The 9/11 theories superthread - Page 37 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1081 Old 12-30-2008, 05:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

I'd be curious as to why building 7 even collapsed. No steel building had ever collapsed due to fire prior to this. It wasn't struck by a plane and had very little fire in it. The only evidence would have been an examination of the steel and that was sent overseas ASAP. The evidence was removed. I wonder why. Witnesses on the ground had said they heard very loud explosions prior to the towers falling, and the buildings fell at near free-fall speed. Everything is consistent with a conspiracy.

I really stopped paying attention to you back when you claimed not trading with japan was america starting WWII.



https://www.veggieboards.com/boards/s...&postcount=108

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests View Post

Have you heard about the oil embargo Roosevelt put on Japan? There's no way a person can influence me that Japan "started" it.

notice her emphasis on "there's no way a person can influence me"

she's not open minded to arguments.



she's a knee jerk unthinking anti-american.

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1082 Old 12-30-2008, 05:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

anti-american.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#1083 Old 12-30-2008, 07:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

I really stopped paying attention to you back when you claimed not trading with japan was america starting WWII.



https://www.veggieboards.com/boards/s...&postcount=108

notice her emphasis on "there's no way a person can influence me"

she's not open minded to arguments.



she's a knee jerk unthinking anti-american.

You've responded to many posts I've made since then, so I'm assuming you just can't find anything that refutes my statements. I'm not even a female so I have no idea why you're using the term her. My belief is simply that there would have been no Pearl Harbor attack if there was no oil embargo, and I'm far from being the only person who feels this way. I tend to see our recent Presidents as being influenced by Corporate America, but Herbert Hoover and many Presidents before him did have some good in them. I want what's best for the country, and I don't feel recent Presidents have provided that. And it would help your case if you refuted what a person has said rather than trying to make them look bad.
rainforests1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1084 Old 12-30-2008, 07:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Wrong. A quick google search should turn up a result or two.



Steel doesn't react well to fire.



And if you want to mention a certain Spanish skyscraper that survived a fire, you might want to check on the status of the floors that were only supported by steel scaffolding. And that collapse was due only to fire, not structural damage from plane impact or structural debris.

I'd be curious as to a link, but everything I've ever read indicates I am right. I'm just going by books I've read.
rainforests1 is offline  
#1085 Old 12-30-2008, 07:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Wrong again. WTC7 was burning quite well. Look for photos and videos of the south side of the building, not the north side.



Also bear in mind the structure of that building was a little odd due to the ConEd substation beneath it.



From wikipedia:

What I consider small and what you consider small are different. The fire didn't look very big from what I have seen. A building made of steel is very tough so even with odd structure, there is no reason a fire as small as that one should be able to cause a building to collapse.
rainforests1 is offline  
#1086 Old 12-30-2008, 09:45 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,551
there was a rather interesting documentary about building 7 on telly here in canada last night. just saying.
jeneticallymodified is offline  
#1087 Old 12-30-2008, 05:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

I'd be curious as to a link, but everything I've ever read indicates I am right. I'm just going by books I've read.



Take the Madrid skyscraper fire.



Which part of the building collapsed?



--



Steel is tough, but it weakens greatly in fire. That's why they spray fire retardant on steel beams in skyscrapers. It's to prevent the transfer of heat to the beams, weakening them to the point of collapse.
das_nut is offline  
#1088 Old 12-31-2008, 07:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Take the Madrid skyscraper fire.



Which part of the building collapsed?



--



Steel is tough, but it weakens greatly in fire. That's why they spray fire retardant on steel beams in skyscrapers. It's to prevent the transfer of heat to the beams, weakening them to the point of collapse.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html

Maybe I'm not correct on this, but it looks like a much bigger fire with hotter temperatures than what happened on 9/11, and the building never collapsed from pictures they show. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like a bad comparison to me.
rainforests1 is offline  
#1089 Old 12-31-2008, 07:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
das_nut, I'll give you credit. You're trying to refute what I say without resorting to name-calling. It's always nice to have conversations like that. I'd be curious what you say about this article. Wouldn't duration of the fire be a big issue as well?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm
rainforests1 is offline  
#1090 Old 12-31-2008, 01:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

das_nut, I'll give you credit. You're trying to refute what I say without resorting to name-calling. It's always nice to have conversations like that. I'd be curious what you say about this article. Wouldn't duration of the fire be a big issue as well?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm

duration of the fire in and of itself would have very little to do with whether or not it would cause the buildings to fall.



Neither of the bldgs you are comparing with the Towers was hit by a plane full of jet fuel traveling at 500 + mph.



The towers did not fall because of one particular event, it was a combination of events. Airplane hitting bldg, velocity of plane and resulting explosion would have weakened the supports over multiple floors.



Ensuing fire that engulfed multiple floors would have softened already weakend steal supports.



Softened steal supports unable to hold the weight of floors above, collapse. Creating a pancake effect as the upper floors drop, creating sudden expulsions of air pressure (windows/air exploding outward).



There are some very basic laws of physics that came into play on 911 which resulted in the collapse of the bldgs. Gravity being one of them.



I truly am sorry it is so hard for some people to grasp the resulting damage a plane traveling that fast will do to the inside of a bldg, you know like cutting through water lines, electric lines, etc. Not to mention how once an opening is created between floors how easy it would be for the fire to spread down/up...
havocjohn is offline  
#1091 Old 12-31-2008, 03:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
The Madrid tower was 28 floors.



First 16 floors were reinforced concrete.



17th floor was a concrete slab that prevented further collapse.



The perimeter slab above that floor collapsed completely.



That was a small skyscraper compared to the WTC 1 & 2, with each floor being 4x the size of the Windsor building.
das_nut is offline  
#1092 Old 12-31-2008, 04:19 PM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post


From wikipedia:

Quote:
In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.



Building 7? 9-11? Unlucky 13?



Coincidence?



I think not.



Red is offline  
#1093 Old 12-31-2008, 04:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

das_nut, I'll give you credit. You're trying to refute what I say without resorting to name-calling. It's always nice to have conversations like that. I'd be curious what you say about this article. Wouldn't duration of the fire be a big issue as well?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm



sorry. I was watching this movie Nanjing and it and the attitude in the previous conversation really got to me. It was intemporate of me.

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
#1094 Old 01-01-2009, 05:57 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

duration of the fire in and of itself would have very little to do with whether or not it would cause the buildings to fall.



Neither of the bldgs you are comparing with the Towers was hit by a plane full of jet fuel traveling at 500 + mph.



The towers did not fall because of one particular event, it was a combination of events. Airplane hitting bldg, velocity of plane and resulting explosion would have weakened the supports over multiple floors.



Ensuing fire that engulfed multiple floors would have softened already weakend steal supports.



Softened steal supports unable to hold the weight of floors above, collapse. Creating a pancake effect as the upper floors drop, creating sudden expulsions of air pressure (windows/air exploding outward).



There are some very basic laws of physics that came into play on 911 which resulted in the collapse of the bldgs. Gravity being one of them.



I truly am sorry it is so hard for some people to grasp the resulting damage a plane traveling that fast will do to the inside of a bldg, you know like cutting through water lines, electric lines, etc. Not to mention how once an opening is created between floors how easy it would be for the fire to spread down/up...



That still doesn't explain building 7 though.
rainforests1 is offline  
#1095 Old 01-01-2009, 06:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

The Madrid tower was 28 floors.



First 16 floors were reinforced concrete.



17th floor was a concrete slab that prevented further collapse.



The perimeter slab above that floor collapsed completely.



That was a small skyscraper compared to the WTC 1 & 2, with each floor being 4x the size of the Windsor building.

Does the same apply to the Venezuela building in the link as well? What were the temperatures? My understanding is that the temperature would be the biggest issue as to whether steel would melt. According to the link, it was no more than 500 degrees. That's completely insufficient.
rainforests1 is offline  
#1096 Old 01-01-2009, 01:56 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,339
RF1,



Radical Muslims did it.



The gatekeepers were sleeping when they should have been paying attention. The arrogance of the Bush admin blinded them to the possibility of an attack.

Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#1097 Old 01-01-2009, 07:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

Does the same apply to the Venezuela building in the link as well? What were the temperatures? My understanding is that the temperature would be the biggest issue as to whether steel would melt. According to the link, it was no more than 500 degrees. That's completely insufficient.



I really wonder about this.



A long time before 9/11, I was reading a book on log cabin design and structure.



One of the pictures showed a log cabin fire where the log cabin used a steel W-beam supported by several wooden beams. The wooden beams had charred but kept the W-beam suspended. The W-beam had visibily sagged due to the heat of the fire.



This would seem to indicate to me that burning wood-derived materials (such as paper) should be hot enough to seriously weaken steel structures.



In addition, the requirement for spraying steel beams with a fireproofing substance would indicate a fear that such materials could be damaged by fire. (The Venezualan structure, btw, was fireproofed).



The WTC compound and nearby buildings had structural damage due to the 9/11 attacks. A good example of this is the Deutsche Bank building.



WTC7 appears to have suffered similar damage, but in addition, continued to burn.
das_nut is offline  
#1098 Old 01-02-2009, 06:06 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
That doesn't really do much for me. My understanding is that temperature increases over time. The fires just simply could not have been hot enough to melt steel. What was the temperature?
rainforests1 is offline  
#1099 Old 01-02-2009, 06:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
I was going through the site you reference and it is a complete joke. I couldn't find any recorded temperature for the fires at all. It should be the first issue talked about. I'm not saying it's not there, but it's hard to find.
rainforests1 is offline  
#1100 Old 01-02-2009, 06:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...osamatape.html

Could anyone look at a person in the eye and say that really looks like him?
rainforests1 is offline  
#1101 Old 01-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

That doesn't really do much for me. My understanding is that temperature increases over time. The fires just simply could not have been hot enough to melt steel. What was the temperature?



Why do you think that the collapse of the WTC requires fires hot enough to melt steel?
das_nut is offline  
#1102 Old 01-02-2009, 11:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
I'd say that was a poor quality tape.
das_nut is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off