I have a new found respect for Charlie Sheen.

Just for a little example: Try using an empty kitchen roll tube and stacking heavy objects on top of it until it can't take any more weight. The heavy objects will always fall off to one side, the path of least resistance, never crush the tube straight down through the path of most resistance, dropping evenly to the floor. That it, of course, unless you have prepared the tube in order to fall that way.

 

Examples of these building fires exceeding 1500F, please. I just said the twin towers were new building types...

Flashovers, hmm, from what I could glean, flashover occurs at between 500-600C, 333F away from 1500F at its most generous point. Now, the reason that I can't take into account the flashover effect is that you said the jet fuel burns out in the open at 500F, right?, and then said "but there were other things burning" and I have asked you to tell me what it was that was burning in there at that temperature. Please do so, give me some facts behind what was burning in the world trade center twin towers to produce that sort of constant temperature inside the oxygen starved fire.

And another thing I would like explaining, associated with heat: The heat reading taken afterwards from a birds eye view recorded surface temperatures of 1200F, what on earth was burning so hot as to radiate through a pile of rubble, concrete and steel at 1200F? It must be burning hotter than 1200F to do that! And why were these chunks (and pools) of molten metal found in the wreckage, if the steel didn't melt? They were covered in rust, aluminium doesn't rust, so they are obviously from molten steel.

And where is all this twisted steel sticking out of the ground? Where are the huge lengths of twisted steel frame, so warped from the building falling straight down on itself? Or did the building break up the steel lengths as it feel, chopping through the steel to form convenient lengths for better transport?

 

Your numbers are wrong, your understanding of inclosed building fires is incomplete. Go take a fire fighting course or something. Or keep fooling yourself that your smarter than the experts. I don't give a shit if you think you're right. I simply can't be bothered.

 

That would not be a very accurate scale model of a skyscraper, that would be more of a scale model of a gigantic, thick walled solid steel tube. Look up the Pi theorem, I'm not just blowing smoke here, I have used that theorem to make scale models for tests. Your example is like saying "if you drop a match stick from a table, it doesn't break, so if you drop a 12 foot long 4x4 post from a plane, it won't break." in fact, it will splinter into pieces.

oh and

 

When I said you don't know what you're fucking talking about, I was referring to the paragraph you wrote concerning your ideas for what conspiracy theorists think. Notice that that is not the same as sying "you know nothing" but fair enough, if you took it that way then I'm sorry, I don't view you as a fool. Have you actually done any research into the analysis that Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (the most reputable source for this analysis) have undertaken that has led them to these conclusions? Do you think they didn't ask themselves the questions of "how could they not notice their building being prepared for demolition?"

The thing is, they asked themselves these question and then they found an answer. They didn't pretend they knew what went on, they were objective. They didn't pretend that they knew what every conspiracy theorist was thinking and that that would be wrong or right. They don't include opinion. They look at the facts. The same kind of facts that I'm asking you for, or at least to address some of the issues I am bringing forth. You know, point counter-point?

This idea with the kitchen roll tube, though not ideal, demonstrates the very simple rule of physics involved with the collapse of structures. the point is to illustrate the path of least resistant. The force at the top of the upright structure (even with or without securing the bottom of the structure) will follow the path of least resistance at the point of collapse. This is never straight down. You can do this with a tube, a cuboid, a prism, a hexagonal prism or whatever. You can stack up some steel poles and concrete and produce the same effect, it is an immutable law. Whether the structure is a cardboard tube or a steel and concrete megalith, when you reach the point of applying more force than the structure can support, never ever ever does it just drop straight down.

The other immutable law I referred to is the idea that to impact the floors below and trasfer enough energy to overcome their resistance, there needs to be some deceleration in the descending floors as this resistance is over come. The building falls at nearly free fall speed. There is plenty of footage, eyewitness reports, sound recordings and pictures taken in the towers to show that the fires were not over the entire building, consuming every floor, producing the kind of temperatures we have spoken about on every floor of the entire building. Why did the undamaged parts of the building not put up any resistance AT ALL to the collapse??

 

I do appreciate you causing me to learn more about how interesting, complex and unusual this event was. Though the points you are suggesting are obviously misunderstandings and I have learned more from other sources in trying to figure out where you are getting this stuff from, you are still causing me to learn. I am still convinced it was a combination of bad design, terrorism and disastrous structural failure. I am only discussing this with you because I think you are fairly intelligent, I'm not one to argue with idiots on forums if I think they're idiots.

I still find it very odd that you seem to think the structure would have slowed down on the fall. I don't know how much the upper portion of the tower above the breaking point weighed, but once that kind of tonnage, in the thousands, had begun to fall it would have so much momentum that nothing could stop it. Walls that could hold a static load of 10,000 tons would crumble like paper under the same load once it had fallen 20 feet. To use your example, take a paper tube, or better yet an aluminum can, lift your foot as high as you can and bring it straight down on it. This is what we're talking about, a dynamic load that massively overcomes the distortion energy for failure, not a load resting on top being gradually loaded to failure.

 

Now, this may be a good analogy. That DOES make sense.

But I still would expect to see more shearing, and wouldn't have expected this as the fires seemingly started to come under control.

Same for WTC7. ESPECIALLY for WTC7, because of it's different shape. The thing wasn't burning so evenly that it should have done what it did, in fact it too, was nearly under control.

And there still shouldn't have been flowing steel days (I've read of workers saying days.... and weeks.... don't know an exact date) after a building fell. It's true that maybe high tempertures could be caused by the extreme friction of a falling building, but it shouldn't have been a puddle for so long, IMO.

I'm not sure the towers where actually demolished, though it DOES Look like it. But I'm pretty sure WTC7 was. We KNOW there was knowledge of this before it happened....

*edit* also, yes, if you stomp on a skyscraper, it might go strait down, but keep in mind that the whole burnt section didn't fall out at once, one side should have held harder than the other and at least part should have sheared or toppled. Of course the tower still might/would have fallen, but not like that. And there wouldn't have been molten metal pouring out half way upquite a while before one of them fell (north, I think?) which looks rather like hastily cutting structure parts for a demolition, to me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg"]9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0"]9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k"]9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I"]Penn & Teller - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - YouTube

 

I prefer to judge 911 by simple rules of science that it defies. To me, it was a fabricated event. I don't know who fabricated it but I do know some individuals had to be involved to make it happen. The history of the building like its owner, financial history, value etc to me lends the most insight into why it was chosen to be part of the event. That is not something I can work out with simple facts. I know it was a lie but I don't know who told it.

Bad design and terrorism, I can accept that they may have a hand in this. But structural failure, no, not the sort of structural failure that defies all possibilities apparently accidentally, 3 times in a row. I must reassert the fact that three steel buildings collapsing from fire damage on the same day leads to miraculous odds and possibilities, such realms many would consider easily on par with the demolition theory.

Terrorism, yes, it is. But who are the terrorists? The evidence found in the crash and from surrounding sources point to governments and secret service agencies, there is no evidence to support the involvement of Osama Bin Laden in the planning of the attack. The CIA, however, are implicated -amongst other things - into the flight training of the men who hijacked the planes. I do believe that men highjacked the planes and crashed them, what I don't understand is why the US Airforce didn't show up, considering its success of demonstrating its capabilities in the past. But that is beside what we were talking about. Like I said, you can't explain this part with science.

I think a better comparison for the scale of the collapse is to stamp on a tin of food, possibly closed with the food still in. Notice that it is much harder to stamp these tins swiftly flat and they are only aluminium, and compare the size of you and the force of your foot to the little tin can. Believe it or not, there is still deceleration involved if you were to stamp on the kitchen roll tube, notice how it seems softer than stamping on the bare ground. And it would possibly be quite infrequent to see the squashed result of the tube as a flattened ring, you would produce some bend or other that would cover the hole of the tube. Also, you would not break and twist the tube apart by stamping on it.

We are not talking about a dynamic load, unless the steel was cut. It's already been claimed that it twisted the steel on the way down, the steel didn't melt, it wasn't a free object being propelled from above. We are dealing with structural failure in the sense that the structure became too weak to support its load. Perhaps a better example is to place a brick on a kitchen roll tube and set fire to the tube, still, the result is the same: the path of least resistance. The analogy of a foot stamping on a small object implies a gigantic hammer blow knocking the towers down, again we would see the hammer decelerate, especially as it nears the ground. We don't see that it any of the collapses.

Now, the reason that I expect to see some deceleration is because of laws of motion that don't vary with scale. All objects accelerate to the earth at the same rate. If you jumped off a 12ft ledge and splashed onto the ground into the prone position, you would be able to decelerate yourself enough upon impact to remain in on piece, you haven't accelerated enough to hurt yourself, or the ground. Now do the same from a 1000ft ledge. The results are quite different, you make a big splash and maybe a small dent in the ground it is something soft. You were going too fast to decelerate yourself upon impact to remain in one piece (but you still decelerated). The top of the tower fell in a chunk of several floors, including the inner and outer steel columns, even if it had become a "dynamic load" (requiring all support for the load to be removed all at once with a drop below in order to make it dynamic) it had not fallen more than 20 feet before it hit the building below it - which did not have melted steel columns - it hadn't gathered the momentum to not perceptibilty decelerate when it hit the building below, especially to smash it straight down, through the path of most resistance.

 

....................................................................................................

New York City is incredibly corrupt. Building inspectors are on the take.

The Gambino's raked-off tons of money off the World Trade Center.

The use of sub-standard materials is entirely beliveable.

Few years ago in Suffern, NY., construction of a Thruway overpass was stopped when inspectors on a mountain-top spoted contractors from a telescope, using bad concrete. It had been cut with too much sand.

 

Guys, about the steel, one thing you need to keep in mind is that once a building like that starts falling, friction will make a tremendous amount of heat.

But no matter what happened below where the plane hit, why did it fall OUT from under the upper section, which magically became part of a cloud of rubble, instead of the upper section moving more cohesively and toppling or something? that's what I have a hard time with. And the building 7 thing is just unconvincing. TOO many holes, combined with the sensitive materials contained inside it.

 

thanks a lot for sharing the link of the video enjoyed watching it...

 

Media cares more about what attracts viewers and gets them ratings than about reporting truth. So the real issue is with the taste of the viewers. I don't respect Mr. Sheen more. He's a brilliant actor. He has some stuff he's going to need to work through.

America will not continue to be the richest country in the world (if it still has that distinction now) if it continues to give out free money to anyone who isn't willing to work. Nor will it continue to be able to provide jobs if it continues to tax businesses into becoming non-profitable. America was not founded to provide the same standard of living for everyone. The premise was to give each person an equal chance to provide for himself and his family, not to sit on his butt and expect the workers to provide for him while he contributes little to nothing toward his own support or to the benefit of society.

 

You have a very twisted idea of the breakdown of where our money goes. And the history of that breakdown, relative to national prosperity.

If you have a problem with americans not working, you need to be bitching at the filthy fucking rich shits who have sent everything that doesn't involve a spatula or a mop to an evil totalitarian country that turns out low quality shit anyway. Don't blame the people with college educations who feel they've seen their fair share of mops and spatulas. And how about we let all the people who are lining up to come use mops and spatulas in our country IN?

 

Charlie Shean wants to say that Art can sustain the cultural reality of humanity co-existing with Nature. OR (because that wasn't hard to SAY) .... ? I don't wish in the end to co-exist with toxic waste dump (can't happen. eh? say the Left) Then, for God?:juggle:

 

So Charlie Sheen came on Television to say that he is HIV positive.

 

No sky scraper in history ever fell from a fire even when it was completely engulfed in flame and then two fell the same time along with a3rd that wasent even hit colapst in free fall that's not possible.Too many coensidents happing there not to mention there was no investigation for mor than a year and have after all the evedance was sent to China and sold for less money than could have here in the U. S.

 

so is this thread implying that charlie sheen was responsible for 9/11?

 

ya I don't get that eather

 

Has it been properly argumentized already how (and why)?