Started By
Message
re: 9/11 Was A Conspiracy!
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:31 am to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:31 am to Sleeping Tiger
You still haven't actually addressed Ross' claim that the heat would have weakened the steel to the point it failed. Just said it didn't apply to the building. Explain how the heat would not have lowered the yield strength of the structural steel.
2
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:32 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Two, that is not in any way a legitimate rebuttal to any of this.. 'it would have been too hard to plant explosives', okay.. I mean is that supposed to carry any weight?
Yes. You have a positive to prove, and the credulity of a certain situation can be called into question.
How's life in your little echo chamber? Holy frick.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:35 am to Duke
quote:
Explain how the heat would not have lowered the yield strength of the structural steel.
Magma
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:35 am to Duke
quote:
Explain how the heat would not have lowered the yield strength of the structural steel.
Magical heat shielding bags of dicks.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:35 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
This isn't exactly apples with apples, son.
Please find your spine, you can't be serious?
What did you not get about -- 'this isn't entirely relevant'. Clearly I'm aware that what hit those buildings were not the same as what hit the towers. It was really a non point in this debate.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:37 am to Sleeping Tiger
Even if they could withstand the impact of an airplane I was saying that as an addition to structural weakness caused by the heat of combustion there were structures destroyed by the impact leading to failure. Thought that was evident.
I've said all I can say, if you have an issue with any of the rudimentary material science facts I've put out there feel free to reply and I'll respond when I get to a computer.
I've said all I can say, if you have an issue with any of the rudimentary material science facts I've put out there feel free to reply and I'll respond when I get to a computer.
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:37 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Clearly I'm aware that what hit those buildings were not the same as what hit the towers. It was really a non point in this debate.
Then why bring it up?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:38 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
What did you not get about -- 'this isn't entirely relevant'. Clearly I'm aware that what hit those buildings were not the same as what hit the towers. It was really a non point in this debate.
EDITED: I realized you were responding to a post about the planes and not about strength to temperature ratio of the structural steel. The size of the plane is certainly relevant in why the Twin Towers collapsed, but the Empire State Building did not. However, the largest reason was the huge difference in the structural systems of the two buildings (i.e. what holds up each building).
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 11:45 am
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:39 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Then why bring it up?
Him and his doublespeak again. This guy must be a treat at parties.
That was immediately what I thought, too.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:46 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Then why bring it up?
Because it's a conversation, just saying planes hit skyscrapers and they didn't fall, I made it clear that it has no real relevance to this, which makes his response about 'apples and oranges' ultra odd.
It's just a little tidbit, kind of like the one about fire never once causing a steel high rise to collapse.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:47 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Him and his doublespeak
Do you know what doublespeak means?
Because there was nothing double speak about what I said.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:48 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
It's just a little tidbit, kind of like the one about fire never once causing a steel high rise to collapse.
So because it hadn't happened before, means its impossible?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:49 am to Sleeping Tiger
So you wanted to make a point without actually making a point
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:50 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Because it's a conversation, just saying planes hit skyscrapers and they didn't fall, I made it clear that it has no real relevance to this, which makes his response about 'apples and oranges' ultra odd.
It's just a little tidbit, kind of like the one about fire never once causing a steel high rise to collapse.
If it's irrelevant, you don't try to sneak a point in, you greasy snake.
"It's irrelevant but alls I'm sayins is that planes hit buildings and they don't fall down...but it's not relevant to this conversation about buildings getting hit by planes and falling down."
That's stupid.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:50 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:There is a straight forward engineering reason for this, and it's been addressed many times, and I bet you don't know it
It's just a little tidbit, kind of like the one about fire never once causing a steel high rise to collapse.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:50 am to Ross
quote:
Even if they could withstand the impact of an airplane I was saying that as an addition to structural weakness caused by the heat of combustion there were structures destroyed by the impact leading to failure. Thought that was evident.
How familiar are you with the design of the towers?
Any structural damage from impact was to the skeleton, not the spine of the building.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:51 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Any structural damage from impact was to the skeleton
Have you examined the impact to confirm this?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:51 am to MIZ_COU
quote:
There is a straight forward engineering reason for this, and it's been addressed many times, and I bet you don't know it
You're right, I don't
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:52 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Any structural damage from impact was to the skeleton, not the spine of the building.
Yes. And when you shoot a guy, there's only damage to the skeleton. Not the spine.
A plane ran almost through the building. I'm pretty sure there was damage to the head and shoulders, knees and toes.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 11:53 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Any structural damage from impact was to the skeleton, not the spine of the building.
The skeleton, but not the spine? Well why didn't you say so? Now it all makes sense.
Page 15 of 48
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News