Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
triforcharity said:
LOL!! Too funny!! Chris7 has YET to even take a stab at what those images are!!


[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/whatisthis.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/mediaManager.jpg[/qimg]

Good luck Chris7!!
Click to expand...


Come to think of it, it might have actually been C7....

Anyway, I think the first one is gold. I'm not basing that on anything, I just like gold.
 
Christopher7 said:
Tully, Loizeaux, Riggs and the others would notice if the molten metal they saw was silvery. They are not as stupid as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

I know Tully and Loiseaux and they say that they see no credibility in CD. Does that mean you believe what they say?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I was a systems programmer for a few years. The fact that two buildings and then a third building destroyed themselves squashes your butterfly maneuver.
Click to expand...
Finite element analysis is not artificial reality; it operates on large lego-like blocks, to give large lego-like results. More and more powerful machines and ever-smaller legos might be able to refine the gross results a little, but you're not going to find the deus ex machina you seem to think might be in there.

Oh, and I did systems and applications programming in an engineering lab where we did some CAD and FEM analysis. Enough to know who in these threads knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't.

And -- the buildings "destroyed themselves?!" What?! What are you talking about? No fires? No planes? No hypo-nano-thermo-may-mo-dy-no-mite?
 
Telltale Tom said:
Justin,

I think that your videos are very interesting and show certain aspects of the WTC collapses. i wonder why no other truthers take exception to them.

I think that while they say that the tower should not have fallen in the way your blocks do that they do not have a clue on how to refute your videos.

I suppose you think your the man!
Click to expand...

Compared to cardboard boxes? :D
 
Program this

Clayton Moore said:
I was a systems programmer for a few years. The fact that two buildings and then a third building destroyed themselves squashes your butterfly maneuver.
Click to expand...
take a simple shovel full of sand. label each grain of sand. toss it up in the air, create a computer program that will accurately predict the collision of each grain of sand including how many collisions and the effect it would have on the redirection of those individual labeled sand grains. create a map predicting the dispersion and landing location of each of those grains of sand. Should be very simple for you mister "computer programmer for a few years" because those grains wont be damaged or lose mass. And they only travel about 10 feet, not 1000. This is a simplified equivalent of what you are ignorantly assuming NIST or anyone, for that matter, could accurately model.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
JNot so.
Steel does not go from solid to liquid [can be poured] instantly, it happens over a range of about 100 degrees F. First it starts to loose its shape, then it becomes like a glob and finally it becomes runny, much like lava. We can observe lava running very fast in lava tubes when it is very hot and very slow when it is almost solid again.
Click to expand...
I love being "lectured" by C7.

FFS! I'm almost thought about posting something that would give me a periodic ban here because of his statement, but that wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. The iron-carbon phase diagram has been burned into my memory so much so that I could draw the damn thing from memory aged 21. Hardly adolescent.

I said
I really dislike the word "molten" in the 9/11 context. Steel is either solid, solid plus liquid or liquid.
Click to expand...

And yet he thinks that his above quote has somehow disproved what I said, except of course he uses the fantastic metaphors glob, runny and lava.

Somehow he thinks that I don't know that steel melts over a temperature range even though I alluded to that in my post.

What is it with truthers and their lack of reading comprehension? Sheesh. :rolleyes:

In fact an air cooled steel of ASTM A36 composition , based upon a 0.25C wt%, (therefore a hypo-eutectoid), using the Fe-C equilibrium diagram, upon heating from room temperature, actually undergoes a transformation from pearlite and ferrite to ferrite and austenite at approximately 723°C. The full transformation to austenite occurs at the A3 temperature (approximately 840°C). At around 1480°C austenite (solid) will be present with a liquid. At around 1493°C the peritectic is encountered and the remaining austenite will transform to delta ferrite (solid) and liquid. Around 1510°C the alloy will be fully liquid.

So you are approximately correct stating that liquid is present with solid over a 100°F range. Well done. Now I'd be more impressed if you could explain why I chose an air cooled steel as opposed to a quenched one.

Seeing as it's bank holiday Monday I shall be off to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs.
 
Sunstealer said:
I'm going to have a stab at it. I think it's some form of glass.

What do I base this on? Purely on the rod in the picture. I've probably failed, but there you go. :)
Click to expand...

I have to agree. A lot of people think the only glass was the windows. This is far from true. My friends work as installers for a cut letter and vinyl sign company. They spent a great deal of time in those buildings installing "distraction tape" on glass walls to avoid having people walk through them. In fact they were doing that very same thing all day and into the night on 9/10/01. Lets not forget corner office enclosures, etc, etc. Maybe someone had a giant glass sculpture there. The possibilities are endless in a working office building that big.
 
Christopher7 said:
You must first deny that the crab claw is picking up molten metal that is in the 1000-1400°C range.
Click to expand...
Hence the reason I dislike the word molten. You yourself understand that steel melts over a temperature range yet still use this word even though the range you quote isn't in the range where steel would be a liquid. Baffled. I've just shown that steel is solid at the above temperatures.

You must first prove that the material observed is steel. Secondly you must prove the steel is at the temperature you claim.
 
Last edited:
If it was that hot I would tend to think it would resemble a Salvador Dali clock hanging around the claws of a now frozen grappler attachment.
 
Christopher7 said:
TFC, Those photos were taken in a dark room so they are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Untill you can prove that this

Christopher7 said:
Tully, Loizeaux, Riggs and the others would notice if the molten metal they saw was silvery. They are not as stupid as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

occured during the daytime, it is absolutely relevant.

BTW, can you identify the molten substances?

Yes

No

Pick one.
 
Sunstealer said:
Liquid steel in the quantities truthers propose is bollocks.
Click to expand...
:D

So you think Mark Loizeaux is a bollocks Truther?

Animal said:
The only denial going on is the denial of reality by troofers who belief a pincher claw could pick up molten steel
Click to expand...
And you think Mark Loizeaux is a troofer in denial.
 
Last edited:
Animal said:
The second photo he posted was of the Conjunto Pino Suárez that collapsed in an earthquake in Mexico in 1985. That was a very unique structure, from the original images I saw, it had an open air plaza around the third or fourth floor. The description of the collapse was that it folded on itself at about the same point. The limited information on it described it as designed as a moment resisting frame.......it was a stiff building, not like the high rise towers that are designed to flex in the wind. The large magnitude quake likely exerted a ground level lateral force, something the building was not designed to resist.
Click to expand...

I saw it. What I meant was he seemed to be inappropriately attributing the cause of the Shanghai collapse to an earthquake, which it wasn't. I understand he brought another example but his assumption of the first was rather silly. I find a mistake like that to be very telling since it doesn't take much effort for anyone, laymen or professional to find some kind of detail on these types of buildings.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I was a systems programmer for a few years. The fact that two buildings and then a third building destroyed themselves squashes your butterfly maneuver.
Click to expand...

As far as buildings are concerned, probabilities in general are utterly useless. To try and apply statistics to collapse is to by definition suggest that buildings will perform the same as an average, which is a very poor approach to building case studies, since the only buildings built with the exact same specs as the WTC was the WTC's themselves. If you insist on of making the three in a day collapses an issue you better ready to make a nice technical case for it.
 
A W Smith said:
take a simple shovel full of sand. label each grain of sand. toss it up in the air, create a computer program that will accurately predict the collision of each grain of sand including how many collisions and the effect it would have on the redirection of those individual labeled sand grains. create a map predicting the dispersion and landing location of each of those grains of sand. Should be very simple for you mister "computer programmer for a few years" because those grains wont be damaged or lose mass. And they only travel about 10 feet, not 1000. This is a simplified equivalent of what you are ignorantly assuming NIST or anyone, for that matter, could accurately model.
Click to expand...

It's done all the time in video games. You need help? Get a geek.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's done all the time in video games. You need help? Get a geek.
Click to expand...

Flowing sand or water in video games is typically animated rather than being a collision model itself (enormous waste of ram). A collision sets off a trigger which runs an animation IE: bullets hitting a body of water.

Blender uses a tad more complicated way to model flowing particles.
 
Last edited:
oody said:
And -- the buildings "destroyed themselves?!" What?! What are you talking about? No fires? No planes? No hypo-nano-thermo-may-mo-dy-no-mite?
Click to expand...

You debunkers are all saying that as a result of different amounts of energy against the three WTC buildings from different locations each building "collapsed" and completely demolished itself with it's own mass.

Try to keep your story straight and save the double talk for impressing your buddies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom