It's pretty much impossible to deny they were brought down with pre-placed explosives. Not, what conclusions you want to make after realizing that, well, that's up to you.
It's pretty much impossible to deny they were brought down with pre-placed explosives. Not, what conclusions you want to make after realizing that, well, that's up to you.
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
Thanks for removing all doubt.
(I'm not talking about the Twin Towers, or 9-11, either).
I thought personal attacks were not allowed in here.Originally Posted by Craic
All you got is attempted ad hominem attacks? Please explain how a collapse like this could happen without pre-set explosives.
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
This is my one and only time replying in any serious manner to this thread, mainly because it's an absolute joke and I don't want to give it any credence. However, for those who may be researching and somehow, followed a link here, I'll supply links to answer the silliness put forward.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ories-debunked
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...a3524/4278874/
http://www.livescience.com/16179-twi...spiracies.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hrenheit-2777/
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx091106 Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-4.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-4index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-7index.htm
NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf More detail here: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-8index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
These are but just a few links that clearly and scientifically disprove the acid-induced conspiracy theories put forth by parent's-basement-dwelling brilliant engineers who continue to get fired from their fast-food jobs because their managers can't see their brilliance—and because they keep screwing up when they try to make change (again, see drug consumption).
And no, TeeTee, the above sentence was not directed towards you, but to those who have put forward the theory.
Just a few...
- - - Updated - - -
It's real, real simple. Steel melts at 2,500 degrees. jet fuel and office material (carpet, furniture) only can get 800 degrees.
Fires have NEVER caused a Steel-framed building to collapse, BEFORE or SINCE 911.
In order to buy the official story, you have to believe that the laws of physics were suspended on that day. Is that what you believe?
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
I'm not answering in this thread again unless it gets moved to the Blast Furnace . . . er, Beat Down.
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
We are now in the Beat Down thread.
Doesn't mean no rules apply, but let's see where this goes.
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
It didn't collapse like wtc, not even close.
- - - Updated - - -
What's up with the massive ground shaking before it came down?
- - - Updated - - -
Use your eyes and brain.
Array title="stillers4me has a reputation beyond repute">
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
1. Steel and concrete =/ all steel. Did the building get hit by a 767? A 707? A bee?It didn't collapse like wtc, not even close.
- - - Updated - - -
What's up with the massive ground shaking before it came down?
- - - Updated - - -
Use your eyes and brain.
2. Ground shakes, but collapse begins above. Puffs of smoke and debris at the 80th floor at time of collapse, nothing on the ground.
3. Didn't watch the 3rd one. My brain is numb.
Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute">
Steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength and fail.
PATRIOTS**
BUNGLES
Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled
-¤ HTG ¤-
Teetee, I was wondering....can you tell me where elvis is? I mean....he's alive, right? Surely you can find me a video that would tell me? Or Kennedy? Where is he? Did the mafia kill him?
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
TeeTee.
You seriously did not read a link I posted, did you? Posting video does not argue your point, unless the person in the video is a scientist or an engineer qualified to speak on such topics. Let me help you here. You won't. Why? Because they all know better.
Honestly, I'm a little worried about you if you believe this, because its on the same level of gullibility as believing a "healer" who tells you to drop your pants and bend over so he can assess your ear-ache.
OK, so what temp does fire have to reach before giant i-beams would weaken enough to fail? Would jet fuel be able to do it? Nope. Not even close.
Small office fires? Try again.
And why was there molten steel at the site? Molten steel can only mean temps were hot enough to melt steel. No other possibility. Something was hot enough to melt steel but jet fuel can't do that.
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
Why has no consideration been mentioned of electrical fires? I am an electrician by trade and with a jet hitting a building, I am sure the insulation of the electrical wires would have melted, causing breakers to trip. I would guess that there would be at least 5-10 panels per floor of such a huge structure, as well as the elevator cables and elevator cabs, as well as generators and/or UPS battery systems. So with the insulation burning, not only would the branch circuits cause shorts, the main feeder lines would also eventually melt and cause shorts in the sub-stations and eventually to the basement where the main electrical vaults would be located.
Arc flashes would easily be mistaken for bombs and they burn at up to 35,000 degrees F. So you have a backbone of electrical conductors, causing shorts and arc flashes on at least the floors that were on fire and right down to the basement, or the location of the main electrical vault.
Typically, these cables are only insulated to 90 degrees C, or 194 degree F.
I would love to have the electrical as-built drawings of the WTC and I could see how many panels and how many possible explosions would be within reason.
Here is just one arc flash:
So, are you saying that is was possible that arc flashes occurred on all 40 columns on many floors. all at the same time?
It came down near free-fall speeds, which HAS to mean all the support columns failed at the same time. They fell into their own footprint. The only way that could happen is simultaneous failure of all columns.
- - - Updated - - -
By the way, the Pentagon was NOT hit by any plane. That was complete BS too.
Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute">
The plot thickens!
PATRIOTS**
BUNGLES
Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled
-¤ HTG ¤-
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.
However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.
It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.
As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs. Quantitative reasoning can help sort fact from fiction, and can help us learn from this unfortunate disaster. As Lord Kelvin said,“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
