|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by Eva
(Post 5996381)
I can't abide the moaning mingers who say -Oh its terrible here-Oh 40% tax on pension back home............go ****ing home if you doint like it......
|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by arbroath_abroad
(Post 5996366)
go to bed:D
X |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by arbroath_abroad
(Post 5996388)
here here, now who the hell was that directed at:D
|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
And you, get off that ****ing Lance prototype and ride the Obree machine !
|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by Eva
(Post 5996434)
And you, get off that ****ing Lance prototype and ride the Obree machine !
|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Oh my God...........
I'm enjoying a quiet chat with Eva, felt tired, went to bed (forgot to kiss Eva night-night - apologies).......... and it all kicks off! And I missed it! Or is it still going on? The only marginally-believable 'conspiracy theory' I've read or heard (about how/why the towers collapsed in the way they did) concerns how the buildings were constructed in the first place - they weren't "Meccano-style" metal frames, but were instead built around a central pillar. As I'm not a construction engineer (or anything actually), I have no idea if that made any difference or not. Or even if it's true. Which means I have no idea whether this (see link below) is a load of crap, or a set of very valid theories....... (Gareth, if it's crap, be gentle with me - I have NOOO idea) http://www.attackonamerica.net/proof...itionatwtc.htm |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 5995363)
OK - I wasn't peddling Conspiracy Theory No 236 - I just thought the photo, or more accurately the decision not to publish until the photographer thought America was "ready" for it - was an interesting debate in itself.
My avatar? Kate Sheedy - a wonderfully brave young lady who survived a brutal attack by Levi Bellfield (when she refused to get into his car, he ran her over, then reversed over her) and had the courage to testify against him while he sat in court blowing kisses at her and mouthing obscenities..... |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by shiva
(Post 5997700)
|
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 5997835)
Fascinating stuff........ definitely worth a look.
For example, this bit: "Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit." Whoah! They must be onto something there! Er, no. The steel didn't melt, but the core columns *were* weakened - steel melts at 2750F but it begins to lose structural rigidity and strength at temperatures around 1500F. So you had weakened (*not* melted) steel cores trying to hold up the weight of higher floors after the weight of those floors had been redistributed by the force of the impact. See what I mean? They do seem to rather ignore that. Probably because it sticks a huge spanner in the works of their argument. They go on to repeat: "Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire." That's true. But then, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever had an commercial airliner with a full load of fuel hit it and destroy part of its load-bearing structure *before* the fire started. That's not an irrelevant point. It was the severing of the exterior columns, the physical damage to the interior cores, and the blasting of the fireproofing off some of the trusses that redistributed the load of the floors above the impact site. If a fire of exactly the same intensity and magnitude had broken out in the same place *without* the associated impact damage to the load-bearing structure, the towers would still be standing today. The steel would still have been weakened, but with all the columns and cores still physically in place, it would have held. This stuff isn't hard to understand, but sites like "Physics911" rely on you either not understanding it or refusing to understand it. They're selling snake oil, and sadly lots of gullible people are buying. |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by Eeyore
(Post 5997968)
Bear in mind that it requires you to not understand anything about the science involved and to be prepared to believe what they're telling you without bothering to research it to see if it's actually accurate or not.
For example, this bit: "Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit." Whoah! They must be onto something there! Er, no. The steel didn't melt, but the core columns *were* weakened - steel melts at 2750F but it begins to lose structural rigidity and strength at temperatures around 1500F. So you had weakened (*not* melted) steel cores trying to hold up the weight of higher floors after the weight of those floors had been redistributed by the force of the impact. See what I mean? They do seem to rather ignore that. Probably because it sticks a huge spanner in the works of their argument. They go on to repeat: "Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire." That's true. But then, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever had an commercial airliner with a full load of fuel hit it and destroy part of its load-bearing structure *before* the fire started. That's not an irrelevant point. It was the severing of the exterior columns, the physical damage to the interior cores, and the blasting of the fireproofing off some of the trusses that redistributed the load of the floors above the impact site. If a fire of exactly the same intensity and magnitude had broken out in the same place *without* the associated impact damage to the load-bearing structure, the towers would still be standing today. The steel would still have been weakened, but with all the columns and cores still physically in place, it would have held. This stuff isn't hard to understand, but sites like "Physics911" rely on you either not understanding it or refusing to understand it. They're selling snake oil, and sadly lots of gullible people are buying. |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by Eeyore
(Post 5997968)
Bear in mind that it requires you to not understand anything about the science involved and to be prepared to believe what they're telling you without bothering to research it to see if it's actually accurate or not.
For example, this bit: "Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit." Whoah! They must be onto something there! Er, no. The steel didn't melt, but the core columns *were* weakened - steel melts at 2750F but it begins to lose structural rigidity and strength at temperatures around 1500F. So you had weakened (*not* melted) steel cores trying to hold up the weight of higher floors after the weight of those floors had been redistributed by the force of the impact. See what I mean? They do seem to rather ignore that. Probably because it sticks a huge spanner in the works of their argument. They go on to repeat: "Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire." That's true. But then, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever had an commercial airliner with a full load of fuel hit it and destroy part of its load-bearing structure *before* the fire started. That's not an irrelevant point. It was the severing of the exterior columns, the physical damage to the interior cores, and the blasting of the fireproofing off some of the trusses that redistributed the load of the floors above the impact site. If a fire of exactly the same intensity and magnitude had broken out in the same place *without* the associated impact damage to the load-bearing structure, the towers would still be standing today. The steel would still have been weakened, but with all the columns and cores still physically in place, it would have held. This stuff isn't hard to understand, but sites like "Physics911" rely on you either not understanding it or refusing to understand it. They're selling snake oil, and sadly lots of gullible people are buying. Physics911.net is full of arguments (some contradicting others) about why/how the towers collapsed......... Gareth has addressed less than one percent of them, valid though his points may be. I'm guilty in one other important respect as well - not being fully informed about WHAT actually happened that day. Until I read that site, I had no idea a THIRD tower (the so-called WTC7) had also collapsed that day. Why did THAT happen? It wasn't hit by anything and was the furthest (of the other 5 buildings) from the twin towers. |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 5999202)
Dunno...........
Physics911.net is full of arguments (some contradicting others) about why/how the towers collapsed......... Gareth has addressed less than one percent of them, valid though his points may be. I'm guilty in one other important respect as well - not being fully informed about WHAT actually happened that day. Until I read that site, I had no idea a THIRD tower (the so-called WTC7) had also collapsed that day. Why did THAT happen? It wasn't hit by anything and was the furthest (of the other 5 buildings) from the twin towers. |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 5999202)
Gareth has addressed less than one percent of them, valid though his points may be
There's a vast amount of bad science in that site, but sadly most people don't know the difference between good science and bad science and are happy to be spoonfed the bad sort because it supports exciting conspiracy theories. Why did THAT happen? It wasn't hit by anything It also caught fire, and burned for much of the afternoon. In the end, the structural weaknesses caused by the debris impact damage led to its collapse. Out of interest, why did you think that nothing hit it? |
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
[QUOTE=The Dean;5997214]Oh my God...........
I'm enjoying a quiet chat with Eva, felt tired, went to bed (forgot to kiss Eva night-night - apologies).......... and it all kicks off! And I missed it! Or is it still going on?' Hahaahahaha The Dean, you should know by now-I DON'T DO QUIET!. No it ain't still going on.So, Gareth I apologise to you for my ramblings and Arbroath Abroad-I apologise to you also-I am very very sorry for calling you a Rangers Fan-that's a terrible thing to say about anyone.............. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 2:57 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.