Everyone must watch this video.. |
Post Reply | Page <12345> |
Author | |||||||
schmikbob
Senior Member Male Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 526 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Both your questions have been answered, multiple times. You simply do not wish to accept the answers. So be it. I suspect that another time answering them will not satisfy you either but here goes.
1. Building 7 did not come down "just like a perfect demolition" or "just because of fire". Building 7 was nailed by one of the collapsing twin towers. There are many pictures of the gaping holes in it's side as a result. These were not caused by fire as much as you would like it to be so.
2. Steel does not have to melt for system failure to occur. Steel loses over half it's strength at half it's melting point.
Neither of these answers is a "belief". Seriously Honeto, you at least ought to do a little research before you simply repeat what you've heard others tell you.
|
|||||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I'm open to any facts you would care to present, but so far all you've offered me is rhetorical questions and unfounded speculations.
Store it where? According to historycommons.org, we're talking about "more than 108,000 truckloads of debris, comprising 1.8 million tons of steel and concrete". And remember, this is the epicenter of some of the most valuable real estate on the planet. Who is going to pay for the storage, not to mention the transport?
I'm not sure what "protocol" you're referring to. I've never heard of an entire building, or the rubble thereof, being impounded for months. Did anything like that happen with the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance?
Forget "melting steel". It was a poor choice of words on my part. And yes, the fires were plenty hot enough to soften steel - but that wasn't the only effect of the high temperatures: "It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425�C and loses about half of its strength at 650�C. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650�C fire.
"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150�C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
Loud noises are often described as explosions. You wouldn't expect buildings of this size to collapse quietly, would you?
Okay, how many high-rise buildings have been abandoned by firefighters and left to burn for more than six hours?
Name one. Which of these experts do you find most convincing? |
|||||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||||
schmikbob
Senior Member Male Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 526 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Forget it, all Honeto is going to do is pose more rhetorical questions. He's not going to answer your requests to be specific or agree with anything you say. He has the answer he's looking for and is working backwards. How can I force my round evidence into this square conspiracy I want it to fit?
|
|||||||
abuayisha
Senior Member Muslim Joined: 05 October 1999 Location: Los Angeles Status: Offline Points: 5105 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Edited by abuayisha - 05 October 2012 at 9:42pm |
|||||||
honeto
Senior Member Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Ron and Schmikbob, I never said I have the answers. In case you missed I said I have questions, and you two are simply denying and refusing to hear those questions. You have also failed to scientifically prove your beliefs. You remember Oklahoma City bombing, a huge bomb, fire, still the structure was still there. Wow, that's a big one. But if you two are not ready for some logical questions, that's OK. All I am saying is that I refuse to accept spoon fed conclusions prepared by "paid experts". It is logical to find out with the help of really independent experts what had really happen. What you doing is as if denying yourself a chance to see the whole picture by refusing to see it with both eyes. You rather see it with just one eye, that's your choice. I want to see it with both eyes, you have a problem with that? Hasan |
|||||||
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|||||||
schmikbob
Senior Member Male Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 526 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Honeto, actually what is going on is you refusing to even acknowledge answers to your questions. You just keep on posing them again and again as if nobody addressed them. That's the mark of someone with an agenda and someone that doesn't care to have a discussion.
|
|||||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I think you're refusing to hear the answers, Hasan. Let me summarize the answers I've given you so far:
You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7? What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on? Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire? Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall. Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?
I do remember the Oklahoma City bombing, but I don't recall any significant fire. Edited by Ron Webb - 06 October 2012 at 5:29pm |
|||||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||||
abuayisha
Senior Member Muslim Joined: 05 October 1999 Location: Los Angeles Status: Offline Points: 5105 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Post Reply | Page <12345> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |