| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:43 am Post subject: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth |
 |
|
Truthers are excited about the existence of Architects an Engineers for 9-11 Truth. Naivete, stupidity, cheating, delusion and mental illness affect members of all professions. The science and engineering professions are not exempt. From their website;
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed. |
He was taught to make structures indestructible? Go on!
Looking through the list I see people who build barns and put together IKEA furniture for the neighbours. I see people who design the appearance and ergonomics of buildings, I see a lot of padding, software engineers, Kevin Ryan, a professor who isn’t one anymore. I don’t see any credibility, just a lot of sad sorry people who want to get their bio. on the internet. I won’t expect any science and engineering or other evidence; only retreads of
‘pull it’; ‘thermite’; ‘thermate actually’; ‘controlled demolition’; ‘freefall’; ‘no plane hit….’ arguments to incredulity, pseudoscience, quotes out of context, selective quoting,
‘UL certified……..’ ‘as Hoffman said ‘; ‘as Hufschmid said’; ‘DEWs did it’; ‘dancing Israelis’; ‘as Sheen said’; 'as Wood said'; ‘dustification’. And, all together now like the sheeple you are, bobbing heads in time; nine eleven was an inside job, nine eleven....
I see no reason to take this bunch seriously. Gage isn’t bringing anything new to show. Engineers have their bluffers and frauds in the same way as the medical and legal professions do. It is helpful of them to alert the public and regulators to the identities of those still practising.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | He was taught to make structures indestructible? Go on!
|
thats not what it says. it says.....
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. |
[/quote]
If only he had been taught the same about dodgy powerpoint presentations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know what the ae911t poster said marky, I copied, pasted and quoted it.
For a structure or device to avoid catastrophic failure under all circumstances, it would have to be indestructible. As an engineer, the poster should also be aware that regardless of how robust the design is there are several post design factors not including impact by large fast moving aircraft that can affect the integrity of the structure or device.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so your saying when a building is designed(especially skyscrappers) and built it is not designed and built in a way inorder to avoid catastrophic failure under certain circumstances? ie: fire being one of them?
some places in the world build and design buildings to withstand earthquakes. now if an average earthquake came along and flattened it, doubts will be raised over the building designers credibility and capability if it was indeed designed to withstand earthquakes.
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed. |
seems logical to me.
but if you insist no effort is made to avoid catastrophic failure, i shall never step foot in any building higher than two floors again.
i thought engineers knew what they were doing, i did'nt realise they just slapped buildings up with no thoughts in mind about possible hazards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For a structure or device to avoid catastrophic failure under all circumstances |
maybe you should link the page you got the quote from. i don't see him mentioning buildings surviving meteor impacts or ALL circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | maybe you should link the page you got the quote from. i don't see him mentioning buildings surviving meteor impacts or ALL circumstances |
The ae911t poster does suggest that the buildings should not have failed at some point following impact with an aircraft and the design engineer is somehow to blame. Leslie Roberston never claimed that following an aircraft collision, the buildings would stand forever more.
| Quote: | | seems logical to me |
It would. Marky, you have missed the point. You are not an engineer and I'm not about to give lessons.
Apologies to those who don't need this spoon fed.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still looking for the part where you said engineers just slapped buildings up with no thoughts in mind about possible hazards. Maybe someone could spoon feed that to me?
In the meantime i'm afraid to enter buildings, especially ones in areas with a lot of chemtrails.
Hey did anyone hear a noise?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It would. Marky, you have missed the point. You are not an engineer and I'm not about to give lessons.
|
i don't need to be an engineer to read what you quote and then watch as you seem to take it out of context, i need to be an engineer to build and design buildings.
if you see it as spoon feeding because i believe a link might make it clearer to the readers then thats fine. however you know which page you got the quote from, i did'nt expect it would be a problem. i obviously will have to scan over a whole website for the 'offending' material.
how i was suppose to know the 'poster' said this:
| Quote: | The ae911t poster does suggest that the buildings should not have failed at some point following impact with an aircraft and the design engineer is somehow to blame. Leslie Roberston never claimed that following an aircraft collision, the buildings would stand forever more.
|
from this:
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed. |
i'll never know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see you've found the quote. That wasn't so hard was it?
