Warrior General Games

You like quoting firefighters... quote these ones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FNlYKQ7HQo

Originally posted by wormser1971
You like quoting firefighters... quote these ones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FNlYKQ7HQo

It would take a lot more than two explosions to demo the WTC buddy. It would take multiple explosions and if they were coming from the lobby those firefighters would be mist.

Once again:

These are demolitions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

Not a demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA


Any questions?

Originally posted by wormser1971
2) I have discussed thermodynamics here. Ambient temperature does not mean that the steel had been heated to that temperature. The steel started out at room temperature. It was being heated, but there is no way that it could have been heated to those temperatures ion that amount of time. Visualize putting a roast in a 400 f oven. It takes time to heat that roast to 165 f because of the rate of heat transfer. It is not a situation you understand, quite obviously. Go put a ham in the oven.... wait 4 hours... check the internal temperature. Now I am not saying that steel is the same as ham in the realm of thermal conductivity, but since you obviously understand nothing about thermal conductivity and rates of heat transfer, it is an example I figure you can relate to. Steel is ok at heat transfer. In order to weaken the steel, it must be heated to a temperature, not exposed to heat. Based on the thickness of the steel in the WTC towers, it would have taken significantly more time to be heated to a temperature that would cause weakening.

I understand it just fine as I have taken multiple thermodynamics and heat transfer classes. I understand that ambient temperature doesn't mean the steel was heated to that temperature. The point is that ambient temperature was much higher than the temperature needed to start to weaken steel which is around 350 degrees C. You are also way overestimating the time it takes for direct flame to heat a beam, that is already supporting more than it was designed for, to the point that its tensile strength can no longer continue to support that weight. If you want to know how steel reacts to high temperatures here is some good reading. Yield strength is at .5 at around 550 degrees C. Leave the engineering to the engineers.

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/JSepturo.pdf

Originally posted by baumusc
I understand it just fine as I have taken multiple thermodynamics and heat transfer classes. I understand that ambient temperature doesn't mean the steel was heated to that temperature. The point is that ambient temperature was much higher than the temperature needed to start to weaken steel which is around 350 degrees C. You are also way overestimating the time it takes for direct flame to heat a beam, that is already supporting more than it was designed for, to the point that its tensile strength can no longer continue to support that weight. If you want to know how steel reacts to high temperatures here is some good reading. Yield strength is at .5 at around 550 degrees C. Leave the engineering to the engineers.

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/JSepturo.pdf

If you were an engineer, you would have used the term "buckling" at some point. you would have referenced the connections as a weak point. I have had this debate with structural engineers... I was prepared for anything you might say.

If you want to take part in a real debate, go with me to one of these forums...

https://www.metabunk.org/forums/

It's a debunking site... There are plenty of highly educated individuals there, and trolling will get you banned. It is quite a good place to have an actual debate. You will be in the majority there.

Originally posted by wormser1971


If you want to take part in a real debate, go with me to one of these forums...

https://www.metabunk.org/forums/

It's a debunking site... There are plenty of highly educated individuals there, and trolling will get you banned. It is quite a good place to have an actual debate. You will be in the majority there.


If he goes there for 11 years, will he wind up as ignorant and anti-Semitic as Gnosis?

The biggest problem with the WTC collapse is in the initial start of the collapse. Why are we assuming that the top portion fell 10 feet? As if all of the steel disappeared simultaneously, rather than bending and slowly dropping onto the undamaged bottom portion? The steel columns may have weakened, even though it should have taken significantly longer. They didn't disappear, and they didn't fracture simultaneously. So the amount of energy available for the crush of the remaining building was insufficient. It's that simple from the beginning.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

If he goes there for 11 years, will he wind up as ignorant and anti-Semitic as Gnosis?

Again, Larry doesn't know what a semite is... and he calls me ignorant..

hahah

Eat a dick Larry.

Originally posted by wormser1971
The biggest problem with the WTC collapse is in the initial start of the collapse. Why are we assuming that the top portion fell 10 feet? As if all of the steel disappeared simultaneously, rather than bending and slowly dropping onto the undamaged bottom portion? The steel columns may have weakened, even though it should have taken significantly longer. They didn't disappear, and they didn't fracture simultaneously. So the amount of energy available for the crush of the remaining building was insufficient. It's that simple from the beginning.

Not sure what collapses you have watched but what you are describing isn't what happened at all. With WTC 2 for instance in the following video you can see the collapse begin to occur on the left side of the building where the most damage is. You can see the collapse begin at second 2 in the video. As the left side of the building starts collapsing the center and right side of the building begin to buckle at second 3 in the video. You can actually see the structure flex at the middle and right side. At the last part of the frame in second 3 and first part of second 4 you can see the building buckle 9-10 floors above where it started to collapse on the left side. The top of the building doesn't just 'drop down' like you claim but instead begins to fall off center at an angle as can be seen in second 4 of the video. Then in second 6 of the video you see how the entire top part of the building starts to fall on the rest at an angle. In second 10 you can see part of the exterior of the building still standing for a while as the rest of the building collapses. To say that the building fell like the steel disappeared is just being intellectually dishonest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

Originally posted by Gnosis
... and he calls me ignorant..

hahah





Uh, pretty much everyone calls you ignorant in one way or another--I just happen to do so in an unmistakable manner.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Uh, pretty much everyone calls you ignorant in one way or another--I just happen to do so in an unmistakable manner.

Says the guy that turns into a seething animal anytime someone mentions Israel or anything jewish.

Originally posted by taurran
Says the guy that turns into a seething animal anytime someone mentions Israel or anything jewish.


I'm seething. I mean just really, really seething. You wouldn't like me when I'm seething.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

I'm seething. I mean just really, really seething. You wouldn't like me when I'm seething.

What happens then? You fly a plane into a building?

Kick your neighbors out of their house, claim it as your own, and then make them sleep in the street?

Originally posted by taurran
What happens then? You fly a plane into a building?

Kick your neighbors out of their house, claim it as your own, and then make them sleep in the street?


I don't know--I'm too busy seething right now to describe it to you. I mean I'm just seething.