Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Which reminds me I just went through all these pages for a response from animus rex to my question of his analysis of the building 6 that was completely gutted and why it did not "collapse" when building 7 had only a few scratches and it did a freefall.
I honestly am trying to avoid these sorts of threads- I realized the other day that I spent like 2 hours just writing responses, when I could have been more productive, like picking lint out of my navel.
OK, so where did we leave off- I wrote that buildings can and will collapse from fire- DEPENDING on many factors. Why didn't 6 collapse?
Beats the fuck out of me. Is it inconceivable that 6 burned for hours, and didn't collapse? Nope. There are any number of factors that would keep it from collapse- heat of the fire, type of construction, type of fireproofing, etc.
Well it kills me to have someone in the biz say these sorts of things because fireproofing is only good for a few hours tops before its useless.
Anyway I get the impression (for now) that you are sincere in your response so I will approach it as such.
It is not at all uncommon for different buildings to behave differently under fire- this might be one reason why demo teams don't use fire to bring down buildings- it is wildly unpredictable, in how it affects structures.
well fire has the same effect regardless however different designs react differently this is true.
The problem with random fire is that you cannot predict the way the building will fall.
On the other hand, if one side is on fire lets say for the sake of an argument that 2/3's of all the columns core+exo had oxy-acety flame against the metal we would certainly expect the building to tip over in the direction of the flame as that part would simply cave in and the building would fall on the building next to it.
I think we can agree on that right?
The First Interstate Bank Building burned wildly for 3 1/2 hours, and didn't collapse; other steel structures have collapsed in less time. Sorry, airplane collisions and fires are circumstances that create chaos and unpredictability.
Well you see there you go again we are talking about hi rises here not steel structures et al.
Steel structures are not designed to the specs a hi rise is designed too. So are you evading that. I certainly agree that fire "can" under precise and I do mean very precise conditions take out at least parts of a steel structure but I have searched the world over and I have not been able to find even one instance where it took out a hi rise.
So to make a long story short, I can't prove why the smoke was grey instead of black, or why 7 fell when 6 didn't, or why Ladder 35's radio went down for 35.6 seconds at 9:56 AM...(OK I made that part up).
Well that speaks to your experience I suppose. Lets face it I have been around and to those who personally know me can tell you most of this is a no brainer for me however I will never come out here and talk about my qualifications, at least not to much.
Fuel oil fires burn extremely black. There is always fire first then a huge cloud of black smoke follows. In the case of the towers at least wtc1 for what its worth, the first thing we seen was a bright huge white flash, next grey smoke then fire. Case 1 is what you would see when a jet goes into a cliff or nose dive, case 2 is precisely what you would see with an explosive and incendiary devices. You ask for evidence and that is something you can very easily research if you wanted to know. I gave you what to look for all you had to do is go and look it up. How can I give you evidence when you cannot recognize it when you see it?
What I can say, with certainty, is that the official story is completely consistent with engineering principles and my experience. If a building is weakened by shattered columns, and a fire buns long enough, it will fall.
Well with my engineering experience you are wrong. Firstly furnaces are made from steel and they never fall and you can leave the fire burn around the clock 24/7 and it will never fall including the temperatures that nist claimed the wtc columns supposedly clocked in at.
So some nasty assed cop decides he does not like your sister and your sister gets in the car is driving along and the brakes fail and she runs right under a semi and gets her head chopped off. Gruesome sight.
Now you look over the car is rolled over and notice something surely is not right.
Meantimg the cops come around and yellow tape it and tell you to move back for the "police investigation".
The report says that her brakes failed due to lack of brake fluid and she apparently did not maintain her car very well and that caused the accident.
So then I come out here claiming that from my automotive experience and expertise that if there is insufficient fluid in the brake hydraulic system that is consistant with what I would expect to happen and yes it would cause the car to fail.
You say hey that aint right I want a new investigation! They in turn say but the evidence was shipped to china to be melted down.
Of course what I am not saying in my analysis, is what you saw before the cop roped it off is that the brake lines were cut. OOOoooopsie!
get it?
What you are doing, RealOne, is showing anomolous data- a window here that doesn't show flames, a report from some guy who claims to find explosive on particles...then you ask laypeople (meaning, me, and everyone else on thsi board) to explain it. When we can't, you hold this data up as "evidence" of a government conspiracy.
Hmm maybe you are not being so straight up after all. I did not show a window I showed pictures of wtc2 and there was no visible fire of any magnitude remotely close enough to bring any steel structure down much less a hirise.
Now you discount one of BYU's top physics professors as "some guy" when I seriously doubt you are worthy to wash his feet by comparison.
Hardly....If you think I am asking because I dont know nice try. I am asking because I know you cannot come up with a reasonable answer without looking like a complete fool. Prove me wrong. I cant wait.
But that logic is faulty- I wouldn't expect laypeople to explain things that only technical experts can explain. You really should be asking these questions to the engineers at NIST, ASCE, and ASTM who studied these buildings.
Now here I thought you were a professional architect? Is that a lay people? Hell most lay people I have met say: "sure looks like explosions to me" or "sure looks like a demo to me" in the case of building 7.
Tell you what....I will ask them and every time the dodge my questions and I will formulate the questions so they have no choice but yes and no, and every time they dodge it we get to cut one of your fingers off. Deal?
But you dismiss their conclusions, apparently because you doubt their trustworthiness.
Hardly, they are incapable like everyone else in dazzling me with the brilliance and its next to impossible for them to baffle me with their bullshit just as it now seems like you are trying to do.
So what this all comes down to is- who do I trust more- professional engineers at ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), or SGOTI (Some Guy On The Internet)?
You do not know me, you do not know my education, backgrounnd or capabilities.
Sorry, but I work with engineers who belong to ASCE and ASTM every day, and I have never had occasion to doubt these organizations trustworthiness. If my engineer gives me a design and tells me it is good, I literally sign my name to it, placing my career and livelihood on his word.
Well now I would never say that every engineer is corrupt would I? Did I? No. However that does not mean the ones involved with 911 were not corrupt. I mean thats reasonable is it not?
Anomolous data isn't evidence of anything; it is the very definition of a Unidentified Flying Object- literally just means, "something we don't understand". Calling it evidence is just silly.
Well it it hit you in the head and killed you I am sorry but I disagree as that most certianly is evidence regardless how you want to down play it.
Show us evidence of a counter story- evidence of explosives planted in 1968, or missiles streaking towards the buildings, or evidence of where in the heck those missing planes went.
See that is what you people either simply do not understand or you are propaganda pushers and sadly it can be no other way.
All I need do is show that the evidence you people claim is true does not match the crime scene and literally NONE of it does on virtually no level when examined with even a laymans eye and it comes down to one thing.
Either you have are led around by the nose believing whatever you are told or you have the ability to examine for your self and you belive what you see.
Now it seems many people today are even capable of knowing what they see.
The moral of the story is that you gave a non answer when to make your case you had to give an answer.
The only way a building can even initiate a straight down "collapse" is with global failure and since you are just a layman that means that all the columns both core and exoskeleton must fail at the same exact moment.
You are faced with the daunting task of explaining not ONLY how a naturally aspirated fuel/office furniture fire in which the heat is very inconsistent foot to foot, was able to heat consistently and perfectly heat all columns and exoskeleton perfectly to induce "SIMULTANEOUS" global failure and how the laws of physics, ie the conservation of energy failed to apply, and where it got the energy to toss 60 ton exoskeleton over 100 yards?
Now I suppose that is a question best left to an engineer not an architect since you said you were an unqualified architect but you seemed to be qualified to say that when brakes dont have fluid they dont work and if the fire is hot enough the building will come down. So while I have not even popped the zit on the gnats ass on the tip of the isceberg I wll stop here for now.
I am glad you clarified that since at first I thought you were actually someone qualified to debate the issue.
 Attachment (1)
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread