• 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.

Anomolies at ground zero

defaultdotxbe said:
however, the fact that jeff king is an eletrical engineer doesnt mean electricity destroyed the WTC (if thats all the evidence needed, i submit, based on my expertise, that microsoft windows operating systems destroyed the towers)
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The 9/11 attacks were a movie special effect. And I have the expertise to prove it, so you have to believe me.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
Has anyone explained the mysterious burns of these cars? Some are "fused" and welded. In., one case the front half is burned and the back untouched.

"WMD at the WTC" claims its proof of thermonuclear devices, but I hasten to add I dont agree with that.



​

Pictures from Judy Woods new paper: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html​
Click to expand...



Has anyone explained these cars? Not actually. Because there is no actual explanation. (Well, there is, of course, but nobody knows it). Can you explain why you sometimes wake up facing the ceiling and other times wake up facing the wall? Unexplained, random things happen in chaos. There is no avoiding it, and, a lot of times, no explaning it. If you care to disagree and offer your expert scientific testimony, I'm all ears.​
 
The purpose of peer review is to establish scientific consensus.

Scientists must publish their work in the appropriate venue for it to be considered and critiqued by others in the field.

The 911 scholars patently fail to do this.

Now even their universities are turning against them.

911 scholars are just hacks, in axactly the same way that the climate change sceptics are hacks and the ID enthusiasts are hacks.

Scientific consensus is what counts.

The consensus on 911 is that two passenger planes brought down the wtc towers and inflicted enough damage on wtc7 to cause catastrophic failure there also.

Docker may not like it, but that is reality.
 
Docker said:
Judy Wood does make a good point. Why dont these collapse all around the world?

[URL]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image185.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...
Perhaps because they are constructed to withstand heat? Because they are dimensioned in such a way that the steel is sthick enough to support the structure even when heated?? Because the steel parts pretty much have no weight to support except their own? Because there is a stone lining to protect the metal from the hightst temperatures?

--- Are you serious? So you seriously feel that it is a good point that something constructed to withstand fire and is undamaged appears to withstand heat better than something that is not constructed to with stand heat and which is damaged?

And you are surprised people make jokes about what you say??

Hans
 
Docker said:
Judy Wood does make a good point. Why dont these collapse all around the world?

[qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image185.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Sometimes they do:
Overheating can actually melt parts of the unit, cause damage and, perhaps, allow the fire to spread to surrounding areas. Also, be sure that fireplaces are covered with screens or doors to contain sparks, especially with types of wood that pop and spark.
Click to expand...
source But most of the time they do not, because the metal radiates the heat off quickly enough to the surrounding environment to prevent it.
 
Docker said:
Judy Wood does make a good point. Why dont these collapse all around the world?

[URL]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image185.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...


Hi. Nice strawman.

Do the temperatures in a cast iron stove even begin to approach the temperatures experienced by WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11/01? Do the cast iron stoves that you yourself presented as evidence have any mark of structural integrity compromise that WTC 1 and 2 had that day? Is this stove even made of the same material as WTC 1 and 2? How do you know? Cite please?


ARE YOU REALLY F*CKING COMPARING A CAST IRON WOOD STOVE TO BUILDING PERFORMANCE OF WTC 1 AND 2 AT OR ABOUT 10:30 AM ON 9/11/2001?


I apologize everyone. I (almost never) use all caps. But some people get me so frustrated with their obtuseness that I almost can't help myself.
 
Docker;

Seriously man. 175.45 posts per day. I highly recommend you chill out on the quantity and focus on the quality.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Sometimes they do:
source But most of the time they do not, because the metal radiates the heat off quickly enough to the surrounding environment to prevent it.
Click to expand...

And why did the heat in the wtc not radiate to all the rest of the steel. There is no way that steel had the time to be compromised, even in the hottest part of the building. It is ludicrous.
 
Docker said:
And why did the heat in the wtc not radiate to all the rest of the steel. There is no way that steel had the time to be compromised, even in the hottest part of the building. It is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
What was the mechanism of collapse, according to NIST, Docker?
 
Docker said:
And why did the heat in the wtc not radiate to all the rest of the steel. There is no way that steel had the time to be compromised, even in the hottest part of the building. It is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

You suck, cuz all it took was nanoseconds for 1.5 ton aircraft, travelling approximately 500 MPH, to compromise the steel in both WTCs. Look, if you want to make a compelling argument, you're going to have to make a compelling argument. There is no way around it. I swear.
 
Docker said:
And why did the heat in the wtc not radiate to all the rest of the steel. There is no way that steel had the time to be compromised, even in the hottest part of the building. It is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson design for an aircraft
impact, but it was a slow speed landing configuration, 7 to 10 times less
energy at impact than the 9/11 impacts!


The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson said it was the 10,000
gallons of fuel they failed to consider (besides the order of magnitude larger
crash). Based on the design of the WTC, it is amazing the towers remained
standing as long as they did, surviving a impact blast 10 times greater than
design.


Leslie E. Robertson is a structural engineer who has designed hundreds of
buildings around the world including the World Trade Center.


Leslie E. Robertson, , said:
"The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the
impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version
of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of
competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the
impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers,
but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps
thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced
collapse." http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html


Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all
of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors
perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The
structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others.
The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very
much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing
707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of
the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner
reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable
happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the
fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument


Leslie E. Robertson, , said: more on design for jet impact –
" The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear
industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It
was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK
or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects
of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that
circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to
control the effects of such fires."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

More on Robertson -

http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?d=SB1002665463810757240.djm

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LERPresentation.htm

Energy junk thrown in for free, the following are approximate energy;;; You can calculate the energy yourself – 707 impact design WTC was 386,215,069
joules (185 pounds of TNT) – WTC flight 11 impact 2,743,309,041 joules (1,311
pounds of TNT) - Flight 175 impacts 4,322,978,167 joules (2066 pounds of
TNT) – B-25 at Empire State Building impact 84,967,480 joules (41 pounds of
TNT)

A quick review
The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson said; -design of WTC included an impact only of a "slow-flying Boeing 707."

-"wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of
the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed"



darn the real expert says what you see is what you get

five years and still the truth is what we saw
 
Docker said:
Well the point is that these cars were not near the towers, they werent hit by anything and didn't catch fire.
Click to expand...

the last car, the police car was burned, that is why the rubber tires are gone, that is why the paint is ash,

just burnt

Judy Woods can not explain momentum to save your life

she uses balls on stings to show momentum, but she has not a clue; her specialty is teeth, and she thinks the WTC should be like her balls bouncing around in space, she thinks the WTC is like a tree, with cookies in it!

Like Alex Jones she defies truth and only has an agenda. She and Morgan somebody attacked Dr Thermite Jones's paper. It is funny seeing them fight, truth against truth

any way, you have posted cars that caught fire, and Judy has made a connections to her balls, rattling in her head, hopefully not in yours

you could just ignore Judy Woods work and improve your IQ by many points

burnt cars
 
Docker said:
He is far more qualified than you, oh and he is now a doctor. Hardly the type to be a nutjob
Click to expand...

Have to add him to the short list of engineers who are nut jobs.

the truth movement only has .00067 percent of all engineers in the country

that leaves a million plus who you can get the real truth from when you stop following Alex Jones and Judy Woods.
 
Docker said:
Has anyone explained the mysterious burns of these cars? Some are "fused" and welded. In., one case the front half is burned and the back untouched.

"WMD at the WTC" claims its proof of thermonuclear devices, but I hasten to add I dont agree with that.




Judy Woods new paper: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html
Click to expand...

her conclusions are correct right now, as of this second

but the photos you have are burnt cars

her and her nutty friend are both certified nuts

check out their new title "The WTC Bathtub and the Star Wars Beam Weapon"

wow

burnt car photos at random cites = starwarsbeam weapon

yes judy the jacket is good put it back on

back to your burnt car photos

are you sure you want to post Judy Woods junk?
 
As someone who has extinguished numerouse vehicle fires - can tell you
some things. All the vehicles are burned from above, some show signs of
the interior being involved. The police car has been clearly struck from
above by a heavy object. None of the vehicles show the engine compartment
or tires being involved. Vehicles fire normally result from problems in
engine compartment such fires usually consume the entire vehicle and
require large amounts (1000 gal) of water to extinguish. Another cause
is electricial - most cars have large runs of wiring to power various options
(power windows, seats, heaters, etc) Electricial fires normally involve the
interior and often self extinguish. Since many of the vehicles show only
exterior damage from the top down can conclude they were struck by
burning debris from above.

Or since if case of Judy Woods - maybe elves did it?
 
Gravy said:
I should hope not. You should be using your time to answer the many easily-answered questions you have, like so:

Q: Was there a lot of burning debris around or anything?

A: Not that we were able to hit. But there was a parking lot I think on the corner of Vesey. I'm not sure. I think it was the corner ov Vesey and West. I'm pretty sure, yeah. On the southwest corner of Vesey and West, there was a parking lot that was just roaring. Every car was transmitting to the next car. This was between the two collapses, I think. –Firefighter Kevin Monahan

We went back to Vesey and West Street and started moving the ambulances back towards North End more, and then we started going northbound on North End towards Murray Street. We were moving the triage because we got a report of the parking lot in front of the building we were in, some of the cars were on fire, and we got reports of gas lines that were blown and the fire were starting to get to them. So we ended up moving the triage initially, and we just started heading northbound to Murray Street. –Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Click to expand...



Docker you did an excellent job of avoiding addressing this post!!
 
Docker said:
And why did the heat in the wtc not radiate to all the rest of the steel. There is no way that steel had the time to be compromised, even in the hottest part of the building. It is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Please show your work, or reference, that substantiates the above bolded part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom