U watch -- U consider -- U explain

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Thank you, And how about them Mets ??

Seriously, I have been aware of the passions which quickly arise from this topic and as I had stated before, I have made this post in an attempt for everyone to look and consider what they see before responding.

So many people look at things without "seeing" that which is righht in front of them .
edit on 4-10-2011 by hdutton because: 4 years in the third grade and still can't spell



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Well we could discus fire science for sure. It amazes me you think fire can get hot enough in an hour to weaken steel to the point of creating complete failure of the building...



So why do they put fireproofing on steel ? In Truther World is it not necessary to put fireproofing on steel ?

Most fireproofed steel is rated for only 2 hrs. If the fireproofing is knocked off would the rating be less than 2 hrs maybe even less than one hour ?

What are the rules in Truther Physics governing thermal dynamics ? Is the first rule "smaller fire cannot destroy bigger building" ?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Why do you call them truther physics? Are you not on the real world? Nah you dont seem to be.
As said countless times, they make the building with steel for some obvious reasons, that you cant grasp, no problem, maybe you will get there sometime. They make steel on furnaces, not for the fun of it, but precisely because furnace temperatures are needed to alter the steel in a manner that you would need to fit your bill. But I guess fairytale physics allow you to bend I breams with a zippo amirite?
Fireproofing blown, man that plane must have had some big boom devices attached to it to not just dislodge all fireproofing in the towers, but it also traveled down the elevator shafts and blew the lobby to pieces, oh wait, no elevator shafts going through the whole tower...Ah wait ant then they find the hijacker's passport lying on the stree!!! Priceles...

I will have to add this to my sig: the more the fairytalers draw attention to the OS, the more the people will see through the holes in it, simple as that.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Quite simply, supports and loads were placed and spaced differently. You'll notice that the hotel's outer walls collapsed, but the inner supports held, because they were built very well.

WTC 7 had a number of flaws. It was constructed over a Con Ed station and had basically 4 main support columns that held the whole building up. One of them collapsed, and the rest came down as the debris crashed downward. The damage to the facade allowed the building to fall toward the trade center complex (south), and also made it seem more symmetrical, though if you look closely you can see that the building collapsed slowly internally before falling primarily as an exoskeleton.

It's not controversial. It's not bad physics. It's what happened, if you pay attention.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Q. Why does the footage showing the 'controlled demolition' of wtc7 (as seen in the OP)
look fake and of bad quality cgi?
A. Because it is faked and of bad quality cgi!

The perpetrators released fake cgi video to fuel conspiracies (guided by their controlled
truth movements), while the actual buildings were demolished in private!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello
. They make steel on furnaces, not for the fun of it, but precisely because furnace temperatures are needed to alter the steel in a manner that you would need to fit your bill. But I guess fairytale physics allow you to bend I breams with a zippo emirate?



So why do they spray fire proofing os steel ?

Lets scale down your zippo experiment . Take an ordinary sewing needle and try and bend it. Needles are made out of tempered steel It will be very hard to bend and will break after being bent a few degrees. Now take another needle place it in the yellow part of the flame of your zippo. after about 3 seconds the needle will start to glow a dull cherry red. Any time after that the needle can be easily bent as far as you want without breaking. The temper is gone from the needle and the metal has been annealed.

Scale this experiment back up to big steel, big fire, and longer time, the results will be the same.

As for the fireproofing being knocked off: This photo was taken just after AA11 impacted WTC 1.Most of the white dust below the arrows is fireproofing. How do we know this is not smoke ? Because smoke doesn't fall to the ground and just lay there.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
Q. Why does the footage showing the 'controlled demolition' of wtc7 (as seen in the OP)
look fake and of bad quality cgi?
A. Because it is faked and of bad quality cgi!

The perpetrators released fake cgi video to fuel conspiracies (guided by their controlled
truth movements), while the actual buildings were demolished in private!


Seriously, you can't be serious. People were there and witnessed it and still talk about it today. Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they're fake.

This is one of the biggest cases of denial I've ever seen. What in the world is real to you?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


k i have something that i cant seem to get beyond. if this was an inside job, as so many believe on this website. nevermind any evidence you may think you have, what is the motive of setting demoltions in wtc7? you've already taken down 2 of the tallest an most powerful skyscrapers in the world and your going to blow up a 47 story office building with no one in it because why? it shows that you took 3 buildings down instead of 2? why not stop there? why not set off all the adjacent buildings also? It makes absolutley no sense to anyone who actually thinks about it.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by pshea38
Q. Why does the footage showing the 'controlled demolition' of wtc7 (as seen in the OP)
look fake and of bad quality cgi?
A. Because it is faked and of bad quality cgi!

The perpetrators released fake cgi video to fuel conspiracies (guided by their controlled
truth movements), while the actual buildings were demolished in private!


Seriously, you can't be serious. People were there and witnessed it and still talk about it today. Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they're fake.

This is one of the biggest cases of denial I've ever seen. What in the world is real to you?


edit on 4-10-2011 by tyson45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


O K
I guess I will have to tell you things which some people just can not grasp.

They spray fireproofing on steel because of a very simple thing called "building codes". That's right the building codes of New York City say if your going to put a building which is to be occupied by human beings, it must have all structural surfaces covered by fire proofing. You see they once made buildings with stuff other than steel, like wood, and just because they are now using other material,steel, that does not mean the city will let them not use fireproofing to help protect the people inside.

