Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[runningman]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

from what I gather Yao the building was meant to implode so it didn't wreck manhatten.. so if a support was damaged it would fall down not sideways..

[fumanchu182]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Okay as an individual who works with steel all the time lemme give you some clues.

When steel is forged they use the bessemer process which removes impurities by oxidation. Once the steel is set, it is set, melting again at any temperature changes the maleability and brittle features of it.

Airplane fuel is a derivative of JP-7/5 which only ignites at high altitude so which when on the surface it will not explode in an airplane's tanks. Guess what JP-7 has all the properties of kerosine for our intents and purposes. (If it looks like pussy, smells like pussy, and taste like pussy then it must be pussy.)

Read the following:

3.1 STEEL

Appearance

Temperature

Yellow

320°

Brown

350°

Purple

400°

Blue

450°

* steel starts to weaken at 200°
* loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°
* melt point of steel 1100°-1650°
3.2 CONCRETE AND CEMENT

Appearance

Temperature

Reddish pink - reddish brown

300°

Gray

300°-1000°

Buff

>1000°

Sinters and yellowish

>1200°

* sand and sandstone becomes friable at 573°
* wall masonry collapses at 760°

So lets see a gas that ignites at around 300F and steel which becomes weak at 200F and sags at 550F. But yet the intensity of say a whole fucking tank of JP-7/5 would yield a flame of about 2000F. Not to mention that cement aka wall masonry collapses at 760F.

I think you can take your Christian Theology and shove it up your ass.

The building dropped because of heat damage, messing with the structural integrity. I would like to see steel which is a wonder metal, support about 20 tons accelerating.

Just so you know: FYI

9.81 m/s2 (metres per second squared) or 32.2 ft/sec2. This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the earth's surface increases in speed by 9.81 m/s (around 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a speed of 9.81 m/s after one second, 19.62 m/s after two seconds, and so on.

That mass moving for about 5 seconds would put a hole about the size of say half Jersey City in the ground. And it did, I know...

[runningman]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Holy SHit..

well i guess the proof is in the pudding..

Great answer fumanchu!

[daveman]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

The point is that I wasn't looking at the building as in the diagram, I'm not sure wether you got my question right:

Imagine a clean testing setup from those towers, same height, same number of floors but now only the skeleton around it:

if I damage the structure on one side (could be any side, take the East in this case), and a fire breaks out that does indeed damage the connections within the steel skeleton, wouldn't the structure logicaly give way in the heaviest damaged area, ie: the place of impact (East)?

If so, the floor would not come down flat, but start at that damaged area first whereafter the rest may or may not follow: point is, that it is strange to think that the support under the total surface of the floor would give way at the exact same moment, while the damage is only local (East). Especially when more than one floor suffers damage in that area, IMO it wouldn't be unthinkable that any collapse would start on the Eastern side of the building: much like cutting a tree I guess, though I realize that this comparison isn't completely valid.

But I hope you get my line of thought...not that i know anything of construction, all I have is my logic here to help me...

your on the right track and have a valid point. if the damage caused by the big hole in the side of the building started the collapse it would fall in on itself from the side it was hit. this would have caused the building to fall one side first and it would have probably just tilted over while falling apart causing a domino effect of destruction. i can't see the building would just fall over like a tree in the woods because its not rigid once the members of the structure move into any angle other than perpendicular.

here is what i am saying. the building was strong enough to withstand the hole the in the side of the facade. like i pointed out before the building had to be designed with a disaster like this in mind. the problem happened when all or some of the connections that control the movement of the building began to fail. now the rigid structure is undergoing forces it was never designed to carry.

i'm gonna try to pull out another type of physics/structural example. early simple suspension bridges were designed so that the bridge deck was made to be rigid and the suspension was kept in tension to keep the rigid deck of the bridge up in the air. now you might have heard stories of an army marching in unison across a bridge like this. the paced steps send shockwaves through the rigid deck causing the suspension lines to go against gravity and give up some of thier tension. eventually the bridge deck that was designed so that it would not move will start to jiggle. this additional movement slowly weakens the bridge deck until it finally hits a point past its failure point. if left untouched it could remain standing, but the damage past a certain point is irreversable.

now with the WTC on a couple of the floors where the fire was burning hot enough to burn through the connections that controlled to movement. now you have the rigid inner frame and rigid outter frame (both which survived the plane crash) moving in ways that they were never designed to move. these rigid frames are taking on additional wind force and begin swaying. this is bad. this rigid structural framework was never meant to encounter any forces like that. now since this framework is all tied together there is a point where on the ground everything is more or less as it was designed. on the upper floors with a lot of damage there is a lot of movement. as the shockwaves of this additional movement make thier way down the building they will encounter resistance. slowly the resistance will give way further down the building until this rigid framework can't take it anymore. the peices at the top are undergoing a battle of the return in motion of the shockwave going down and back up the structure while at the same time taking on new forces of wind constantly. eventully the rigid structure will fail under these new forces it was never meant to deal with. if the building was designed with a secondary pin connection system (something else to help keep movement away from the inner and outter rigid frames) to help control some of the shear and wind forces after this first pin connections failed it would have had more of a chance.

another point that i haven't brought up yet is that the WTC didn't just fall to the ground. it fell underground. the building's site sits at least 70 - 80ft below street level the mess of the fall had further to go down that just the street. making for a cleaner fall than one would probably imagine if all that just came down and spread out at street level. another possible reason why people feel it was as clean as an implosion.

btw. does anyone know if a building even near this height was ever imploded? i get the feeling that we haven't outlived the use of any building of this scale yet, and probably not. i just wonder if the collaspe could have been made cleaner or not? and how would you control that dust cloud it kicked up? (anyway, back to the point)

as far as a couple of you saying that buildings are designed to fall down and not over. that make some sense, but if you look at it that way it sounds like all buildings are designed to collapse. that is not true. all buildings are designed to work with the conditions and forces that they will encounter based on codes, materials, and construction methods available at the time. gravity is the most consistant force in any case. but when you have a building that weighs hundreds of thousands of tons, what kinda side force would it take to push it over? way more than a plane hitting it, as we all saw. i think its always going be safe to say that down is going to be the prodominate force, and the building will fall down and not over.

[daveman]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

If it looks like pussy, smells like pussy, and taste like pussy then it must be pussy.
The building dropped because of heat damage, messing with the structural integrity.

why couldn't i put it that simply?

[srbbnd]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Forget all the mumbo jumbo, what are the odds that both buildings would collapse completely with timing like that. Very slim.

[fumanchu182]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

^ And you have just been spoon fed like everyone else, welcome to the Darwin awards, you have just won the grand prize!

I have seen steel and all sorts of metals snap like twigs, whatever steel beams that weren't damaged, highly unlikely cause anything in the vicinity of 2000F just catches on fire. Fuck the Discovery channel, fuck this Christian asshole, I know how metals work, I have melted steel in a car. I have melted concrete on accident (lit up an arc welder without being grounded and shot a fucking plasma stream at a wall).

Obviously though reason doesn't work in this thread so I will just go with this excuse, ready for this one, this is a big one:

The Native Americans got back at us for hundreds of years of oppressions, so have the black Americans that were slaves, as well as every mudhole of a country U.S. imperialism has stepped on. They did their rain dances, practiced their voodoo, they fucking waged a jihad... All their gods merged into one and made a shmorgasboard of hate! Then their gods with their invisible hands moved to airplanes into our towers and stepped on them causing them to fall.

There is that a better explanation.

[neoee]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Fumanchu are you a metallurgist?

[Yao]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

your on the right track and have a valid point. if the damage caused by the big hole in the side of the building started the collapse it would fall in on itself from the side it was hit. this would have caused the building to fall one side first and it would have probably just tilted over while falling apart causing a domino effect of destruction. i can't see the building would just fall over like a tree in the woods because its not rigid once the members of the structure move into any angle other than perpendicular.

here is what i am saying. the building was strong enough to withstand the hole the in the side of the facade. like i pointed out before the building had to be designed with a disaster like this in mind. the problem happened when all or some of the connections that control the movement of the building began to fail. now the rigid structure is undergoing forces it was never designed to carry.

i'm gonna try to pull out another type of physics/structural example. early simple suspension bridges were designed so that the bridge deck was made to be rigid and the suspension was kept in tension to keep the rigid deck of the bridge up in the air. now you might have heard stories of an army marching in unison across a bridge like this. the paced steps send shockwaves through the rigid deck causing the suspension lines to go against gravity and give up some of thier tension. eventually the bridge deck that was designed so that it would not move will start to jiggle. this additional movement slowly weakens the bridge deck until it finally hits a point past its failure point. if left untouched it could remain standing, but the damage past a certain point is irreversable.

now with the WTC on a couple of the floors where the fire was burning hot enough to burn through the connections that controlled to movement. now you have the rigid inner frame and rigid outter frame (both which survived the plane crash) moving in ways that they were never designed to move. these rigid frames are taking on additional wind force and begin swaying. this is bad. this rigid structural framework was never meant to encounter any forces like that. now since this framework is all tied together there is a point where on the ground everything is more or less as it was designed. on the upper floors with a lot of damage there is a lot of movement. as the shockwaves of this additional movement make thier way down the building they will encounter resistance. slowly the resistance will give way further down the building until this rigid framework can't take it anymore. the peices at the top are undergoing a battle of the return in motion of the shockwave going down and back up the structure while at the same time taking on new forces of wind constantly. eventully the rigid structure will fail under these new forces it was never meant to deal with. if the building was designed with a secondary pin connection system (something else to help keep movement away from the inner and outter rigid frames) to help control some of the shear and wind forces after this first pin connections failed it would have had more of a chance.

another point that i haven't brought up yet is that the WTC didn't just fall to the ground. it fell underground. the building's site sits at least 70 - 80ft below street level the mess of the fall had further to go down that just the street. making for a cleaner fall than one would probably imagine if all that just came down and spread out at street level. another possible reason why people feel it was as clean as an implosion.

btw. does anyone know if a building even near this height was ever imploded? i get the feeling that we haven't outlived the use of any building of this scale yet, and probably not. i just wonder if the collaspe could have been made cleaner or not? and how would you control that dust cloud it kicked up? (anyway, back to the point)

as far as a couple of you saying that buildings are designed to fall down and not over. that make some sense, but if you look at it that way it sounds like all buildings are designed to collapse. that is not true. all buildings are designed to work with the conditions and forces that they will encounter based on codes, materials, and construction methods available at the time. gravity is the most consistant force in any case. but when you have a building that weighs hundreds of thousands of tons, what kinda side force would it take to push it over? way more than a plane hitting it, as we all saw. i think its always going be safe to say that down is going to be the prodominate force, and the building will fall down and not over.

Thanks for the explanation Dave, I've learned some new things from this post! And I can also see what would discard my theory as well...So I'm going to accept this explanation. Not to mention that Fumanchu has a solid story as well IMO: if his number are correct, it doesn't strike me as odd at all, what happened.

[PROG]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

do i need to spoil the fun on here? google 5 dancing islrealies

also about the heat melting the steal. on the 1st building OK ill give you that
the 2nd building that got hit, was hit on the side and ALL the fuel was exploded..so how does it melt the metal? AND i believe it was fell first.....lmao

w/e you guys believe what you want to belive haha.

[krelm]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Like all good conspiracy theories it all comes down to the Jews - we did it. We control the Illuminati, we control th US Government. War in Iraq was for us. We are responsible for 9/11.

do i need to spoil the fun on here? google 5 dancing islrealies

Nothing to add...I just thought I'd point out that dave's prediction finally came true.

Although I'm amazed that it took until page 7 for somebody to blame it on a Zionist conspiracy.

[thesightless]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence



so essentially we now have an architect and someone who works with steel essentially giving the science behind what i posted before i got pissed at trying to push a firetruck.

[davetlv]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

do i need to spoil the fun on here? google 5 dancing islrealies

PROG - to quote Animal House (such a good film) - Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

But seriously, do you think if Israel was involved our operatives (some of the best on this planet) would be stupid enough to be 'caught' dancing with joy!!!!

Lets ignore all the evidence of who was actually responsible for 9/11 shall we and blame the Jews.

TWAT!

[Yao]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

I'd have said 'Cunt'....

[davetlv]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

I'd have said 'Cunt'....

Thats why I like you so much