Should we just focus on Building 7?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Three words:

Patriotic Cognitive Dissonance

You yourself said it took 13 years for you to see it, it took me 5, just remember some people are where we used to be.
It's like a wife who ignores all her instincts that her child is being sexually abused by her husband which is the child's step father, because it's too terrible to fathom. Unless the husband admits his guilt and directly tells her, this actually happened, she ignores her original instincts which is correct.

The fact is if elements within the American government, killed almost 3000 of it's own citizens viewing them as collateral damage to gain a stronger control of the world, this also to is too terrible to fathom.
Because it means the American Constitution has because a worthless piece of paper, and that is very sad.

And so you have literally millions of Americans who's instincts on 9/11 has been activated to wonder about the OS, but cognitive dissonance has kicked in, and the barrage of patriotic propaganda blankets them as well.

Very well put, much better than I couls have.

But there's one problem, as I said before - for myself anyway - I'm not American and I don't give toss who did it for this part of the discussion. I can't feel betrayed or disappointed because it's not my Government and I'm still furious about being dragged into your bloody stupid, expensive and pointless wars for resources. I'm also pissed off that the US thinks it's the world police and sees fit to try and govern and monitor everything. I'm also old enough to have watched how the world's changed since 9/11 and hate the repercussions from that event, at the very least it's obvious they were used to massively change the world in a manner I find terrifying.

However I also find it irritating watching people talk crap like they know what they're on about when they're wrong. Some sort of personality disorder apparently. My motivation, wherever you like it or not, is that I see people spouting garbage and I have a pain in my head if I don't try and correct it. I'm kind of boring, like a rude computer, but it has the benefit that emotions don't cloud my judgement in the slightest how your implying because I barely feel any. I don't see how anything positive can come out out promoting bad science, even if the idea behind it is somehow a noble cause. By doing so, you only leave it open for attack and you'll lose potential supporters.

I'll never forget a PM exchange with a well known truther at the time some years ago, when he said (and I paraphrase as the U2Us are long gone since the system changed) - "It doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as people don't believe the official story".. and something about me making him sick because I insist on accuracy.

That's what so many of you are like, you think that you throw enough mud at the wall you'll make some stick. When people come along and point out where you're wrong you have a hissy fit and start assuming they're a flag waving thickhead.
Problem is, if you want serious supports in the general public you have to do better than throw mud, you have to be accurate with surgical precision. If you're going to convince anyone that actually matters in large enough quantities, you need an airtight case.

Spouting crap a 5th grader might understand but an educated adult sees through isn't going to get you what you want.

I have one question.........

Why did it take "hours" before the buildings fell?

If the plane strike "really did" compromise the structural integrity of the buildinds, they should have fallen at the time of the plane strike...

Why did it take hours before they fell?

Please don't tell me the "office fires" heated the building to demolition mode.....Building 7 is still a bone of contention in regards to what steel constructed buildings can and cannot do in regard to failure......

lol

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

You might not like to be told, but the fact is steel doesn't need to melt to lose enough integrity to cause the initiation of collapse. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you get to ask for another one.
Do you understand what stored potential energy and kinetic energy are? How do you think these forces acted on the building?
Do you understand the concept that they are not one or two solid masses and are made of individual components?
Do you understand that if say, the top 30 floors fall by one meter the force on the sections below is many times higher than the weight when stationary?
Like I pointed out in the other thread, this isn't Jenga but that's exactly how some people seem to look at the problem.

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

Please don't tell me the "office fires" heated the building to demolition mode.....Building 7 is still a bone of contention in regards to what steel constructed buildings can and cannot do in regard to failure......

Did you bother to look up the strength of structural steel with temperature?
Or do you just like the thought of conspiracies?
Here to save you the effort.
Top of the page.
Structural steel is down to 86% at 400C.
And only 49% at 500C.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I don't "acknowledge" anything. I simply mean that I don't know enough about Building 7 to form an opinion. As for the rest... I don't buy into ANY of the alternate theories, nor have I seen anything presented which would change my mind.

I hope that clarifies.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I don't "acknowledge" anything. I simply mean that I don't know enough about Building 7 to form an opinion. As for the rest... I don't buy into ANY of the alternate theories, nor have I seen anything presented which would change my mind.

I hope that clarifies.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

Please don't tell me the "office fires" heated the building to demolition mode.....Building 7 is still a bone of contention in regards to what steel constructed buildings can and cannot do in regard to failure......

Did you bother to look up the strength of structural steel with temperature?
Or do you just like the thought of conspiracies?
Here to save you the effort.
Top of the page.
Structural steel is down to 86% at 400C.
And only 49% at 500C.

That's not entirely true:

In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300°F[19] (530-810°C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature. Common fireproofing methods for structural steel include intumescent, endothermic and plaster coatings as well as drywall, calcium silicate cladding, and mineral or high temperature insulation mineral wool blanket.[20]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

Please don't tell me the "office fires" heated the building to demolition mode.....Building 7 is still a bone of contention in regards to what steel constructed buildings can and cannot do in regard to failure......

Did you bother to look up the strength of structural steel with temperature?
Or do you just like the thought of conspiracies?
Here to save you the effort.
Top of the page.
Structural steel is down to 86% at 400C.
And only 49% at 500C.

That's not entirely true:

In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300°F[19] (530-810°C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature. Common fireproofing methods for structural steel include intumescent, endothermic and plaster coatings as well as drywall, calcium silicate cladding, and mineral or high temperature insulation mineral wool blanket.[20]

en.wikipedia.org...

I think you misunderstood what you were quoting, because you missed out some of the quote making it imply something else:

In order to determine the fire resistance rating of a steel member, accepted calculations practice can be used,[18] or a fire test can be performed, the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400°C[citation needed]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300°F[19] (530-810°C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating.

The temperatures at which it loses integrity doesn't change depending on the country it's in... The passage refers to temperatures they bring it up to. You can refer to the original standard you quoted ASTM E-119:

TESTS OF FLOORS AND ROOFS
...snip...

Conditions of Acceptance-Restrained Assembly

31.1 In obtaining a restrained assembly classification, the
following conditions shall be met:
31.1.1 The specimen shall have sustained the applied load
during the classification period without developing unexposed
surface conditions which will ignite cotton waste.
31.1.2 Transmission of heat through the specimen during
the classification period shall not have been such as to raise the
average temperature on its unexposed surface more than 250°F
(l39'C) above its initial temperature.
31.1.3 For specimens employing steel structural members
(beams, open-web steel joists, etc.) spaced more than 4 ft (1.2
m) on centers, the assembly shall achieve a fire endurance
classification on the basis of the temperature criteria specified
in 32.1.3 for assembly classifications up to and includulg 1 h.
For classifications greater than 1 h, the above temperature
criteria shall apply for a period of one half the classification of
the assembly or 1 h, whichever is the greater.
31.1.4 For specimens employing steel structural members
(beam, open-web steel joists, etc.) spaced 4 ft (1.2 m) orless on
centers, the assembly shall achieve a fire endurance classification
on the basis of the temperature criteria specified in 32.1.4
for assembly classifications up to and including 1 h. For
classifications greater than 1 h, the above temperature criteria
shall apply for a period of one half the classification of the
assembly or 1 h, whichever is the greater.
31.1.5 For specimens employing conventionally designed
concrete beams, spaced more than 4 ft (1.2 m) on centers, the
assembly shall achieve a fire endurance classification on the
basis of the temperature criteria specified in 32.1.5 for assembly
classifications up to and including 1 h. For classifications
greater than 1 h, the above temperature criteria shall apply for
a period of one half the classification of the assembly or I h,
whichever is the greater.

Conditions of Acceptance-Unrestrained Assembly

32.1 In obtaining an unrestrained assembly classification,
the following conditions shall be met:
32.1.1 The specimen shall have sustained the applied load
during the classification period without developing unexposed
surface conditions which will ignite cotton waste.
32.1.2 The transmission of heat through the specimen during
the classification period shall not have been such as to raise
the average temperature on its unexposed surface more than
250'F (1 39'C) above its initial temperature.
32.1.3 For specimens employing steel structural members
(beams, open-web steel joists, etc.), spaced more than 4 ft (1.2
m) on centers, the temperature of the steel shall not have
exceeded 1300°F (704°C) at any location during the classification
period nor shall the average temperature recorded by
four themlOcouples at any section have exceeded l100°F
(593'C) during the classification period.
32.1.4 For specimens employing steel structural members
(beams, open-web steel joists, etc.), spaced 4 ft (1.2 m) or less
on center, the average temperature recorded by all joist or beam
thermocouples shall not have exceeded 1100°F (593°C) during
the classification period.
32.1.5 For specimens employing conventionally designed
concrete structural members (excluding cast-in-place concrete
roof or floor slabs having spans equal to or less than those
tested), the average temperature of the tension steel at any
section shall not have exceeded SOoop (427°C) for cold-drawn
prestressing steel or llOO°F (593'C) for reinforcing steel
during the classification period.

Link to PDF of standard

a reply to: AgentSmith

Explain to me how ground zero burned for 3 months after the event with some temperatures recorded at being around 1500C?

Additionally, do you know the temperature it takes to decompose concrete, which was also recorded from ground zero.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

the glass that didn't break at the Pentagon when it was hit by wings of a plane going 500 MPH.

So that is why you think there was a missile?

Sorry, dude, I'm just playing along. Whenever I bring any evidentiary material its ignored, questions skipped, or POV changed.

Feels kind of rotten, huh?

I hate that, too. You want to discuss, you have to direct your energy at first responding to challenges, then asking your own questions.

originally posted by: ladyhelena
My mom was an RN living in NJ at the time and volunteered to go into the city to help the wounded. Of course, there wasn't really anyone for her to help so they put her in charge of the makeshift morgue located in the basement of Building 7. She and the other volunteers were to collect pieces of bodies and catalog them in a big black leather book, at least that's what I remember it looking like. They were warned that the building (7) was going to come down and everyone was evacuated just as it did.

My mom took the book with her. She said she needed something to carry it in, so she ducked into a Dooney & Bourke store and looted a really nice oversized purse in her favorite color and carried it home. Once home she wasn't sure who to contact to retrieve the book and called our local police. The FBI showed up and took it, but we made copies before they left.

I attended William Patterson that semester and witnessed the towers fall. I've been a truther since the day it happened. Even as an 18 year old kid, I knew what a controlled demo looked like from watching old casinos in Atlantic City come down. I was always fascinated by that growing up and instantly recognized it. I was so relieved to find out there were people like me when I had the courage to google it a few sleepless months later.

Where were all of the very clear and very loud explosions detonating every floor and the core at once? You say you recognized it as a demolition. Impossible. A demolition has clear, synchronized, very loud and very specifically-placed explosions which are plain as day when you watch the process occur. That did not happen on 9/11. So what you just told us is that because your head could not comprehend what it witnessed, you immediately withdrew into a delusion completely unsupported by any facts at all. Which is unfortunate, because this truther nonsense is a total waste of time.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: AgentSmith

Explain to me how ground zero burned for 3 months after the event with some temperatures recorded at being around 1500C?

Additionally, do you know the temperature it takes to decompose concrete, which was also recorded from ground zero.

I'm sorry, are you changing the subject?
I was curious why you cherry picked a Wikipedia article to try and give it a different meaning. You're also ignoring the figures quoted from the very fire proofing standard document you were effectively quoting.

How about we tackle one thing at a time, rather than you change the subject when you're exposed for cherry picking and proven wrong on the specific subject at hand?

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: AgentSmith

Explain to me how ground zero burned for 3 months after the event with some temperatures recorded at being around 1500C?

Additionally, do you know the temperature it takes to decompose concrete, which was also recorded from ground zero.

I'm sorry, are you changing the subject?
I was curious why you cherry picked a Wikipedia article to try and give it a different meaning. You're also ignoring the figures quoted from the very fire proofing standard document you were effectively quoting.

How about we tackle one thing at a time, rather than you change the subject when you're exposed for misquoting and proven wrong on the specific subject at hand?

I was correcting what the other guy said and nor did I misquote and also those figures in question do not include the fireproofing which was present in both towers, also why would the safety standards of steel be lower than that of jet fuel? Sounds rather stupid to me.

So is the problem here that the fireproofing wasn't up to scratch? How did the fires burn so long and at such high temps?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Explain to me how ground zero burned for 3 months after the event with some temperatures recorded at being around 1500C?

The heat was trapped underground or under the rubble pile. Temperatures tend to increase under these conditions. Its how refineries smelt metals.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

That is all you do is play along. As I said, your game is easy to spot.

That was my point, I mimicked your behavior.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5

That is all you do is play along. As I said, your game is easy to spot.

That was my point, I mimicked your behavior.

Self moderated removal of comment.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Explain to me how ground zero burned for 3 months after the event with some temperatures recorded at being around 1500C?

The heat was trapped underground or under the rubble pile. Temperatures tend to increase under these conditions. Its how refineries smelt metals.

SCIENCE!!!

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You cherry picked your sentences from your link.
The one you did copy and paste . .

The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress

The key point is how much strength is lost when fire heats up the steel.

Add that to the number of exterior columns severed in the impact and you get the result we all saw.

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

You might not like to be told, but the fact is steel doesn't need to melt to lose enough integrity to cause the initiation of collapse. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you get to ask for another one.
Do you understand what stored potential energy and kinetic energy are? How do you think these forces acted on the building?
Do you understand the concept that they are not one or two solid masses and are made of individual components?
Do you understand that if say, the top 30 floors fall by one meter the force on the sections below is many times higher than the weight when stationary?
Like I pointed out in the other thread, this isn't Jenga but that's exactly how some people seem to look at the problem.

Steel does not lose its integrity to cause initiation to a nuclear like explosion that by the way extinguished the fires only to restart somehow UNDER the pile of debris nothing on top only UNDER, due to everyday regular fires or from Jet Fuel which by the way was burnt off anyways long before any so-called collapse.

According to these people steel should then be at the point of collapse every single fire, and yet no one is worried at all, STILL.

Stored potential energy ?? This is akin to saying if I punch you in the face your facial bones may break some hours later, just a ticking time bomb waiting to SNAP. Like a BATTERY the energy never leaves an impact.

No kinetic energy could impact on the building because there WAS NONE, lol imagine trying to put these things into practice on any scale, good luck showing that kinetic energy starts itself.

What solid mass are you talking about ?? First you say it is NOT a solid mass and then claim it is, and yet all we can see is a CLOUD of dust and ejected vaporizing steel beams that by the way somehow aged 50 years as they fell.

You do realize that any engineer that was given the blueprints would not be able to smash these buildings down at ALL using planes, hell even a nuclear bomb dropped right near it would not have this massive of destruction.

And we are supposed to believe this turned to dust, we can see NOTHING churned the rest of this IMMOVABLE building into small chunks.

Just where is all this heavy top weight coming from that destroys the rest ?? We do not see any in the vids, just a cloud and look at the pile, no hammer smashing it down.

NO MATTER how it is looked at from unbiased eyes, this is truly impossible , save for being smashed from the INSIDE.

So many fallacies to accept this "collapse" it makes organized religion look bad.