As far as heating a needle with a lighter. I hope this is not too hard but, all steel, regardless of design or function has the same heat transfer characteristics. This only seems to be lessened if you use a small piece of steel like a neddle. So it takes much more heat to have the same effects on a large piece of steel than on a small one.

I would not attempt to change your mind about what you have seen. I can only interpret the world as I see it.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
One other interesting aspect they don't want you to consider is how come a blow torch doesn't melt? Or the pot on your stove? Nope, they would rather have you believe the obvious lie than see logic.


A torch's flame is outside of the torch, not in it. The gas has to mix with oxygen to burn, so by design this occurs just outside of the tip. The torch itself doesn't get very hot. As for the pots on your stove, burners can go to about 400 degrees and a pot can reach up to 300 degrees. Most pots are made of aluminum which has a melting point of around 1000 degrees. The fires in the WTC were believed to be in the 1800 degree range which is not unusual for a building fire. That would easily melt your aluminum pots thus negating your attempted analogy.

But structural steel has a higher melting point- around 2800 degrees. But the issue isn't at what point steel melts, it's at what point steel deforms (fails). This is largely dependent upon the load on the steel. In the case of the WTC fires, all the buildings had fires well below the top, so there were tremendous loads on the columns and connections at the fire points. The problem was made much more severe because the buildings did not have sprinkler systems, so the steel was only protected by a layer of fireproofing. Fireproofing is only intended to protect steel long enough for egress (exiting) and for firefighters to bring the fire under control. In the case of the WTC buildings, there wasn't enough time for either to occur. The buildings all were built under older codes and if they had had sprinkler systems it's highly unlikely the collapses would have occurred.

Do we have all the answers on why the collapses happened? No, there are some mysteries about it. But the mysteries are because of the strange and unusual forces these buildings were subjected to, there's no precedence for this. We will probably never have all the answers. But not having the answers does not mean there's any kind of conspiracy afoot here.

Personally I always chuckle at people who think our government could pull off something as incredibly complicated as bringing down 3 high-rise buildings in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the nation all within a few hours of each other and without anyone knowing a thing beforehand. This is the same government that is filled with bumbling fools that can't even control their spending or agree on the simplest of resolutions, give me a break! Go to your local DMV and try to get your license renewed, that'll give you some insight into how brilliant and efficient our government is, LOL!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello

Fireproofing blown, man that plane must have had some big boom devices attached to it to not just dislodge all fireproofing in the towers,


There are several types of fireproofing, but the type used in those buildings was the blow-on type. You can scrape it off easily with your fingers, it has to be protected. Drywall column enclosures keep it from getting knocked off in a normal office environment. But yes indeed, a force like a fully-loaded airliner cutting through a building would definitely be plenty to destroy the column enclosures and knock off much of the fireproofing. The fireproofing is designed to insulate the steel, but it's not impact-resistant in the least. But even if it wasn't knocked off, the fireproofing only delays damage to the steel, it doesn't prevent it. The fireproofing IS damaged by fire and if the fire isn't brought under control it will at some point burn away leaving the steel exposed. The fires at WTC burned for quite a while before the buildings collapsed and that is no doubt largely due to the fireproofing doing its job.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Regarding the "controlled demolition" scenario in WTC7, I've mentioned this in another thread, but when a building is scheduled to be demo'd all the glass is removed from it. Why? Because in a controlled demolition, the blast is contained by the upper and lower floors and forced outwards. If the glass were left in, there would be a huge outward explosion of glass that would project out hundreds of yards in every direction. It's clear from the WTC7 videos that the glass was in place at the time the building collapsed and that it did not blow outward, so it's not possible that WTC7 was brought down with controlled demolition. There are other issues with this scenario as well, controlled demolition requires miles of wiring (wireless devices are too risky/ dangerous to use) and charges at each column and it would be virtually impossible to set all this without most people in the building knowing. Any overhead work always leaves telltale signs behind, people notice when they come in and there's any new dust, bits of ceiling tile, insulation, etc. on their desks. Then they start asking questions and poking around to see what's been done. People are VERY nosy and they would have known had that level of work been done in WTC7 in the weeks leading up to 9-11.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


The damage done to the steel was the first thing which I noticed on the video. That is why I posted it.

That is the hotel that was fully engulfed and shown at night.

Man that steel was just about melted, huh.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
Your supposed to know 9/11 is a inside job, they would have done a better job if you were not supposed to know. They would not have put it in movies and they would have said that terrorist planted charges.
Just like the JFK assignation, they told you the bullet came from behind even though his head flu back because they wanted you to know "DONT SCREW WITH US WE WILL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF OR FRAME YOU AS A TERRORIST"


i have to say, i like your theory.

it seems that they (whoever 'they' might be) are flaunting what they can get away with... and blatantly warning us that if they could get away with this sloppy sh!t, they can get away with anything.

up to this point, 'they' have not been proven wrong.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


A possible explanation could be the material to build the second building at was imported from China so it burned faster because it was of poor quality to begin with anyways.

The first building could have been better constructed by a reputable developer/real estate tycoon.

Just a thoughts outside the conspiracy theories behind 9/11.





new topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join