9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[Gamolon]

I think it's time to start a new thread regarding what is being discussed, as none of this is about the thread title. We hold conflicting views regarding what happened, and who we are choosing to believe, and the discussion has gotten all over the place, and distracting.
I don't know about you all, but I find it better to discuss this in some kind of orderly fashion, so I'll start a new thread that deals with what is in the NIST report, and how it conflicts with observables, and other topics pertinent to finding some answers.
We should try to stay away from assumptions as much as possible, and go by the known facts and known quantifiers.
Going from stuff like conservation of momentum, to fire retardants, to 'nobody saw anyone rigging the buildings" is just too ******* scattershot to keep track of..So I'm going to leave this thread and who ever wants to chime in on the new one is welcome, but I'm hoping you'll post things relevant to the flow that I'm going to attempt to start.
We'll only get clusterfucked again if we don't, so lets start with the temps, the steel, and what NIST has to say about it---

Sounds good to me. I'm in.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I think it's time to start a new thread regarding what is being discussed, as none of this is about the thread title. We hold conflicting views regarding what happened, and who we are choosing to believe, and the discussion has gotten all over the place, and distracting.
I don't know about you all, but I find it better to discuss this in some kind of orderly fashion, so I'll start a new thread that deals with what is in the NIST report, and how it conflicts with observables, and other topics pertinent to finding some answers.
We should try to stay away from assumptions as much as possible, and go by the known facts and known quantifiers.
Going from stuff like conservation of momentum, to fire retardants, to 'nobody saw anyone rigging the buildings" is just too ******* scattershot to keep track of..So I'm going to leave this thread and who ever wants to chime in on the new one is welcome, but I'm hoping you'll post things relevant to the flow that I'm going to attempt to start.
We'll only get clusterfucked again if we don't, so lets start with the temps, the steel, and what NIST has to say about it---

Sounds good to me. I'm in.

Excellent I'm looking forward to it. I already started it...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

There is no radiant heat from the heating elements in the oven eh? It's strictly convection right?

Damn Guy,you're stupid.......

How hot does your oven get?

Now how hot does an office fire get....

See the difference? If not you need more help than anyone here can give you......

 

[daws101]

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
WOOD IS NO MORE OR LESS ROBUST A FUEL SOURCE then plastics.
your cooking pot example is ******* hilarious and soooo wrong.
the metal in a pot is not the problem it's the temperature of water or what ever you have in the pot that regulates the heat.
try this, put an empty pot on the stove fire it up and see how long it takes to heat up.
asshat!

But wood is much more robust than metal, is it not? Most cubicle-type offices I've been in have been furnished mostly with METAL desks, not wood ones. They're actually cheaper and last longer.

And don't even TRY to talk to me about pots, pans and cooking, I've been doing that for 50 years, and 6 of those years I was getting PAID for it. Pots and frying pans are 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick. Tell me something, shit for brains, how long would it take for a 2" thick piece of steel to attain the same temperature of the setting in your oven? Because what we're talking about is heat absorption through the AIR, not through conduction.

so you worked at mc Donald's..
as to cubicles..in the last thirty years most cubicles air 90% plastics or composite materials ... I did office remodeling for awhile..
to the steel question... that would depend on the heat of the fire and a little thing called convection...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

There is no radiant heat from the heating elements in the oven eh? It's strictly convection right?

Why do you want to argue about the three methods of heat transference rather than answering that simple little question? You ***** ALWAYS do that when you get questions you don't have an answer for, you try to 'flip the script', and ask your own irrelevant question instead of answering the question on the floor.

Now, one more time....

How long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

Next question...

How long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven if it had 3" of fireproofing covering it?

And BTW, your graph shows heat transference to steel in direct contact with flame, WITHOUT ANY insulation. Even NIST's shotgun experiment didn't prove that the insulation was dislodged from the steel. I've spent years in commercial construction, and removing that sprayed on fireproofing takes a helluva lot more than banging on it, no matter how hard you bang.

And tell us again how this insulated steel got hot enough to fail when your office fire simulation showed only 20 minutes of 800C air temperatures?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?

Yeah, let;s do this Mr. Jones.

Let's start with the first thing you state above. That my thoughts rest on the belief (or one of them) that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads.

This is pure bullshit. I NEVER said anything close to that. I said the towers (or any building for that matter) were NOT designed to redistribute and resist loads created from failure of other components due to unforeseen events.

I want you to explain, in your own words, how you think a structural engineer could possibly design any structure to stay erect for any and all possible permutations of structural failures that could be possible.

Structural engineers design structures to resist the loads that they will be placed under when working at 100% efficiency. Loads such as workplace furniture, people, wind, snow, etc.

If you think that John Q. Engineer calculates every possible failure scenario that could occur and then design the structure to hold up, you are SADLY mistaken.

Let's take one of the towers for example.

Do you think that they did load/stress calcualtions for:

1. Failure of 1 core column on floor 87?
2. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
3. Failure of 3 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
4. Failure of 4 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
5. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on the east side of the core and 2 consecutive core columns on the west side of the core?
6. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87?
7. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87 and floor 88?
8. 40% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 15 perimeter column on floor 87, 88, 89?

And so on, and so on, and so on.............

Do you get my point yet? Did it sink in? You are assuming that engineers do the impossible.

That's why they fireproof steel and rate that fireproofing by time. Why do they give fireproofing a time limit? TO get people evacuated? To give time for the fire department to arrive?

Your turn.

Good God, denial is not just a river in Egypt! The ******* builders of the towers (Skilling, et al) have stated that they purposely designed the towers to withstand airliner impacts, and that they believed they could withstand MULTIPLE impacts.

Or did you sleep through that part?

 

[SFC Ollie]

And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......

 

[SAYIT]

And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......

How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?

 

[GuyPinestra]

And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......

How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?

Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.

 

[SAYIT]

And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......

How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?

Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.

What he said in 1993 was that according to their study, conducted the early 1960s, the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which it did. Unfortunately their ability to perform the necessary tests was, by today's standards, primitive.
His comment about the "horrendous fire" was subjective. You provide no info from that study but he stated that they were more concerned about the fire than the collision and in that regard they were correct but his belief that the structures would remain intact was incorrect. The combination of impact and fire brought the towers down, just as the NIST study explains. Pretending you have proof of a controlled demo is still just pretending.

 

[daws101]

Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

There is no radiant heat from the heating elements in the oven eh? It's strictly convection right?

Why do you want to argue about the three methods of heat transference rather than answering that simple little question? You ***** ALWAYS do that when you get questions you don't have an answer for, you try to 'flip the script', and ask your own irrelevant question instead of answering the question on the floor.

Now, one more time....

How long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

Next question...

How long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven if it had 3" of fireproofing covering it?

And BTW, your graph shows heat transference to steel in direct contact with flame, WITHOUT ANY insulation. Even NIST's shotgun experiment didn't prove that the insulation was dislodged from the steel. I've spent years in commercial construction, and removing that sprayed on fireproofing takes a helluva lot more than banging on it, no matter how hard you bang.

And tell us again how this insulated steel got hot enough to fail when your office fire simulation showed only 20 minutes of 800C air temperatures?

so you cook for the guys on your crew?


I for one have never been dumb enough to put insulation or a piece of construction grade steel in an oven. do you or have you done it?
I have seen insulation burn by direct heat from a leko (theatrical lighting fixture) with a 1000watt lamp and bow the rebar that it covered from 6' away.
fyi it was a fake snow machine mounted on flying rig.

 

[daws101]

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?

Yeah, let;s do this Mr. Jones.

Let's start with the first thing you state above. That my thoughts rest on the belief (or one of them) that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads.

This is pure bullshit. I NEVER said anything close to that. I said the towers (or any building for that matter) were NOT designed to redistribute and resist loads created from failure of other components due to unforeseen events.

I want you to explain, in your own words, how you think a structural engineer could possibly design any structure to stay erect for any and all possible permutations of structural failures that could be possible.

Structural engineers design structures to resist the loads that they will be placed under when working at 100% efficiency. Loads such as workplace furniture, people, wind, snow, etc.

If you think that John Q. Engineer calculates every possible failure scenario that could occur and then design the structure to hold up, you are SADLY mistaken.

Let's take one of the towers for example.

Do you think that they did load/stress calcualtions for:

1. Failure of 1 core column on floor 87?
2. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
3. Failure of 3 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
4. Failure of 4 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
5. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on the east side of the core and 2 consecutive core columns on the west side of the core?
6. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87?
7. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87 and floor 88?
8. 40% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 15 perimeter column on floor 87, 88, 89?

And so on, and so on, and so on.............

Do you get my point yet? Did it sink in? You are assuming that engineers do the impossible.

That's why they fireproof steel and rate that fireproofing by time. Why do they give fireproofing a time limit? TO get people evacuated? To give time for the fire department to arrive?

Your turn.

Good God, denial is not just a river in Egypt! The ******* builders of the towers (Skilling, et al) have stated that they purposely designed the towers to withstand airliner impacts, and that they believed they could withstand MULTIPLE impacts.

Or did you sleep through that part?

the key word there is "believed" it's not the same as knowing in the case of 911 tragically so.
as I've stated many times the builders and designers used a mathematical theory as a basis for their belief.. there were no scale model or wind tunnel tests.
I thought you said you were in construction?

 

[SFC Ollie]

And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......

How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?

Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.

He was wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain the bowing in of the buildings just before the collapse....

 

[daws101]

How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?

Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.

He was wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain the bowing in of the buildings just before the collapse....

wrong how could he have been wrong that's blasphemy

 

[GuyPinestra]

How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?

Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.

What he said in 1993 was that according to their study, conducted the early 1960s, the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which it did. Unfortunately their ability to perform the necessary tests was, by today's standards, primitive.
His comment about the "horrendous fire" was subjective. You provide no info from that study but he stated that they were more concerned about the fire than the collision and in that regard they were correct but his belief that the structures would remain intact was incorrect. The combination of impact and fire brought the towers down, just as the NIST study explains. Pretending you have proof of a controlled demo is still just pretending.

Pretending the NIST study is logical, rational, correct and complete is still just pretending.

 

[SAYIT]

Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.

What he said in 1993 was that according to their study, conducted the early 1960s, the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which it did. Unfortunately their ability to perform the necessary tests was, by today's standards, primitive.
His comment about the "horrendous fire" was subjective. You provide no info from that study but he stated that they were more concerned about the fire than the collision and in that regard they were correct but his belief that the structures would remain intact was incorrect. The combination of impact and fire brought the towers down, just as the NIST study explains. Pretending you have proof of a controlled demo is still just pretending.

Pretending the NIST study is logical, rational, correct and complete is still just pretending.

Perhaps, yet it is infinitely better than the pre-construction study from the early 1960s which, BTW, you have repeatedly referenced yet never posted.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still waiting to hear what else caused the bowing in of the buildings if the fires weren't causing the floor joists to bend........

 

[daws101]

Still waiting to hear what else caused the bowing in of the buildings if the fires weren't causing the floor joists to bend........

they were made in china and part of the collapse planned by the illuminati back in the 16th century.
my god man ...can't you see how deep this goes!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

three farts in a row from the shills.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

three farts in a row from the shills.