eots
no fly list
For an object to start falling after the resistance below is removed????
Eots, you have to be a troll because nobody is this stupid.
no , it is a fraction of a sec of reticence before the full free fall collapse
Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?
- Thread starter miller
- Start date
no , it is a fraction of a sec of reticence before the full free fall collapse
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
For an object to start falling after the resistance below is removed????
Eots, you have to be a troll because nobody is this stupid.
no , it is a fraction of a sec of reticence before the full free fall collapse
And what does 2.25 seconds of free fall prove anyway. The entire collapse took 40% longer than free fall. And all of the truthers want to discount the east penthouse and it's collapse 6 seconds or longer before anything else.
You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
How the hell do you think a steel beam or column under stress and it's connection points would react to the same thermal expansion?
Are the bolted connection going to give or is the beam going to bend?
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once.
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
What you are saying is that this heat applied itself to all the support beams with the same temps, at the same time for it to fall the way it did-straight fucking down! Are you that stupid? Go and study this shit before you post nonsense.
it is clear to anyone with a brain, and common sense that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos.
Christ, you first post a story comparing a previously fire damaged dilapidated old building, now some railroad tracks, and try to compare this shit to the WTC buildings?
Wow I wonder how they kept all the steel from the WTC from "thermally expanding" like spaghetti noodles before it was installed? Make sure they kept it all out of the sun I suppose, perhaps dousing it with water
Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away, and your BS office fires could not have caused the straight down collapse unless all the beams that supported the building reached the required temps at the same time!
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything
. Of course, they have absolutely no evidence for any of these things happening in the real world. What's really fucked up is that NIST and its brainwashed supporters need the fire temps to be exasperatingly high for their theory, but then they turn around and wave away the fact that there was molten metal underneath it that burned for months, that could not have been caused by the scattered office fires! Because then they would have to take a serious look at the possibility of something else that shouldn't have been there causing the high fire temps, either way you nuts loose.
You people are fucking crazy.
For one thing it proves NIST lied when they adamantly denied it happened,and now you have to explain how office fires removed the critical points in the building at the same time to cause this freefall collapse.
Re; the collapse of the penthouse marking the start of global collapse. ...Does it? I think every reasonable person knows what part of the collapse is really the global collapse you know, the big part called the building.
Imagine if after the penthouse collapsed the main building stood for a further, say, 3 hours before going down, would we then have to say the 'global' collapse of WTC7 took 3 hours? I guess you would.
I know it's hard for you to grasp all of this, so take your time, do a little reading on this amazing revelation, and try to block out the brainwashing you're experiencing, you really can see the truth that's right before your eyes if you try.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
So the penthouse falling into the building had nothing to do with the collapse of the entire structure? Don't tell me you've been hitting on Eots's bong again haven't you?
And WTF is this "Imagine if" stuff? Just stick to the facts and........
Oh I'm sorry , you don't believe in facts.....
eots
no fly list
In reality the ignorant fool has to babble about bong hits in his flailing attempts to avoid addressing facts and replace them with his lil imaginings...what a hypocritical clown
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
I presented the facts, you ignore them.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
eots
no fly list
You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
How the hell do you think a steel beam or column under stress and it's connection points would react to the same thermal expansion?
Are the bolted connection going to give or is the beam going to bend?
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once.
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
What you are saying is that this heat applied itself to all the support beams with the same temps, at the same time for it to fall the way it did-straight fucking down! Are you that stupid? Go and study this shit before you post nonsense.
it is clear to anyone with a brain, and common sense that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos.
Christ, you first post a story comparing a previously fire damaged dilapidated old building, now some railroad tracks, and try to compare this shit to the WTC buildings?
Wow I wonder how they kept all the steel from the WTC from "thermally expanding" like spaghetti noodles before it was installed? Make sure they kept it all out of the sun I suppose, perhaps dousing it with water
Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away, and your BS office fires could not have caused the straight down collapse unless all the beams that supported the building reached the required temps at the same time!
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything
What's really fucked up is that NIST and its brainwashed supporters need the fire temps to be exasperatingly high for their theory, but then they turn around and wave away the fact that there was molten metal underneath it that burned for months, that could not have been caused by the scattered office fires! Because then they would have to take a serious look at the possibility of something else that shouldn't have been there causing the high fire temps, either way you nuts loose.
You people are fucking crazy.
I like how ALL of your explanations leave out the fact that BIG ASS PLANES crashed into the buildings... The NIST report does not say that only the fires caused the collapse. If you would actually take time to read the report it says the IMPACT and ensuing fires contributed to the collapse. I guess the rest of the building stayed completely sound when an object traveling close to the speed of sound crashed into it.
Lied? Why do you assume it was a lie? Could it not have been that they just flat out didn't believe it? Why do you assume everything has a malicious intent? Have they since acknowledged it? Slight incompetence doesn't mean that they were lying...
For an object to start falling after the resistance below is removed????
Eots, you have to be a troll because nobody is this stupid.
no , it is a fraction of a sec of reticence before the full free fall collapse
I'm sorry dumbass, but gravity cannot be reticent as you claim. The second something has it's support/resistance removed as your idiot companions claim was done, gravity takes over.
Case closed.
The amount of stupidity from you is just staggering...
Tell you what jackass. Show me the exact quote where NIST specifically denied 2.25 seconds of free fall.
You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
How the hell do you think a steel beam or column under stress and it's connection points would react to the same thermal expansion?
Are the bolted connection going to give or is the beam going to bend?
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once.
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
What you are saying is that this heat applied itself to all the support beams with the same temps, at the same time for it to fall the way it did-straight fucking down! Are you that stupid? Go and study this shit before you post nonsense.
it is clear to anyone with a brain, and common sense that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos.
Christ, you first post a story comparing a previously fire damaged dilapidated old building, now some railroad tracks, and try to compare this shit to the WTC buildings?
Wow I wonder how they kept all the steel from the WTC from "thermally expanding" like spaghetti noodles before it was installed? Make sure they kept it all out of the sun I suppose, perhaps dousing it with water
Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away, and your BS office fires could not have caused the straight down collapse unless all the beams that supported the building reached the required temps at the same time!
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything
What's really fucked up is that NIST and its brainwashed supporters need the fire temps to be exasperatingly high for their theory, but then they turn around and wave away the fact that there was molten metal underneath it that burned for months, that could not have been caused by the scattered office fires! Because then they would have to take a serious look at the possibility of something else that shouldn't have been there causing the high fire temps, either way you nuts loose.
You people are fucking crazy.
You're a fucking dumbass. If buildings were just great big heat sinks then why the hell do they fireproof steel components?
Tell YOU what jaggoff, here it is-
0 to 4:57 of the video,-denies freefall
also take note that when Sunder is talking about measurement of collapse time, he clearly mentions the ROOFLINE, as the point of reference, not the penthouse you idiots here are claiming.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
How the hell do you think a steel beam or column under stress and it's connection points would react to the same thermal expansion?
Are the bolted connection going to give or is the beam going to bend?
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once.
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
First of all, let's give you a little lesson, since you obviously haven't got a CLUE what you are talking about. You've admitted this much about structural design, yet you argue points like you have some knowledge about this subject.
Let's talk about heat dissipation of steel and thermal expansion. Let's look at steel piping. I worked in an engineering firm dealing with industrial piping in many steel mills. Do you know what expansion joints are? No? Here's a picture of one.
They put those inline to "absorb" the expansion and contraction of the pipe lines as they heat up and cool down. Do you know what and expansion loop is? No? Hears a picture of one.
They install those so when the pipes thermally expand, that loop "bends" and absorbs the expansion. If steel has such great dissipation properties as you seem to think, why to they need such components? Why do they fireproof steel members if it dissipates heat like you say?
Why did the rails bend like they did in the picture? That was just a hot day with no fires yet they bent like noodles? Are you saying the heat that day was greater than an office fire?
You have NO CLUE.
You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
How the hell do you think a steel beam or column under stress and it's connection points would react to the same thermal expansion?
Are the bolted connection going to give or is the beam going to bend?
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once.
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
What you are saying is that this heat applied itself to all the support beams with the same temps, at the same time for it to fall the way it did-straight fucking down! Are you that stupid? Go and study this shit before you post nonsense.
it is clear to anyone with a brain, and common sense that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos.
Christ, you first post a story comparing a previously fire damaged dilapidated old building, now some railroad tracks, and try to compare this shit to the WTC buildings?
Wow I wonder how they kept all the steel from the WTC from "thermally expanding" like spaghetti noodles before it was installed? Make sure they kept it all out of the sun I suppose, perhaps dousing it with water
Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away, and your BS office fires could not have caused the straight down collapse unless all the beams that supported the building reached the required temps at the same time!
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything
What's really fucked up is that NIST and its brainwashed supporters need the fire temps to be exasperatingly high for their theory, but then they turn around and wave away the fact that there was molten metal underneath it that burned for months, that could not have been caused by the scattered office fires! Because then they would have to take a serious look at the possibility of something else that shouldn't have been there causing the high fire temps, either way you nuts loose.
You people are fucking crazy.
You're a fucking dumbass. If buildings were just great big heat sinks then why the hell do they fireproof steel components?
Well think about it some dumbfuck... There's a fire, and it spreads to steel beams, causing the spread of heat/fire fire to something that has a lower flash point and could more easily burn like say, walls, wiring etc..
Man your're the dumbass
Wahahahahaha!!!!
Listen to the question Chandler posed to him and what Sunder's answer is you fucking twit!!!!!
Is Sunder answering about the ENTIRE timeframe of the collapse being 40% slower than free fall or is he specifically denying that a portion of the collapse did not fall at free fall?
You see, this is what you d-bags do. You quote mine and take things out of context. He never denied that there WASN'T 2.25 seconds of free fall. He says that the entire collapse was not at free fall.
So again. Show me where NIST ever A PORTION of the total collapse was at free fall.
I'll make this easy for you. How long was the total collapse of the roofline from start to finish?
Last edited by a moderator:
You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once.
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
What you are saying is that this heat applied itself to all the support beams with the same temps, at the same time for it to fall the way it did-straight fucking down! Are you that stupid? Go and study this shit before you post nonsense.
it is clear to anyone with a brain, and common sense that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos.
Christ, you first post a story comparing a previously fire damaged dilapidated old building, now some railroad tracks, and try to compare this shit to the WTC buildings?
Wow I wonder how they kept all the steel from the WTC from "thermally expanding" like spaghetti noodles before it was installed? Make sure they kept it all out of the sun I suppose, perhaps dousing it with water
Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away, and your BS office fires could not have caused the straight down collapse unless all the beams that supported the building reached the required temps at the same time!
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything
What's really fucked up is that NIST and its brainwashed supporters need the fire temps to be exasperatingly high for their theory, but then they turn around and wave away the fact that there was molten metal underneath it that burned for months, that could not have been caused by the scattered office fires! Because then they would have to take a serious look at the possibility of something else that shouldn't have been there causing the high fire temps, either way you nuts loose.
You people are fucking crazy.
You're a fucking dumbass. If buildings were just great big heat sinks then why the hell do they fireproof steel components?
Well think about it some dumbfuck... There's a fire, and it spreads to steel beams, causing the spread of heat/fire fire to something that has a lower flash point and could more easily burn like say, walls, wiring etc..
Man your're the dumbass
Flash point is for liquids and vapor you twat!
Your ignorance is really showing now. Keep going!
Let's point out some more of your stupidity. Fireproofing steel is not, repeat NOT put on to keep the heat from spreading to other items with a lower *laugh my ass off* "flash point". It's applied to PROTECT the steel from temperatures which cause it to weaken and fail.
God damn you are fucking dumb. No wonder you believe all this conspiracy crap.
Here. Go read this link about fireproofing steel.
Construction building envelope and ... - Google Books
New Topics
-
Trump effect….NYU student has diploma withheld by lib university- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
The Left Get's Schooled In Constitutional Law.- Started by jackflash
- Replies: 5
-
