 user created polls & quizzes |
by Gnomehunter1
[+]
Beats me, but the one on the left looks pornographic and the one on the right looks ppainful.
by elvislennon
[+]
ppainful--talk about a Freudian slip
by elvislennon
[+]
Here's a challenge for you and anyone else that believes this nonsense. Find a demolition picture (not associated with events of 9/11) that looks like *that. *The demolition picture needs to show the building being blown up at the top (similar to the picture you show).
by ClosetIguana
[+]
Could you be any nastier? And next time allow for other choices. No wonder no one likes you.
by Beauregard
[+]
Note: Building demolition picture not a chimney.
by ClosetIguana
[+]
obsess much? 
sorry but the pic of the world drade center wasnt controlled. You are right about that type of explosion but your are just as dumb as the other gut for putting the world trade center on their as a refrence. THATS NOT CONTROLLED/ .
Yep.
by Beauregard
[+]
As dumb as conspircay theorist who keep creating the same ballot over and over again. Jeff King has posted a wonderful, up-to-date summary, entitled "The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong Is The Evidence For Controlled Demolition?" This article is definitely the place to start reading about these issues. The key fact is that a video of the South Tower collapse clearly shows flashes of light at very high color temperature, the signature of explosive cutting charges, immediately preceding otherwise inexplicable collapses of key structural members. Another key reference is this 2-part series by J. McMichael, "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics". McMichael argues that the fires at the WTC were not hot enough to have substantially weakened the steel structure. This argument is also strongly suggested by the image below (from Eric Hufschmid's video "Painful Deceptions") which shows a woman looking out from the hole in the North Tower. Cool temperatures in the collision zone were also confirmed by an audiotape indicating that firefighters reached the area of the crash damage in the South Tower, and reported survivable temperatures there. Relatively hot conditions may have existed in smoldering fires higher in the towers, but would not have created synergistic effects with the collision damage to create an overall weakened condition sufficient to create a collapse. A study by Paul J. Lioy et al. examined three samples of dust deposited by the WTC disaster, and found that the samples consisted of a homogeneous mixture, primarily made of cement and soot (37 to 50%), glass fiber (40%) and cellulose (9 to 20%). The proportion of particle sizes from 75 to 300 microns in diameter ranged from 42% to 46%, while particles less than 75 microns in diameter made up 30 to 39 percent of the samples. This dust was deposited around Manhattan in tremendous quantities (up to 10 cm thick at distances of 700 meters from the collapse site), consistent with the idea that most of the concrete, drywall and fireproofing in the buildings ended up as dust. Creation of such a finely ground and homogeneously mixed debris is difficult to explain as the result of a mechanical pounding process, but could be explained by highly turbulent combustion effects at high temperatures -- at least hot enough to cause spalling of the concrete due to explosive evaporation of entrapped water. An analysis by Jim Hoffman argues that pyroclastic flows such as the WTC dust cloud must expand primarily by thermal heating. He reduced the calculated expansion volume by 33%, to account for turbulent mixing with surrounding air. Hoffman shows that even after this correction, the pyroclastic flow from the North Tower collapse expanded to approximately three times the original volume of the tower. According to Hoffman, this expansion is due to either heating of the air mass within the towers, or boiling of the water contents of the concrete. However, controlled-demolition. com/ images/client /kingdome.mpg shows that the Kingdome demolition also generated a vast dust cloud, although only ordinary demolition charges were used. I've undertaken a preliminary and inconclusive photogrammetric analysis of the Kingdome demolition here. Hoffman's analysis neglects the possibility of accelerated combustion of the flammable contents of the WTC during the collapses. Any such combustion would have been limited by the available volume of oxygen, as well as other factors. Here is a preliminary analysis (Caveat lecteur: this has not been through peer review!) Using an air density of 1.22 kg per cubic meter, and an estimated volume of air 1.5e6 cubic meters, the mass of air in each tower would be 1.9e6 kg. Given a stoichiometric ratio of 15 kg of air for each 1 kg of fuel, we could burn 138 tons of fuel with the air in each building. If the energy content of the contents is 10 gigajoules/ton, we would obtain 1380 gigajoules of energy, or 380,000 kwh. This is probably an upper limit on the energy that could have been released by accelerated combustion, although the actual figure may have been much lower. Also note that any accelerated combustion would have released large volumes of CO2 and H2O, which would contribute to the expansion of the pyroclastic cloud. Hoffman's first draft of his paper relied on my estimates of the volume of concrete in the towers. In my "powder analysis" I estimated that the mass of concrete in the towers was 650,000 tons. This was based on reports of the total amount of concrete poured for the WTC, which probably included plazas, roads, subways and so forth, in addition to the towers themselves. This was probably a serious over-estimate (although it would have no effect on the conclusion of the "powder analysis" since the gravitational energy per kg of concrete would be essentially unchanged.) From the FEMA report, for the floors of each WTC tower, we have ~40,000 sq ft of floor area (including the core) * 117 floors * 4" thick of "lightweight" concrete (5" in the core), which works out to about 58,000 cubic yards. "Normal" concrete ways about 2 tons per cubic yard, but "light weight" concrete can be anywhere from about 600 to 3000 pounds per cubic yard. If we take a figure towards the high end of the range, we would estimate about 90,000 tons of concrete, but the correct figure could be much lower. Additionally, all of the exterior columns (and presumably core columns and spandrel plates as well) were coated with several inches of a fireproofing plaster containing either asbestos or "inorganic fibers" which presumably might include fiberglass. From the Guardian, the exterior columns were about 13" square (240 columns) and the core columns were about 14"x36" (48 columns) so the surface area of all the columns would be 17280 square feet per floor, or 2 million square feet for the entire building. Covering with a 3" layer of fireproof plaster would require 19,000 cubic yards, which could easily amount to another 10,000 or 20,000 tons of fiberglass-rich material. Overall, the mass of concrete and fibrous material in each WTC tower is probably not more than 110,000 tons. This revised estimate was used in Hoffman's later revisions of his paper. When all is said and done, I believe that the analysis by Jim Hoffman is substantially correct -- the energy required to heat this huge mass sufficiently to reduce it to powder is very difficult to account for by any reasonable combination of gravitational and combustion effects, without the input of additional energy from explosives. On the other hand, I do not see any conclusive evidence of extremely high energy inputs from advanced technologies. Wake me when the dumb people remove their tinfoil hats.
Looking forward to seeing links to other demolitions "Ken".
by ClosetIguana
[+]
Ken didn't post it, I did.
by Lovelynice
[+]
No problem, sure we enjoy demolishing your intellectually bankrupt attempts at 'arguments' all the time, you not being the sharpest tool in the closet and all that. You keep tools in your closet? O.o Anyway, this ballot is effectively useless, as it doesn't allow the other side to express their opinion, and the question itself isn't the best.
by himself809
[+]
Effectively useless... that's a little weird.
by himself809
[+]
It was a pun, DUH! Why are these shills invariably so incredibly stupid? The picture on the right, isn't that just the ash being flicked off the end of a cigarette or a cigar, magnified by 10x? Ken, I was making fun of myself. You jump at every chance you get don't you lol?
by himself809
[+]
^^^Jinn's first half-witted attempt foray in attempting to interact in a debate! Alas, typical racist, thick as a plank. That really doesn't look anything like a cigarette.
by himself809
[+]
You're right. Sorry, bad guess. Its an elephant sneezing peanuts and shells out of its trunk nostrils. ^^^Jinn's analysis of what he sees when he looks in the mirror. Steeplejack Fred Dibnah would be proud that the Chimney on the right he felled in Bolton, England would appear on this site. Actually the collapse of the chimney at the top part is due to the angle of which the stack was falling, it gave way, explosives were not used on it as it was felled like you would fell a tree in logging. To prove my point i was there when the fucking thing was destroyed!!! ARGUMENT OVER. {To prove my point i was there when the fucking thing was destroyed!!! ARGUMENT OVER. by isay on Fri Aug 25, 06 2:50am} Not really, because YOU were never there! Little liar who likes to tell stories.
by Lovelynice
[+]
what's really funny is that you couldn't even name the exact place.
by Lovelynice
[+]
what's really funny is that you couldn't even name the exact place. by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 25, 06 5:29am look at my 1st comment you thick twat. Still waiting for pictures showing demolitions with the buildings being brought down from the top. Apparently is quite common, right Ken/Lovely?
by ClosetIguana
[+]
{sad.... by neothe1 on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:03am} Sad is you. Shills like you are easy to spot. They make claims without ever being able to cite sources.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{Apparently is quite common, right Ken/Lovely? by ClosetIguana on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:09am} I'm not Ken. Next time you try and pretend that I am, I will rate you down. Nobody ever said they Controlled explosive demolitions were common. They are rarer than controlled implosive demolitions, but they unlike the liar neothe1 tried to pretend on another ballot, they do exist. I presume there must be many different techniques for building demolition with explosives thermite, and similar. Neothe1 tried to LIE (as usual) and pretend that there was only one kind.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{smokestacks are destroyed from the bottom.. by neothe1 on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:02am} Cite and quote a source, neothe1, as you are nothing more than an anonymous troll on the internet. You are NOT a demolition expert, so you MUST cite an expert, source, and link. anything stated by you without one (particularly with your habit of constant lying) can be considered to be only more shill storytelling and more lies.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{look at my 1st comment by isay on Fri Aug 25, 06 10:45am} I did. I noticed immediately that you didnt name the exact place. Therefore you weren't there. You gave no more information than somebody could find on the littlegreenfootballs site. You couldn't even name the property that this huge chimney was on. If I'd been an actual witness at such a thing, I could've named the exact place straight away, by the name of the property - not just the city or town that it happened in. Since you couldn't do that in your post in reply, the suspicion is greater still that you weren't there at all, and are only writing about it as you read of it elsewhere.
by Lovelynice
[+]
When I mentioned "common" it was in regards to the ballot title (being that we've all seen other demolitions such as this). If that's the case, show me some.
by ClosetIguana
[+]
Neothe1 now is caught not only lying, but contradicting himself in his insane antics and loony attempts at strawman arguments; {demolition EXplosion, which does not exist,by neothe1 on Wed Aug 23, 06 12:12pm Ballot 100729} {"They are rarer than controlled implosive demolitions" which do not exist, by neothe1 on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:29am Ballot 100930} Make up your mind neothe1, and grow a brain! By the way, controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions and controlled IMPLOSIVE demolitions do exist. A controlled IMPLOSIVE demolition is the more common kind, and WTC 7 looks EXACTLY like a controlled IMPLOSIVE demolition. In controlled IMPLOSIVE demolition, explosives are used to make the building implode down upon itself so that 90% or more of the building will usually come down within it's own footprint. WTC 7 came down almost entirely within it's own footprint, with 95% of it's mass. Anyone can see this in the aerial photos. Controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions literally blow a building apart, floor by floor. Most debris from the building will end up going down and generally in and close to the footprint of the building (surrounding it, but extremely close by), but much of the debris will be flung outwards at great velocity. They are rarer, but they are still used on some occassions. The controlled demolitions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 looked exactly like controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions. The physics proves it. Repeatedly I have shown this on other ballots.
