hot enough
-
Posts
4,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by hot enough
-
-
5 minutes ago, Wilber said:
You're the one with the answers. Can't believe I got sucked in another one of these discussions. The trouble with you truthers is you grab onto one thing like a dog with a bone and ignore everything else.
Okay, first I will discuss anything and everything you want to discuss.
-
5 minutes ago, Wilber said:
You don't have to vaporize anything. just weaken it to a point where if fails. Concordes maximum speed was limited by the operating temperature of it s aluminum skin, not because it couldn't go faster.
But vaporized steel columns/beams were found at WTC7 and WTC 1 or 2. What caused them?
-
4 minutes ago, Wilber said:
Did anyone dump 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on those fires that lasted 15-23 hrs? If not, the comparison is meaningless.
I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked you, but please do explain why the comparison is meaningless, Wilber.
-
5 minutes ago, Altai said:
Really, so beni kolyca anlaya bilyor msun ? or just kidding ? : )so beni.
I wish I was, but I'm not.
-
14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
So....if one looks out the window in NYC, in Lower Manhattan, the Twin Towers still stand...since it was impossible for two fuel laden aircraft doing 400 kts to do any significant damage to such a structure.
That there was significant damage is not at all at issue. That those "two fuel laden aircraft doing" any speed could cause fires with temperatures of 5,000+F to vaporize steel is an impossibility.
-
5 minutes ago, Wilber said:
The 767's would be carrying around 10,000 US gallons or about 70,000 lbs. Jet fuel is like diesel, not very much would have been burned in the initial explosion because there just wouldn't be enough oxygen available. To burn one pound of fuel efficiently you need about 15 lbs of air. One cubic foot of air weighs .08 lbs so you figure it out.
Most of the fuel would have spread out through the building through holes cause by damage, stairways, elevator shafts, ventilation ducts etc. I don't know what the wind was at that elevation that day but wind and convection caused by the burning fuel could have increased temperatures like a blast furnace. How much, I wouldn't know.
Thank you very much, Wilber. What are the temperatures reached in a blast furnace?
-
30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Yes, the intent of starting large fires is fairly obvious. The twin towers made a very high profile target to send a message. They couldn't fly too low because other buildings would be in the way, but the lower on the towers they were the more people who would be trapped above the fires. They may not have been able to predict that the towers would collapse on their own, but the damage they inflicted would certainly have caused them to be demolished afterwards.
They, the alleged hijackers, also were not able to predict that the jet fuel would be able to reach 5,000+F temperatures to vaporize steel.
Those same alleged hijackers, also were not able to predict that some of jet fuel from WTC1 would be able to survive the explosions within WTC1, then burn for an hour and a half then fly over to WTC7, where it was then able to reach 5,000+F temperatures to vaporize WTC7 steel.
-
8 minutes ago, Altai said:
So I think we just need to calculate resistance power of these steel beams and columns to see whether or not is it really logical that these buildings collapsed because of upper floors hit the below and all together hit the one floor below and all together hit one floor below, like an akkordeon effekt. Here one of the links I have read yesterday but its Turkish.
http://www.muhendislikbilgileri.com/?pnum=124&pt=PROBLEM+1Luckily, I am fluent in Turkish.
Such a study has been done, Altai. But first, we have to realize that NIST never did any such study. NIST stopped at "initiation of collapse", threw up their hands, and said, "Then a miracle occurred? They didn't do this for WTC7 and the three building collapses had many similarities.
[For anyone who doesn't know this, google, "and then a miracle occurs cartoon", click on images and you will understand the ludicrousness of NIST's stopping at initiation of collapse]
Why would the scientists from the richest country on the planet do that, when they brought up a TWA jet crash from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, spent all the time needed to put the parts back together to determine the real cause of the crash?
The study done about WTC1 shows that, following the laws of physics, the tower's collapse, had it actually been a gravity collapse, would have self arrested within two floors.
-
19 minutes ago, Wilber said:
Meh. And yet all these aircraft were trans continental flights headed for the west coast. They were obviously selected because they would be carrying more fuel than any other domestic flights.
How much fuel were they carrying, Wilber? How much fuel exploded and burned in the first, shall we call them gigantic or just big fireballs?
