hot enough
-
Posts
4,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by hot enough
-
-
" American networks do not provide live coverage of Trudeau speeches in Canada."
================
American networks do not provide live or delayed coverage of anything except the US propaganda stream.
-
If he lied under oath, why not ?
==============
These clowns take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution but they never have, not from the get go.
-
1
-
-
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." - President Bill Clinton (under oath in federal court)
One doesn't have to go far to find immoral or amoral behavior from any US president. Adolph would fit right in.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, betsy said:
The article is too long. I can only post so much, so I had to edit. You're supposed to go to the link and read it as a whole!
Precisely, too long, and you don't seem to know how to edit or choose material appropriate to the discussion at hand. I would still be interested in the section of PMs that relates to the initial points, and then the sources that discussed the molten metals.
-
1 hour ago, dre said:
The structure below was engineered to hold the weight of the floors above at rest. However when an object falls its potential gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy.
That isn't true, dre. EDITED: I should have said "That isn't completely true, dre."
QuoteLike All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
-
1 hour ago, betsy said:
Here's an additional rebuttal - knocking down everything about your silly theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories
1 hour ago, betsy said:Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[7][55] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore, any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[7]
In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers.
The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours.
The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.
NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[81]
The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[4] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.
I quoted the whole thing, Betsy, to illustrate that you don't seem to know much about the topic as a whole. I know that it is exceedingly complex but your "rebuttal" is a mishmash of incongruent ideas. You start out quoting about the twin towers and immediately morph into WTC7.
How are a few wildly ranging factoids any help at all to the discussion. Now you can see [I hope] why I didn't read PM's wildly ranging factoids.
-
23 minutes ago, betsy said:
I already gave it - directly quoted you in response - and now you're saying you ignored it. You find it.
Actually, why don't you refute the last ones I gave? I wonder why don't you deal with those now? Before you lost them too?
Regarding "it". "it" wasn't an "it". It was the complete volume of Popular Mechanics. If there was an "it" that related to my offering, you should present your "it". I wouldn't just give you a link to a complete digest of material.
The last one wasn't a "ones". Do you even read your stuff? It made some excellent points and I will read it again and digest what is contained therein.
-
5 minutes ago, betsy said:
Seems like you're trying to pull a fast one.
Saying it's drivel, isn't a rebuttal you know. You gotta explain why you say it's drivel.
You didn't even read it, most likely.
If it is such hot stuff, Betsy, post it and it will devastate.
-
4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Impact: Evidence? According to the video and seismic evidence there was some slowing. You even acknowledged that before for the twin towers.
hot enought: Did I? I believe I have maintained all along that there was constant acceleration. Constant acceleration is something which is impossible in a gravity collapse. It points to the underlying supporting structure being removed allowing all the energy to be converted to kinetic energy.
Can you source the "According to" stuff?
Impact: The question I am posing is if we can quantify it, and yes I know there is a lot of variability, can we calculate the thermal energy generated. Some of that thermal energy would be dispersed in the air as it fell, but that would be over a very brief few seconds. I expect most of that thermal energy would end up in the rubble pile, and the lower you are in that pile the higher it would be.
hot enough: Are you going here? ----> Thermal energy can account for the vaporized steel, melted Mo, vaporized lead, ... .
-
Sure I am, but this silly notion that certain topics are off the table when it is all so intricately connected is really loony.
-
6 minutes ago, Argus said:
So you're saying we should shoot all Iraqis at the border because they're coming here to rape our women?
A typical illogical conclusion.
-
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
There is a huge source of heat that so far seem to have been discounted. As the tower collapsed, it would meet some resistance from the next floor down and that would momentarily slow down the descent until that floor and supporting columns give way and the combined mass continues its descent.
That's the point, no JOLTS, no slowing. It only accelerated.
-
5 minutes ago, dre said:
Sorry I misspoke those are from JOM (Journal of Metals and Materials). And they are quotes.
Nothing on that page that you have linked to, dre.
-
5 minutes ago, betsy said:
I've got not time. You find it. It's on this thread. It's by Popular mechanics. You actually mentioned it in passing.
You just gave a link to the whole mess of Popular Mechanics drivel. I want you to quote the pertinent section, like I did in my first post. You have no time to do your own homework. That's lazy and crazy.
-
7 minutes ago, dre said:
I think the building were just built by shitty tradesman, working for shitty contractors, using shitty steel, with shitty engineering.
From popular mechanics...
In other words their crappy ass buildings fell down because they were not built properly, and a lot of people died because of the developers being cheap.Is that you paraphrasing Popular Mechanics or is it a quote from them?
-
1 hour ago, betsy said:
I'd given rebuttals to your molten metals....you ignored them!
Could you direct me to those?
-
17 minutes ago, dre said:
There is no more turmoil in the world, just more cameras everywhere, and an insane level of media saturation. Compare today with just under a century ago... The entire world was at war and dozens of millions of people were dying in various conflicts between major powers and their surrogates.
The world is a relatively peaceful place now, and we are safer than we ever have been in history.
That doesn't address the issues I've raised, dre.
Are you quoting Steven Pinker?
-
4 minutes ago, betsy said:
I'd given rebuttlas to your molten metals....you ignored them! Never mind posturing! If you've got something to say, say it!
Are you suggesting that this latest offering of yours is the rebuttal? Or are you referring to some previous post?
-
5 minutes ago, betsy said:
Nanothermite is what got 9/11 truthers to go all excited. Nothing to really get excited about, hot enough.
Here is an axcerpt from a long article.
Are you ready to discuss this, Betsy?
-
9 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
You: Yeah, right. And all the terribly misled western posters on all the forums across the western nations would be screaming, "I told you so, I told you so, they can't be trusted, watch out! they are there to kill infidels, Islam is a religion of violence, blah blah blah."
Plus the Turkish...
That would make you a Turk, in my books.
I think that this is highly illustrative of your thinking processes. The operative words there are "terribly misled".
-
6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
But then, by your own statements, you are not a Westerner. Who knows what they taught you in your school system....
WOW!
Prove your "by your own statements, you are not a Westerner" has any validity at all.
-
5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
And since you claim there was no aircraft involved that day....
Bald faced lie or a frank admission that you are incapable of adequately comprehending what you read.Go back and read the first post in this thread. That is my defining argument. In your obvious confused state you might have believed I said that.
-
9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Speaking of sources. Do you have any real sources that have real evidence of molten steel, or nanothermites? I am not making any claim to their existence or non-existence because despite your claim there is not voluminous proof. There are many extrapolations based on flimsy evidence, to which there are a multitude of other possibilities.
You want to question the official story, but when anyone questions your far flung theories you go off and attack them. Yes, there are holes in the official story you can drive a dump truck through. The problem is there are holes in your theory that you could drive the moon through.
Isn't FEMA and its hired scientists enough for you? Aren't the pictures I have offered from way back at the beginning enough to at least start discussing it? Isn't the fact that a two year scientific study that tells us, unequivocally, that NIST's WTC7 report is bogus, enough? Do you think that RJ Lee Group is lying?
You simply have never addressed any of these things. That's the deception I have talked about.
And you have the temerity to say "far flung theories". You have the temerity to suggest that I have been attacking when you have never once said anything to those you saw as your "supporters", those strange bedfellows.
Please state one moon size problem.
-
18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
How old were you in 2001?
Your previous posts dealing with these non-issues have been deleted and here you are back with the same.
Where did the fuels required to melt metals requiring temps far above the melting point of steel come from? How would you like it if your brother was framed, if your country and people were framed?
-
1
-
To The Conservative Party of Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by hot enough
clearer explanation
Does this mean that you are in favor of Israel's apartheid policies?
=================================
"Apartheid" isn't just a term of insult; it's a word with a very specific legal meaning, as defined by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 and ratified by most United Nations member states (Israel and the United States are exceptions, to their shame).
According to Article II of that convention, the term applies to acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." Denying those others the right to life and liberty, subjecting them to arbitrary arrest, expropriating their property, depriving them of the right to leave and return to their country or the right to freedom of movement and of residence, creating separate reserves and ghettos for the members of different racial groups, preventing mixed marriages — these are all examples of the crime of apartheid specifically mentioned in the convention.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-makdisi-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html