More tin foil for Changleen's hat...
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
I guess the planes were used to ignite the fuses.
There were no planes, it was all done with computer graphics and it was a cruise missile that hit the pentagon.I Are Baboon said:
Yet another reason why economists are not engineers.
Everyone knows that the Chills Alien from Area 51 is really to blame. He used his mind-control ray on those poor muslims who were innocently on their way to an Exacto/Stanley Trade Convention.
An element of a monthly magazine?clancy98 said:
if you want to howl even more about this, check out what the ya-ya sisterhood is saying over at dummocratiKKK wunderground
i'd offer choice pieces, but something this good has to be appreciated in its entirety
i'd offer choice pieces, but something this good has to be appreciated in its entirety
rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt...................when you get a degree in engineering feel free to call me and we'll talk........
$tinkle said:
BBWWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The DUmmies are too stoned to know O from X.
hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm...........let me think, which is stronger, steel or aluminum???? I guess they faked the surveliance video of that 757 impacting the ground just before hitting the side of the Pentagon...........that couldn't have disipated some of the energy..................nah couldn't have........ :nuts:
Yeah I know... People always say there was not enough aircraft parts to be a crash site. Ever seen a plane crash in real life...I have. I watched a Beechcraft Bonanza crash into a golf course at my first job flying. Other than the prop that snapped off before it hit the ground we could not even tell a plane had hit the ground. Just a small blackened 7-10ft hole about 4 ft deep. There is an old airforce film showing an F-4 fighter hitting a cinderblock wall doing over 500 mph. It TOTALLY atomized the ENTIRE aircraft... NOTHING LEFT!!!!Andyman_1970 said:
I have to say I'm really impressed with the high quality of your counter-arguments against the controlled demolition theory. However I suppose people who have conditioned themselves into blind belief structures over the years are the last people who are ever going to have the balls to actually question their leaders and examine the evidence for themselves.
Anyone care to explain to me how the Jet fuel weakened the towers enough to cause their collapse given that it doesn't burn hot enough?
Anyone care to comment on the fact that despite that the bottom 2/3 of the towers suffered no damage, they offered no resistance to the fall of the upper section?
Anyone care to comment on the collapse of WTC7 8 hours later?
You guys are all 'Yeah, right' and 'huh huh look at the conspiricy nut' but you have nothing to discount any of these points other than half cocked explanations carried out by interested parties, (which are mostly disputed by serious independant critics) and your own blindly held beliefs.
Anyone care to explain to me how the Jet fuel weakened the towers enough to cause their collapse given that it doesn't burn hot enough?
Anyone care to comment on the fact that despite that the bottom 2/3 of the towers suffered no damage, they offered no resistance to the fall of the upper section?
Anyone care to comment on the collapse of WTC7 8 hours later?
You guys are all 'Yeah, right' and 'huh huh look at the conspiricy nut' but you have nothing to discount any of these points other than half cocked explanations carried out by interested parties, (which are mostly disputed by serious independant critics) and your own blindly held beliefs.
What is the temperature of Jet Fuel burning? What is the melting point of steel girders?Changleen said:
What is the weight of the top third of the Tower? How much weight is the bottom 2/3 of the Tower is design to hold up if you collapse the weight of the top third on it?Changleen said:
What hit it? How much diesel fuel burnt before the collapse?Changleen said:
I should point out that all I know about you Changleen is that you post a lot in the PD forum. So this is more of a personal thing for me and not a criticism of you or your opinions.Changleen said:
One night after lots of drinking I had a knockdown argument with a good friend over the WTC. We were in NY at the time, so that was the backdrop. And he thought there was a conspiracy and I did not.
One thing I learned from this argument (besides don't drink and argue) is that conspiracy theorists offer no real proof. All they can do is point out the flaws in the "accepted theories" and simply pose questions most of us cannot answer.
I did not read the FEMA report, and I have no definitive answer to what happened, because I am not a terrorist or a person inside the WTC on 9/11. I saw what we all saw on TV, and call me a fool, but it is easy to believe a jet plane crashing into a building would cause it to collapse.
I did look over one site questioning WTC7. He disputed pictures, the designs of building fuel pumps, and his conclusion was the report about the collapse was a joke. I only skimmed even just the highlights, and he seemed like a fool to me.
Again, you can call me an idiot for not questioning the government more. I guess I just don't have the time or the energy to do it.
I do not know the temperature of burning jet fuel off hand. I also never recall hearing anything about the girders actually melting. However it certainly would be hot enough to heat them to glowing (because burning WOOD can do that), which would remove any kind of heat treatment they would have had. And anyone who has heated a steel bar with an oxyacetylene torch can tell you how easy it is to bend once it's glowing red. The girders didn't need to melt.
And as for the two thirds holding up the one third....come on. If you have a degree in engineering, you should understand transients. One floor goes at a time. I believe it's called pancaking. One floor goes, it fall to the next one, the impact force plus the weight is imparted on the lower floor...which causes and even larger impact and larger weight....the ituation gets worse and worse. And down she comes.....
And as for the two thirds holding up the one third....come on. If you have a degree in engineering, you should understand transients. One floor goes at a time. I believe it's called pancaking. One floor goes, it fall to the next one, the impact force plus the weight is imparted on the lower floor...which causes and even larger impact and larger weight....the ituation gets worse and worse. And down she comes.....
Huh let me think a huge building right next to it collapsed - you think some rather large derbis from that rather large building damaged WTC 7, no to mention the fire...........Chang you may have an engineering degree, but you sure aren't sounding like one on this subject........Changleen said:
Oh! Oh! Am I sounding like one? Eh? Am I?Andyman_1970 said:Chang you may have an engineering degree, but you sure aren't sounding like on on this subject........
Ok engineer, how hot does structural hot rolled steel have to burn for it to begin to loose it's strength characteristics? Also, those floors were made up of I beams they were light weight trusses - so is more heat required or less heat to weaken a truss over an I beam of of similar weight bearing characteristics?Changleen said:
See Mike's "pancake" comments...................Changleen said:
If you think I'm walking in lock step with some government agency or ideology you're sadly mistaken
The only think the "other side" has offered up is a bunch of rhetoric, this joker from Texas A&M isn't even a scientist or a science background - if I'm going to consider anything I'm certainly going to have to be from someone or a party that has the credentials to back up what they were saying rather than some frothing criminal justice prof.......I'm from Missouri, you're gonna have to "show me".Changleen said:
Actually Mike you sure are, here, here's your honorary RideMonkey engineering degree..............well done............MMike said:
Sweet! I'll hang it right beside my real one!Andyman_1970 said:Actually Mike you sure are, here, here's your honorary RideMonkey engineering degree..............well done............
Changleen said:
NOt everyone. Just you.clancy98 said:
a few quickies:Changleen said:
- give it back.
- bush has degrees from harvard & yale (yeah, i know it hurts)
- from what school (so that we may look up the accreditation)?
This is just absurd; there is really nothing else that can be said...N8 said:
Indeed......clancy98 said:
I worked the crash of the KAL flight that went CFIT on approach to Guam and we almost completely rebuilt that 747 nearly every bit of it was recovered. However, I have also been at crash sites in which you had no idea if the source of the smoking hole was either aircraft or meteor.
lew rockwell has thoughts on this as well; unfortunately, they aren't his usual cogent analysis.
to wit:
to wit:
maybe i should show him photos of me launching off my bike, which suggest that although airborne, i am nonetheless stable & motionless. Then, i'll take a picture of his head, thus proving he doesn't have a brain, as it's not visible.
The maximum adibatic combustion temp for JP-8 is 2300K. JP-8 is a military grade aviation fuel that contains higher amounts of corrosion inhibitors, anti-ice additives, lubricants and flash point reducers. The jetliners that hit the WTC were fueled with Jet A-1. I can't find the the MA for Jet A-1 but I do know that since Jet A-1 contains very little of the above listed additives and because it is a more pure fuel burns hotter.
Even if the fuel was burning at 1/2 of MA (maximum adibatic) the temp would be more than hot enough to degrade heat treatment on the sturctural members of the WTC.
Chang, you really ought to get your info from people who know what they are talking about in regard to this stuff rather than from crackpot internet conspiracy theorists. It is your "blind belief structure" based on nonsense provided by wacko's that is the real danger here.
Even if the fuel was burning at 1/2 of MA (maximum adibatic) the temp would be more than hot enough to degrade heat treatment on the sturctural members of the WTC.
Chang, you really ought to get your info from people who know what they are talking about in regard to this stuff rather than from crackpot internet conspiracy theorists. It is your "blind belief structure" based on nonsense provided by wacko's that is the real danger here.
Not especially. You really aren't as clever as you think you are, you know...clancy98 said:
Well who isn't?$tinkle said:i always thought he was partial to this:
