goheels681 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 takes one to know one... 8D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goheels681 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 takes one to know one... 8D :D Great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutternutin Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.html Yeah, this lady seems to be a super hero to be surviving such an "inferno". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3n Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 hey! thats wierd :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 And your point is? 1. I can do the same in photoshop in 5 seconds. 2. Even if its real, what are you trying to say here? Who even says she was on the same floors that the plane hit when it hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemo Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 excuses, excuses... always. You're all full of garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted June 13, 2004 Veteran Share Posted June 13, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemo Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 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.... am i missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRambo Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 (edited) 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 June 14, 2004 by PlagueWielder3k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 (edited) 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 June 14, 2004 by duhk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted June 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted June 14, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duhk Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 OMG, why are you insulting us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlagueWielder3k Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 You want my reason for insulting you first (if its true because I dont remember, so prove it)? Someone had to! It would have come from someone else if I hadnt done it. markjensen, are you a mod? thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts