Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[bush_cheney2004]

HuffPost likes Georgia blacksmith too...."find a job".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/metal-worker-911-truthers_us_56721a31e4b0648fe3023b4d

[hot enough]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have already been told the steel did not have to melt, that it would have weakened sufficiently to collapse under the weight at a much lower temperature.

Watch the whole video, steel frame buildings totally engulfed in flames, for long hours; never before or since 9-11 has there been a collapse but three happened in NYC on one day. Absolutely preposterous!

Watch specifically from 2:40 on where Scott Grainger, a Fire Protection engineer, will explain to you why your repeat of a myth from Popular Mechanics or some other non-expert is false.

Fires Consume WTC 7-Size Skyscrapers, Buildings Do Not Collapse - 9/11/01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu6nADydep4

 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Watch the whole video, steel frame buildings totally engulfed in flames, for long hours; never before or since 9-11 has there been a collapse

 

Not true....see Windsor Tower file and collapse in Madrid (2005).

[hot enough]

So the Huffington Post falls for the same nonsense as the Boston Globe and the ..., I forget which other newspaper. Please, can someone tell me why people who are supposedly rational would believe a blacksmith over a PhD structural engineer, 2,500 architects and engineers, ... ? 

Could someone tell me why people can post a link but they can't discuss the largest, smallest or even mid-size details of what he said and what his arguments have to do with the three towers that were blown up on 9-11.

[hot enough]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, hot enough said:

...Could someone tell me why people can post a link but they can't discuss the largest, smallest or even mid-size details of what he said and what his arguments have to do with the three towers that were blown up on 9-11.

 

Because many members here have already beaten this horse to death...many times.   If some appear glib, sarcastic, or cynical, it is because discussing such details is now the punchline to a very long (and bad) joke.   

Please give us something new to spark genuine interest over mocking entertainment.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Please explain the differences and similarities between WTCs 1 & 2 and the Windsor Tower.

 

Steel...fire....heat....collapse.    Any questions ?

[hot enough]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

All the discussions on this thread have not addressed any of the issues raised,

 

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.  

What is meant by "turmoil" in the world in such a broad (or narrow) context ?  

 

[hot enough]

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.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[hot enough]

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. 

[hot enough]

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. 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by hot enough
fix wonky formatting; didn't work.

[?Impact]

25 minutes ago, hot enough said:

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.

That site is now occupied by the Torre Titania which was built after the remains of the Windsor Tower were demolished. 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.

[hot enough]

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."

 

 

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You are not correct about "The outer steel  columns however did collapse."

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.

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Or about,"The big lesson learned here is that concrete columns have better fire resistance than steel ones."

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.

[hot enough]

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. 

[hot enough]

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

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[hot enough]

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

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I also withheld an excellent discussion from you and others in order to make my point that the original poster should have discussed so everyone could come away fully informed, not mislead, at least having a basis for rational discussion. Again, please accept my apologies for this also.

 

 

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.

Passing dismissal of the WT fire reveals another agenda, as expected and experienced many times in yet another 911 topic.

 

[hot enough]

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".  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

But you were unable to address them in the slightest fashion. The Windsor Tower was not "steel beam construction".  

 

Again, your efforts to force us to revisit such details again may not always be successful.   This forum's archive is chocked full of copious treatments of the topic in many fashions.   The "turmoil" is relentless churning and denial to keep the 911 plates spinning.

[hot enough]

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?

Edited February 27, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Shall we begin with the blacksmith's arguments? Or one from the archives?

 

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.

[?Impact]

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?

[hot enough]

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.