Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now it's my turn to address the fallacies, partial information, and outright speculation associated with my area of expertise:

 

The American flight traffic control system has a failsafe system making it impossible for american airbusses to dissappear in american airspace. When the transponder is turned off the flight traffic controller that was assigned the plane no longer has the flight identification info on his screen. Instead he has the blip and at this point so does every other air traffic controler responsible for that airspace. The plane shows up on everyones screen now so that the other air traffic controlers can steer thier planes around the blip. Meanwhile the guy who lost his plane for a blip should be going apeshit on the inside while calmly explaining the situation to norad after radio contact proved negative. It is all SOP and the A.T.C.S. is well trained and more than capable in a crisis situation....Yet not only was SOP disreguarded on 911 but on 911 after the hijakers turned off thier transponders they enabled the planes stealth mode to avoid being seen as a blip. Officaly the planes lost ALL RADAR CONTACT for a period of time. Only by useing the commercial air busses stealth ablity could the hijakers avoid A.T.C. who would of been monitering and reporting the flight paths of the radar blips....oh wait a minute...commercial air busses don't have stealth technology. So how in the flying Duck did the dissappeare from radar?!?!

You know a tad bit about the Air Traffic Control system, but not nearly enough to paint a clear picture, and certainly not enough to answer your own question. First of all, you appear to not understand the difference between Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) and Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), nor how they operate. Far from being some sort of "automatic" switchover (the ATC system is quite old and only now beginning to be upgraded to include automation), whenever an "enroute" controller loses an SSR response from an airplane (that is, its transponder squawk), that controller has to MANUALLY turn on the PSR (which is normally OFF) in order to "paint" the airplane and get a reading on its position.

So how did AA 77 "disappear from radar"? The thing you do not understand here is that there are some sectors interior to the continental US that are NOT covered by PSR, and that means they do not even have a PSR as a backup. AA 77 was in one of these areas when the hijackers turned off the transponder (which essentially made the SSR in that sector useless). Since there was no PSR in that sector that could be turned on, they were "blind" to where that airplane was. It was not until the airplane showed up on the Dulles TRACON PSR that they saw AA 77 again. It is all explained fairly well, and without a whole lot of difficult technical jargon, right here:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

 

The part that you clearly did not understand, nor were able to explain, is described in the article as follows:

 

Primary radar is normally used only as a backup, and is usually turned off by controllers handling aircraft at altitudes above 18,000 feet because it clutters their screens. All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders.

 

If a plane simply disappears from radar screens, most controllers can quickly switch on the primary system, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working.

 

But the radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called "beacon-only" radar. That left the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder, sources said.

Once again we see you have a big mouth that likes to spout off on this forum as if you "know the lies", but in reality you are relating partial, or simply uninformed information. And besides that, I thought you made a promise that you were not going to respond anymore after you posted that long response with the BS "analysis" about steel weakening in the fires? So we see you are not even a man who stands by his own word. Nize.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Indazona,

 

Why are you incapable of being wrong? What happened to your critical thinking process and currently forbids you to accept the facts.

 

Yes do tell why the tower hit second fell first. And do tell why the building not hit by a plane at all fell around five in the afternoon. Do tell me everything you think...and if I did not respond to something you posted earlier I either missed it or you simply refused to understand what I wrote.

 

You are egear as a beaver to destroy me. ...(not imppressive).... You wanna defeat a stranger rather than make a friend...speaks volumes to your charicter.

 

You dislike my analogy of the outer mesh frame.

 

The steel mesh outer core is a load bearing structure. It supported the floors in conjunction with the inner core. The impact holes did not cause a critical failure. The Jet fuel burned up in one big fire ball.... if you hold a torch to a beam for only a few seconds your not gonna cut the beam...your not even gonna get the beam to give you a cherry bead... Never mind the fact that the WTC fireball did not burn anywhere near the tempature a weilding torch can produce... NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT HEATING UP LARGE SECTIONS OF IRON to plascisity is not possible in an open air fire enviroment. The structural damage itself was not that bad..the buildings withstood the impacts like champs like they were designed to do.

 

Gawd I need a break for a moment.... I feel like I am trying to explain to a teenager why it is impossible for one magical bullet to go through Kennedy, Connely, and Johnson from the 6th story window shaded by a tree.

 

You and RMT tear it up... I'll be back after while to again bring up the inconsistencies and out right distrotions of truth when I return.

 

Peace

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you incapable of being wrong? What happened to your critical thinking process and currently forbids you to accept the facts.

4. Use a strawman.

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule.

 

Yes do tell why the tower hit second fell first. And do tell why the building not hit by a plane at all fell around five in the afternoon.

17. Change the subject.

 

You are egear as a beaver to destroy me. ...(not imppressive).... You wanna defeat a stranger rather than make a friend...speaks volumes to your charicter.

7. Question motives.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad. (Tip: It works best when you are a good speller)

 

You dislike my analogy of the outer mesh frame.

Because it is a wholly invalid comparison that is without merit.

Because it says absolutely nothing about the outer perimeter columns of the WTC.

 

20. False evidence.

 

The steel mesh outer core is a load bearing structure.

And a screen in a porch door is not. Ergo your attempt at backwards logic did not work.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.

 

The Jet fuel burned up in one big fire ball

20. False evidence.

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that there was other combustible material that caught fire and sustained the fire.)

 

if you hold a torch to a beam for only a few seconds your not gonna cut the beam.

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the facts and evidence for Euler column buckling)

 

Never mind the fact that the WTC fireball did not burn anywhere near the tempature a weilding torch can produce

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that steel weakening at temperature can induce the onset of Euler column buckling, thereby foregoing the necessity for steel melting temperatures)

 

The structural damage itself was not that bad

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that it was not only the structural damage that caused the collapse. Ignore that it was a compounding effect. Continue to ignore Euler column buckling)

 

Gawd I need a break for a moment.... I feel like I am trying to explain to a teenager

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule.

 

You and RMT tear it up... I'll be back after while to again bring up the inconsistencies and out right distrotions of truth when I return.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.

You are vapid and transparent in your incessant drone of half-facts, non-facts, invalid analogies, and expressions of pseudo-expert opinions ("it should of collapsed" the way I say it should have). On top of that you use the exact same disinformation tactics that you accuse others of, as can be seen from my accounting above. Grow up, go to school, and stop ignoring those facts that don't suit what you wish to believe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will tell you why the Twin Towers fell when other buildings did/have not. The Twin Towers were steel structures with an aluminum outer skin, and concrete/steel floors. The point they impacted was what- the 80th and 60th levels? The load bearing steel at the point of impact was designed to hold millions of tons simply because of the weight of the floors above. This means it was a lot of really thick steel.

 

The plane impacted, the steel supports stopped most of the plane and jet fuel goes all over the place (and down many elevator shafts). Everything in those floors of the WTC basically became a wick for this massive fire (what's the vapor point for plastics?).

 

And since steel transfers heat (and concrete insulates/absorbs heat), this fire started spreading to other floors- up and down the steel supports to the floors above and below; the surrounding floors roasted; furniture spontaneously combusted etc... (people trapped at the top floor- 200 feet above the point of impact were roasting too- those were the jumpers. Imagine the heat if you were 10 feet/one floor away.)

 

And that is where the problem with the Twin Towers comes into play- it's a steel building with an aluminum outer skin. Steel melts at 1525 or so degrees, aluminum melts at 2100 or so degrees and does not transfer heat like steel does- it bounces it back. The point of impact- - those five floors or so became a furnace, by definition: the outer skin held in the heat, the stuff inside and fuel added more heat and the giant hole the plane made was the bellows.

 

At this point, it becomes math- an insulated fire 200 feet X 200 feet X 50 feet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plus several tons of combustable items with a 25% air intake over one hour produces a central core heat in excess of 1525 degrees. How could it not?

 

(And even if the interior of this incredibly huge fire did not get that hot, it got hot enough. At 800 degrees, steel loses half its strength. And with hundreds of tons above, a collapse is inevitable.)

 

And as far as the building's collapse, we're talking thousands of tons of steel and concrete... we're talking exponential stress levels... the more it falls, the heavier it is/the more force it has/the faster it must fall. Explosives do not become necessary at this point.

 

And as far as WTC 7- when the jet fuel went all over the place, up to 20% of it went down the elevator shafts and down an underground tunnel to WTC 7.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

titorite,

 

I've seen your replies on other non-Titor related threads so I know that you have the ability and inclination to think problems through before responding. I'm asking you to ponder the following:

 

First off it is my understanding that a fire can only burn as hot as its fuel which would be the jet gasoline. Now then the majority of this "jet gas" burned up on impact igniting everything flamable but ultimiatly expending the strongest fuel(the gas).

I want you to think about the above statement ..."the majority of the [fuel] burned up on impact". That's a lot of petroleum based fuel to burn within seconds.

If you stay with that position then you should consider the significance of what you're suggesting relative to the collapse of the building(s).

 

In our military arsenals we have a class of explosives called FAE's (fuel-air explosives). They are also sometimes refered to as "poor man's nukes". They employ from less than 100 gallons and up to about 300 gallons of gasoline or kerosene (jet fuel is nothing more than highly refined kerosene) as the explosive. A very complex atomizing mechanism causes the fuel to finely mist prior to the cannister impacting the ground and a delayed explosive ignites the fuel. It then detonates the fuel. The result is over-pressures on the order of 400-500 atmospheres and instant temperatures up to 4500 degrees (the surface of the sun is about 5,600 degrees). The destructive force is on the order of a low yield tactical nuclear device. To accomplish this it takes a mist/air ratio of about 85% to 95% air to mist (it depends on the fuel). Another aspect of FAE's, that differs from conventional explosives, is the duration of the over-pressure. Conventional explosives like C4 and TNT have burn rates that range up to ~22,000 ft/sec. The blast is huge but it's over in a fraction of a second. FAE's maintain the over-pressure for a few seconds because it takes a few seconds for the fuel to burn off. The result is a much more destructive force. To put it in terms relevent to our discussion, "the majority of the [fuel in an FAE] is burned up on impact".

 

In the case of the Towers we aren't talking about a couple of hundred gallons of fuel instantly igniting. We're talking about 8,000 to 11,000 gallons of fuel.

 

To get your almost instant consumption of the fuel you must have the equivalent of an FAE. To accomplish this you must have a fuel mist to air ratio on the same order of 85% - 95% air to fuel. That's a huge expansion in volume for the fuel. But if that had occured you would have had your poor man's nuke and it would have been huge. It should have not only dropped the towers it should have crushed them within seconds of the detonation.

 

If we don't have the proper fuel to air ratio and if we also don't have the majority of the fuel atomized then we have a normal "slow" burn-off of the fuel.

 

So the questions that you need to ponder are:

 

1. Where did the oxygen come from to instantly consume the fuel?

 

2. If the fuel was consumed almost instantly what happened to the release of energy associated with the detonation of the fuel?

 

3. If the majority of the fuel burned up on impact why did the Towers stay up for the period that they remained standing? Why weren't the instantly crushed in a "poor man's nuke" quasi-FAE detonation?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed a grab bag for information. Won't cover everything you've mentioned, just the nagging points.

 

@Similar Skyscraper/Plane comments

 

Not just counting the florida case, but...

 

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

 

I am sure a rationalisation search on google could easily pull up more. However, thats the prime example I was thinking of.

 

@Colapsing floor question

 

I believe you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick. The question is why did it colapse only after an explosion occured? Surely if it was, as theorised, the weights, structural weakening and extra load of the planes that caused the colapse, the explosion wouldn't have been neccessary for it's demise, but, twice in a row, an explosion appears to have been a trigger.

 

@Radar

 

The alarm would have been the very people in the radiotower who's job it is to watch for planes in the *rush hour* not to colide and crash into each other on take-off/landing and whilst in-flight. The lack of a transponder on a plane so large should have got the people in the radiotower panicking, and the the American Airspace Radar going beserk. They are quite well known for not tolerating unidentified planes in their airspace...

 

@Parachute - I'll rephrase the question

 

Why aren't there any damn parachutes on the roof and why aren't the employees given skydiver training?

 

@Army

 

He believed he saw small flashes at the corners of the tower preceding the floor's colapse.

 

Another question, come to think of it...

 

If fire can't melt (but can weaken) the steel (given the limitations of the jetfuel, and burntime), why was the steel melted when it was photographed?

 

@Fight

 

Supposedly there was a fight on the plane, now, I'm not sure if this is possible... (another question)...

 

Is it possible to use a mobile phone on a plane (ignoring safety regulations etc)?

 

But, it was mentioned on the news that one of the victims on the plane had called the emergency services, and was telling them everything that was happening. How they used hot water to scold the attackers, using everything to hand to get them etc...

 

There is something odd that bugs me about 9/11, but I can't put my finger on it. And the pentagon situation is even more weird...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT I apoligize for skiping over you. I was gonna wait till my CPU scan was finished to start but I read indazonas' stuff here and I'm compelled to address it...Mainly just because he has no idea how to apply the Rules of Disinformation to a disinformationalist.

 

INDY, you said

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why are you incapable of being wrong? What happened to your critical thinking process and currently forbids you to accept the facts.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4. Use a strawman.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule.

Alright then allow me to demonstrait a difference of values here. Above you apply tactic 4 and 5 to me in reference to what you quoted me saying...Now then ,would you point out to me EXACTLY who I am setting up as a straw man and where I riddiculed you in the above quoted? Perhaps you would like me to explain my comments. I feel you have some kind of pyschological block inhibiting you from accepting all of the evidence of 911 because if you did then it would confirm something your not prepared to deal with on a mental and emotional level...OR you maybe blindly stuborn, mentaly rigid unwilling to accept the whole of the facts because that would mean you would have to admit error. Something the stubborn dislike doing. I do not know what the answer is Indy, that why I asked you about your "faith" in your answers.

I did not even try to set you up because that is foolishness and it would detract from the truth I am telling. Also I did not ridicule you in the above quoted... That post isn't mocking, its despair. Despair that people as smart as you and RMT would rather believe the assinine story the governmnet espouts rather than accepting the truth for what it is and what it means.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes do tell why the tower hit second fell first. And do tell why the building not hit by a plane at all fell around five in the afternoon.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

17. Change the subject.

The above is not changeing the subject. The subject is 911 and our difference of opinion about how it fell. I was addressing your severel threats (bad form sir, there is no need to threaten me crediblity. As far as you and few others are concerned I have no crediblity already.) of telling me off.

And it's looking like you don't have an answer for me. It doesn't strike as strange in the least bit that the tower that was hit second fell first? Surely you can't believe that the fire burned hotter in one building than the other.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You are egear as a beaver to destroy me. ...(not imppressive).... You wanna defeat a stranger rather than make a friend...speaks volumes to your charicter.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

7. Question motives.

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad. (Tip: It works best when you are a good speller)

Now here your misappling tactic 7. Thier is no question mark in the above posting. To be blunt I am less concerned with you motives and more concerned with your misunderstanding of the facts of the matter.

Tactic 18 .... I'm not sure..Maybe it would be best to just apply 18 and 5 to the above. Including your jab at my spelling.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You dislike my analogy of the outer mesh frame.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Because it is a wholly invalid comparison that is without merit.

 

Because it says absolutely nothing about the outer perimeter columns of the WTC.

 

20. False evidence.

False evidence....I have no clue why you consider an analogoy "evidence"...thats just illogical.

Geometricly speaking "I" think screen and grid are the same. Of course it is differnt materials but I was hoping to express the point that it was a tight well constructed grid/mesh/screen of steel that got a hole knocked into it. Prior to the collapse it was solid as a rock.

 

IN FACT one of the victims had the misfortune of being trapped on the floor the plane impacted on. He called 911 and stayed on the phone with the operator till his final moments. (chilling heart breaking phone call to listin to..but its online and at youtube) In the back round you can hear his co-worker giveing his info and relying what office they were trapt in, you can hear the fire burn stuff but one noise that is not on the phone is the sound of steel trusses creaking as they expanded into the collumns...no the only thing you hear is a loud rumble and Larrys final words and one and a half seconds later its over...The question is why didn't I hear Trusses expandind or falling to the ground has they fell out of place? maybe this could be explained as the mic not picking the noise up. But I think we both know how much noise metal on metal and metal falling onto a concrete floor makes... If it happened like that then I think it should of been audible considering how much other back round noise that could be heard.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The steel mesh outer core is a load bearing structure.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And a screen in a porch door is not. Ergo your attempt at backwards logic did not work.

 

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.

Again I am supprised by your illogic. Are you more concerned with winning an argument and shameing me or is your concern on the truth of the matter? I stated the the outer core was a load bearing structure and you say I am practiceing Alice in Wonderland logice because I compared its style of construction to a screen. And in context I dont understand how you could possibly consider my logic backwards...I went on to state that it supported the floors in conjunction with the INNER CORE. And if you really wanna get technical the Inner core supported the majority of the load with the outter core ensureing stability at such exterm heights that the building was built too. I'm not saying the outer core didn't carry any weight. I am saying the inner core is the more important load bearing structure and that as long as it was in tact and still holding it beams thier was no reason for the floors on any level to fall..

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Jet fuel burned up in one big fire ball

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

20. False evidence.

 

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that there was other combustible material that caught fire and sustained the fire.)

WHEW BOY HOWDY!

OKay. I have no clue why you say I bring up false evidence. You saw the fireball I sall the fireball

 

everyone saw the fireball that was a huge freaking fireball. AND the reason it was so huge (as I have explained before and shall do so again) was because all the jet fuel was burning up. And because it was an indirect coner clip impact, the velocity carried the even more fuel forward to burn in mid air, unlike the south tower which was a direct hit dead center meaning the central core took the brunt of it. Still, I have also stated time and again that a fire is only as hot as its strongest fuel. In this case the jet fuel. And jet fuel isn't wax. It burns FAST! as we saw the the north towers' fireball. The jet fuel was all used up within moments after the impact and like you said and Me before you it ignited everything else it touched but nothing in that building was capable of burning hotter than that fuel. Which, as I already said ,was consumed with in moments of impact. Everything else burned in at a lower tempature in an oxygen poor inviroment.

 

Those are the facts. I have not ignored them. They are logical fact. An example of Alice in Wonderland logice is the Idea that A hijakers passport survived the impact and fireball from the inside of the plane and sailed to the ground RIGHT IN FRONT OF AN FBI AGENT with only minor charring around the edges. THAT IS INSANE and the only thing crazier than that story is the sad fact that so many americans just accepted it.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

if you hold a torch to a beam for only a few seconds your not gonna cut the beam.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the facts and evidence for Euler column buckling)

Actully I never heard of this collumn before last night. And since I was explaining how a support beam is heated but by a weilding torch and not addressing a buckled collumn I never heard of I fail to see how I can ignore what I was not aware of...rest assured though I'll go look it up now.

My fact stand true above. If you hold a weilding torch to a beam for only a few seconds your not gonna cut the beam...hell your not gonna get the beam hot enough to light a ciggarette off it if you only apply the flame for a few seconds. And the point of that statement was to explain that the strongest heat source was only present for a few moments and thierfore it could not signifigantly contributed to the heating of the steel. Now the friction of the plane itself probably caused some lasting heat damage but the Jet fuel was not a factor after it burned up igniting everything else to burn at lower temps...

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Never mind the fact that the WTC fireball did not burn anywhere near the tempature a weilding torch can produce

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that steel weakening at temperature can induce the onset of Euler column buckling, thereby foregoing the necessity for steel melting temperatures)

Yes, your repeating yourself. And just like many other times on this post, your mis-appling the tactic. In fact since the exact subject in my post was fire tempature at that particular moment and not a buckled collumn I would say your repeative posting is a distractionary tactic. What Happened Indy? I thought you were going to "destroy" my alleged crediblity by picking apart the gems I left in the previous post...I guess you choose not to address it right away. Maybe I'll get to read about those gems in your next response.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The structural damage itself was not that bad

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that it was not only the structural damage that caused the collapse. Ignore that it was a compounding effect. Continue to ignore Euler column buckling)

Ok three times you have said this and I have clearly and completely refuted your two pervious accusations of me ignoreing facts. The problem with the above quote is that me and you could argue from now till forever about the extent of the damage. Reguardless of that it will come back to my opinion vrs your opinion. Just to be clear when I compare the impact hole to the rest of the 110 stories of building I consider that minor damage in comparison. The 91 bomb had more explosive energy and did more imediate damage then the planes. In fact if that terrorist had parked next to the core the surrounding explosion probably would of been enough to knock out the center out collaspeing the structure from the inside out...For some reason he parked as far away from the core as he could along the outside of the sub-basement parking level.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Gawd I need a break for a moment.... I feel like I am trying to explain to a teenager

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule.

Again. ..again and again and again... you try to use the Tactics of disinfo against me but you repeatedly misapply the spesific tactics to your referenced quotes. The above was not riddicule and I feel kind a bad for you if you honestly thought it was. Fact of the matter is I was tired and a bit brain drained at that exact moment... I was gonna write alot more and address RMT too but I needed the break... And yes I still feel like I am trying to explain the the illogic of the Magic bullet theory to a teenager. I'm not calling YOU a teenager but even if I was I think the shoe would fit considering teenagers "know it all". Also, I seriously doubt either one of us will be sidetracked. This debate will continue on or one of us will change our minds.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You and RMT tear it up... I'll be back after while to again bring up the inconsistencies and out right distrotions of truth when I return.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.

 

You are vapid and transparent in your incessant drone of half-facts, non-facts, invalid analogies, and expressions of pseudo-expert opinions ("it should of collapsed" the way I say it should have). On top of that you use the exact same disinformation tactics that you accuse others of, as can be seen from my accounting above. Grow up, go to school, and stop ignoring those facts that don't suit what you wish to believe.

You have accused me of establishing a fall back position to rely on. Now have the intellectual decency to explain to me and everyone else following this, What, exactly that fall back position IS that you claim I established and where you have observed me relying on it. Typeing my "goodnight" is hardly a fall back position upon which to rely upon.

You accuse me of ignorance but fail to understand how to properly apply the tactics of disinformation you accuse me of.

 

You totaly ignored every point I brought up in the post instead chooseing to do you best to apply the tactics to me in an attempt to ruffel my feathers. THATS EMOTIONALIZING.

 

You say I am ignoreing facts that don't suit my belife after a bit of unmistakeable riddicule.

 

Instead of focusing on winning an argument and proving yourself superior to me amongst your peers , Why not give me your thoughtful explaination for why tower that was hit second indirectly fell first. Maybe you could also tell me why the chief of the New York fire department would consult the laymen/owner about the structual integrity of the Solomon building. Larry said that maybe the best thing to do was to pull it. ...Larry goes on to saw the Fire chief agreed and they pulled the building. Do you belive the NYFD is trained in controled demolition? Larry is one the record saying the NYFD pulled the building. It doesn't strike you as odd that the decision was made to bring down the building because they were worried the building would come down? Why risk the safty of your firemen to bring down an empty building that has been determined unsafe and in imminent danger of collapse? After the north tower fell the chief told his men to drop everything and evacuate the South tower because he feared it would collapse. ....And where Please tell me where because I am dying to know where did they get the amount of explosives needed to pull building 7. Do they keep the explosives on the fire trucks? Did the police have explosives in the trunks of thier police cursiers? Maybe the national guard was deployed with enough C4 to bring down the Solomon building and they just let the New York Fire Department handle the demolition because of thier training in demolishing buildings...??? And since Larry Silverstien owner/laymam/Fire Department consultant admited that the Solomon building was brought down via controled demolition organized and completed in a matter of hours during a crisis situation, IS IT REALLY that big of a streech of the imagination to consider the posiblity that it could be possible that the WTC could of been wired to explode? If the NYFD can bring down a 47 story building in a matter of hours how much faster could a team of trained black ops wire a build twice the size? Would it take them one day? Two? Maybe a week doing it quitely under everyones watchful eye? irreguardless we can honestly agree that at least one building fell on 911 due to controled demolition.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT ...am I not allowed to change my mind. Especialy after I droped the subject for awhile only to watch the conversation return to 911.

 

By the way back on page 7 or 6, after I provided you a list of qualified civil engineers that insist 911 was a controled demonlition, you refuted everything I posted based not on the link I gave but from a PDF document you referenced several times but never provided a link for.

 

Do you have that link yet?

 

You ignore key points I bring up or refute them based on words only you have read.

 

You dissappear from the debate for awhile only to bring it back up after I drop it and then you and yours "debunk" in a pack.

 

I'll give you this one though I was wrong about all four planes being lost one radar and your right about it only being flight 77. ...

 

My mistake. ...but not a lie. I said it before and I say it again, I don't know every detail, I doubt anyone will ever understand the whole truth. But I know an inconsistence when I see it and I know a what a lie tastes like when I'm fed a whooper.

 

Passports that survive planes exploding into buildings, Muslims so devoute they are willing to kill themselves but on the night of september 10th they get drunk at a strip club and leave a q'oran as a tip, a President thats more concerned about the emotional state of school children instead of a nation that is under attack, A 47 story building falling to the ground because the owner told the fire department to pull it, A pilot that failed flight school FLYING AROUND the pentagon to hit it on the side with the least amount of people instead of just diveing right in, ALl masterminded by an old man who has been on kidney Dyalesis since 1997 hopping around from cave to cave releaseing the occasional video during elections...because he doesn't like freedom.

 

Back in the 80s thier was a cartoon based on a movie from the 60s Have you heard of G.I. Joe and thier struggle to protect the world from Cobra? That is what this BS reminds me of. OBL had no problem with american freedom for years operating as a CIA asset. But on 911 he got 19 people to fly planes into buildings because he hates freedom. At least we invade countries for Oil.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jmpet,

 

The plane impacted, the steel supports stopped most of the plane and jet fuel goes all over the place (and down many elevator shafts). Everything in those floors of the WTC basically became a wick for this massive fire (what's the vapor point for plastics?).

The fuel ignited on impact and burned up as it flew through the building. The fuel never had time to go anywhere in liquid form because it was on fire and used up with in moments. The fuel did not soak into anything nor did it poor into any elevator shafts...Fire went all over the place but mostly forward at a speed of 500+ miles an hour Approx.

 

And since steel transfers heat (and concrete insulates/absorbs heat), this fire started spreading to other floors- up and down the steel supports to the floors above and below; the surrounding floors roasted; furniture spontaneously combusted etc... (people trapped at the top floor- 200 feet above the point of impact were roasting too- those were the jumpers. Imagine the heat if you were 10 feet/one floor away.)

I offer you this mental exersize, get a common metal knife from your kitchen drawer. Hold one end and hold a lighter or a candel to the other end and count how long it takes for the heat to fravel to your hand...Steel doesn't transfer heat like your thinking as proven by this woman.

spacer.png

 

And that is where the problem with the Twin Towers comes into play- it's a steel building with an aluminum outer skin. Steel melts at 1525 or so degrees, aluminum melts at 2100 or so degrees and does not transfer heat like steel does- it bounces it back. The point of impact- - those five floors or so became a furnace, by definition: the outer skin held in the heat, the stuff inside and fuel added more heat and the giant hole the plane made was the bellows.

Where did you pull your fire facts? ...Alluminum melts around 600 C.

Wikipedia

 

At this point, it becomes math- an insulated fire 200 feet X 200 feet X 50 feet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plus several tons of combustable items with a 25% air intake over one hour produces a central core heat in excess of 1525 degrees. How could it not?

 

(And even if the interior of this incredibly huge fire did not get that hot, it got hot enough. At 800 degrees, steel loses half its strength. And with hundreds of tons above, a collapse is inevitable.)

No, it doesn't lose half its strength at 800 degrees... Again Wikipedia has the right answer at 800 degrees steel gets hot but it doesn't even reach plascisity.

 

And as far as WTC 7- when the jet fuel went all over the place, up to 20% of it went down the elevator shafts and down an underground tunnel to WTC 7.

Um yeaaaaah ...no. Larry Silverstien, WTC landlord, did an interview about the events of 911 on PBS. he declared before God and America that he "told the Chief that he thought pulling it was the best thing to do" and the NYFD chief agreed and they pulled the Solomon building. You can see it for yourself on youtube.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the respect Darby. Let me share something of myself with you. I believe alot of things but only have faith in only a few things. I have no issue changing my beliefes in light of new knowledge but my faith is like a rock.

 

That said you asked

 

1. Where did the oxygen come from to instantly consume the fuel?

 

The oxygen came in the form of momentum flying forward over 500 miles an hour.

 

the plane flew into one end and came out the other as debries. The fuel caught fire inside and its own explosive force would of helped it to keep moving ...First the FuelFire flew out of the building then it went strait up under its own heat.. South tower got it worse than north tower because of the point of impact but its still moveing with enough speed to find its way outside into the air.

 

2. If the fuel was consumed almost instantly what happened to the release of energy associated with the detonation of the fuel?

 

Not quite instantly..I like the term moments.. The north tower fire ball burned up in less then 20 seconds but longer than 5 seconds and the majority burned outside the building....and yet it still fell first.... The South tower got a direct hit and more force was released in it ...SO why did it fall second?

 

3. If the majority of the fuel burned up on impact why did the Towers stay up for the period that they remained standing? Why weren't the instantly crushed in a "poor man's nuke" quasi-FAE detonation?

 

The towers remained standing because they were spesificly built to withstand a jet impact...The Fires were black not grey nor white but sooty black. Thats because they were burning themselves out slowly but surely just as the architects intended...on the off chance the the fire suppersion system failed.

 

The buildings were not instantly crushed because they force of the explosion was also in motion.

 

Its also my understanding that a Fuel Air Bomb also sucks in air as it drops... Oxygen! either compressed as a gas or in solid form released through chemical reaction is what makes an explosion an EXPLOSION. Explosives provide thier own oxygen.

 

The fuelfire of 911 had to go find its oxygen so the resulting BOOM was not quite as strong as an FAE.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

titorite- Not only was I there when it happened, but I was also a HUGE 911 conspiracy buff for years. But when you research enough, you come to the conclusion that 911 happened the way they say it did. Occam's razor. And simply put, 911 can be proven mathematically.

 

If you're looking for a conspiracy, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit I hate the word conspiracy... I never knew what conspiracy theory was till 911.

 

Screw conspiracy I don't pander to almost truths I deal with the facts as I see and understand them. Papper Passports do not survive fireballs. IF the pancake theory was true then the buildings falling at terminal velocity is impossible because each floor meets resistence as it crashs into the next floor BUT THEY DID FALL AT TERMINAL VELOCITY all three of them.

 

How can the sore thumb of wtc7 not be a splinter in your mind? Nothing hit it. Around 4ish a couple of office fires break out for no logical reason and by five fourty five the building is is pulled.

 

And you can tell me, that you not only accept it but believe it fell for a perfectly rational reason.

 

arg....... and jpmet if your not exactly sure about your numbers you should say so. Even the final report of the 911 commision says the tempatures of the fire was less than 1,500 degress. The photo I posted isn't photo shoped shes was real......and then she was murdered. I don't argue this stuff so vehemontly for entertainments sake. This is not sport. This is your government getting more bold then ever before and killing off many people just to scare you stupid too think rationaly but not too scared to goto work and pay your taxes. Of course the last few sentences maybe my belife but the facts of 911 are recorded on film.. For petes sake the tower hit first fell second...that is not logical.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Screw conspiracy I don't pander to almost truths I deal with the facts as I see and understand them. Papper Passports do not survive fireballs.<

 

I will have to agree with you on that one, particularly since those passports were on the terrorists' bodies, and were shielded behind bulletproof glass aka the windshield. But I feel this points at a larger and much more serious conspiracy, not the hokey 911 conspiracy theory everyone is buying into.

 

>IF the pancake theory was true then the buildings falling at terminal velocity is impossible because each floor meets resistence as it crashs into the next floor BUT THEY DID FALL AT TERMINAL VELOCITY all three of them.<

 

I am sorry. For me, Heisenberg kicks in. The only way to prove an alternative theory is to rebuild then demolish the WTC to compare results.

 

I can tell you this- the building- when it was built- was built to withstand 200-400% of the weight it was supposed to support. And planes are awfully heavy, so it 8,000 gallons of fuel (32 tons). And when steel that's built to withstand 100 tons is suddenly hit by 10,000 tons, the math kicks in and it starts to make more sense.

 

>How can the sore thumb of wtc7 not be a splinter in your mind?<

 

It does, but again this only points towards a larger conspiracy. Where was Warren Buffet the morning of 911?

 

>your not exactly sure about your numbers you should say so.<

 

No I'm not. I mean, I could google and wiki it, but so could anyone reading this, and it does not change my point- when you have a raging furnace that's one acre and 50 feet high, you better believe you can melt steel.

 

>Even the final report of the 911 commision says the tempatures of the fire was less than 1,500 degress.<

 

Well, steel turns to licorice at 1000 degrees.

 

>This is your government getting more bold then ever before and killing off many people just to scare you stupid too think rationaly but not too scared to goto work and pay your taxes.<

 

I have to more or less agree with you but for different reasons.

 

>Even if you ignore the facts it doesn't change the truth.<

 

Can you italicize this tagline or something? I keep reading it like it's part of your post.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The practice of vanishing is also a disinformational tactic. You leave for a few days return later and never address the points made. For example you complete lack of understanding in how to apply the T.O.D. or RMTs total unwillingness to provide a link for the PDF document he used to refute the words on a link I brought up which he never looked at.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You leave for a few days return later and never address the points made.

Precisely the way you continue to refuse to address the primary structural failure mode of a vertical column under load (Euler buckling). I am glad you are catching on. Address this and we can talk.

 

For example you complete lack of understanding in how to apply the T.O.D.

Each one of my applications of your referenced tactics of disinformation to your tactics is completely accurate and appropriate. Your saying they are incorrect does not make them so. I hate to be so blunt, but you are not as crafty as you think you are.

 

or RMTs total unwillingness to provide a link for the PDF document he used to refute the words on a link I brought up which he never looked at

All you can do is focus on what you think is evidence (which it is not). Neither you nor any "scholars for truth" have presented any mathematical refutation for the single biggest failure mode of ALL vertical columns which bear loads. Address that fact that you and all the other posers ignore and you will be that much closer to the actual truth, instead of your partial-blind version of it. You see, YOU are the one who is on the hook here. YOU need to provide evidence for your assertions, which you have yet to do. I know you will think you have, but I assure you, none of it is scientific evidence. Here, I have a very simple task for you:

Please produce one, SINGLE paper that contains calculations that show Euler column buckling could NOT have been the failure mechanism for the WTC columns... and oh yes, that paper should be written by civil engineers and have appeared in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal. To be clear, a list of people who joined a website (no matter what their occupation) does not cut it. I want to see civil engineers putting their reputation on the line and showing their calculations.

 

On the flipside, here is a link to a paper which does include calculations, based on real physical mechanics, that anyone else can review and dispute. To-date, I should point out that not one single person can dispute these even rudimentary calculations:

 

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

 

A quote from this paper's conclusions which you should take note of:

 

There have been many interesting, but intuitive, competing explanations of the collapse.

 

To decide their viability, however, it is important to do at least some crude calculations.

and

 

The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have

 

collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor.

 

This purpose justifies the optimistic simplifying assumptions regarding survival made at the

 

outset, which include unlimited plastic ductility (i.e., absence of fracture), uniform distri-

 

bution of impact forces among the columns, disregard of various complicating details (e.g.,

 

the possibility that the failures of floor-column connections and of core columns preceded

 

the column and tube failure, or that the upper tube got wedged inside the lower tube),

 

etc. If the tower is found to fail under these very optimistic assumptions, it will certainly

 

be found to fail when all the detailed mechanisms are analyzed, especially since there are

 

order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural resistance.

You have simply shown no competence nor expertise to make, nor support, the claims you have made. None.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More selective use of sources by you:

 

Again Wikipedia has the right answer at 800 degrees steel gets hot but it doesn't even reach plascisity.

You appear to enjoy using Wikipedia to answer some of your questions. And yet in the classic sense of using a source only insofar as it supports your beliefs, you conveniently ignore the fact that Wikipedia also provides the logical and coherent answer to another one of your questions that you pretend cannot be answered but by controlled demolition.

Your question: "Why not give me your thoughtful explaination for why tower that was hit second indirectly fell first."

 

And here we see where Wikipedia provides the answer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_collapse_mechanism

 

A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter); the speed of the plane was lower (so there was less impact damage); and the affected floors had had their fire proofing partially upgraded.[3]

So why do you not believe this answer? What is most instructive to understand your application of disinfo tactics is that you refer to this source for some things, but do not quote it where its information counters your belief. That is disinformation tactic #15 - Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.

Go ahead... please explain why Wikipedia is good for some answers but not for others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way... since you are the one incessantly asking RMT for links to prove his points:

 

Wikipedia

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

At this point, it becomes math- an insulated fire 200 feet X 200 feet X 50 feet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plus several tons of combustable items with a 25% air intake over one hour produces a central core heat in excess of 1525 degrees. How could it not?

 

(And even if the interior of this incredibly huge fire did not get that hot, it got hot enough. At 800 degrees, steel loses half its strength. And with hundreds of tons above, a collapse is inevitable.)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No, it doesn't lose half its strength at 800 degrees... Again Wikipedia has the right answer at 800 degrees steel gets hot but it doesn't even reach plascisity.

How about you provide a link for that? I notice you conveniently will cite a source but will not provide the link. So please show me on Wikipedia where is says these exact words you have stated above. I provided you a link to an engineering web page with the Young's Modulus that does, indeed show a critical point for carbon steel weakening as low as 600 Deg F (by the way, you do not tell us which system of temperature units you are using). So unless you can show us where Wikipedia says this, so far you look to be wrong. Please show us...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres many things about 9/11 we'll never forget - but this one item sticks out for me.

 

Its sort of like those of us who can remember the day that John F Kennedy was assasinated - in Dallas -in 1963. I was 4 when that happened but I know where I was. Out in the backyard playing with a couple of friends from nextdoor. My mom said they had to go home, and I had to come inside.

 

I used to work in the Crane Trade, I was a dispatcher who worked for a now defunct company that was in the San Franciso Bay area. The First thing I remember vividly about 9/11 - was arriving at work to find a few employees sitting back in the conference room. I could hear the TV going - they had the volume turned up. "(name1) Get back here... you've got to see this (expletive) to believe it with your own eyes. The US may be under attack right now!." "Huh?!" I grabbed coffee and ran back towards the conference room.

 

"Now Whats going on?? " I said. "Didn't you hear anything about this driving in (name1)? A plane hit the World Trade Center early this morning. Theres people trapped in the buildig and its on fire."(name2) explained - as I came in, and sat down. The 1st tower was on the TV screen and smoke was billowing out of it - it kinda looked like or put me in mind of a cigarette that had been improperly lit.

 

I actually thought (name2) was going to have a heart attack when that 2nd 767 Jet came into view on the screen in the distance, and slammed into other tower from behind. (It wasn't until later on when we saw it from other angles. It was like at that moment I could hear all those souls on board that plane screaming. What a horrible way to die)

 

Not more than 3 minutes after that happened, my older Brother (who was our company's sales manager/estimator,) came in and slipped into the chair next to me. There was a lot of cross talking going on among us and at the time, CNN was replaying that 2nd hit on the television screen. "Holy (expletive)! Look at that!! " Someone in the room said.

 

My brother looked ashen, I'd never seen him like this before, as He turned to me, he said "Our job at UAL is scrubbed indefinitely, (Name3) told me there was some talk about more than one plane being..." and then his voice trailed off, as CNN showed new footage of the crash.

 

My brother, had been enroute to San Francisco Intl Airport on that morning, to meet with UAL's Airline Service and Maintenance Divison Manager. It involved a contract we'd signed about 8 months earlier,( while our late boss had still been alive,) to perform retrofit work inside their Mantenance Hanger on various ceiling and ground based hydraulic controlled lift systems.

 

That week - we were going to be starting this job - removing some of the older stuff they wanted scrapped, then we'd start updating ramps and other platforms that would drop down out of the ceiling and set up around the plane so service personnel can move around the exterior.

 

The plan UAL had was to arrange it all so that they'd be able to fit up to 8 747-400s in that hanger for repairs at a time. That wouldn't have been a problem - I've been in that building several times its gigantic.

 

My Brother told us all later, how traffic had been slow going up hwy 101 north to So San Francisco.

 

He was going to phone our contact at UAL to tell him he was running late, when the guy from UAL Maintenance phoned him instead. The guy told him about the first crash in NYC. He said 3 other UAL planes were unaccounted for and were still in the air. That they were shutting down operations, and that every airport nationwide was being closed for security reasons by the FAA. With no choice - my brother had to turn around and make his way back into the office.

 

Wasn't long after that, the job I had these guys ( was an operator, oiler and 2 riggers )going out on cancelled for that week. I told them they could head for home, and as strange as it was - they didn't budge from their chairs. This was all so unreal. All of us were sitting there glued to that TV set - and there wasn't a sound out of anyone as we listened to the coverage. The irony of all this - was 9/11 killed our company. Business was slow, and the United contract would have kept us going until things improved.

 

(name1) is me.

 

(name2) was the operator.

 

(name3) Was UAL Manager.

 

Where were any of you that day? What were you thinking - as all this unfolded?? Anyone else with similar stories they wish to share???

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I only learned of what unfolded via TV. It seemed quite surreal at the time, observing the planes smashed into the buildings in what seemed to be like an eternity. Everyone was clearly shocked, or surprised, words were held by mutual silence and were only broken by a few mutterings or curses that trailed off quietly. At the time, I knew little as to what the Twin Towers were for (aside from the hint of 'World Trade'), and I was just trying to figure out what was going on... Was it a horrible accident? Did the plane lose control? Then the second plane went into the second tower, which just made the confusion worse. It wasn't helped by loops of video clips from the ground.

 

Then, the buildings colapsed. They fell to the ground, with clips of the people running from the resulting dust cloud. No-one muttered or cursed after that.

 

Now, what has me interested is you said three other planes were missing. That leaves two unaccounted for.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indy,

 

You've done some homework on the Young Modulus of carbon steel at various temperatures. But we also discussed the fact that in the case we're looking at we had, not uniaxial forces on the columns, which is what they should have under normal circumstances, but multiaxial long cycle forces acting on them due of the damage to the structure.

 

Back to Young's Modulus. For carbon steel it's on the order of 205-210 GPa (giga-Pascals). We talked about shearing forces acting on the columns. What about the shear modulus of the same steel? Is the shear modulus the same or is it significantly less than the Young Modulus at the same temperature? (In "English" for the non-engineers :) : Is the steel column more likely to bear up the weight from above if the weight is evenly distributed straight down the length of the column or is it more likely to hold up the weight above if the force is "slicing" at an angle through the column for a considerable amount of time and at a moderately high temperature?)

 

Given that a ~150 t mass struck the structure with a velocity of ~700 ft/sec is it possible that the carbon steel suffered any high-velocity impact thermal shock effects - resulting in a degradation of the Young Modulus index for a given temperature? (Again, in English for the non-engineers: if a huge masss slams into the building at high velocity does the shockwave that rattles through the structure knock the steel molucules loose from each other and make it a lot weaker than it was before the impact?)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You leave for a few days return later and never address the points made.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Precisely the way you continue to refuse to address the primary structural failure mode of a vertical column under load (Euler buckling). I am glad you are catching on. Address this and we can talk.

Not quite. I don't see any evidence of buckling. Can you show some photographic evidence of buckled Columns? Surely if thats what happened then thier ought to be lots of HUGE buckled columns...Show me the photos. I told you I had not heard of Euler Buckling before you brought it up...Now I have read about it and..yeah, I doubt it. AS FOR YOU VANISHING..Thats just how you disinformationalists debate.

 

Each one of my applications of your referenced tactics of disinformation to your tactics is completely accurate and appropriate. Your saying they are incorrect does not make them so. I hate to be so blunt, but you are not as crafty as you think you are.

I have no problem being blunt, you are not as smart as me nor did your accusations fit my words as I spelled out.

 

All you can do is focus on what you think is evidence (which it is not). Neither you nor any "scholars for truth" have presented any mathematical refutation for the single biggest failure mode of ALL vertical columns which bear loads. Address that fact that you and all the other posers ignore and you will be that much closer to the actual truth, instead of your partial-blind version of it.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.

Again I don't have every answer I just know the version the government spins is less than honest. You defend the government version of events and defend thier version with disinformational tactics rather than just calmly HONESTLY looking at the inconsistencies of which thier is legion.

 

More selective use of sources by you:

As opposed to what? UNselective answers?

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Again Wikipedia has the right answer at 800 degrees steel gets hot but it doesn't even reach plascisity.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You appear to enjoy using Wikipedia to answer some of your questions. And yet in the classic sense of using a source only insofar as it supports your beliefs, you conveniently ignore the fact that Wikipedia also provides the logical and coherent answer to another one of your questions that you pretend cannot be answered but by controlled demolition.

 

Your question: "Why not give me your thoughtful explaination for why tower that was hit second indirectly fell first."

 

And here we see where Wikipedia provides the answer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_collapse_mechanism

Yes I do enjoy wiki for source facts...It is a good encycleipedia. But like any encyclepedia some facts are open to change and some aren't. The melting point of steel will always be the same but the reason why the towers fell is open for debate as we are doing so here.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter); the speed of the plane was lower (so there was less impact damage); and the affected floors had had their fire proofing partially upgraded.[3]

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So why do you not believe this answer?

Because the north tower took a direct hit to its inner core. Instead of haveing less obstructions to blast through the fireball and all of the pressure force and heat had to of taken out a great deal of the concrete surrounding the 20x20 core columns. The damage was much worse then the north tower where the fireball blast zoomed through the columns and burned in mostly midair.

 

By the way... since you are the one incessantly asking RMT for links to prove his points:

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wikipedia

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

At this point, it becomes math- an insulated fire 200 feet X 200 feet X 50 feet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plus several tons of combustable items with a 25% air intake over one hour produces a central core heat in excess of 1525 degrees. How could it not?

 

(And even if the interior of this incredibly huge fire did not get that hot, it got hot enough. At 800 degrees, steel loses half its strength. And with hundreds of tons above, a collapse is inevitable.)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No, it doesn't lose half its strength at 800 degrees... Again Wikipedia has the right answer at 800 degrees steel gets hot but it doesn't even reach plascisity.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How about you provide a link for that? I notice you conveniently will cite a source but will not provide the link. So please show me on Wikipedia where is says these exact words you have stated above. I provided you a link to an engineering web page with the Young's Modulus that does, indeed show a critical point for carbon steel weakening as low as 600 Deg F (by the way, you do not tell us which system of temperature units you are using). So unless you can show us where Wikipedia says this, so far you look to be wrong. Please show us...

I do not incessantly do anything and I'll thank you to stop trying to drag this debate into the mud with your snide insults. Don't bother being indignant you have time and again threatened to destroy me, remarked about my lack of intelligence, and have attacked the messanger and ignored the message.

I have asked RMT for that PDF link because when he asked of PE certified Civil enginers that supported a controlled demolition I gave him a link and a list. He refuted my link and list with this PDF thing only he has seen...As far as I know he made it up because thier was no link check for myself. I Provide links when applicable or asked. (Most of the time) As for Wikis' info on steel...this should really be comon sense. Goto wiki, type in iron, scoll down and read.

 

NOW THEN! When you accused me of being a disinformationalist, You said such things to the affect that; I made you out to be a straw man, riddiculed you, relyed on fall back position...Please re-read my reply to that post because I asked you many questions but you answered none. I on the otherhand do my best to answer every question I can that I am asked...I just kinda hoped to get the same curtousy I have given in that reguard.

 

Reguards,

 

ME

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing indazona...There is a photo I have posted on page 10 of this here thread. In it a long haired person(likely female) can been seen standing at the edge of the impact hole holding onto a column.

 

Shouldn't that column have been too hot to touch according to your logic? Should not the whole area be too hot to approach?

 

Something you never talk about...TIME....How long does heat have to be applied to steel for steel to retain it? How fast does steel dissapate heat? How long must heat of a constant tempature be applied to steel to make it reach elasicity?

 

.........Why did WTC7 fall?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading these posts since I joined here and I would like to add my two cents. I do think that 911 was an inside job or at least they let it happen. I have felt this way since day one. I remember the day all to well I was in the army at the time. A week prior to the attacks all military installations were being closed to the public. I thought this was strange because when I joined all military posts were opened. Whats more strange all of them closed on the same day 8/31/01.

 

I asked the Captain of my unit why were all the bases being closed he said specifically because of terrorism. I was wondering why in world are we going to such extremes for terrorism as far as I knew at the time terrorism wasnt such a big issue. Then a week and half later 911 happens. This to me was no coincedence somebody somewhere knew something. From that day on Ive investigated just about everything Ive heard concerning our government.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...