user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : The PNAC were behind this
I was thinking the same thing Jappy. Where is Kenny when you need him?
Oh, they're coming, give it two days, and the 'copy/paste warrior elite' will hit this ballot like diarrhea splashing on porcelain
Voted : It's to keep Mexicans from getting into Oregon
Suddenly, the grinch had a wonderful, horrible idea...
A single truck did all that? Dude, that is sooo metal.
Where's the truck? I don't see any truck! It's a patsy.
If you blow this picture up to x100, you'll see one of those guys has what looks like a missile hanging from his undercarriage.
Voted : To keep gays from traveling to any straight neighborhoods
I had no idea. Thanks for setting us straight.
Voted : Most likely the driver was a member of Al-Qaeda
If the government were in on it, I wouldn't be surprised if another bridge over a block away collapsed six hours later. 
Funny how none of the conspiratorists are questioning the physics.
Voted : GW Bush is getting set to invade California
It was George Bush's fault.
^yeah
Voted : Hilarious how desperately you try to compare a bridge to 3 skyscrapers
flyover = steel-framed hi rise building? I don't think so
To compare a single bridge collapse with the events of 9-11 at WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 displays a very silly amount of ignorance - or worse.
I never noticed any reports of the fire engines being sent out to sea at one third of their top speed either, unlike the way the USAF planes were on 9-11.
Are you trying to insinuate here that, without insulation, the 5-inch-thick steel plate of the WTC columns, which formed part of a 200,000-ton mass of building steel structure, actually melted, similar to those tiny flyover dowels?
Now that's ridiculously absurd. Steel begins to melt at about 2,800 deg. F. Open fires fueled by jet fuel (kerosene) can, at most, reach 1,700 deg. F., which is still 1,100 deg. F. less than the melting point of steel.
And that's only in the small area where the jet fuel was burning, and not in the rest of the building which was fire-free.
Besides, the kerosene was consumed within 10 minutes, after which the fires died down with lots of black smoke - a sign the fires were oxygen-starved and spluttering at low temperatures.
Now compare that picture to the Oakland flyover.
Did you fail to notice that the bridge fire had 200ft flames? You mention this, but you don't seem to care that there were no 200ft flames coming out of the windows of the Twin Towers or WTC 7. You also don't mention that the bridge had tiny steel dowels only 3/4 inch thick compared to the 200,000 tons of 3 inch thick and 5 inch thick huge steel beams that supported the WTC twin towers. All the heat from the bridge fires was in one small area, heating only one part with concentrated heat. That's very different from what is claimed about the WTC collapses.
it would be nice to know the weight of debris sent to China. It would also be good if someone in authority remembered that, as a principle in Anglo-Saxon law, the destruction of evidence of a crime is prima facie indication of guilt. Why are Giuliani's feet not being held to the fire for that?
Btw, where are the autopsy reports from 911 events? Well-known forensic anthropologist and popular author Kathy Reichs worked at Ground Zero but is very quiet on the results, as are the authorities concerned.
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings
It is a little-known fact that according to NIST's chief WTC-investigator, the jet fuel at WTC burnt itself out in less than ten minutes.
Yet the USA's government propagandists keep trying to ignore that little problem.
You should look up the following
See Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! - Part 1
and
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! - Part 2
Now let's see how much the govt trolls on this site start vote stuffing the ballot. Maybe they can do their usual trick of outnumbering the ballot comments with hundreds of times as many votes. Maybe the votes will suddenly jump one day by 200-300 in a single day. I've seen you people do that before.
Here's my response to your silly ballot. Check out ballot 114497
Oh, I'm sorry, was my ballot silly? Well, one silly ballot in response to, well, all of your silly ballots filled with bullshit, including your usual copy paste spewing shit that has nothing to do with the ballot at hand here (Muslims? China? Autopsies?), ah, not much changes. Be sure to log in with your other aliases and support your own conclusions with more copy paste conspiracy bullshit hahaha.
Yes your ballot is silly
You tried a ridiculous argument, because you tried to compare extremely different stuctures that have as much similarity to each other as a plastic portaloo to bathroom sink. The WTC buildings had 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes and you want to compare that to those tiny quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members in that bridge.
You have aliases, I don't.
I love reading conspiracy theorist remarking about the melting point of steel. Steel doesn't need to melt to loss its structural integrity.
Heating to over 550 degrees C will cause steel to start to lose its structural integrity. Designer know this which is why they add insulation. Investigators pointed out that most of this insulation was blown out during the initial explosion at the WTC. Of course there was no insulation at the bridge causing the same result.
Since when did a freeway overpass have anything in common structurally with steel-framed hi-rise buildings?
Since never, that's when. You're desperate, admit it.
As to your claims about the temperatures of the steel at the WTC buildings, where's your evidence that they even got that hot; like photos of the invisible and never yet seen alleged "inferno" in WTC7?
It was already shown ages ago on other ballot discussions that you couldn't back your claims about the temperatures being even above 250 C, let alone your claims of the fires in WTC 1, 2, 7 being more than double or triple that.
Btw, have you seen any other steel framed hi rise buildings collapse due to fire before or after Sept 11 2001 - ever????
Why only the ones owned by Larry Silverstein? Three on the same day. Just billion trillions to one coincidence, sure, sure, sure 
"Since when did a freeway overpass have anything in common structurally with steel-framed hi-rise buildings?"
When they are made of similar materials.
"Btw, have you seen any other steel framed hi rise buildings collapse due to fire before or after Sept 11 2001 - ever????"
Didn't see it on Sept 11th 2001 either. Those buildings fell due to fire AND structural damage.
"As to your claims about the temperatures of the steel at the WTC buildings, where's your evidence that they even got that hot"
A small part of the evidence is in the fact that the steel buckled and the buildings fell down. Which is lot more evidence than you have that the temperatures did NOT reach that high enough cause the steel to lose its integrity.
"a sign the fires were oxygen-starved and spluttering at low temperatures."
Yawn. You mean oxygen starved like a kiln?
("Since when did a freeway overpass have anything in common structurally with steel-framed hi-rise buildings?"
When they are made of similar materials.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 7:33pm )
Not caring at all about anything else apparently. What next are you going to make a ridiculous comparison with? A concrete and steel garage outside someone's house? A concrete and steel power pole on the highway? A concrete and steel pedestrian overpass?
Do any of these things bare the slightest resemblance to a steel-framed hi-rise building? No they don't, and even the materials are only vaguely related. Your attempts to use a freeway overpass as if it had anything like a resemblance in structure to a steel framed hi-rise building are just so sad. They reveal a lot more about how weak the evidence for the official story about 9-11 is, because it's sad little defenders like you are so desperate to grab at this freeway overpass because you have nothing better.
( "Btw, have you seen any other steel framed hi rise buildings collapse due to fire before or after Sept 11 2001 - ever????"
Didn't see it on Sept 11th 2001 either. Those buildings fell due to fire AND structural damage.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 7:33pm )
Can you show me a picture of this structural damage on WTC 7?
You also seem to be trying to avoid the problem of your own claim about the fires. What's wrong, weren't the fires hot enough despite your claims? You have yourself in a quandary here. You can't keep your excuses straight. You try to claim that a completely different structure, a bridge, collapsed due to fire and make this comparison to a steel-framed hi-rise building, but you can't show any example of a steel-framed hi-rise building collapsing due to fire on any day except the miraculous one in a billion trillions day of 9-11 when 3 such buildings (all just happened to be owned by Larry Silverstein, the only ones owned by him in the WTC complex, suspicious that~). I'm sure there have been many other steel-framed hi-rise buildings that have been damaged, and had fires, and still didn't collapse - odd that the only ones that fell straight down into their bases were those 3 buildings at the WTC (3 on the same day, but none ever before or since) of Sept 11 2001.
(A small part of the evidence is in the fact that the steel buckled and the buildings fell down.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 7:33pm)
That's a circular argument and doesn't do you any good at all. It shows again how desperate you are because you resorted to making a circular argument, and it doesn't prove a thing either. You're getting sadder and more pathetic by the day, wideheadofknowledge
"Can you show me a picture of this structural damage on WTC 7?"
There are some pictures where you can see a bit of the damage. Unfortunately the smoke billowing from the fires raging on almost every floor blot out most of the damage.
"but you can't show any example of a steel-framed hi-rise building collapsing due to fire"
Why do you keep saying this? No one but conspiracy theorists are saying it was only due to fire. You are arguing against your own strawman version of the offical explanation.
The point about the Oakland bridge is this: a gasoline fire can compromise the structural integrity of steel. This is but a part of the reason why the twin towers collapsed.
Btw, did you notice that when the Upper freeway fell (in the local collapse) it was stopped by the Lower freeway, and therefore there was NO global collapse; unlike what is claimed about WTC 1, 2, and 7.
It shows that the intact stucture BELOW the local collapse actually impeded the upper collapse, and kept the entire unit from disintegrating.
So, if controlled demolitions were NOT used to bring down the 3 WTC skyscapers, then why did the buildings collapse globally (completely) instead of the lower floors remaining (somewhat) intact?
Your problem, and the problem with the whole Official 9-11 Lie is that controlled demolition fits the facts (observed patterns of collapse) better than any other theory (NIST included). Now, if NIST were to make it's computer model public, showing the complete collapse sequence (and all the input boundary conditions), I might be more inclined to believe the Official Story about how those building fell. But NIST is instead refusing to release all the data on the collapses (which means they know that it doesn't stand real scrutiny), and admits that they didn't successfully simulate the actual collapses - so far, nobody has been able to do so except as controlled demolitions (which is exactly what they look like, particularly and most obviously recognisable is the straight down perfect demolition of WTC 7).
( There are some pictures where you can see a bit of the damage. Unfortunately the smoke billowing from the fires raging on almost every floor blot out most of the damage.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 8:35pm)
Then if the damage is so major, why can't you show those pictures to prove it was? That's very revealing because you haven't ever done so.
Also, that smoke you claim is coming from "raging fires" is visibly coming from the very real infernos raging in WTC 5 and WTC 6 behind WTC 7, and not from WTC 7 itself. The only photos of the fires in WTC 7 show them to be several smaller scattered fires on just two floors, and nothing like the visible infernos that really were raging in WTC 5 and WTC 6.
"to your claims about the temperatures of the steel at the WTC buildings, where's your evidence that they even got that hot;"
You were the one that brought up melting points of steel and various temperatures. I was merely correcting your logic. You and your like mentioned that fire at those temperatures can't effect steel's load carrying ability. And that's totally incorrect. There are many more factors which brought down the buildings but that wasn't the point of this ballot (I believe).
It's obvious that you are so deluded into your thinking that I can't sway you. So I will give up trying.
( "but you can't show any example of a steel-framed hi-rise building collapsing due to fire"
Why do you keep saying this?
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 8:35pm)
Because it's true. When are you going to show any example otherwise?
(No one but conspiracy theorists are saying it was only due to fire.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 8:35pm)
Not at all. As I pointed out, you were making the comparison with the bridge collapse because of fire, but you can't keep your argument rational as I also pointed out the problems with it.
(The point about the Oakland bridge is this: a gasoline fire can compromise the structural integrity of steel.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 8:35pm)
So what? The steel in that overpass was tiny narrow dowels less than an inch thick. Your excuse is about as relevant as making a comparison to a fire in a gas-station. The structural design is totally different from that of the WTC buildings, which didn't have tiny little dowels but had instead huge thick steel box beams.
"Not at all. As I pointed out, you were making the comparison with the bridge collapse because of fire, but you can't keep your argument rational as I also pointed out the problems with it."
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
The buildings collapsed due to massive structural damage AND subsequent fires. Conspiracy Theorists have argued that hydrocarbon fires aren't hot enough to compromise the structural integrity of steel. The Oakland bridge collapse proves that notion wrong.
So what do we have - some evidence that the cause of the buildings collapse was, in part, due to fires weakening the steel. Couple this with the jetliner/debris impacts and you have the official explanation.
When you state that there is "no example of a steel-framed hi-rise building collapsing due to fire" you are being disingenuous because no-one is claiming that this is the ONLY reason that they did fall on 9-11.
("to your claims about the temperatures of the steel at the WTC buildings, where's your evidence that they even got that hot;"
You were the one that brought up melting points of steel and various temperatures. I was merely correcting your logic.
by ClosetIguana on Wed May 02, 07 8:41pm)
If you were "correcting" my logic as you claim then why couldn't show any real evidence in all these years that the steel ever became that hot in WTC 1, 2, and 7? Everytime you and the other gullible believers in the Bush Admininstration have pushed these lies about 9-11, and mentioned about how hot those fires allegedly were, your claims have been quickly shot down because the real evidence is that the fires in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 never became real infernos. They were nothing like the temperatures of the Madrid building fire, there was no melting glass, and the window temperatures were only around 100 C according to the thermographs. You're as silly as wideheadofknowledge, and equally can't keep your argument straight.
(You and your like mentioned that fire at those temperatures can't effect steel's load carrying ability. And that's totally incorrect.
by ClosetIguana on Wed May 02, 07 8:41pm)
No it's totally CORRECT because you can't show any real evidence that the fires in WTC 1, 2, and 7 ever reached temperatures high enough to significantly weaken the steel. And that's why you lose that point every time you bring it up.
(There are many more factors which brought down the buildings
by ClosetIguana on Wed May 02, 07 8:41pm )
Yeah, like how obvious the explosions are in the controlled demolitions when the video is slowed down. Line by line, floors being blown out by straight lines of explosions, and hundreds of witnesses saying that they heard EXPLOSIONS and that it looked just like controlled demolition. The destruction of WTC 7 is damning.
( When you state that there is "no example of a steel-framed hi-rise building collapsing due to fire" you are being disingenuous because no-one is claiming that this is the ONLY reason
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 8:54pm)
The problem with this little argument of yours is that I don't claim that is the only reason. I asked you, and lots and lots of other people have asked you and asked other OCTers like yourself, to show an example of a steel framed hi-rise building that collapsed straight down into it's own base, in the same kind of impossible to count for (other than as controlled demolition) speed and symmetry - on any other day than on Sept 11 2001.
You and your allied OCTers, and buddy OCTers on every other site have NEVER been able to answer that one. You just keep making up twisted and irrational excuses to avoid it, or try and change the subject.
(Conspiracy Theorists -
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed May 02, 07 8:54pm)
Btw, you have noticed that "Conspiracy Theorists" is a term that applies to you and your kind. Most other people know that. The Official 9-11 Story is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. That makes you a "Conspiracy Theorist" when you defend it.
Oh well, time to go.
See you whenever the next time that I come to Japan. I'm off to the airport in another hour and have to get dressed, ready, and whatever.
"I asked you, and lots and lots of other people have asked you and asked other OCTers like yourself, to show an example of a steel framed hi-rise building that collapsed straight down into it's own base, in the same kind of impossible to count for (other than as controlled demolition) speed and symmetry - on any other day than on Sept 11 2001."
What happened on 9-11 was unique. If jetliners had a habit of being used as missiles into huge towers and not one collapsed into it's footprint then you'd have a valid point. But that's not the case.
You show us one example of the twin towers being hit with a jetliner and it NOT collapsing. See how ridiculous your argument is?
Hi WHOK, I see you got distracted. Enjoy.
It's so transparent how the arguments change constantly.
First it was "the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel". When it was pointed out that a) the steel didn't need to melt and b) the temperatures were hot enough to cause the steel to lose it's strength the argument changed to "The fires were small and oxygen starved". So far no one on this site has acknowledged the fact that metal ore smelting at 1000's of degrees REQUIRES oxygen starvation AND melts metals.
Now the Oakland bridge accident has shown two things which help SUPPORT the official explanation. 1) Hydrocarbon fuel fires burn hotter than 250 degrees by a factor of 10 times. 2) Steel that is supporting a minute fraction of the WTC masses will fail and break catastrophically.
Let's be clear - this does not prove anything BUT it is significant scientific evidence that conclusively blows SOME conspiracy arguments out of the water.
And yet still they squirm, lie, deceive and protest.
^The man is passionate, I suggest you listen to him. If there's one thing I know about this guy is he doesn't argue BullShit. Next to Herzog, no one gives a more impassioned perspective on this site.
Quick question: If the Steel would not have been affected in a fire - why bother spending all that money insulating it?
(Steel that is supporting a minute fraction of the WTC masses will fail and break catastrophically.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu May 03, 07 8:15pm)
Especially when that steel is also only very tiny in comparison to the mass being supported. Those steel dowels in the bridge were only 1/4" and 3/4" thick. Your excuse fails
(1) Hydrocarbon fuel fires burn hotter than 250 degrees by a factor of 10 times.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu May 03, 07 8:15pm)
Yes they can, and nobody has ever said otherwise, since we all know about steel foundries. Where's your evidence that the fires at the WTC buildings ever became hotter than 350C? Every time you were asked this before, your answers were shot down. You also never were able to show any pictures of any inferno in WTC 7, nor were you able to show any pictures of an alleged 20-storey sized hole in WTC 7.
"Yes they can, and nobody has ever said otherwise"
Blackcat06 (who you describe as: "one of the few highly intelligent people on this site who knows what he's talking about") the self-proclaimed Professor of Engineering makes this claim over and over again.
In fact he states that it is impossible for hydrocarbon fuels to burn hotter than 300 degrees.
As for the WTC7 inferno you only need to look at any video or .gif image (including those helpfully put up by ken) to see HUGE volumes of smoke pouring from almost every floor of the building.
There are some links on my userpage too that still work.
Good one Jappy!
( As for the WTC7 inferno you only need to look at any video or .gif image (including those helpfully put up by ken) to see HUGE volumes of smoke pouring from almost every floor of the building.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon May 07, 07 6:20am)
As somebody else mentioned, that smoke isn't coming from WTC 7, it's mostly coming from WTC 5 and WTC 6 which both had real and easily visible infernos.
The fires in WTC 7 were only small relatively by comparison and on two floors.
(img://xs206.xs.to/xs206/06375/wtc7_northface.jpg)
( As for the WTC7 inferno you only need to look at any video or .gif image (including those helpfully put up by ken) to see HUGE volumes of smoke pouring from almost every floor of the building.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon May 07, 07 6:20am)
About that thick smoke,it's already well known that smoke isn't coming from WTC 7, it's coming from the very real infernos burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6 behind it. This is WTC 5 on the left with raging fires, WTC 7 is on the right
Here is another picture of WTC 5
So the two buildings which really had very visible infernos - yet did not collapse. Unlike the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7.
These small fires on only two floors of WTC 7 are most definitely NOT huge raging infernos.
|
|
