R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: planes in wtc too small?  (Read 11092 times)

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2006, 07:29:01 AM »

sulfer is an element of thermate
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2006, 07:47:38 AM »


Quote:

  The temperature of the fire in the towers exceeded 2300˚C.  As the buildings collapsed, where to you think that fire and fuel went?  Nowhere?  

You see conspiracy because you WANT to see conspiracy.  It's ridiculous.


It's not ridiculous JJ.

First of all kerosene when ignited like that burns off in a few seconds.

the second tower to fall had most of the kerosene sprayed OUTSIDE the tower (watch the videos).

therefore the kerosene could not have raised the temperature of what is essentially a huge interlocked series of steel cages which by nature DISSIPATE heat.

If you've ever seen steel being cut you notice that the area which melts is WHITE HOT. not red or orange but white.

to get the steel inside the towers to heat in a uniform manner you would need a constant kerosene fireball for many hours, because the amount of energy to heat up adjacent steel coloumns and structures and to heat up the local steel beams (on the floors where the plane crashes) would be extremely high.

you would need many times more kerosene burning in a controlled manner so that the heat is directed towards the steel and not dissipated into the atmosphere.

there is a picture of a woman standing in the gaping hole left by the plane.

anyway we do not see any evidence of high temperatures in the videos.

the glass panels were largely intact and did not blow out.

the WTC towers were AIRPROOF, this was to prevent fire from spreading floor to floor.

NOT ENOUGH HEAT to melt steel, and even IF more kerosene were to be burned inside THIS WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREEFALL OF THE BUILDING.

I don't WANT to believe anything but the truth.

It's not a nice thought to be living in a world where you are subject to these things, so I would rather that everything was fairy-land right and wrong like the media version would have us believe.


Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2006, 08:09:28 AM »

Malcolm Boyce wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 23:19

maxdimario wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 03:10

...and again.. what about WTC7? people just shut up when you mention wtc7..

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Get out your reading specs...


very long confusing rambling with a non-scientific argument.

Some people think that complexity is synonimous with knowledge and truth.. the opposite is often true.

by mixing the evidence with invented information they are utilizing what is one of the fundamental techniques of projecting lies: Be sure to mix as much truth as possible with the lies to appear as if you are being honest and fair.

If they paid me I could come up with a better version than that.

The facts are very simple: steel-reinforced buildings do not fall vertically at the speed of freefall when subject to fire (any fire even REAL fires which burn for ages and reach VERY high temperatures).

they do not fall vertically because the central coloumns are the load-bearing structure, not the perimeter.

if the perimeter structures fail (and it's got to be very specific and intense damage)the buildings topple sideways.

period.
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2006, 09:11:05 AM »

For starters, what does the MELT temperature of steel have to do with anything?

I don't even know why I'm responding to your drivel.  You have no intention of considering alternate points of view.  (And don't say I don't -- I'm perfectly willing to do so.  I do so every day.  I'm an engineer.  The fact is, none of the conspiracy arguments have even a loose basis in facts.)
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2006, 09:12:01 AM »

maxdimario wrote on Sat, 14 October 2006 12:29

sulfer is an element of thermate


sulphur is also an element of gypsum board, a large number of plastics, a component of diesel fuel (remember the diesel generators in WTC7?) a vulcanising agent for rubber, and all sorts of other things.
Logged

Joe Black

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 456
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2006, 10:41:15 AM »

I'm sorry, bu wasn't this conspiracy drivel just smeared against the wall last week in another thread in this very forum? Do you conspiarcy folks work for the CIA and is your real intention to divert attention from the real assault on the Constitution, personal freedom and the sepration of powers? The debate here isn;t hw the towers fell, the debate here is why the conspiracy buffs conitunue to do the work of Cheney, Rumsfeld and thier lackye Bush. What's next? The earth is only 6000 years old?
Logged

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2006, 01:43:40 PM »

Ugh.  I can't do this thread anymore.
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2006, 02:11:31 PM »



I think our Italian friend (Max) simply has "issues" with the US.  
The US handled Italy poorly after WWII...
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

Die BREMSSPUR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2006, 02:15:51 PM »

rankus wrote on Sat, 14 October 2006 20:11



I think our Italian friend (Max) simply has "issues" with the US.  
The US handled Italy poorly after WWII...



