RE: The Big Lie! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/18/2007 10:19:37 AM)

So you are saying there were natural gas lines, what, something like 50 stories higher than the highest cafeteria?  Show it.  There were restraunts on the top floor of bothe WTC1 & 2.  I am not saying the gas lines went higher than the restruants.  I am stating that there were restraunts on the top floor, hence gas lines to them.  http://www.fieldtrip.com/ny/24357379.htm

transformer oil burns much cooler than jp4 or 6 or natural gas and is totally irrelevant.   Irelevant to the heat perhaps, but they explode, sounding like bombs you keep refering to, thats one of your small lies.

NIST reports that the hottest the flames got were only a cool 500deg, barely enough to light a cigarette be comparison.  Thats simply not true

Show how this massive convection occurred since the building was design to seal off exactly that.  All of the smoke rising out of the top had to be replaced by more air to feed the firemore air in to relpace.  NO, the building was not sealed

Now there is a weak analogy; kiln.  Nope it shows how using convection you can make a fire burn hotter, than if it was simply on a flat level surface.  Remeber you kept saying Jet fuel burns at one specific temperature, thats another of your little lies.  Nothing burns at a constant temp, it depends on conditions.  A kiln intentionally sets the conditions to burn very hot.

The NYFD man who was on the 78th floor said there was only 2 "small" fires up there and to send up 2 hoses to put them out.  Yep 2 small fires on the 78th floor, are you pretending that was the only place there was a fire in the building?  Do you actually think people are dumb enough to fall for that?
 
Its taking you 3 days to type "Proffessor Judy Miller" into google?  You could do it in less than 30 seconds.  Why tell such a  pathetic lie?




luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/18/2007 10:27:34 AM)

you have contended the government conspiracy theory is the "correct conspiracy theory", that those buildings collapsed from the intense heat from the fire even though silverstien admitted to blowing it up.   That is a lie, you can feel free to provide evidence where Silverstein admitted to blowing it up.  This is the real test for you real.  This isnt about interpretation or extrapolation.  You are making a claim, which is a lie. Please, give evidence where Silverstein admitted this.  Or admit you are simply telling bold faced lies. 
 
By the way you are also lying about what the Gov says happened.  They do not say that a fire brought the building down.  They say that a massive impact, plus an explosion, and then fires that raged for over an hour brought the towers (1 &2)down.  Lies lies lies all over the place.  Your mother must be ashamed of you.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/18/2007 12:12:20 PM)

False: They only explode and make a bang sound(rarely if ever like a bomb), if there is an internal short circuit that vaporizes the oil and it cannot escape fast enough.   Even then all you get is a hole in it or worst case part of the casing will be split open, which is "not" remotely close to a bomb.  Not even enough force to hurt a by stander unless you are sitting on it at the time. Its just a can you know. Nothing like you want to imply like it is some kind room destroying force from it.  and i never not even once referred to a transformer being a bomb, nice twist putting your words in my mouth, i will speak for myself thank you very much.

Those pictures were taken from the observation towers, you want to use a tourist advertisement that does not even make a statement to that effect as proof there is a restraunt up there?  It had tons of restraunts on the lower floors.

If the NIST report is not true site it and be sure to include which of the 3 versions you are siting since they havce 3 different versions.  LOL

I never said the building was sealed in terms that it could not get air from somewhere on that day.  Of course it got "some" air.  Dont change the context that i put it in.

Convection?  Sure it got air from the windows that were blown out from the force of the impact and exploding jp4.  That was on all the floors effected not the rest of the building as those in your court would like to put out.

yes a kiln is a weak and completely imporoper analogy because kilns are "forced air" not convection!!

your Bar-B-Q grill is convection and when was the last time lighter fluid or any kind or petroleum fuel or natural gas melted it down on you? 

Speaking of kilns, in a 3200 degree kiln how long it would take to heat a 4" thick by 30" x 16" O channel of smpte119 steel that was used in the wtc to its 50% strength value?  Since you are so quick to spout lies you must know that answer off the top of your head.

That is correct the fire fighter was "inside" where the big gaping hole was, you know the part inside?  Thats the part we could not see from the outside and that was his assessment.  Are you saying the fire department does not know how to put out fires or are unqualified to make that determination now too?

Because i do remember that what she did was part of a presentation done by somone else and i do not remember who's presentation it was and i prefer to review the exact data i looked at the first time.

Everything you posted here so far is misleading.

 



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/18/2007 3:18:49 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk


right from the horses ass, errrr i mean mouth.  (but then i do not know what good that will do for you personally since you have already proven you do not know or understand demolition vernacular)

Oh so that must be the new kind of massive impact that does not do any damage till a later time, it has to get the nerve up!  LOL   

So you want everyone to believe that this "massive impact" took nearly 45 minutes to shake the building to the ground?   

Really? you mean all those explosions on the ground floor levels or the fuel burning from the crash explosions?  

Explain how much fuel it would take to create a big enough explosion to blow a standard home apart if a jp4 fuel bomb were to be constructed to accomplish this.

You must be talking about the government lies where i woudl certainly believe you, especially since gw and gang havent told even one little white one to the public have they lucky?  LOL

Enjoy the clip btw





luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 12:40:22 AM)

Uh real in your video clip he says the Fire Dept made the decision to pull( in reference to the fire crews who felt the fire could not be contained).  How is this in any way "silverstien admitted to blowing it up. "?   Oh thats right, that is the only thing that pull means....

I never said that the exploding transformers took down the building, I said they made the sounds you call explosives, they were also visible in the videos.

So you are asserting that there was no damage from the impact of the plane untill 45 minutes later?  Even you can't be that dumb.  I said that a massive impact AND the fire brought down the building.  You can look up what "and" means on the Net if it is still confusing you. 

So you actually think the smoke that poured out of the building came from 2 small fires?  And that because one fireman reported 2 small fires in one area, that is the extent of it.  What was killing the firemen that Silverstein refers to in the video clip you posted.

I specified a pre steel age kiln, like the Mezoamericans used, I guess that confused you also.  No forced air at all, convection.  A  few small holes at the bottom to let oxygen rich air in, a large hole at the top to let hot air out creating a pressure differential, which sucks the air in fast, making the fire hotter than if it was just wood burning in a pit.  Yes, convection operates in a grill, but it is not designed to create massive temperatures, just to cook food.  The design matters Real.

"Those pictures were taken from the observation towers, you want to use a tourist advertisement that does not even make a statement to that effect as proof there is a restraunt up there?  It had tons of restraunts on the lower floors."   What the hell does 'statement to that effect as proof" mean?  My bad I did post the wrong link as evidence  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_on_the_World    http://www.andrewgeller.net/commercial/wtc.html    Just to be clear Real you are asserting that there were no Gas running up to the restaurants on the top floors?  I ate in the Snack bar.



DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 6:51:18 AM)

Is Real actually claiming Windows on the World didn't exist? I ignore his bloviating on this topic but this is too much. He's either a liar or terminally misinformed.

I dare him to go to Colors at 417 Lafayette St. in Manhattan and tell the staff all about his "theory." 




Rule -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 7:11:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
I said that a massive impact AND the fire brought down the building.
Quote: Frank De Martini, an architect who works as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, is interviewed for a History Channel documentary about the WTC towers. He says, “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting”. [Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, pp. 149]
 
Physicists have already calculated that the "massive" impact had negligible effect on the tower that was struck by the plane, due to the enormous inertial mass of the second tower.
 
There is no evidence whatsoever that the first tower was also struck by a plane.
 
I quote from http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html: "As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured – separated from each other – yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening", and "About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the North Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way" because they pointed toward the outside of the Tower".

 
If anything, the effect of the fires in the wtc-towers was to reduce the load the floors and columns of the towers had to carry, as much mass was transported away in the smoke. This is one of the main reasons that the skeletons of buildings remain standing once a building is suffering from fire damage.

I quote from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html: "In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types", and "temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range".
 
I quote from http://rense.com/general59/ul.htm: "Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6)".

 
 




luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 9:43:18 AM)

Rule you should really read your own links,

" basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse. "   http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html  Rule and Real, did you notice that on this page the difference between Heat and Temperature is discussed.  They are not the same thing, as you both keep pretending.

Thanks for the concice link explaining how the fire caused the building to fall, and why it fell almost straight down.

What were you trying to demonstrate with it rule?  It entirely disagrees with you.




luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 9:45:38 AM)

Domken, he is a liar.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 11:20:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Domken, he is a liar.


There is an old saying that goes something like:   "A Skunk Always Smells His Own Ass First"







Rule -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 11:38:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Rule you should really read your own links
I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
" basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

So?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire.

That is a lie. The jet fuel burned too quickly to have any significant impact on the enormous heat capacity of the columns and girders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel
This refers not to the jet fuel fire, but to the office material fire that followed immediately afterward. The towers were designed to cope with such office fires, even large office fires - but these fires were minor and did not even get as hot as more than 250 degrees Celcius.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling.
This again refers to the jet fuel fire. Notice the sly obfuscation of jet fuel fire effects and office fire effects. This article was either written by incompetents or by people that were intent on deceiving their readers. In any case this quoted statement also is a lie. There is not any evidence of any deformity and loss of strength immediately after the short-lived jet fuel fire.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall

This is a lie. Floors did sag, but only after the thermate had been ignited shortly before the buildings collapsed.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html  Rule and Real, did you notice that on this page the difference between Heat and Temperature is discussed.  They are not the same thing, as you both keep pretending.

Of course I noticed. I also know that you can pick up a meteorite immediately after it has fallen down: it is not hot, but cold, despite its very hot descent through the atmosphere. That momentary jet fuel fire and the minor office fires that occurred afterward in no way can have had any significant effect on the columns and floor beams.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
What were you trying to demonstrate with it rule?  It entirely disagrees with you.

That is your perception. Thus I demonstrated that you are not qualified to read and judge that article. They mixed some truths with some lies and you swallowed all of it, bait and hook.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 11:43:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html



Hey rule, i had this link some time ago but have deleted it because there are simply far to many errors in it.

Of course lucky's read is backwards from the point they are trying to make but none the less it really is shoddy work.





Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 11:50:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire.

That is a lie. The jet fuel burned too quickly to have any significant impact on the enormous heat capacity of the columns and girders.



Agreed.

Another thing you will notice is that lucky failed to answer any of my questions so far.  To be capable of discussing this matter intelligently one has to know a little bit about thermodynamics and he does not.



Rule -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 11:53:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i had this link some time ago but have deleted it because there are simply far too many errors in it.

Of course lucky's read is backwards from the point they are trying to make but none the less it really is shoddy work.

Yes, I know. I consider it useful because it has some useful statements, and I ignore the untruths and lies that are in it. Of course lesser minds - i.e. most people - are sucked in by those traps.



DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 1:25:52 PM)

I'm still waiting for a retraction of Real's claim that Windows on the World didn't exist.

As to the rest, where did whoever did this find a skilled crew of building demo guys who never ever got drunk and bragged about doing this job? A controlled demo of a single tower would require thousands if not tens of thousands of man/hours of skilled work. Who did it? How was such a big job kept completely quiet? A conspiracy theory calling for dozens or hundreds or very specialized and uncommon workers needs to adequately explain how it would have been done which none of your BS comes even remotely close to.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 1:29:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm still waiting for a retraction of Real's claim that Windows on the World didn't exist.


i am still waiting for you to quote me on it.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 1:31:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A controlled demo of a single tower would require thousands if not tens of thousands of man/hours of skilled work. Who did it? How was such a big job kept completely quiet? A conspiracy theory calling for dozens or hundreds or very specialized and uncommon workers needs to adequately explain how it would have been done which none of your BS comes even remotely close to.


it was probably done by the same people who prepared building 7 eh?

not in this thread but i have posted several videos where you could both hear the bombs going off and several paople testified to bobes going off, try googling it.



DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 1:35:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm still waiting for a retraction of Real's claim that Windows on the World didn't exist.


i am still waiting for you to quote me on it.



here it is:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Those pictures were taken from the observation towers, you want to use a tourist advertisement that does not even make a statement to that effect as proof there is a restraunt up there?  It had tons of restraunts on the lower floors.

Now admit you are wrong.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 1:40:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm still waiting for a retraction of Real's claim that Windows on the World didn't exist.


i am still waiting for you to quote me on it.



here it is:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Those pictures were taken from the observation towers, you want to use a tourist advertisement that does not even make a statement to that effect as proof there is a restraunt up there?  It had tons of restraunts on the lower floors.

Now admit you are wrong.


this is truly the twilight zone.  

i cannot wait to hear how you came to the conclusion that statement means that i think there are no windoes in wtc lmao



DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/19/2007 1:43:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A controlled demo of a single tower would require thousands if not tens of thousands of man/hours of skilled work. Who did it? How was such a big job kept completely quiet? A conspiracy theory calling for dozens or hundreds or very specialized and uncommon workers needs to adequately explain how it would have been done which none of your BS comes even remotely close to.


it was probably done by the same people who prepared building 7 eh?

not in this thread but i have posted several videos where you could both hear the bombs going off and several paople testified to bobes going off, try googling it.


No, I'm not interested in unreliable witness testimony. I want to hear your version of the setup.

Who did the work? When did they wire the building for demo? How long did it take? What method of demo did they use? How much and what kind of explosives were used? Where was the computer needed to control this massive demo located? How was the computer connected to the WTC towers? Who did the engineering survey to begin the planning for the demo? When was it done? Why didn't anyone notice all the drilling into the central columns? Why didn't the massive gang of workers mucking about with the floor joists and outer columns attract any notice?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875