|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 4, 2007 7:45:21 GMT -4
Add to that a skyscraper that was designed in the same manner as WTC 1, 2 and 7. Far as I know, they're somewhat unique, yes?
Out of curiosity, why is this, Turbonium?
Political issues aside, the description of the mechanism of the collapse is sound. The Pentagon impact is a no-brainer, especially when I compare it to a similar impact that involved a 747 and an apartment complex in Amsterdam.
I also consider past terrorist attacks, which CTers seemingly ignore. Do CTers not know of Colbar towers, the bombing of the USS Cole, ect? Apparently, they found the weaknesses in our security on 9/11, and took advantage of it. By no means does this seem like "garbage".
If anything, I believe the govt simply hasn't been able to admit how vulnerable the US really was.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 4, 2007 8:43:31 GMT -4
Like you said, freedom of speech is important. You're frustrated because her statements weren't challenged at that time. But it's nothing more than someone voicing their opinion. I'm not really familiar with Rosie O'Donnell, or know what she does, or if she's smart or dumb. But does it really warrant personal attacks that - from what I can see - have nothing to do with the issues she's raised? A lot of what she says is demonstrably false it's not a matter of opinion. If she wants to use her program as a soap box she should do minimal research to make sure her claims are accurate. If not she deserves ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 4, 2007 13:35:07 GMT -4
A lot of what she says is demonstrably false it's not a matter of opinion. If she wants to use her program as a soap box she should do minimal research to make sure her claims are accurate. If not she deserves ridicule. I have to say, some of these people have had a tremendous effect on me, although I don't think it is quite the effect they were hoping for. . . Personally, I don't think the demographic she is going for is particularly large, or of very high quality in the eyes of the advertisers. But I suppose we'll find out whether I'm right about that. . .
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 4, 2007 14:42:03 GMT -4
Add to that a skyscraper that was designed in the same manner as WTC 1, 2 and 7. While the structural properties of WTC 1 & 2 may be unique, I'm not adding any more qualifiers than necessary. FF is claiming that the collapses are a suspiciously unique outcome stemming from common events. I am demonstrating that, no, the initiating events are not common, therefore it's not suspicious at all that the outcome isn't, either.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 4, 2007 16:23:28 GMT -4
A lot of what she says is demonstrably false it's not a matter of opinion. If she wants to use her program as a soap box she should do minimal research to make sure her claims are accurate. If not she deserves ridicule. This was her quote, as first posted on this thread... ROSIE O’DONNELL: No. But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by planes. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. It's most likely that she meant standard hydrocarbon office fires, which indeed have never melted steel. That's how I would take it, anyway. I also find WTC 7's method of collapse not possible without explosives. Over 5 years later, no plausible explanation has been put forward for fire/damage alone being able to cause this collapse. Rosie is not a scientist or engineer, just someone voicing their opinion. Sure, certain points she made aren't accurate, such as specifying what types of fire don't melt steel. But it doesn't warrant ad hominem attacks, imo. Nothing she said here really merits calling her a nut, etc.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 4, 2007 17:11:38 GMT -4
Likewise, I hope that you aren't calling her (or anyone else) an idiot, simply for disputing the official theory. I have to say, if you're claiming that fire doesn't melt steel, you are kind of an idiot. Feelfree, don't call me "Gilli." My name is Gillian. The fact is, there are enough things to actually fight against without bringing up bad science that makes you look bad yourself--and, in the case of saying that fire doesn't melt steel, kind of stupid.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 4, 2007 17:56:53 GMT -4
A lot of what she says is demonstrably false it's not a matter of opinion. If she wants to use her program as a soap box she should do minimal research to make sure her claims are accurate. If not she deserves ridicule. This was her quote, as first posted on this thread... ROSIE O’DONNELL: No. But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by planes. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. It's most likely that she meant standard hydrocarbon office fires, which indeed have never melted steel. That's how I would take it, anyway. I also find WTC 7's method of collapse not possible without explosives. Over 5 years later, no plausible explanation has been put forward for fire/damage alone being able to cause this collapse. Rosie is not a scientist or engineer, just someone voicing their opinion. Sure, certain points she made aren't accurate, such as specifying what types of fire don't melt steel. But it doesn't warrant ad hominem attacks, imo. Nothing she said here really merits calling her a nut, etc. Show us were any of the various papers or reports about the collapses state that steel melted. And no it wasn't the 1st time structural steel columns and beams had been weakened by fire. I hate Bush too but am able to seperate that from what I think about 9/11. She obviously hasn't even bothered to find out what the "official theory" that she rejects really is. Political motivation seems most likely.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 4, 2007 18:35:12 GMT -4
I hate Bush too but am able to seperate that from what I think about 9/11. She obviously hasn't even bothered to find out what the "official theory" that she rejects really is. Political motivation seems most likely. Maybe ratings motivation - she could be a pro rather than a True Believer ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 5, 2007 0:10:22 GMT -4
And so for the first time in history a global collapse, not once but three times on the one day from office fires.
Check out the Kader Toy Factory Fire in the mid 90's. Three Steel framed buildings all collapsed within 2 hours from what started as a small fire. No planes needed.
They used this method because steel framed skyscrapers did not collapse without warning before 911.
Name one openplan skyscrapper that has suffed from raging mutli-story fires after having been struck by a fast flying passanger jet loaded with jet fuel that has remained standing for longer than 2 hours.
Can you cite any papers prior to 911 which investigated the collapse of 100 %steel framed buildings ?
Check out the Kader Toy Factory Fire in the mid 90's. Three Steel framed buildings all collapsed within 2 hours from what started as a small fire. No planes needed.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 5, 2007 10:19:54 GMT -4
Except that there wasn't melted steel. That's just a rumor. The steel wasn't melted, it was merely weakened. Not a difficult concept to understand.
Yet another rumor/myth. And explaination does exist. IIRC, Fires were started from falling, burning debris. It ignites fuel from the tanks of the emergency diesels. Solid fuel fires also start (inevitable in a building with office supplies). The fire rages for hours. The temperature difference leads to a deformation in the steel frame, which eventually causes structural failure. Thus, collapse. Now, what is unbelievable about any of that?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 5, 2007 10:31:58 GMT -4
Solid fuel fires also start (inevitable in a building with office supplies). The fire rages for hours. The temperature difference leads to a deformation in the steel frame, which eventually causes structural failure.
Nit-picks: - "solid fuel" generally means solid propellant (i.e., rocket fuel) in the engineering world. But given the very high thermal energy produced by modern synthetic materials when they burn, it's maybe apropos to describe office contents ;-) - a temperature difference isn't required to deform a steel frame. If you heat a steel beam, it will expand to some degree. If you heat it enough, it can expand enough to apply damaging types and amounts of loads to other parts of the structure, as well as becoming weaker itself. Even if the whole beam was raised to the same temperature.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 5, 2007 15:00:37 GMT -4
Likewise, I hope that you aren't calling her (or anyone else) an idiot, simply for disputing the official theory. I have to say, if you're claiming that fire doesn't melt steel, you are kind of an idiot. Feelfree, don't call me "Gilli." My name is Gillian. The fact is, there are enough things to actually fight against without bringing up bad science that makes you look bad yourself--and, in the case of saying that fire doesn't melt steel, kind of stupid. Yes, fire do melt steel. But the point is ,does the fires in WTC were hot enough to melt the high quality structural steel used in WTC? But I know also that the steel do weakening long before it reach the melting temperature. Are you speculating that the steel at WTC have melted? So -Gillian- when you compare the kind of steel of a horseshoe and you try to compare it with the high quality structural steel of the WTC that is you who look stupid.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 5, 2007 15:10:28 GMT -4
Add to that a skyscraper that was designed in the same manner as WTC 1, 2 and 7. Far as I know, they're somewhat unique, yes? John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 5, 2007 16:09:14 GMT -4
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”
The 707 and the 767 do indeed have similar zero-fuel weights. However, the speed limit for aircraft operating near the World Trade Center was (and still is) 200 kts. Also, the 707 analysis presumed that the aircraft would only have had a few thousand pounds of fuel aboard. The 767s that struck the WTC 1 and WTC 2 were traveling at at least 400 kts, and had large quantities of fuel remaining. So they were traveling at least twice as fast, with a mass about 25% greater than expected, which means their kinetic energy was at least five times as great as planned for, and the fires were much worse.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 5, 2007 18:41:55 GMT -4
Good news everyone, Steven Jones has agreed to appear on the View with our hero Rosie to discuss building seven's collapse. Check out the Kader Toy Factory Fire in the mid 90's. Three Steel framed buildings all collapsed within 2 hours from what started as a small fire. No planes needed. What an I supposed to see, besides the cage elevators that allowed the flamed to spread vertically unimpeded and the fact that this was a four story factory fire fanned by strong winds with the inability of firefighters to respond quickly due to the remoteness of the plant and the Bangkok traffic. Does a four story factory building qualify as a high rise office tower.
|
|