by Lovelynice
[+]
Dr Frank Greening was mentioned by Applerod, who tried to cite him as an expert against the WTC demolition claims. Applerod never mentioned that Dr Frank Green is a CHEMIST, not a structural engineer or physicist. To make things worse for him, using Dr Frank Greening's own math, it was easy for Gordon Ross to show that the "Collapse is arrested" (stopped) according to Frank Greening's OWN MATH at an early stage due to the energy deficit. THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH GREENINGS OWN MATH when taken only 50 milliseconds further than Greening did in his simulation. In other words, like NIST, since he couldn't simulate the collapse, he just used the first part of the beginning, then knowing that it wouldn't work, he added assumptions about the rest to cover up that the collapse would stop early. Energy sources Kinetic energy from initial freefall 2105MJ 58Ktonnes * g moving through 3.7m Potential energy from additional downward movement 58Ktonnes * g *[16.5/16] moving through 555mm deflection of impacted storey 325MJ 58Ktonnes * g *[15.5/16] moving through 555mm deflection of impacting storey 305MJ Compression of remainder of impacting section allowing an effective mass of 58Ktonnes * g * [[11/2]/16] moving through a proportion of 11 affected storeys elastic deflections of 7.4mm 13MJ Compression of remainder of impacted section effective mass of 58Ktonnes * g * [17+ moving through half of 20 affected storeys elastic deflection of 7.4mm 52MJ Total energy available 2700MJ Energy demands Pulverisation of impacting floor concrete 128MJ Pulverisation of impacted floor concrete 128MJ Energy consumed by inertial changes in collision 1010MJ Strain energy in impacting storey 710MJ 58Ktonnes * g * moving through 555mm deflection of impacted storey * Strain energy in impacted storey 710MJ 58Ktonnes * g * moving through 555mm deflection of impacted storey * Elastic strain energy in remainder of impacting section 26MJ effective mass of 58Ktonnes * g * 2 * moving through a proportion of 11 affected storeys' full elastic deflection of 7.4mm Elastic strain energy in remainder of impacted section 104MJ effective mass of half of 58Ktonnes * g * 2 * moving through half of 4 affected storeys' full elastic deflection of 7.4mm Total Energy demands 2816MJ Energy DEFICIT 2816 - 2700 = 116MJ That means there's not enough energy to continue the collapse.
by Lovelynice
[+]
The following shows that the "pancake collapse" theory is a lot of hooey... There's a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward - even just having to push air out of the way - there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished. And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance. The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 It will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. To be more accurate, it would actually be 9.22 seconds but I just want to make sure others can easily follow it simply. Here's the graphic i18. photobucket . com / albums / b108 / janedoe444 / 911/ WTC-A5-75 . jpg But this can only occur in a vacuum. Most free-falling objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we were told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully suported the mass of the tower for 30 years. You'd think the undamaged 89 and 73 lower floors in each of the buildings would provide signficant resistance to the collapse. Air can't do that. Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was "pulverized" And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. While gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once. It is physically impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. Simulating a collapse by 1 floor intervals in approximation of the "pancake" theory. With this theory, no floor below the "pancake" can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level. i18. photobucket . com / albums / b108 / janedoe444 / 911 / WTC-A4-75.jpg If the entire building is to be on the ground in close to freefall time, the floors below the "pancaking" must start moving before the "progressive collapse reaches that floor below. But this creates yet another problem. How can the upper floor be destroyed by slamming into a lower floor if the lower floor has already moved out of the way? So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving BEFORE the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone. This would require something like a detonation sequence. i18 . photobucket . com / albums / b108 / janedoe444 / . site1106.jpg In the picture (above), notice that WTC 2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave. It should be obvious by now that only a controlled demolition could achieve this. And, I haven't even gone into the massive energy requirements just to smash through each of those floors. It gets worse. Although more recently the consensus has generally been that it's took a slight longer time than free fall, say about 12-13 seconds the seismic waves don't match. Based on the Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds They're SHORTER than the collapse times - particularly for the North Tower where the duration is less than the free fall time. That's IMPOSSIBLE unless the seismic waves are less caused from the collapsed debris impacting the ground than by something else. Physics which proves outright that the WTC towers were brought down by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Anything else required to achieve this, was obviously done. And despite your sophist excuses NOBODY has been able to simulate those collapses as anything other than controlled demolitions. Unless you can cite some sources, links, and quotes to show otherwise. Your excuse falls flat. No steel & concrete highrises, skyscrapers, or tower buildings have ever collapsed at near freefall straight down through their own structure (without controlled demolition) - except allegedly on the MAGIC DAY of 9/11, when magic and impossible things happened (vapourising planes, cellphone calls from six miles up, etc...) NOT ONCE in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF STEEL-FRAMED TOWER BUILDINGS has such a building collapsed at nearly freefall into it's own footprint without a controlled demolition. I dare you to cite such an event and prove it happened.
by Lovelynice
[+]
I noticed, neothe1, that the dykon explosive demolition site that you mentioned (first time in weeks that you've ever mentioned anything to back your claims) has many controlled IMPLOSIVE demolitions of buildings - they also label them as IMPLOSIVE demolitions. And those implosive demolitions of buildings look very similar to the WTC 7 implosive demolition. You shot yourself in the foot.
by Lovelynice
[+]
"back to the point, the picture included with this ballot shows that the south tower's collapse is consistent only with a gravitational collapse. by neothe1 on Sat Aug 26, 06 4:13pm" No it doesn't. It shows an explosive demolition. ^Yes after an explosion to the base.
by ClosetIguana
[+]
^Yes after an explosion to the base. by ClosetIguana The twin towers had explosions at their bases too, in the basements. 14 and 17 seconds before the aircraft impacts which were meant to cover up the explosions. The aircraft impacts themselves didn't make any recorded seismic tremors; they were only close to the times of the tremors, but the tremors were before the planes hit. not all controlled demolitions go from the bottom. some are from the top. it's the time of the collapse that is the giveaway proving those were controlled demolitions. Everything else; the seismic data, the videos, the hundreds of witnesses to explosions, support this. "look what i found. a video of the north tower collapse, and an online stopwatch by neothe1 on Sat Aug 26, 06 7:17pm" why can't you show the link? Btw, the common agreement among both the Official Lies and Sceptics is that the collapses of the twin towers were in 12 to 13 seconds. Nobody has ever given double time despite what you try to claim. Why are you ignoring WTC 7 all the time, neothe1? "because while explosive demolition has been ruled out, the collapse of 7 wtc remains unexplained by neothe1 on Sat Aug 26, 06 8:59pm" WTC 7 How was it ruled out? Who ruled it out? How can it be be ruled out when the collapse is otherwise unexplained, and controled demolition is the only plausbile explanation? " it's a very large chunk of the building's siding. something which would not have stayed standing if the building was imploded by neothe1 on Sat Aug 26, 06 9:21pm" WTC 1 and 2; Who said that they "imploded"? Cite the ballot and comment quote with the date and time. Everyone of the sceptics here has stated that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions, not implosions. Don't play strawman arguments and lies, neothe1. {ou are demonstrably wrong on the "close to freefall speed" by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 3:34am} WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds close to freefall speed. The freefall time was 6 seconds WTC 1 and WTC 2 - their freefall times were around 9.2 seconds each collapsed in around 12 or 13 seconds close to freefall speed, It is a FACT that it is impossible to make a cellphone call from a metal-skinned passenger plane flying 5 to 6 miles up without an onboard cellular basestation (technology unavailable before 2004), and it is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone call last longer than a few seconds when moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Which means it's also without any doubt that the alleged cellphone calls from the planes were FAKE. It is a FACT that no steel-framed hi-rises or tower buildings have ever collapsed directly downward at nearly freefall through their own structure into their footprint without a controlled demolition. It is a FACT that nobody has been able to simulate/model the WTC building collapses with the empirical data, except as controlled demolitions, and that according to the empirical data even in the worst case scenarios of NIST, the collapses were impossible and could not occurr, despite their layering of assumptions to explain the collapses because they couldn't model them.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{"Who said that they "imploded"? Cite the ballot and comment quote with the date and time." you, ballot 98784 by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:17am} You are lying again, neothe1. I've never said that WTC 1 & 2 "imploded" - EVER! They were controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions, and WTC 7 was a controlled IMPLOSIVE demolition.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{ because controlled demolition is NOT a plausible explanation. by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:17am} Occam's razor leaves it as the ONLY EXPLANATION. It is a FACT that no steel-framed hi-rises or tower buildings have ever collapsed directly downward at nearly freefall through their own structure into their footprint without a controlled demolition. It is a FACT that nobody has been able to simulate/model the WTC building collapses with the empirical data, except as controlled demolitions, and that according to the empirical data even in the worst case scenarios of NIST, the collapses were impossible and could not occurr, despite their layering of assumptions to explain the collapses because they couldn't model them.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{they were gravitational collapses. and we have PROVEN that. by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:17am} You're not a 9-11 sceptic. You're a lying shill. and it's definitely not proven that they were gravity-driven collapses. The towers were demolished - read up on some physics and learn about real life. It's impossible to a steel-framed tower building to collapse at nearly freefall through it's own structure. It's never happened before or after 9/11, and NOBODY has been able to simulate those collapses or prove thme possible as anything other than controlled demolitions.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{paste paste paste paste by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:17am} I guess you know that you lost the debate again - you're spamming like a stupid idiot again.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{"and it's definitely not proven that they were gravity-driven collapses." it is proven. you proved it yourself with the picture on this ballot. by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 1:02pm} No it's not proven. It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS. It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked. It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250șC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 șC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 șC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C). It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{your refusal to accept irrefutable evidence proves your dishonesty. by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 1:02pm} your refusal to accept irrefutable evidence proves your dishonesty - applies perfectly to yourself as you refuse to accept FACTS; It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE. It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS. It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked. It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250șC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 șC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 șC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C). It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{'m only interested in facts, not FACTs. and you're just going to have to face those facts. by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 8:23pm} Then why is it that you refuse to face these facts, and can only reply with spam and lies? It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE. It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS. It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked. It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250șC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 șC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 șC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C). It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
by Lovelynice
[+]
"Actually the collapse of the chimney at the top part is due to the angle of which the stack was falling, it gave way, explosives were not used on it as it was felled like you would fell a tree in logging. To prove my point i was there when the fucking thing was destroyed!!! ARGUMENT OVER." by isay on Fri Aug 25, 06 2:50am Exactly isay, I too have seen three very tall smoke-stacks taken down. All three were toppled like "a tree in logging". They can be manipulated to be toppled in any direction. Neothe1, you are not a demolitions expert. Cite sources, with links and quotes.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{paste paste paste paste paste by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 8:27pm} stop replying with spam and lies.
by Lovelynice
[+]
"Who said that they "imploded"? Cite the ballot and comment quote with the date and time." you, ballot 98784: by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:17am I honestly thought you were talking to me. Especially as you spend so much time in every ballot making personal attacks and attacking me all the time, and telling lies about me all the time. It was suspicious that you only can give a ballot number, but not the quote, date, and time where she allegedly made such a statement. So I checked and found that you're lying (yet again). Tank_Girl didn't post on ballot 98784, so she can't have stated what you said that she did on that ballot
by Lovelynice
[+]
Good, you're learning.
