RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE

RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 12:38:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne BABABABABABABOMBS [image]local://upfiles/59055/27664036A33B4E9F847DC2936F5327A6.jpg[/image] Nah... I would rather you explain why there is no black charring from the fire and where the hell did all the insulation go? You know dont you? That shit is on there so well you need to literally chisel it off. Since this piece was obviously blown free of the falling mass, where the fuck did the insulation go? BIGGABDDAFOKNBOOM!!!!!! Depends on the type but if it was the spray on cementitious type then I suggest that it's rather brittle and crumbled off as the steel section deformed within it. You can actually see some remains on the top of the flange of that section. Also Real0ne you have to consider that the fire was localised and the collapse wasn't. i.e. was this section in a location exposed to the fire? The fire caused local weakness but the ultimate collapse was due to a cascading effect of floors above falling onto floors below. You know that whole (F = ma) thing where the F increases the greater the acceleration is. Getting run over by heavy plant at low speeds is just as deadly as getting hit by light cars at high speeds. The floors were not designed to withstand the impact loading of the floors falling from above i.e. once the steel (at the location of the fire) could no longer support the load. Simples come on now. I popped a beer because I thought this was going to be fun so dont let me down here now. You are the one who thinks NIST et al and the demolition....errrrmm I mean collapse is perfectly reasonable. Dont you even know or understand the claims that were made? It does not do any good to come in and try to have an effective debate with no bullets in your gun aye? So if you were up on your game like you wish us to believe you would have realized that the claim is that the planes impact dislodged the insulation. kool? So the only place the plane could dislodge the insulation is where it physically hit and that is where all that gray, errrrmmmmm I mean black smoke came from. You know the "impact zone!" Hence it follows that there would be char or at least smoke damage on the piece and there is none! You cant claim that other pieces scraped it off "clean" in the fall because you can see its lodged in the side of the building where it hit from being blasted errrmmmmm I mean collapsed away from the falling debris. Now that said its your job to put on your best expert exponential inverse trilateral stress testing hat and come up with an alternative explanation that anyone who does not worship the government ahem, couhg "experts"...cough.... Oh ps: see that white stuff on the vertical? Thats the insulation that is left!

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 12:44:19 PM)
The important question is, where is that steel member from originally???? Yes the planes dislodged the fire protection at other locations, I've mentioned this previously. Location location location. Tell me where that member is from and how you know where it's from? We know there was a fire right because we saw it, so what is your point? Why so hard to understand that the fire wasn't on every level and so not every piece of building fabric is going to be charred? Also believe it or not but fire protection is going to be removed in more than one way, i.e. the initial impact is one thing but that is nothing compared to the forces involved when the building collapsed.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 12:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: me You can actually see some remains on the top of the flange of that section. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Oh ps: see that white stuff on the vertical? Thats the insulation that is left! Thanks for confirming what I already stated.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 12:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 The important question is, where is that steel member from originally???? Yes the planes dislodged the fire protection at other locations, I've mentioned this previously. Location location location. Tell me where that member is from and how you know where it's from? We know there was a fire right because we saw it, so what is your point? Why so hard to understand that the fire wasn't on every level and so not every piece of building fabric is going to be charred? Also believe it or not but fire protection is going to be removed in more than one way, i.e. the initial impact is one thing but that is nothing compared to the forces involved when the building collapsed. come on spare all the rhetoric and deference and stick with the fucking point ok. 1) if the piece was in the impact zzone it would be charred or at a minimum smoke damaged and there is none. 2) if the alleged plane or anything else scraped it off there would be scrap marks on the primer and there are none. 3) you can see the insulation is partially there on the vertical section. 4) you can see the insulation is none existent even in some corners where the pressures from the blast would be the least. So behave now and stick to the subject and if you got the goods get it done or simply be a man and concede the point.

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 1:30:38 PM)
Why would that Washington newspaper STEAL Alex Joneses blurb? They ought to hire their own reporters and do some real reporting- instead of relying on poor Alex Jones who works his finger to the bone trying to get the truth out about 7.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 1:53:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Why would that Washington newspaper STEAL Alex Joneses blurb? They ought to hire their own reporters and do some real reporting- instead of relying on poor Alex Jones who works his finger to the bone trying to get the truth out about 7. yeh I have to take note that is like major interesting. It means he is making a dent and their bullshit is becoming unpopular!

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 3:09:21 PM)
You don't know where that steel section is from, so you don't know what condition it should be in. This is all there is to it.

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 3:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Why would that Washington newspaper STEAL Alex Joneses blurb? They ought to hire their own reporters and do some real reporting- instead of relying on poor Alex Jones who works his finger to the bone trying to get the truth out about 7. yeh I have to take note that is like major interesting. It means he is making a dent and their bullshit is becoming unpopular! Oh I am sure they will try to set him up. They HATE when he reads their white papers.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 4:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 You don't know where that steel section is from, so you don't know what condition it should be in. This is all there is to it. well we know it was supposed to have insulation on it! You can see it HAD insulation on it. [image]local://upfiles/59055/27664036A33B4E9F847DC2936F5327A6.jpg[/image] 1) if it was from the impact area it would be charred. 2) it is not charred therefore IT IS NOT FROM THE IMPACT AREA. get it? 3) if it was stripped by other falling debris it would be badly scratched 4) it is NOT BADLY SCRATCHED. I cant imagine ron wanting to get involved in this any longer but just in case; Maybe he will be kind enough to tell you since you obviously have no clu what you are looking at and what that discoloration means around that hole. the precise location is a total fucking red herring. nice try though This is one of those precious 911 truther moments playing with a mouse in a jar.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 4:52:20 PM)
I see... A column section (short and stocky) in the centre. Connected to a section of beam either side. The left end of the left beam has obviously sheared away from a bolted connection. At the centre of the central column piece there is a shallow steel section that has sheared off (probably the end of one of those composite floor trusses). The beams have never had fire protection applied (probably they were protected by the ceiling boarding perhaps). The column had some kind of fibrous protection (still evident). At the top of the picture on the central column you can see a bolted column splice connection. (Probably if you could pan up you'd see the column section above isn't still attached). This piece fell away and remains on the ground in the same form (without significant twisting and warping) as sheared away from the structure. It's typical for a column splice connection to be located just above a floor level (where the column is getting full lateral restraint from floor beams). I don't know what that white stuff is (perhaps some kind of aluminium framing mullions). I know a lot by looking at that picture but I don't know which floor it came from, I perhaps know is was part of the central core. I perhaps know it was one of the last pieces to fall because it's at the top of the debris pile. So it wouldn't be that scratched up anyway (although it's not exactly in pristine condition). If you look at the bottom flange of the beam on the left you can see it is warped out of shape. So after it fell and came to rest another piece of debris hit it, bending the flange downwards slightly. I know this because it's a local deformation as the other parts of the flange are still straight. Also I know it happened on the ground because there has to be an upwards reaction or the debris wouldn't have deformed the bottom flange (no resistance to force unless fixed in space). It's possible it happened when it was still fixed to the structure however. What can you tell me about that photo other than a load of bullshit assumptions?

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 5:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I see... A column section (short and stocky) in the centre. Connected to a section of beam either side. The left end of the left beam has obviously sheared away from a bolted connection. At the centre of the central column piece there is a shallow steel section that has sheared off (probably the end of one of those composite floor trusses). The beams have never had fire protection applied (probably they were protected by the ceiling boarding perhaps). The column had some kind of fibrous protection (still evident). At the top of the picture on the central column you can see a bolted column splice connection. (Probably if you could pan up you'd see the column section above isn't still attached). This piece fell away and remains on the ground in the same form (without significant twisting and warping) as sheared away from the structure. It's typical for a column splice connection to be located just above a floor level (where the column is getting full lateral restraint from floor beams). I don't know what that white stuff is (perhaps some kind of aluminium framing mullions). I know a lot by looking at that picture but I don't know which floor it came from, I perhaps know is was part of the central core. I perhaps know it was one of the last pieces to fall because it's at the top of the debris pile. So it wouldn't be that scratched up anyway (although it's not exactly in pristine condition). If you look at the bottom flange of the beam on the left you can see it is warped out of shape. So after it fell and came to rest another piece of debris hit it, bending the flange downwards slightly. I know this because it's a local deformation as the other parts of the flange are still straight. Also I know it happened on the ground because there has to be an upwards reaction or the debris wouldn't have deformed the bottom flange (no resistance to force unless fixed in space). It's possible it happened when it was still fixed to the structure however. What can you tell me about that photo other than a load of bullshit assumptions? nice complete avoidance of every point I made and replacing them with complete irrelevancies. Some dumb ass might think you actually are making a legitimate case here, but then that i snot me unfortunately for you so let me simplify this for you. Lets see if yo ucan manage the correct identification of what you see in this picture. I dont beleive for more than one fucking second your experience extends even one inch beyond your keyboard. [image]local://upfiles/59055/D127D713CA3F4354A0A2D71CF8C0CF8F.jpg[/image]

thornhappy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 5:39:58 PM)
Arguing with Real, Rule, or pahunk is naught but a quixotic effort.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 5:44:58 PM)
I've already told you what I think that is (end of composite floor truss sheared away). What do you think it is? Is this the key to the truth of the conspiracy? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Wtc_floor_truss_system.png[/img] I could be wrong.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 5:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Arguing with Real, Rule, or pahunk is naught but a quixotic effort. Too true but yet I can't resist.[:D]

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 6:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Arguing with Real, Rule, or pahunk is naught but a quixotic effort. Too true but yet I can't resist.[:D] some people enjoy getting slapped around.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 6:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I see... A column section (short and stocky) in the centre. Connected to a section of beam either side. The left end of the left beam has obviously sheared away from a bolted connection. At the centre of the central column piece there is a shallow steel section that has sheared off (probably the end of one of those composite floor trusses). The beams have never had fire protection applied (probably they were protected by the ceiling boarding perhaps). The column had some kind of fibrous protection (still evident). At the top of the picture on the central column you can see a bolted column splice connection. (Probably if you could pan up you'd see the column section above isn't still attached). This piece fell away and remains on the ground in the same form (without significant twisting and warping) as sheared away from the structure. It's typical for a column splice connection to be located just above a floor level (where the column is getting full lateral restraint from floor beams). I don't know what that white stuff is (perhaps some kind of aluminium framing mullions). I know a lot by looking at that picture but I don't know which floor it came from, I perhaps know is was part of the central core. I perhaps know it was one of the last pieces to fall because it's at the top of the debris pile. So it wouldn't be that scratched up anyway (although it's not exactly in pristine condition). If you look at the bottom flange of the beam on the left you can see it is warped out of shape. So after it fell and came to rest another piece of debris hit it, bending the flange downwards slightly. I know this because it's a local deformation as the other parts of the flange are still straight. Also I know it happened on the ground because there has to be an upwards reaction or the debris wouldn't have deformed the bottom flange (no resistance to force unless fixed in space). It's possible it happened when it was still fixed to the structure however. What can you tell me about that photo other than a load of bullshit assumptions? nice complete avoidance of every point I made and replacing them with complete irrelevancies. Some dumb ass might think you actually are making a legitimate case here, but then that i snot me unfortunately for you so let me simplify this for you. Lets see if yo ucan manage the correct identification of what you see in this picture. I dont beleive for more than one fucking second your experience extends even one inch beyond your keyboard. [image]local://upfiles/59055/D127D713CA3F4354A0A2D71CF8C0CF8F.jpg[/image] I will help you: BIGBADAFUCKIN BOOM! oh and yeh you are wrong.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 6:15:00 PM)
Everyone is wrong according to you, you live on your own planet. I'm not sure I can be arsed with this interaction any longer. Your initial craziness was entertaining but now I'm starting to feel sorry for you and I hate feeling sorry for people.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 6:23:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Everyone is wrong according to you, you live on your own planet. I'm not sure I can be arsed with this interaction any longer. Your initial craziness was entertaining but now I'm starting to feel sorry for you and I hate feeling sorry for people. dont blame me cuz your shuck n jive dont work. This isnt like the hatfields and mccoys bullshit parlor talk you all like to do on other threads. Here you only got one answer and trying to pretend otherwise has just shown everyone how you ducked out of the big fuckin badda boom. That means you know what it is and would rather look the fool than admit they blew that fucker all to hell.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 6:29:09 PM)
Now I'm not even sure what you are writing still qualifies as being English, I can barely understand your techno jargon regarding explosions. Read a book any book, read 'Alice in Wonderland' and the laws of our universe will make more sense from the knowledge you derive from that than what is currently in your head. I can't take your drivel seriously any longer, I've got to drivel saturation point.

thornhappy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/27/2010 8:43:55 PM)
Yourself, I guess. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Arguing with Real, Rule, or pahunk is naught but a quixotic effort. Too true but yet I can't resist.[:D] some people enjoy getting slapped around.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02