How did the alleged hijackers use the jet fuel to melt metals that needed 2800F, 4700F, 5000+f temperatures when the only temperatures that US official government conspiracy scientists said the fires reached was about 1,400F?
How long did the fires burn within the twin towers compared to fires in other comparable buildings that burned, some totally engulfed in in intense flames for 15 to 23 hours and they never collapsed?
-
37 minutes ago, Altai said:
Ops, yesterday I have searched for the resistance power of steel structures and I have just find some sources that only an engineer could understand it, it was full of formulas, formulas and formulas. I have tried to understand some of them and I think I got but then I have seen some other formulas of flexibility of the steel and I was like "Damn it"
Your intuition, like that of every other human, save for those who will not see, who refuse to see, is dead on correct, Altai.
Could you tell the study you found and give a link? Perhaps we can help.
-
15 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
The University of Manchester has a descent high level description of the structural differences between the WTC and Windsor Tower fires, as well as the First Interstate Bank in LA fire. Certainly there have been many other high-rise fires, but are these the most extensive?
These are all well and good discussions to have, Impact. But I think it would be most advantageous and helpful to focus on the stunning anomalies.
How did the alleged hijackers melt those metals that had, at a minimum, melting points 1,000F above the temperatures that can be reached by the only fuel they brought, jet fuel?
We all know the alleged hijackers did not melt those metals. We all know that there was superthermite/nanothermite at WTC that easily explains how these metals became molten. Why are we do backflips to avoid discussing it?
-
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
No, as the arguments for failure mode and dynamic collapse were well known long before the Georgia blacksmith's demonstration.
I am more interested in the reasons and agenda for continuing the 911 circus long after the elephants have left the tent.
Okay, we'll agree to agree that you can't discuss the blacksmith's arguments and why they do or do not support any given theory.
The reason is on page one. The presence of all the molten metals means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. There were many scientific arguments presented defended that central premise.
You have not addressed a one.
Until you are ready to do so, I won't waste any more time with you.
-
7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
This forum's archive is chocked full of copious treatments of the topic in many fashions.
Well, then, it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to pull out your, I assume, voluminous scientific arguments that will address the issues I have raised, that only impact and Altai will discuss.
Shall we begin with the blacksmith's arguments? Or one from the archives?
-
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
The point and example presented by the Windsor Tower steel beam construction fire and collapse are well known to any 911 conspiracy debate here and elsewhere.
But you were unable to address them in the slightest fashion. The Windsor Tower was not "steel beam construction".
-
12 minutes ago, hot enough said:
I think that we can both agree that the Windsor Tower is not an apt comparison to use for the twin towers or WTC7.
Not that I am trying to stifle discussion in any way, shape or form on this particular issue. If anyone wants to understand why they are not good comparisons, read the article and ask questions. Unless this is deemedto be off the topic at hand
-
18 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Ok, I will agree that as a generalization that is a bit misleading. Yes, steel does offer some fire resistance advantages in a localized fire as it will transfer the heat away from the source fairly quickly and keep from developing hot spots. Concrete will suffer more localized damage in those hot spots. The difference however is in a large fire like happened at the World Trade Center or Windsor Tower; there the fire will overtake the ability of the steel to conduct heat away and the softening of the steel one the higher temperatures are reached will result in catastrophic failure.
I think that we can both agree that the Windsor Tower is not an apt comparison to use for the twin towers or WTC7. I think we can agree that those who pretend to know something about these issues should discuss them openly and honestly, putting their "expertise"out there so folks can develop a sense of trust in any given commenter's posts.
I also withheld an excellent discussion from you and others in order to make my point that the original poster should have discussedmore thoroughly, so everyone could come away fully informed, not misled, about the issues, having a better foundation for rational discussion. Again, please accept my apologies for this also.
The Windsor Building Fire
Huge Fire in Steel-Reinforced Concrete Building Causes Partial Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
-
6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Since I only have the many pictures and videos of the fire and subsequent collapse to go by, I guess you are suggesting they are all fake and that your first hand account is the only valid one. Unlike you, I have not traveled to Madrid, and was not there in 2005 to witness the event first hand. I did not study the original blueprints for the building, and was not a construction foreman to witness it being built. So yes, you obviously are far more fully qualified than I.
