- 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
re: Why didn't the Hard Rock building collapse like WTC building 7?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 12:52 pm to BugAC
Posted on 10/17/19 at 12:52 pm to BugAC
Y'all are arguing with someone who won't accept ANYTHING other than... "You're right. We were lied to. The Bush administration did it to get us into a war." That's all he'll accept.
1
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:05 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Y'all are arguing with someone who won't accept ANYTHING other than... "You're right. We were lied to. The Bush administration did it to get us into a war." That's all he'll accept.
Just because the official explanation doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean that I believe those conclusions.
The official explanation doesn't make sense to me. I'm having difficultly believing that falling debris can ignite a fire comprehensively enough at the base of 24 column beams to cause a full and simultaneous building collapse.
Why not a partial collapse? That seems more probable. That is some column beams will fail before others.
You believe the fire weakened all 24 columns equally from beginning of the fire to failure to the point where all 24 failed simultaneously.
That is what you believe and you want me to believe.
Not plausible.
ETA: in fact WTC buildings 3,4, 5 and 6 partially collapsed as expected.
This post was edited on 10/17/19 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:08 pm to GumboPot
What a low IQ thread
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Not plausible.
Then what is. What do you think happened? What is your unofficial explanation? Not "well, it could have been thermite or nanothermite" or hell, even termites or whatever.. what happened on 9/11?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:30 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Then what is.
High probability: no collapse.
Low probability: partial collapse.
Zero probability: simultaneous beam failure.
quote:
What do you think happened?
IDK. I really don't.
quote:
What is your unofficial explanation?
Column beams were cut at strategic locations.
I know that statement challenges conventional wisdom and confirmation bias but buildings do fall when their structural members are cut. It is very simple logic.
quote:
Not "well, it could have been thermite or nanothermite" or hell, even termites or whatever.. what happened on 9/11?
Thermite is used to cut steel beams.
Don't let the prefix "nano" in front of nanothermite trigger you. It only means that the granules of ferric oxide and aluminum oxide were ground down to a nanometer distance. (More likely precipitated out of solution to get the granule down to the molecular level, which is really easy BTW.) Why is that important? It's important because the smaller the granule the more reaction surface area you have and with a higher reaction surface area you can burn at higher temperatures for shorter periods of time.
quote:
what happened on 9/11?
A lot of things. I'm just focused on building 7.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:32 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Don't let the prefix "nano" in front of nanothermite trigger you. It only means that the granules of ferric oxide and aluminum oxide were ground down to a nanometer distance.
No one in 20 years has been able to recreate this fairy dust you swear is real. Nanothermite is the biggest lie to come out of the truther movement
This post was edited on 10/17/19 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:36 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Column beams were cut at strategic locations.
How?
O.K....once cut, how were they made to fail?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:40 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
No one in 20 years has been able to recreate this fairy dust you swear is real. Nanothermite is the biggest lie to come out of the truther movement
You are triggered by the prefix nano too. Like I said, nano is just a descriptor for the partial size.
Here, you can buy some nano ferric oxide: LINK
and
nano aluminum oxide: LINK
Mix them together to make your own nano thermite.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:43 pm to Dale51
quote:
O.K....once cut, how were they made to fail?
I don't understand your question. Cutting beams is how you typically make them fail.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:46 pm to GumboPot
And like I said, no one has made and tested this fairy dust. If it's the miracle product you claim it to be, we'd see it in use.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:46 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I don't understand your question. Cutting beams is how you typically make them fail.
They aren't cut to the point of failure otherwise the people cutting them would be in trouble.
How were they made to completely fail at the same time?
Would no one notice all the cutting going on??
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:46 pm to GumboPot
Who, in your scenario, did it? And "I don't know" is unacceptable. You have to have a name in mind. Who? Who did this?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:49 pm to SSpaniel
I've asked countless times to detail what he thinks actually happened and "I don't know" is usually the response.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:49 pm to Dale51
quote:
Would no one notice all the cutting going on??
Maybe they did the cutting at night, when the building was empty. Or, to go along with their nanothermite, they had silent, invisible torches with which to cut.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:52 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
And like I said, no one has made and tested this fairy dust. If it's the miracle product you claim it to be, we'd see it in use.
It is used. Used everyday.
Lot's of demonstrations on YouTube.
Like I said you are just triggered by the prefix nano.
In a typical batch of thermite you will have some partial sizes down to the nano level and some larger. The advantage of having smaller size is more surface area burning in a shorter period of time (i.e., power).
It's the same principle as using kindling to start a camp fire. Kindling has more surface area than camp fire logs.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:54 pm to GumboPot
I understand the theory, but I've seen no scale testing that proves any of this. Feel free to make some in your garage like you said you can do and conduct some scale testing to convince me.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:55 pm to Dale51
quote:
They aren't cut to the point of failure otherwise the people cutting them would be in trouble.
How were they made to completely fail at the same time?
Would no one notice all the cutting going on??
Thermite has a high ignition temperature. Around 700 degrees IIRC. A fire could and would ignite thermite. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:56 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Feel free to make some in your garage like you said you can do and conduct some scale testing to convince me.
Already done.
Just YouTube it.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:56 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Thermite has a high ignition temperature. Around 700 degrees IIRC. A fire could and would ignite thermite. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air.
That has nothing to do with the questions I've asked.
Page 8 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News