Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

Status
Not open for further replies.
c5rftw

c5rftw

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over. :dunce:


i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.
Click to expand...


thanks fdd2blk, love that song by metallica, btw. yes, i weld and construct steel.. we use plasma torches which cuts right through 1" think steel... it burns at 2500 degrees.

To that other guy talkin about jet fuel in and open area burning at 650. well lets think, hmm, was it in open air, no. was it around a lot of flammable stuff, yes. this is was you call combustion, a lot of flammable stuff in a confined area . a diesel engine doesn't even need a spark to detonate with combustion.
 
mexiblunt

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
mexiblunt said:
Anyone want to start a demo company with me?

We will make loads of cash! We will offer a slightly lower rate than the average demo company that will get the contracts.
We will tell them instead of waiting months to pull their building we can do it in a day!

That's right one DAY! Hundreds of man hours seems a little much these days. I'm just thinking light fires that engulf at least 2 floors and we may need a few containers of diesel fuel on the bottom floor or basement if possible.
Think of the savings not having to buy explosives,det cord, explosives insurance, lower staff. At one demo a day compared to one every few months we could put alot of em out of business. Mind you we will only be doing steel core buildings cause it just seems like a gravy job.
WE WILL BE THE NEW STANDARD IN STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING DEMO!!!!
Click to expand...
c5rftw said:
lol thought that was cool until, oh wait, when you put high heat(like jet fuel) on concrete, IT EXPLODES... hence steel reinforced CONCRETE. If just the steel could of held the buildings up by itself, dont you think they would of build with just steel to save money, I mean aren't your "evil" execs trying to save money for themselves... And another thing, you really think the architects who build the twin towers would ever imagine, first of all the pure force of a 600,000 pound aircraft going 400mph hitting and then being burned by jet fuel, which burns up to 2000degrees, for hours. yes 2000 degrees doesn't melt steel, but ask ANY metal urgist, and they will tell you that it certain as hell gets weaker. I build houses and you obviously know nothing about structers... and how can you talk about 9/11 like those peoples that died dont matter.... wow your twisted mind amazes me.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was speaking of #7. So yes it did burn for hours, but no jet, no jet fuel, no 2000degrees.
This is why I just thought to myself if that is the case that a fire can bring down steel buildings why don't we start demo-ing buildings using just fire?

I've built a few dozen houses myself, but I don't know anything about steel. My dads house burned a few years back for a number of hours and after gutting it and re-wiring it's good as new.
I'm sorry if you see what I wrote as not caring about the ones who died that day.
 
mexiblunt

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
Thermite seems common, but what about this stuff?
Nano-thermite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nano-thermite is the common name of a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
RickWhite said:
There is nothing irrefutable about that.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah there is ... and the fact that scientist, engineers, and family members want a real investigation, proves that.
RickWhite said:
In fact it makes perfect sense that the building fell the way it did.
Click to expand...
Not to the scientists, and engineers, I've posted in this thread ... they state how and why it doesn't wash.

RickWhite said:
Once a substantial portion of a building begins falling the downward force increases exponentially and basically becomes a free fall.
Click to expand...
Complete and total nonsense when you look at pictures of other skyscrapers completely engulfed in flames, which burn far longer than any of the WTC towers yet the steel remained standing. So explain why those buildings didn't collapse in their own footprint in a matter of seconds, only after burning less than an hour, for one, less than two for the other, and 7 hours for the third.

RickWhite said:
The math is quite simple really even for a guy like me with only a couple of semesters of college physics. You have seen videos of an avalanche right? Same concept.
Click to expand...
Then explain why the other skyscrapers didn't collapse if it's such simple math ... math is suppose to remain constant ... so why didn't the other buildings fall?

RickWhite said:
But let's set that aside for the moment. It is a fact, and you can call any demolition company to verify this, that imploding a building of that magnitude takes months of preparation and hundreds of man hours. In fact a guy I know is an OSHA inspector who works those jobs for months at a time.
Click to expand...
And construction work was done to the buildings prior to 911 ... they obviously had the opportunity to place what was need to bring down the buildings.

RickWhite said:
The main claim of the 911 conspiracy theorists is that these were controlled demolitions. So instead of trying to obfuscate the issue how about explaining how they managed to complete hundreds of man hours of work on a building without being seen.
Click to expand...
That not for us to do ... it for a real investigation to find out. Nuff said.:roll:
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
GrowRebel said:
The infra-red photos taken that the commission ignored proved that the fires never got that hot.:mrgreen:bongsmilie Not to mention the fact that unreacted thermite that was found dispels the "rust theory". :sleep:
Click to expand...

i bore you? funniest shit ever. :roll: :mrgreen:

you live for this thread. :(
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJk0I1_Efm8&feature=player_embeddedCarl Cameron Supports Questioning 9/11
[youtube]YJk0I1_Efm8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Carl Cameron is the reporter whose four-part story on Israeli Spying revealed that there was evidence linking 9-11 to the Mossad agents (aka the Dancing Israelis) arrested on 9-11, but that this evidence was classified by the US Government.
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell
you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." --
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Pretty interesting conversation, he makes it clear, truthers are right to be beating the drums.
:clap:
If faux finds out about this ... I think his ass will be in trouble.:eyesmoke:
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over. :dunce:


i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.
Click to expand...

Um.... how is a building made of wood AT ALL similar to a steel/concrete structure in how it would be affected by fire?

Also, structurally, the construction process is much, much different. A steel building is much heavier than a wooden one (and houses aren't typically hundreds of stories high).


So, please, enlighten me. How does the structural design of a wood framed house compare to the structure of a steel framed, steel walled building? And how are the two comparable in terms of how FIRE affects the structural integrity?


Answer: you CAN'T compare them. They are two completely different kinds of structures. Aside from the fact that they both typically have walls, floors, and ceilings, which does not qualify them as being similar types of structures.

Building houses out of WOOD does not make you an expert on STEEL FRAMED buildings. it doesn't even give you the knowledge to lay the foundation. Not even close.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
A person in home construction is not an engineer, his skills do not translate over to 140 story steel structures from pine wood framed houses. The construction of the two is so vastly different that complete retraining would be needed.
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
I just have to shake my head and laugh at this point. You guys asked for proof and I provided not only proof but THE FUCKING CALCULATIONS AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And all you guys can do is respond like a bunch of children with a bunch of silly, nonsense replies that demonstrate nothing. Like I said, I posted a link with actual calculations. Why don't you take the actual arguments and calculations in the links I posted and demonstrate why they are wrong?

You don't because we all know damn well you can't. Asking why no other building has collapsed from fire is non-sequitor. How many buildings had fully fueled commercial jets crash into them?

Why is it so hard to comprehend that at the temperatures that fire was burning steel loses 90% of its strength. Steel doesn't have to melt to buckle when under tremendous load. Why is it so hard to comprehend that acceleration due to gravity is exponential (-9.8M/S^2) and because F=MA F also builds exponentially? Why is it so hard to comprehend that the top 1/4 of a building falling onto subsequent floors and setting their weight in motion builds enough force to crush the building at near free fall speed? Ever hear of a little thing called momentum?

One guy even made the argument that if setting a building on fire will bring it down there would be no need for controlled implosions. That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever heard.

And why keep repeating that there are a bunch of "scientists" that disagree? Can you not grasp the concept of circular reasoning? Here is a hint - citing a a man's claim as proof of his claim is circular reasoning. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should know that but evidently that doesn't include you. ie, "Mr Jones conspiracy theory is correct because Mr. Jones says so."

Anyway, you guys asked for proof, I posted proof that is irrefutable times a million and you failed to offer anything even resembling a reasonable rebuttal. At this point all I can say is that there is no amount of proof in the entire Universe that could dislodge your heads from your ass'.

If you think you can, post the arguments from the links I provided and refute them with REAL SCIENCE, not with your idiotic slack jaw assumptions. If you can't do that do the world a favor and STFU already.
 
K

Keenly

Guest
rick, if you use an axe to chop a tree down, does the tree collapse straight down? or does it tip over like this


| / __


'

so, in contrast, if a plane, the "axe" if you will, hit the towers

the tops should have fallen over sideways and left a stump of a skyscraper


thats not what happened...
 
mexiblunt

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
WTC #7 was not hit by a plane! It's the engineers that say fire brought that building down Rick not me. I just thought that if that's possible why not do it regularly? Seems somewhat logical no? easier faster cheaper. Yes I question the official report, you talk as if #7 doesn't exist. or didn't sorry. If you look at just that building alone your whole post and points don't apply.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over. :dunce:


i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.
Click to expand...

I built Lincoln log homes when i was 5, that makes me an expert on construction.
 
wyteboi

wyteboi

Well-Known Member
RickWhite said:
I just have to shake my head and laugh at this point. You guys asked for proof and I provided not only proof but THE FUCKING CALCULATIONS AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
here is just SOME of the REAL scientist , architects , AND Engineers ... that dont like those "fucking calculations"
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

RickWhite said:
How many buildings had fully fueled commercial jets crash into them?
Click to expand...
Uhh.. I think those buildings were Designed for an impact like that...were they not? You believe the demo theory you are just here to fuck with us...... YOU HAVE TO KNOW IT WAS DEMO BY NOW

so are all 80,000 of the NY folks just crazy conspiracy people?

RickWhite said:
And why keep repeating that there are a bunch of "scientists" that disagree?
Click to expand...
Because there are ! HUNDREDS THAT HAVE SIGNED A PETITION FOR A REAL INVESTIGATION!
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
You think buildings are designed to survive a direct hit by a fully fueled commercial jet - well I guess that explains it.

BTW, building 7 was hit by pieces of building 1 as it fell - read the links I posted.

Again, you are just making another circular argument by saying these guys disagree. Have you figured out what a circular argument is yet? Plus, you are making an appeal to popular opinion - it doesn't matter how many people want an investigation. You need to look at my thread on Logical fallacies because you are using many of them.
 
wyteboi

wyteboi

Well-Known Member
RickWhite said:
You think buildings are designed to survive a direct hit by a fully fueled commercial jet - well I guess that explains it.
Click to expand...
are you still high..... In 1945 a b-29 bomber ran into the 75th floor of the Empire State Building THAT is why the buildings WERE designed to withstand impact from a boeing 707. i did NOT just think that up

"WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet ... which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707"


You have to be a kid at this point.........
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
doobnVA said:
Um.... how is a building made of wood AT ALL similar to a steel/concrete structure in how it would be affected by fire?

Also, structurally, the construction process is much, much different. A steel building is much heavier than a wooden one (and houses aren't typically hundreds of stories high).


So, please, enlighten me. How does the structural design of a wood framed house compare to the structure of a steel framed, steel walled building? And how are the two comparable in terms of how FIRE affects the structural integrity?


Answer: you CAN'T compare them. They are two completely different kinds of structures. Aside from the fact that they both typically have walls, floors, and ceilings, which does not qualify them as being similar types of structures.

Building houses out of WOOD does not make you an expert on STEEL FRAMED buildings. it doesn't even give you the knowledge to lay the foundation. Not even close.
Click to expand...





well since you already answered all the questions you asked me i guess all you can do now is stfu. :clap::-P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top