Quote***99.99% of engineers will agree that, considering the damage from the collisions with the airliners and the heat from the fires, it was only a matter of time before the building collapsed. No explosives needed, no thermite, no magic. Just simple physics.
100% of these engineers disagree with you www.Engineers for9-11truth.com
They are a miniscule minority not worth considering.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
sundevil777 102
Quote***99.99% of engineers will agree that, considering the damage from the collisions with the airliners and the heat from the fires, it was only a matter of time before the building collapsed. No explosives needed, no thermite, no magic. Just simple physics.
Although I do respect the opinions of those who by hard work,dilligence, and personal discipline keep our railroads on time .., 100% of these engineers disagree with you www.Engineers for9-11truth.com
That has no importance, just as there are airline pilots and scientists that are part of the flat earth society, believe that the moon landings were faked...
Also, you are wrong about the buildings falling straight down. They did not fall straight down. They just did not fall in a manner in which your Watson-like intuition accepts.
Coreece 190
QuoteSteel burns quite readily. It is far from fireproof.
No shit...last week I had a steel bonfire poking stick. It wasn't but 5 minutes in hot coals that I was able to beat it against a cinder block and deform it's appearance.
When I was in college, I worked for the UAW making axles...we had solid steel rods bake in a furnace for about 10-15 minutes before we forged or bent them into any shape we wanted...
Oh so you are a heating and air guy! Why didn't you just say so?
The rest of us wouldn't have looked down on you too much.
OK we would have but might have held our toungues in check if we thought you could hook us up wit some R-12! LMOL!
A structural engineer is what we need to help us sort all this out. Not as you say a "civil engineer" !
And your mechanical engineer degree allows you "to identify bullshit".
I can do that and I don't have that mechanical engineer degree.
Would you like to guess what type of engineering degree I hold?
Again You FAIL!!
sundevil777 102
Quote***I don't know the answers to the questions I asked you. I most certainly don't know what things you don't agree with in the "don't add up" category.
I asked the questions because some have asserted that it fell at freefall/near freefall acceleration. I say that it is critical to be more specific - to say how fast it did accelerate, and how fast it should have. Without that, then to say it fell too fast shows ignorance. So, have it if you can.Quote
How fast *should* the buildings have collapsed seems to be your question.
The buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash and resulting fires.
The buildings shouldn't collapse if those were the only factors so any speed of fall is way too fast.
Now if you add explosives to the equation and knock out the structural support I would agree that they fell at the exact speed one would expect.
That is a really lame dodge of the question. How close to 1g was it? The near freefall was supposed to be evidence of demolition of the levels below the impact, and that it would not have been so fast had the demolition not occurred. It seems that you are admitting that you're not buying into that. So that is one of the "doesn't add up" items that you are indirectly admitting you do think add up (it really is a big one). Any other "don't add up" items that you do accept?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
sundevil777 102
QuoteMy background is mechanical, not civil engineering, but this education does allow me to identify bullshit from quite a long distance. You, Watson, can't tell it is there when it is right under your nose.
A structural engineer is what we need to help us sort all this out. Not as you say a "civil engineer" !
And your mechanical engineer degree allows you "to identify bullshit".
I can do that and I don't have that mechanical engineer degree.
Would you like to guess what type of engineering degree I hold?
Again You FAIL!!
Tell us. Whatever engineering degree you earned, you have now disgraced. It should be revoked.
Coreece 190
QuoteA structural engineer is what we need to help us sort all this out.
No...just a person with a video camera and an idiot with some common sense.
QuoteSteel burns quite readily. It is far from fireproof.
Yes you are right ! As a matter of fact just the other day I was having a conversation with my wife about what fuel we should burn this year for heat in our stove.
I was all about ordering steel by the chord loads but she insists that wood is what she wants!
Stupid Bitch!
Maybe if I show her your post It might persuade her to my way of thinking!
Everyone knows steel ignites easily at the least of sparks!
Coreece 190
It is clear that the levels above the impact zone collapsed onto the sub impact zone...
