AmericanbyChoic
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 32
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Okay.
Actually, you do. The flag moved, and the motion was in response to a force, per standard classical mechanics going back to Newton. Saying "something" moved it is a real duh moment. Of course something moved it, or it would've remained stationary! The question - for anyone with half a brain is - WHAT moved it?
ABC sez: There's virtually no end to the evidence of steel melting…
WHAT? I acknowledged the ad-hoc witness testimony concerning melted steel, but that refers to conditions days and weeks after collapse in the debris pile. There is NO hard evidence. Produce some. Produce ONE thing which proves steel melting was EVEN PRESENT, let alone the cause of collapse.
As I mentioned, and you probably disbelieve, I have a degree (bachelor of science) in physics. If you want to argue physics with me, I'll mop the floor with you. Then everyone will get to see that I DO know the meaning of the word 'ignorant'.
Zdenek Bazant, a world-reknowned structural and mechanical engineer, professor of engineering, author of hundreds of papers on structural engineering and specifically a number of papers about the collapses which are widely recognized as the authoritative analyses on progressive collapse, doesn't seem to agree with you. He says:
And you are?
NIST disagrees with you and your (lay) pals. They say if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged by the impacts (something you couldn't possibly have known at the time)
there was a good chance the buildings could've survived.
Pseudoscientific claptrap. The thermal degradation of capacity would force collapse long before the phase transition to liquid. Which is what 'melting' is.
I've got a couple of warnings already, so I'll refrain from putting a label on a consistent purveyor of idiocy.
So, we've a got a ****ing birther looking down his nose at truther because "it was obvious the "melting beams" gave way.
Typical for how these arguments go in popular forums where any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in and try to pretend they understand physics from their armchair.
So, we've a got a ****ing birther looking down his nose at truther because "it was obvious the "melting beams" gave way.
Typical for how these arguments go in popular forums where any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in and try to pretend they understand physics from their armchair.
Well, at least that's an attempt at an explanation. What you did earlier was to say that because you already knew it was on the moon, whatever explanation there is - which you weren't proferring at the time - had to be something other than air because there's no air on the moon. ****ing incredible. You understand how debates work, right? You can't take as given that which is under dispute. Circular logic.No I don't… the premise is that because it moved, it wasn't on the moon. The premise itself is absurd. That it moved, tells us that some force was applied to it. For the premise to be true, the moon would need to be void of the potential for force to be applied… I'll submit that the flag's pole shifted in its mooring… thus the force in play is gravity over the opposing force or whatever failed causing it to shift.
Idiotic sloganeering. What were the actual max temps, and what is the melting point of steel? When challenged to produce evidence, you did the semantic equivalent of farting. Big surprise."FIRE HOT!" Steel Melt when exposed to HOT FIRE for long time."
That is true. Even I feel Bazant has his head in the clouds sometimes, but he's a hell of a lot smarter and more knowledgeable about this subject that you can hope to be.Well, there's no end to the people of some academic experience who fail to graps the obvious in the real time crisis.
Hope I'm never in one of those structures. You're incompetent. Oh, maybe you're talking about fences and lawnmower sheds. Still...Just a guy that has long made a very nice living building stuff…
Citation please. YOU don't count.Actually it was known immediately…
Did you see what NIST had to do in physical experiment to strip the fireproofing? And then barely so? There are actually some very good arguments that the fireproofing was not nearly stripped to the degree they assessed.Such material has a very low bond rating and the forces of impact ALONE were more than enough to detach it from the structure.
I do. I also understand that there is legitimate controversy over whether the extent was as claimed. These rely on arguments based in fluid mechanics, particularly the Reynolds number, and the possible trajectories of debris through the interior. A little over your head.One would think a physicist would understand that.
Hell, the fireproofing was falling off on its own before the impacts. There are photos which prove this. But you know what? There's ZERO proof of melted steel.But you can rest assured that anyone who's ever paid exquisitely painful fines because their technicians were present within the projected period that the local Fire Marshal claims that such was knocked off super structure, would positively know this…
Common sense, but still a naked assertion. The fire of 1975, though hardly as widespread or intense, burned for several hours with no appreciable structural degradation. NIST says that the majority of fuel burned off in the fireballs, and the remaining amount was consumed well before collapse, leaving large but otherwise ordinary office fires (and impact damage, of course). The Beijing tower, admittedly radically different construction, was gutted by fire lasting five hours and stood. The longevity with intact fire protection is not so easily assumed.Yep… which faded exponentially with every second that the fire continued to burn.
Jeezus, I just said that in the very thing you quoted!Brother, the means of those beams to sustain the existing loads fails LONG before anything is turned to liquid…
me said:The thermal degradation of capacity would force collapse long before the phase transition to liquid.
No, I'm not.You're embarrassing yourself here.
Melting IS the process of liquefaction.Melting is a PROCESS which ENDS in liquefaction…
WP said:
I can see why. You're in way over your head discussing physical science with someone who has the appropriate education and professional background to show you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.I am begging you to let this go...
Sounds just like a truther argument to me.Well sure, but only because reason is served by fact that Obama has never produced a legitimate Birth cert...
Except it didn't at the WTC, so who cares? Bears **** in the woods, too. It's called non-sequitur.... and steel melts when exposed to sufficient levels of heat over time.
WP said:Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur.
Latin phraseology doesn't cover the fact that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if you typed one. You have, and you don't know it.But the trotting out of old argumentum ad populum! Is truly ADORABLE!
NIST said:Had the fireproofing not been dislodged, the temperature rise of the structural components would likely have been insufficient to cause the global collapse of the towers...
Arup said:Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse
No mention about fireproofing being dislodged, and this guy's also an expert. Somehow it escaped him.The steel had protection for about three hours of an office fire, he said.
But some experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions. James Quintiere, of the University of Maryland, US, says he does not understand how fireproof insulation could have been dislodged from the buildings' floors and columns.
And Barbara Lane, leader of the Structural Fire Group at UK engineering company Arup, adds: "[We] don't believe that [the dislodging of fireproof material] has been substantiated in any of the published data to date." She adds that it is difficult to extrapolate heat assessments of a material to what might happen when it is actually in place in a building.
Sorry for the derail. Sometimes you have to crush BS at its source.Is there a point at which this discussion returns to the OP - a discussion of a BS study published in a BS news source instead of a real medical journal about people who believe in something that does not exist (an "official story" of 9/11)?
Well, at least that's an attempt at an explanation. What you did earlier was to say that because you already knew it was on the moon, whatever explanation there is - which you weren't proferring at the time - had to be something other than air because there's no air on the moon.
You understand how debates work, right? You can't take as given that which is under dispute. Circular logic.
Idiotic sloganeering.
What were the actual max temps, and what is the melting point of steel? When challenged to produce evidence, you did the semantic equivalent of farting. Big surprise.
That is true. Even I feel Bazant has his head in the clouds sometimes…
What you don't seem to realize is that you stand in opposition to virtually every tenet of the official story with respect to the collapses. YOU should publish in JEM. YOU should've got the contract to investigate the collapses, not NIST. You would've got the report out much quicker, without those thousands of pesky pages of analysis, and saved the taxpayers millions. Your report would read -
"THERE IS NO MEANS FOR THOSE BEAMS TO NOT READILY MELT BEYOND THEIR MEANS TO SUSTAIN THE MASS WHICH THEY WERE >EXCLUSIVELY< HOLDING."
Did you see what NIST had to do in physical experiment to strip the fireproofing? And then barely so? There are actually some very good arguments that the fireproofing was not nearly stripped to the degree they assessed.
[sic]I do. I also understand that there is legitimate controversy over whether the extent was as claimed. These rely on arguments based in fluid mechanics, particulary the Reynolds number, and the possible trajectories of debris through the interior. A little over your head.