Kicked over the night stand...
Logged
I used to be self-effacing but I couldn't even do that right
http://www.pmtstudios.com

djui5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1511
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2006, 04:39:51 AM »

Thanks for that word document about WTC 7. Those pictures explain it all for me. I'd never seen that side of it before.
Logged
Morale of the day? Stop looking at what you're hearing.
yngve hoeyland 07'

Randy Wright
Mix Engineer
Mesa, Arizona

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2006, 04:17:57 PM »

This is ridiculous.

you guys are supposed to have SOME kind of engineering backround.

a LITTLE bit of a technical mindset?

how the heck can a steel-structure-based skyscraper fall vertically at the speed of freefall from fire OR intense impact.

it does not and will not EVER HAPPEN.

Have you seen the videos of the steel building that burned to an orange glow for 24H.. the steel begins to weaken and eventually bits start falling off... BUT NOT EVERYTHING down at freefall after ONE HOUR  of a slow-burning fire. (on a few floors)Laughing

Too much TV.

Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2006, 05:12:35 PM »

rankus wrote on Sat, 14 October 2006 20:11



I think our Italian friend (Max) simply has "issues" with the US.  
The US handled Italy poorly after WWII...


I grew up in Canada and am a citizen there.. did not study stuff like that in school.

Now I do live in Italia! and I've got to say that corruption here is something which is accepted.. there is a huge gap between the old-money rich and the rest of the people. You really have to be a bit of a crook yourself to get a business of a certain scale to work. So that's the logic. I don't like it, and not many people do really.

Taxes are so high here that EVERYBODY evades taxes.. every politician is corrupt to an extent.. the same politicians have been there for 30 years etc.

a lot of european countries are in worse shape, some are in better shape, like Germany or France.. Politicians in Europe are interbreeding business with personal gain whenever possible and have done so... for some centuries.

It was the reason why the USA was different, it provided freedom in exchange for taxes.

It was a REACTION to mostly corrupt governments  in Europe which had always been tied to dictators, monarchs or rulers.

you know, democracy.

Logged

rollmottle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1246
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2006, 05:18:02 PM »

maxdimario wrote on Sun, 15 October 2006 13:17

This is ridiculous.

you guys are supposed to have SOME kind of engineering backround.

a LITTLE bit of a technical mindset?

how the heck can a steel-structure-based skyscraper fall vertically at the speed of freefall from fire OR intense impact.

it does not and will not EVER HAPPEN.

Have you seen the videos of the steel building that burned to an orange glow for 24H.. the steel begins to weaken and eventually bits start falling off... BUT NOT EVERYTHING down at freefall after ONE HOUR  of a slow-burning fire. Laughing

Too much TV.




you can sit there playing the "martyr of truth" all you want dude. fact is, you're so far off the deep end, you're an embarrassment to this forum.

these theories you purport are so easily debunked you make yourself look like such a damn fool. the fact that you keep comparing other steel-frame buildings to WTC tells me you have never even looked further than your conspiracy theory will let you. FACT is, WTC 1 & 2 were constructed DIFFERENTLY than other steel frame buildings. i have no engineering background WHATSOEVER, but i have a head on my shoulders and more common sense in the shit that's in my toilet than you have in your brain.

from "HowStuffWorks.com re: WTC 1 & 2":

"The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.

"This design had two major advantages. First of all, it gave the building remarkable stability. In addition to shouldering some of the vertical load (the weight of the building), the outer steel columns supported all of the horizontal forces acting on the tower (the force of the wind). This meant the inner support structure was completely dedicated to the huge vertical loads.

"Secondly, the tube design made for great real estate. With the support structure moved to the sides and center of the building, there was no need to space bulky columns throughout each floor. Clients could configure the available space, about 3/4 of an acre per floor, however they wanted. "

DUUUUUUUUUUH...a 250,000 pound hunk of metal slams into a major LOAD BEARING piece of the structure at 550 mph, not only compromising the integrity of said LOAD BEARING structure, but also igniting a massive inferno further contributing to the structure's ultimate demise.

are you really this fucking stupid? why is this so hard to conceive? it's not fucking rocket science.

you are ridiculous.
Logged
SENTRALL Sound East
My SoundCloud | Twitter | www.sentrall.com

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2006, 05:18:17 PM »

maxdimario wrote on Sun, 15 October 2006 21:17

This is ridiculous.

you guys are supposed to have SOME kind of engineering backround.

a LITTLE bit of a technical mindset?

how the heck can a steel-structure-based skyscraper fall vertically at the speed of freefall from fire OR intense impact.

it does not and will not EVER HAPPEN.

