It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 33
4
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Yea it seems that's the way arguments generally seem to go on forums.




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


I can see this thread is going to end up the same as the 757 at the Pentagon thread - eighty-something pages and still going round and round in the same circles. Then every now and then someone new jumping in after having skimmed some of the previous pages and claiming that everyone else (with a different opinion to them) knows nothing, or has not read the report, or doesn't know anything about the science of the issue, or whatever.


Nah, apples and oranges. The Pentagon thread is 90% common sense, 5% lunatics, and 5% loud mouth with lots of opinions but zero time spent reading or looking into the subject.


This thread has a far lower common sense percentage. (just funnin)



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


I can see this thread is going to end up the same as the 757 at the Pentagon thread - eighty-something pages and still going round and round in the same circles. Then every now and then someone new jumping in after having skimmed some of the previous pages and claiming that everyone else (with a different opinion to them) knows nothing, or has not read the report, or doesn't know anything about the science of the issue, or whatever.

And it's amazing how petty the arguments have become, mostly focused on semantics.

"No. You said "83rd floor". It's the 82nd and a halfth floor, and if you'd actually done some research you'd know that. Here, this 6000 word post with animated, 5+Mb images I made proves it."

"A fire doesn't feed on "air"
, it feeds on oxygen, and even though I really knew that's what you meant, I'm going to spend 5 posts showing that you were wrong, that the fires could have burned for 6000 years, and rubbing that misuse of a word in your face with glee."

"You know nothing about physics, structural engineering, or explosives. Now listen up sonny while I make a 3000 word post with video about trailer trash with potato guns to explain the simple concept of the expansion of burning gases in a confined space."

"You said the fires were 'tiny'. Does this look 'tiny' to you?"
"I said, "moderate", not 'tiny'."
"No, you said 'tiny'...well, okay, maybe you said "small"...now I'm going to search back through the last 15 pages to find where you said it and prove it!"

"Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too! And you're mom said you did when I humped her last night. ooooOOO~!"

Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I'm not far off the mark.

Okay, ice cream break's over. Everyone back on the merry-go-round! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee~!!!


You forgot about the people that stop by and add absolutly nothing to the discussion.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
OK, I tried to read as much as possible of this thread before jumping in, and would like to offer a few comments:

1) The problems with the "air jets" theory for the squibs noted are several-fold: the stuff coming out is not just air or smoke, but a well-mixed slurry of fine dust particles suspended in air - how does it get so finely and uniformly pulverized, given that this is reinforcer concrete bonded to a corrugated steel pan? How can such high pressures develop so quickly in the collapse, when the collapsing building is still moving slowly and is such a leaky piston? And, as noted before, how does a compressible gas move down multiple floors ahead of the collapse and emerge in discrete jets, without dissipating in the intervening space?

2) The floors were strongly attached to the core and perimeter columns: big hanger brackets were bolted and welded to the columns, and both ends of the floor trsses were bolted to these. No amount of heat-softening and sagging would make all these attachments suddenly give out, making it impossible to get the kind of straight-down, resistance-free fall that we actually see.

3) None of the collapse models proposed explain the complete disappearance of the core columns - no stub, no "tree trunk," just chopped up into nice truck-length pieces from top to bottom.

4) Demolition technology these days includes linear shaped charges and wireless remote detonation, no messy wires, easy programmable sequencing of the charges, and discrete placement between floors:
hiex.bc.ca...
www.corelab.com...

Some other observations about NIST from my web site:
www.plaguepuppy.net...

Chapter 6 of Webster Tarpley's book 9/11 Synthetic Terror gives an outstanding compilation of the evidence for controlled demolition and the subsequent coverup:
www.reopen911.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420
You are over-complexing the issue. The fact is, fire eats air. If there is a fire that is raging so heavy that it melts steel, that fire is consuming air at a rapid rate. The air that fire will be grabbing at most would be coming from out side of the building more than the inside (hence why when there is a fire, you should not open windows or doors).


Ok, let me try to explain it a different way.

The atmosphere is a thin layer of gas that surrounds the planet and consists of a relatively stable mixture of several hundred different gases. It has a mass of about 5.15e15 tons, held down to the planet's surface by gravitational attraction. Excluding water vapor, the proportions of gases are nearly uniform up to around 80km high. The major components of this region are Oxygen (21%), Nitrogen (78%), and Argon (0.93%), with minute amounts of trace gases also present. This part of the atmosphere also contains water vapor, the amount of which depends on local environmental conditions.

The weather report for Central Park, New York, on Sept 11, 2001 was very nice. It was a clear day with a relative humidity of 60 (nice and low for a coastal city when it's a nice 75 degree day.) So, we can safely assume that the water content of the air was less than 1%.

Now, everyone knows that fires don't burn Nitrogen, right? And everyone knows that fires use Oxygen right?

Does that not mean that when a fire burns it uses up (as you want to put it) 21% of the air? Actually, what it does is it converts ~ 21% of the air from Oxygen to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and other carbon based gasses depending on what is burning (to the tune of ~21% of the air). No air is lost, no air is "used up" -- 21% of the air content (O2) is converted into another gas (CO CO2 etc). Fires use oxygen, fires don’t destroy oxygen.

The reason a fire can become explosive at "flashpoint" is because the smoke in the air is superheated in a contained area and it is right at the verge of being able to combust but lacks an *ogygen* source. When you (or a fireman) open a door this super heated air suddenly has an oxygen source and instantly flames (flashes) in a violent fire. Perhaps this analogy is what's confused your idea of how fire and air interact?

Would a significant amount of air be moving upwards in the WTC towers during the fires? Most likely yes - heat from the fires rises (that's why smoke goes up, because of the heat - the soot and carbon content in smoke is heavier than O2 & N but it's hotter and thus rises). The act of the smoke and air rising due to heat would mean it would have to be replaced by another volume of air from outside the building and from floors below the building (just like a chimney works). So there would be no (or minimal) negative air pressure in the building, and from what I know about most modern office buildings they actually have a slightly positive air pressure to keep cold (winter) or warm (summer) air out of the building (it's cheaper to heat/cool a building when you maintain a slightly positive air pressure). We also know that power existed in the buildings to the 78th floor (and above) because we know that the phone system worked in the restaurant and most offices almost to the point of collapse (and in some cases at collapse). We also know that the vast majority of office telephone systems require power to work (VISTA, Avaya, NorStar, Lucent, etc). So it stands to reason that most, or at least some, of the building's air system was operating during the fire unless somebody shut it off manually.

But, even with the air system shut down, air will still freely move through ducts, vents, shafts, stairwells, giant holes in the walls from airliners, etc., to flow to the floors where air was being lofted away by the heat of the fire. There was probably just as much air on each floor after the fire as there was before the fire.

Simpler for ya?


-=-=-

As a little aside, if you'd like to try a science experiment at home to see if a fire does or does not consume air, you can do two simple tests. First, get a birthday candle (smaller the better), an empty jar (something decent sized and thick like a pickle jar with clear glass - don't use plastic) and a lighter. First place your lid from the jar upside down on a counter and melt some candle wax onto the jar lid so you can "stick" the candle to the lid (blow out the candle). Fill your kitchen sink with water - if you want to be extra clever you can also add a few drops of food coloring to the water to make it more visible. (A large bowl filled with water will work as well, and will actually be easier to see.)

Now, with the lid still upside down on the countertop, and the candle standing upright on it, light the candle and quickly (and carefully) place your jar over top and screw it tight to seal the jar. Sit and watch to see how long it takes for the candle to burn out (no need to time it). What's happened is the candle has used up all the oxygen and converted it to CO2. Let that jar sit and cool down for a few minutes.

Now, place the first jar (upside down!) in your water filled sink and carefully unscrew the lid. Did any water get sucked into the jar? If you carefully, and slowly, raise the jar until the lip is even with the surface of the water you can see how much water has been drawn into the jar. None should have if you sealed the jar properly! Obviously no air was used up, it was merely converted into another gas.

Dry your jar, lid and candle off and let the jar lay open on it's side for a few minutes.

You can repeat the same experiment again from the beginning and skip the cool down time and try unscrewing your jar it in the water soon after the candle goes out. You should notice a positive pressure (bubbles will come out) because the air is heated and has expanded creating a positive pressure (and not a vacuum). I think you'll have proved to yourself at this point that fire does not consume air, it merely converts one gas to another gas.


If you're under 16 be sure to get a parent to help you with this.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
"A fire doesn't feed on "air"
, it feeds on oxygen, and even though I really knew that's what you meant, I'm going to spend 5 posts showing that you were wrong, that the fires could have burned for 6000 years, and rubbing that misuse of a word in your face with glee."

"You know nothing about physics, structural engineering, or explosives. Now listen up sonny while I make a 3000 word post with video about trailer trash with potato guns to explain the simple concept of the expansion of burning gases in a confined space."


Know what? Originally I thought your post was amusing, but then I actually read past the 1st part of it. It's not amusing; it's just you being a prick for the sake of being a smug prick (or is it to distract other readers from reality?). In one post you insult 4 different people for posting informative, logical, and accurate information as opposed to lunatic fringe theories based in conjecture and opinion.


People have added uneducated, unfounded, and flat out stupid comments to this thread and then when they're corrected (and have to have it explained to them why they're just simply wrong in their assumptions) somebody like you comes along and turns it into something it was/is not. Facts are facts, if you have difficulties dealing with that and have to rely on incorrect laws of physics to prove your point then what the hell is the point of discussing something with you? Seriously.

If somebody says "the fire was on the 78th floor and it was a small fire that was easily contained with 2 hoses" and the PHOTOS SHOW that the fire was evident and small on the 78th floor but very evident and huge on the 79-80-81-82nd floors does that not COMPLETELY INVALIDATE the original persons assertion that the fire was small based on their "evidence" of a fireman talking about a containable fire on the 78th floor? Yes it does.

If somebody says "how could there be explosions on the lobby level, or on the 44th floor, or on the 22nd floor" etc., and then somebody comes along and explains it to them with simple grade 10 physics does that make the explanation invalid or smug? No, it makes the original posters assertion that it's impossible or unrealistic quite invalid and uninformed. That's why you have a problem with posts that use common sense and science -- they make too much sense for you to be able to deal with.


Grumble...



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Didn't it say something about ad-hominum attacks in the posting rules?
Or am I just being a silly newbie to have such scruples? Oh well, on with the show...

This discussion of combustion physics seems to be headed for dead-horse flogging status, but there are a few points that deserve to be clarified:

Yes, the "using up" of oxygen in a fire means that it is chemically combined with the burning fuel so the total amount of gas (in terms of molecular weight) actually increases, with molecules of O2 being replaced by H2O, CO2, NOx, etc. There is no low pressure area created, except possibly in the lee of a large mass falling at free-fall speeds. The heating and increase in weight of the gasses will produce a modest and gradual rise in pressure that would dissapate quickly through various openings, and would only last as long as the fires were burning.

That means the total mass of the gasses increases with combustion, but only in proportion to the amount of fuel available and how much oxygen reaches it.

The availability of oxygen is the rate-limiting factor in a fire such as this, as witnessed by its smokey quality, black smoke indicating an oxygen-poor fire. High-rise design takes this into account and uses active measures to prevent the core from becoming a chimney. Architect Aaron Swirkin, one of the WTC design team, described in a Jerusalem Post interview how fire shutters were present on each floor to close off the elavator shafts in the event of fire, and even expressed concern that the attempt to "hermitically isolate" the floors in the event of fire might have interfered with evacuation.

This chimney thing works both ways: unless the combustion gasses can escape somehow, there is no room for more oxygen to get in. And unless in can get in through the elevators and utility shafts in the core, oxygen can only get in through broken windows at the outside edges of the floors. That means you have a wide thin enclosed space (approx. 209 feet on a side and 11 feet high), with oxygen only available at the edges and no effective mixing process to bring it into the center of the floors.

Yet the claim that the core columns softened to the point of failure - and simultaneous and total failure no less - requires that the hottest part of the fire was in the core, the place furthest from the source of oxygen.




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420
Look at what has happened to anyone who has openly spoken of a conspiracy in the government.
Read a friggin book man.
Do you know how large the government is?? Is everyone in on it??


WTF are you talking about?

You obviously haven't read this whole thread because you missed my point entirely.

See my post on page 3 about halfway down, here is a preview...

"Everybody doesn't have to be "in on it", the government works by purposely not letting anybody know the full picture of what they are doing."

I've probably read more books than you have brain cells


And a question...what does your name mean "white for life"? Micheal Jackson's the only person I've known who's changed skin colour

Not trying to be rude, just curious



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
"Everybody doesn't have to be "in on it", the government works by purposely not letting anybody know the full picture of what they are doing."


Right, compartmentalisation.


[edit on 043131p://58074 by MERC]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

I don't believe anything other then the hard facts presented to me. The report, if you read it, shows exactly which support beams, columns, terraces, ect were severed from the impact. It also shows precisly where the fires were, how big they were, and are back up with video/picture research.. again.. read the report

The building should have fallen without the fires. It's a miracle they didnt.


So you're saying its a miracle the buildings did not fall from having 15% of the perimeter columns in those areas knocked out, and in the case of the South Tower, a small number of core columns as the plane's trajectory caused it to miss the core almost completely.

Let's just take the South Tower as an example then, since the number of columns knocked out in the North Tower is unknown.

You think that taking away less than 15% of the perimeter columns, and a small minority of the core columns, and only in the impacted region of the building, will cause a whole skyscraper to collapse, top to bottom? Those are the figures the report gives. It sounds to me as if you're really underestimating skyscraper construction. Maybe you aren't familiar with the terms 'over-engineering' and 'weight redistribution'. Steel skyscrapers are built for both.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

In one post you insult 4 different people for posting informative, logical, and accurate information as opposed to lunatic fringe theories based in conjecture and opinion.


Wow. Aren't we unbiased.


"We're smart. You're stupid."


Yeah, I don't see how that's much better than what you're accusing WCIP of doing.


People have added uneducated, unfounded, and flat out stupid comments to this thread and then when they're corrected (and have to have it explained to them why they're just simply wrong in their assumptions) somebody like you comes along and turns it into something it was/is not. Facts are facts, if you have difficulties dealing with that and have to rely on incorrect laws of physics to prove your point then what the hell is the point of discussing something with you? Seriously.

If somebody says "the fire was on the 78th floor and it was a small fire that was easily contained with 2 hoses" and the PHOTOS SHOW that the fire was evident and small on the 78th floor but very evident and huge on the 79-80-81-82nd floors does that not COMPLETELY INVALIDATE the original persons assertion that the fire was small based on their "evidence" of a fireman talking about a containable fire on the 78th floor? Yes it does.

If somebody says "how could there be explosions on the lobby level, or on the 44th floor, or on the 22nd floor" etc., and then somebody comes along and explains it to them with simple grade 10 physics does that make the explanation invalid or smug? No, it makes the original posters assertion that it's impossible or unrealistic quite invalid and uninformed. That's why you have a problem with posts that use common sense and science -- they make too much sense for you to be able to deal with.


CatHerder, all you have really done on this thread is go out of your way to prove rather unimportant points, such as what fire a firefighter was talking about or whether or not elevator doors were open or closed.

Besides trivial matters like that, you have not proven a damned thing here. You haven't rebutted the demolition squibs, the rapid collapse times, the complete pulverization of concrete, etc. You have offered the kind of explanations you criticize: unbased conjectures built on poor science.

Usually when someone cannot explain such inconsistencies in their theory, they wouldn't go off talking about how incredibly intelligent their side of the argument is and how stupid everyone else is. But that's exactly what you're doing. Congrats on proving what fire the firefighter was talking about? Congrats on proving the elevator doors were shut? Yeah, good job man, you guys are geniuses. Now why can't you explain the real problems?

I guess when you guys can't explain something, you just elect to harrass everyone else. Some attitude problems......



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Plaguepuppy,

I just looked over that link you posted, and that really is good stuff. Welcome to the thread, man.


The link again, for Howard: www.plaguepuppy.net...

I think this is what Howard has been wanting people to do: type up some kind of formalish response, rather than just informally showing the problems with the reports. This whole thread was created because Howard wanted some criticism or rebuttal of the NIST report.

And those points you brought up are new to thread as far as I know, meaning since about page 8 or 9 nothing like that has been posted. Of all the smoking guns, the one that's illiciting the most ridiculous responses from the supporters of the official story is the demo squib problem. Good stuff. Like I said, welcome.


PS - Being very polite is hard to keep up here from what I've seen. For example, Howard's response to my first post was to refuse to respond to any of the information and just resort to mocking it. Further, some members have ego problems, as you've probably noticed
, and quite a few of us have developed a bad habit of posting in multiples.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
In one post you insult 4 different people for posting informative, logical, and accurate information as opposed to lunatic fringe theories based in conjecture and opinion.


People have added uneducated, unfounded, and flat out stupid comments to this thread and then when they're corrected (and have to have it explained to them why they're just simply wrong in their assumptions) somebody like you comes along and turns it into something it was/is not. Facts are facts, if you have difficulties dealing with that and have to rely on incorrect laws of physics to prove your point then what the hell is the point of discussing something with you? Seriously.


how many did you just insult, mr. ambassador?

HAHAHAHA! heard this.

i don't envy your job, though. you know, trying to support a ridiculous lie for a sack of the most notorious brand of criminals ever to walk the planet?

HAHAHAHA!

and, a hearty we(l)come to plaguepuppy! yeah, bayby. how IS it that 'air' is pulverising concrete into a fine dust?

HAHAHAHA!



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I must say I did not read the report (I do not have adobe acrobat, nor do I want to download it).

So, without reading it, I will attempt to debunk it with one thought. In fact, lets start with a simple comparison.

Say you're cutting down a tree. To the north is your house, within range of the tree. So what do you do to make sure the tree doesn't hit your house? You chop most on the side away from the house. Why? Well, because you've chopped more, there is less stability on that side, putting more pressure because of less support.

Applied to 9/11 -- As far as I know, the orginal story has now been changed. The plane didn't damage -- at least fatally -- the core support beams and the jet fuel was only the source of the fire, not the cause of the collapse. Instead, the fire raged on due to office supplies/furniture and fire proofing was knocked off the beams.

Okay, well, suppose this is reality. Compare this to the story of the tree -- haha -- this fire would have literally heated all of the steal beams to the exact same temperature. There could be not heat difference anywhere in that system, or one side would have fell well before the other.

Now, these support beams were obviously in the center of the building. A fire had been raging for an hour. The oxygen levels must have been at an extreme low, with the fire mostly gaining it's oxygen from outside. The fire on the outside should have been much healthier and much hotter than that of the inside. The inside was probably smouldering more than burning (which would back up the firemans story that the fires were controllable).

Now, I find it hard to believe that a fire raged so hot in the middle of the building, perfectly surrounding and heating each support beam at a consistant rate to cause a collapse... so perfect that it imploded with the precision of a demolition that takes weeks to months of planning -- twice.



[edit on 24-7-2005 by white4life420]

[edit on 24-7-2005 by white4life420]

[edit on 25-7-2005 by white4life420]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by white4life420
Look at what has happened to anyone who has openly spoken of a conspiracy in the government.
Read a friggin book man.
Do you know how large the government is?? Is everyone in on it??


WTF are you talking about?

You obviously haven't read this whole thread because you missed my point entirely.

See my post on page 3 about halfway down, here is a preview...

"Everybody doesn't have to be "in on it", the government works by purposely not letting anybody know the full picture of what they are doing."

I've probably read more books than you have brain cells


And a question...what does your name mean "white for life"? Micheal Jackson's the only person I've known who's changed skin colour

Not trying to be rude, just curious


actually, that post was from a long time ago and I just mis-posted. The only part I said was this:

"Look at what has happened to anyone who has openly spoken of a conspiracy in the government.
Read a friggin book man."

The rest of it was who I quoted. Thanks for the insults though -- since I was in agreement with you and all.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420
I must say I did not read the report (I do not have adobe acrobat, nor do I want to download it).

So, without reading it, I will attempt to debunk it with one thought. In fact, lets start with a simple comparison.

Say you're cutting down a tree. To the north is your house, within range of the tree. So what do you do to make sure the tree doesn't hit your house? You chop most on the side away from the house. Why? Well, because you've chopped more, there is less stability on that side, putting more pressure because of less support.

Applied to 9/11 -- As far as I know, the orginal story has now been changed. The plane did damage -- at least fatally -- the core support beams and the jet fuel was only the source of the fire, not the cause of the collapse. Instead, the fire raged on due to office supplies/furniture and fire proofing was knocked off the beams.

Okay, well, suppose this is reality. Compare this to the story of the tree -- haha -- this fire would have literally heated all of the steal beams to the exact same temperature. There could be not heat difference anywhere in that system, or one side would have fell well before the other.

Now, these support beams were obviously in the center of the building. A fire had been raging for an hour. The oxygen levels must have been at an extreme low, with the fire mostly gaining it's oxygen from outside. The fire on the outside should have been much healthier and much hotter than that of the inside. The inside was probably smouldering more than burning (which would back up the firemans story that the fires were controllable).

Now, I find it hard to believe that a fire raged so hot in the middle of the building, perfectly surrounding and heating each support beam at a consistant rate to cause a collapse... so perfect that it imploded with the precision of a demolition that takes weeks to months of planning -- twice.



[edit on 24-7-2005 by white4life420]

[edit on 24-7-2005 by white4life420]


This is a problem, and one of the first things I really noticed as being askew with the collapses. All three of them in fact.


Unfortunately, whenever a point like this is brought up, it doesn't last long. Someone needs to take all of these unexplainable flaws and put them in their signature or something, just to give them longetivity, because Howard will just criticize you for not actually reading the report, or pretend to explain the problem, etc., and then it's simply lost to the size of the thread.

That problem is alongside the likes of the near free-fall collapse speeds, the complete pulverization of the concrete, the vast amount of mysterious dust and unprecedented ejection of other materials, the squibs, etc. None of those have been rebutted or explained in any half-intelligent way. The more arrogant members here will make absolutely baseless conjectures and then expect you to believe what they say, despite how insane their answers are in light of common of sense.

Actually, on that note, I'll just go take my own advice.


[edit on 25-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
Know what? Originally I thought your post was amusing, but then I actually read past the 1st part of it. It's not amusing; it's just you being a prick for the sake of being a smug prick (or is it to distract other readers from reality?). In one post you insult 4 different people for posting informative, logical, and accurate information as opposed to lunatic fringe theories based in conjecture and opinion.


Yeah, you know I was actually just expressing a personal frustration at the circular nature of this thread and how it seems to repeat things that have already been covered over and over, and yes, how splitting hairs is rampant on both sides. I made the mistake of loosely referring to four examples that happened to be on your side of the argument. Sorry, but those were the ones that sprang to mind, and no, I didn't spend an hour thinking about that post. It was an attempt at levity, and a poor one at that. My apologies.


Now since you got so insulted that I implied some people are unduly emphasizing unimportant minutiae, and I have apologized, can you perhaps reciprocate and stop calling people pricks, crackpots, lunatics, kooks, and idiots who are only capable of unintelligent conjecture and unsupported opinion?

The
, the
, and the
in this thread is starting to make me :bnghd: . Now play nice kids or I'll
.


QuietSoul wrote:
You forgot about the people that stop by and add absolutly nothing to the discussion.

I attempted to add something that we conspiracy kook, liberal, commie, pinko, tulip-walking girdle-wearers call "levity". But if you read back through the thread, you'll see I've contributed here and there, and you'll see that this argument stopped being a "discussion" after the first comment of "Whats' a matta? Chicken?!"



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
Give up the crazy ideas that the buildings w'r brought down by TNT......

It's simple....Planes crashed into the buildings and basicly torr d'a crap out of it.....

Then the "fire" effected the compromised building in ways we will never know...this has never been studied before because this has never happened before 9/11 (esp. on a "un-typical" structural design like those buildings). And not t'a mention.....possible they "cheated" the design a bit during construction (but that's never gon'a come out...esp. since they got' rid of the stuff to China).

And the fire is def. gon'a effect the building regardless of the temperature....you don't need the "melting" point to have the building fail....and not to mention the building Fire system (sprinklers) would be gone.

And there is NO standards to follow (CODES) for all the "stuff" in an office...we have standards for "smoke and fire control" for everything that is built into the building...but when it comes to furniture (finnishing etc.) no standards required, and yes all this stuff will burn. And can't see anyone making sure the furniture is "non-flamable" because it does not exist.

And this expert (in the video) who states all this stuff......man he's only an electrical guy (and only 8 years)...and if he so good and such an expert.....why can't he find a pair of glasses that fit his head.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven




I'm sorry if I'm late to this but I just started posting here. Assuming no one else pointed this out, I will.

Most mattresses in ordinary households are fireproof... try lighting one on fire and watch as it smoulders.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Let's say that fires did get hot enough to melt the steel to cause a complete failure.

How is it that the fires in the first tower took 45 minutes longer to achieve this? Did the second tower have more cubicles?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

North tower collapse = 102 minutes
8:46 - hit
10:28 - collapse

South tower collapse = 57 minutes
9:03 - hit
9:59 - collapse

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

(Figured I'd repeat it since I didn't get a proper debunking. I'm feeling all left out.)



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420
The rest of it was who I quoted. Thanks for the insults though -- since I was in agreement with you and all.


OK, well I apologise for misunderstanding you and throwing insults that weren't waranted...

I'm sure you can understand my confused as to what you meant by "read a book" though ...LOL

I mean, you quoted me and then that was your reply...

But seeing as you're on "our side" I'll forgive ya (this time)...


(you didn't answer my question though, still curious...got any 420 to share hehe?)

AP&F....



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join