| Author |
Message |
|
Zulfiqar
|
Post subject:  Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:47 am |
|
Joined: Jun 27th, 2006
Posts: 1127
|
Phys1905 wrote: The calculations arent flawed.
They are based on facts apart from the evidence of the buildings.
For example, the mass of thermite and the amount that would be needed for x building so large is a value you can calculate w/o needing debrie from the buildings.
How can you draw a conclusion on the amount of thermate, when almost all the evidence was destroyed!
Let's say that the amount of thermate was indeed not sufficient, how then is it possible that in every sample of the dust of WTC, thermate has been found?
What is the probability of that, considering that nearly all the evidence was either shipped to another country or destroyed.
It's not a strong argument at all. Resting on pure speculation. _________________ IrrigatedPancake wrote: Uhoh, nobody tell the terrorists where to find the building where we store the economy.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Int'l man of mystery
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:55 am |
|
Joined: Jul 20th, 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: USA
|
Phys1905 wrote: The calculations arent flawed.
They are based on facts apart from the evidence of the buildings. Which is why they are flawed - because they have no evidence of the buildings, and therefore, they are largely conjectural and hypothetical. Quote: For example, the mass of thermite and the amount that would be needed for x building so large is a value you can calculate w/o needing debrie from the buildings.
But this presumes that only thermite and/or thermate were used and nothing else. They would've only been used (as they often are) to cut steel. In this case, it would be the steel columns.
Also note the unmistakable evidence of linear shaped charges on the steel columns at the WTC ruins:
So, at the very least, high velocity explosive detonations were used on the WTC, which is what thermite and/or thermate are used for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GamerS
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:46 am |
|
 |
| Smashing neocons |
 |
Joined: Dec 10th, 2006
Posts: 1490
|
|
That's the picture!!!!!!!!! Look at that. How can the world see that and not think something's wrong?!?!? Look at the angle cut and MELTED STEEL DRIPPINGS!!!!! Does anyone know any details of that shot? When it was taken, and where?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulfiqar
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:39 am |
|
Joined: Jun 27th, 2006
Posts: 1127
|
|
Those pictures are the nail in the coffin.
If fire does that, then i'm gonna start a new company that demolishes buildings with fire. Anyone want to invest?
_________________ IrrigatedPancake wrote: Uhoh, nobody tell the terrorists where to find the building where we store the economy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Phys
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:52 am |
|
|
| Anti-Zionist princess |
 |
Joined: Jan 1st, 2007
Posts: 9660
Location: USA
|
Zulfiqar wrote: Phys1905 wrote: The calculations arent flawed.
They are based on facts apart from the evidence of the buildings.
For example, the mass of thermite and the amount that would be needed for x building so large is a value you can calculate w/o needing debrie from the buildings. How can you draw a conclusion on the amount of thermate, when almost all the evidence was destroyed! Let's say that the amount of thermate was indeed not sufficient, how then is it possible that in every sample of the dust of WTC, thermate has been found? What is the probability of that, considering that nearly all the evidence was either shipped to another country or destroyed. It's not a strong argument at all. Resting on pure speculation. One more time:
Calculate the amount of thermite needed for any, any building at all you pick it. Then calculate how much that would weigh. ANY BUILDING
Not sure how we need evidence for that. 
Leds wrote:
All the demolitionists I've talked to in Georgia said it looked like controlled demolition.
All the experts I talk to said it wasnt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Omega Pi
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:39 pm |
|
|
| Fights PNAC daily |
 |
Joined: Feb 25th, 2007
Posts: 573
|
Quote: It's called "factor of safety" and engineering term and it's not uncommon for an individual structural member to be sized to hold 10x it's actual load so it can compensate in the event of damage to to other members.
Nice, the other term I mentioned is actually more for electrical/mechanical engineers. Wasn't sure about civil. If you ever heard "If it doesn't have two engines and two pilots, I'm not getting on it" thats what I meant by redundancy. My point is, important things built in modern times should be stronger than what the media/others are trying to tell me.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Int'l man of mystery
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:46 pm |
|
Joined: Jul 20th, 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: USA
|
Phys1905 wrote: One more time: Calculate the amount of thermite needed for any, any building at all you pick it. Then calculate how much that would weigh. ANY BUILDINGNot sure how we need evidence for that. The calculations you presented are based on the assumption that only thermite and/or thermate were used, and doesn't factor in HOW it was used. What is being claimed, is that it was used as a cutter charge. These are shaped charges that are used to cut through steel in demoliting large structures. Now the question is, how much do cutter charges weigh, and if thermate was used for them, how much would they require? Quote: All the experts I talk to said it wasnt.
Which is strange, since immediately after 9/11, it seemed to be unanimous, that the collapses weren't soley caused by the impact and any subsequent fires.
One wonders why they changed their minds, and why (if they truly believe they were wrong) that they made the initial claim in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ledskof
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 pm |
|
|
| Over the system |
 |
Joined: Oct 26th, 2006
Posts: 2291
Location: Atlanta
|
|
Sorry but I hold actual building demo crews in higher regard on this subject than "experts".
_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?
"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux
|
|
| |
|
|
|