Have you seen the videos of the steel building that burned to an orange glow for 24H.. the steel begins to weaken and eventually bits start falling off... BUT NOT EVERYTHING down at freefall after ONE HOUR  of a slow-burning fire. Laughing

Too much TV.




Max,

Stop repeating what you see on websites.

Learn some physics, learn about explosives and how they function, learn about chemistry,  learn the facts about the towers and WTC7, how they were built, the damage they sustained, and the speed they actually fell at, do some maths.

Learn what the differences were between the cases you site and the tower collapses.

Only twice in history has a building of a construction of the type of the WTC towers been subjected to a massive impact from a large projectile which knocked out a significant amount of vertical support directly, followed by a large fire heating steel elements which were largely unprotected from fire at this point.

In both cases the buildings collapsed, both cases were on the same day.
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: planes in wtc too small?
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2006, 02:15:41 AM »

Maxi,


I'm not a structural engineer.  Really, when it comes down to it, I'm not ANY sort of Engineer on an official level. The word "Engineer" get's tossed about with great frequency these days. It can be argued that as a person who can properly gain stage an audio rig, make things sound good, come up with creative ways to solve problems and figure out how a car can be fixed, I in some way conduct some strange "style" of back wood's, seat of the pants, Engineering. {one could argue that the average House wife does this sort of thing nearly every day.}.

Let's talk about what I consider to be REAL Engineers. These are the many brave and driven Men and Women in our world who don't just talk like Engineer wanna' bes' but, actually go out into the world and learn the Math, the science, and the  practical application of their craft. These folks live and breath the reality of the physical world and our, {the human} impact upon it every day. They show up at Plane crashes. They investigate car wrecks.. And they make informed decisions about how to build stuff and through many years of experience and the practical application of their "in the field study's", draw conclusions about what may have, or may not have transpired at any given event. Well, a huge portion/percentage of these folks believe that in fact, these Towers fell because a very large, heavy Aircraft breached the main weight bearing outer structure of these buildings. It's interesting to note that these buildings were better than average candidates for this kind of failure because of where the biggest portion of the structure "SAT" in terms of weight bearing. It's plainly clear, obvious even that a 767 moving at nearly 500 MPH {across the ground} could do bad bad damage to the outer structure ...

You mentioned the construction of an airplane in an earlier post. Yes, they do in fact make them as light as they can while still making them very strong. { the average big jet can be severely punished before it fails structurally though. You can invert them, take them vertical at amazing speed and so on before they break up.} I'm saying that at the weight and speed we are talking about, we could be talking about a big bag of leaves. It too could have done great damage to the towers.{ well, maybe not leaves but, you get the idea.}

There is a fine explanation about the vertical speed at which the towers fell and I will try to find this for you. Gravity is gravity and after that much weight is headed for the ground, the floors below become less and less and impediment.smash a piece of paper with your hand's.The fact that there is paper between your hands wont slow them down much. Also, we can only observe the fall from outside the building, after the fact. While there is video, we don't know when the drop started with any real precision and we don't know when it stopped either. All we can do is guess. We don't know the "speed at which the floors fell" we are guessing. Period.

When one considers:

1. weak structure.
2.fire hot enough to weaken the horizontal floor structure. {this is not an item that real Engineers even argue about now and hasn't been since about a week after the collapse.}
3. The design of the buildings {this is a big one.}

It is clear to most people except a few for what ever reason , WANT TO OR NEED TO BELIEVE THIS CAN'T BE TRUE that what we saw that horrible day is what in fact happened.

Honestly, you pissed me off last week when you started insulting people around here who have forgotten more about this than you or I will ever know. I don't like it when tone deaf hacks show up at "gig's" with drum machines. You have jumped on a band wagon driven by these very hacks. You have not pointed to one person who has the Engineering chops necessary to claim any of this shit. They sound to me like the republican party claiming "moral high ground" In short, it's a bunch of horse shit and I think they just want to get paid for showing up and doing "speaking engagements."..

I never thought so many people would vote for W. I also never thought so many people would buy into such bull shit about nothing. Wheels are square? green is orange? 767's are wimpy? Drum machines swing???

It's a mad mad mad fucking world...................

I think we may be in real trouble.........

Ivan........................
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.105 seconds with 21 queries.