by Lovelynice
[+]
If you want to play the game of attacking constantly, with the same stupid excuses, then you are going to have get used to 1) being replied with same answers, 2) being asked to back your bullshit with quotes, sources, and links. That means, you need to provide a quote AND a page number if it's a . pdf file
by Lovelynice
[+]
{BBlanchard %208- 8-06. pdf by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 12:40am} Blanchard goes through 9 dubiously concocted assertions in favor of demolition, and attempts to refute them. He doesn't address any of the hard issues, such as the complete pulverization of the concrete, or the near freefall collapse times. The most stupid claims written by Blanchard; Quote "We do not know why exactly how or why WT7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here." Well that didn't stop Mr Blanchard from "hypothesizing" about the miles of wires and explosives required to rig WT1 and WT2 within 45 minutes after the first plane impact did it? Again we see the pathetic statements about miles and miles of wires and the 45 minutes to prepare the demolition after the first plane struck. Ignoring that there were weeks to prepare and the suspicious powerdowns (that many have mentioned already), and that would be no need for wires in this modern age of remote controlled bombs and detonators. - The claim that those aren't demolition squibs shooting from the towers 10, 20, 30 floors below the demolition wave, those are pockets of air -- yeah, right, pockets of air that are symmetrical, emerging from the center of the floor, and sometimes 30 floors away from the collapse... come on. - Those weren't explosions witnesses heard; those were just loud noises -- 911 Eyewitness captures the pre-collapse explosions, and the way they get closer together just prior to the collapse -- and some eyewitnesses were tossed around by these explosions -- Blanchard is blowing smoke - No evidence of thermite being used -- you mean, when Dr. Jones found the chemical signature of thermite, that doesn't count as evidence? The most suspect criticism is the claim that nobody who removed steel saw any molten metal, and that if there were molten metal it would jam the machinery. The presence of molten metal is confirmed by satellite thermal imagery of Ground Zero, and by the photographic and video evidence. If Blanchard didn't talk to anyone who was near these pools of molten metal, that's his problem. The satellite imagery confirms it! Finally an attack on Alex Jones and Steve Jones and in the same sentence a reference to Wile E. Coyote and his creator Chuck Jones, a clever use of prose. Written no doubt by the CIA mocking birds. This Wile E. Coyote/Road Runner theme seems to be running through quite a few of these recent neo-con shill "hit pieces", is this a new trend?? Look at the recent publication by Morgan 'No Planes' Reynolds (a "hit piece" on Dr Steve Jones), where the road runner was seen silhouetted on one of the Twin Towers. Maybe this particular DoD / CIA / FBI operation is called operation "Road Runner". By the way, there's an interesting history of "scientists" supporting quack theories in order to retain their position in society. See, for instance, Eugenics. "When the excitement of the blast is over, a large, billowing cloud of dust is one of the most identifiable characteristics of a successful project." implosion world . c o m / dyk5 . h t m l
by Lovelynice
[+]
Tank Girl not all controlled demolitions go from the bottom. some are from the top. Please show me some examples. I've been asking for picture of of similar types of demolisions for days now.
by ClosetIguana
[+]
{I've been asking for picture of of similar types of demolisions for days now. by ClosetIguana on Mon Aug 28, 06 9:47am} I've been waiting for someone to cite examples of steel-framed hi-rises collapsing straightdown into their own footprint at near freefall before or after 9/11 for YEARS, but no shill has ever been able to provide any. They keep trying to pass off concrete building instead (and one time a townhouse!) Neither has anyone ever provided me with a mathematical simulation of the collapses of the WTC buildings that actually simulated the collapses and proved that there was enough energy from a gravity-driven collapse. I've waited YEARS for that too.
by Lovelynice
[+]
Lovelynice My question was in direct response to your ballot.
by ClosetIguana
[+]
" whole file is on this subject and rules out explosive demolition in all 3 cases by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 11:56am" LOL, didn't you notice? Lovelynice already debunked it. Pretty thoroughly bringing the whole article in doubt, and Blanchard as well. Btw, Blanchard's claim that nobody uses "Pull it" in the demolition industry is a lie. It's been used by those referring to demolition for decades. It's short for "pull it down", and you can look it up in the Meriam-Websters dictionary, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in many other online dictionaries. I looked it up in my Macquarie dictionary. Blanchard is a liar. This point especially shows that Blanchard is a liar; (The most suspect criticism is the claim that nobody who removed steel saw any molten metal, and that if there were molten metal it would jam the machinery. The presence of molten metal is confirmed by satellite thermal imagery of Ground Zero, and by the photographic and video evidence. If Blanchard didn't talk to anyone who was near these pools of molten metal, that's his problem. The satellite imagery confirms it! by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 28, 06 7:05am) { that article was by a demolitions expert who was on site when 6 wtc was pulled. by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 8:02pm} and that article was by a LYING demolition expert, as I've already shown. He LIED. Bit like you really.