100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A 9/11 Challenge/Experiment | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Wed 08/17/11 12:11 PM
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. You might have 2% of the truthers that believe this crap. The rest of them are just Bush haters that are hell bent on pushing that he knew and allowed the attacks or that he actually planned them. Either way this has always been about Bush and will always be about Bush. You don't see a single one of them saying that Clinton knew and allowed the 1993 bombing. Its like that never happened.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. There are in fact many examples of buildings burning and not collapsing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. You might have 2% of the truthers that believe this crap. The rest of them are just Bush haters that are hell bent on pushing that he knew and allowed the attacks or that he actually planned them. Either way this has always been about Bush and will always be about Bush. You don't see a single one of them saying that Clinton knew and allowed the 1993 bombing. Its like that never happened.. Don't discount congenital defects! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. There are in fact many examples of buildings burning and not collapsing. Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure. The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes. The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts. "As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire." On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million. pg 6/74 The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall. The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet. The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor. pg 15/74 The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767] http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
karmafury
on
Wed 08/17/11 09:07 PM
|
|
The world's largest office building, the Pentagon is synonymous with the Department of Defense and a symbol of American military might.
Exactly 60 years before the September 2001 attacks, on September 11, 1941, ground was broken in Arlington Country, Virginia, for a huge new building to house the War Department, forerunner of today's Department of Defense. The department was then operating from 17 separate buildings in Washington. Pearl Harbor Alters Plans At certain periods 13,000 people worked on the project. Originally, plans called for three floors, but as the military prepared for war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, two more floors were added. To conserve steel, concrete ramps were used in place of elevators and the outside walls were made of reinforced concrete. The Pentagon was built in "stripped classical" style, a variation of Greek and Roman classicism popular in the middle of the 20th century and often used for government buildings. On January 15, 1943, just 16 months after construction began, the Pentagon was completed. In April, occupants began moving in. Including outside facilities, the project cost about $83,000,000. Read more: The Pentagon — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pentagon1.html#ixzz1VLjtQE7g What happens when a plane hits a reinforced concrete wall? No more plane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJDqXbtsKlw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home. For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read: 2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'. 6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple! Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please. Again when you see people standing in the hole the planes put in the building you have to logicly conclude the fire was not that intense. You would have to be mad to assume that every strut would fail at exactly the same time. k. Forget the concrete though as that wasn't part of the construction used. Also I get to knock off the spray on retardant with a hammer as would have happened with a hit from a plane. Remember now. I want that in Canadian funds please. The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. Yes, it was the loss of fireproofing and subsequent fires that collapsed the building but if it were not for the construction, a total collapse may not have occurred. Ironically, the construction also saved many lives by letting the towers stand as long as they did. These pages explain the construction and provide evidence for collapse by fire. "Tube in a Tube" The designers coined the term "Tube in a Tube" to describe the buildings’ construction. The design was an innovation of its day. Thick steel columns ran up the middle of the building. This housed the elevators, stairwell, electrical conduits, water, sewer and other services which ran up and down the length of the buildings. For you to understand the collapse, you will have to remember four main elements. * Core columns * Perimeter columns * Floor Trusses * Fire proofing The columns of the building normally found evenly spaced out on a given floor became the outer wall of the building. This left large open areas for renting. A good explanation of this can be found on PBS. Instead of encasing each column in heavy concrete, (normal fire proofing) the designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing with a 2 hour rating to protect the load bearing columns and trusses from fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone explain why there were showers of sparks (thermite) coming out of the building? wtc there were no marks outside the pentagon because the plane couldnt penetrate it? concrete yet it could penetrate through more concrete in the wtc towers? also the outer tubes were 4 inch thick steel the top half would have slid off the building not fallen staight down you should watch the movie to see how they were built a steel building outside a concrete core the jet fuel would have burned off in the first 5 minutes How did they keep the thermite from reacting to the fires that burned off in 5 minutes? How did the fail sequence initiate at the exact locations of the plane impacts when it would be obvious to any idiot that explosives would have been either blown out of the building or strewn about in a way that they would have failed to detonate due to the cables being burned or cut? It would have been extremely risky to attempt this type of detonation because of all the variables and the possibility that they don't collapse. Someone would have found miles of cable and tons of explosives. Yeah.. I am sure it was an inside job.. NOT Someone would have found miles of cable and tons of explosives. yes and a big box with a big handle sticking out the top connected to all those wires these are the same invisible wires that your cell phone is hooked up to get real who investigated what? just like they found the bombs inside the building in oklahoma city same people how did i see a video of the terrorists mixing the explosives to blow it up the first time? i guess i was dreaming they parked the truck to far from the main support beams or it would have been gone the first time i have bad news for you there not going to save you so fes up im sure bill gates will hold you in his arms during helter skelter lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. There are in fact many examples of buildings burning and not collapsing. Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure. The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes. The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts. "As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire." On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million. pg 6/74 The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall. The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet. The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor. pg 15/74 The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767] http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
karmafury
on
Thu 08/18/11 03:58 AM
|
|
Jesus man go to your own link and you will see that building fell over and didnt systamaticly collapse into its own basement.
Different construction. Different incident. Different weights. You also said "collapse". It collapsed. It was a steel framed building. I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
Also try watching the video. The Windsor Building in Madrid, with the top 11 floors built much as WTC. The top floors collapsed into their own footprint, ie: the floors that had a concrete core. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone explain why there were showers of sparks (thermite) coming out of the building? wtc there were no marks outside the pentagon because the plane couldnt penetrate it? concrete yet it could penetrate through more concrete in the wtc towers? also the outer tubes were 4 inch thick steel the top half would have slid off the building not fallen staight down you should watch the movie to see how they were built a steel building outside a concrete core the jet fuel would have burned off in the first 5 minutes How did they keep the thermite from reacting to the fires that burned off in 5 minutes? How did the fail sequence initiate at the exact locations of the plane impacts when it would be obvious to any idiot that explosives would have been either blown out of the building or strewn about in a way that they would have failed to detonate due to the cables being burned or cut? It would have been extremely risky to attempt this type of detonation because of all the variables and the possibility that they don't collapse. Someone would have found miles of cable and tons of explosives. Yeah.. I am sure it was an inside job.. NOT Someone would have found miles of cable and tons of explosives. yes and a big box with a big handle sticking out the top connected to all those wires these are the same invisible wires that your cell phone is hooked up to get real who investigated what? just like they found the bombs inside the building in oklahoma city same people how did i see a video of the terrorists mixing the explosives to blow it up the first time? i guess i was dreaming they parked the truck to far from the main support beams or it would have been gone the first time i have bad news for you there not going to save you so fes up im sure bill gates will hold you in his arms during helter skelter lol Can't you guys stick to one story? Controlled demolition.. no wait bombs in the base of the building. Which is it? Bombs in the base of the building wouldn't cause that kind of collapse. It wouldn't have caused the building to fall starting from the impact site either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to make a bet. After every goofy claim is completely debunked (which they have been several times) a new Mingle 9/11 thread will be started by the same individuals and ALL the same claims will be made all over again. Explosives! Steel can't melt! The whole stupid mess will begin again as if it had never been discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. There are in fact many examples of buildings burning and not collapsing. And how many of those had planes fly into them or other buildings collapse onto them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about all the building fires around the world every year where the building collapse? We have lots of good models for how this occurs, with lots of real world experience to back up the models. The truthers after being shown all of this have to be NUTS to keep this up. You might have 2% of the truthers that believe this crap. The rest of them are just Bush haters that are hell bent on pushing that he knew and allowed the attacks or that he actually planned them. Either way this has always been about Bush and will always be about Bush. You don't see a single one of them saying that Clinton knew and allowed the 1993 bombing. Its like that never happened.. That is a very good point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus man go to your own link and you will see that building fell over and didnt systamaticly collapse into its own basement.
Different construction. Different incident. Different weights. You also said "collapse". It collapsed. It was a steel framed building. I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
Also try watching the video. The Windsor Building in Madrid, with the top 11 floors built much as WTC. The top floors collapsed into their own footprint, ie: the floors that had a concrete core. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk Do you not even follow your own links? I am stunned you would even make a comparison or expect other thinking adults to agree with you. The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. Estimated time frame of collapses Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down 7 These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus man go to your own link and you will see that building fell over and didnt systamaticly collapse into its own basement.
Different construction. Different incident. Different weights. You also said "collapse". It collapsed. It was a steel framed building. I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
Also try watching the video. The Windsor Building in Madrid, with the top 11 floors built much as WTC. The top floors collapsed into their own footprint, ie: the floors that had a concrete core. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk Do you not even follow your own links? I am stunned you would even make a comparison or expect other thinking adults to agree with you. The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. Estimated time frame of collapses Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down 7 These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html I wasn't making a comparision. You stated I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
I just showed that it has happened. As far as comparing goes.... Show me another building of the same construction as WTC that has had a 767 hit at over 400mph and is still standing. Steel frame building collapsing because of fire ... happened. But a highrise of similar construction being hit by a 767 at that speed has never happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus man go to your own link and you will see that building fell over and didnt systamaticly collapse into its own basement.
Different construction. Different incident. Different weights. You also said "collapse". It collapsed. It was a steel framed building. I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
Also try watching the video. The Windsor Building in Madrid, with the top 11 floors built much as WTC. The top floors collapsed into their own footprint, ie: the floors that had a concrete core. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk Do you not even follow your own links? I am stunned you would even make a comparison or expect other thinking adults to agree with you. The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. Estimated time frame of collapses Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down 7 These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html I wasn't making a comparision. You stated I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
I just showed that it has happened. As far as comparing goes.... Show me another building of the same construction as WTC that has had a 767 hit at over 400mph and is still standing. Steel frame building collapsing because of fire ... happened. But a highrise of similar construction being hit by a 767 at that speed has never happened. fact the 911 commision said it was the fires that took down the twin towers and building 7. Its all they could think of since the building was built well and could withstand the impact. they call it a pancake theory because it cnnot be proven to be a pancake fact. I realy hope the lid blows off this one day, its definatly not going to go away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus man go to your own link and you will see that building fell over and didnt systamaticly collapse into its own basement.
Different construction. Different incident. Different weights. You also said "collapse". It collapsed. It was a steel framed building. I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
Also try watching the video. The Windsor Building in Madrid, with the top 11 floors built much as WTC. The top floors collapsed into their own footprint, ie: the floors that had a concrete core. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk Do you not even follow your own links? I am stunned you would even make a comparison or expect other thinking adults to agree with you. The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. Estimated time frame of collapses Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down 7 These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html I wasn't making a comparision. You stated I would like one damn example were a steel framed building totaly collapsed due to fires. The fact is it has only happned 3 times, the twin towers and building 7.
I just showed that it has happened. As far as comparing goes.... Show me another building of the same construction as WTC that has had a 767 hit at over 400mph and is still standing. Steel frame building collapsing because of fire ... happened. But a highrise of similar construction being hit by a 767 at that speed has never happened. fact the 911 commision said it was the fires that took down the twin towers and building 7. Its all they could think of since the building was built well and could withstand the impact. they call it a pancake theory because it cnnot be proven to be a pancake fact. I realy hope the lid blows off this one day, its definatly not going to go away. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That horse is starting to stink!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That horse is starting to stink! 
|
|
|
|
|
