The great thermite debate.

[dukeanthony]

View attachment 1808600

10 chars

I am sorry Everytime I see something Like that I wish we had never entered Afghanistan and we just sat back

AND NUKED THE MOTHERFUCKERS

there are 1000s of people in that falling debris all in anguish all dying undeservdly

 

[ginjawarrior]

I am sorry Everytime I see something Like that I wish we had never entered Afghanistan and we just sat back

AND NUKED THE MOTHERFUCKERS

there are 1000s of people in that falling debris all in anguish all dying undeservdly

im sorry but

with the hijackers coming from Saudi, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon

and Osama Bin Ladan sitting comfortably in Pakistan

how would nuking a country of cattle herders not involve people "in anguish all dying undeservdly"

 

[dukeanthony]

im sorry but

with the hijackers coming from Saudi, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon

and Osama Bin Ladan sitting comfortably in Pakistan

how would nuking a country of cattle herders not involve people "in anguish all dying undeservdly"

It would most definatly include people dying undeservadly. But frankly I do not care. They harbored the bastards that did this. They refused to give him up. Now 10 years later we are still there

I do not think nothing would be more effective than if we would of Nuked his camp ( we knew where he was) and told the Saudis
Mecca is next
Clean up your fucking yard

 

[ginjawarrior]

It would most definatly include people dying undeservadly. But frankly I do not care. They harbored the bastards that did this. They refused to give him up. Now 10 years later we are still there

its the "they harbored the bastards we've got to get them"attitude that has you still there 10 years later

going even more gun ho and nuking them would have caused an even worse shit storm that we'd still be suffering now 10 years later

you didnt catch him in Afghanistan if you nuked that country and not killed him how many more supporters would alqueda have now?

 

[dukeanthony]

its the "they harbored the bastards we've got to get them"attitude that has you still there 10 years later

going even more gun ho and nuking them would have caused an even worse shit storm that we'd still be suffering now 10 years later

you didnt catch him in Afghanistan if you nuked that country and not killed him how many more supporters would alqueda have now?

Little late now
But we knew where he was when it happened and the weeks after that
He was in Afghanistan for weeks after 9/11. We let him go in Tora Bora

 

[ginjawarrior]

Little late now
But we knew where he was when it happened and the weeks after that
He was in Afghanistan for weeks after 9/11. We let him go in Tora Bora

if they knew exactly where he was then they could have sent cruise missiles at him

if they were unsure and just had a rough area that he might be in then chucking nukes over on the off chance they get him isnt anyway of getting job done

and yet again if you missed how good would the usa look to the rest of the world when you have to put out a wanted poster again?

 

[doc111]

This one?

Funny thing that the collapse starts at the top isn't it? And the top of the building was in excellent shape.

Watch the penthouse go first.
[video=youtube;OUkvnfV606w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w[/video]

This all goes back to the design of building 7 and the mechanism of this particular collapse. The penthouse evidently did appear to collapse first but we can't see what's going on below. When progressive collapses like this happen there is a failure of some key structural element. Nobody can answer all of these questions because, again, no inspection of the structural damage was able to take place. We can only theorize based on what we know of the construction of building 7 coupled with the damage that could be visualized and the fires (which were way worse than they seemed). I witnessed, firsthand, the collapse of building 7. My team arrived about an hour before the collapse of building 7. We were staged somewhere to the Northeast, if memory serves me so we didn't have a great view of the collapse but I can tell you that when we arrived, this was what the IC and other command staff were discussing..............the imminent collapse of WTC 7. A collapse zone had been set up about 3 hours prior to the collapse. The only reason this is EVER done at a fire scene is because there are one or more clues that lead you to believe a collapse is imminent. Bulging or leaning, as well as seperation of building facades are important clues to an impending collapse. Building 7 had several of these "clues". There was bulging witnessed on the south face between, I believe floors 10 and 13. The building also started to lean. We could visualize the building being off kilter from several blocks away upon our arrival. We knew it was only a matter of time before a partial or total collapse occurred. Those things with the fact that several fires had burned, unchecked for hours gave us genuine cause for concern and we were right! It did indeed collapse and it was predicted by virtually every firefighter that was on the scene that I talked to. You really should read this.

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

[dukeanthony]

if they knew exactly where he was then they could have sent cruise missiles at him

if they were unsure and just had a rough area that he might be in then chucking nukes over on the off chance they get him isnt anyway of getting job done

and yet again if you missed how good would the usa look to the rest of the world when you have to put out a wanted poster again?

Cruise missiles are slow. We did send them. You must be no more than 20 years old or just didnt care about it in 2001

 

[ginjawarrior]

Cruise missiles are slow. We did send them. You must be no more than 20 years old or just didnt care about it in 2001

you missed him with cruise missiles because they were slow?

or you missed him because you didnt know exactly where he was?

if you dont know difference between those 2 you really shouldnt be questioning my age

 

[doc111]

I wonder how many other buildings out there are built with the same design as WTC7? Would these all be suseptible to collapse from relativly few fires the same way WTC7 did? Those building owners should be warned and their insurance should go up......alot.

I am unaware of precisely how many of these building designs, or similar ones, exist in the world. The thing with building design, especially highrise structures, is that the design is driven not only by aesthetics, but by past disasters. New and better saftey features are constantly being added to new buildings. These saftey features typically come about due to past disasters. In other words, we learn from past mistakes and are constantly improving inherent saftey features in building designs. Sometimes these saftey features can be retro-fitted relatively inexpensively. Other times it's simply not possible or cost effective to add a saftey feature. When possible, as disasters occur, highrise design and saftey features are improved upon. It's simply not possible to account for all possiblities and it's definitely not cost effective to build a building that is completely and totally safe from fires, attacks, and collapses, etc.

Nearly a hundred years ago engineers thought they had finally built a ship that was "unsinkable". On its maiden voyage that same ship not only sunk, but became an example of just how ignorant and unrealistic it is to say that something is completely and totally safe from all possible disasters. There are buildings, I'm certain, that aren't even as safe as the design of building 7. It doesn't mean we tear all those buildings down and replace them with much costlier and safer buildings. What does happen is future building designers generally take into account past disasters and even some which haven't occurred but are forseeable in their new designs. In summary, I sincerely doubt insurance companies are jacking up the rates on buildings with similar designs. This was an unprecedented and extraordinary event in the history of humankind! Another 9/11 is not likely to occur any time soon, but architects and engineers have taken the lessons learned from that day and are applying them to new building desings in hopes that even if we are attacked, at least our buildings will hopefully offer a little bit more protection.

 

[NoDrama]

Those are all good points doc, but what about the CORE of the soloman bros. building. Even the core was pulverized, which just really couldn't happen since by itself it should have remained standing. The other thing is that these building are completely compartmentalized so as to keep fires from spreading. The whole building had a sprinkler system with risers every 5 floors so that in case pipes were severed that system will still work. Plus wtc7 had a Zoned fire control system that would pressurize floors that are above and below the fire to contain heat and flames. Which makes all those random fires up and down the building suspect as intentionally set. The biggest clue is the fact that NIST says that a single column failure on the east side caused the simultaneous collapse of all structural steel girders and columns throughout the whole building.

All metal in the building was coated with fireproofer and had a minimum 3 hour rating. The damage to the outside of the building could not have played a factor in the collapse as the Government has emphatically stated that the damage was not great enough to even warrant it's inclusion in the cause of collapse. Fire alone. Thermal expansion which caused a column to fail, which then cause ALL the girders and columns in the entire building to all fail at precisely the same time. I just don't buy it.

No one ever made the claim that WTC7 was "Fireproof", but like all skyscrapers it was built to code and that code has protected many other skyscrapers from collapsing. WTC7 wasn't that old of a building either, opened in 1987. Neither the construction company nor the architects and designers were the same as the WTC towers designers. Different firms, different designs, same outcomes.

They wasted no time constructing a new WTC7 on the old spot. The design is basically the same, steel framed, reinforced concrete core with solid steel girders and multiple weight bearing columns. Now all we need are a few fires and this building will fall too. Reduces demo costs.

 

[doc111]

Those are all good points doc, but what about the CORE of the soloman bros. building. Even the core was pulverized, which just really couldn't happen since by itself it should have remained standing. The other thing is that these building are completely compartmentalized so as to keep fires from spreading. The whole building had a sprinkler system with risers every 5 floors so that in case pipes were severed that system will still work. Plus wtc7 had a Zoned fire control system that would pressurize floors that are above and below the fire to contain heat and flames. Which makes all those random fires up and down the building suspect as intentionally set. The biggest clue is the fact that NIST says that a single column failure on the east side caused the simultaneous collapse of all structural steel girders and columns throughout the whole building.

All metal in the building was coated with fireproofer and had a minimum 3 hour rating. The damage to the outside of the building could not have played a factor in the collapse as the Government has emphatically stated that the damage was not great enough to even warrant it's inclusion in the cause of collapse. Fire alone. Thermal expansion which caused a column to fail, which then cause ALL the girders and columns in the entire building to all fail at precisely the same time. I just don't buy it.

No one ever made the claim that WTC7 was "Fireproof", but like all skyscrapers it was built to code and that code has protected many other skyscrapers from collapsing. WTC7 wasn't that old of a building either, opened in 1987. Neither the construction company nor the architects and designers were the same as the WTC towers designers. Different firms, different designs, same outcomes.

They wasted no time constructing a new WTC7 on the old spot. The design is basically the same, steel framed, reinforced concrete core with solid steel girders and multiple weight bearing columns. Now all we need are a few fires and this building will fall too. Reduces demo costs.

Building inspectors seldom go over every part of new construction with a fine tooth comb. I have a LOT of respect for the trades but we all know that there are a lot of lazy mofos and people who are willing to cut corners to save a buck on virtually every project, especially bigger ones like these! What I'm saying is this building was not "fireproof", no building EVER is. It's a HUGE mistake to think this way. Fire protection features such as fire stops and fire retardants are never perfect. They help but they don't totally prevent fire penetration and structural damage from fire. WTC7 had little to no water pressure because of several factors. For starters, the water mains had been ruptured when the towers collapsed. Almost all of lower Manhattan had its water supply cut when the towers came down. It took quite a bit of time for engines to lay out enough 5 inch hose in order to supply standpipes with booster pressure from engine co's and many buildings could not be reached with big water due to debris/entanglemnts which complicated, and in some cases halted supply line laying operations. The sprinkler systems had NO water pressure so fires went unchecked. Fire stops are typically rated and tested for how long they can keep fire from penetrating into critical areas like ventilation shafts and voids inside of structural members and such. Once they do penetrate these areas, it's usually all over with, especially with insufficent water pressure to fight a spreading, multi-story structure fire. Many buildings have their own booster pumps which will help give the sprinkler systems the critical pressure needed to overcome gravity in highrise structures. With insufficient water supply pressure, even booster pumps will not be able to deliver sufficient pressure to fight fire, especially on higher floors. With each rise in height, you lose significant water pressure just from gravity alone! This has to be accounted for BUT, without SUPPLY pressure to the booster pumps............the pumps can scream along all day long and won't put out a piss stream worth of pressure! I hope I'm not confusing you. lol! Direct attack operations were ceased very early on in bldg. 7, and without sufficient sprinkler suppression, the building stood NO chance of not collapsing. All buildings will collapse given the right conditions, it just depends on their design and the conditions they are exposed to and the time they are exposed to it. It's true that buildings have built in structural redundancy, but what happens in fire is you will start to lose key structural elements as they are exposed to prolonged fire and eventually it only takes losing one more key element and like the game Jenga, the whole thing falls down. This is how it works in the simplest terms. lol!

 

[NoDrama]

The building stood no chance of NOT collapsing? so this building...

and this building....

and this...

These are all going to collapse right? I mean they are uncontrolled fires how could they NOT collapse? right? Isn't it well known that ALL buildings with uncontrolled fires in them always collapse?

Right?

 

[dukeanthony]

So which one of those buildings had a million pound jet fly into it at 400 mph?
Where any of them hit with debris that took out a third of its face?

 

[doc111]

The building stood no chance of NOT collapsing? so this building...

and this building....

and this...

These are all going to collapse right? I mean they are uncontrolled fires how could they NOT collapse? right? Isn't it well known that ALL buildings with uncontrolled fires in them always collapse?

Right?