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{f you were honest, you would accept my offer of an open debate by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 8:09pm} If YOU were honest, you would debate honestly HERE. Why should anyone go to another site just for a debate that can be done HERE? That shows you aren't honest at all.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{you want him to have lied. there's a difference by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 9:04p} Yes, the difference is only that HE STILL LIED.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{you have chosen to admit that you are a liar. you are finished. by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 9:05pm} B U L L S H I T !!! You are the lying dishonest little prick, if you wanted an honest debate, you would do it HERE, on this site.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{ LOL, didn't you notice? Lovelynice already debunked it. Pretty thoroughly bringing the whole article in doubt, and Blanchard as well. Btw, Blanchard's claim that nobody uses "Pull it" in the demolition industry is a lie. It's been used by those referring to demolition for decades. It's short for "pull it down", and you can look it up in the Meriam-Websters dictionary, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in many other online dictionaries. I looked it up in my Macquarie dictionary. Blanchard is a liar. by Meteor7 on Mon Aug 28, 06 6:50pm} Demolish: (?), v. t. To throw or PULL DOWN; to raze; to destroy the fabric of; to pull to pieces; to ruin; as, to demolish an edifice, or a wall. dictionary . laborlawtalk . com / demolish Destroy; do away with, make away with; nullify; annual; sacrifice, demolish; tear up; overturn, overthrow, overwhelm; upset, subvert, put an end to; seal the doom of, do in, do for, dish, undo; break up, cut up; break down, cut down, PULL DOWN websters - online - dictionary . org / definition / destroy
by Lovelynice
[+]
{i already did. you've lost. by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 9:32pm} Really? Why is it then that it's YOU who has to resort to telling LIES all the time? Shall we put it to a ballot? As to rules being enforced, they are enforced here as well. They're enforced by the site maintainers and by the members. When you spam, you get rated down. It's a community rule. You do know how to deal socially with others without spamming don't you? I can cite your lies with ease. Tank_Girl hadn't even posted on that ballot 98784, but you LIED and stated that she'd said on that ballot that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded" - well, since she didn't post on that ballot at all, then she obviously didn't say anything of the kind. When you were caught out by this, you then engaged in a string of personal attacks and insults (on ballot 100729), instead of doing the decent honest thing and admitting that you got it wrong. Then you tried to claim that I had stated WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", and yet again you were caught LYING, this time by Meteor7 who pointed out that you were playing a strawman argument and attempting to misrepresent what I had stated. Your response was as usual for you; more personal attacks and claims of victory instead of admitting that you got it wrong - AGAIN.
by Lovelynice
[+]
{but you have chosen to admit that you are nothing more than bush's by neothe1 on Mon Aug 28, 06 9:32pm} STOP TELLING LIES, neothe1
by Lovelynice
[+]
(proven. you won't refute, therefore you concede. we're done here. by neothe1 on Tue Aug 29, 06 1:03am) What planet do you live on, I wonder? As everyone by now knows, Tank_Girl didn't post on ballot 98784, you claimed that she'd said on that ballot that the Twin Towers had "imploded"and it's clear that didn't You tried the same lie about what LN had said, and again you were caught. Is repeating lies about others your only tactic (besides spamming)?
by Coldcircuit
[+]
neothe1, your lies will get you nowhere. You got caught lying, you're still lying, and the fact which stands more than any other is that you are STILL lying.
by Lovelynice
[+]
your spam shows that you're lying as well, because you can't win the debate but prefer to enagage in sabotage
by Lovelynice
[+]
This is one of those (many) things which you silly shills are avoiding; EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can any of you cite a single exception to this? With a photo, video, or anything else. and I'll repeat this nice and big since you seem to have problems reading it NO MENTION OF THE WORD "FIRE", YOU'RE IMAGINING IT! Now please hurry and respond with some FACTS to back your bullshit! Here's another one for you; WTC1 AA Flt 11 8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact 8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST Both times are real and accurate QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event? (It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40) Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)). Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash. The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event. The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements. NIST avoided the 9/11 Commissions time. NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements. ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
by Lovelynice
[+]
However dumb that person is they still aren't as dumb as you. Voted : Dumber as a Neocon shill (even worse than a Neocon) TinCan, you couldn't cite anything against what she said. How dumb is that?!
|