You're right man it wasn't cool. I didn't appreciate having my intelligence insulted so I responded in kind. It was obviously the response he was hoping for, but sorry for that.
I didn't just say so. I went through and gave logical reaoning concerning the heat generated by fuel the nature of the collapse etc. Its pretty evident that you just want to get into a pissing contest.
Logical to who? you?
Who are you again that you are a better source of 9/11 information than NIST?
It's pretty evident that you think you are smarter than the NIST.
Its actually cute the tiff that you are having over my use of the terms 'thought exercise' and 'science.' Hey you keep going with your bad self.
Obviously you don't know the difference between 'tiff' and 'thought exercise'.
Hey, you keep going with your bad posts.
It actually contradicts a lot of what was in the FEMA report. It has internal contradictions concerning what fires were occuring at what times and at what intervals. Its models do not match with the actual data etc.
Be specific.
What exactly is the contradiction and what is your source?
Who cares of the why? and there is evidence of explosives in the FEMA report when they talk about the melting of the steel and the elements including sulfur that were found tehrein. It could not be accounted for by the contents of the building and certainly not in the amounts that it was found.
Like I really have to explain Bush to you?
He didn't care if any building fell or not. He just wanted America to be attacked like Pearl Harbor. Bush doesn't really look at all the details, your talking about a man who asked ORHA to come up with a plan to rebuild Iraq and gave them only 60 days notice.
great mouse. Since Bush didn't care if the buildings came down, who wired the buildings for demolition?
I said Bush didn't care either way what fell down and what didn't. The owner of the WTC towers was going to have to spend Billions removing the asbestos maybe he wanted them down why not ask Chump he is the man with all the answers.
so Bush filled Silverstein in on the information and Silverstein decided to take advantage of it so he could save money on asbestos removal.
Why would Bush care about Silverstein's buildings?
I'm asking you because you are the one claiming conspiracy.
Bush knew people would die, I don't think he knew it would be around 3,000
how many people did Bush think would die?
One word ........................
Vice president Cheney was an Ex CEO you do the math.
so why did they go the whole WMD route?
9/11 was a waste of time for them then.
Your really serious?
obviously you and Alex and Stacie and Professor Lilloman and 911 aren't.
Not going alone to answer questions about 9/11 why did he have to go with ?
If you can't answer the questions then why do you think there is a conspiracy?
Seems like 90% of Americans feel they was lied to so we are not alone.
How many Americans feel that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks?
I think you are closer to being alone than you think.
If you call wanting the truth dirty? then you can stay with your white lies.
I want the truth too. You just don't have any truth that you can prove. You can stay under your black lies.
We need Fuzzy! He may have a short fuse but he makes it up with his passion and fresh info he brings to the topic! We need him to rid this site of the thick headed Bush lovers.
I definitely like having fuzzy around because he brings fresh ignorance to the topic.
If you want to argue against the existence of gravity, that is completely your business. I insist it exists.
The towers were not solid.
And if it falls down at the same time?
Why not. Which tests have you conducted to disprove this?
Scale means nothing! It's a basketball falling on a weight plate!
So tell us all what was in each tower and their burning temperatures and their heat transfer to the building.
Show us all your work.
Oh, I'm sorry. First you said it was a spinning basketball, then you said it was two solid weight plates. Let's just say it was a weight plate with backspin falling on another weight plate.
You can't find a video of the entire collapse?
You're an idiot.
Or lazy.
Or a liar.
I used the basketball as an example of how gravity will not impact spin. I chose a basket ball because the type of forum that this is. According to you when gravity is acting on an object them it will impact its spin. I used the basketball as a simple example of how that is just not true. You cannot argue that so you genuflect with strawmen. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
I never said it was a basketball but apparently when you do not understand something you make stupid comments like this. You never adequately argue that gravity does not effect spin you just make remarks like the one above hoping that other people are just as ignorant as you are.
Quite frankly, the majority of what you try and pass for an argument are smilies and ad hominem. You're focus is more trying ot get a reaction out of someone rather than provide anything substantive.
As for the heat argument, I am talking about whats actually in the NIST report. Where they claimed the firses were for how long they were buring what they were burning and most specifically how the heat transfer would occur to the surrounding nonflammable materials. You cannot understand how even 2D vectors work so I am not going to waste my time explaining this.
as for the time argument I am talking about the part in the NIST report where they admit to constant acceleration for the vast majority of the fall.
How about you tell su about scale again, Chump and how well you understand it.
Ah, the internet is full of armchair structural engineers, demolition experts, and forensic scientists.
What's really at the heart of the "twoof" movement is ignorance, plain and simple.
But what's really sad is that most of you are completely devoid of common sense.
This coming from the guy who used his ME as a reference of authority on the subject.
Hypocrite much?
Oh and when was the last time you did a load analysis of a building? Or when was the last time you evaluated the crystallization of elements of under extreme temperature and pressure?
I used the basketball as an example of how gravity will not impact spin. I chose a basket ball because the type of forum that this is. According to you when gravity is acting on an object them it will impact its spin. I used the basketball as a simple example of how that is just not true. You cannot argue that so you genuflect with strawmen. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
I never said it was a basketball but apparently when you do not understand something you make stupid comments like this. You never adequately argue that gravity does not effect spin you just make remarks like the one above hoping that other people are just as ignorant as you are.
The top of the building was not spinning freely in the air like a basketball. It was in constant contact with the rest of the building. So your analogy failed. Get over it.
Quite frankly, the majority of what you try and pass for an argument are smilies and ad hominem. You're focus is more trying ot get a reaction out of someone rather than provide anything substantive.
