i find it hard to imagine you have the SLIGHTEST idea of metal fatigue due to heat.nukchebi0 wrote:
I find it hard to imagine the steel away from the impact zone, and throughout the entire building, heated uniformly as would be necessary for the implosion that occurred.
Controlled explosions make the top of the building fall at a slant, and NOT vertically? Hardly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh yes it does.Poseidon wrote:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6151 … c4obs2.jpg
Hardly looks like a controlled explosion, Scorpion.
LOL, does it match all the youtube videos you watched?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh yes it does.Poseidon wrote:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6151 … c4obs2.jpg
Hardly looks like a controlled explosion, Scorpion.
Parker you should slow down. There is a point when you need to stop with the arrogance and perhaps read what I was saying before thinking I was trying to know more about metal stresses than you.Parker wrote:
i find it hard to imagine you have the SLIGHTEST idea of metal fatigue due to heat.nukchebi0 wrote:
I find it hard to imagine the steel away from the impact zone, and throughout the entire building, heated uniformly as would be necessary for the implosion that occurred.
not to mention controlled demolitions.
OH MAN!!!11!!!!
PROOF!11!!!!
gtfo
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-07-19 01:40:56)
Yes, they do. It depends on what order the charges are detonated in.Poseidon wrote:
Controlled explosions make the top of the building fall at a slant, and NOT vertically? Hardly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh yes it does.Poseidon wrote:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6151 … c4obs2.jpg
Hardly looks like a controlled explosion, Scorpion.
but fire weakening metal....thats what, fucking blasphemy to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
- this makes perfect sense -
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I'm sorry, but you are removing the evidential fact that all 3 buildings collapsed in on themselves as if brought down in a controlled explosion.Bertster7 wrote:
I can't be bothered to do them one at a time:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions?
Come on!
Occums Razor dude, Occams Razor.
Lets take out those complications one at a time shall we:three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings which suffered damage all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed
Applying Occums Razor does not mean to 'ignore important evidential facts', rather it means to 'remove complicating factors to find the simplest explanation'.
No it doesn't look like a controlled explosion. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that it was.Poseidon wrote:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6151 … c4obs2.jpg
Hardly looks like a controlled explosion, Scorpion.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-07-19 01:46:18)
No, I understand how heat weakens metal.Parker wrote:
but fire weakening metal....thats what, fucking blasphemy to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
- this makes perfect sense -
lol
Oh, so now the WTC wasn't a 'typical building' - now who's desperately plucking 'facts' out the air to support his feeble arguments?Bertster wrote:
In any case, the WTC was not a typical building and should not be treated as such.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-19 01:48:34)
i didnt call you any names, and i dont need to slow down.nukchebi0 wrote:
Donation to the controlled demolition theory.Parker you should slow down. There is a point when you need to stop with the arrogance and perhaps read what I was saying before thinking I was trying to know more about metal stresses than you.Parker wrote:
i find it hard to imagine you have the SLIGHTEST idea of metal fatigue due to heat.nukchebi0 wrote:
I find it hard to imagine the steel away from the impact zone, and throughout the entire building, heated uniformly as would be necessary for the implosion that occurred.
not to mention controlled demolitions.
OH MAN!!!11!!!!
PROOF!11!!!!
gtfo
Edit: Not nice names are not nice.
how much weight was applied to the structure of each of those buildings?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I understand how heat weakens metal.Parker wrote:
but fire weakening metal....thats what, fucking blasphemy to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
- this makes perfect sense -
lol
I just don't see how in 3 different buildings, of two different designs, damaged in three different ways all just happened to suffer the exact damage, in exactly the right places, needed to make those three different building to all end collapsing in exactly the same way.
I called you names in the original post, which considering your current posting style, was probably warranted.Parker wrote:
i didnt call you any names, and i dont need to slow down.nukchebi0 wrote:
Donation to the controlled demolition theory.Parker you should slow down. There is a point when you need to stop with the arrogance and perhaps read what I was saying before thinking I was trying to know more about metal stresses than you.Parker wrote:
i find it hard to imagine you have the SLIGHTEST idea of metal fatigue due to heat.
not to mention controlled demolitions.
OH MAN!!!11!!!!
PROOF!11!!!!
gtfo
Edit: Not nice names are not nice.
you dont know a fucking thing about metal fatigue, but you sure as shit think you know enough to pull the "I find it hard to believe", bullshit.
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT AND YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY.
theres no arrogance here, just experience....and a lack of patience for people that spew uneducated bullshit.
That's great. But would the building have fallen as neatly as it did? Can you answer that.how much weight was applied to the structure of each of those buildings?
do you know that, or is that not easy to fit into your agenda?
when ONE piece of metal weakens, it redistributes the load to others....a load they were not meant to bear.
could you NOT possibly see a domino effect regarding structural integrity?
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-07-19 01:56:06)
metal doesnt need to weaken consistently to fail.nukchebi0 wrote:
I called you names in the original post, which considering your current posting style, was probably warranted.Parker wrote:
i didnt call you any names, and i dont need to slow down.nukchebi0 wrote:
Donation to the controlled demolition theory.
Parker you should slow down. There is a point when you need to stop with the arrogance and perhaps read what I was saying before thinking I was trying to know more about metal stresses than you.
Edit: Not nice names are not nice.
you dont know a fucking thing about metal fatigue, but you sure as shit think you know enough to pull the "I find it hard to believe", bullshit.
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT AND YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY.
theres no arrogance here, just experience....and a lack of patience for people that spew uneducated bullshit.
I know that heat fatigues metal, and I believe your expertise enough to take as fact that jet fuel will burn hot enough to began weakening or melting it.
Sadly, that isn't the issue. It was more how the fire started on one side of the building first, which meant, obviously, the metal on that side began weakening first. Near uniform removal of support throughout the building, or at least in the internal support core, is necessary for the building to collapse in the manner it did. Considering the jet fuel, which fed the fires the hottest, would also be concentrated on the side of the impact, it doesn't seem very likely the metal was weakened consistently. I don't care whether metal can be weakened by fire or not. I care about the spread of the fire.
Because of the way they are designed with no masonry. They have a steel core which provides the structure and reinforces the rest of the drywall interior (drywall which incidentally leaves exactly the same residue as thermite - which sparked all the nonsensical thermite demolition claims). The unique way the WTC was constructed is why it collapsed in a unique way. The core became weakened and lost integrity and so the building collapsed around the central column. Once in motion the immense momentum meant it fell very quickly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I understand how heat weakens metal.Parker wrote:
but fire weakening metal....thats what, fucking blasphemy to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
- this makes perfect sense -
lol
I just don't see how in 3 different buildings, of two different designs, damaged in three different ways all just happened to suffer the exact damage, in exactly the right places, needed to make those three different building to all end collapsing in exactly the same way.
nope, just like you cant....a lack of experience and knowledge regarding that subject...it would make as much sense as you saying something like "I find it hard to believe", regarding metal.nukchebi0 wrote:
That's great. But would the building have fallen as neatly as it did? Can you answer that.
nope.nukchebi0 wrote:
And have you watched the WTC 7 video I linked to? Explain away that.
Yes, I can imagine it happening in one building, it would be very unlikely, but it is possible.Parker wrote:
how much weight was applied to the structure of each of those buildings?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I understand how heat weakens metal.Parker wrote:
but fire weakening metal....thats what, fucking blasphemy to you?
lol
I just don't see how in 3 different buildings, of two different designs, damaged in three different ways all just happened to suffer the exact damage, in exactly the right places, needed to make those three different building to all end collapsing in exactly the same way.
do you know that, or is that not easy to fit into your agenda?
when ONE piece of metal weakens, it redistributes the load to others....a load they were not meant to bear.
could you NOT possibly see a domino effect regarding structural integrity?
very unlikely?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, I can imagine it happening in one building, it would be very unlikely, but it is possible.
You're trying to tell me that in less than an HOUR, men got up there with explosives (taking the STAIRS nonetheless), put them at strategically smart places as to make the tower fall efficiently, and got out in time? I hardly believe that.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, they do. It depends on what order the charges are detonated in.Poseidon wrote:
Controlled explosions make the top of the building fall at a slant, and NOT vertically? Hardly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh yes it does.
And the top of the building fell towards the side with the most damage - this makes perfect sense - by then demolishing the lower part, the toppling top could be retained within the footprint, rather than it falling over the side.
This'll answer that....Parker wrote:
nope, just like you cant....a lack of experience and knowledge regarding that subject...it would make as much sense as you saying something like "I find it hard to believe", regarding metal.nukchebi0 wrote:
That's great. But would the building have fallen as neatly as it did? Can you answer that.
u c wat i did thear?!nope.nukchebi0 wrote:
And have you watched the WTC 7 video I linked to? Explain away that.
i dont care about your little videos.
You also have to remember that you need to cut most of the way through a number of primary supports to get a controlled implosion. It could not have been done. It is simply impossible.Poseidon wrote:
You're trying to tell me that in less than an HOUR, men got up there with explosives (taking the STAIRS nonetheless), put them at strategically smart places as to make the tower fall efficiently, and got out in time? I hardly believe that.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, they do. It depends on what order the charges are detonated in.Poseidon wrote:
Controlled explosions make the top of the building fall at a slant, and NOT vertically? Hardly.
And the top of the building fell towards the side with the most damage - this makes perfect sense - by then demolishing the lower part, the toppling top could be retained within the footprint, rather than it falling over the side.
Unless of course, you're one of the people who thinks that America orchestrated it to begin with.
but dont let logic spoil your fun guys...Bertster7 wrote:
You also have to remember that you need to cut most of the way through a number of primary supports to get a controlled implosion. It could not have been done. It is simply impossible.Poseidon wrote:
You're trying to tell me that in less than an HOUR, men got up there with explosives (taking the STAIRS nonetheless), put them at strategically smart places as to make the tower fall efficiently, and got out in time? I hardly believe that.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, they do. It depends on what order the charges are detonated in.
And the top of the building fell towards the side with the most damage - this makes perfect sense - by then demolishing the lower part, the toppling top could be retained within the footprint, rather than it falling over the side.
Unless of course, you're one of the people who thinks that America orchestrated it to begin with.
Says me with my understanding of physics.Parker wrote:
very unlikely?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, I can imagine it happening in one building, it would be very unlikely, but it is possible.
says fucking who?
you...with what experience beyond youtube?
LOLScorpion0x17 wrote:
Says me with my understanding of physics.Parker wrote:
very unlikely?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, I can imagine it happening in one building, it would be very unlikely, but it is possible.
says fucking who?
you...with what experience beyond youtube?
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports.Parker wrote:
but dont let logic spoil your fun guys...Bertster7 wrote:
You also have to remember that you need to cut most of the way through a number of primary supports to get a controlled implosion. It could not have been done. It is simply impossible.Poseidon wrote:
You're trying to tell me that in less than an HOUR, men got up there with explosives (taking the STAIRS nonetheless), put them at strategically smart places as to make the tower fall efficiently, and got out in time? I hardly believe that.
Unless of course, you're one of the people who thinks that America orchestrated it to begin with.
You also need cut supports for controlled implosions. This cutting of supports does not leave the building in a safe and usable state, which the WTC clearly was prior to the attacks.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Says me with my understanding of physics.Parker wrote:
very unlikely?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, I can imagine it happening in one building, it would be very unlikely, but it is possible.
says fucking who?
you...with what experience beyond youtube?
As for the "there wasn't time to plant the explosives" argument - I totally agree - there wasn't the time after the attacks - but who said they had to be placed after the attacks?
