Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-04-2013, 01:58 PM   #11
Bayz101
Renegade
Supporter
 
Bayz101's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,290
Gender: Male
Member Number: 18856
Thanks: 2,069
Thanked 5,051 Times in 2,140 Posts
My Mood: Cheerful
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony hipchest View Post


to the OP- the most basic physics proves that when exposed to thousands of degrees of heat, steel will lose its structural integrity, especially steel weighted down with concrete.
Well, no, an office cannot physical produce the amount of heat needed to melt/bend steel. I would imagine concrete could aid that, however, so i'm on the fence about it.
__________________


"Either you're playing dumb, or it's not an act". -Judge Judy

No need to drive me crazy. I can walk from here.
Bayz101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 02:01 PM   #12
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
Supporter
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 40,717
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 2,437
Thanked 11,081 Times in 4,583 Posts
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayz101 View Post
Well, no, an office cannot physical produce the amount of heat needed to melt/bend steel. I would imagine concrete could aid that, however, so i'm on the fence about it.
whos talking about an office?

im talking about two tons? or 750 gallons (whatever the exact figure is irrelevant) of jet fuel.
__________________
tony hipchest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 03:41 PM   #13
ZoneBlitzer
Team President
 
ZoneBlitzer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,376
Gender: Male
Member Number: 16775
Thanks: 339
Thanked 759 Times in 390 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

TH.
Buliding 7. Not the twin towers.
Watch the video that was posted in the OP.

Here is another common example of the same.

http://youtu.be/79sJ1bMR6VQ

If you are unable to recognize the physical characteristics then I don't know what to say.

I have researched this for years. This all that I will say on the matter. For those who wish to see me tortured and dead, well...do unto others as you would have them do to you...
ZoneBlitzer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ZoneBlitzer For This Useful Post:
tony hipchest (09-04-2013)
Old 09-04-2013, 04:04 PM   #14
RavenManiac
Draft Prospect
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 129
Member Number: 11537
Thanks: 13
Thanked 86 Times in 31 Posts
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Building 7 did not free fall to the ground. Not sure why people keep claiming that. It free fell for a couple of seconds. "Point #11" in the following link:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

The original video only shows the collapse from one side. The building's inner supports had already collapsed, as the outer supports were more sturdy and less exposed to the fires. In short the center/inside of the building fell down, the outer sides resisted for a while (while being pulled down and inward), then the outside finally fell and fell fast (though it was not a free fall from start to finish).

Notice also in the second video, the incredibly loud explosions of a controlled demo, sounds like artillery fire. There is absolutely zero evidence of this regarding WTC 7. None.

As said, every single thing mentioned has been addressed, even if not to everyone's satisfaction.

As for molten metals, there was scant evidence of it, and the airplanes and the outside of the buildings contained a lot of aluminum, which melts at a much lower temperature than steel (well within the range of any prolonged building fire).

As for steel that looked melted. The oxidation of iron is an exothermic reaction. With the massive pressures involved of a collapsing building, along with the larger surface areas involved with pulverized ingredients, along with the already high temperatures involved of the burning buildings, combined with the amount of water sprayed on the debris pile (and groundwater that seeped in when the WTC substructure was destroyed) which turned to steam, it is perfectly plausible that things got extremely hot and stayed hot in the debris pile for days after the tragedy.

The bottom line is science explains everything much more sufficiently than vague, motiveless conspiracy theories, imo.
RavenManiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 04:05 PM   #15
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,407
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 885
Thanked 6,310 Times in 2,985 Posts
My Mood: Angelic
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted



Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11

__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 04:10 PM   #16
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,407
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 885
Thanked 6,310 Times in 2,985 Posts
My Mood: Angelic
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:05 PM   #17
Da Pimp
Team Captain
 

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 910
Member Number: 24990
Thanks: 173
Thanked 279 Times in 185 Posts
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavenManiac View Post
More nonsense.

Everyone knew the building was likely going to collapse because there was not enough water to fight the fires and the fires were buckling the support structures. News people talking about the collapse of the building using varying tenses of the word collapse is not surprising, since they were just repeating (in some cases roughly) what they were being told, which was the building was collapsing (slowly, but inevitably).

The quote from the clip of Silverstein talking to the fire department about "pulling it" refers to the efforts to save the building (pulling back the fire fighters). Like "pulling the plug," either the patient/building dies or lives on its own.

In addition, it makes perfect sense that the disaster managers were weighing different options in terms of how to deal with a fire-ridden, collapsing 45-story building in terms of mitigating the damage. One of those options could have been trying a hasty controlled demolition. So 'rumors' that a controlled demolition was being discussed are hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

As it turned out they didn't choose this action or likely didn't have the means or the time, and the building collapsed on its own.
All utter nonsense. Steel-framed buildings don't "collapse" from fire. They never have before that day and haven't since that day. That is utter nonsense. And 7 wasn't "ragging with fire." It had a few small fires on a few floors. Many steel-framed building that had far more extensive, longer burning fires - and had the steel twist - but still never "collapsed." It simply never happens. And watch how it collapsed. It looks exactly like a building that is taken down with explosives. Keep in mind: 7 was a football field from the towers and had minor damage. No plane flew into it.

Da Pimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:12 PM   #18
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
Supporter
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 40,717
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 2,437
Thanked 11,081 Times in 4,583 Posts
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoneBlitzer View Post
TH.
Buliding 7. Not the twin towers.
Watch the video that was posted in the OP.

...
my bad. I misunderstood the thread title
__________________
tony hipchest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:09 PM   #19
MasterOfPuppets
Living Legend
Supporter
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,474
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1990
Thanks: 969
Thanked 4,303 Times in 1,828 Posts
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Quote:
7 Facts about Building 7

1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
2) Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
5) 1,700+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7, specifying that it should include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives.
6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building’s owner.
7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.
Quote:
What about World Trade Center Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?

In addition to the Twin Towers and Building 7, the World Trade Center complex included buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. Compared to Building 7, all of these buildings were severely damaged, first by falling rubble from the tower collapses, then by fires that burned for hours. Although these buildings were in critical condition, none of them collapsed.
__________________
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ― James Madison

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson

MasterOfPuppets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 09:28 PM   #20
RavenManiac
Draft Prospect
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 129
Member Number: 11537
Thanks: 13
Thanked 86 Times in 31 Posts
Default Re: 9/11 Rethink (# 7 Head-scratcher aka cognitive dissonance disrupted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Pimp View Post
All utter nonsense. Steel-framed buildings don't "collapse" from fire. They never have before that day and haven't since that day. That is utter nonsense. And 7 wasn't "ragging with fire." It had a few small fires on a few floors. Many steel-framed building that had far more extensive, longer burning fires - and had the steel twist - but still never "collapsed." It simply never happens. And watch how it collapsed. It looks exactly like a building that is taken down with explosives. Keep in mind: 7 was a football field from the towers and had minor damage. No plane flew into it.

Not nonsense at all. You really should try to address the points already made, not just repeat already addressed claims so as to start the conversation from scratch and make people repeat themselves.

Try #8 and #9 and #10 and #11 and #13 on the link. Explain the parts you disagree with and why. They deal specifically with your claim.

As for "looks exactly like" a building take down with explosives. Already addressed that as well, thoroughly. Suffice it to say "looks exactly like" is not a compelling argument, especially in response to the posts that give you the actual times/data and explain how it is was different.

And I am still waiting on your full theory. It helps one understand what kind of paranoia one is dealing with to hear the full theory from beginning to end. Who demoed the building? Why? When were the explosives planted? Did they also somehow choreograph the Saudis and planes? Were there even planes? Squib charges, holograms, and missiles? Please elaborate your theory of the day's events. Thanks in advance.
RavenManiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
veritas


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts