Recommended Posts

Unlike what he said, the jet fuel didn't melt all 200,000 pounds of steel, it only melted the steel on the few floors it crashed into. When the steel melted, then the building above came down and had enough impact to crush the rest of the building

aww... boo hoo. but but but... he has no credibility....

Editaeoiruskl:

you don't seem to be reading the posts... i never said that if you heat iron/steel, and it wouldn't bend. but what i have said was, there was no inferno to heat up the steel to that point.

I'm pretty sure this is what you are thinking, plane crash, boom, break hole in building, make fire, big smoke, burn burn, large fire, feed on office supplies, melt, fall, dusty, OH NO!...

But what you don't realize is, the office supplies weren't all pushed up and stacked against the steel, all the heat wasn't concentrated on the steel, remember... people said the wieght of the building was held by the outer structure walls, but the fire was inside the building, so no heat, could've melted the outer side of the wall. Just remember, it wasn't a forest fire in there, and lots of smoke doesn't always mean a very intense fire.

And you have credibility? NO. And stop with the boo hoo, you are making yourself look even younger than 2 years old.

You said that the temperature up there couldnt have gotten so hot to melt steel. But it didnt have to! All it needed to do was weaken it.

The outer side of the building was gone lol. Did you forget that a plane crashed into the buildings???? So what about what people said. You said stuff as well and its clearly bs.

You base your whole "theory", if it eves yours, on the fact that fire couldnt have caused what happened. Did you forget the crash? Do you have any idea of how strong the impact was when the plane hit the building? Any other building would probably fall over just because of the impact.

If you say soo...

Anyways, I can't wait till that Documentry, Fahrenheit 9/11, comes out. Hope you dumb ones go see it, unless you guys wanna make excuses to not see that movie too... bleh, that's all i hear from you people, excuses, excuses...

We dumb ones? LMAO. Who is the 2 year old here? YOU! Who bases his whole "theory" on one website on the net that a 1 year old wrote? YOU! Who writes "boo hoo" in every post? YOU! You sir is the dumb one. STFU and get out of the thread.

It only takes 350 degrees farenheit to cause steel an inch thick to soften enough to easily bend. as a welder, I heat, bend and cut steel a great deal. Do you think we can survive temps of 2000 degrees? Think about it. Steel does not have to get that hot to bend. Add that to the pressure of the above floors, the shifting of weight from the steel which broke on impact, and it was only a matter of time before it came down. No big mystery to those of us who work with steel all the time.

wow... i can't believe duhk believes that garbage.

I watched a video in my engineering class last semester... i forget what it was called - something like "Why the towers fell" or some crap... but that's besides the point.... here i go... i don't know if any of this information has been posted because i stopped going through the thread at liek the fourth page -- duhk's garbage just made me sick.

i found it. here's a link to the video... well, information about the video.... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Ya know what... i was going to start explaining what happened... but i'm not. if you want to know why the towers collapsed - go to that website. and for specifics... go here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

and watch the videos and everything - just buy it...

duhk you should definately look at that. it's an interview with many people - including the lead designer of the WTC at the time, and most of his team, as well as expert civil engineers.

That is supposed to be a woman in those pictures?

The first picture seems legit.

The second is a detail zoom that shows some sort of structure.

The third is a manipulated image that puts in detail where none exists. It is an algorithm that guesses what shape(s) could make up big blocks as shown in image #2.

Is this supposed to be proof that there was no inferno? That jet fuel didn't explode/burn in the building?

There is photographic evidence of two airliners slamming into the buildings, yeilding fireballs in both cases as the jet fuel burned.

How is a picture that shows debris proof that there was no large fire?

Hm... the fireball, maybe that was where the fire went, in those big fireballs. And if there was a large fire, you should see the large fire, and that women wouldn't be there. Stop making excuses.

you do realize how ridiculous you sound right?

i am so confused on how you can watch the videos of the planes hitting the buildings, watch the towers burn, and then fall.... and then say it's all fake - and that we're making excuses....

thinking.gif am i missing something?

This is what I think, in regards to what the person in the webpage says...

Refering to my picture, the straight lines of the building are the angles viewable by the public. The dashed lines are the braces, not seen by the public eye. My theory on how the towers collapsed is as follows. As seen in the picture, you can see the general location of where the planes hit, not exact, but relatively close. Now, when the planes themselves hit, they took out some of the braces, how many, I don't know, but some, so that in itself is enough to lower the structure's integrity in itself by more than half. So, braces are left, not many, but enough to keep the structure standing. Now whether the braces themselves melted, causing the floors to collapse or not, I dont know, but think of this... Whenever concrete is heated to high temps, the moisture in it starts to boil, wanting to escape and this builds pressure. Now, due to the load on the concrete from the above floors, the pressure can find an easier way of escaping, by exploding. Now, this concrete helped support the beams in place, and since some of the beams are now missing, it puts even more load on the beams, all of this, and maybe even the heated beams, caused the top to collapse...

Also, he mentions how uniform the building were after collapse, and tries to prove how this is possible. He also says that there is no way the concrete dust formed was possible. I'll answer this in one simple answer... When something collapses like the towers did, the weight of whatever is falling is going to be threefold as it hits. Now, the weight of the upper structure falling downward is increased 3 fold. There is no way that the floor could accept that kind of weight, thus buckling. Alll of this crashing down, like dominos. So, he thinks that the top should have at least, in some portion, stayed in tact. Everytime it takes out a floor, it creates momentum. So when if has no floors to land upon, thus, finally finding the ground, it hts, and hard. It is like a car, going extremely fast, hitting a brick wall.... Flattens out like a pancake... And the concrete dust? Concrete crashing against concrete, breaks into smaller pieces of concrete, which, smack against each other making smaller pieces of concrete... This happening, over, and over, makes tons of dust...

In my opinion, I can't understand how he believes this didn't happen....

Those pics are off, the plane wingspans are bigger then the building from side to side....

Duhk, I didnt want to have to say this but you are an IDIOT.

We give excuses? What have you been doing since the beginning of this thread? Giving facts? Yeah right lol. Facts made up by little 2 year olds like you.

You deny things that happened that you SAW with your own eyes. How can you keep denying it over and over? I wonder if that stupid website is the only website you go to except for Neowin?

3 people that obviously know a whole lot more than you will ever know have proven you wrong and you still dont believe it? Just get to hell out of this thread already.

If what I hear is true and there are going to be attacks on the US this summer then maybe you should go stand on a tall building. Maybe then you will believe it?

gosh, soo many more excuses, and like CrimsonBlur has said.

People that resort to name-calling, yelling and unrelated references in a dispute of any kind are any combination of the following three things: 1) lying 2) incopetent 3) bias. In more simeple words (which you may require), in a debate such as this, these three things would be translated as so: 1) wrong (and maybe also lying) 2) no clue what they are talking about 3) have a pre-determined conclusion regardless of any and all evidence presented to them

You insulted me earlier so does it mean that same to you?

Say whatever you want about me, I dont really give a damn. Just remember that Im not the only one here.

About what CrimsonBlur said:

1. How can I or anyone else be lying here? We are stating our opinions!

2. Who is around here? NO ONE so shut up. Hell, even CrimsonBlus isnt.

3. You are the biased one.

4. You are the wrong one here sir. You are basing everything you say on ONE website that like I said earlier anyone could have written.

5. YOU have no clue what you are talking about for the same reason in 4. 3, THREE people that know what they are talkinga about and studied this in school have told you exactly what happened yet you still go back to that stupid website.

6. You have a pre-determined conclusion about this! You obviously dont listen to anything me or anyone else tells you.

Edited by PlagueWielder3k

You insulted to me first, so what he said doesn't apply to me, cuz i only insulted you cuz you did it first. so yeah, sucker.

aselkral;krw:

so anyways... i guess you'll never understand. But i'll explain it one more time, and maybe you'd get it this time. I don't insult people unless i'm insulted first. And I only insult back just to give them a taste of their own medicine. You can insult me all you want, I don't care, I take nothing personal on the internet. But I do insult back just to **** the person off, cuz it's fun to see them mad, and to see what other pathetic insults they got. Well to top it all of, grow up, and you'll understand.

Edited by duhk

You insulted me again now lol. And you just proved once again that you are 2 years old. "He insulted me first so I insulted him" Just get out.

And does it matter who started it? He didnt say anything about who insulted first so YEAH it applies to YOU.

well yes, it does matter, cuz there's no reason to insult a person in the first place. So if you're the person who started it, you had no reason to insult a person in the first place, unless of the reason said by CrimsonBlur. So if you started it, the person who got insulted, has a reason to insult back. See, you don't understand, so grow up already.

Will both of you knock it off!

You are both acting like petty children arguing over who insulted whom first, and whether some other individual's quote (which has oddly been transormed into a sacred "rule") applies to the first person or both.

That is no "insult", it is a cold, hard fact.

There is no longer any discussion here to be had. Only bickering back and forth. Please take your personal arguments to PMs.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      455
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!