-
Posts
439 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by trulez
-
Strawman argument. No one said anything about melting steel. The steel just needs to be weaken to lose support, which is exactly what happened with the jet fuel, carbon-based material, and plenty of oxygen. You're overestimating the strength of steel here. Yet there is evidence of molten steel on the very website you provided as a "debunk" source. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc-southtower.jpg You make it sound like 80 floors act as one, which doesn't work that way. There when thousands and thousands of pounds and loads of kinetic energy going downards. It's gravity doing it's work. Unfortunately, it killed 3000 people as well. As seen in the 9/11 videos the central core gave up first and the antenna on the top of the building starts falling before the outer walls. This is contradicting your claim of an collapse that the outer steel columns gave away due to the heat. That fact is also confirmed by the FEMA: "Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2)" The building had their own generator and gas canisters, and they started a fire in the building. Eventually the entire building was engulfed in flames and the bottom parts of the buildings fell off due to the WTC debris. The firefighters knew it was going to collapse and wouldn't risk fighting it. That's why when it collapsed, there was no casualities. It isn't that hard when you do a bit of research. Also, it did NOT fall on it's own footprint (not a single WTC building exists today) and it leaned slightly to the south. WTC7 was recently rebuilt. Could you give a link to any official government report where this is said? Of course it is, I mean, you wouldn't expect the 911 conspiracy theorist debunkers to post their credentials too, right? Quoted from the 911 conspiracy theory debunking site: "Q: Why do you hide your identity? A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was." Like it should be none of anyones business if they have any credentials to backup their claims. That's enough for me.
-
Sanity has left the building...
-
Nice song. There's another very funny Bush video in You Tube, it's a bit older so you might have seen it already.
-
But then it disintegrates while in the air, which again defies logic and the rules of physics. Concrete doesn't disintegrate on it's own. The top half should have kept it's angular momentum and topple over, there was nothing stopping it. See the angle of the top 30 floors here:
-
Could you tell me the page number in that PDF file where it's said the structural engineer did not take into account for possibility of an plane? Why are you contradicting your self? You just said it was not taken into account, now you're saying it was. Which is it? "Much fire" is objectional. I've already established that the highest temperatures that the fire could have reached due to the jet fuel would not have been sufficient to melt steel and bring the building down.
-
It was not the only material burning, but as far as the reports go it was the one with potential to reach highest temperatures. What other materials might there been, in such quantities, that the temperature would have reached to the melting point of steel? No I do not. The physics professor goes over WHY the molten metal is steel and not, say aluminium from the aircraft. "If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures." What other type of metals you suggest there was in large quantities in that building so it could have melted and poured down? Incase you have any report telling there were some other type of metal I'd like to read the report.
-
From the resource you provided: "If columns were lost, the loads would redistribute to the remaining columns. It should be noted that the WTC designers explicitly designed the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (minus fuel load), the largest aircraft at that time, even though building codes did not have such a requirement. The Morning of Sept. 11, 2001 At 8:46 am, a hijacked 767, American Airlines Flight 11, was flown into the north face of the North Tower of the WTC. The plane was traveling at 470 mph and was carrying 92 people and approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel. The impact occurred between the 94th and 98th floors. Between 31 and 36 columns on the north wall were destroyed over a four-story area and the core took a direct hit. At 9:02 am, another 767, United Airlines Flight 175, was flown into the South Tower. This plane was traveling at 586 mph and carrying 65 people. The impact occurred between the 78th and 84th floors destroying between 27 and 32 columns on the south face over a five-story range. Unlike the North Tower, the core was not hit directly." "After swaying back and forth a half a dozen times, it was over. Both buildings were standing. The design worked, the loads redistributed to the remaining columns, but, the jet fuel had ignited and fires were raging throughout the upper floors of both towers." So the design worked, the buildings absorbed the kinetic energy of an plane hitting it at ~500mph. After that it was simply about the integrity of the steel, and could it hold. Proven by the physics professor and the various sites I cited it should have, easily. Yet something MELT the steel, the jet fuel could not do it, so what did. Again, from the source you provided: "In some areas, temperatures reached between 1700
-
That has been proven to be false statement. Structural steel can withstand, depending on the grade of the steel, a constant temperature of 620-1120 degrees of Celsius. http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1175 well, gee... where to begin.Just one is enough, you don't need to go over the whole site. Pick a one thing he's wrong and prove it. Sure, show me those reports, I'm sure that if you know they exist you can produce a link to one. why don't you give me an example of what he got right. I don't have to because he, unlike you, provides full references at the bottom of his page. If you do the research you'll find he's correct. your own "proof" clearly states that jet fuel burns at most at 1000 C in open air. duh. Are you missinterpreting the information on purpose? The wikipedia states that the maximum burn temperature is 980 degrees C, it does not state maximum in open air, it's simply THE maximum. Unless you'd like to debate what the word "maximum" means, of course. MAXIMUM: "The greatest possible quantity or degree." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maximum So, to recap: OPEN AIR: 260-315 degrees C MAXIMUM: 980 degrees C
-
Can you point out the word Celsius or the capital letter C in your reply that I quoted? And since your "From" field indicates you're from USA I'd have to assume you're using the standard measurement of temperature of that country, Fahrenheit. If you'd like to point out the source, where you get your melting point of steel being 1160 degrees Celsius, I'd like to read up on that one. Here's my sources: "Maximum burning temperature: 980 degrees C" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel "Structural Steel Melts ~1510 C" http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
-
First of all, the engineers that worked on WTC have officially said the buildings were designed from ground up to withstand a commercial airliner crashing into them. Secondly, jet fuel lacks the detonation velocity to explode in a manner that could harm the structure of WTC buildings, and as seen in the videos most of it went up in a ball of flame outside of the building. "For hydrocarbon fuels in air, the detonation velocity can be up to 1800 m/s." http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects...A/Glossary.html "TNT has a detonation velocity of 6,940 m/s compared to 1,680 m/s for the detonation of pentane in air, and the 0.34 m/s stoichiometric flame speed of gasoline combustion in air." http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/chem-faq/part3/section-2.html Here's a 9/11 site made by a physics professor, maybe you can quote the stuff he gets wrong and then write down what's your correct educated findings. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html I'm trying to look as closely as I can, I've reviewed every report (pro and anti gov) but it seems everytime someone raises a question worthy of an answer there's no one stepping up giving those answers, and all the evidence is conviscated by the government so there's no way an impartial research can be done. there's plenty of evidence. when conspiracists cite a "lack of evidence" that really means they are unwilling to admit the validity of the evidence that does exist. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me a sample of evidence that contradicts what the physics professor has written down: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html the conspiracists ignore some basic physics when making this claim. first, their assumption of 800-1000 degrees is for an open air flame. this was hardly an open air flame. a better analogy would be a crucible. temperatures can easily get much higher than that in such a situation. Maybe you should gets your terms right:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_burn Is not. "Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 2750
-
Ultraviolet http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370032/ A mindless action movie with hollow charactares who you can't relate to, and rather dull story. And don't get me wrong, I like vampire movies, and action (Underworld), but this one was just sad. There's also so many illusion breakers in the action scenes that even if you wont care for the characters or the story it's still not even a good action movie.
-
FIFE - a next generation Fallout-like engine
trulez replied to mvBarracuda's topic in Computer and Console
That FIFE sure looks promising. I'm hoping to see something that I can play made with it in near future. It's football, and the organization is called FIFA. -
I'd reply to that (with phony information of course). Would be fun to see what follows.
-
Uriah Heep - Lady In Black
-
-
I can't remember the name of the guy, but he has alot of jumping videos in his personal website.
-
If, while playing any game, crazy frog(or other similar irritating advert) springs up, I'll probably never ever again pay for anything made by the said company. Product placement, such as coke in a modern or futuristic setting, which fits the overal atmosphere, is fine. I don't mind being brain washed without me knowing it, but I do mind the "in your face" adverts.
-
This was a good topic, I read it fully, please do continue.
-
I guess those pesky Japanese are way ahead of us Finnish folks, but a mere 24Mbit/1Mbit ADSL2+ line is fine for now. http://saunalahti.fi/internet/adsl/adsl.php (about middle of the page)
-
The bad games never stick, I only remember the good ones. Let's just say that for every good game there's 10 bad ones, and I'm not probably far off.
-
Bloodlines was a piece of crap, period.
-
Tabula Rasa looks....weird, to say at least.
-
I vote for EVE Online because it's revolutionary graphics(beats many offline games by a mile) and fresh take on MMOPRGs(not another fantasy sword swinger). WoW is so....plastic, eww.