*Sigh*


Try to stay with me here. THOSE BUILDINGS THAT COLLAPSED ON 9/11 ALL HAD SEVERE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN FIRES!!!!! I don't know all the circumstances surrounding those fires and yes, they all look pretty bad, and NO, not all highrises with fires are going to collapse. Severe structural damage + unchecked fire = a collapse. I can't answer all of your questions about why some highrise structures that are exposed to severe fire conditions don't collapse. Sometimes they do, but the severe structural damage coupled with the unchecked fires seems to be the magic formula for a highrise structure to collapse. Pictures can be deceiving as well. I have no idea the specifics on those fires you showed me. How long did they burn for? Were the buildings sprinklered (and did they function properly) and were the firefighters able to make a direct attack or were they on the defense? How about fireload? How much and what all kinds of fuel was there for the fires to feed on? Building design comes into play. Take a look at that NIST link I provided earlier. It talks about certain highrise collapses and the various construction types used in the various buildings. It may give you some more answers to your questions. Those pictures of highrise fires you keep putting up and asking why they didn't collapse are really cool looking, but you can't compare them to 9/11 because there is no other incident in the history of our species that comes close. Highrise collapses are more rare because of the saftey features that are built into them that aren't present in lowrise structures, but even a highrise structure will collapse if subjected to the right conditions. The 3 highrises that collapsed on 9/11 were all exposed to similar conditions. Remember, the 2 towers suffered DIRECT HITS!!!!! Building 7 was hit with pieces of falling tower but parts of it burnt out of control for upwards of 7 hours. If you subjected virtually any steel frame structure to similar conditions, I would be willing to bet it will collapse more often than not. Not every time necessarily, but more often than not (I've got the statistics on my side! lol!).

 

[doc111]

There are no absolutes when dealing with fire or collapse. All buildings are unique. Highrises are overengineered to prevent catastrophic fires and collapse. "Prevent" being the operative word in that last sentence. These saftey features are not perfect. They make the chances of a catastrophic collapse or fire less likely, but they are not perfect. In fact they are far from it. We are still improving safety features and highrise building design, but if past disasters have taught us anything, it's that there is no such thing as an "unsinkable ship". Perhaps one day as technology improves we may get pretty close to that "unsinkable ship" but we are not even close at this point in human evolution.

 

[ginjawarrior]

dont know about you but to me that building looks very much like its collapsing??

 

[j4droopy]

the "great thermite debate" is neither great, nor a debate.

what is so hard to understand about a fucking jumbo jet flying 600 miles per hour into the side of a building, then burning for hours, as we all witnessed on tv and many in person, may, just may, have weakened the structure? dont even bother answering cuz you are dillusional and incapable of it.

you conspiracy theorists are fucking loons.

"Fucking loons" is entirely inappropriate. When was the last time you did the slightest bit of research concerning the subject? Unfortunately its not quite as simple as a "big fucking plane flying into a big fucking building".

Do you know what thermite is? Do you know how its made? What about nano-thermite? I am a former EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) Technician and im sorry, but one of the most explosive chemical compounds on the face of the planet, does not just melt into existence. No matter how big, or how fast, or how long it burned.

Have you ever heard of NIST? (National Institute of Security Technologies) Probably not, but they commissioned a little thing called the 9-11 report. You should check that out, though im sure the reading may be a little above your comprehension.

What about the CNN coverage of the National Guard removing pieces of the plane and other evidence? Probably didn't know about that. That's ok, read that little report i mentioned earlier and you will see this evidence was destroyed, never to be used in the official investigation.

Just because your "Proud to be an American" or what the fuck ever, does not mean that you or the public wont be taken advantage of.

When was the last time you studied war psychology? Or the psychological use of propaganda.

Lets not begin to talk about the Pentagon, one of the most heavily video taped buildings in the world, and 1 half second clip is that covered that part of the building that day. Not to mention the exit hole on the opposite side of the pentagon that received all of 0 media coverage.

So before you go calling people fucking loons, you should do some research as to your subject of discussion, as well as be willing to engage in an intellectual conversation, without degrading others. However, ignorance is a persistant beast.

 

[NoDrama]

dont know about you but to me that building looks very much like its collapsing??

It is crazy isn't it? That building burned for 26 hours and didn't come down because of the steel reinforced concrete core. Know of any other Buildings with Steel reinforced concrete cores? WTC tower 1 &2 perhaps?

 

[NoDrama]

*Sigh*


Try to stay with me here. THOSE BUILDINGS THAT COLLAPSED ON 9/11 ALL HAD SEVERE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN FIRES!!!!!

WTC 7 didn't have any structural damage. NIST and the Government even said so, right? Fire alone remember?