Page 14 of 31 FirstFirst ... 478910111213141516171819202124 ... LastLast
Results 170 to 182 of 396
  1. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    That's true and he also used them in the war against Iran.

    There are many possibilities. Syria might have been the destination. Didn't some Iraqi pilots and planes flee there early on? Hell they might be in a hole in the ground for all we know.

    There is also this ironic and darkly amusing possibility. When one of Iraq's top scientists was captured, if you'll remember, he claimed that Saddam never supported them with proper funds so when he asked for progress reports they'd basically trump something up to trick him in to believing all was well.

    Not sure how much we can beleive of that though. Can't deflect forever.

    I wouldn't trust Putin necessarily, but if three of the top intel agencies in the world believe a thing then it's hard to believe its completely baseless.

    Bottom line; we went with that justification and found nothing. Not good no matter what one believes.

  2. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,050
    When you put a large fire inside an extremely tall skyscraper, you have "stack effect", which means the entire building becomes a chimney. Now, chimney draft is a function of the temperature difference btw flue gases and outside, and the height of the flue. In this case, you have an incredible draft sucking up this, the world's tallest chimney making the fires into blast furnaces. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, when fanned by a strong breeze, you can drive temps way up. Take the lowly blacksmith's forge. You take coke, coal or wood burning at un-fanned temps. of about 900-1,200F. Fan those flames with a forge and you can actually melt steel (2,500+F). Now, if you read the internet, it is absolutely flooded with dozens of engineers and 'experts' quoting maxmium flame temps for jet fuel in open air from ~1,200-1,900F give or take a few degrees, then some anti-conspiracy types quoting temps between 2,700-6,750F. A lot depends on free air vs. compressed air burn in a jet engine. What I have not read anywhere are two key points: one, the stack effect as I noted above and B, the building acted like an oven to contain the heat driving temps. up. Now, once other combustibles in the building ignited such as furnishings, furniture, clothing, plastic wiring insulation, you have an added fuel load but you also drive up the heat release rate of all fuels burning. Now, ignite some metals and you have even more heat being released into the cauldron but contained within it like a crucible. I can take a propane torch and heat a copper pipe for quit some time without melting the copper. Cut off a section of 1/2" copper, put it in a crucible and heat it with that same torch and you can melt the copper tubing. It's magic! No, it is focusing the heat back upon itself. BTW, was this fire dept. captain a metalurgist and did he conduct experients on the molten metal he encountered? How did he know it wasn't a lot of aluminum, which melts around 1,220F depending upon the alloy? How about the babbit metal in bearings in elevator hoists and motors? Who knows what all was up there? Go fish... Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you paranoid types concern yourself with the creeps running the country trying to hand it over to worse creeps who want to kill us?

  3. #172
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    When you put a large fire inside an extremely tall skyscraper, you have "stack effect", which means the entire building becomes a chimney. Now, chimney draft is a function of the temperature difference btw flue gases and outside, and the height of the flue. In this case, you have an incredible draft sucking up this, the world's tallest chimney making the fires into blast furnaces. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, when fanned by a strong breeze, you can drive temps way up. Take the lowly blacksmith's forge. You take coke, coal or wood burning at un-fanned temps. of about 900-1,200F. Fan those flames with a forge and you can actually melt steel (2,500+F). Now, if you read the internet, it is absolutely flooded with dozens of engineers and 'experts' quoting maxmium flame temps for jet fuel in open air from ~1,200-1,900F give or take a few degrees, then some anti-conspiracy types quoting temps between 2,700-6,750F. A lot depends on free air vs. compressed air burn in a jet engine. What I have not read anywhere are two key points: one, the stack effect as I noted above and B, the building acted like an oven to contain the heat driving temps. up. Now, once other combustibles in the building ignited such as furnishings, furniture, clothing, plastic wiring insulation, you have an added fuel load but you also drive up the heat release rate of all fuels burning. Now, ignite some metals and you have even more heat being released into the cauldron but contained within it like a crucible. I can take a propane torch and heat a copper pipe for quit some time without melting the copper. Cut off a section of 1/2" copper, put it in a crucible and heat it with that same torch and you can melt the copper tubing. It's magic! No, it is focusing the heat back upon itself. BTW, was this fire dept. captain a metalurgist and did he conduct experients on the molten metal he encountered? How did he know it wasn't a lot of aluminum, which melts around 1,220F depending upon the alloy? How about the babbit metal in bearings in elevator hoists and motors? Who knows what all was up there? Go fish... Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you paranoid types concern yourself with the creeps running the country trying to hand it over to worse creeps who want to kill us?


    We probably had no data or experience with the high temps of burning jet fuel confined inside of a high-rise but we have data and experience with high-rise fires. Why was Building 7 the first to fall from a fire? What were the successive explosions heard on the videos. And why were there no residue tests on the debris?

    I don’t doubt that science can do a fine job of analyzing these structural failures. I would just like science to have more to work with.

    It’s not case closed.

  4. #173
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    20,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    We probably had no data or experience with the high temps of burning jet fuel confined inside of a high-rise but we have data and experience with high-rise fires. Why was Building 7 the first to fall from a fire? What were the successive explosions heard on the videos. And why were there no residue tests on the debris?