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed. |
The engineers that design the buildings. Missed the communication module of his degree did he? I expect he slept through a lot of classes.
Leslie Roberstson has explained. There were a couple of 100 tonne clues moving at high speed to help our dim friend from ae911t.
If you still don't get what I'm on about marky, that's okay. If one fencesitter comes down on my side of the fence because of my post(s), I'm happy. I don't expect to ever sway a hardcore truther. That's not why I'm here.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I understand it WTC building 7 was not hit by a 100ton fast moving object aka commercial jet airliner but we don't have any evidence of what DID hit the towers *respectively, the unprecedented disappaearance of their black box flight recorders added to this their is video evidence showing whatever hit WTC2 penetrated with its nosecone and fuselage intact, its doubtful the commercial airliner the official CT claims hit building two could have done this, but this brings me to my main point, are official story fundamentalist zealots saying the actual plane impacts were the reason for the gravity collapse causing the majority of the concrete floors office contents and human victims to turn to dust a bit like in a Tom and jerry cartoon? if this IS the case could one of the OCT peeps' post a link detailing the mathematics for this phenomenon?
(*there was the terrorist passport and much terrorist DNA according to Davin Coburn of popular mechanics magazine) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | As I understand it WTC building 7 was not hit by a 100ton fast moving object aka commercial jet airliner but we don't have any evidence of what DID hit the towers *respectively, the unprecedented disappaearance of their black box flight recorders added to this their is video evidence showing whatever hit WTC2 penetrated with its nosecone and fuselage intact, its doubtful the commercial airliner the official CT claims hit building two could have done this, but this brings me to my main point, are official story fundamentalist zealots saying the actual plane impacts were the reason for the gravity collapse causing the majority of the concrete floors office contents and human victims to turn to dust a bit like in a Tom and jerry cartoon? if this IS the case could one of the OCT peeps' post a link detailing the mathematics for this phenomenon?
(*there was the terrorist passport and much terrorist DNA according to Davin Coburn of popular mechanics magazine) |
If you can write that lot;, litterrred with speling and punctuatio'n mistakes - a'nd without a single full stop - it's' hardly surprising that you also fail to make any sense what's oever.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.ae911truth.org/
| Quote: | | In addition, the shock that hit us on that date from the repeated attacks and staggering loss of life has limited our ability to rationally evaluate what really happened. We therefore found ourselves relying solely upon the judgment of outside "experts"... |
Complaining about outsiders? Outside what? The independent experts who assisted NIST, more than the number of 'in house' NIST employees?
However, page 5 of Gage's poorly hosted PowerPoint ae911thruth demands
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/index.php
| Quote: | | a truly independent investigation with subpoena powers |
Outsiders then?
One wonders from what authority subpaona powers whould be derived other that Federal/State/City. When someone refuses the summons from Richard Gage, who is sent to compel? The police or a bunch or Alex Jones type bruisers? Who would finance it? Federal/State/City....or truther websites, oh hang on, $20 in two months, I won't hold my breath. The notion of an independent investigation of the type demanded by Gage et. al. is naive.
AE911truth don't represent the engineering professions. Somewhere along the line they missed a lesson. Stockhausen could read and write music but have you heard the rubbish he came out with?
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Perhaps ASM can now present us with some evidence which supports the OCT instead of insulting qualified construction professionals? |
Why bother? Your movement is dead in the water.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robby B
New Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | I see you've found the quote. That wasn't so hard was it?
| Quote: | | As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed. |
The engineers that design the buildings. Missed the communication module of his degree did he? I expect he slept through a lot of classes.
Leslie Roberstson has explained. There were a couple of 100 tonne clues moving at high speed to help our dim friend from ae911t.
