CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1808
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:48 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
You should surely write to those engineers and scientists and inform them that the fact that heat rises undermines their entire analysis - they'll be unable to ignore such a professional assessment from an expert such as yourself.

Posting links to Loose Change isn't helping your case if you're aiming to come across as credible, and your little reading assignments are irrelevant until you can demonstrate that you've actually read and understand the report, and can offer some tangible evidence that their analysis, not your imaginary impression of it, is flawed.


I haven't read the reports. Since I'm not a structural engineer, I don't imagine I'd get too far with them anyways. Actually, I don't follow the issue that much. Up until now, I was under the impression that they did detonate WTC becasue of fear of imminent structural failure as a result of seismic activity due to the collapse of the nearby WTC 1 and 2--this shows how much I pay attention! This is the first I've read that fire caused its structural failure. Should a building comeletely fail and collpase on itself in the case of a fire involving products regularly stored in that building? I don't think so. So what else was at play? Was their damage to WTC 7 from the collpase of WTC 1 and 2? Was the steel substandard? Was their a design flaw? Was it deliberately detonated?


you don't have to read the report....look at the chemistry...the physics...the videos...listen to the eye wittness reports from the firefighters IN the buildings....

Image
the video:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... harges.htm


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14063
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:52 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I don't understand how a fire involving mostly domestic building products (wood, drywall, plastic, diesel fuel) could lead to temperatures that would cause significant deformation of steel structural beams.
According to the briefing of the report, fire simulations put the temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Celcius. According to their analysis, it was the thermal expansion of the floor system that caused the columns to move out of line - when the floor system failed, the lateral support of the column was lost, which means it'll buckle much more easily.

Picture holding a wooden ruler on edge and pushing down on it with one hand - it'll buckle very easily if you don't brace it in the middle with your other hand. Same principle, much larger scale.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14063
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:56 am
 


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
you don't have to read the report....
Yeah! Being completely ignorant of alternate explanations is the surefire way to have a rational discussion on the validity of those alternate explanations!

You're a joke.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1808
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:13 am
 


Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
you don't have to read the report....
Yeah! Being completely ignorant of alternate explanations is the surefire way to have a rational discussion on the validity of those alternate explanations!

You're a joke.


you see, what you don't get is the articles and the videos i provided to you ARE the alternate explinations to the governmental rhetoric being eaten up by sheep like you.

and your little simulation comment...dude...COMPUTER SIMULATION...there are a billion ways to tweek that to get the results you desire it's like statistics....look at the real world 'simulations' which states time and time again....FIRE DOES NOT FELL SKYSCRAPERS...

:twisted: here comes that cliff...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14063
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:15 am
 


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
you see, what you don't get is the articles and the videos i provided to you ARE the alternate explinations to the governmental rhetoric being eaten up by sheep like you.
They're not "explinations" - they random observations and estimates strung together into a vague hypothesis that is never fully explained - not once has there been a single unified explanation of the events that better explains the evidence than the "government rhetoric".

To what extent have you reviewed the report made by the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14063
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:21 am
 


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
and your little simulation comment...dude...COMPUTER SIMULATION...there are a billion ways to tweek that to get the results you desire it's like statistics....look at the real world 'simulations' which states time and time again....
This coming from the guy who offered "heat rises" as a more suitable model to estimate the thermal dynamics of the fires.

You're a joke.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1808
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:02 am
 


Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
you see, what you don't get is the articles and the videos i provided to you ARE the alternate explinations to the governmental rhetoric being eaten up by sheep like you.
They're not "explinations" - they random observations and estimates strung together into a vague hypothesis that is never fully explained - not once has there been a single unified explanation of the events that better explains the evidence than the "government rhetoric".

To what extent have you reviewed the report made by the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC?


ok....lets look at this....

puffs of smoke coming from strong points of the building indicative of explostions...buildings free falling...the melting point of the steel being much higher than the fire could have possible gotten...in real life, not your computer simulation....firefighters inside the building saying they were hearing secondary and tertiary explosions and the piece de resistance...no building before or since the WTC's has been felled by fire...

