- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 9/12/22 at 1:58 pm to Indefatigable
that NONE of the "truths" are the truth
we have been lied to over and over (not just 9/11)
so asking questions to define something is bad?
I do not jump to a conclusion, if the answers are not conclusive.
I attempt to find more facts, and being as this is a
DISCUSSION BOARD,
thats kinda how this thing works
we have been lied to over and over (not just 9/11)
quote:
Or are you one of those “I’m just asking questions, I don’t know the truth” people?
so asking questions to define something is bad?
I do not jump to a conclusion, if the answers are not conclusive.
I attempt to find more facts, and being as this is a
DISCUSSION BOARD,
thats kinda how this thing works
Posted on 9/12/22 at 1:58 pm to AUbagman
quote:
Um, the heat weakened the steel, causing the upper floors to collapse and pancake the rest of the structure.
That's too adult for the conspiracy guys.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:00 pm to Bridget O
quote:
So how did Bldg 7 fall in on itself? It WASNT HIT.
I’m sure two of the largest buildings in the world collapsing directly next to WTC 7 had nothing to do with it. It was probably structurally as good as new and was blown up by the government for reasons.
It’s not like several other buildings in the vicinity also collapsed, were crushed, or had to be demolished in the years after (extreme sarcasm).
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:02 pm to AtticusOSullivan
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:02 pm to dr
quote:
and most structures, and pressure vessels are built with a minimum of 300% safety factor
so, at 50% reduction you are down to 250% SF
also the heat would be transfered thru all the steel,
this would cool the steel directly under the fire,
transfering heat
But we're also discussing buildings that were build in the mid 60's not modern day high rises..
And I think you're off on your percentages. .Factor of Safety requirements are to determine load a building can hold.. they don't factor in a Boeing 767 that weighs 300,000 plus lbs with a little over 20,000 gallons of fuel to be slammed into the side of said building..
Impact alone would have severely damaged structural supports and certainly would not be operating at that 250% you pulled out your arse.. Couple that with pockets of heat that were reaching nearly 1800 degrees and you got a recipe for disaster..
There's no grand conspiracy here perpetuated our government to go fight a useless war with a nation that has no intrinsic value..
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:04 pm to RogerTheShrubber
ever done a real stress analysis?
you know, with math? It is not very easy, not at all
just define all the variables, and aprox values,
heat transfer, available heat, quench effect thru convection
the amount of heat that would be absorbed thru the whole structure is massive
the fire could be 1000° but barely raise the average temp of the steel 1/2 that or less
but, it's ok
I'll wait
you know, with math? It is not very easy, not at all
just define all the variables, and aprox values,
heat transfer, available heat, quench effect thru convection
the amount of heat that would be absorbed thru the whole structure is massive
the fire could be 1000° but barely raise the average temp of the steel 1/2 that or less
but, it's ok
I'll wait
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:05 pm to dr
quote:oooo, now do an actual relevant temperature, like the 1500-ish that jet fuel burns at, or the estimated 1800 degree conditions in the buildings interiors.
the fire could be 1000° but barely raise the average temp of the steel 1/2 that or less
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:05 pm to Indefatigable
cool,
now do the parking lots of cars burnt, next to not burnt ones
now do the parking lots of cars burnt, next to not burnt ones
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:05 pm to Indefatigable
You have heard of Aliens and UFO's right? UFO phaser particle beam firing on twin towers hit WTC7... We thought everyone knew that.
Signed: CIA and NSA
Signed: CIA and NSA
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:06 pm to Indefatigable
heat transfer is heat transfer, regardless
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:07 pm to dr
quote:
cool, now do the parking lots of cars burnt, next to not burnt ones
No clue what you are talking about. But the answer is obviously that FDNY set non consecutive cars on fire for reasons in order to distract people.
After all, every fire in parking lots always burns every car in the lot.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:08 pm to dr
Youre throwing out empty platitudes with no real meaning.
Why did this store collapse when the issue was with the weight of an Air Conditioning unit?

Why did this store collapse when the issue was with the weight of an Air Conditioning unit?
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:08 pm to DarkDrifter
the building was designed to take a plane hit,
then add 200% safety factor
and yes, safety factors of 300% were considered the norm since the advent of power boilers
then add 200% safety factor
and yes, safety factors of 300% were considered the norm since the advent of power boilers
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:09 pm to dr
quote:
the building was designed to take a plane hit,
Not the type of plane hit that it took. Not even close.
It was designed to withstand random idiots in private planes hitting them on accident while joyriding around Manhattan. Not a 767 loaded with fuel hitting it at full throttle.
But regardless, you don’t think planes hit the towers so why are you talking planes?
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:11 pm to dr
quote:
the building was designed to take a plane hit,
then add 200% safety factor
and yes, safety factors of 300% were considered the norm since the advent of power boilers
The hit didnt bring the building down. The loss of structural integrity caused by heat did.
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:11 pm to BayouBlitz
The amount of Google engineers in this thread is awesome. Are you guys doctors in your free time?
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:12 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Youre throwing out empty platitudes with no real meaning. Why did this store collapse when the issue was with the weight of an Air Conditioning unit?
“If you can’t show me pictures of the HVAC unit fully intact in the wreckage that were taken the day of the collapse then that story is a lie”
-dr
Posted on 9/12/22 at 2:12 pm to ob1pimpbobi
scientist, you?
(technical physical metrology)
thats the science of physical measurement
you know the stuff we were discussing above
(technical physical metrology)
thats the science of physical measurement
you know the stuff we were discussing above
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 2:20 pm
Popular
Back to top


1