Quite frankly, the majority of what you try to pass for an argument is personal incredulity. Your focus is more on trying to make crappy sports analogies rather than provide anything of substance.
As for the heat argument, I am talking about whats actually in the NIST report. Where they claimed the firses were for how long they were buring what they were burning and most specifically how the heat transfer would occur to the surrounding nonflammable materials. You cannot understand how even 2D vectors work so I am not going to waste my time explaining this.
So you will continue to not provide anything of substance. Fair enough.
as for the time argument I am talking about the part in the NIST report where they admit to constant acceleration for the vast majority of the fall.
You can edit it any way you want, it doesn't change anything. WTC 7 took about close to 15 seconds to collapse. Call it a basketball, call it a weight plate, call it a cardboard box. Nothing changes.
How about you tell su about scale again, Chump and how well you understand it.
It's bigger than a basketball and a weight plate and a cardboard box.
This coming from the guy who used his ME as a reference of authority on the subject.
Hypocrite much?
Oh and when was the last time you did a load analysis of a building? Or when was the last time you evaluated the crystallization of elements of under extreme temperature and pressure?
Yes, I am a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas. Therefore, I'm not an "armchair" engineer.
Can you name me ONE professional society, e.g. ASME, ASCE, AIST, NAFE, SFPE, etc. etc. etc. that espouses this conspiracy theory of controlled demolition?
Yes, I am a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas. Therefore, I'm not an "armchair" engineer.
Can you name me ONE professional society, e.g. ASME, ASCE, AIST, NAFE, SFPE, etc. etc. etc. that espouses this conspiracy theory of controlled demolition?
<crickets>
I am working on my senior design project and preparing for the FE. 6 hours to go baby!!
Do any of them have an official stance one way or another?
Seriously, the ME who is not actually an ME started out saying this:
Considering that the majority of the fire was on a particular side of the building it stands to reason that side would collapse first causing a force at least partially horizontal to the vertical axis.
Then he was told that there was indeed movement partially horizontal to the vertical axis and that it is easy to see in videos of the collapse from the proper angle. This shows that he hasn't really researched this at all.
So then he picked up his goalposts and moved them, arguing that the horizontal force must have been strong enough to do what? Make the top of the building spin like a basketball? Fly over to Battery Park.
The horizontal force of which you were completely ignorant was there. What is your argument now? That it should have had more backspin?
The top of the building was not spinning freely in the air like a basketball. It was in constant contact with the rest of the building. So your analogy failed. Get over it.
Now you are switching tactics. You were saying that gravity would impact the spin now you're saying that its the other contacts in the building itself. Nice going waffler.
Now is there a difference between an impact of a flat object if its lilted or if its straight?
Quite frankly, the majority of what you try to pass for an argument is personal incredulity. Your focus is more on trying to make crappy sports analogies rather than provide anything of substance.
nice strawman. Way to tell us what our arguments are.
Its called deductive reasoning. That is where you exclude possibilities until you come up with the truth.
So you will continue to not provide anything of substance. Fair enough.
blah blah blah. I did give specific issues. You are just trying to go reductionist. If I show how much energy was required to heat up that much steel and concrete you would just say something else was not there. You still would not understand a lick of it.
You can edit it any way you want, it doesn't change anything. WTC 7 took about close to 15 seconds to collapse. Call it a basketball, call it a weight plate, call it a cardboard box. Nothing changes.
It's bigger than a basketball and a weight plate and a cardboard box.
Put together.
What you want to talk about is scale when what you should be talking about are proportions. Of course it weighs more than that but the issue is that so is the bottom section of the building that the rest fell onto. You keep talkin g about scale when the real issue is continuos and differentially smooth acceleration. You keep talking about scale though its quite entertaining.
There sure was a lot of heat up there wasn't there.
I am going to call you on this. The ASME has no official stance and if anything does not want to take a stance.
Which society has come out and made that declaration?
The Stuctural Engineering Ins ute of the American Society of Civil Engineers along with FEMA produced the World Trade Center Building Performance Study.
Now you are switching tactics. You were saying that gravity would impact the spin now you're saying that its the other contacts in the building itself. Nice going waffler.
There was a lot going on -- more complicated than backspin and weight plates.
nice strawman. Way to tell us what our arguments are.
That's what you tried to do with me. Why are you whining about having the whip reversed?
Its called deductive reasoning. That is where you exclude possibilities until you come up with the truth.
Your only tool is personal incredulity. If that's all you use in deductive reasoning, it's not really reasoning at all.
blah blah blah. I did give specific issues. You are just trying to go reductionist. If I show how much energy was required to heat up that much steel and concrete you would just say something else was not there. You still would not understand a lick of it.
So you are saying you can't do the work. I believe that since you are, in fact, not a mechanical engineer.
Stay in school.
What you want to talk about is scale when what you should be talking about are proportions. Of course it weighs more than that but the issue is that so is the bottom section of the building that the rest fell onto. You keep talkin g about scale when the real issue is continuos and differentially smooth acceleration. You keep talking about scale though its quite entertaining.
It only looks smooth because it was so big. Fact is you can't get your mind around it. Calling it a basketball or a weight plate makes you feel like you can, but it's a really horrible oversimplification.
There sure was a lot of heat up there wasn't there.
Are you saying there was not?
Show your work. The fire test I cited already did. Are you just afraid to look at them?
Anyway I have class. I will be back later.
You should change your major. DarrinS would never hire you after you proved you didn't know there were any horizontal forces present in the collapses.
Reply With Quote
You can't find a video of the entire collapse?