....hummmmm sounds like a pretty solid unified explination of what really happened eh there sheep....

between last post and now i have gone through the entire report and what would you know....nothing but sheep bait, of which you obviously have gorged on....like i said before....you throw enough money at any 'professional' and the'll say the sky is green and the earth is flat....

there are Metallica lyrics that describe your situation perfectly:

yaahhh then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel...is just a freight train com'en your waaayyyyy!!!! :twisted:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:25 am
 


For someone who knows how to blow up a building, and the effort that would have to go into a demolition of that kind that would take down the WTC. It is MUCH more plausible to say that jet fuel, which burns at an extremely high temperature, would be enough to weaken a steel structure already under severe strain. Besides the impact of a plane hitting the building would set off any planted charges factions of a second after it impacted. The blast wave would start at the area of impact and blow up as well as down. The explosive train you are talking about does not support the video evidence.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8533
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:28 am
 


You don't have to melt a solid in order to reduce its strength to the point where it can deform. Grab a piece of copper wire. It's solid, right? It's not hot, right? Can you bend it? Yes. A simplistic explanation to be sure, but you don't have to melt a solid to reduce its strength to the point where it can't hold a load it previously had been.

WTC 1 and 2 were designed to witstand the impact of much smaller planes. And they DID, in fact, withstand the impacts - they stood for over an hour each. The removal of insulation in the impact and the ensuing fire brought them down - factors which they were not designed to contend with.

But when it comes down to it, let's invoke Occam's razor. What's the simpler explanation:

That a building with a compromised fire supression system, and which had heavy pieces of an even larger building fall on it, had a raging fire inside it which weakened its structure to the point of collapse.

or

That the CIA, fearing the exposure of secrets within this building, mounted an undetected campaign to place explosives in this damaged building within hours (it took them a substantial period of time to determine how to safely bring down the remains of the Oklahoma federal building as controlled demolitions assume and exploit a sound structure) of a major terrorist incident in which communications and power were compromised and carried it out. They then managed to keep it a secret for, to date, almost seven years.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:31 am
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:
You don't have to melt a solid in order to reduce its strength to the point where it can deform. Grab a piece of copper wire. It's solid, right? It's not hot, right? Can you bend it? Yes. A simplistic explanation to be sure, but you don't have to melt a solid to reduce its strength to the point where it can't hold a load it previously had been.

WTC 1 and 2 were designed to witstand the impact of much smaller planes. And they DID, in fact, withstand the impacts - they stood for over an hour each. The removal of insulation in the impact and the ensuing fire brought them down - factors which they were not designed to contend with.

But when it comes down to it, let's invoke Occam's razor. What's the simpler explanation:

That a building with a compromised fire supression system, and which had heavy pieces of an even larger building fall on it, had a raging fire inside it which weakened its structure to the point of collapse.

or

That the CIA, fearing the exposure of secrets within this building, mounted an undetected campaign to place explosives in this damaged building within hours (it took them a substantial period of time to determine how to safely bring down the remains of the Oklahoma federal building as controlled demolitions assume and exploit a sound structure) of a major terrorist incident in which communications and power were compromised and carried it out. They then managed to keep it a secret for, to date, almost seven years.

PDT_Armataz_01_37


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14063
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:07 pm
 


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
puffs of smoke coming from strong points of the building indicative of explostions...
Actually, they're indicative of the progressive collapse described in the report - as structural components fail, the facade, windows, and other elements break off.


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
buildings free falling...
The building did not "free fall". Analysis of video evidence has shown that the upper 18 floors fell in about 5.4 seconds. Free fall speed would have been 3.9 seconds.

What would free-fall collapse have even indicated? A vacuum was created to negate the effects of air resistance? Every single piece of the building's structure was destroyed before it was even began to fall? It's a stupid point if you actually think about it beyond the vague references offered by conspiracy theorists.

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
the melting point of the steel being much higher than the fire could have possible gotten...
Nobody has suggested collapse was caused because the steel had melted - again, your failure to even consider the actual assessment you're condemning is laughable.

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
in real life, not your computer simulation...
It's not my computer simulation, and it sure as hell is more sophisticated and accurate that your "heat rises" theory, dolt.

