Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Pretty soon, nutter will once again post asking what engineer specifically said the Titanic was virturaly unsinkable, and again failing to realize that I didnt say an engineer was spouting off about it. (Edit: WHOOPS he did already)

I imagine showing you your own words will not change anything, but here goes the try.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yes, yes, yes, the WTC was designed to handle being hit by a plane...

And the Titanic was designed to be virtually unsinkable...

And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.

Last I knew, it was the Titanic that was designed by engineers, not the iceberg. but thanks for playing.

Tell me Swampfox. When you stated that the Titanic was "designed to be virtually unsinkable" did you mean the VP of the White Star, the press, or the designing engineers would have "designed the Titanic to be virtually unsinkable"?

I guess the third quote from you answers my question.

Therefore you have indeed inferred that the designing engineers designed the Titanic to be virtually unsinkable. I am only trying to clear up this misconception.

And if you continue to dodge it and deny it, then it only looks bad on you not me.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you even understand why you are trying to debunk free-fall in the first place, yes or no?

Yes, as ther "troothers" claim that all 3 WTC buildings were laid with tonnes of explosives, and they also claim that these explosives went off whilst the buildings were collapsing, not before they collapsed!

What do you think is significant, if anything, about a building free-falling for ANY period of time to begin with?

you mean virtual free falling, as the building would have been slowed a little bit by the structure underneath it, but no one actually accurately measured any of the buildings time of collapse

Ever had physics?

Yes, unlike troothers who avoid physics, just like they avoid explaining how no one noticed all the man months of work, all the holes and the tonnes of explosives that must have gone into rigging the 3 buildings with explosives - now why do you avoid that question?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by dragonridr
I dont know what this pancake theory is really dont care.What i do know is when buildings collapse the force of rubble from floors above forces air to escape at thousand of feet per sec.

You shouldn't even mention a number unless you can prove it, and 1000's of feet per second is way too high. 1000's of feet per second is what high explosives detonate at and you just said yourself that you don't think even high explosives could launch this steel so far.

Ive seen explosive decompression drive a piece of wood 3" in into a brick wall and drive a broom handle through several walls of an apartment building that was across the street (still not sure where the broom came from) . Its called explosive decompression because the forces involved are similar to explosives.Lets do science 101 here what causes a blast wave the rapid movement of air as it is expelled from the force of the blast.This is why you can use explosives to put out a fire for example. Please just take the time to study how a building is dropped and you'll realize that explosives were not used.

As a matter of fact you'll realize there is no way that explosives can be timed to match the collapse once the collapse occurs the explosives are all ready done, Once the building collapse starts if its natural or done with explosives there is no difference gravity is what brings down a building.To argue that explosives went off during the collapse of the building and threw Steel 500 ft is just stupid.If explosives threw the steel it would have been before the collapse and id say it would be rather obvious when you see parts of the building fly off before the collapse started.


PS i never said high explosives could not launch steel are you making stuff up? You wouldn't believe the crazy things Ive seen explosives do! Id be more than happy to discuss explosives if you would like.Heck if you have questions be happy to answer them I'm used to being asked about explosives i was an instructor at Fort Ruckers for 6 years and did another 5 years working for a demolitions company in Florida.Still occasionally do consultation work with other demolition companies if the price is right.

Oh and i really don't care about if the government did 911 etc what i do care about is people attributing things to explosives when obviously they were not.

[edit on 12/12/09 by dragonridr]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I pointed out that there were columns in excess of 500 feet tall that fell over.

You mean pivoted/leaned the whole 500 feet laterally?

It is quite amazing how easily I can get you guys frothing at the mouth.

It's amazing how easy it is to appear to be "frothing at the mouth" to you.

Originally posted by dereks
you mean virtual free falling, as the building would have been slowed a little bit by the structure underneath it, but no one actually accurately measured any of the buildings time of collapse

If you've had physics and understand it "unlike troothers" can you express why there would be a need to debunk a free-fall claim in terms of potential/kinetic energy, or what a building collapsing into itself at free-fall means in terms of energy?

Yes, unlike troothers who avoid physics, just like they avoid explaining how no one noticed all the man months of work, all the holes and the tonnes of explosives that must have gone into rigging the 3 buildings with explosives - now why do you avoid that question?

