Scientific Theories. Lets look at tho...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#142 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
With the exception of the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse and fall down, let alone freefall down. That is a fact Sub. Research it all you want.
The Sub concludes his research when he finds out what the herd believes. That's as far as he is willing to go.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Do some reading Sub.
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.
In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.
Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/oth...
The only thing more disgustingly idiotic than a creatard is a troofer.

Yes, there have been some buildings that did not collapse under fires. Most of your examples were very high in the buildings where the stress would have been much lower. Yet I can show a bridge that collapsed from a fire:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/30/calif...

The fact is that the buildings collapses have been thoroughly investigated and explained. No troofer idiocy need apply.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144 Jan 23, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The Sub concludes his research when he finds out what the herd believes. That's as far as he is willing to go.
Wrong again moron. I am willing to do my own research. The fact is that most troofers are men who have a sad combination of low IQ's and small penises.

Why? I don't know. The average idiot is satisfied with being a creatard. Troofers all seem to be rather sexually impotent and feel a need to blame someone for their failures.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#145 Jan 23, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing more disgustingly idiotic than a creatard is a troofer.
Yes, there have been some buildings that did not collapse under fires. Most of your examples were very high in the buildings where the stress would have been much lower. Yet I can show a bridge that collapsed from a fire:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/30/calif...
The fact is that the buildings collapses have been thoroughly investigated and explained. No troofer idiocy need apply.
Ah yes part of a one layer bridge that collapsed, even though it's supports still stood, but yet it fell onto a lower bridge that held it up and did not collapse. Great comparison to a high-rise building. That is as bad as you saying if the sun ever rises in the east. lol

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tanker-fire-cause...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#146 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes part of a one layer bridge that collapsed, even though it's supports still stood, but yet it fell onto a lower bridge that held it up and did not collapse. Great comparison to a high-rise building. That is as bad as you saying if the sun ever rises in the east. lol
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tanker-fire-cause...
Yes idiot, the bridge that was heated collapsed and fell onto another bridge that was not heated.

What a Maroon!

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#147 Jan 23, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes idiot, the bridge that was heated collapsed and fell onto another bridge that was not heated.
What a Maroon!
Really? The truck crashed into a pylon. You know what a pylon is don't you? That's right it is a support of something above it, which means the truck wrecked below the collapsed highway which would also mean the lower level had fire on it as well.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? The truck crashed into a pylon. You know what a pylon is don't you? That's right it is a support of something above it, which means the truck wrecked below the collapsed highway which would also mean the lower level had fire on it as well.
That's right, and heat from a fire, especially an uncontained outside fire goes where?

In case you did not know most of it was going to go up. And what part of the bridge collapsed?

Again the part over the fire.

One more time: What a Maroon!

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#149 Jan 23, 2014
Is there no end to the stupidity of ReplayBoy?

No, don't answer, it was a rhetorical question.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#150 Jan 23, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, and heat from a fire, especially an uncontained outside fire goes where?
In case you did not know most of it was going to go up. And what part of the bridge collapsed?
Again the part over the fire.
One more time: What a Maroon!
You idiocy is getting worse. A pylon is what holds the bridge(s) up Now as you can plainly see from the picture the truck had to be on ground level to hit the pylon support (or go over the railing of the other bridge to hit it, which didn't happen) and one can tell by the picture that the truck wrecked under both bridges which means the fire going up did what? That is right it put heat on both bridges. Wow Sub you are getting slow(er). I thought the discoloration of the lower bridge and the charred railing running along it would be evidence enough for you to realize that but I guess I was wrong.

But hey. I guess the fire could have been under both and only burned/heated up just one,,, not really. lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152 Jan 24, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiocy is getting worse. A pylon is what holds the bridge(s) up Now as you can plainly see from the picture the truck had to be on ground level to hit the pylon support (or go over the railing of the other bridge to hit it, which didn't happen) and one can tell by the picture that the truck wrecked under both bridges which means the fire going up did what? That is right it put heat on both bridges. Wow Sub you are getting slow(er). I thought the discoloration of the lower bridge and the charred railing running along it would be evidence enough for you to realize that but I guess I was wrong.
But hey. I guess the fire could have been under both and only burned/heated up just one,,, not really. lol
You are an idiot.

You keep affirming it.

The pylon it hit was the pylon of the bridge that collapsed. The other bridge is to the side.

Can't you even understand your own links?

Oops, no I guess not.

Once again: What a Maroon!!

