Reply With Quote
Who says I haven't? And like I said, I try to view both sides with a healthy dose of skepticism. I know a lot of the conspiracy theorists are disingenuous and manipulative.
Are you so stupid that you cannot comprehend that engineers of skyscrapers intentionally do not design stairwells to act as a flue? Its prettu common sense that you do not do that particularly for that reason.
Who says I haven't? And like I said, I try to view both sides with a healthy dose of skepticism. I know a lot of the conspiracy theorists are disingenuous and manipulative.
what makes you skeptic of the NIST?
I know a lot of the conspiracy theorists are disingenuous and manipulative.I don't think you do.
You think mouse posts great youtube do entaries on the subject.
NIST doesn't think thats what caused the bowing. They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns. It does make sense given the observable phenomenon.Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.
The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.
More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html
Now essentially what NIST does is they admit that the fires themselves were not hot enough tbut what they did was heat up the surrounding gas to 1000 degrees and the gas itself acted as the heat transfer device to the steel beams. Now I have a couple of issues with this explanation.
1) The NIST models themselves took longer that the hour that it took for the towers to fall given this explanation.
2) We know that people from the floors above were able to go down that stairwell up to 15 minutes after the crashes first took place. Now if the area was being inundated with 1000 degree gas that softens steel then there is no way that they would have been able to pass through that area several minutes after the crash occurred.
Now the obvious answer to that is that it took time for the fires to get going. The only problem with that is the fact that jet fuel makes a wonderful igniter and if this is true then it gives even less time for the heat transfer to take place than the time the models already said the fires did not have.
Does this mean that George Bush and the CIA planted bombs throughout? No but what it does mean is that official explanation falls short. Quite frankly its not really that surprising. They had a huge amount of data to sift through and they really only had the ability to see what was going on in the exterior of the building.
They really only have theories as to whats going on inside. They have to make a hypothesis and test it. The first model they came up with they had to reject. It didn't match.
The second model was being tinkered with up to the final month. Imagine the amount of pressure they must have been under politically. They had been commissioned to do the study in 2002. 6 years later and they still hadn't come up with a definitive report. The 9/11 commission had convened 4 years early.
Dude why do you feel it necessary to respond to posts that I am talking to someone else. You say stupid all the time. I said that it was interesting. The Nobel laureate for example was in literature and there were other issues.what makes you skeptic of the NIST?
You think mouse posts great youtube do entaries on the subject.
Quite frankly, your attempts to try and insult me and characterize me are pretty sad. You don't know me. Stop fixating on me. I am flattered but I am really not interested.
This statement shows the level of ignorance we are dealing with here. How can you criticize the NIST when you don't even know what their theory is?
I mean, come on -- you don't even have to crack open the report to find it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the NIST theory. Please don't waste any more of our time before you educate yourself on the basics.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-27-2009 at 02:33 PM. Reason: too many words
From the 'fact' sheet:
Now seriously dude, can you stop with the asshole routine? I am not stupid and I have read all of that. I am very aware of what NIST claims and I have seen the visuals of the computer model that they gave at their demonstration. No I am not talking about the NOVA one.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.
But really man every time someone says something that doesn't treat NIST and the 'official' explanation as gospel you always respond with your ignorant, stupid or the like. I really am trying to have a discussion here and hey if I do say something you may think is erroneous it is not the end of the world. I am more than willing to listen to your take and it is possible to have a respectful discussion.
It just seems more and more like you have no intention of even trying. Last time I responded in anger and I am done with that. But c'mon man enough is enough already.
You are posting on a message board. If you want to talk to someone else in private, then use the appropriate forum features, dumbass.
Yes, I do say stupid sh1t all the time. You have said nothing but stupid sh1t in this thread.
You don't know what fixating means.Quite frankly, your attempts to try and insult me and characterize me are pretty sad. You don't know me. Stop fixating on me. I am flattered but I am really not interested.
You are an idiot.
If you think the NIST isn't truthful, then by all means let's see your computer simulations.
Yes, you are stupid. You are one big f-ing idiot
Now look man I have been trying to ignore you for the past day so I have not addressed you once until a bit ago to ask you to please stop. Despite me never once addressing you, every time a Ipost you respond to it literally within a matter of minutes. You do not post in this thread unless its to reply to a post I make. You're like an irritating lhasa apsa.Dictionary: fix·a·tion (fĭk-sā'shən) pronunciation
1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
2. An obsessive preoccupation.
3. Psychology. A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
Fine you think I do not understand physics and its very important that you remind me of that over and over again and that you think I am a moron. I get it. Youre not fixated on me and your self esteem is a okay. Whatever.
I normally do not put people on ignore. I really do think its a cop out but dear lord this is bordering on psychotic. Please stop.
If you read all that, you don't understand it.Making not one mention of the floors.Now seriously dude, can you stop with the asshole routine? I am not stupid and I have read all of that. I am very aware of what NIST claims
Then I posted thisNo mention of sagging columms.
Then, you attempted to make your initial wrong post right by basically repeating what I posted.But again, no sagging columns.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.
Sagging floors.
No sagging columns.
I am repeating myself in the hope that you will get it.
I approve of your disproving your own posts -- I just think you should be aware that you actually did it.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-27-2009 at 03:42 PM.
That was by far my most respectful post. You can't begin to imagine all the names I refrained from calling you when you posted that you thought the NIST said that sagging central columns caused the perimeter columns to bow.
Ask the demolition crew.
Great, you found a definition of "fixation". If you think I'm fixated on you then you still don't understand what it means. Just because you think I'm picking on you doesn't mean that I'm fixated on you.
Correct, You do not understand physics, I'm not fixated on you and my self esteem is great.Fine you think I do not understand physics and its very important that you remind me of that over and over again and that you think I am a moron. I get it. Youre not fixated on me and your self esteem is a okay. Whatever.
You're contemplating putting me on ignore?I normally do not put people on ignore. I really do think its a cop out but dear lord this is bordering on stupidity. Please stop.
Obviously you are fixated on me instead of my responses regarding the subject. I have already asked you what makes you skeptical of the NIST and to provide your own simluation of what really happened.
Your self-esteem is definitely low if you run away from what I am asking you to provide.
If you are confident enough in yourself, then goddam, post your "EVIDENCE" instead of trying to talk smack.
Either that or just go ahead and put your head in the sand and put me on ignore.
You are an idiot.
No, we're asking you.
who hired the demolition crew for WTC7 and why?
Like I thought, you are incapable of having a respectful discussion. You gave the latter portion of the chronology. It specifically says:
then the floor sagged pulling in the perimeter columns. In other words the cause of the floors sagging was the weakening of the flors and columns. Its called a chronology of events and all event are caused by the previous events. In other words the floors sagging was dependent in the weakening of the columns. Are you trying to say that they listed the columns weakening in their description on the cause for fun?weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 02-27-2009 at 03:57 PM.
I think he actually did put me on ignore.
awesome.
Hold the phone.
Here is what YOU specifically said:You made no mention of floors at all.
You said the central columns sagged.
Not floors.
Not at all.In other words the cause of the floors sagging was the weakening of the flors and columns.
The floors and columns were weakened.
The weakened floors sagged.
You said the weakened central columns sagged and made no mention of the floors whatsoever.
Why is that necessary if the floors are weakened by the fire as well?In other words the floors sagging was dependent in the weakening of the columns.
Not at all -- the weakening of the columns is a prime reason the columns failed, but you would have to explain to all of us how the sagging of the central columns (your claim) caused the sagging of the floor (which can be explained by the weakening of the floor itself).Are you trying to say that they listed the columns weakening in their description on the cause for fun?
In other words (repeating again for your benefit), a weakened floor is enough to cause a sagging floor.
Weakened columns + extra forces from sagging floors = initial collapse of perimeter columns.
You started out with a fundamental misunderstanding of the NIST theory, and now you have progressed to having fundamental misunderstandings within the NIST theory once you pretended to not have the fundamental misunderstanding of the theory in the first place.
I guess that's progress.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-27-2009 at 04:12 PM. Reason: long posts cause typos
Why so you can post a 400 word SA on how I am wrong and wear a tin foil hat?
Fuzzy might enjoy the tag team ass raping you and Blake are giving him I prefer not to go through the unnecessary pain.
No, I just want to know how fast you think it should have fallen. The NIST says that once the buildings got started, pretty much nothing was going to stop them until they hit the ground. You say differently. I would like to know how much slower you think the collapse should have taken and why.
Yes, the internets can be so hurtful.Fuzzy might enjoy the tag team ass raping you and Blake are giving him I prefer not to go through the unnecessary pain.
I get of work around 8pm I hope Chump is here so I can school him!
You have a job?
I work at Kinko's.
I never said that the central columns sagged. What I said ws that they weakened. How does a vertical column sag? What I said was
when i said 'their,' which i misspelled, I meant the floor. the central columns were connected to the outer columsn by the trellis. REally though this is a red herring.They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns.
At the end of the day the central columns weakening was integral to their scenario which you were claiming was attributed only by the floor which is wrong. My original argument still stands.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
