"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 64
17
<< 61  62  63    65 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

why havnt they changed the way they build steel high rises then ?



The new building 7 was in fact built using the new NIST recommendations, as was the aforementioned Bejing building.

NIST can't make laws. They make recommendations that may or may not be followed/made into building codes.

This is common knowledge.




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


"The new building 7 was in fact built using the new NIST recommendations"

well ................. that just explains it all then doesnt it
....... do your research dude.
2nd



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

prove NIST did not lie



Why are you shifting the burden of proof here?

You obviously believe that NIST either lied, or are wrong.

So go ahead and prove it.

The common narrative of events is the accepted one already. Nothing is gonna change that until some truther does. So go ahead and be the first.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

do your research dude.



I have.

This is why I am able to give you 2 examples of buildings that have been built using NIST's recs off the top of my head. Further research would likely yield more for you to deny.

Please answer these questions:

1- do you believe that fire affects steel's strength?

2- do you believe that fire science and the engineers that are employed in it are very good at their job?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Yes fire effects steels strength ... but not enough to collapse a complex structure like the twins ... or even 7..... 500-700 °F is not a steel high rise structure collapsing temp .... sorry dude , but once again .... do your research.

And yes theyre very good ..... thats why they dont collapse
edit on 25-10-2011 by EleninPfft because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
"Why are you shifting the burden of proof here?"

What burden ? this is a thread for "truthers" not OSers ... why are you even here ? theres obviously one person under a few accounts that is acting like a d1ck........... if you believe the OS ... jog on .... simple as.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

Wheres your FACTS ?


Silly Truther, The fact is: There is no mention, not even the slightest hint, that any of them are still alive, dated after Sept 27 2001. That is the day the FBI officially released their identification, ending all speculations as to their actual identity,

All you have to do to prove me wrong is, provide some evidence, dated after Sept 27 2001, saying they are still alive.

Good luck Truther.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


"The new building 7 was in fact built using the new NIST recommendations"

well ................. that just explains it all then doesnt it
....... do your research dude.
2nd


Your posting style and the manner in which you engage with people is eerily similar to a recently banned member.

Interesting that you joined the same day this member was banned and are posting in the very same threads.

It's as if you never left...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EleninPfft

Wheres your FACTS ?


Silly Truther, The fact is: There is no mention, not even the slightest hint, that any of them are still alive, dated after Sept 27 2001. That is the day the FBI officially released their identification, ending all speculations as to their actual identity,

All you have to do to prove me wrong is, provide some evidence, dated after Sept 27 2001, saying they are still alive.

Good luck Truther.


no... your facts proving NIST didnt lie ? cmon silly OSer , switch off your tv and look at something for once.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


"The new building 7 was in fact built using the new NIST recommendations"

well ................. that just explains it all then doesnt it
....... do your research dude.
2nd


Your posting style and the manner in which you engage with people is eerily similar to a recently banned member.

Interesting that you joined the same day this member was banned and are posting in the very same threads.

It's as if you never left...


pointless post as usual but still ..... i never left
i want to show my proof to the correct amount of "truthers" and at the min , the negative attitude of you OSers is preventing that.... but thats the point right ?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


The new building 7 was in fact built using the new NIST recommendations, as was the aforementioned Bejing building.


Please list the changes that would now not cause a 47 story building to collapse into its own footprint from fire.

Then try to explain how a 47 story building could collapse into its own footprint from fire.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


"The new building 7 was in fact built using the new NIST recommendations"

well ................. that just explains it all then doesnt it
....... do your research dude.
2nd


Your posting style and the manner in which you engage with people is eerily similar to a recently banned member.

Interesting that you joined the same day this member was banned and are posting in the very same threads.

It's as if you never left...


pointless post as usual but still ..... i never left
i want to show my proof to the correct amount of "truthers" and at the min , the negative attitude of you OSers is preventing that.... but thats the point right ?



I don't understand what you're saying.
Apparently is was YOUR attitude that got you banned in the first place. Have your fun while it lasts.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

Yes fire effects steels strength ... but not enough to collapse a complex structure like the twins ... or even 7..... 500-700 °F is not a steel high rise structure collapsing temp .... sorry dude , but once again .... do your research.


Again, I have.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

The decrease of yield stress upon heating depends
strongly on the rate of loading or on its duration, and is
properly described as time-dependent flow, or viscoplastic
deformation. For 1 hour of loading, the decrease is much
greater than it is for the typical duration of laboratory tests of
strength, which is of the order of 1 minute. In columns, the
flow leads to time-dependent buckling, which is in mechanics
called viscoplastic buckling or creep buckling. A temperature
rise to 250°C at high stress level can greatly shorten the
critical time t* of creep buckling.
Some critics do not understand the enormous destabilization
potential of creep buckling. The Dorn-Weertmann
relation indicates that
˙ =Ane−Q/kT where
˙ =strain rate;
A=constant; n5; Q=activation energy of interatomic
bonds; and k=Boltzmann constant; Hayden et al. 1965,
Eq. 6.8; Courtney 2000; Cottrell 1964; Rabotnov 1966. According
to Choudhary et al. 1999, the typical value of Q/k
for ferritic steel alloys is about 10,000°K and about
20,000°K according to Frost and Ashby 1982. Using
10,000°K, one may estimate that, upon heating from 25°C
T0=298°K to 250°C T=523°K, the rate of deformations
attributable to dislocation movements increases about 106
times, and more than that when using 20,000°K. For heating
to 150°C, the rate increases about 104 times. This rate is
what controls the rate of flow and, indirectly, the yield
strength upon heating.
Furthermore, the equations in the aforementioned sources
and those in Sec. 9.3 of Bažant and Cedolin 2003 make
it possible to calculate that raising the column load from
0.3Pt to 0.9Pt where Pt=failure load=tangent modulus
load at temperature 250°C T=523°K shortens the critical
time t* of creep buckling from 2,400 hours to about 1 hour
note the differences in terminology: material scientists distinguish
between the microstructural mechanisms of creep,
occurring at low stress, and of time-dependent flow, occurring
near the strength limit, whereas in structural mechanics,
the term creep buckling or viscoplastic buckling applies to
any time-dependent buckling regardless of microstructural
mechanism; thus the source of creep buckling of steel columns
at high stress is actually not creep, as known in materials
science, but time-dependent flow of heated steel at high
stress.
Recently reported fire tests Zeng et al. 2003 have demonstrated
that structural steel columns under a sustained load
of about 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to
250°C. However, creep of structural steel in the service
stress range begins only after the steel temperature rises
above 350°C Cottrell 1964, Frost and Ashby 1982, Huang
et al. 2006.
The aforementioned crude estimates suffice to make it
clear that the combination of asymmetric load redistribution
among columns in the aircraft impacted stories with the heating
of steel to about 250°C or even less was likely to lead
to a loss of stability attributable to creep buckling of the most
overloaded columns within the observed time.



And yes theyre very good ..... thats why they dont collapse


So then to you,they are infallible in any situation that a building may encounter?

Or is it probable that NIST recognized the failings in the design, wrote and published them, and then made recommendations to fix these problems?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft


What burden ?


The burden of the OP.

Show why the towers couldn't have fallen......


this is a thread for "truthers" not OSers


So then don't shift the burden of proof and tell us all why the towers couldn't have fallen.....


why are you even here ?


Cuz there are plenty of misguided souls that have fallen - for a while - for the truthy version of events, but have come back to reality. If even one of them does that, then there is a kid that has succeeded from wasting his life on a delusional belief.


theres obviously one person under a few accounts that is acting like a d1ck


No.

There's one person, banned several times in the last couple of days, that is acting like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum.

And we all know just who that is now, don't we????



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Nah it was the opinion of you OSers that got me banned in the first place .......... which buggs me.... since this is obviously not a place for OSers ... so why are you here ?

And tucking my facts away in a fog of pointless posts wont work , im like johnny cash ... i`ll remain ..... i`ll be back again



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Please list the changes that would now not cause a 47 story building to collapse into its own footprint from fire.


www.nist.gov...


Then try to explain how a 47 story building could collapse into its own footprint from fire.


www.nist.gov...

Note that this thread is for truthers to explain how they couldn't have fallen......

Ball's in your court, champ.....



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The delusional beleif is that 19 men with box cutters hijacked planes and proceeded to pull of the greatest maneuvers known to man in 747s and 757s , then some how managed to collapse 2 very very strong towers, attack the pentagon (which was defended as allways) and crash one into a feild leaving no distinctive marks.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


And NIST`s lies have been proven so NIST is not a reasonable source.
2nd



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The delusional beleif is that 19 men with box cutters hijacked planes and proceeded to pull of the greatest maneuvers known to man in 747s and 757s , then some how managed to collapse 2 very very strong towers, attack the pentagon (which was defended as allways) and crash one into a feild leaving no distinctive marks.


They also had knives, and killed people on the planes, and locked themselves in the cockpits, and told the passengers that they would land at an airport and make their demands. They weren't amazingly great maneuvers, and the hijackers piloting the planes had gone to universities and taken classes in how to fly a plane. You know the saying "taking off and landing is the hardest part of flying." Once they were in the air, it was mostly using autopilot and pushing the throttle to the limit as they aimed for their targets.

You seem to just spout of untruth after untruth, man. It's almost like you're brainwashed.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
im like johnny cash ... i`ll remain ..... i`ll be back again



I don't think Johnny is coming back.

He can't raise from the grave like your hijackers.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 61  62  63    65 >>

log in

join