It's kinda like dominoes but different...
This shit is child's play man.
Your credibility is shot...it's worse than mine.
You're done...
Go get a new sock puppet...how about "Roy Munson?"
QuoteDJ,look at the video brah...
It is clear that the levels above the impact zone collapsed onto the sub impact zone...
It's kinda like dominoes but different...
This shit is child's play man.
Your credibility is shot...it's worse than mine.
You're done...
Go get a new sock puppet...how about "Roy Munson?"
I recognize that voice from years ago..,
Is that you Tokyo Rose?
Coreece 190
QuoteQuoteDJ,look at the video brah...
It is clear that the levels above the impact zone collapsed onto the sub impact zone...
It's kinda like dominoes but different...
This shit is child's play man.
Your credibility is shot...it's worse than mine.
You're done...
Go get a new sock puppet...how about "Roy Munson?"
I recognize that voice from years ago..,
Is that you Tokyo Rose?
It's been a long time baby...me so horney.
Let's make baby...we call Tokyo Johnson / Dan Rose....any ting you want.
QuoteQuoteQuoteDJ,look at the video brah...
It is clear that the levels above the impact zone collapsed onto the sub impact zone...
It's kinda like dominoes but different...
This shit is child's play man.
Your credibility is shot...it's worse than mine.
You're done...
Go get a new sock puppet...how about "Roy Munson?"
I recognize that voice from years ago..,
Is that you Tokyo Rose?
***It's been a long time baby...me so horney.
Let's make baby...we call Tokyo Johnson / Dan Rose....any ting you want.
ROTFLMOL! Dude you're sick! LMOL!
Coreece 190
Amazon 7
QuoteQuote...the steel in the towers was rated to maintain sufficient strength to support the structure even considering the temperatures which could have possibly been generated by the fires of 9-11 .
No, it was not. Now you are making things up...again.
Also, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner. An airliner at approach speeds, not at 500-600 knots and fully fueled.
Water at high velocity can cut steel very quickly. It happens every second of every day.
Aluminum can punch through steel when pushed at high velocity by tons of jet fuel. No surprise there to anybody with knowledge.
Of course the towers fell pretty much straight down. that's the direction gravity pulls and it was the easiest path once the columns started to fail from too much heat and too much stress caused by supporting members being destroyed at impact. A tall narrow column can support incredible loads as long as it is supported from buckling. But once those supports are gone (they were contained in the outer walls of the towers) there is virtually nothing to prevent failure.
99.99% of engineers will agree that, considering the damage from the collisions with the airliners and the heat from the fires, it was only a matter of time before the building collapsed. No explosives needed, no thermite, no magic. Just simple physics.
I personally think Dan has his very own gravity anomaly
Again You FAIL!!
***Tell us. Whatever engineering degree you earned, you have now disgraced. It should be revoked.
Well at least I can always drop back and throw in some duct work.
The world needs heating and air guys too!
Can we have a group hug?
Steel doesn't catch fire . It is by nature "fire proof" . That being said steel is a Most Excellent conductor of heat.
" Fireproofing" of steel is kinda of a misnomer.
The "fireproofing" is meant to keep the steel from transfering high temperature to adjacent combustible materials.
You FAIL !
I'll take being called Sherlock a compliment, although I'm sure that is not what you intended. You would then be Watson, the one that is easily fooled, so easily misled.
You are wrong about the purpose of the fireproofing coating. Of course it is a misnomer, but the purpose is to prevent loss of strength at high temperature. You are wrong about the ability of the airplane to damage the structure of the building. I think you are using your Watson like abilities when you take the basic premise that the towers were designed to withstand an airliner impact, but I would suspect that the anticipated speed were likely about half what happened (1/4th the energy), and that the fireproofing/insulating material being blown off the steel were likely not anticipated, and the effects of the prolonged fire were likely not part of the 'designed to withstand' airliner impact. My background is mechanical, not civil engineering, but this education does allow me to identify bullshit from quite a long distance. You, Watson, can't tell it is there when it is right under your nose.