• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:13
CEST 05:13
KST 12:13
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202552RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams8Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 678 users

WikiLeaks releases 911 text messages - Page 7

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 Next All
Boonbag
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
France3318 Posts
November 26 2009 15:43 GMT
#121
I read somewhere French did it.

=[
Manit0u
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
Poland17254 Posts
November 26 2009 15:47 GMT
#122
On November 26 2009 14:30 GTR wrote:
aw i thought this was about funny 911 phone calls.


Got me there too
Time is precious. Waste it wisely.
1tym
Profile Joined April 2005
Korea (South)2425 Posts
November 26 2009 15:48 GMT
#123
On November 27 2009 00:39 jello_biafra wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2009 00:34 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:28 jello_biafra wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:24 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote:
The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.

And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.


I advise you to read this.

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.

I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty


I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.

He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.


Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?.
1tym is one time for your mind
Mori600
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Japan311 Posts
November 26 2009 15:49 GMT
#124
This thread makes me sad.
Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a night. Lite a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
liosama
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Australia843 Posts
November 26 2009 15:49 GMT
#125
[image loading]
Free Palestine
HwangjaeTerran
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Finland5967 Posts
November 26 2009 15:52 GMT
#126
On November 27 2009 00:40 Conquest101 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2009 00:33 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote:
The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.

And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.


No it isn´t insane, if they say one of the planes turned into a rabbit midair, that would be insane.
If you think you have the ability to tell what is true and real feel free to enlighten others too, the world would be a much happier place and you would be made into a world leader, might even score a lotta chicks too.

Please people try use words like maybe, possibly and probably more than words like is, true and definitely.

Also we are talking about people who believe their presidents know some invisible mans (=Gods) will, that´s quite insane too.

And that jetfuel probably didn´t have that much effect on anything.


I apologize if my words had negative effect on anyone and even if they didn´t just to be on the safe side.


What was the point of this post? You're bringing in semantics and the fact that President Obama believes in god as your arguments? Very convincing.

+ Show Spoiler +
Obama believes in God! You know who else believes in God? Muslims. You know what a lot of Muslims are? Terrorists. Thus, Obama = Terrorist. QED


Also, you are correct. The 90000L of jet fuel burning at 700 degrees celsius probably didn't do anything.


You compeletely missed the point, watch any of Bushes pre-Iraq rallying speeches and maybe you´ll see: the man is a prophet. My point is that to American people God and Country have enough meaning that with those you can cover pretty much anything else. I think it´s insane to let that kind of pure manipulation to happen, but then again I´m not part of that culture and so I´m not sure if that kind of speech has so much importance there.

Saying God wants Saddam dead to boost your support is wrong in pretty much any possible way IMO. Hardly acceptable way to lead any country.

Religion itself has nothing to do with anything nor do I have anything against anyone for any reasons anyway, just to be on the safe side.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/*tlusernamehere*/
mdb
Profile Blog Joined February 2003
Bulgaria4059 Posts
November 26 2009 15:55 GMT
#127
On November 27 2009 00:26 vGl-CoW wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 26 2009 21:56 mdb wrote:
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote:
it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites

good job being open minded


Even more hilarious is that if you have read those plausible sources and if you think for 2 seconds, they are plausible just as the fucking conspiracy websites.


Are you trolling? They're actually debating verifiable facts. If one side was saying that you get HIV by having sex with an infected person and the other side was saying that you get HIV by, say, overexposure to mercury, would you just go "hmm well these both sound about equally plausible, I'm just gonna randomly decide which one is right"? Of course, you would not. You would compare both sides' arguments and counterarguments and then decide what makes the most sense. If you actually did your research, you would find that the counter-conspiracists are to refute pretty much every conspiracist argument. If the conspiracists say that the explosion and fires wouldn't have caused a high enough temperature to cause the steel girders to melt in order to allow a collapse, and then you have the counter-conspiracists stating that, while the temperature indeed was not high enough to cause steel to melt, it was high enough to cause loss of structural integrity to a sufficient degree to allow for the girders to collapse (which is a simple, physical fact), then there's simply nothing more to say. Argument destroyed, counter-conspiracists win, GG.

I`m not trolling (it sucks that nowadays every second post on tl.net is considered trolling)

on topic. Yes, what you say is true. But from what I`ve read (on conspiratory sites ofc) and seen (on cnn) very big part of the jet fuel actually burned out of the building (the big explosion you see when the plane hit the wtc) and according to the conspiracy theoirsts there was not enough fuel left in the building to actually cause structural damage. I am not saying this is true ofcourse. But this is something that makes sense. And when I looked on anti-conspiracy sites to see evidence that this is wrong, they were saying that actually there was enough fuel left in the building to melt the support beams.

Both statements cannot be proven.

What does not makes sense to me and "raises question" is the things that came after 9/11 :
The war on terrorism, causing wars in Afganistan and in Iraq (and very possibly in Iran), leading to unhuman ammount of money going to US companies making weapons. US companies winning contracts for the Iraq oil etc. and 9/11 is the perfect excuse for these things.

1tym
Profile Joined April 2005
Korea (South)2425 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-11-26 15:59:43
November 26 2009 15:59 GMT
#128
Sigh..

To all the people who say the Jet fuel has melted the steel frames and therefore caused the collapse of the building...



Common sense people....
1tym is one time for your mind
Servolisk
Profile Blog Joined February 2003
United States5241 Posts
November 26 2009 15:59 GMT
#129
On November 27 2009 00:26 vGl-CoW wrote:
What I don't understand is how many, many people fail to follow a path of reason when it comes to 9/11.
This is how it should go: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. I guess it could possibly have been an inside job. This merits further attention. Let's see if there are any counterarguments. Oh, there are. *reads* Hm, those actually did a fantastic job of rebutting the conspiracy arguments. Let's see what the conspiracists have to say to that. Oh, nothing at all. Case closed then, the counter-conspiracists are right.

This is how it actually goes: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. Must have been an inside job. Case closed then, the conspiracists are right.

Then, they like to think that they're open-minded and Not Afraid To Ask The Tough Questions, when really they're close-minded for skipping the last few crucial steps.


Uh, while your accusing others of not being open minded, it is funny that you make some completely false portrayal of them in the most convenient way. Most so called "conspiracy theorist" simply think there should be more investigation, rather than believe a certain side.

Your line of reasoning: there are conspiracy and non-conspiracy explanations for 9/11, so assume the non-conspiracy.
The problem with that is the explanations are incomplete, so you are basically saying just because a conspiracy cannot be proved the entire incident should be ignored beyond the official story.

That's like if there is a death and it could have been a natural medical problem or it could have been poisoning, let's just assume it was a natural death and not investigate completely.

The problem with the official story is they never did a complete investigation. And there is absolutely zero excuse not too. For one of one thousand examples, iirc, a 9/11 commission was interviewed on public radio and he was asked, why was not the proper procedure followed for military jet intercept? Answer: "I really want to know but I couldn't find out" (can't remember exact words by now).

Everything should have been investigated in complete detail. Not only did 3000 people die the incident had a profound influence in the future.
wtf was that signature
HwangjaeTerran
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Finland5967 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-11-26 16:05:07
November 26 2009 15:59 GMT
#130
On November 27 2009 00:37 Mindcrime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 26 2009 23:29 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
On November 26 2009 22:31 CrimsonLotus wrote:
On November 26 2009 20:40 igotmyown wrote:
Bush was elected while campaigning on a let's stop playing the world police officer platform and didn't wasn't interested in global affairs until after the WTC attacks. Then afterwards a high death toll attack on important american institutions, terrorists or some sinister hidden conspiracy? What makes sense?
Muslim CIA agents posing as terrorists, okayed by multiple levels up to the president, and not one person who hears about it has second thoughts and leaks it, including the agents who are required to 1) kill themselves 2) kill lots of americans and 3) start a global war and risk enormous anti-arab sentiment to their own race? Makes a ton of sense to me.


Yep, that's the point, it just doesn't make sense at all that such a huge conspiracy could be done without leaks, plus what the Bush administration would risk by doing that would be just too big... Imagine if the public found out, at the very list he would be pushed out of office if not prosecuted and maybe even executed if found guilty.

I don't believe any political agenda would justify that in the eyes of self serving politicians.

On the other hand, i do believe is posible that some people inside the U.S. goverment might have known or suspected about the attacks, but decided to look the other way (something similar to what might have happened in Pearl Harbor), but i just can't imagine the U.S. goverment being directly involved, there are just too many flaws in the logic of such event.


Wasn´t Obamas campaign anti-war?
Suddenly we have bank crisis and now Obama sending more troops overseas...
Almost like there is someone else pulling the strings...



No, you weren't paying attention.

As far as Afghanistan was concerned, Obama was, by far, the most hawkish viable candidate in the race.


I thought it wasn´t war in Afghanistan, more like anti-terroris-world-police-work.
Well he was against war in Iraq atleast.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/*tlusernamehere*/
Piy
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Scotland3152 Posts
November 26 2009 15:59 GMT
#131
It's kinda showing that everyone who outright rejects the theories is American or Canadian. Most of the rest of the world accept that, at the very least, everything America wanted to happen happened, right when they needed it too, and due to the plausibility of the theories at the very least it merits further investigation.
My. Copy. Is. Here.
jello_biafra
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
United Kingdom6635 Posts
November 26 2009 16:03 GMT
#132
On November 27 2009 00:48 1tym wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2009 00:39 jello_biafra wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:34 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:28 jello_biafra wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:24 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote:
The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.

And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.


I advise you to read this.

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.

I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty


I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.

He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.


Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?.

Well if you say so, but from reading the official FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) of the incident somehow I think the combined force of the impact and the large amount of burning jet fuel were enough to take the building down.

The building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (low on fuel) hitting at 180 MPH in mind, the actual plane that hit was 274,000 lbs and travelling at over 500 MPH with plently of fuel on board.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions | aka Probert[PaiN] @ iccup / godlikeparagon @ twitch | my BW stream: http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/jello_biafra
1tym
Profile Joined April 2005
Korea (South)2425 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-11-26 16:23:39
November 26 2009 16:16 GMT
#133
On November 27 2009 01:03 jello_biafra wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2009 00:48 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:39 jello_biafra wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:34 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:28 jello_biafra wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:24 1tym wrote:
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote:
The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.

And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.


I advise you to read this.

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.

I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty


I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.

He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.


Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?.

Well if you say so, but from reading the official FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) of the incident somehow I think the combined force of the impact and the large amount of burning jet fuel were enough to take the building down.

The building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (low on fuel) hitting at 180 MPH in mind, the actual plane that hit was 274,000 lbs and travelling at over 500 MPH with plently of fuel on board.


Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

It has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
1tym is one time for your mind
Superiorwolf
Profile Blog Joined March 2007
United States5509 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-11-26 16:46:56
November 26 2009 16:43 GMT
#134
I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous.

When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit.

*I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable.
Check out my stream at www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=315053 and follow me on Twitter @EGSuppy! :)
HwangjaeTerran
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Finland5967 Posts
November 26 2009 16:51 GMT
#135
2001-09-11 08:00:31 Metrocall [002472733] D ALPHA
It's that time


Someone is busted, go hang him. You can thank me later.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/*tlusernamehere*/
Cloud
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
Sexico5880 Posts
November 26 2009 16:52 GMT
#136
Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
BlueLaguna on West, msg for game.
TeCh)PsylO
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3552 Posts
November 26 2009 16:53 GMT
#137
I don't think the story is that fire melted steal, but rather that the heat expanded the floor trusses, putting pressure on the steal columns that already had been damaged.
People change, then forget to tell each other - Susan Scott
Ceril
Profile Joined April 2003
Sweden1343 Posts
November 26 2009 16:55 GMT
#138
One thing to remember when posting other skyscrapers not falling from fire is taking into account construction.Tube in a tube construction.
So, we get fire yes? Clearly seen, jet fuel and hmm, wonder if there was anything else to burn in that building, like i dont know... floors, celinings, people, office materials... things like that. Then you have the old damaged fireproofing, not cement clad, further damaged by an aircraft.
Now then, I admit steel not melting at jet fuel burning point is a bit disheartening and in favour of the conspiracy theologists, I sure hope I could comeup with an explanation. How would you go about making steel give like that? sigh, I wish I knew if people in the medieval age melted steel for armor or if they prefered to heat it up and hammer it into form. Strange, they did like the hammering bit, how the frack can you deform non melted steel with just a hammer thats not even possible. Gee, I wonder how much easier steel is to deform at 700C, I wonder what happens if you takeout 50% of steels structural integrity with that much pushing down, at a 1000 its 10%
Come on guys, ask yourselfs the tough questions and open your eyes to science.

Just because you can now store where everyone was and is, what they like, what they fear who they talk to and who they love. It does not mean we should so spy upon our fellow man in a dystopia far worse then 1984
LonelyMargarita
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
1845 Posts
November 26 2009 17:03 GMT
#139
On November 27 2009 01:43 Superiorwolf wrote:
I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous.

When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit.

*I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable.


I love how you guys are still completely ignoring every post that counters your asinine claims. The fire didn't melt the steal. The fire weakened the steal. This is what happens when you heat steal. Combined with the impact from the plane, the structural integrity of the building near the impact point was no longer sufficient to hold the weight above it.

You can tell who in this thread doesn't have a degree in engineering.
I <3 서지훈
InDaHouse
Profile Joined May 2008
Sweden956 Posts
November 26 2009 17:10 GMT
#140
On November 27 2009 00:59 1tym wrote:
Sigh..

To all the people who say the Jet fuel has melted the steel frames and therefore caused the collapse of the building...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYTEjXc2S1Y

Common sense people....


lol do you think a tiny experiment can prove anything? If one scientist say it is so it DOESN'T mean it is de facto standard.

That fucking Danish alcoholic scientist which the Truth Movement reffering to is rejected by all other high knowledge scientists in Europe. There were some interesting documentaries about the Truth Movement here in Sweden. Conclusion is that they are a bunch of idiots and it is a pity people believe in there lame theories.
Stork protoss legend
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 47m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 263
RuFF_SC2 177
StarCraft: Brood War
Sharp 261
HiyA 160
sSak 117
Sexy 87
NaDa 76
Icarus 10
Britney 0
League of Legends
JimRising 746
Counter-Strike
Coldzera 369
Other Games
summit1g12073
shahzam969
C9.Mang0255
ViBE243
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV6
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 88
• davetesta35
• practicex 4
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21063
League of Legends
• Stunt252
• Lourlo126
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
7h 47m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
10h 47m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 6h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 10h
CSO Cup
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 14h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.