-
Originally posted by res0nat0r
-
Re: The War on Truthers
*cricket chirp*Comment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
Life's pretty fast..blup..blup...We made it!!Comment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
Since this is still fun I checked a bit of that video out, I even gave you an extra minute and started around 19 minutes in.I asked you to provide an example of a building that did collapse. You give me another example of a building that didn't. Damn you're good
Check out this at 20 mins
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2481900&hl=en#
Well I can understand why you love vids so much since you aren't actually reading and understanding any of the FAQs.
From the same FAQ above:@ 19:20 "they are actually fairly comparable"
FIRST BULLET POINT (it was buried in there I know):
- Also I'm sure this guy doesn't have tourettes, but there is some nice audio chopping up going on in those 30 seconds of whatever he is saying.1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2.
- Obviously untrue since the planes didn't even exist at the time.@ 19:48 "you have an event well within the design parameters...."
- Obviously untrue since the planes didn't even exist at the time.@ 20:00 "...over designed to withstand an airplane hitting them..."
- Nice misquote though, I'm betting he was referring to the 707, if not, then see sentence above.
From the same FAQ above (THIRD bullet point):@ 21:11 "...they need to have all the fireproofing stripped off..."
No where in this section does it say ALL fireproofing in the WHOLE building was dislodged. Measuring intact fireproofing from who knows where (first floor corner somewhere) is good proof?3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
3 errors and misinterpretations/misquotes in 1 minute. Excellent link...you really are letting these peeps think for you?
This is STILL FUN!!!! I love the interwebs Perry Masons!!!!
Comment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
This new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was debunked on the day it was released. The BBC even droped the story after making a big deal about the pending anouncment.I am glad you know more than 200 investigators, that is pretty outstanding
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.
The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.
However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory.
His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.
"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."
"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.
Dr. Sunder disagreed.
"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."
While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.
Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.
"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."
Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.
After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
The Institute asserts that due to the lack of water supply, an “extraordinary event” occurred, and for the first time ever, steel expanding due to heat from the flames caused columns to separate from structural concrete. Column 79 was the first to fail, according to the report, which brought about a quick succession of failures in adjoining columns.
"Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems" was a critical element in the collapse, said Dr. Sunder. The "kink" seen in the building's penthouse portion in video of the collapse was in-line with the columns which failed first.
"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he said.
"It looks like they want to wrap-up this investigation and blame [the collapse] on normal office fires," said Gage during counter-conference.
WTC 7's structural system is in "widespread use" in other buildings, he added, insisting that such effects may also be present elsewhere. The Institute's report also includes recommendations for the strengthening of building codes to avoid future thermal expansion-driven collapses.
The collapse of WTC 7 is "no longer a mystery," Dr. Sunder claimed.
The Institute's full report is available at wtc.nist.gov.
Further details from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth press conference are forthcoming.
Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
We went through this before Res0. I love the way you keep jumping back to the NIST report though
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
This seems a lot more logical to most people.
Thomas Eager
Proffeser of materials Enginering
The impact of the planes would not have been significant because the number of cloumns lost on the inital impact was not large and the loads where shifted to the remaing columns in this highly redundant structureLast edited by chunky; January 5, 2011, 01:31:34 PM.Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
-
Re: The War on Truthers
Good God man.
Opening April 4, 1973
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
First flight September 26, 1981
Just the FAQs:
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.Comment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
Good God man.
Opening April 4, 1973
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
First flight September 26, 1981
Just the FAQs:
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.
No you missed the question. Was the largest aircraft in operation in 1973 a Boeing 707?Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
Also one plane one tower is not multiple. 2 planes one tower would be multiple. Your most retared post yet.Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: The War on Truthers
No you fail to understand basic engineering. The USS Enterprise could have been floating around at the time, if it wasnt tested being rammed into the side of the building then you can't ever know if the building could withstand the impact. No wonder you fall for all this nonsense.Comment
Tweet
MercuryServer, MercuryServer Logo and all uniquely developed images are the sole property of MercuryServer.com. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
Comment