|
Is 1tym completely ignoring the posts about steel warping from heat and it has nothing to do with melting it?
Heres a question for you 1tym and your calculator.
Take everything above the collapse point, that starts leaning over and then drops, like if say... steel had given away and then snapped , sidetracking here. Ehm, taking everything above the collapse point. concrete, steel, wood... yeah everything.
Now lets say the average floor is 3 meters. Calculate all that energy, dropping down 3 meters and slamming into the next floor. Do you realy think the structure is built to withstand that? =)
Keep calculating everything in there as it goes down into the ground... and you should endup close to a kiloton or so of energy, going down into a 'small' area. Ground zero was hit by a tiny nuke in comparison.
|
Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick.
|
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote:
Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick.
NO YOU!
*throws up everywhere*
BLEEEEECCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
|
|
|
On November 27 2009 03:40 1tym wrote:
Haha... To everyone who still claim that the fire was the main factor for the collapse of two carefully and extraordinarily designed modern towers...
The common sense tells you that the fire burns upwards. When a fire burns, the hot air is less dense and thus rises. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel since it just doesn’t get as hot as the melting point but let's just say it can for the sake of argument.
Common sense tells you to inform yourself (at least google) a little better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
Ever heard of heat transfer? Well, one of the 3 methods is radiation, and that doesn't discriminate any direction, also, the tower isn't just one big box made of steel you know? There are a shitload of flammables inside it, from office utilities to cleaning chemicals, not to mention gas pipes and other such objects, and all of them can make fire to run downward.
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.
The only part that reached the maximum temperature is where plane hit, which was the upper part and the bottom parts were hardly affected (since fire burns upwards) by heat. The disintegration of steel structure in certain area is not enough to cause "gravitational collapse" so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. How can the undamaged stories below the impact zone offer no resistance at all? (Sky scrappers are designed like Pyramids with more supporting structures as you go lower)
Dude the amount of stuff you assume is overwhelming.
You say fire only burn upwards as if someone just lighted a fucking bonfire inside the building (By the way, did you know a candle's flame can reach over 1000°C?) Even if the fuel's flame only reached 700°C or whatever you want to believe, do you think the supersonic shocks of the explosion(s) and whatever other stuff happened inside the building after the crash don't matter one bit?
Then you say skyscrapers are designed like pyramids, where the hell you do you get your facts from? I can't even picture a god damned sky scraper with that design, pyramids are basically huge blocks of rock on top of each other (think a huge stair), there were only chambers inside (some of) them because they carved the rock after building the whole pyramid and made some kind of cave or tunnel.
The twin towers were designed to be like giant hollow tubes, you can easily google that, and if your extraordinary powers of common sense don't let you arrive at the reason for that then here's a wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_(structure)
Also if you refer to the calculation, the kinetic energy released by the plane crash was well within the limit the towers were built to survive. Refer to my earlier post.. I know there is no simple equation to determine this as there are various factors that will come in play in different circumstances, but you have to admit a lot of the events that took place on 9.11 was not sufficiently comprehensive through the official explanation provided by the US government.
Did you know that the kinetic energy equations(1/2*mV² and such) from that stupid site only apply to (ideal) rigid bodies? A plane that explodes and a building that can be brought down like that are not exactly rigid bodies.
Then you quote your figures as if you took them from some official site (like from the engineers who designed them, not the tourist guide that want to impress with some exaggerated facts like "hey did you know the tallest buildings of the world are so well built that they can withstand a boeing 707 hit?)
|
1tym you're being ridiculous x.x
|
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote:
Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick.
Yes, I see now but...
you have talked to atleast 100 engineers about 9/11 o.O
who´s the nolife now 
|
On November 26 2009 14:30 GTR wrote:
aw i thought this was about funny 911 phone calls.
|
Why do people so badly want to believe that government, the agency in the world most responsible for the stripping of inherent human rights, is correct about everything? It's like you're begging to not be free. It's INCREDIBLY ironic that the government supporters call theorization against power "sickening". We have all watched as the years go on and our government ignores the constitution less and less, etc. While 9/11 might be everything our administration claims it is, it is still very stupid and misguided to support them. Regardless if it was a hoax or not, did we use the death of a few thousand as an excuse to cause the death of a few hundred thousand? Yes.
All of the other countless proven events of corruption make theories on 9/11 much easier to believe.
|
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote:
Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick.
LOL @ you. http://www.ae911truth.org/
|
On November 27 2009 05:18 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote:
Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick. Yes, I see now but... you have talked to atleast 100 engineers about 9/11 o.O who´s the nolife now
ad hominem
At a top ten university in the world, while majoring in 4 different engineering fields, over the course of 5 years, I never met a single engineering major, grad student, or professor that thought anything was unusual about the impact and fire collapsing the buildings. How many Nobel Laureates have you taken a class from? At this point I honestly believe you guys are just trolling, so have fun. If you aren't, and actually want to learn something, go take some materials science and civil engineering night courses at your local university.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://tango.nncdn.com/nn/0/485/763/o_500505.gif)
