I have a new found respect for Charlie Sheen.

No actually I think that Chris Brown is an entirely different situation too; I think he's someone who's just very confused and I hated Rhianna- I talk about a narcissist- from what I've seen I think she is a narcissistic bitch, and also I think everything should be looked at on a case by case basis. I'm not saying that justifies the hitting, but it certainly does put in in a totally different catergory, one with extenuating circumstances and one in which I have a lot of empathy.

 

sorry forgot to quote my response above but yes- and I thought the press was so one sided on the Chris Brown incident- and it was because his girlfriend just happened to be more famous than him and during a time when domestic violence is a trendy cause.

 

Same kind of thing though with Sheen.

Yeah so he's basically got two wives, fair enough he's loaded, and they've got kids to look after

Yeah so one used to be an ex porn star, big effen deal, now she's living with some guy thats loaded, good on her.

Part of the Anti Sheen attitude is about those bitter that those that dont follow the supposed moral rules dont end up with a shitty life.

I dont know much about any past domestic violence issues he's had, but otherwise I dont really get what he's done wrong; some argument with some no doubt wanker producer and he's got more than one wife, whoop di do



Ashton Kutcher in comparison is totally whipped, cos he does what he's told he's supposed to be somekind of saint? Every though pretty much every straight guy would rather be Sheen than Kutcher

 

What I actually wrote was: Do you know the temperature at which steel melts?

That question still stands.

 

Why don't you find out what steel was used, what the melting point is, which is irreverent. What temperature it starts to loose it's rigidity which is more important. Then get a complete list of everything inside that was burning and get back to me, or don't, I couldn't care less.

 

Steel melts between 2600 and 2800 degrees depending on type. But that is irrelevant.

Here is the official explaination: The planes destroyed much of the support on impact, the explosion weakened the structure of that region more, and the fire and a little more time was enough to make that section fall, dropping all the weight of the floors above on the lower sections and crushing the rest of the building.

Here is what the conspiracy theorists seem to think: Someone coordinated with this terrorist group and planted explosives in a demolition setup on the support columns, in the exact area where the planes would hit. Then after the planes hit they detonated them. Somehow they did it without anyone ever noticing the drilling and placement work on all those steel beams, or people carrying large amounts of demolitions equipment into the building. They also were able to coordinate with the terrorists well enough to have the planes hit right where they put the explosives, which the terrorists were skilled enough to do. This is all necessary because there is no way an intercontinental jumbo jet hitting a sky scraper and exploding would be enough to make one floor of support give way and cause a cascade.

 

I totally agree with you- if this was just about everything you mentioned I would not care at all about Charlie Sheen. He wouldn't even be on my radar, much like Ashton Kutcher (neither of which I care about).

However, unfortuneately Charlie Sheen did in fact shoot his one wife, and did no time (he pled guilty but like Kiefer Sutherlands DUI's, his celebrity status seemed to magically keep him out of serving jail time); he stabbed another wife (again, did some kind of community service or something of the sort to avoid jail time), and assaulted another wife- I forget how many total-

Now, these flaky women, despite the fact could be gold diggers, they could have known about his violent past with women and still gotten with him for the fame and excitement- or they could have been annoying Rhianna types we'd all love to beat the shit out of, but you can't go around beating the hell out of people....or else why not go around columbing people you don't like? I'd have LOVED to have given my exes all cyanide or have beaten them with baseball bats, but instead a breakup HAD to suffice.

If you want to feel sad for Charlie, think of it this way- he grew up so rich and entitled, perhaps he never had to learn any concept of taking responsibility, and maybe his family/father always covered up for him, so he grew up incapable of deciphering even the simplest concept of right from wrong - not "morality" as in having lots of sex and drugs - but literally being like so many dynasties- as rich as can be- but totally feral when it comes to having the capacity to empathize and understand anyone outside of their own needs, urges, and egos.

 

OK, we have a figure put forward of 2600 to 2800 degrees farenheit.

Now I would like you to tell me how hot jet fuel (kerosene) burns in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating.

 

OK, you really want to go there. It seems jet fuel burns ALONE in the open around 500F, as if it mattered the slightest. Again this is irrelevant because the steel did not need to MELT to collapse, it just needed to FAIL. Also jet fuel temperature is irrelevant because jet fuel alone did not make up the fires chemical composition deep inside the building. I suppose you actually want to believe jet fuel was the ONLY substance burning in building seven for more than 7 hours? I don't know what was burning but I'll bet it was much more than jet fuel. It wasn't hit by a plane, how did it even catch fire? I surely don't know. All I know is controlled detonation of building on fire all day long is impossible. I'll also bet you don't want to acknowledge that steel weakens substantially after just 400F. And again more facts you'll definitely want to overlook is heat expansion at even lower temperatures that can surely damage bolts and welds. Also if the whole thing was an elaborate conspiracy then why wait all day to detonate building 7? Wouldn't it have been more logical to bring down 7 with one of the others or at least soon after? Was the guy with his finger on the button asleep or what?

There's also a famous quote from Larry Silverstein to "pull it" that clueless conspiracy nutjobs thought meant to blow up the building. "Pull it" actually meant the firefighters we're aborting the rescue, pulling out of the building.

 

Well, it was going to be a logical progression but fine. we'll do it your way.

"As if it matters in the slightest" lol!!! Steel loses about 50% of its strength at about 1100 degrees farenheit. Most estimates (even the official ones) reckon that the jet fuel burned out around ten minutes after the initial impact and explosion. So, tell me, does paper burn hotter than jet fuel? How about plastic? Or, I don't know, the small amounts of wood that would have been in there? Glass? Rugs? Name to me what was in that building that was burning so hot! And then take into account that the thick black smoke pouring out from the fire signifies that it is starved of oxygen, which lowers the temperature still further.

The first thing you should do is look at buildings that have collapsed because of fire.

Oh, wait, there's a problem here... It turns out no steel framed office building has ever collapsed because of fire! The closest you can get is the Windsor building in Madrid, which burned for nearly 24 hours. The building's interior was completely destoyed but the building itself suffered only partial collapse on the upper floors. Now take into account that the WTC towers were a brand new type of building. Because of this, they overbuilt several parts of its structure to 20x the estimated strength required. They like to make sure their new buildings don't fall down. Remember that the steel is not even approaching 50% its strength, even if it were then most of the building (especially the outer frame) would have still been at roughly 10 times the strength that was required to keep the building upright.

Are you following me so far?

 

Here's one thing that's wrong with that explanation: A very simple law of physics. When you watch the building collapse (from around the top 10-15 floors, which blows that explanation out of the water entirely because all those floors began falling at once) you do not see any deceleration. It falls at nearly free-fall speed. Why would you see deceleration? Because in order for the energy to transfer to the floor below and knock it free, first contact would have to be made and then resistance overcome. Like a martial artist's hand chopping through a block of wood, like a guy stamping on a beer can before he throws it into a recycling bin, the object doing the hitting decelerates as it passes through/crushes the object being destroyed. Isaac Newton himself could probably put it more eloquently, as these are his laws being defied.

Another thing wrong with that explanation: You're talking about the pancake theory, these floors dropping on top of each other. This goes no way towards explaining what happened to steel columns supporting the building. If the floors came loose and crushed each other until they hit the ground, there would still be these huge steel columns sticking up into the air.

And the third thing that's wrong with your paragraph: You say that the explosion weakened that part of the building more. I'm quite sure it did... but why did it weaken the other side of the building as well? It weakened the other side so equally, in fact, that the floors just came loose and the building collapsed straight down... Surely the blast (a lot of which could be seen externally) would only weaken the side that it hit and exploded upon? It wouldn't damage the entire region equally around the perimeter, explosive plane impacts are not that tidy. As a result, if the collapse was due to that impact, explosion and subsequent fire, we wold see the building buckling in that spot first, most likelly suffering a slow, gradual, twisting and leaning kind of collapse.

So you have to consider, really, what does a building that collapses really look like? Tell you what, you can even watch a short wooden building collapsing from fire and you will see it gradually go, you will see parts lean out till they fall outside of the building's footprint and you will see how uneven a building collapses when fire is involved.

In the exact area where the planes would hit? You don't know what you're fucking talking about. It takes many charge laid over much of the structure to achieve what they did. I will address the other issues inn this section in due time. I must pause for breath.

 

Forgot to say this:

Ok, let's say that ONE of the buildings of the WTC collapsed because of fire that day. This is highly, highly, very very unlikely because of what we know of steel buildings, short history and all. So to have 2 steel buildings collapse because of fire within minutes of each other... Well, that's getting on for odds so long that you'd run out of ink if you tried to write them down....

SO to think that THREE buildings collapsed, the chance of this happening, two within minutes of each other and the other a few hours later - which had not even been hit by a plane - all in the same city, within meters of each other, is a fucking miracle. All of them falling more or less into their own footprint; no toppling, no buckling. Jesus Christ himself could not have produced a more impressive display of jaw-dropping unlikelyness.

 

I think it was the Japanese. I think they wanted to knock down both buildings and put up two big Hello Kitties Instead.

An unforgiving and wrathful God has punished them with the earthquake, so we may writhe with pleasure now.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1hLduV1p88"]Charlie Sheen Bi-Winning Dubstep - Ephixa (Official) With MP3 Download Dubstep=Winning - YouTube

 

You're so off course it's laughable! It's very common for building fires to exceed 1500F. That's a typical pre-flashover room temperature. Also the WTC building were not the classical steel frame buildings. The floors and exterior walls were hung separately from the core, it's a bad design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO2M-oUY9wc"]World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse (2002) (1/4) - YouTube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRJBhqZF1es"]World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse (2002) (3/4) - YouTube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL9YvTduXao"]World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse (2002) (4/4) - YouTube

 

Ok, I figured if you were going to say it was demolished by explosives you would at least take the more likely stance, that they took out one section to make those above crush the floors below. So then you think it is more likely that they were able to secretly rig the whole place with explosives without anyone knowing? You really think that is more likely? Do you know what a building rigged for demolition looks like? I've worked on such projects as a mechanical engineer, and it's nothing you could do while people were running a business around you without it being pretty damn obvious. You say it has to be that because the buildings fell straight down. Debris caused damage over half a mile away, you call that straight down? Do you realize how cartoon like it would be for the building to fall over sideways like a tree? You don't seem to realize the scales of things involved here. And steel beams would be left sticking up if the floors fell off? What the hell? They crushed the steel beams, you seem to be picturing something that has nothing to do with real world physics here. You're telling me I know nothing, which I can only guess is to make me argue more because you like the attention. You just buy into these theories because you like to think you know something that no one else does, a secret organization controlling the world this way also gives you a great excuse to be a fuck up while still acting like you're smarter than everyone else.

 

Ok. In all seriousness. I heard that the morning of the attack, the twin towers had both been drinking and were both dressed very provocatively- and well, the plane was very horny- did the twin towers then, perhaps, according to socio-cultural law, bring it upon themselves?!

 

I just laughed before I've had my morning coffee.
Good work!

Truth.

 

YES!!!!! Pablo and Mnservant Hecubus are two awesome folks in my book!:2thumbsup:

 

Ok, both of you didn't actually address any of the content of my posts properly, in my opinion, so I am not convinced. You said that the floors came loose from the columns and fell down, now you're teling me that they crushed all the core and perimeter columns? You're talking about real world physics and you are trying to tell me two seperate stories of collapse. So which is it, floors falling down (leaving columns standing) or floors crushing steel, seemingly falling for the first time in history through the path of most resistance as opposed to the path of least resistance, an elementary rule of physics.

As for building 7, there is no point getting complicated over that building. All you have to do is compare it to a building that is being demolished and a building that is collapsing from fire and that will speak for itself. If you can't see the exact pattern of demolition, straight through the path of most resistance, building falling into it's own footprint with that crimp in the middle of it, then.... I really can't believe that you think a collapse from fire would look anything like a demolition, put it like that.

Let me just say, at this point, you have reverted to creating an imaginery me in your head that is a conspiracy nut (when you said "this is what conspiracy theorists think" and seemingly assumed that that's what I think). You have put words in my mouth, "You're telling me I know nothing" that I haven't said (that's yourself telling you that you don't know anything). And: you've reverted to insulting me, quite openly for no reason. Neither of you two replying with me have expanded upon your points, just said "You're wrong!" and then told your own story with no depth to back it up, just a vague description of events. Where are the facts to back up what you're saying, beyond the report that you were fed? Where is the deconstruction of my facts and your own? Why are you not illustrating the event to me?

I will watch those videos and take them into account. Perhaps if you're in the mood for videos I could post one for you?