and gyprock would burn up pretty fvcking quickly. Like in a few minutes. Especially if they were coated in jet fuel. Similarly, ventilation was not very good in the WTC fires. Now you may say "But Mort, there was a big-assed hole in the side!". Yes, there was, but that hole was the fire's chimney. It's hard to suck air in through where the smoke goes out. Thats why fires in combustion heaters need air coming in from another source or they'll suffocate despite having a chimney. The flames just cannot suck the air through the smoke.

I am not sure which offices you have been to, but a lot of the offices I have been in are a lot less spartan than the ones you have been in. There is plenty combustible material. Let's ask Missle how long the fire continued in the other building the he provided a picture for. Surely with such similarities in being an office building, they would be furnished nearly the same. As far as the oxygen, I would like to remind you that the towers did have a ventilation system which has "return" air coming from sources on the ground as well as on the roof.

 

Thus again, welding is done like it is out of necessity, not because of time or cost.

Please then explain the process of "Brazing"

 

Actually, the reason we must conjecture is because ALL THE STEEL FROM THE WTC BUILDINGS was removed and recycled before ANY of the investigators got a chance to look at it.

Do you mean this Steel?

 

On June 3, 2002 the International Peace Garden received ten, 10-foot girders from the trade center wreckage. The girders lie at rest at the 911 Memorial Site at the International Peace Garden as an everlasting reminders of the human tragedy that occurred one quiet September morning in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

Peace Garden.com Feel free to scroll down to the bottom of that web-page and explain why the steel recyclers did such a poor job of recycling

Surely this link has a "doctored" photo and was written with conspiracy in mind

and even maybe the Arlington newspapaer was duped when this truck was making the rounds.

 

Wreckage and Remembrance

Truck Bearing Steel From World Trade Center Makes Fundraising Tour

By Ylan Q. Mui

Washington Post--

Source

But why not just go to the source?

 

By chance, while visiting the offices of The New York Times last week to chat with one of its science writers, he heard about plans to immediately recycle steel from the site, and launched a lobbying effort to convince the city to wait until the debris had been inspected by structural engineers. Thanks largely to a Saturday article by Kenneth Chang and James Glanz, the city has agreed to make the steel available to Astaneh and other engineers heading up an investigation for the American Society of Civil Engineers. They plan to draft a technical report to the National Research Council for forwarding to the federal government.

A brief synopsis of which is available on ASCE website linky

So they did get the extra time to conduct studies, and according to the article, was a collaboration of various engineers. Are you telling me that the entire Engineering Team was in on a conspiracy? That's a far-reach there my friend. Would anyone now care to add anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender
For some reason, I feel that MissleDefender will come back in here, disregard the statements above, spout out some more "facts" and ramble on in a largely non-sesical fashion about how he has proved everyone wrong.

Im sorry, I dont see you posting anything of any relavence confused.gif

 

No one has answered any questions that can prove the destruction of WTC was an attack

 

Obviously if the US are gonna attack their own land, Theyre gonna want there target to fall.

 

And about the plane and bomb phone call thing, Its pretty easy tp hear the plane coming, Youve got a rather loud noise with a plane travelling 400mph at a building

 

You cannot deny the facts that at the Pentagon, The engine part found, Wasnt from a 747, It was a small engine part, Not fit for a 747!

Building 7 collapsed, isnt that strange that a Building, That is among the strongest on the planet collapsed because of a few tiny fires?

 

It was a back up power supply for NY, Its Girders were thicker than WTC, Id supply a pic of what a Girder from Building 7 looks like if i could find one!

 

There is no way, That it could collapse because of a few fires... If that was the case, Mostly every office building would of fallen once, Because of poorly made Girders dozingoff.gif

 

You cannot deny people were still alive in WTC, How did they survive the blast, And the heat of the flames? There could not have been many flames, If people are still alive on the floors the plane hit!

 

If it collapsed by the plane crash, Wouldnt it have folded in the way, Towards the Impact crater! The pillars destroyed in the crash, would have made a weak spot, there for, making it fall in that direction...

 

We never saw anyone jump from the building on fire!

It only created the illution that theyd rather jump than be burnt, They jamp because of the Toxic fumes, Not "Fires"

 

There were also little fires visable inside the building... Its impossible it collapsed by so few fires!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirty Sanchez
Building 7 collapsed, isnt that strange that a Building, That is among the strongest on the planet collapsed because of a few tiny fires?

 

It was a back up power supply for NY, Its Girders were thicker than WTC, Id supply a pic of what a Girder from Building 7 looks like if i could find one!

 

There is no way, That it could collapse because of a few fires... If that was the case, Mostly every office building would of fallen once, Because of poorly made Girders dozingoff.gif

 

 

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

 

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

-Popular Mechanics

 

And I'd like to see some evidence that the engine recovered wasn't from a 747.

 

I'd also like to point out that a fire causes fumes. So the peple jumping were more than likely humping becuase of fumes and fires inside the building. I know I wouldn't want to wait for either of the two to get to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

MissileDefender, that is the third time that exact passage has been posted. You just keep asking the same question and ignoring the answer. Please stop. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tehhunter

Heh. I just forgot something I thought up three years ago to completely dismiss conspiracy "bomb" theories: search-and-rescue dogs.

 

You see, these dogs often bare the ability to detect where a human has recently been based on scent, or as was the case at the oklahoma city bombings, bombs. These dogs, along with a gas canister, are used to detect what started a fire (note: There is not way for a dog to tell humans what chemical it is at this point) by arson detectives.

 

At the WTC, and Pentagon, numerous dogs (from all over the country, mind you) were there assisting in finding the bodies and the rare person-still-alive-from-structural-collapse.

 

Now if you want me to believe that the scent of (apparently huge according to you (as in bombs on each floor)) many bombs somehow managed to escape these dogs, then no. I'd place all the money I ever made in my life in the fact that dogs are not corruptable by money, or even by dog treats. Dogs are, after all, dogs. They can't be bought off. They do as they are trained.

 

Wait, do you have anymore crazy theories to throw out while I'm still here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender
MissileDefender, that is the third time that exact passage has been posted. You just keep asking the same question and ignoring the answer. Please stop. Thank you.

confused.gif

No, Youve said the Steel simply melted in the towers...

The maxium temputure for a fire is 1800 Degrees

Only explosives can exceed that number

 

 

But 1800 Degrees can only be reached when theye is a perfect mix of Oxygen and hydrocarbons in the air

 

That can only be made in controlled enviroments... Such as a hob... The colour of the flame would be Blue, Not orange, and full of soot...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

OK, I woulda posted this earlier but I had trouble accessing the forums for some reason.

 

tehhunter, I'm not going to attempt to counter your dog argument, because I haven't read anything on either side of the debate (official or "conspiracy") regarding the dogs, and I don't know enough about dog training or the dogs that were used. It might be that the dogs used were search and rescue dogs, only trained to smell for humans. It might be that the dogs are only trained to bark when they smell something, so they can't communicate the difference between smelling a body or a bomb. It might be that the dust confounded their ability to detect bomb traces. I don't know, because dogs are not my forte. As such, I wouldn't look at your "dog argument" as being the undeniable proof that you claim it to be.

 

I'm not sure you understand. We are not cooling here, we are heating things up. If the Connections have greater heat dissipation, and the connections are stronger than the member, then the relative heat required to cause structural integrity issues is less for the member than the connections.

I'm sure you understand the inherent confusion of that statement, being that you've studied newton's law of cooling or whatever (any physical law of cooling works because of chemical properties, so cooling is both physics and chemistry). Heating is[/i] cooling. If something is being heated up, it's due to heat being transfered from a hotter body (air, fire plasma) to a cooler body (steel). Thus the process of heat energy being transfered is called "cooling". Likewise, from the perspective of the steel, which is being heated by the cooling process, the steel is also constantly being cooled, as it dissipates the heat coming into it throughout it's whole structure, as well as transferring it to any cooler air around it. So no matter what, we are always dealing with both things being heated up, and things being cooled, simultaneously.

 

But yes, you are right, and I think we are talking past each other re the members and connections. We both agree that the connections are not the weak point, and that the members are the weakest link in the chain. So for all intents and purposes, let's ignore the connections and focus on the members. Which, I might add, is exactly what I was doing before you introduced the connections.

 

I can't imagine why you feel as if I am stereotyping you. Nothing in what I wrote attempted to define a conspiracy theorist. I fell that I posed a question that needs to be addressed. For such a large scale plan, how is everyone being kept quiet? Nor did I say that the governement is divine, please don't put words into my mouth or make assumptions. Deal?

Err. You missed my point. Nevermind, it wasn't important anyway.

 

I am not sure which offices you have been to, but a lot of the offices I have been in are a lot less spartan than the ones you have been in. There is plenty combustible material. Let's ask Missle how long the fire continued in the other building the he provided a picture for. Surely with such similarities in being an office building, they would be furnished nearly the same. As far as the oxygen, I would like to remind you that the towers did have a ventilation system which has "return" air coming from sources on the ground as well as on the roof.

Haha. Ok, you bring up a good point. In fact, it's a great point, because it illustrates something very important about why the towers could never have collapsed due to fires: No steel building in the history of mankind has ever collapsed due to fires. And there have been fires in steel skyscrapers that were much, much worse than the fires in the WTC towers (see above link).

 

Also, we can see how hot a fire is through a few clues:

-The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700º C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight. source.

-The fires were not hot enough to produce significant window breakage in either tower. Window breakage is a common occurrence in large office fires, particularly when temperatures exceed 600º C.

 

Also, 800º C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air. Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.

 

So really, when it comes down to it, I don't care if the WTC towers were stacked floor to ceiling in wood and oxygen tanks. The fires did not burn hot enough or for long enough to damage the steel in any way, just like in many more severe fires where the steel has not been damaged.

 

Oh, and as a minor aside, the ventilation system was designed so that people could breathe. Fires consume far, far greater volumes of oxygen, far quicker, especially when they are hot and widespread. The fact that the smoke was turning black was, as I've mentioned before, evidence of soot, which is uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

 

Do you mean this Steel?

On June 3, 2002 the International Peace Garden received ten, 10-foot girders from the trade center wreckage. The girders lie at rest at the 911 Memorial Site at the International Peace Garden as an everlasting reminders of the human tragedy that occurred one quiet September morning in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

As I said, ten pieces of steel huh? Wow. 10ft each huh? Wow. How tall were the towers? And each tower (two towers) had around 46 steel supports in its core. I think the possibility then, given those odds, of finding 10 members which are consistent with the official story are pretty high, wouldn't you agree?

 

So they did get the extra time to conduct studies, and according to the article, was a collaboration of various engineers. Are you telling me that the entire Engineering Team was in on a conspiracy? That's a far-reach there my friend. Would anyone now care to add anything else?

I have no idea where you got the idea that they studied all the steel from the collapses, because they never mention it. All they do is mention their conclusions and recommendations. And all the sources I've ever read have quotes from members of the investigative team complaining about how the majority of the steel had already been recycled and they could do nothing.

 

But you asked if anyone has anything new to add. I do. How about this:

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the remaining columns.

 

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

 

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack.

[uel=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#overdesign]Source.[/url]

 

In short, there is a reason that no fire has ever collapsed a steel building: It's pretty much impossible. Everything about fire and how it burns, everything about steel and how it works, and everything about building engineering, all combine to ensure that no steel building can collapse due to fires or planes crashing into them or both. Not even huge BOMBS being exploded at their foundations (just in case you guys have forgotten that a huge bomb was exploded beneath one of the towers, leaving a crater 10 stories deep and 200ft wide in the concrete and steel basement. Remember that? Yeah. The tower didn't fall huh). And don't forget the 1975 fire that lasted for 3 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender

 

In short, there is a reason that no fire has ever collapsed a steel building: It's pretty much impossible. Everything about fire and how it burns, everything about steel and how it works, and everything about building engineering, all combine to ensure that no steel building can collapse due to fires or planes crashing into them or both. Not even huge BOMBS being exploded at their foundations (just in case you guys have forgotten that a huge bomb was exploded beneath one of the towers, leaving a crater 10 stories deep and 200ft wide in the concrete and steel basement. Remember that? Yeah. The tower didn't fall huh). And don't forget the 1975 fire that lasted for 3 hours.

 

 

Exactly, That completly went by me when i was writing my Long Reasons

 

That bomb that went off was ment to be a Chemical bomb, What terrorists didnt realize is... That type of Chemical is flammable... It ignited on ignition!

 

I dunno how the tower would of went down if only the foundations were blown out, But, If that succeded, Id say alot more would of died in that car bomb, If it had made the towers collapse, Than 9/11....

 

 

Can you really trust this fool with America?

 

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirty Sanchez

MisslleDefender, please don't resort to posting petty photoshops or "funny" pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chalkstar
just in case you guys have forgotten that a huge bomb was exploded beneath one of the towers, leaving a crater 10 stories deep and 200ft wide in the concrete and steel basement. Remember that? Yeah. The tower didn't fall huh). And don't forget the 1975 fire that lasted for 3 hours.

Just so you know. It was really at the spot that it needed to be. It's hard getting the perfect postion for a bomb, as when they built it, they left little room for parking etc. right under the towers. That is why the terrorists had to park close to a wall, as they couldn't get into the perfect positioning.

 

Not many builders accomodate for terrorist attacks when they are designing buildings in the 1960s. They might account for high winds, tidal waves maybe, small fires and even bombs, but not many designers thought that a couple of planes would try and park in the towers. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Just so you know. It was really at the spot that it needed to be. It's hard getting the perfect postion for a bomb, as when they built it, they left little room for parking etc. right under the towers. That is why the terrorists had to park close to a wall, as they couldn't get into the perfect positioning.

Umm, the bomb left a 200ft wide by 10 story deep hole. I don't think they really needed pinpoint accuracy. Maybe they would have had better luck if the bomb went off near the top of the building? sarcasm.gif

 

 

Not many builders accomodate for terrorist attacks when they are designing buildings in the 1960s. They might account for high winds, tidal waves maybe, small fires and even bombs, but not many designers thought that a couple of planes would try and park in the towers

Erh, the designers DID build the towers to survive the impact of a 707 travelling at flight speed under full fuel load AND the subsequent fires that this would cause. They may not have been thinking "terrorist", but they sure as hell were thinking "plane accidentally crashing into the tallest buildings in the busiest city in the world".

 

Seriously, I have no idea how you can honestly entertain the thought that the designers built the twin towers with "just enough" integrity to withstand minor disturbances like high winds and small fires. What kind of retarded engineer would ever do that? No, like all building engineers, as I quoted in my previous post (from a statement made pre 9/11), as a matter of course, all buildings are built to withstand many times their maximum anticipated static and dynamic loads. And yes, they did account for jetliners hitting them. The largest airliners around at the time (the 707, which is only marginally smaller than the 757s that hit the towers), under maximum fuel load, at full flight speed, smashing into the towers, and causing big fuel fires. They thought about this before the first piece of steel was made.

 

Sometimes I think you people honestly believe they made the twin towers out of paperclips and cardboard, and were designed by two 15yr old girls with Down Syndrome who thought the worst danger to the towers was a fart in a prevailing breeze. turn.gif

 

Unbelievable. *shakes head*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissileDefender

Exactly, If your gonna fill a building with over 3000 people, your not gonna make it outta paper...

 

user posted image

That was the 1993 blast

 

That was in the foundations, Your telling me that a plane on the upper levels hitting it, is enough it make it collapse? When this bomb shook the foundations, and tore the pillars away, and didnt collapse

 

Btw, Those pics arnt photoshopped, Hes just a dumbass..... Prat sarcasm.gif

Edited by MissileDefender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chalkstar
If the designed did account for planes hitting the towers, then concidering that the towers collapsed, they probably didn't do a very good job of it now did they? sarcasm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

If the designed did account for planes hitting the towers, then concidering that the towers collapsed, they probably didn't do a very good job of it now did they?

Do you often post to threads that you haven't actually read? Or are you just really dumb?

 

You are making a logical error known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or in english: after this, therefore because of this. The fact that the towers collapsed after the planes hit them is not proof that the planes hitting them was responsible for their collapse, just like the fact that I was born after the assassination of JFK is not proof that the assassination of JFK is responsible for my birth. There is always the posibility of another factor or cause, like, I dunno, controlled demolition maybe (which, coincidentally, just so happens to explain exactly how and why the collapse occured much, much better than any other theory, especially the incredulous official story). And no, it's impossible to design a building to withstand controlled demolition.

 

If you can't contribute to an argument in a meaningful, reasoned way, then it's probably best to just shut the fvck up. I'm not saying that's what you need to do, I'm just putting it out there as something you might want to think about. smile.gif

 

 

Please recall Newtonian physics: Force=Mass * Acceleration, and don't forget you have the mass of two planes.

This has been bugging me for a while, and I keep seeing it every time the page loads, so I felt compelled to address this. What you describe is the net force, which really isn't useful in this situation, since if the planes were decelerating, then the net force would be negative, and if the planes weren't accelerating or decelerating (ie, travelling at a constant speed), then the net force would be zero. A far more useful equation in this circumstance would be Kinetic Energy (J) = 1/2 Mass (kg) * Velocity^2 (m/s), and so we can see that the speed of an object is rather more important than its mass when determining the resulting energy of an impact.

 

But I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "don't forget you have the mass of two planes". Only one plane hit each tower. There would be no reason to account for both planes at any point unless you think that the impact on one tower was significant enough to affect the other in any meaningful way.

Edited by Mortukai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tehhunter
In short, there is a reason that no fire has ever collapsed a steel building: It's pretty much impossible. Everything about fire and how it burns, everything about steel and how it works, and everything about building engineering, all combine to ensure that no steel building can collapse due to fires or planes crashing into them or both. Not even huge BOMBS being exploded at their foundations (just in case you guys have forgotten that a huge bomb was exploded beneath one of the towers, leaving a crater 10 stories deep and 200ft wide in the concrete and steel basement. Remember that? Yeah. The tower didn't fall huh). And don't forget the 1975 fire that lasted for 3 hours.

 

 

Exactly, That completly went by me when i was writing my Long Reasons

 

That bomb that went off was ment to be a Chemical bomb, What terrorists didnt realize is... That type of Chemical is flammable... It ignited on ignition!

 

I dunno how the tower would of went down if only the foundations were blown out, But, If that succeded, Id say alot more would of died in that car bomb, If it had made the towers collapse, Than 9/11....

 

 

Can you really trust this fool with America?

 

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

You have completely proved me wrong. I apologize for wasting your time with my un-thought-out inane comments. I guess because Bush is an idiot he managed to pull off the biggest conspiracy in America's history without a hitch.

 

P.S. You think the government can hold in information well? Look at Guantanomo Bay or the Iraqi prisoner scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chalkstar
I never really said that the towers collapsed because of the planes. I've heard about how contolled demolitions could also be responsible. I'm sorry if you have mistaken me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern Finest

 

This interview actually has been posted all through out the net. This is just one place I got it from.

Don't make baseless claims; Find me a reputable news source (not a extreme-liberal site) confirming it is real, not just questioning its authenticity.

What would you call a credible news site? Fox? Cnn?

 

Here are some other sites with it

http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/forget.html

 

Yes , i would call fox and cnn credible so why the f*ck did you post another 2 crappy sites that prove nothing except how stupid the webmatsers are? Shifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gif

 

and ive only read page 1 and 6 and i just wanna say this. If a huge plane with over 300 people on board crashs into one of the tallest buildings in the world you cant tell me you honestly think it wouldve stood there.

Edited by Southern Finest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.