• 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.

OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

^^^Huh? Is that a straw man? Cite where the NIST report talks about clowns.

Seriously, learn about discourse.
 
AJM8125 said:
OK, fine.

Then please cite anyone who engineered the World Trade Center Towers who said they could withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 MPH.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You act like you understand what a straw man is then quickly reveal that you don't.
 
tempesta29 said:
Yet the 1964 white paper analyzed a 707 crashing at 600 mph. ...
Click to expand...
No, the white paper was a marketing brochure, it did no calculations; The white paper was big talk; some idiot must of looked up the speed for a 707 and picked in the cruising speed at 30,000 feet. I got the white paper, it has no calculations, it is all talk. You have no clue what a white paper is, add that to your list of fail.


Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Towers, did the calculations that a 707 low on fuel lost in the fog going 180 mph would not do major damage to the WTC towers. This was confirmed by a study done after 911, which found an airliner hitting at or below 200 mph would fail to cause enough damage to destroy the WTC.

Now comes the time you need physics, why are you fact and physics free.

1EMC2einstein.jpg

The impact study for limited damage was for a 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact. Use E=1/2mv2
On 911 flight 11 and 175 impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, (math is needed) that is 7 to 11 times more energy than designed for! Math, Physics, and no dog.

Energy911.jpg

This means the impacts on 911 were 7 to 11 times greater than the WTC was designed to survive. Take physics, or repeat physics! Soon!


tempesta29 said:
... By the way, there is no evidence that the fire at the South Tower was even mildly threatening.
Click to expand...
This is a lie, and I don't need to mention the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel starting fires on multiple floors to prove you have no clue, or do I. Why do you lie?
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
The logical fallacy continues. The absence of a certain type of evidence does not mean anything other than there is no evidence of that kind.
Click to expand...

But when the ONLY evidence you have is eyewitness testimony that have no qualifications whatsoever in metalurgy, than what do you have?




N O T H I N G

See, this is how evidence works.

tempesta29 said:
Longest. Red herring. Ever.
Click to expand...

Dumbest rebuttal ever.

tempesta29 said:
Why is it you believe this? What do you think their role was, forensics?
Click to expand...

I've talked to the people that organized it, implemented it, and carried it out. I spoke with one of the guys there for about 3 hours one day about 6 months ago. Very nice guy, and very informative.

Even gave me some of his personal pictures. Cool stuff I must say.
 
tempesta29 said:
Yet the 1964 white paper analyzed a 707 crashing at 600 mph.
Click to expand...

And yet, the ENGINEER that DESIGNED and BUILT the damn things, disagree.

Where is the whitepaper? Cited in full form. Not excerpts in a book. The actual paper.


tempesta29 said:
By the way, there is no evidence that the fire at the South Tower was even mildly threatening.
Click to expand...

Wow, you continue your lies. When are you going to stop lying? Maybe make that your new years resolution.
 
triforcharity said:
But when the ONLY evidence you have is eyewitness testimony that have no qualifications whatsoever in metalurgy, than what do you have?
Click to expand...

You don't need qualifications in metallurgy to identify a steel beam that is melting.

Dumbest rebuttal ever.
Click to expand...

What is there to rebut? I don't want to hear your personal stories anymore.

I've talked to the people that organized it, implemented it, and carried it out. I spoke with one of the guys there for about 3 hours one day about 6 months ago. Very nice guy, and very informative.

Even gave me some of his personal pictures. Cool stuff I must say.
Click to expand...

So you admit they weren't involved in a forensic investigation. Fresh Kills is a landfill.
 
triforcharity said:
Wow, you continue your lies. When are you going to stop lying? Maybe make that your new years resolution.
Click to expand...

I've given evidence to support my claim that the South Tower fire wasn't severe. If you want to counter that argument, then do more than call me a liar. It typically takes a little more.
 
tempesta29 said:
I've given evidence to support my claim that the South Tower fire wasn't severe. If you want to counter that argument, then do more than call me a liar. It typically takes a little more.
Click to expand...
Talk is not proof. And talk is all you have. What is your point? Do you have a conclusion based on your post besides the fact you can't comprehend fire? The fire was severe, else all the people above the fires would have walked out. You failed based on evidence.

You don't understand the impacts, fire, flying and more. What else can we add to your list? What about 93, are you starting a thread on 93?
 
Show me the severity of the fire then. You can't even see fire on the outside of the South Tower by the time it collapses. And about 20 people did walk right through the crash zone. If the rest had followed them then everyone above the crash zone would have made it out.

Not only is the South Tower's fire externally invisible, but the damage is isolated to one half of the building, yet the upper section collapses across the length and width of the building, not toward the damage, in the path of greatest resistance. Is your BS detector broken or something?
 
tempesta29 said:
Show me the severity of the fire then. You can't even see fire on the outside of the South Tower by the time it collapses. And about 20 people did walk right through the crash zone. If the rest had followed them then everyone above the crash zone would have made it out.

Not only is the South Tower's fire externally invisible, but the damage is isolated to one half of the building, yet the upper section collapses across the length and width of the building, not toward the damage, in the path of greatest resistance. Is your BS detector broken or something?
Click to expand...


2WTCfire.jpg
 
What is that supposed to be proof of? That could be one minute after the crash for all we know.
 
tempesta29 said:
Are you comparing the upper section collapsing on the lower section of the Twin Towers to 1000 lbs of force on a wire with a 10 lb capacity?
Click to expand...

No. It's a simplification on why there was no dramatic decrease of acceleration when the top part impacted the first intact level only. Sorry if a simplifaction confuses you.

Such a simplification that describes the entire collapse would involve a series of 10 lb capacity wires, where each one would take up the strain in turn as the 3 lb weight fell.

Again, it's a simplifaction. Try to understand the concept, and don't take it to mean that it's a valid comparison of the physics involved. Dave covered that.

This was an obscene amount of steel and concrete.
Click to expand...

The lower part? Sure was. But the descending mass is only impacting a very small part of it at any one time, namely floors.

The only way that acceleration could remain constant is if resistance and therefore damage were constant from the top crash zone to the ground.
Click to expand...

No. Even truthers acknowledge that acceleration didn't remain constant all the way to the ground. Chandler suggests that the collapse reached a constant rate of fall - ie zero acceleration. IOW, equilibrium.

If there were plane crashes and fire all the way down, then perhaps we would see a constant rate of acceleration
Click to expand...

Chandler says this didn't happen. Is he wrong?

but we are told that there is a massive discrepancy in resistance between the crash zone and the undamaged structure.
Click to expand...

There is. But the momentum of the desscending mass massively overwhelms this increased structural resistance. It's in the math.

There should be a decrease in the rate of acceleration and there is not.
Click to expand...

Only a minor one. You claim there should be a huge one. Why? Where did you read the maths that show this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom