Reply With Quote
Wow this is better than Duran vs Sugar Ray Leonard!
No . Thanks again for catching up to the conversation.
Wow this is better than Duran vs Sugar Ray Leonard!
I wonder if the Rush Limbaugh clones in this topic know what caused this explosion.
....gotta give this round to Galileo!
Any one who knows basic sciences knows how lame such things are.
The force by weight and the kinetic energies involve would superheat the interior of the debris. Simple physics. Conservation of mass and energy stuff.
If people were smart enough to look over the NIST summaries and graphics, you would see there were dozens of trusses cut and built into the building at angles. That is simply one of them that fell just right into the debris, or one that was cut when the building was previously modified. That is, if that was part of WTC 7. The beams look too close together to be a photo from that.When was that picture taken? Since you guys would rather change the subject than deal with the holes in your theories, let's just keep whacking whatever mole you decide to pop up.
I agree. He did an outstanding job of owning himself....gotta give this round to Galileo!
A truss that is mounted at an acute angle drops perfectly vertical? That also doesn't account for the melting and carbon scoring only right at the location of the cission.If people were smart enough to look over the NIST summaries and graphics, you would see there were dozens of trusses cut and built into the building at angles. That is simply one of them that fell just right into the debris, or one that was cut when the building was previously modified. That is, if that was part of WTC 7. The beams look too close together to be a photo from that.
I'm glad there are so many gullible dip s in America to make me a wealthy man.
Sincerely,
Dylan Avery
Sci-Fi "movie" producer
The historical landmark St. Nicholas Church was 169 years old when it was destroyed by the collapse of the south tower on 9/11.
Another theory fails.
That one was obviously a controlled demolition.
Sincerely,
Galileo, Nbadan, & Gerbil
I know quite a bit of 'basic' science and quite a bit more than just that. When you have a fire that is burning at 550 degrees and the kerosene compounds in there quite easily had the highest burning temperature you need several conditions to increase the temperature.
In order for the temperature in there to go higher than that you have to take special care that there is no avenue for the majority of the heat to escape. A blast furnace for example has a very large crucible shaped like a weeble with a very small opening at the top.
Essentially what you had in the WTC was just a big open flame. All that smoke coming out from all those orifices is just heat escaping. That is also only the particles you see and not the radiant heat and hot gas.
Even that is not enough, you have to continuously have an active air pump into the firing chamber. Convection air flow will not get the temperature that hot. A blast furnace which is optimal in terms of a firing chamber STILL requires the active pumping of air.
I do not accept any theory as fact but the only gullibility is blind faith in one or another theory.
Now is it impossible that the conditions in the towers was such that it could get the temperatures over 2000 degrees for a long enough time to melt the trusses in a fashion uniform enough to cause a completely vertical collapse not once but twice?
Its not impossible but at the same time I do find it to be the less probable event.
Fire can't melt steel! Fire can't melt steel!
As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you with certainty that steel structures become weakened when they are HEATED.
Except that no one is claiming 2000 degrees except the conspiracy nuts who claim that all pools of molten metal are molten steel.
The NIST based its report on temperatures of a few hundred degrees at which the supporting columns started gaining plasticity.
Their models showed es of high temperatures as the fire moved around to fresh sources of fuel, as fires are wont to do.
The parts of the building that were losing their load bearing capacity as the fire progressed were also supporting greater loads due to the impact damage.
For some reason, common sense thinking about this is impossible for those who want to believe in evil govermment conspiracies.
The conspiracy theories have been disproven, pretty conclusively. Observed phenomena are ALL adequately explained by collapse theories other than thermite or explosives.
The theories that the buildings were brought down by explosives/thermite all have observed phenomena that dirctly contradict what one would expect if explosives or thermite were used to bring down the structures.
This, by anybody's reasonable definition, disproves the explosive/thermite theories about the building collapses.
Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:
• Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
• Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over
several floors;
• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid
heating of the unprotected structural steel;
• Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking
of par ion walls by the impact debris;
• Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
• Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and
• Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.
As for the OP:
Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.
It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bull .
They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24912447824934
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66640147&hl=en
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.911myths.com/
Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/
Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU
Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.
9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.
http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html
A whole page of youtube debunking videosShabby, Self-Serving Internet Reports by Pseudo Journalists and Activists Cause Webb Family Grief - It's Time for Real Journalists and Activists to Shun Demagogues, Hysterics and Profiteers
by
Michael C. Ruppert
A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far.
By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.
Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.
In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.
Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.
Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.
Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.
I know, but like I said. It could be when they modified the building. It could have been an existing beam cut to make room for an angled truss. I don't have the answers. Only speculation. Speculation is all the conspiracy theroists have too, and nearly all of it is so easily debunked. there will be some examples that are hard to answer, especially with certainty.
Bottom line, there is not a single item of direct evidence to call for a conspiracy. It is only very weak cir stantial evidence.
Anyone have any direct evidence?
Besides the mountains of physical evidence that disprove these crackpot theories, WTC7 just doesn't make any sense as a target.
Let me see if I understand the logic...
Having the north and south towers collapse and the Pentagon struck wasn't enough to justify a war on terror, but WTC7 was somehow the final straw?
Doesn't add up.
You are missing what happens to a moving object when it suddenly stops. All that kinetic energy through gravitation acceleration has to go somewhere. What isn't turned into other forms of energy is turned to heat when it comes to rest. This part of physics has nothing whatsoever to do with the fires. It's kinetic rather than chemical energy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
