OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[1976]

[Thread title edited by d from "Non Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink Non believers bullshit excuses" for clarification]

OK... I am a member of a gaming site at OGN http://forums.ogn.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=886

And I've been posting links to videos and sites in a thread I started there http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?t=54722 in the hope some ppl will see the truth.... anyway since I'll have to research this info which I really should do I thought some of you guys could just pump this info out off the top of your heads.

This is a quote is response to me saying tower 7 is the smoking gun, how can you overlook that this... he came back with this...

Speaking as an engineer, and having done a quick bit of reading to familiarise myself with the Tower Seven situation, my thought is "Damn, it took that long for that building to collapse?"

The damage to the building was significant. That's significant from an engineering point of view, i.e. it would have severely compromised the load bearing paths within the structure. While it's true they're still not sure why the thing collapsed, it's also true that there is only very sketchy information as to the extent of damage to the structure caused by falling debris from WTC1. The fact that they've identified a 10-storey high "gash" in the building, that completely destroyed a large chunk of two of the five rows of colums in the structure (and probably severely damaged the third) suggests some seriously unbalanced loads were acting on the building before it collapsed. It wouldn't take much to push that over the edge.

And I wouldn't call uncontrolled fires that burned from 10am until the building collapsed at 5pm "2 little spot fires"...

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I don't see the need for explosives in any of the building collapses that day. Based on my knowledge of structural design (which is admittedly limited, as I majored in mechanical engineering, not civil), I can easily see how the structures failed in the way that they did.

Can someone destroy this guys narrow sighted conclusion so I can post a undeniable response. Its just a request and theres absolutely no obligation. thx guys

This post has been edited by dMole: Jan 29 2009, 03:01 PM

[Sanders]

Turbo-fan, forgive me for speaking out of turn, I can't resist.

Nicepants, you're so full of it.

- Why do truthers insist on claiming that the collapse was "symmetrical", it wasn't.

WTC7 fell straight down. Have you ever watched the footage? What would it have to do to meet your definition of symetrical?? And by the way, how would you explain how the BBC knew the building was going to come down 20-odd minutes before the fact???

Don't be deceived, just because people disagree with your views on 9/11 doesn't mean they're "bush supporters". I can't stand Bush, can't wait until he's replaced. The difference is, I don't need to invent other things to blame on him, he does enough stupid stuff on his own.

Are you implying in any way that all, some or any of us here think that Bush was behind 9/11??? LoL. I'd be surprised if he even knew about it. Cheney obviously did, he participated. But no one around here thinks that Bush, or even the Bush administration per-se was really behind 9/11, Nicepants, you haven't been paying attention. It really irks me when people say stuff like, 'Bush can barely tie his own shoes, how can you believe for a second that he could pull off something as big and complicated as 9/11?' I don't, we don't, no one who has done a lick of research into this does. Nor is George Bush in charge of the United States of America, not by a long shot.

Fires can (and do) weaken structural grade steel. If your assertion was correct, there would be no need to fireproof it.

Structural steel is said to lose half of it's strength at about 1200 degrees F, the building, as best as I and other people have been able to guess, was rated for 6:1 loads, and worst case it was built for 5:1 loads since that's the rule of thumb for commercial buildings. (In other words, 1200 F degrees doesn't do it - you gotta heat the steel up enough so that the columns and beams lose 80% of their strength.) Not only that, but the fires just being that hot isn't enough either, you gotta get the steel itself up above that temperature ... steel conducts heat away from the source, so you gotta keep cranking up the heat fast and hard enough to get the temperature of the steel up faster than it can carry the heat away to other parts of the building. There have been many field tests and investigations into actual building fires and opportunities to measure the effects of fire on steel-framed buildings that attest to the fact that open air fires just do not get that hot, and steel framed buildings do not fail from fires.

A few of those tests and investigations are:

One Meridian Plaza (Philadelphia) ... fires raged througout the building for 18 hours. According to the report, the exterior granite joint sealant, which melts at less than 500 F, was not severely charred or melted. While the fires did get very hot near the windows where oxygen was prevalent, the fire within the building was estimated not to have exceeded 600F.

Several field tests done in (un-fireproofed) steel framed parking garages in several countries, (source: Corus Construction), fires were hydro-carbon based, steel temperatures fell between 438 and 680 degrees F.

Broadgate Development (investigation), London. Very hot fire, may have reached 1800 F, according to the report, unprotected steelwork was unlikely to have exceeded 1100 F. Some warping of beams, but no significant structural damage and no danger of collapse.

BHP - full scale fire tests done in Australia. Beams un-fireproofed, fires were stoked to atmospheric temperatures of (maximum) 2242 F, maximum steel temperature measured was 1167 F, no significant damage, no danger of failure. (The structural damage observed in the test was so minimal that as a result the insurance company who had paid for the tests was allowed to erect an office building without fire proofing the steel beams.)

Others: Williams Street and Collins Street in Melbourne, and a full scale fire test in Stuttgart, Germany. Same kinds of findings, atmosperic temperatures between 500 and 1000 F, maximum measured steel temperatures about half of that.

Don't ask me for sources, I investigated this in 2002 and wrote it all down in a book I never published, the links are all dead now, I just checked. Just google the names of the buildings and fire tests if you really want to double check my information.

200 tons for this beam assembly? Where are you getting that number?

That's a well-published number, I have read it many many times in many places. I'll bet you can find it somewhere in the NIST or ASCE reports (I could be wrong).

Please explain how the laws of physics dictate that WTC7 should have fallen to the side. (Or is that belief only based on what you consider to be "common sense"?)

For your information, buildings do fall over, just like trees. Granted, buildings are full of air, but they are structurally rigid, kind of like trees. Though the comparison breaks down and I don't want to suggest that buildings behave like trees, they have been known to fall over - and a good way to get one to do that might be to take out it's structural support on one side.

(IMG:http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5846/2001986837dp9.jpg)

(I've seen other photos of moderate sized building that have toppled over - but I wouldn't know were to find them. BTW please don't try to suggest that a smallish building can topple over but a taller one can't - that would make no sense at all.)

Who claims that the steel spontaneously disappeared?

That was a figure of speech, what turbo-fan is alluding to is the fact that the core columns, which carried the majority of the gravitational load for 30 years, and are VERTICAL, had to go somewhere - had to accordion or splinter into pieces or turn to putty (from top to basement) or SOMETHING in order for the top part of the building to fall down through them at near free-fall speed.

...And which building fell "into its own footprint"? All 3 severely damaged surrounding buildings.

WTC7 fell into it's own footprint. And you're wrong, WTC7 did not severely damage the surrounding buildings.