Reply With Quote
Finding the quote from the firefighter talking specifically about not seeing any remnants of demolition devices will have to wait.
I will find it and post it as time allows.
This doesn't really explain when the photo was taken, it only points out that firemen were on the scene weeks after 9/11, which doesn't surprise me. Pretty weak debunking attempt.
If you need some help, please let me know.
Finding the quote from the firefighter talking specifically about not seeing any remnants of demolition devices will have to wait.
I will find it and post it as time allows.
Now that I think about it, the quote may have been from a demolition expert. Hmmm.
The hazards of relying on memory.
Meh. It was the first relevant hit I found. I remember reading some website where they actually linked the picture to a date with some substantiation. I could be mistaken about this, but usually am not.
The whole CT argument about it though is just as weak. The problem for them is that they can't date the photograph either, so they can't really credibily make the claim that the photgraph represents what they say it does and not the specific action of a welder clearing the debris afterwards.
One can't claim that it was BEFORE the clean up if one doesn't have proof about the timing of the photo.
Have YOU ever seen an attempt to date/time that photograph?
If you really have an open mind about this and are doing a thought experiment on it, you have to consider that you can't make claims about such things EITHER way if you can't date it.
The reasonable explanation here is that the picture was taken after clean up had begun, given no contravening evidence.
Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Here's an article providing a likely explanation for the molten metal flow: lead from a huge bank of uninterruptible power supplies.
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/...r-of-wtc2.html
What do you see in this picture?
If your mouse,Galileo,or Alex Jones
you see a room that is very messy
If your RandomLie,Chump or Blake you see a room someone tried to clean up.
But in this photo where in the is someone going to stand in order to cut one beam when there is so much around that needs to be done?
Why would someone craw through all that mess to cut a beam that is not in the way of anything?
Anyone who thinks someone actually walked through that hot re-bar to cut that one beam deserves to be place in the same group with the Bigfoot watchers fan club.
here make your new hat your in the club.
Chances are the person who cut the beam was put into place with a cherry picker or other such mechanism.
Like so:
Did you all just get together and decide collectively pretend this photo doesn't exist?
I thought you only posted the facts? I may want to use that "Chances are" quote myself.
Chances are you'll do so in a really stupid way.
Nice strawman.
Next you'll be showing the cardboard box demonstration.
The sight i cited is run by a professional architect and the contributing information is from architects and engineers. Yeah what the would they know.
The logic is actually sound. Its called the conservation of energy
The braces in the lower portions by the fact that the building is standing are designed to hold up '20 acres' of building. Essentially what you are saying is that when the upper portion fell it produced enough additional kinetic energy that it was able to break the next section and the next and the next etc. It was able to do this in such a manner that the breaking occurred in symmetry so as to not cause the whole thing to start to topple over.
Like Darrin I am ME and I do have an understanding how trusses work and how various forces applied to them effect them. How you can think that a section of steel girders that was heated unevenly would cause a breakage that was uniform and not provide any torque is quite frankly beyond me. The fact that it did not happen that way once but instead several times is even more hilarious.
What I find REALLY funny is that you buy the concept that a fire that burns at 425 degrees is going to superheat the gas which BTW is able to ventilate to over 1000 degrees to transfer and localize the heat to cause the steel to lose its rigidity at over 1000 degrees. It was the office furniture right?
You are starting to resort to strawmen and ad hominem attacks which is typically the first sign that you have no leg to stand on.
If you could sow the citations that would be cool.
I think Jim Hoffman debunked the photo. It was taken during cleanup.
The towers did topple initially, but that force that tipped it turned out not to be stronger than the force of gravity. Go figure.
The breakage was not uniform initially, but once things got going it really did not matter. Gravity works in one direction.Like Darrin I am ME and I do have an understanding how trusses work and how various forces applied to them effect them. How you can think that a section of steel girders that was heated unevenly would cause a breakage that was uniform and not provide any torque is quite frankly beyond me. The fact that it did not happen that way once but instead several times is even more hilarious.
425 degrees is your strawman.What I find REALLY funny is that you buy the concept that a fire that burns at 425 degrees is going to superheat the gas which BTW is able to ventilate to over 1000 degrees to transfer and localize the heat to cause the steel to lose its rigidity at over 1000 degrees. It was the office furniture right?