    I don’t doubt that science can do a fine job of analyzing these structural failures. I would just like science to have more to work with.

    It’s not case closed.
    Seems to me if TPTB wanted to find answers... they would follow through. Seeing the case is closed officially... it would appear there is something to hide.

    What I do not understand is why the public does not care? Oh yeah, the polecats really do have the public's interest at heart... NOT!
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Galatians 2:20-21; Colossians 1: 21-22 & 26-27; 3:1-4; Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service.

  5. #174
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckcrj View Post
    Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.
    You just don't get it. In these operations, only a handful of individuals get to see the big picture. The rest of the minions have their jobs to do. When the event happens its understood that you don't talk and if you do you will end up getting suicided or have a mystery collapse and end up dead. There have been numerous persons that aware of too much or made waves that have turned up dead. To name a few:

    David Graham
    Hunter S Thompson
    Barry Jennings
    Kenneth Johannemann
    Paul Wellstone
    Christopher Landis
    Deborah Palfrey (DC Madam)

    You clearly underestimate unlimited resources, think tanks, years of operational experience. The government has been up to this for a long long time and 911 was their Magnun Opus. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean its impossible
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  6. #175
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Of course debris was whisked off because no one in thier wildest dreams thought it would matter. No science that I read even mentioned debris. Why? Because it is irrelevent.
    LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

    Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  7. #176
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    It's a bit difficult to accept information from a site that promotes that the holocaust never happened or that UFO's are causing Earth's weather to change.
    Doesn't change the fact that everything in the video is true, does it? Is that NWO swine not advocating false flag attacks and provocation as pretext to war at a press conference?
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  8. #177
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

    There's an article from Structure Magazine which described how the failure of a single column could well result in uniform collapse of building 7 specifically.

    You asked how it could happen, there it is.

    Complete with pretty pictures and diagrams!

    Of course, we know you won't read it.

    Does a great job showing redundancy, shared loads, and weight RE-distibution, e.g. progressive collapse.
    LOL column 79 isn't even close to the point of damage from tower 1. This article is merely an engineer or 2 given the task of corroborating the official story and this is the only thing they could come up with. Why did the east penthouse collapse into the building? Wasn't the debris damage roughly in the center of the structure? Also, the title of the article is "How the loss of one column MAY HAVE led to the collapse of WTC7" Not "How the loss of 1 column led to the collapse of WTC7"

    I'm sure columns 76-81 played a part in WTC7's global collapse, just not in the way you're thinking
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  9. #178
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyTree View Post
    LOL column 79 isn't even close to the point of damage from tower 1. This article is merely an engineer or 2 given the task of corroborating the official story and this is the only thing they could come up with. Why did the east penthouse collapse into the building? Wasn't the debris damage roughly in the center of the structure? Also, the title of the article is "How the loss of one column MAY HAVE led to the collapse of WTC7" Not "How the loss of 1 column led to the collapse of WTC7"

    I'm sure columns 76-81 played a part in WTC7's global collapse, just not in the way you're thinking
    An engineer or two? Articles in Structures magazine are peer reviewed by thousands of engineers world wide (don't take my word for it, RESEARCH something for yourself FOR ONCE), but thanks for exposing your level of knowledge on that matter for us. Very telling.

    And BTW, the charge made was that it CANNOT happen, that's what you think lends weight to your kook ideas. It certainly CAN happen.

    BTW, Mr. Science, ALL THEORIES are not facts. DUH!

    MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE that last line right there!

    BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!
    Last edited by scrogdog; 10-02-2012 at 08:18 AM.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  10. #179
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyTree View Post
    LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

    Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".
    Bull crapio. How about posting some support for these misguided comments about debris? I mean from the science community, not you tube.
    Last edited by scrogdog; 10-02-2012 at 08:34 AM.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  11. #180
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyTree View Post
    The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise.
    Only problem is, since you don't actually check something out for yourself, you will never understand anything.

    Check the design spec and please come back and tell exactly what aircraft it was designed to withstand. Was that the aircraft that hit?

    Again, shoddy, shoddy, shoddy. Par for the course for you.

    You do know the difference between a 707 and what hit, yes?

    Thanks for continually demonstrating that not only do you not have a clue, but why you don't.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  12. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyTree View Post
    Doesn't change the fact that everything in the video is true, does it?
    Ladies and gents. I rest my case.

    Looney tunes reign supreme.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  13. #182
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    It’s not case closed.
    Finally something worth replying to.

    Credit where credit is due, Brian. This is exactly correct.

    What I don't get is why both you and GA consider the matter closed.

    Science is never closed. Theories are always being debated and in some cases modified. Indeed it took quite some time for Einstien to modify Newton's work on gravity, right? And it could happen again. It never ends.

    That's precisely why I say, if you could only understand, your experts are FREE TO SUBMIT PROPER SCIENCE. Maybe one will win a Nobel for thier work. But again, for reasons that I don't understand, YOU don't seem to understand that science has rules that MUST be followed.

    Science can't respond until someone does that; make a white paper that follows the rules. Don't confuse that with "case closed".
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

Page 14 of 31 FirstFirst ... 478910111213141516171819202124 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event