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#153 Jan 24, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot.
You keep affirming it.
The pylon it hit was the pylon of the bridge that collapsed. The other bridge is to the side.
Can't you even understand your own links?
Oops, no I guess not.
Once again: What a Maroon!!
Duh. Again when you look at the picture you can see that all the visible pylon is black going up until it gets at the level of the other bridge and then it is only black on one side meaning the other bridge partially shielded the upper part of the pylon from the heat/fire. Not to mention it was 8600 gallons of gas that you seem to think the liquid just stayed in one place and burnt. Also not to mention they don't discuss the damage it did to the overpass when the 18 wheeler loaded with 8600 gal of gas that was said to be speeding when it slammed into the pylon.(weight of truck 23,000+lbs plus weight of trailer and gas around 71,000 lbs)

And on any note why they heck are you comparing this to a high-rise building to begin with.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#154 Jan 24, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there have been some buildings that did not collapse under fires. Most of your examples were very high in the buildings where the stress would have been much lower.
And I really didn't want to get into this discussion but since I did let me point out another idiotic comment here you made.

You say Most of my examples were very high in the buildings where the stress would have been much lower. I guess the fires were on ground floor levels in 9/11?

Some of my examples again broken down separately.

Anyways as you can see in this one that you said was high up, It was actually nearer the bottom and destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the 62 story building.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1988-0504_...

As you can see in this one burnt just about the entire building and it still stood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower

And as you can see in this one it also as well burnt most of the entire building but yet it still stood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Televisi...

So your weak argument of the fires were high up and had lower stress doesn't hold water.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#155 Jan 24, 2014
None of these fires even compare to what happened at 9/11, except for the one tanker fire where the bridge that was over the fire collapsed.

Why don't you read the various sites that tell you why the troofers are full of shit?

Oh wait we already covered that, because you are a small dicked, brain dead, moron.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#156 Jan 24, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
Is there no end to the stupidity of ReplayBoy?
No, don't answer, it was a rhetorical question.
He's aspiring to be Shoob. Or perhaps Shoob's apprentice. THERE CAN BE ONLY DUMB...!!!!!!!

>:-(

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Hometown

#157 Jan 24, 2014
Scientific Theories are exactly what they are which is work in progress. Start with assumption that goes to a hypothesis that goes to a theory and science keeps working with that theory with what it has studied and discovers. You see theories never become fact because they are always subject to change. So what I am telling you is a theory is a working explanation that is never so arrogant to be claimed as a fact because science is always trying to either improve with research and evidence on them or disprove them with research and evidence . You see how that works?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#158 Jan 25, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
Scientific Theories are exactly what they are which is work in progress. Start with assumption that goes to a hypothesis that goes to a theory and science keeps working with that theory with what it has studied and discovers. You see theories never become fact because they are always subject to change. So what I am telling you is a theory is a working explanation that is never so arrogant to be claimed as a fact because science is always trying to either improve with research and evidence on them or disprove them with research and evidence . You see how that works?
Wow...

Just. Wow.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#159 Jan 25, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Population geneticists are poor mathematicians.
Empty and arrogant claims of superiority are meaningless.

Show the faults.

Or recognise that these men were far smarter than you merely by recognising which problem had to be solved, rather than wasting their time mathematicising a failed hypothesis.

One can also build a mathematical model where the earth is an inverted sphere and the whole universe is packaged inside the sphere with appropriate distortion of time and space towards the centre to encompass an infinity. Want to pursue that one too?

It would suit you, the ultimate in silly contrarian models.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#160 Jan 25, 2014
Post two: I am going to post his on several threads for I want the opinion of many. How would science describe this accident of where a child gets ran over at not only at mid body but also at neck level and then bounces up as if nothing ever happened. Give your 'scientific explanation" of how this happened.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#162 Jan 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
One can also build a mathematical model where the earth is an inverted sphere and the whole universe is packaged inside the sphere with appropriate distortion of time and space towards the centre to encompass an infinity. Want to pursue that one too?
It would suit you, the ultimate in silly contrarian models.
The importance of Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics is essential for understanding Hilbert's atlas, the set of all logically consistent model universes.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The importance of Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics is essential for understanding Hilbert's atlas, the set of all logically consistent model universes.
Explaining the set of logically consistent model universes is very interesting but the more mundane fact is that we already appear to be living in one.

The behaviours of elements and compounds and the operation of thermodynamics, at a level of understanding necessary to explain evolution, are all based on empirically established science.

And no matter how deep our understanding of physics becomes in the future, it will and must remain consistent with empirically established science. In that future physics, glucose will still have a standard molar entropy of 209.2 J/K and hydrogen will still oxidise to produce water. We may have a better understanding of why these things are as they are, a more fundamental explanation, but the empirical facts will not change.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 min ChromiuMan 222,777
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Eagle 12 - 79,975
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr marksman11 163,768
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? 14 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web