created by: djhixx | Oct 13, 2007

Top Stories

53,495 votes

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Click on an option to vote

  • yes
  • no
  • well, im not sure
Comments
236,481 - 236,500 of 257,856 Comments Last updated 11 min ago
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#254703 Apr 6, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>
it's become pretty obvious that every time you can't come up with a clever comeback you respond with your old worn out "oh the irony" retort...you're like a broken record pork. You suck at this, can't you think of anything else to say, eh witless canadian?
Hey stupid, did you send your Zordope sock to the cleaners?
Antoinette

France

#254704 Apr 6, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
Ah yes, the "never before" fallacy which negates everything from manned flight to sliced bread. The fallacy which completely ignores the fact that steel never was impervious to fire.
Funny.
Now for the obvious. You've never read not do you have a snowballs chance in hell of understanding the the engineering reports on WTC 7.
Quite obvious when all your citations quote page numbers that are either wrong or simply don't exist. But that's ok, no twoofers actually think for themselves so you're the rule, not the exception.
Regarding your mindlessly copy/pasted drivel,
1) Column 79 is stated to be a major part of the reason why the building collapsed.
2) A fire consuming available fuel in a certain area doesn't mean a) the steel automatically returns to its previous state and b) heat stops being input into a system still on fire.
3) A 2 hour fire retardant eating does not negate the fact that there was thermal expansion and cooling at the sight of many connections which contributed to the overall failure of the load bearing capabilities of the building.
Your attempted arguments are nothing but childish drivel that wouldn't stand 2 seconds of scrutiny by relevant professionals.
Seems to me that the good Padre was inviting you to enumerate those "special circumstances" that led to the very fast destruction of WTC7.

Padre asks: "Maybe you can describe the right conditions that caused this unprecedented global failure in a building where the fire burned out within 20 - 30 minutes at any given location, where the steel was insulated with SFRM rated for 2 - 3 hours, where the insulation was admittedly not damaged throughout most of the structure, and where the design elements regarding the Con Edison substation played no substantial role?"

Are you saying that steel that is insulated by SFRM rated for 2 to 3 hours (even without additional fire protection like a functioning sprinkler system) is vulnerable to fires that last at most 20 - 30 minutes in any given area? How hot would the thermally protected steel get, do you suppose?

And what circumstances could possibly result in the free-fall drop of the entire visible perimeter of this massive steel-framed building -- other than demolition, the most likely cause by far? Remember, the block that is in free-fall is contributing ZERO energy to the destruction of its former supports underneath. Those former supports -- ALL OF THEM -- were SUDDENLY the structural equivalent of cooked spaghetti!!!
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#254705 Apr 6, 2013
Antoinette wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that the good Padre was inviting you to enumerate those "special circumstances" that led to the very fast destruction of WTC7.
Padre asks: "Maybe you can describe the right conditions that caused this unprecedented global failure in a building where the fire burned out within 20 - 30 minutes at any given location, where the steel was insulated with SFRM rated for 2 - 3 hours, where the insulation was admittedly not damaged throughout most of the structure, and where the design elements regarding the Con Edison substation played no substantial role?"
Are you saying that steel that is insulated by SFRM rated for 2 to 3 hours (even without additional fire protection like a functioning sprinkler system) is vulnerable to fires that last at most 20 - 30 minutes in any given area? How hot would the thermally protected steel get, do you suppose?
And what circumstances could possibly result in the free-fall drop of the entire visible perimeter of this massive steel-framed building -- other than demolition, the most likely cause by far? Remember, the block that is in free-fall is contributing ZERO energy to the destruction of its former supports underneath. Those former supports -- ALL OF THEM -- were SUDDENLY the structural equivalent of cooked spaghetti!!!
Hey Smith, look up "progressive collapse".

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#254707 Apr 7, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice! Still haven't made it to the padre Islands, maybe this year!
And what I meant had nothing to do with the term"free fall" but the implication that free fall=controlled demolition.
Simply put, if fire can cause structural failure (and there's no doubt it can), then it can cause free fall and global collapse of a structure given the right conditions.
The fact that fires burned for hours and the design incorporated the need to build over an existing structure were inclusive if those conditions.
I've haven't been to the island either.Been as far as corpus christi. Hope it's nicer than houston ,to much pollution/smog from the shipping ports ,I guess .Doesn't matter , not getting in the water (the ocean is not a good place to be when you're made of meat) but walking the shoreline is always interesting.
I personally don't give a shit about "free fall" . It is a distraction from the root cause(d.o.d. and money ) but I don't get how all four walls could "collapse" simultaneously . Not just once but three times that day.
Ok ,I agree, fires can cause structural failure .Yet,the conditions for producing enough heat for the core columns or even the rivets / bolts 20 or 30 levels below the initial impact to essentially provide zero resistance and all fail in unison in the correct order to negate tipping the tower to one side or the other are highly improbable.
if you put an opened aluminum can in a preheated 1100 degree oven providing a uniform heat source for weakening but not quite hot enough to melt the can, which is more than the towers had ,would the can collapse straight down or possibly tilt the top to one side or the other upon collapse initiation ? I'm only guessing but the side with the tab on it should start the sequence because of the weight .
The planes caused the towers to sway probably 10 to 15 feet
upon impact add the weight of remains of plane to impact side and I'm sure the structure would favor impact side.
Wouldn't this cause the buildings to fall like a tree instead of collapse in on itself?
peace

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Olds, Canada

#254708 Apr 7, 2013
super duper symmetry wrote:
<quoted text>
Page numbers are right. Check again, child. Here is the link
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...
It appears that you are the one who hasn't actually read the report.
By the way, the report wasn't really written for engineers. Any competent engineer (or physicist or scientist of any flavor) could pick this fiction apart with little effort. The NIST reports are designed to pacify (or in some cases intimidate) the scientifically illiterate. Are you among them?
Competent engineers have incorperated the knowledge from these reports to build safer tall buildings so your delusions obviously hold zero weight in the real world...just like twoof itself.

Twoof has been designed to do nothing more than dupe gullible little idiots like yourself who spend countless hours on the internet using proxies and multiple names/locations into promoting a product based on stupid for a few charlatans who have chosen to make a living fleecing them.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254709 Apr 7, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Competent engineers have incorperated the knowledge from these reports to build safer tall buildings so your delusions obviously hold zero weight in the real world...just like twoof itself.
Twoof has been designed to do nothing more than dupe gullible little idiots like yourself who spend countless hours on the internet using proxies and multiple names/locations into promoting a product based on stupid for a few charlatans who have chosen to make a living fleecing them.
Correct. There is also but one peer reviewed study which explains the collapse of the towers.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Olds, Canada

#254710 Apr 7, 2013
Antoinette wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that the good Padre was inviting you to enumerate those "special circumstances" that led to the very fast destruction of WTC7.
Padre asks: "Maybe you can describe the right conditions that caused this unprecedented global failure in a building where the fire burned out within 20 - 30 minutes at any given location, where the steel was insulated with SFRM rated for 2 - 3 hours, where the insulation was admittedly not damaged throughout most of the structure, and where the design elements regarding the Con Edison substation played no substantial role?"
Are you saying that steel that is insulated by SFRM rated for 2 to 3 hours (even without additional fire protection like a functioning sprinkler system) is vulnerable to fires that last at most 20 - 30 minutes in any given area? How hot would the thermally protected steel get, do you suppose?
And what circumstances could possibly result in the free-fall drop of the entire visible perimeter of this massive steel-framed building -- other than demolition, the most likely cause by far? Remember, the block that is in free-fall is contributing ZERO energy to the destruction of its former supports underneath. Those former supports -- ALL OF THEM -- were SUDDENLY the structural equivalent of cooked spaghetti!!!
First off, you and "padre" are the same person using proxies to hide your actual location.

Secondly, I have explained in terms even someone as simple as you, aka padre, should be able to understand that just because a fire goes out in one area, it doesn't mean the original conditions of the steel are restored nor does it mean the ambient conditions return as they were pre-fire.

Fire retardant isn't designed for large scale fires on multiple floors that input heat into a system for hours on end. It's designed for typical office fires where passive and active fire protection systems can allow for people to escape and for fire fighting to take place.

Your idiotic canard that free fall=demolition still has zero qualification and you making the exact same ignorant claim over and over with various proxy induced socks will not make your wet dream come true. All NIST is commenting on regarding the transfer loading assembly over the ConEd power station is that fire didn't directly cause it to fail and that the global failure of the structure was causedby column 79 which was integral to the overall structural stability of the building.

The very simple reality is that fire can and does cause conditions in steel structures where the threat of structural failure is very real. There are no reputable materials experts or engineers arguing against that fact. NIST's theory isn't that fires were present in one area for long periods of time causing failure in that particular spot. It's theory is that the fires caused damage in various locations and that the accumulated damage from conditions such as thermal heating and linear expansion created stresses not designed for in joints which ultimately failed.

You can dance around pretending fire can't destroy a building all you want...the real experts ad real world will jus continue to ignore you just as all STREET CORNER JEEBUSES are generally ignored....although some might take pity on you and put a few coins in your cup.
axiom

Turkey

#254711 Apr 7, 2013
yes attack was usa government job
Ramona

Santa Cruz, CA

#254712 Apr 7, 2013
No
Laika

France

#254714 Apr 7, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>

Fire retardant isn't designed for large scale fires on multiple floors that input heat into a system for hours on end. It's designed for typical office fires where passive and active fire protection systems can allow for people to escape and for fire fighting to take place.
Your idiotic canard that free fall=demolition still has zero qualification and you making the exact same ignorant claim over and over with various proxy induced socks will not make your wet dream come true. All NIST is commenting on regarding the transfer loading assembly over the ConEd power station is that fire didn't directly cause it to fail and that the global failure of the structure was causedby column 79 which was integral to the overall structural stability of the building.
The very simple reality is that fire can and does cause conditions in steel structures where the threat of structural failure is very real. There are no reputable materials experts or engineers arguing against that fact. NIST's theory isn't that fires were present in one area for long periods of time causing failure in that particular spot. It's theory is that the fires caused damage in various locations and that the accumulated damage from conditions such as thermal heating and linear expansion created stresses not designed for in joints which ultimately failed....
First, I want to express my gratitude to you for sacrificing your valuable family time on a Sunday to instruct us on the vagaries of sprayed fire resistant material. I feel that others on this forum don't show you the appreciation you deserve, but I hope that by the time your fourth anniversary on Topix arrives (soon!), we can all pull together and demonstrate how much we have learned from you, so that you will not feel all your teaching efforts are for naught. You are a tremendous asshat to this humble community, but I fear we do not show our appreciation for your gifts of time and wisdom.

