Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down World Trade Centers

[DiveCon]

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

its not hiding, dipshit
\it's giving you the only thing you deserve

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

^^^ more proof that he is totally ******* INSANE

 

[CurveLight]

It took them seven years to figure that out?

I'm sure that was known at the highest levels but not released as general information for obvious reasons. The documentary I've referred to was broadcast several years ago and once (that I'm aware of) more recently.

There is a lot more detailed information available about Building 7 via Google.

You misunderstood what I meant. The Command Center existed since 1998 and that has never been a secret. What I meant is it took them seven years to figure out diesel fuel brought down wtc 7? I'm sorry, but seven years is a ******* joke. This thing got batted around several agencies because nobody wanted that tar baby to clean up.

 

[CurveLight]

its not hiding, dipshit
\it's giving you the only thing you deserve

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

^^^ more proof that he is totally ******* INSANE

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

 

[DiveCon]

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

^^^ more proof that he is totally ******* INSANE

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again

 

[CurveLight]

back that up please.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
CNN.com - Collapsed Trade Center towers still dangerous - September 12, 2001

thats your proof that it happened BEFORE HE GOT IN THE ELEVATOR?

The elevator was still in operation mode so what are the chances the explosion happened inside the elevator yet it remained in use? Based on simple reasoning it appears the victim was burned prior to the elevator doors closing from his starting point. By the time the doors opened in the basement his skin was off. The elevators didn't run from the basement all the way to the top floor.

 

[CurveLight]

^^^ more proof that he is totally ******* INSANE

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

 

[DiveCon]

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

more delusional bullshit

and i dont lie you delusional piece of shit
others were in that thread and can confirm what you claimed and that i did not misrepresent what you said

 

[daveman]

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

 

[CurveLight]

^^^ more proof that he is totally ******* INSANE

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again

keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

more delusional bullshit

and i dont lie you delusional piece of shit
others were in that thread and can confirm what you claimed and that i did not misrepresent what you said

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

(Someone....I believe Gamolon....has what I said in his sig. I pointed out speed increases chances of hitting dead spots for cell signals but does not cause them. It's pretty simple. If there are ten dead spots on a stretch of road and one guy is walking while another is driving at 60 mph, which one has a better chance of hitting dead spots due to speed?)

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

 

[CurveLight]

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

From my pov it's a matter of source and time. The jet fuel was consumed on impact. I'm well aware heat reduces the strength of steel but what I have trouble accepting is it took less than two hours of fires to weaken the steel enough on an equal plane to cause such a neat vertical collapse. The planes crashing do not explain that but only further exacerbate the problem because the damage caused by impact is sporadic and operates on no horizontal or vertical plane.

 

[daveman]

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

From my pov it's a matter of source and time. The jet fuel was consumed on impact. I'm well aware heat reduces the strength of steel but what I have trouble accepting is it took less than two hours of fires to weaken the steel enough on an equal plane to cause such a neat vertical collapse. The planes crashing do not explain that but only further exacerbate the problem because the damage caused by impact is sporadic and operates on no horizontal or vertical plane.

The principles of physics, engineering, and thermodynamics do not require your permission or understanding to operate.

Every troofer claim has been debunked with facts, logic, and science. Reality does not change simply because you refuse to accept it.

 

[DiveCon]

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?

keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

more delusional bullshit

and i dont lie you delusional piece of shit
others were in that thread and can confirm what you claimed and that i did not misrepresent what you said

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

(Someone....I believe Gamolon....has what I said in his sig. I pointed out speed increases chances of hitting dead spots for cell signals but does not cause them. It's pretty simple. If there are ten dead spots on a stretch of road and one guy is walking while another is driving at 60 mph, which one has a better chance of hitting dead spots due to speed?)

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

you changed what you said AFTER it was explained to you how ******* STUPID and MORONIC your claim was

so you lie about it again

 

[georgephillip]

[...]

First, WTC7 collapsed in roughly the same way as the Twin Towers, yet was not struck by an aircraft.