Because there's no reason to believe the buildings must have been rigged the way you say. You have a predisposition to assuming tons and tons of conventional explosives must have been used for some reason. What physics class did you learn that in?

Originally posted by dragonridr
Ive seen explosive decompression drive a piece of wood 3" in into a brick wall and drive a broom handle through several walls of an apartment building that was across the street (still not sure where the broom came from) .

Explosive decompression of what exactly?

To argue that explosives went off during the collapse of the building and threw Steel 500 ft is just stupid.If explosives threw the steel it would have been before the collapse and id say it would be rather obvious when you see parts of the building fly off before the collapse started.

If you watch the videos you'll see that WTC1's antenna, which was supported by the core structure, started sinking at the exact same time as the 4 walls/corners of the building, meaning it all fell at once. All it would take is the inner core structure to be compromised, and the perimeter columns would not be able to take the weight and would naturally start folding in on themselves like you see in the videos. From there on, you can't say "no more explosions/detonations/whatever are allowed." And that is when the actual "collapse" is obscured by debris flying out in all directions.

Originally posted by dragonridr
And you think its unusual that the top of the building fell at the same time?

No, but the inner core structure supporting it was the most robust part of the structure and supposed it was the perimeter columns and trusses that failed first, at least according to NIST and FEMA.

As far as a fire wouldn't even have to be hot enough to melt steel. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C

There is no evidence of the steel being heated to those temperatures and not even NIST or FEMA suggested the buildings fell for that reason. Their theories revolved around expansion and contraction of the steel as it heats and cools, which causes extra stresses in the structure. Not that the columns lost their strength from being heated to such a high temperature.

PS Why would people put fireproofing on steel if it cant possibly be hurt by fire did you ever ask yourself that question?

Because it costs money?

A guy that actually works (worked?) for one of the engineering firms that makes the stuff posted here at one point, and said they knew that the fireproofing didn't do anything except slow the time it takes for the steel to heat up. Even without it, steel like what made up the columns of the WTC is not going to be elevated to extreme temperatures very easily just because there is so damned much of it and fire is not covering much of the surface area of them all. Historically even skyscraper fires without protected columns have done fine. You're barking up the wrong tree by all accounts if you think column "softening" was the reason the towers fell.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Why is it always either, or with some folks on here?

It doesn't. You were trying to disprove the notion that any were launched 500 feet. You are the one that set up the either/or paradigm by trying to deny one with the other.

Yes, some of the pieces landed 500 feet away. How did they get there? Well, there is evidence showing that yes, some of the tower columns did basically fall like trees when they gave away after most of the towers had already collapsed.

I call BS on that. Where is there any evidence that anything fell like a tree and landed 500 feet away? That does not even make any sense but if you can prove it, I will be happy to eat my words.

Are their pieces that ended up that far away due to the transfer of potential to kinetic energy involved during the collapse? Possibly.

Possilby? Then why try so hard to argue against it?

However, for those that argue it was controlled demolition that brought the buildings down, the fact that pieces of them ended up a distance away from the site pretty much demolishes the CD theory. No one who is setting up a CD is going to set it up so that it 1. Wastes energy blowing pieces of the building laterally and 2. Damages or destroys all of the surrounding buildings.

And you know how they rig a CD as well as pyrotechnic show to both bring down a building as well as make it look like an airplane caused it to basically implode how?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And yet, you are trying to string them together to say that I quoted an engineer as saying the Titanic was unsinkable. In other words, you are lying. If I was impressme, I would be jumping up and down and demanding an apology. Myself, I will consider the source (you) and go about my day.

The difference would be that I am man enough to own up to mistakes. If I was mistaken about what you were inferring. I appologize.

But, the fact that it took over 10 pages and more than a few days worth of poking and proding for you to even show me how I was being mistaken only shows your own stubborness and arrogance.

With that said. I still believe you were being untruthful when you implied that the engineers stated the Titanic was virtually unsinkable or implied that it was designed to be.

When the difference is clearly shown that in the towers case, we have 2 different engineering firms with 2 different analysis both saying that such an event was survivable. But, yet there is no indication that any engineer even stated, let alone studied and/or calculated anything about the Titanic and iceburgs or virtual unsinkability.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Nutter]