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
firefighters inside the building saying they were hearing secondary and tertiary explosions
They heard explosions after a skyscraper fell out of the sky and the building had been on fire for hours - did they see charges strapped to structural columns? Did anyone else notice anything but loud noises that would indicate the use of explosives? Why were there no explosions immediately before the time of the actual collapse? Since when do demolitions take place by setting off small charges over the course of several hours?

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
no building before or since the WTC's has been felled by fire...
Gee, then it must be physically impossible! Nothing can ever happen for a first time!

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
....hummmmm sounds like a pretty solid unified explination of what really happened eh there sheep....
Except there's no actual evidence of any of those claims...

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
between last post and now i have gone through the entire report and what would you know....nothing but sheep bait, of which you obviously have gorged on....like i said before....you throw enough money at any 'professional' and the'll say the sky is green and the earth is flat....
How convenient that you simply dismiss the expertise of hundreds of people by the mere fact that they're paid for it. Nothing you've posted indicates you've the slightest understanding of anything in the actual analysis, or how it was conducted.

You're a joke.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1808
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:19 pm
 


Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
puffs of smoke coming from strong points of the building indicative of explostions...
Actually, they're indicative of the progressive collapse described in the report - as structural components fail, the facade, windows, and other elements break off.


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
buildings free falling...
The building did not "free fall". Analysis of video evidence has shown that the upper 18 floors fell in about 5.4 seconds. Free fall speed would have been 3.9 seconds.

What would free-fall collapse have even indicated? A vacuum was created to negate the effects of air resistance? Every single piece of the building's structure was destroyed before it was even began to fall? It's a stupid point if you actually think about it beyond the vague references offered by conspiracy theorists.

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
the melting point of the steel being much higher than the fire could have possible gotten...
Nobody has suggested collapse was caused because the steel had melted - again, your failure to even consider the actual assessment you're condemning is laughable.

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
in real life, not your computer simulation...
It's not my computer simulation, and it sure as hell is more sophisticated and accurate that your "heat rises" theory, dolt.

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
firefighters inside the building saying they were hearing secondary and tertiary explosions
They heard explosions after a skyscraper fell out of the sky and the building had been on fire for hours - did they see charges strapped to structural columns? Did anyone else notice anything but loud noises that would indicate the use of explosives? Why were there no explosions immediately before the time of the actual collapse? Since when do demolitions take place by setting off small charges over the course of several hours?

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
no building before or since the WTC's has been felled by fire...
Gee, then it must be physically impossible! Nothing can ever happen for a first time!

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
....hummmmm sounds like a pretty solid unified explination of what really happened eh there sheep....
Except there's no actual evidence of any of those claims...

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
between last post and now i have gone through the entire report and what would you know....nothing but sheep bait, of which you obviously have gorged on....like i said before....you throw enough money at any 'professional' and the'll say the sky is green and the earth is flat....
How convenient that you simply dismiss the expertise of hundreds of people by the mere fact that they're paid for it. Nothing you've posted indicates you've the slightest understanding of anything in the actual analysis, or how it was conducted.

You're a joke.


hahahaha..... baaahhhh....baaahhh...baaahhhhhhhh....someone need shearing?
watch that freight train sheep....


Last edited by Heavy_Metal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14063
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:22 pm
 


Another feature of conspiracy theorists: they need everything boiled down into single-phrase sound bites because they're really not qualified to discuss anything technical in any depth.

I heard Alex Jones will be coming out with his pop-up book soon - maybe then we can talk.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5164
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:24 pm
 


Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:
hahahaha..... baaahhhh....baaahhh...baaahhhhhhhh....someone need shearing?
watch that freight train sheep....


Gee maybe if you spent time reading evidence rather than skimming thought it and jumping to your own conclusions, someone wouldn’t be forced to think of your arguments as pure flights of fantasy.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1808
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:33 pm
 


Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Another feature of conspiracy theorists: they need everything boiled down into single-phrase sound bites because they're really not qualified to discuss anything technical in any depth.

I heard Alex Jones will be coming out with his pop-up book soon - maybe then we can talk.


ggaaahahahahahaha

Image


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.