If you still don't get what I'm on about marky, that's okay. If one fencesitter comes down on my side of the fence because of my post(s), I'm happy. I don't expect to ever sway a hardcore truther. That's not why I'm here. |
Leslie Robertson worked for a company called Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson so he was no more than an employee.John Skilling was his immediate superior and he said this.
| Quote: | | The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. |
Leslie Robertson claimed that nobody had thought about jet fuel but did admit the towers were built to withstand a 707 smashing into it.So again what did his superior John Skilling say.
| Quote: | | My people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there |
This building was deemed so safe no water sprinkler system was installed on build.That was added after the 1975 fire that burned hotter than on 9/11,spread to multiple floors and burned for 3 hours,including the core.How much damage was caused to the truss assemblies in that fire?absolutely none and why would it.The second law of thermodynamics tell you that heat travels from hot to cold.The steel was all interconnected.Fire does not kill steel framed buildings and the man who built the buildings told the world decades ago that a 707 traveling at 600mph couldn,t kill it either.Don,t bother quoting Robertson listen to the organ grinder not the monkey.Robertson was lead structural engineer Skilling was Head structural engineer.Nothing Robertson did would not have been run by Skilling first.Unfortunately Skilling passed away in the late 90,s but his words should not be ignored.He even commented after the 93 WTC bombing and said something very poignant.
| Quote: | | There are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The second law of thermodynamics tell you that heat travels from hot to cold.The steel was all interconnected. |
So how does this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDMSAi8oVrc cut a steel beam? According to the second law of thermodynamics, shouldn't the heat from his cutting torch just spread out along the beam?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Robby, LR is on record since the event, Skilling for reasons you are aware of, is not. Regardless of how robust as design is there are several post design factors not including impact by large fast moving aircraft that can affect the integrity of the structure or device.
Why do you get the hump over my signature block Pikey? Yours is just as insulting to the opposition, in as gentle a way. Given the errors in your post construction (you are not always so disjointed) my spliff jibe is appropriate.
| Quote: | | Perhaps ASM can now present us with some evidence which supports the OCT instead of insulting qualified construction professionals? |
Rewind to my second ever post Pikey. You responded. I'm still waiting for your answers on the qualifications of your Finish Military Expert. Truther website says so, must be so.
Quailifed construction professionals? So why do they write such rubbish? There are no 'breakthrough' calculations or developed theory, they just repeat ad nauseum already tired discredited truther 'facts'. Any with skyscraper experience or do they just build cow sheds? (I know one who does). ae911t includes engineers from unrelated disciplines. Why not get scientists on board? Architects engineers and scientists? Naive at best.
There was a time when the only named 'technical' truthers were Jones and Wood, now out of work as I predicted. Now there are a few more 350? technical truthers. How many engineers does that leave opposed, uninterested, undecided? How many millions of engineers?
And yes, your movement is dead in the water. Most posts in the last 24 hours seem to be in the critics' forum or truthers slagging each other off.
I won't be surprised if there are some spurious entries or ID theft in the ae911t 'qualified contruction professionals' list. I hope no innocents suffer deregistration/revoked licences as a result.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robby B
New Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | The second law of thermodynamics tell you that heat travels from hot to cold.The steel was all interconnected. |
So how does this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDMSAi8oVrc cut a steel beam? According to the second law of thermodynamics, shouldn't the heat from his cutting torch just spread out along the beam? |
Do you really think comparing an oxygenated blowtorch flame to a bog standard carbon fire makes any sense at all.The flame coming from the end of a blowtorch has a tip millimeters wide and melts the steel because that tip is over the 1500 degrees c needed to melt steel.The carbon fire burning in the buildings covered half the floor and FEMA and NIST admit was oxygen starved.You are comparing a 1500 degree heat source covering millimeters to a 650 degree bonfire covering hundreds of square metres.Fire is a direct relationship between the flames of the fire to the object being heated.100,000 ton of interconnected steel will transfer the heat from hot to cold in a carbon fire that was constantly burning out and moving.Oh and who says the fire was burning at 650 degrees c?the main insurance report called the Silverstein Weidlinger report clearly said the fire was nothing out of the ordinary and was a cool burning fire.That is the reason why NIST,s cherry picked steel samples revealed only two pieces of steel that got hotter than 250 degrees c,just enough heat to cook a chicken.Why because the fire did not stay in the same place was oxygen starved and the second law of thermodynamics means the steel was constantly seeking its thermal equivalence "ie" heat was transferring from hot regions to cold regions over the period of the fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robby B
New Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | Robby, LR is on record since the event, Skilling for reasons you are aware of, is not. Regardless of how robust as design is there are several post design factors not including impact by large fast moving aircraft that can affect the integrity of the structure or device.
Why do you get the hump over my signature block Pikey? Yours is just as insulting to the opposition, in as gentle a way. Given the errors in your post construction (you are not always so disjointed) my spliff jibe is appropriate.
| Quote: | | Perhaps ASM can now present us with some evidence which supports the OCT instead of insulting qualified construction professionals? |
Rewind to my second ever post Pikey. You responded. I'm still waiting for your answers on the qualifications of your Finish Military Expert. Truther website says so, must be so.
Quailifed construction professionals? So why do they write such rubbish? There are no 'breakthrough' calculations or developed theory, they just repeat ad nauseum already tired discredited truther 'facts'. Any with skyscraper experience or do they just build cow sheds? (I know one who does). ae911t includes engineers from unrelated disciplines. Why not get scientists on board? Architects engineers and scientists? Naive at best.
There was a time when the only named 'technical' truthers were Jones and Wood, now out of work as I predicted. Now there are a few more 350? technical truthers. How many engineers does that leave opposed, uninterested, undecided? How many millions of engineers?
And yes, your movement is dead in the water. Most posts in the last 24 hours seem to be in the critics' forum or truthers slagging each other off.
I won't be surprised if there are some spurious entries or ID theft in the ae911t 'qualified contruction professionals' list. I hope no innocents suffer deregistration/revoked licences as a result. |
Yes Robertson is on record since 9/11 but John Skilling is not the only person he contradicts.The man is on record saying that the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 and then claims that they never thought about the fuel in the plane.Common sense tells you this is not a man to put blind faith in unless you think these giants in the engineering world in their day didn,t realize that planes need fuel.Not that the fuel had any bearing on the collapse as NIST admit it was burned off in minutes.The building used vierendeel trusses and a hat truss in one.The outer damage is easy to explain.The load spreading capabilities transferred around the building.The opposite side in tension,the two adjacent sides in both compression and tension and the damaged side in compression.Therefore it is obvious that the building was specifically designed in this way to preempt a strike from a plane.This is what Frank Dimartini was talking about with the fly netting analogy.Skilling therefore is absolutely correct and Robertson is not correct.The core was load bearing to 60% with a safety ratio of 2,25,the perimeter 40% load bearing with a safety value of 5.That means the core could if needed take 135% of the load and the perimeter 200% of the load.The damaged columns were compensated by undamaged columns so it is clear the physical damage had no bearing on collapse.NIST even admit without the fire weakened core the building would have stood.Fire was responsible for what happened and fire alone.The problem is there is absolutely no empirical evidence to prove the 700 degrees c minimum steel temperatures needed.Steel starts to glow at the temperatures NIST claim,show me the glowing steel and i will believe all.Until that day i am calling the NIST report bs.To this day no fact based evidence has been forthcoming and until that happens this issue will never be closed.What is dead in the water is the official conspiracy theory/ fairy story.Those building had so much safety factor reserve it could take the strike from a plane and the ensuing fire and still resist tornado forced winds.It was not a pack of cards it was a behemoth.A behemoth that collapsed at freefall speed offering no resistance at all.There may be a logical explanation but as things stand today,nobody has even scratched the surface of what happened.NIST have been nothing but untrustworthy ignoring empirical evidence, like steel sample temperatures and truss sagging experiments,behind innuendo,assumptions and downright lies.That will never be acceptable or accepted.9/11 truth is going nowhere.
Last edited by Robby B on Thu May 01, 2008 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry but you have just contradicted yourself. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't change at your convenience.
Look, you are just repeating what you read on conspiracy websites, or perhaps you'd like to tell me what the first law of thermodynamics is? (No don't bother, anyone can google it)
The obvious truth is that heat is transferred down the metal structure, but how much? That is the question and you haven't done anything to answer it.
Please, this isn't a naive first time audience. We are under the assumption you are blagging and faking your way through the science. You will have to do better.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robby B
New Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | I'm sorry but you have just contradicted yourself. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't change at your convenience.
Look, you are just repeating what you read on conspiracy websites, or perhaps you'd like to tell me what the first law of thermodynamics is? (No don't bother, anyone can google it)
The obvious truth is that heat is transferred down the metal structure, but how much? That is the question and you haven't done anything to answer it.
Please, this isn't a naive first time audience. We are under the assumption you are blagging and faking your way through the science. You will have to do better. |
You are the one contradicting yourself.You start by comparing an oxygenated blowtorch flame to a carbon diffuse flame.Then you have the gall to say that you are not a naive first time audience.You clearly do not understand fire or heat so who is blagging.FACT!heat always travels from hot to cold and never from cold to hot.A system not in equilibrium is constantly seeking that equilibrium.In short heat transfers within an interconnected system.How much?well not knowing the type of steel,its coefficient values its mass or the actual heat flux release rate i don,t know,but it would not take long to work it out given that information.Fourier has done all the hard work for us.Surely NIST had all the relevant information i will just check their calculations.Well thats odd they never even bothered considering heat transfer.They just assumed we are so dim that we would actually believe that thousands of ton of steel in a 650 degree c fire would be heated to 650 degree c and even higher.At one point they quote 1100 degrees c.Have you ever seen steel that has been heated to that temperature,it glows yellow like a belisha beacon.You could have seen that glowing steel from miles away but nobody saw it did they?.Some people have not got the common sense they were born with and that is the saddest fact of all.The laws of physics are written in stone and can never be violated for all your feeble protestations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | As I understand it WTC building 7 was not hit by a 100ton fast moving object aka commercial jet airliner but we don't have any evidence of what DID hit the towers *respectively, the unprecedented disappaearance of their black box flight recorders added to this their is video evidence showing whatever hit WTC2 penetrated with its nosecone and fuselage intact, its doubtful the commercial airliner the official CT claims hit building two could have done this, but this brings me to my main point, are official story fundamentalist zealots saying the actual plane impacts were the reason for the gravity collapse causing the majority of the concrete floors office contents and human victims to turn to dust a bit like in a Tom and jerry cartoon? if this IS the case could one of the OCT peeps' post a link detailing the mathematics for this phenomenon?
(*there was the terrorist passport and much terrorist DNA according to Davin Coburn of popular mechanics magazine) |
I've looped the loop F77 Pentagon stylie a good dozen times-time equivalent with this post, Sam admits it went over his/her head because of the punctuation, Pepic (from the square mile,tugs forelock) won't respond on priciple, did no cweet's get the jist of it or should I re-write before you 'scramble the F16's'??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How much?well not knowing the type of steel,its coefficient values its mass or the actual heat flux release rate i don,t know |
Exactly. You are a fake.
I'm sorry but its tedious to respond to people who just repeat what they hear on conspiracy websites. Its not really worth the effort. Even your writing style is unhinged.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Robby B said;
| Quote: | | The flame coming from the end of a blowtorch has a tip millimeters wide and melts the steel because that tip is over the 1500 degrees c needed to melt steel. |
You've obviously never used a cutting torch (a blow torch is something else) if you think that the steel is melted in the process. Another illustration of the lack of engineering science knowledge in the truth community. Is there some reason why I (or anyone else) should read your posts?
Truthers, powered by Wikipedia and Google.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In addition to the genuine truthers bigging themselves up, there are several subtle spoof IDs in the list, both architects, engineers and groupies. Some are very funny, some more obvious but Gage or his admin seem to let anyone sign up. Some of the 'statements' are a giveaway. A check of State licencing authorities (web based) show several random claims for licences to be bogus (not including the spoofs). I don't think Gage and his lunch money grabbing site are going to shake the foundatons of the engineering professions or Government.
Wasn't 911.co.uk poster Bongo included at one time?
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is one 'registrant' who doesn't understand the physics of 'scaling' (shouldn't surprise me, truthers aren't good with science and engineering).
I've identified four types of spurious entries on the architects and engineers (sic) site.
1. Spurious; spoof entered by critics. Obvious without checking up on a licence or degree claim. Anagrams or spoof names i.e. Ignor Amus BSc.
It does show (the critics aim) that Gage isn't fussy who comes on board as long as it gets the nimbers up. More chance of someone hitting the 'donate' button. As for thhe spoofs, if he was a smart guy, he'd notice.
2. Spurious; padding entered by truthers, believable but ficticious names,
3. Spurious; padding entered by truthers, actual person (engineer /architect) who wouldn't sign up if his or her life depended on it.
4. Spurious; real truther with some connection to profession but exaggerating prowess, claiming a nonsuch degree and/ or nonsuch licence/expired licence/revoked licence.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | There is one 'registrant' who doesn't understand the physics of 'scaling' (shouldn't surprise me, truthers aren't good with science and engineering).
I've identified four types of spurious entries on the architects and engineers (sic) site.
1. Spurious; spoof entered by critics. Obvious without checking up on a licence or degree claim. Anagrams or spoof names i.e. Ignor Amus BSc.
It does show (the critics aim) that Gage isn't fussy who comes on board as long as it gets the nimbers up. More chance of someone hitting the 'donate' button. As for thhe spoofs, if he was a smart guy, he'd notice.
2. Spurious; padding entered by truthers, believable but ficticious names,
3. Spurious; padding entered by truthers, actual person (engineer /architect) who wouldn't sign up if his or her life depended on it.
4. Spurious; real truther with some connection to profession but exaggerating prowess, claiming a nonsuch degree and/ or nonsuch licence/expired licence/revoked licence. |
Even classifying this thread as a third rate, poorly evidenced and obvious attempted smear would be overly flattering to it.
You must be like, really bored A#M.
Not that that's any excuse.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chek who hasn't noticed anything amiss in ae911truth said:
| Quote: | | Even classifying this thread as a third rate, poorly evidenced and obvious attempted smear would be overly flattering to it |
.
Really? Where there are 'real' registrants, they smear themselves. The total frauds can be checked on the state licencing boards' websites or by their 'technical' statements. Spoofs can be in your face or very subtle. Either way, I'm not in the business of education and spoon-feeding truthers, I just give food for thought to fence sitters and more discriminating truthers. Like truthers often advise; do your own research.
But I'm feeling generous so as a random example;
Ronald F Avery, Architect and ae911truth registrant smearing himself
http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/avery.htm
or Chek, is this good for 9/11 truth?
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
its 100% the same guy.
http://9-11.meetup.com/311/members/4246622/
http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/avery.htm
just incase anybody is wondering if it is a different Ronald F Avery.
as for the information on the universe link, i see as much evidence for what he is saying as i do evidence for god exsisting in human form.
why is one acceptable and not the other? theres no evidence for either.
yet i'd bet lots of engineers believe in god.
it dos'nt mean they are incapable at their jobs or have poor knowledge in other areas, but i can at least understand why some see it as smear material or even laughable.
im more intrested in bogus ones (if true) and think it would be more significant if proven. however i also think the ratio is important also. if only a few are fakes it could be taken as errors in the way they do things, if its the vast majority then it could be taken as purposily pulling the wool over peoples eyes.
how many fakes do you estimate sharp major? from your own research?
also do you have a link to a site where these people can be checked out?
i anticipate a NO! but i really do not know where to start inorder to check them out.
| Quote: | | The total frauds can be checked on the state licencing boards' |
just a keyword to search would be helpful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
: 