Hell, the fireproofing was falling off on its own before the impacts. There are photos which prove this. But you know what?
Did you see what NIST had to do in physical experiment to strip the fireproofing? And then barely so? There are actually some very good arguments that the fireproofing was not nearly stripped to the degree they assessed.
There's ZERO proof of melted steel.
Common sense, but still a naked assertion. The fire of 1975, though hardly as widespread or intense, burned for several hours with no appreciable structural degradation. NIST says that the majority of fuel burned off in the fireballs, and the remaining amount was consumed well before collapse, leaving large but otherwise ordinary office fires (and impact damage, of course). The Beijing tower, admittedly radically different construction, was gutted by fire lasting five hours and stood. The longevity with intact fire protection is not so easily assumed.
Do YOU get double time? Anyway, this is my shill beat. It's already covered.
Everyone, please! Scott is the only one here with his head screwed on straight. The PTB are very afraid of him. Pay no attention to what he says, okay?
You Conspiracy Theorists might start by even attempting to present something resembling a prima facie case for any alternative hypothesis instead of just the same old endless JAQ'ing off.
That would be a start.
The fact that three steel framed buildings came down in a manner consistent with
Controlled Demolition rather than a result of chaotic damage.
the fact that the hit to the Pentagon as told by the MSM constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.
The fact that the official taxpayer funded report(s) on the subject are a white-wash job ....
Wow man, the emperor has such a fine new suit, don't you think so?
or?
A! bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
Given the facts about the "collapse" events of all three buildings that were said
to have "collapsed" that day, its very obvious that something is VERY wrong here.
the Police send in investigators if there is so much as ONE structure that had been
completely and totally destroyed, but now THREE buildings are completely demolished,
and where is the investigation? tests for explosives ( etc .... ) what?
The event was a FRAUD, & the MSM is covering up .. big time!
Where is the investigation?
WTC Disaster Study
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/Towers Lost & Beyond.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/istgroup/ist/documents/EFCA2004_Istanbul04.pdf
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar185supplement1.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Nuclear-Engineering/22-00JSpring-2006/B66465A4-5D39-
WTC, 9/11/01
Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center - YouTube
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts,fi
WTCTragedy Investigation
And that is just a teaser. That you either don't comprehend this information or have not sought it out does not change the fact that 9/11 is the most investigated criminal act in all of human history. Just exactly how much more investigation do you think is required before you get it?
I've told you enough, and wasted quite enough time on this bull****. Apparently I've offended someone's delicate sensibilities (wonder who?) and just received another warning. I don't feel like throwing away time in an evironment where protecting dainty fragile egos is more important than scientific fact.Well tell me...
Who knows?So, it's the moon landing is faked, or the person is a shill??
The fact that three steel framed buildings came down in a manner consistent with
Controlled Demolition rather than a result of chaotic damage.
the fact that the hit to the Pentagon as told by the MSM constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.
The fact that the official taxpayer funded report(s) on the subject are a white-wash job ....
Wow man, the emperor has such a fine new suit, don't you think so?
or?
A! bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
OOpsssss…
I've told you enough, and wasted quite enough time on this bull****. Apparently I've offended someone's delicate sensibilities (wonder who?) and just received another warning. I don't feel like throwing away time in an evironment where protecting dainty fragile egos is more important than scientific fact.
The rest of your drivel - ignored. Bye.
space ... The final frontier
that is the space
between human ears ....
And the emperor is still naked!
Rubbish.
10 buildings were destroyed in New York that day. The only 3 you care about each collapsed in ways that don't even resemble each other, let alone a controlled demolition in any other way than they collapsed in the direction of gravity. Not only does it matter not one bit what some amatuer thinks they look like (as this is proof of nothing) but the ways in which they do not resemble a CD far outnumber the ways in which they do.
And would you care to demonstrate which laws of physics were violated in the Pentagon attack and show your math while doing it? I've asked you for this before but you always seem to dodge it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?