That being said, I confess I am confused over the significance of SFRM ratings. Could you please explain how a 3-hour protection rating for steel insulation could be defeated by a 20 to 30 minute fire, fueled by typical office contents? The insulation is not designed for this? Also, given that steel is a thermal conductor and that heat is constantly being wicked away from the fire zones and radiated away, how could steel temperatures rise to the point where structural failure manifested?

When you say that heat was inputed into the system for hours on end, what was preventing the system from radiating that heat away just as quickly? From the videos available, it appears that the vast majority of WTC-7 was not affected by fire at any given time, and so the heat inputs into the system were far outweighed by distributed "heat outputs."

I eagerly await your answer.

Sincerely,

Laika
Pen

Tabor, Czech Republic

#254715 Apr 7, 2013
Most recent FALSE FLAG attack was the ADAM LANZA school massacre. Until the school security video is released it remains unsolved.

http://mindcontrolblackassassins.com/tag/dyla...



http://www.theblackawakening.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Batman Dark Knight Rising movie foreknowledge of Sandy Hook and Aurora theater massacres..

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254716 Apr 7, 2013
Pen wrote:
Most recent FALSE FLAG attack was the ADAM LANZA school massacre. Until the school security video is released it remains unsolved.
http://mindcontrolblackassassins.com/tag/dyla...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =X7sW-HGKp7UXX
http://www.theblackawakening.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Batman Dark Knight Rising movie foreknowledge of Sandy Hook and Aurora theater massacres..
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
More delusional nonsense.

A trip to your friendly shrink is in order.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
onemale

Pana, IL

#254717 Apr 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Free fall is irrelevant. The building collapsed due to damage. There were no explosives or demolition.
Here the facts: According to the NIST report building #7 fell due to normal office fires. While sprinkler systems are designed to extinguish office fires. WTC building #3,#4 and #5 surrounded the towers and even though they were severely damaged beyond repair, none of those collapsed even the one that was nearly cut in half. Building #7 had minor damaged, so NIST tells us it fell due to normal office fires. Those are the facts my friend.

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254718 Apr 7, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Here the facts: According to the NIST report building #7 fell due to normal office fires. While sprinkler systems are designed to extinguish office fires. WTC building #3,#4 and #5 surrounded the towers and even though they were severely damaged beyond repair, none of those collapsed even the one that was nearly cut in half. Building #7 had minor damaged, so NIST tells us it fell due to normal office fires. Those are the facts my friend.
Do more research and you will find serious damage, no standpipes and no operable sprinkler system. The other buildings were made differently and also were damaged in different ways. There is no comparison possible. Not one fireman who was there mentioned anything about demolitions. The fact is, controlled demolitions of steel structures requires tons of properly placed steel plate on each side of a column to direct the charge inward. There was no such rigging. Demolition is pure fantasy. It never happened.
onemale

Pana, IL

#254720 Apr 7, 2013
Numerous fireman and many eyewitnesses mentioned huge explosions.

Judged:

15

15

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
onemale

Pana, IL

#254721 Apr 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Free fall is irrelevant. The building collapsed due to damage. There were no explosives or demolition.
Free Fall is Irrelevant??? It defies all the laws of physics.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254722 Apr 7, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Free Fall is Irrelevant??? It defies all the laws of physics.
There was no free fall collapse as proposed by conspiracy nuts.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254723 Apr 7, 2013
onemale wrote:
Numerous fireman and many eyewitnesses mentioned huge explosions.
False. None for WTC7. None for the towers at collapse if you read all the text without editing.

Since: Jan 11

Westbury, NY

#254724 Apr 7, 2013
So What ..... things always explode in fires Stupid
onemale wrote:
Numerous fireman and many eyewitnesses mentioned huge explosions.

Judged:

18

18

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 11

Westbury, NY

#254725 Apr 7, 2013
Looks like we have another gradute from the Pittsfield MA Trucking and Engineering school
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Free Fall is Irrelevant??? It defies all the laws of physics.

Judged:

17

17

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min It aint necessari... 732,754
Michael Jordan says he used to be..'against ALL... 9 min Doctor REALITY 3
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 14 min KiMare 94,646
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 42 min Neelakaran 5,296
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 54 min Uzi 36,742
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 1 hr Just TLC 4,330
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 2 hr Falcon 732
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Thinking 226,248
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Black Thunder 42 599,834
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Oxbow 538,793
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••