if the muslim threat of terrorism is so real then why..

The reason we don't see attacks on a daily (if you ask a person that doesn't support war) is because the Middle East and terrorism is the boogeyman that politicians have tried to condition us into fearing, when it seems that maybe they couldn't give a # less about us over here.

The reason we don't see attacks on a daily (if you ask a person that does support war) is because we have brave men and women kicking ass in the Middle East, showing that the U.S. is still top dog. Don't F^=k with us type stuff.


I think it's the boogeyman we've been conditioned to fear.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
The reason we don't see attacks on a daily (if you ask a person that doesn't support war) is because the Middle East and terrorism is the boogeyman that politicians have tried to condition us into fearing, when it seems that maybe they couldn't give a # less about us over here.

The reason we don't see attacks on a daily (if you ask a person that does support war) is because we have brave men and women kicking ass in the Middle East, showing that the U.S. is still top dog. Don't F^=k with us type stuff.


I think it's the boogeyman we've been conditioned to fear.

precisely "if the only solution to a problem we have is a hammer, then every problem must look like a nail"

cant remember who said that quote, some american politician though.

a reply to: muckleduck the entire fuel capacity of a B-25, is less than a tenth of the fuel capacity of a 767, derp.


The B-25, hit an interior load bearing wall that kept the fuselage from penetrating to the core of the building, derp.


The ESB, had much better fireproofing than the Towers, derp.

The ESB, did not have its firefighting systems disabled by the crash derp.

In other words, you keep showing how little you know.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck the entire fuel capacity of a B-25, is less than a tenth of the fuel capacity of a 767, derp.

Doesn't matter though really does it mate...the temperature and duration of burn is the important factor, not how many gallons.

(Psssst...especially as the vast majority of the stuff exited the building and was consumed immediately in a fireball...the fires were mostly office equipment...and that doesn't burn very hot at all...if it did, steel foundries would use it to melt their steel..and they don't)

a reply to: MysterX Read the edited post. The situations are entirely different.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck the entire fuel capacity of a B-25, is less than a tenth of the fuel capacity of a 767, derp.

doesnt matter , the empre state building was smaller in comparsion so shouldnt matter, the fires burned for barely a few hours, not even reaching 1500*f , so how did the steel become weakened?

avition fuel is aviation fuel, doesnt matter what way u spin it, going by your logic the mepire state building should have tumbled to he ground at near freefall speed , why did this not happen? why did it also not happen when fires burned for 24 hours onthat madrid hotel u linked me to? and they had no sprinklers to tackle the blaze initially.

do all americans lack common sense?

a reply to: MysterX
past....a foundery is looking to melt the ore. The fires only had to burn long enough for the steel to soften.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MysterX
past....a foundery is looking to melt the ore. The fires only had to burn long enough for the steel to soften.

and how long does that take? 1 second at a quick burst does not contain the energy to heat the steel to anywhere near the temperature needed.

and even so if it weakened the steel then only the above floors would fall to the side, not straight down as if there is only air below it.

seriously.

a reply to: muckleduck And again you fail to take into account the massive damage caused by the impacts. The B-25, was at around 125 mph. The 767's, were moving in excess of 500 mph. Do the math. The B-25 was a pellet gun. The 767's were 155mm howitzers.

never mind the fact the architects of the twin towers built them to withstand to passenger jet impacts each in their production.

so if the supports on the empire state building kept it up then why did the supports put in place on wtc 1 and 2 to withstand TWO impacts EACH from an airliner at full weight.


please englighten me.

the impactts had nothing to do with weakening the steel though, only the fire going by your first statement, and the official story.

the wtc were built to withstand two fully laden passenger jet impacts EACH, i feel like i have to keep repeating this becausei ts going right over ur head.

maybe u would care to explain the thermite deposits found in the wreckage at ground zero? i dont know any construction industry that uses that other than demolition.

a reply to: muckleduck The designers envisioned a plane at a low speed, flying wings level, impacting the building. They did not think about a high speed airliner on a suicide mission. They did not realize how #ty the environmentally friendly fireproofing was going to be. Nor did they envision the sprinkler systems being severed. The steel, was certified to withstand three hours of fire, provided its fireproofing was intact. The brittle fireproofing was known to have crumbled away in many places due to its brittle nature and the high speed impacts further dislodged what little was left. You had bare steel, exposed to heat, and trying to support a heavily damaged building.


As for engineers, surely you do not think that their products always live up to their boasts?

Fire-induced column failure collapse theories, such as Prof. Bazant's, assume scenarios in which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at temperatures of over 800° C. There are several problems with such scenarios.

800°C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air (estimates of which range from 900°C to 1250°C 1 ). Those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, such as in building fires, tend to be cooler. Although enclosures can elevate fire temperatures considerably by containing the fires' heat, tests that have recorded gas temperatures of over 800°C have involved ventilation and fuel supply characteristics arguably not present in the Twin Towers.
Widespread fires reaching 700°C would have caused extensive window breakage over time. Although there are breaches in the perimeter wall glazing of parts of the Towers that appear to have ocurred after the plane crashes, such as in a fire zone on the 104th and 105th floor of the North Tower, descriptions of windows popping or falling on victims are not readily apparent in the eyewitness reports from that day. This contrasts with the prominence of reports of fire-induced window-popping in other highrise fires.
Widespread fires reaching 700°C and would have made the steel glow red-hot. Visual records of the events, while showing fire damage to the aluminum cladding covering the perimeter columns, do not appear to show glowing steel. 2
Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls were thermally coupled to eachother by broad spandrel plates at each floor, and the core columns were part of a lattice of beams and columns which would have wicked heat from a hotspot in three dimensions. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the many tons of steel in and around the crash zones to draw away the heat -- a difficult feat in the 56 and 102 minutes that the fires burned.
Fires apparently did not involve entire floors of either Tower at any one time. The South Tower shows no evidence of fires on its northwest side at any time. The North Tower at times shows fires spanning most of a face, but the fires are not even emergant, in contrast to the One Meridian Plaza or First Interstate Bank fires.
Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.
Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.
As fires consumed fuel supplies and became less severe, affected columns would have cooled and regained strength lost due to elevated temperatures.
Even if such hot and widespread fires existed, they would still be unlikely to cause failures of the columns in either of the Towers.


feel free to debunk please.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck The designers envisioned a plane at a low speed, flying wings level, impacting the building. They did not think about a high speed airliner on a suicide mission. They did not realize how #ty the environmentally friendly fireproofing was going to be. Nor did they envision the sprinkler systems being severed. The steel, was certified to withstand three hours of fire, provided its fireproofing was intact. The brittle fireproofing was known to have crumbled away in many places due to its brittle nature and the high speed impacts further dislodged what little was left. You had bare steel, exposed to heat, and trying to support a heavily damaged building.


As for engineers, surely you do not think that their products always live up to their boasts?

do u even know how fire protection works? i dont think you do, it doesnt just go brittle and fall off. lol

its painted onto the surface and creates charcoal when heat is applied , protecting the steel beneath the paint, you are just embarassing yourself at this point.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck The designers envisioned a plane at a low speed, flying wings level, impacting the building. They did not think about a high speed airliner on a suicide mission. They did not realize how #ty the environmentally friendly fireproofing was going to be. Nor did they envision the sprinkler systems being severed. The steel, was certified to withstand three hours of fire, provided its fireproofing was intact. The brittle fireproofing was known to have crumbled away in many places due to its brittle nature and the high speed impacts further dislodged what little was left. You had bare steel, exposed to heat, and trying to support a heavily damaged building.


As for engineers, surely you do not think that their products always live up to their boasts?

structural engineering has to live up to what they say they can do, seriously stop replying now.

a reply to: muckleduck. Thermite? Lol. Um no, it wasn't thermite. Besides, thermite would be a piss poor item to use. What happened, was that they found welding byproducts and declared it was thermite.

yea likely story, substantial amounts of thermite found at ground zero, of course must be welding residiue.

do americans think before they hit enter?

there was pools of this stuff found molten in with other materals, the fires below ground zero burned for months.

a reply to: muckleduck. Debunk your erroneous assumptions? No thanks.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck. Debunk your erroneous assumptions? No thanks.

debunk factual information that is founded on actual science and not the official story?

sure if it makes living in your beacon of hope and freedom seem worth it ill let u continue to live in your fairytale.

ur own government allowed 3k people to die that day.

get mad at them.