• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Could anyone more knowledgable comment on this?

If you have all those explosive in the WTC towers, why bother with the airplanes at all?
 
kalen said:
I've never seen any analysis on the rivets (or whatever was holding the steel beams together). Is it possible that they were the "weak link" with regards to the intense heat? Can anyone point me to any info on that?
Click to expand...

The reason they use so many of them is because they are generally heated and bucked on-site. this generally does things to the temper/heat-treat that are not particularly beneficial, so you use a bunch of them.(At least that used to be the case.) Safety factor is >3 or so I would surmise for a building.(We used 2.5 on busses)
I really am not up on details like that, but can speak from experience, education, and training on the failure of such structures, in general.
Any true Civil engineers specializing in "Structural engineering" out there? I am primarily loads and dynamics...Mechanical (moving) systems...
 
There was a lengthy Discovery Channel show about the collaspe. It had to do with the building needing each floor to hold the vertical steel vertical. As several floors burned out, plus the steel weakened anyway, there wasn't much support and the towers gave way.

Picture it as standing on drinking straws that are standing on end. Wrap them together and they may have enough strength to hold you, take away the wrap and some will buckle, causing others to buckle and so on. Basically, the special said the buildings were built to withstand many things but the hot fire from the fuel and the devestating impact was just too much for them.
 
Could someone explain:

Sonoluminescence & Archaeometry to me. Are these wooish or not (my physics background is not that strong).

I also appreciated the posts about the 911 conspiracy, very clear and concise!
 
I think that discussions of explosives and whether or not there were multiple planes are premature. Before one allows for the magician to divert one with complex theories it is necessary to get to basic issues. How many people would be required for this conspiracy and how have they been kept silent.

I really don't buy any "like minded, committed individuals" crap. Not when I have Sammy "The Bull" who ratted out the Boss of Bosses. Secrets cannot be kept. Particulary one like this. So, before flying high with the woos, tell me about the mechanics.
 
Well, I'm a sentence and a fragment into the abstract and so far, this person needs to learn how to proofread. Sorry, make that two fragments.

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Click to expand...

Do we have a bitch-slapping smiley? I mean, wow. I've now moved onto the first sentence and someone needs to teach him the rule about writing out numbers. It's not, "47," it's, "fourty-seven".

I just noticed the word, "DRAFT." On the other hand, I just noticed the words, "Accepted for publication."

Aside from the lousy writing, it looks to be the same ol' crap.
 
LostAngeles said:
Do we have a bitch-slapping smiley? I mean, wow. I've now moved onto the first sentence and someone needs to teach him the rule about writing out numbers. It's not, "47," it's, "fourty-seven".

.
Click to expand...
I dunno your rules, but around here it's spelled F-O-R-T-Y, not fo-U-rty. But then, I also figure anybody who criticises spelling and grammar don't have enough intellect to consider the IDEA in the first place.
 
casebro said:
I dunno your rules, but around here it's spelled F-O-R-T-Y, not fo-U-rty. But then, I also figure anybody who criticises spelling and grammar don't have enough intellect to consider the IDEA in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, "forty". My bad.

Like I said, I looked over the rest of the paper. It's nothing new. It's the same old, "OMG! Conspiracy!" crap we've seen a dozen times over. Have you read the post upwards that points out why buildings collapse straight down? Or the one about how is it possible that nobody noticed the sheer amount of explosives that would be necessary? Do you need that repeated because I'm sorry, I'm a math major, and we're very, very lazy.
 
gtc said:
Could someone explain:

Sonoluminescence & Archaeometry to me. Are these wooish or not (my physics background is not that strong).

I also appreciated the posts about the 911 conspiracy, very clear and concise!
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

It's related to bubble fusion, which is a little bit woo-y at times (inasmuch as sucessful results have not been replicated).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeometry

Not necessarily woo-y.

But everything is woo-y if you can correctly abuse it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom