#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


Lame attempt to discredit truthers?
02-12-2013, 06:28 AM #16
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(02-11-2013, 01:13 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(02-10-2013, 10:09 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(02-10-2013, 03:37 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Yes god forbid anyone interject any common sense on that subject. Whoever tries is a MORON, and the subject is closed.

We all know it was a plot contrived in a cave in Afghanistan by Osama Bin Laden, who was on kidney dialysis at the time; and those dumbass architects and engineers who support such fallacies are, in fact - terrorists.

God knows we all know more than architects and engineers.

Here is the official govt account. Any tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorists who disagrees is a douchebag.

coffeetime.gif


The engineering societies, in particular the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) helped NIST with the analysis. There were probably more engineers involved in the actual analysis than have signed on to AE911.

So... it is the official position of millions of engineers that the official analysis is what happened.

A few million engineers vs a handful of unstable malcontents...


The engineers findings didn't make it into the The 9-11 Commission Report .
The Report did not deal with the evidence that supports the conclusion that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) were destroyed by controlled demolition.
The Report avoided even mentioning the complete, symmetrical, and rapid collapse of WTC 7, although that collapse was unprecedented in the 100-plus-year history of steel-framed skyscrapers.
So regardless of how many engineers worked on it, it was left out of the report, and for all intents and purposes that means they were not even involved.
On the other hand, over 1,700 architects & engineers demanding a real 9/11 investigation are signed up on their facebook page.
zero vs. over 1,700. I can do that math without a calculator believe it or not.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start.

The ASCE produced a paper on the subject:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(...1X.0000398
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=902588
There were two NIST authors and the rest were ASCE.

Controlled demolition isn't done to bring a building down. It is done to bring it down in one spot. The weeks of time and dozens of men needed to drill and weaken the major supports, the tons of dynamite, and the extensive damage to the interior (to access the main beams) in the weeks before the collapse weren't reported by anyone. The damage to adjacent buildings caused by the toppling of the building (instead of a controlled collapse) is pretty obvious. 30 W. Broadway (across the street) was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC7.

The wall were observed to be bulging hours before - which is why the fire crews were pulled. The Windsor tower - with steel rather than reinforced concrete wings collapsed from fire in two hours. WTC7 collapsed in about 6 hours. It actually did better than should have been expected.

If the exterior walls are bulging - the internal structure is on its way to failing. 47 story exterior walls won't support themselves. Without lateral support an unsupported wall crumbles. The internal supports under went a progressive collapse starting with column 79.

As to the 1700 "Architects and Engineers" how many of them are American Engineers? Architects aren't the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to structural analysis.
02-12-2013, 01:10 PM #17
Cynicalabsurdance Member
Posts:8,249 Threads:191 Joined:Feb 2011
I'm the God of Sharp tool sheds


because i built high rises


I was on the Core support crew for ğkking years

with a 7.3 earthquake hitting us in 1982



try this one

Tensile strength of core I-beams and to what degree the heat and pressure must be to get them to even bend a little .


Rapid Flash burn of jet fuel is not even ğkking close .


the Core I-Beams are wrapped in 1 inch thick Core Board drywall with 2 layers of 5/8ths drywall on both sides of the core board

giving it 3 1/2 inches of 6 hours of fire proofing .

which gives a burn rating of 6 hours protection against a few moments of flash
burn jet fuel that has less BTU than a cigarette .


However
Primer cord has an intense BTU backed by explosive detonation

I work in STEEL for highrises in my young ass life back then

ain't no ğkking floor gonna collapse from the core out

no more then the Giza Pyramid can be blown away with a feather .


now
this is about tensile strength against BTU ( heat ) temperature


14,000 degrees for about 6 hours may get the core beams to smile a bit .
02-12-2013, 03:20 PM #18
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,276 Threads:1,438 Joined:Feb 2011
(02-12-2013, 06:28 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(02-11-2013, 01:13 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(02-10-2013, 10:09 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(02-10-2013, 03:37 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Yes god forbid anyone interject any common sense on that subject. Whoever tries is a MORON, and the subject is closed.

We all know it was a plot contrived in a cave in Afghanistan by Osama Bin Laden, who was on kidney dialysis at the time; and those dumbass architects and engineers who support such fallacies are, in fact - terrorists.

God knows we all know more than architects and engineers.

Here is the official govt account. Any tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorists who disagrees is a douchebag.

coffeetime.gif


The engineering societies, in particular the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) helped NIST with the analysis. There were probably more engineers involved in the actual analysis than have signed on to AE911.

So... it is the official position of millions of engineers that the official analysis is what happened.

A few million engineers vs a handful of unstable malcontents...


The engineers findings didn't make it into the The 9-11 Commission Report .
The Report did not deal with the evidence that supports the conclusion that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) were destroyed by controlled demolition.
The Report avoided even mentioning the complete, symmetrical, and rapid collapse of WTC 7, although that collapse was unprecedented in the 100-plus-year history of steel-framed skyscrapers.
So regardless of how many engineers worked on it, it was left out of the report, and for all intents and purposes that means they were not even involved.
On the other hand, over 1,700 architects & engineers demanding a real 9/11 investigation are signed up on their facebook page.
zero vs. over 1,700. I can do that math without a calculator believe it or not.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start.

The ASCE produced a paper on the subject:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(...1X.0000398
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=902588
There were two NIST authors and the rest were ASCE.

Controlled demolition isn't done to bring a building down. It is done to bring it down in one spot. The weeks of time and dozens of men needed to drill and weaken the major supports, the tons of dynamite, and the extensive damage to the interior (to access the main beams) in the weeks before the collapse weren't reported by anyone. The damage to adjacent buildings caused by the toppling of the building (instead of a controlled collapse) is pretty obvious. 30 W. Broadway (across the street) was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC7.

The wall were observed to be bulging hours before - which is why the fire crews were pulled. The Windsor tower - with steel rather than reinforced concrete wings collapsed from fire in two hours. WTC7 collapsed in about 6 hours. It actually did better than should have been expected.

If the exterior walls are bulging - the internal structure is on its way to failing. 47 story exterior walls won't support themselves. Without lateral support an unsupported wall crumbles. The internal supports under went a progressive collapse starting with column 79.

As to the 1700 "Architects and Engineers" how many of them are American Engineers? Architects aren't the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to structural analysis.


Jet fuel, as a liquid cannot melt steel.
When vaporised and burned, the temperature of the combustion gases can get as high as 900° (1472° MAXIMUM) and, STILL CAN NOT MELT STEEL!
Hit the books partner, geeze. 15.gif
Calling people names, ie village idiots, et al; is just a feeble attempt to discredit opposition, by someone not armed with any real facts.
Try educating yourself instead. coffeetime.gif

wonder.gif
02-12-2013, 06:07 PM #19
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,276 Threads:1,438 Joined:Feb 2011
Construction-grade steel melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit.

That’s a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com

Unless you are wiling to make an argument the somehow WTC Construction-grade steel was manufactured of some exotic and flimsy material (perhaps aliens made it eh?) other than what shows up in the periodic table of elements, your point is moot.

According to a BBC report on September 13, 2001 entitled How the World Trade Center Fell, the WTC steel cores reached a temperature of 1472 degrees Fahrenheit, which, coincidentally, is the maximum temperature of jet fuel, but nowhere near the 2795 degrees needed to melt steel. chuckle.gif

Instead of quoting “conspiracy theorists” (or village idiots as you seem to fancy calling them, in your own little melodramatic attempt to discredit not based on facts but with playground name calling lol), let's utilize with the government’s own sources.

FEMA itself said that temperatures inside the WTC towers reached 1700-2000 degrees Fahrenheit which is higher than the BBC’s estimates, but still not nearly enough to melt steel.

You are having a critical thinking meltdown, and ignoring the laws of physics if you argue jet fuel can melt construction-grade steel. coffeetime.gif

Why do welders use acetylene torches, electric arcs, or bottled oxygen to do their job?

Do they ever use jet fuel as their energy source? lol.gif

Hells no, because jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough.

The ignition temperature is 410 degrees, not hot enough.

Similar derivatives of Jet fuel, with similar characteristics are used for is lamp oil, charcoal starter fluid, or to run lawnmowers – not to cut or melt steel.

Ever have your lawnmower melt down on you when you're cutting grass? rofl.gif You may live in some extra dimensional reality where such things occur, and if so I can see the dilemma you face when you attempt to make an argument in the world where the rest of us live.

Like I said hit the books.

wonder.gif
02-12-2013, 09:08 PM #20
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,589 Threads:633 Joined:Feb 2011
I had a lawnmower melt during mowing.


But that was sabotage too. 13.gif


As for the hours of preparations needed to prep a building for demolition, there were several vacant floors in the building where "workers" were reported to have been running wires and drilling for weeks prior to the attacks. No one knew who they worked for or just what they were doing.

I am not your rolling wheels, I am the highway
I am not your carpet ride I am the sky
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning
I am not your autumn moon, I am the night
The night



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com