[...]

The question of Building 7 did give me much pause until I watched the animated explanation by those architects, structural engineers (including those who designed the Towers), and other experts on a Discovery Channel documentary. They answered all of the questions quite satisfactorily. Especially the most prominent question re: Building 7.

What is not widely known is then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in his infinite wisdom, years before 9/11/01 had ordered that an emergency command center be established in preparation for a disaster -- such as a terrorist attack on the City. The site he chose was Building 7. Against Fire Department regulations he ordered that an electrical power generator be installed on the command center floor and that a large storage tank of diesel fuel be situated in the basement with a feed line to that generator. The idle generator contained fifty gallons of diesel.

When the main Towers fell the force of the collapse blew in the windows of Building 7 driving huge chunks of debris inside, including burning fireballs, which ignited the diesel -- along with the propane tanks for an emergency cooking stove on the Command Center floor.

Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept. NYC Housing Authority, was trying to escape WTC7 via stairwell when a 6th floor landing he was navigating was ripped by explosion.

Barry claims both Towers were still standing when this occurred.

When he got out, Barry also was told about the diesel tank hypothesis. A self-described "old boiler guy" Barry countered:"If it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building."

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC7 collapse also state, "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis (fire/debris-damage-caused collapse) has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue." (FEMA 2002, Chapter 5)

Serious consideration of the controlled demolition hypothesis has been neglected in all government reports. (FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission)

The latter report didn't even mention the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11/01.

Perhaps that's all we could have expected from Bush/Cheney.

Why Indeed Did the World...P.22

 

[georgephillip]

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

What if it's at least 600 degrees below its melting point?

 

[DiveCon]

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

What if it's at least 600 degrees below its melting point?

and what do you agree is the actual melting point?

 

[georgephillip]

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

From my pov it's a matter of source and time. The jet fuel was consumed on impact. I'm well aware heat reduces the strength of steel but what I have trouble accepting is it took less than two hours of fires to weaken the steel enough on an equal plane to cause such a neat vertical collapse. The planes crashing do not explain that but only further exacerbate the problem because the damage caused by impact is sporadic and operates on no horizontal or vertical plane.

The principles of physics, engineering, and thermodynamics do not require your permission or understanding to operate.

Every troofer claim has been debunked with facts, logic, and science. Reality does not change simply because you refuse to accept it.

If Newton's Third Law still operates why didn't the Twin Towers fall to their side damaged by impact?

 

[georgephillip]

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

What if it's at least 600 degrees below its melting point?

and what do you agree is the actual melting point?

2400 degrees F

 

[DiveCon]

What if it's at least 600 degrees below its melting point?

and what do you agree is the actual melting point?

2400 degrees F

so, you agree it got to 1800° which would be 75% of the tempt to get to the melting point
can you admit that at that temp it would lose OVER half its structural integrity?


going on you actually having the correct melting point

 

[daveman]

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

The steel didn't get hot enough to melt. It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?

What if it's at least 600 degrees below its melting point?

It's significantly weakened.

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.

4. The combination of six effects

a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b ) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)

 

[daveman]

From my pov it's a matter of source and time. The jet fuel was consumed on impact. I'm well aware heat reduces the strength of steel but what I have trouble accepting is it took less than two hours of fires to weaken the steel enough on an equal plane to cause such a neat vertical collapse. The planes crashing do not explain that but only further exacerbate the problem because the damage caused by impact is sporadic and operates on no horizontal or vertical plane.

The principles of physics, engineering, and thermodynamics do not require your permission or understanding to operate.

Every troofer claim has been debunked with facts, logic, and science. Reality does not change simply because you refuse to accept it.

If Newton's Third Law still operates why didn't the Twin Towers fall to their side damaged by impact?

Why would they? The path of least resistance was straight down. You know, the way gravity pulls.

Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition

The mechanics of the collapse are really much more simple than conspiracy theorists would like you to believe. The heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns.

In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.

After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.