No, I pretty much insult everyone I think is an idiot. The fact you don't seem to know what gravity does tells me all I need to know.You are starting to resort to strawmen and ad hominem attacks which is typically the first sign that you have no leg to stand on.
I will hereby predict that when I ask you this question, you will become a pussy:
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
I have no idea what happened but I do have serious questions about the official explanation. Thats not me being a pussy; it just me not willing to make up.
Oh and apparently you do not understand how gravity works. If you place torque on a ball which causes it rotate and then drop it its still going to rotate. You see it all the time in basketball. Its called backspin.
Actually in general you do not understand how forces work. I predict when you try and explain it this time you will become a dumbass.
425 degrees is the temperature that jet fuel burns at. I am noticing that you do not know the physical properties of that which you support.
Well you have certainly earned your pussy status.
And you are definitely an idiot for:
1) Comparing the wtc towers to basketballs.
2) Thinking jet fuel was the only thing that burned in those buildings.
Congratulations on your twofer.
The Towering Inferno was fully engaged with fire.
The Towering Inferno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Towering_Inferno_(film)
How come it did not pancake down?
Keep up the good work Fuzz and you just might pass up Gal, Nbadan and Mouse and take the top spot on the 9/11 bunk charts.
How you can think you are smarter than the National Ins ute of Standards and Technology is beyond me. The fact that you have alluded to this not just once but several times is hilarious.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
lol, twoofers
I hate to say this but the debate is 60/40 with the 9/11 truth seekers kicking ass.
Because it didn't have structural damage too.
WTC 7 didn't have structural damage.
You know what you can kiss my ass. As I said you would be the dumbass and hide behind bluster. All this is one big ad hominem.
1) It was an illustration to explain to you how once you apply torque to an object, applying a force through the axis is not going to alter the spin. Just becasue you do not understand it does not make it true. In fact its true for any shape be it a ball a disc or a section of a building. Its called inertia perhaps you should look it up.
2) I never said it was the only thing that burned in there but it was certainly the hottest. Thats the point.
Its pretty sad that you guys are resorting to this . Make an argument other than its true because these guys said so.
Do you know what the NIST is or who runs it or who wrote the report or what analysis they used to come to the conclusions they didor are you just accepting it becasue youre too intellectually lazy to verify it yourself?
You know in all the videos all that smoke and coming out of the buildings? Well that is a whole ton of heat escaping. You do understand that the whole damn thing heats up so its not the fire that has to reach 1000 degrees but instead all of the steel and concrete etc and I am sorry but I just do not buy that.
I also do not buy that when the damage to the supports etc occurred more on one side yet the whole thing breaks apart simultaneously.
so you are saying Bush knew about all of this?I hate to say this but the debate is 60/40 with the 9/11 truth seekers kicking ass.
why did he want WTC 7 to come down?
Can we trade this guy to the dark side? he is not helping our cause.
Absolutely not.
If you put a hand under a falling ball that has back spin, it stops spinning. That's why your analogy is stupid.1) It was an illustration to explain to you how once you apply torque to an object, applying a force through the axis is not going to alter the spin. Just becasue you do not understand it does not make it true. In fact its true for any shape be it a ball a disc or a section of a building. Its called inertia perhaps you should look it up.
You personally know everything in each building, its burning point and how much heat it could transfer? Please show your work.2) I never said it was the only thing that burned in there but it was certainly the hottest. Thats the point.
I know exactly who runs the NIST and who wrote the reports. It's quite easy to see.
What have you personally done to verify or disprove their conclusions? Please be specific.
Again, twoofers have no sense of scale. There was still a ton of heat inside the building.You know in all the videos all that smoke and coming out of the buildings? Well that is a whole ton of heat escaping. You do understand that the whole damn thing heats up so its not the fire that has to reach 1000 degrees but instead all of the steel and concrete etc and I am sorry but I just do not buy that.
You should look at the closeup videos of the collapse, but I know you won't.I also do not buy that when the damage to the supports etc occurred more on one side yet the whole thing breaks apart simultaneously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
