Letters to the Editor
-
@ "novirtue"
But you can cure your own, Arne, by spelling "stoopidity" -- s-t-u-p-i-d-i-t-y.
Why? I've been spelling it that way (as have others) ever since you were a little tadpole, and if you weren't such an eedjit, you'd have Googled and seen that. I'll spell it my way, and you'll persist in your stoopidity. Makes us even, I'd say.
Cheers,
-
"No steel framed building in history has collapsed as a result of fire"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
Major fire at toilet paper plant
Wednesday, 1 November 2006, 15:49 GMT[...] Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof. [...]
Of course, that's impossible! Toilet paper doesn't burn hot enough to make steel collapse!
-
-- Arne Langsetmo -- You're right
That's how you spell "stoopidity" in bizarro world. Cheers.
-
@ Bill Owen
“As for the laws of physics. All of the towers fell at or near free fall. Credulous apologists for the conspirators tell us that this is normal because of all the energy involved in the collapse. If I had dropped a bowling ball from the roof at moment of collapse it would have hit the ground at the same time as the roof of the building. In other words the floors below offered no resistance to the collapse. This is impossible. This violates the laws of physics.”- Bill Owen
My first question would be “is it ‘at or near?’” but I am going to take you bowling ball example to mean ‘at.’ So my question is this: how come when I watch film of the towers collapsing, I can clearly and easily see debris falling faster than the collapse? Oh, did you mean “near?” Then why didn’t you clearly say so? And why tell a lie about the bowling ball?
-
@sysprog
This is hardly a fair comparison. I was referring, as I said, to steel framed buildings. In your toilet paper factory pictures I see brick support columns and what looks like a galvanized roof. I would say it's a pretty shitty example.
A better comparison would be the Madrid fire a 32 story steel framed building that burned for over 24 hours and did not collapse.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
Apples anyone? Oranges?
-
Speaking of Apples and Oranges:
Was that 32 story building in Madrid a 110 story building that got hit by a 767 going 500 mph? Ah, never mind. I’m sure that sort of thing wouldn’t make a difference.
-
@ Bill Owen
[sysprog]: [...] Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof. [...]
[Bill Owen]: This is hardly a fair comparison. I was referring, as I said, to steel framed buildings. In your toilet paper factory pictures I see brick support columns and what looks like a galvanized roof. I would say it's a pretty shitty example.
A better comparison would be the Madrid fire a 32 story steel framed building that burned for over 24 hours and did not collapse.
In "sysprog"'s quote, it indicates that the steel girders "buckled". That would not be a "galvanized roof".
Yes, there have been plenty of steel framed buildings that did not collapse, but that hardly proves that such is not possible. In the Madrid case, the fact that it burned for over 24 hours may be an indication of a lower rate of combustion, and thus a longer time for the lesser heat generated to escape so as not to build up the temperature needed to weaken the steel.
Cheers,
-
at or near
How am I "lying" about the bowling ball? I said at or near because the rates of collapse varied by several seconds for each building and the difficulty in measuring the exact time due to the smoke and debris.
This slight variation in the collapse times is meaningless as due to the resistance offered by the remaining undamaged floors, the time to collapse should have been closer to a minute in the case the two towers and roughly 30 seconds for 7 World Trade Center. The actual collapses took 12.74 seconds (North Tower) and that the duration of the south tower collapse was 10.52 seconds. 7 World Trade Center a 47 story specially hardened building of completely different construction than the towers, collapsed in its own footprint in 6.5 seconds. Given these results the US should get rid of all those bombers and buy some matches.
As I said earlier, there is, 6 years later, there is no official explanation for the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. That's a long time to explain the physics and mechanics of a fire initiated collapse of a building in the middle of New York.
-
@tales
It was 757 tales, not a 767, if you want to make a point get your facts straight, there is a big difference between the two planes.
You do care about the facts and not just making points right?
-
OBFUSCATION, PREVARICATION, OBSTRUCTION, JUST PLAIN BOLD-FACED LYING.....
CHIMPya, Cheney, Bushland Uber Allies, the so-called "white house" is GUILTY of HIGH WAR and CIVIL CRIMES. These NO-ACCOUNT COMMON CRIMINALS should HAVE THEIR NO-ACCOUNT SCRAWNY NECKS STRETCHED ALONG WITH OTHER TIN-POT WORLD DESPOTS like Vladimir Putin, the Russki creep, Lil' Kim Jong MENTALLY-ILL of North Korea, Pevert-Pervez Musharraf of Pack-WACKY-stan, Lukashenko of Belarus, the Sauds of Saudi Arabia, Dung of Vietnam, ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad of Iran, Than Shwe and the military junta of Myanmar(Burma), Castro of Cuba, Assad of Syria, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Hu Jin-tao and Wen Jin-biao of PRC China, al-Bashir of Sudan, Chavez of Venezuela, Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and all of al-Qaeda, Nasrallah of Hezbollah, Omar of the taliban and all warlord-despots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and anywhere in the world, if I have missed anybody, don't worry, I'll get to you and your NO-ACCOUNT NECKS! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS, THUS BE TO ALL YOU DETESTABLE TYRANTS, DESPOTS, CRUEL, INHUMANE, MONSTROUS DEVILS AND DEMONS TO BE HANGED BY YOUR MISERABLE COWARDLY NECKS UNTIL YOU ARE ALL DEAD! As Mao Tse-Tung(who was a DESPOTIC CREEP HIMSELF) said, "A Revolution Is Not A Tea Party." I would add to that, "A NECKTIE PARTY for DESPOTS LIKE THESE WORKS WONDERS IN MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE, WITHOUT THEM AROUND!" HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008!
-
@ Bill Owen
@tales
It was 757 tales, not a 767, if you want to make a point get your facts straight, there is a big difference between the two planes.
You do care about the facts and not just making points right?>
Actually, AA 11 and UA 175 (the two WTC planes) were both 767s. The AA 77 flight (Pentagon) and UA 93 flight were 757s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/index.html
The 767 is a larger plane, capable of doing more damage, so you would best be advised to get your facts straight if you're going to quibble about plane types.
Cheers,