Page 2 of 133 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 3318
  1. #26
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Fire fighters on the scene in the South Tower reported that the fires they saw were controllable.
    Fire fighters on the scene in the South Tower reported that the fires they saw in the only part of the lowest floor that they could access because of the impact damage were controllable.

  2. #27
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove but you don't see the steel burners melting or getting soft do you?
    And what about all those kerosene heaters made from steel? how do they get hot and never seem to get soft or melt? Could it be the only thing that can melt steel is a blowtorch, a huge smelter like you see in the steel factories. or should I dare say the T word "thermite"?
    Exactly Mouse. Remember the pics from the Pentagon that showed a computer and a book completely free of any fire damage almost at the point of impact? Same thing happened at the WTC towers, the Jet fuel burned relatively quickly, even the FEMA report confirms this.

  3. #28
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Dan, these ers do the EXACT same thing as the Bush administration that you despise.

    They give you only the half of the truth that supports their argument, and when that fails, they make up.

  4. #29
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    False. Read the NIST report. The initial collapse mechanism actually depends on the floors remaining attached to the connectors at both ends.
    Yeah, you mean the NIST report which they won't release the building plans for so their assumptions can be scientifically confirmed?

  5. #30
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Dan, these ers do the EXACT same thing as the Bush administration that you despise.

    They give you only the half of the truth that supports their argument, and when that fails, they make up.
    Why do you keep saying I am blaming all this on the Bush Administration?

    I have never made such a statement.

  6. #31
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    Why do you keep saying I am blaming all this on the Bush Administration?

    I have never made such a statement.
    There lies the problem. You have not told us what your theory is.

  7. #32
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove but you don't see the steel burners melting or getting soft do you?
    And what about all those kerosene heaters made from steel? how do they get hot and never seem to get soft or melt? Could it be the only thing that can melt steel is a blowtorch, a huge smelter like you see in the steel factories. or should I dare say the T word "thermite"?
    If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

    What is this noise?

  8. #33
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Why do you keep saying I am blaming all this on the Bush Administration?

    I have never made such a statement.
    I have not said that you blame the Bush administration. I am saying that the "truthers" pervasive use of half-truths to lie and mislead is exactly the same type of thing that this administration does on a daily basis.

    I see both groups as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

  9. #34
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Exactly Mouse. Remember the pics from the Pentagon that showed a computer and a book completely free of any fire damage almost at the point of impact? Same thing happened at the WTC towers, the Jet fuel burned relatively quickly, even the FEMA report confirms this.
    Because, as we all know, nothing else in modern office buildings is flammable.

  10. #35
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these cir stances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths.



    PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

    Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

    SOOOO

    The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

    Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

    They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

    Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

    Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:

    v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

    Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
    ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

    This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

    Think about this for a moment.

    The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

    Further:
    That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
    For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.

    STILL FURTHER

    Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

    IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

    Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

    What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

    Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-10-2007 at 12:15 PM.

  11. #36
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    Dan, get the out of this thread. You are need on the ">>the video [_] tells the truth!" thread.

    We need your take regarding a picture of part of a AA fusilage with a burning Pentagon in the background.

    If you need help, mouse can assist you.

    Man up!

  12. #37
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    There lies the problem. You have not told us what your theory is.

    As I've posted before, you don't prove a conspiracy theory, and that's all the official explaination is without scientific proof, wrong by trying to prove another theory right.

  13. #38
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Only 1% of the steel from all three towers was collected, yet no tests for explosive residues were carried out. Scientifically, this is unacceptable, especially in a criminal investigation.
    Because the NIST did the same calculation of the force of the collapsing section, and it was just as obvious to them that the initial collapse had more than enough mechanical energy to collapse the building.

    Why waste the money testing for something you won't find?

  14. #39
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

    What is this noise?
    Ehhh...the WTC steel was much more heat resistant than your burner.

  15. #40
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Hey, look at this woman standing in the huge gaping hole where RG and Chumpy claim a fire hot enough to weaken iron was burning...

    If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.

  16. #41
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Originally Posted by RandomGuy
    If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

    What is this noise?

    Ehhh...the WTC steel was much more heat resistant than your burner.
    That isn't the question I asked Dan.

    Answer the question, if you know. If you don't know, then simply say so.

  17. #42
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    As I've posted before, you don't prove a conspiracy theory, and that's all the official explaination is without scientific proof, wrong by trying to prove another theory right.

    Pussy!

    Now why don't you tell me what is the piece of debri Yoni posted on the other thread.

    Planted? Photoshopped? What's your take, Oliver Stone?

  18. #43
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Because, as we all know, nothing else in modern office buildings is flammable.
    and how hot will office furniture sprayed with jet fuel get? 800? So please tell again, how did a fire on the top floors weaken the trusses on the lower floors again?

  19. #44
    They hate us - but they want to be us!
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Post Count
    6,140
    RandomGuy - that was the funniest stuff I've read in a long time! What's scary is that so many people actually believe it to be the truth!

  20. #45
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    and how hot will office furniture sprayed with jet fuel get? 800? So please tell again, how did a fire on the top floors weaken the trusses on the lower floors again?
    If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

    What is this noise?

  21. #46
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    RandomGuy - that was the funniest stuff I've read in a long time! What's scary is that so many people actually believe it to be the truth!
    You're very welcome. I had the same pleasure reading it for the first time.

    Go to the original author's website. The original is very extensively crosss-linked to TONS of illustrative websites.

  22. #47
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
    there are much more scientific models than your simplified equation of KE and PE that prove that you are right ( i could link some, but you must be about a graduate student at physics or math to begin to understand them). However, once again these equations are based on assumptions on building structure that no one will release, and as a mathmatician, I really don't understand why.

    I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did, but the collapse of Tower 7, nah, I've never bought any of the official stories, still don't. So we can waste our time argueing about 1 and 2, but we should be arguing about the merits of the official story when it comes to tower 7.

  23. #48
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
    You where the arguing that the fire was hot enough to melt or weaken steel, but yet this lady, bless her, had no trouble making her way to the edge of the building near the impact area.

  24. #49
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    Dan, take a peek at the other thread, answer my question, and come back.

    I beg you

  25. #50
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I have a theory of my own:

    Conspiranuts generally suffer from low self esteem. This is what they do to make it seem like they have more status, and I mean that in the primate pecking-order kind of way, than they actually do.

    That is part of what makes them so rabid and dishonest when it comes to actually presenting "evidence". If the evidence is wrong then so is their self-image as oppressed underdogs, rebels, and anti-heros.

    Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modi of intellectual self-iden y.

    This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.

    It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.

    It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.

    On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.

    I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."

    My 2 cents.

    Flame away, conspiranuts. Your pychological underpinnings are showing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •