WTC Challenge

page: 50
3
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
on the topic of air defense, maybe america should outsource this to the greek airforce, as they seem to be able to scramble f-16s ok

[edit on 16-8-2005 by AdamJ]




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
here is an article by Jim Hoffman, attempting to debunk the NIST report.
i havent read it yet, so i dont know if it brings anythign new but some might be interested to read it, Howard etc.
911research.wtc7.net...


[edit on 16-8-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
watch this, this is quite a good compilation. lots of seperate inteviews so the sound is out of line, but its still good.

www.mypetgoat.tv...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Here, try looking at this image.


If you still can’t see the obvious bowing of the exterior walls, either in that image above, or in the original presentation slide that I got that from, then you are truly blinded by your ideology.




honestly howard, it is not obvious to me that the walls were coming in with that photo. the blue grid messes up the shot so i can't go off it. i'll need a better angle to be able to comment on it if it's inwards or outwards. with that photo i can myself put something to make it skew as if it was coming out if that was my agenda


has anyone said anything contrary to the instant dust created by the 'pancake' collapse yet?i know with a great amount of pressure bricks and concrete can disintegrate, but to such fine powder is absurd to me.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Sheesh. Just follow the grid line for Column line 316. Are you honestly telling me that you can not see how the column on the building face line are out of plane?




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Howard I can see what you are talking about but it does not show the column bowing outward or inward. It really looks like the alumumn cladding/flashing/covering/stuff.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Oh wait, hold the phone guys. I took another look at Howards picture and I must admit I am wrong!! This proves everything you said Howard. I take everything I said back, I am a convert. Those darn buildings, all three of them really did collapse due to fire!

I wasted three and a half years of free time and research for it all to come to this. Shoot. Well guys I guess I having nothing else to say, all the guys at the firehouse are gonna laugh at me....








Bahahahahaha!!!


By the way welcome aboard Conspicuouz!



[edit on 16-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
watch this, this is quite a good compilation. lots of seperate inteviews so the sound is out of line, but its still good.

www.mypetgoat.tv...



WOW!!!!!!


If people want to believe there were no bombs in the building need to watch this footage from witnesses.

Quoted from above video:

Firefighter
This huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs uh knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground.


but wait theres more,

Woman
Finally we get down to the lobby when we get to the lobby there was a big explosion.


~Peace
~



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
That Video is pretty wild... That Black Female Officer saying "Get out of the Area, the second Tower is going to fall"... Very Interesting indeed.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
"it just went Booom, it was like a bomb went off, n it was like, it was like, holy hell comin down them stairs. And then when we go, we finally got to the bottom, n we were coming out...unitelligable...level there, and another explosion, came right from, n, everything just went flying, right infront of you everything just went humphff."

this of course, as well all know now thanks to the NIST report, was the jet fuel coming out the lift.

*cough*


[edit on 16-8-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Natural gas lines? What? Last time I checked gas explodes when extreme heat is applied to it.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Come on, just admit it. The exterior walls were buckling inward.


Uh, no? Come on, Howard: just admit the sky is green.


All I see in those pics are aluminum, lol. I don't know how you can tell what's behind those coverings or in which direction the columns behind them are leaning. Really, Howard, this is kind of weak to use as evidence against us, don't you think? All you can even freaking see is the aluminum.

And isn't aluminum supposed to melt at 600 degrees Celsius? Oh yeah, wait, since it was on the outside, the air was cooling the aluminum and preventing it from heating that much. Funny how that apparently did not effect the columns behind the aluminum, right Howie? The columns themselves apparently must've been heated beyond 1000 degrees nevertheless. And those core columns, despite what must have been a really unhealthy air circulation within the building, must've been under some extreme office fires as well. And golly gee whiz how those those concrete slabs in between pulverized so thoroughly into fine powder! And all those magic jets of compressed air, blowing out random windows and spewing forth concrete dust debris.


One word, guys: magic! Muslims are magic. Maybe Islam really is the right religion after all. If this happened the way the official story tells it, Allah must have been performing a little miracle. Then again, the fact that people that actually understand and try to rationalize the official reoprt believe it is a miracle in itself.


Natural gas lines? What? Last time I checked gas explodes when extreme heat is applied to it.


Somehow that does not strike me as consistent with the types of explosions several witnesses and victims have recounted. Maybe we should compare the types of explosions that cause wind to throw stuff around and knock hats off with the kind of explosion you'd get from setting gas on fire.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Natural gas lines? What? Last time I checked gas explodes when extreme heat is applied to it.


OMG you have to be kidding. Gas lines if even ruptured first and built up will not create this type of explosion. Also where did this extreme heat come from? JP8 fuel going down over 70 floors? Either it burned in the building or went down the elevator shaft, there isnt enough for both. You guys need to make up your minds!



This huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs uh knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground.


This is a c-4 or dynomite type of explosion, which has much more violent force. A Firefighters lid is heavy and form fitting, to knock that mans lid off his head...sheesh. Those lids are made to save your life, not come off.



All of a sudden it sounded like gunfire..bang, bang, bang, bang, bang then three big explosions




then it started popping out floor by floor...


Zap, you and Howie will reach for anything!! Have you seen this series of clips?



[edit on 16-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
i think Howard said the bang, bang, bang, thing is just noises the building makes collapsing.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Come on, just admit it. The exterior walls were buckling inward.


Uh, no? Come on, Howard: just admit the sky is green.


All I see in those pics are aluminum, lol. I don't know how you can tell what's behind those coverings or in which direction the columns behind them are leaning. Really, Howard, this is kind of weak to use as evidence against us, don't you think? All you can even freaking see is the aluminum.


Well, since the aluminum is attached to the columns, it isn't hard to understand that if we see the aluminum bending inward, the columns behind them must be bending inward also.


Originally posted by bsbray11
And isn't aluminum supposed to melt at 600 degrees Celsius? Oh yeah, wait, since it was on the outside, the air was cooling the aluminum and preventing it from heating that much. Funny how that apparently did not effect the columns behind the aluminum, right Howie? The columns themselves apparently must've been heated beyond 1000 degrees nevertheless. And those core columns, despite what must have been a really unhealthy air circulation within the building, must've been under some extreme office fires as well. And golly gee whiz how those those concrete slabs in between pulverized so thoroughly into fine powder! And all those magic jets of compressed air, blowing out random windows and spewing forth concrete dust debris.


In spite of your sarcastic tone, that is actually a valid point.

The thing is, those columns are not buckling inward because of the heat applied to them, they are buckling inward because of the heat applied to the floor slabs. The floor slabs were sagging and falling causing loss of rigidity to the external walls.

You see the floors were a vital part of the structural system. Not only were they floors, but they also provided structural rigidity to the external walls. Due to the damage to these floors slabs from the impact and the subsequent fires, the floors were no longer providing that rigidity.

In addition, the floor trusses were the most vulnerable to the heat of the fires. Fire proofing is easily knocked off those thin cross sections allowing the thin truss sections to heat rapidly.

Furthermore, an understanding of how a composite floor works is important. A composite floor is comprised of two parts, the concrete slab and the truss system underneath. Each material has its own strengths and weaknesses. Steel performs better under tension then it does under compression. The trusses were designed to maximize this. Concrete, on the other hand is extremely poor at resisting tension forces, but much better at resisting compressive forces. That is why the composite floor with the concrete on top and the steel on the bottom works so well.

Unfortunately, under fire conditions, this relationship starts to break down. Steel starts to lose its strength and begins to yield and creep (i.e. it stretches and bends). While concrete loses much of its strength as the water trapped within its matrix turns to steam and starts to spall out.

While steel will regain some of its strength when it cools, concrete will not and will in-fact continue to loose strength.

The issue is not how hot the fire got in any one particular location, but how the structure as a whole responded to the stresses put on it.

The buckling of the external walls was due to a number of factors. To some degree the external columns were affected by the temperature inside the building, but more importantly it was due to the changing structural conditions inside the building. Yes the fire temperature is related to the collapse, but it is important to understand how this happened. How the various structural components are related to each other and how when one starts to fail, that effects the others.

Have you found a structural engineer that will support your contentions yet?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Well, since the aluminum is attached to the columns, it isn't hard to understand that if we see the aluminum bending inward, the columns behind them must be bending inward also.


And similarly these columns are hanging all over the place with their aluminum facades?



No, they aren't. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp, Howard. The aluminum did not stay attached to a large number of those columns. If those columns bent, show us bent columns, not bent aluminum.

The following bit, about why sections of the building would have failed within the official story, would be fine if there were not so many gaping holes in the theory that comes with that idea (ie, the unreproducible progressive collapse theory), and the fact that there is no evidence of fires being hot enough to do that kind of damage, etc. That is where your theory fails. It has signs of cool and cooling fires, demolition squibs, inapropriate amounts of force and unreproducibility (and not to mention all other problems with the official story) all in its face contradicting it.

Otherwise, I'm sure your theory would hold.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


No, they aren't. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp, Howard. The aluminum did not stay attached to a large number of those columns. If those columns bent, show us bent columns, not bent aluminum.





Cross Section Through Exterior Box Column (from [1]) The numbers in the figure are taken from [1] and denote: 36 – Steel column, 38, 39 – Fire resistant plaster, 40 – Aluminum façade, 42 – Window glass, 43 – Window frame.

Yes, the aluminum facade broke outward. So what.

There is no way that the aluminum facade pieces could have buckled INWARD if the columns were not buckled also.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

There is no way that the aluminum facade pieces could have buckled INWARD if the columns were not buckled also.


I'm sure a dislocated aluminum covering could move in any direction it was inclined to. And I'm sure there were "buckled" columns near the impact-damaged regions for obvious reasons. But I don't think you've really proven your point with what you've provided thus far. I still want to see actual heat-buckled columns. I have reasonable doubts.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Another point here Howard is the fact that if the floor did infact fail, it would have failed where it attached to the outer structure and the inner 36 inch thick beams. There were 47 of these going all the way up. How does a floor collapsing (they do that quite often in a fire) take the rest of the building with it? The main structural columns in the middle would still bear the 30 to 40 floors above it. If I remember right they designed that building so the outer structure and floor can move from wind without the inner core moving as much.

The point is you could have multiple floors collapse while the building still holds its strength. You said in an earlier post it was the inner core that failed, when that was proven to be impossible you shifted to this theory. Stop changing your story to fit your argument. We on the other hand have been consistant.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Here Howard, some info on your NIST theory.

911research.wtc7.net...

edit : didn't notice someone else posted it already.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Shroomery]





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join