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

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 4:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours. There were no planes. some think that it was a missile.

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 4:54:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Who said anything about there being planes I didn't, I've always argued that it was a gigantic sea creature that did it. There was no gigantic sea creature.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 4:55:17 PM)
Another one of Real0ne's jury members has turned up I see.

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 4:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours. There were no planes. some think that it was a missile. I had read up about that suggestion a couple of years ago and my conclusion was that there was no solid evidence for missiles being present: missiles are a false trail.

JonnieBoy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 4:59:08 PM)
I don't give a toss if you're an archithect, an engineer or Disney waiting for the movie rights ... you have to be under fucking auto suggestion to believe a fire ALONE did that ... I mean ... fuck me ... next thing you'll be wanting us to believe that McDonalds food is wholesome and fucking nutritious I've seen controlled demolition and I know what I'm seeing there. Pirate

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne You probly also know that the wtc was built with 5 times redundancy. The only physical structure I know of with five times redundancy is your brain and there is some keen debate as to if that is actually a physical structure rather than one of pure theory. Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours. I mention these things continuously but you never listen because such points are inconvenient to your proposition. why do you pretend there was a fire capable of taking out the building when there was no fire of anywhere near that magnitude. [image]local://upfiles/59055/50AF8478B82346BCA31244C22B8ECE5D.jpg[/image] here you wanna see a fire. this is the fire from the last building I posted. [image]local://upfiles/59055/C689993227E9467692F12F9A26EC4CBA.jpg[/image] posting one pic at a time really sucks to make a point but since it was already uploaded this one stood after the whole thing was completely engulfed bottom to top no insulation and no sprinklers. [image]local://upfiles/59055/369AAB9DE5ED4A7D8E82C4D5EEE39017.jpg[/image] kinda fucks up your program.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:12:15 PM)
No jet fuel fire load spread around by water based extinguishers because the fire suppressant system was expecting the fire load to be coming from the office furniture alone? It wouldn't be the first structure to collapse due to fire, why people think this is unlikely is beyond me given what we know about how steel loses strength under such conditions. If a demolitions expert did this it was the most sloppy work ever as the building lurched as it fell and that is a no. Also I didn't hear any sequence of explosions that are evident in controlled demolitions, there are sound clips available just contrast and compare. All I hear is a constant rumble, no peaks of sound wave magnitude.

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:20:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 No jet fuel fire load spread around by water based extinguishers because the fire suppressant system was expecting the fire load to be coming from the office furniture alone? It wouldn't be the first structure to collapse due to fire, why people think this is unlikely is beyond me given what we know about how steel loses strength under such conditions. If a demolitions expert did this it was the most sloppy work ever as the building lurched as it fell and that is a no. Also I didn't hear any sequence of explosions that are evident in controlled demolitions, there are sound clips available just contrast and compare. All I hear is a constant rumble, no peaks of sound wave magnitude. You are now speaking about one of the towers? Or did WTC7 also lurch? I did investigate the fires in the towers. Those fires were small, of limited duration, and as best as I could determine burned at a maximum temperature of about 230 degrees Centigrade. Those fires could not have made the towers collapse.

jlf1961 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:21:42 PM)
When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity"

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule You are now speaking about one of the towers? Or did WTC7 also lurch? I did investigate the fires in the towers. Those fires were small, of limited duration, and as best as I could determine burned at a maximum temperature of about 230 degrees Centigrade. Those fires could not have made the towers collapse. WTC7 from memory wasn't that slender, why should it lurch it already had a low centre of gravity. It really offends me because I watched those towers burn before they collapsed, you nuts are taking away from the fact people were waving for help from those towers with fire raging beneath them. The fire we all saw. You are taking away from those many independent sources that recorded the initial impacts from various locations. You are trying to rewrite the history we all saw and remembered.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 No jet fuel fire load spread around by water based extinguishers because the fire suppressant system was expecting the fire load to be coming from the office furniture alone? WELLLLLLLLLL the gubes said virtually all the fuel burned off in 10 seconds. That makes sense because you see if you have a fuel tank smashing into a wall at the speed of a 45 acp bullet do you think it likely that the fuel would turn to mist at that speed or is fema completely out to lunch on that one? Therefore the residual fires could only have been from office furniture. It wouldn't be the first structure to collapse due to fire, why people think this is unlikely is beyond me given what we know about how steel loses strength under such conditions. Nice use of structure unqualified. LOL TRY STEEL STRUCTURE as in HI RISE STEEL STRUCTURE and yes it seems to me all 3 of them were the first to ever "collapse".... If a demolitions expert did this it was the most sloppy work ever as the building lurched as it fell and that is a no. Well nothing like proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have zippo knowledge about the demolition business, because the wtc will go down in history as one of the best engineered demolitions in history. I mean some serious ching went into that baby. Also I didn't hear any sequence of explosions that are evident in controlled demolitions, there are sound clips available just contrast and compare. All I hear is a constant rumble, no peaks of sound wave magnitude. there are clips out there in particularly the guy in jersey who even maps it out on a scope.

Jeffff -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity" When the Jews decide it's time to move it

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity" personally I would complain to the mods if I were you after all you disagree with it right.

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:33:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours. There were no planes. some think that it was a missile. I had read up about that suggestion a couple of years ago and my conclusion was that there was no solid evidence for missiles being present: missiles are a false trail. I agree. I stick with 7 which was imploded for the insurance money.

Jeffff -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:35:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity" personally I would complain to the mods if I were you after all you disagree with it right. Thats interesting since I had a post pulled specifically because it was mocking you. I argued a bit, but I lost. I figured they were protecting the retarded kid. Jeff

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:35:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: Rule You are now speaking about one of the towers? Or did WTC7 also lurch? I did investigate the fires in the towers. Those fires were small, of limited duration, and as best as I could determine burned at a maximum temperature of about 230 degrees Centigrade. Those fires could not have made the towers collapse. WTC7 from memory wasn't that slender, why should it lurch it already had a low centre of gravity. It really offends me because I watched those towers burn before they collapsed, you nuts are taking away from the fact people were waving for help from those towers with fire raging beneath them. The fire we all saw. I get offended when people claim they watched it burn and for the life of me I cant find any damn fire! Please point out the fire? [image]local://upfiles/59055/4A0A895E30BD4EDDBADD889048F79F3E.jpg[/image] [image]local://upfiles/59055/50AF8478B82346BCA31244C22B8ECE5D.jpg[/image] I get very offended when people claim there was all that fire when I cant find any substantial fire what so ever. So please for all of us point out all that fire that you watched? I really dont think you need a degree in fire to understand the difference between fire and no fire. You are taking away from those many independent sources that recorded the initial impacts from various locations. You are trying to rewrite the history we all saw and remembered. yeh and they all show the airplane going all the way through the building. We know that is impossible so how can you say that? [image]local://upfiles/59055/B438A0499A694F60A99DAE484A17D43A.jpg[/image]

JonnieBoy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:36:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 It really offends me because I watched those towers burn before they collapsed, you nuts are taking away from the fact people were waving for help from those towers with fire raging beneath them. The fire we all saw. You are taking away from those many independent sources that recorded the initial impacts from various locations. You are trying to rewrite the history we all saw and remembered. The building collapsed ... and it colapsed in a remarkably controlled manner. Not sure what people waving for help has to do with the question ??? I think it's more emotive to say falling helplessly to death rather than be burned alive (did they show that in the USA ? because that's certainly what I saw where I watched it). We are talking about the clips on th OP still ? ... or is it time to tuck a few in for bedtime fairie tales ? Pirate

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:37:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity" personally I would complain to the mods if I were you after all you disagree with it right. Thats interesting since I had a post pulled specifically because it was mocking you. I argued a bit, but I lost. I figured they were protecting the retarded kid. Jeff yeh I had a few pulled too for I think the same reasons. I didnt argue its a no win situation anyway.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:37:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the gubes said virtually all the fuel burned off in 10 seconds. That makes sense because you see if you have a fuel tank smashing into a wall at the speed of a 45 acp bullet do you think it likely that the fuel would turn to mist at that speed or is fema completely out to lunch on that one? Therefore the residual fires could only have been from office furniture.[/color] Yeah when a plane crashes at an airport they never have those fire trucks on standby because the fuel evaporates on impact don't it? quote: Nice use of structure unqualified. LOL TRY STEEL STRUCTURE as in HI RISE STEEL STRUCTURE and yes it seems to me all 3 of them were the first to ever "collapse"....[/color] Does steel increase in strength the higher the building is? I don't understand your logic. Seems to me that if part of the structure fails due to a fire then all above it will fail as a consequence of that. There is a lot of potential energy in that structure just waiting to be released. quote: Well nothing like proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have zippo knowledge about the demolition business, because the wtc will go down in history as one of the best engineered demolitions in history. I mean some serious ching went into that baby.[/color] I confess my knowledge isn't in this area but I know from 'obviousness' they'd aim for something to be brought down as vertically as possible and not lurch. i.e. lurching increases the surface area of impact at ground level.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 5:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JonnieBoy Not sure what people waving for help has to do with the question ??? I think it's more emotive to say falling helplessly to death rather than be burned alive (did they show that in the USA ? because that's certainly what I saw where I watched it). Real0ne is suggesting a controlled demolition with little fire and I am suggesting that I recall the building standing for a long period of time while the fire raged and I distinctly recall the fire because some emotive realities are hard to forget.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

4.399967E-02