I apologise, unreservedly, impact. My comments, brief, terse, not at all forthcoming, unscientific, crass, personally insulting, ... were meant only as a indicator of what the vast majority of comments have been on this topic since the outset. I do NOT include you in that group.
-
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
If you look at the picture of the collapse of the Windsor Tower, you will note that the central concrete core remained standing, as did the lower floors which were also concrete column construction. The outer steel columns however did collapse. The big lesson learned here is that concrete columns have better fire resistance than steel ones. Note that the Windsor Tower was less than one third the height of the World Trade Center.
You are correct about the differing heights.
You are not correct about "The outer steel columns however did collapse."
Or about,"The big lesson learned here is that concrete columns have better fire resistance than steel ones."
-
14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Not true....see Windsor Tower file and collapse in Madrid (2005).
I hope this is not going to shock anyone too badly, but the Windsor Tower, the one in Madrid, the one in the picture, is still
standing. It has not collapsed.
-
12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
What is meant by "turmoil" in the world in such a broad (or narrow) context ?
That is obviously a tremendously wide topic that isn't about the much narrower, for good reasons, discussion on the science surrounding the events of 9-11.
That is obviously a tremendously wide topic that deserves its own thread.
-
12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
I disagree, and since the OP was poorly focused to begin with, I will go with "turmoil" being the actual 911 "truth" debate process/arguments over anything technically or factually associated with the event itself.
The forum rules seem to be specifically intended to guide all posters towards using efficient speech, not too much wordiness, but certainly enough to not only make one's point but to also prove one's point.
I have to say that yours doesn't seem to meet forum guidelines. There is no discussion from you on why "the OP was poorly focused". That will require some discussion of science.
-
3 hours ago, taxme said:
I don't need to learn or know french in Canada. Canada should have just one official language, and that language should be English. The cost of bilingualism since it was forced upon the rest of Canada decades ago by papa trudeau has run into the tens of billions of tax dollars. Tax dollars that could have been better spent else where.
And first generation Chinese immigrants do not need to learn English. Their children will, as all children do. You don't even NEED to learn French if you move into a totally French community, and from the sounds of it, you wouldn't, yet here you are maligning others, telling us of their cultural insensitivity for the same thing you self describe above..
-
All the discussions on this thread have not addressed any of the issues raised, in a manner that reflects the stated aim found in the guidelines of this website.
Calling individuals names that are well known pejoratives breaks the forums first rule.
==============================
Guidelines
Be Polite and Respect Others
Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints,
If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (website links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar.
Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.
All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.
-
23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Not true....see Windsor Tower file and collapse in Madrid (2005).
Please explain the differences and similarities between WTCs 1 & 2 and the Windsor Tower.
Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
I just got called a "truther", again!
Nineteen eighty four is alive and well.
The folks who tell the truth are called "truthers", which as every English speaker intuitively knows means one who believes in truth, speaks truth, supports the truth, just as a welder welds, a teacher teaches, a reporter reports, a carpenter carpents.
Truthers are people who are willing to discuss the issues, discuss the science, do the scientific experiments, do the difficult slogging work that is science, are willing to explain the science and their implications as many times as is needed to help people understand.
But by some Orwellian process, the word, 'truther', a word that matches perfectly with the logic of the English language, as described above, has been turned 180 degrees and is used by, see below, as a slur.
On pages 1 and 2 of this thread, there were zero, as in 0, uses of the slur 'truther'. When the science started to dawn on the [spoiler alert] "anti-truthers", out came the slurs. Page 3 saw one, page 4 saw 2, page 5 saw 1, page 6, there were 3, page 7, not yet finished, has seen 1. These, of course do not include my present discussion of this issue regarding truthers and [2nd spoiler alert] anti-truthers.
By contrast, we have our anti-truthers. "anti-truthers" comports perfectly with the logic of the English language, and it does a bang up job of describing the large number of these folks who inhabit our western societies.
Anti-truthers are the folks who never discuss the science, make repeated attempts to curb both scientific discovery and scientific discussion, using slanderous comments and off topic comments. These make up the sum total of their "science".
And yet they will steadfastly, ardently, likely even to their deaths, maintain that their "science", which they can't even explain, is so superior that it doesn't require explanation.
I reiterate.