100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
"excuse me? they were low temperature fires, How well does fire resistant carpet and office furnature burn anyhow?" Okay low temperature fire? I would think that any fire is hot. It's an oxymoron. Fire is fire. You think furniture is low temp? Stand in a small room with just a few chairs and the carpet on fire. Bet you won't call it "low temperature" any more. Fire is fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame#Flame_temperature People should take a look at the average temperatures of flames. A candle flame is about 1,110 C Charcoal fire 750-1200 C etc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typical ignition temperature of carpeting is 600 degrees Celsius.
The critical temperature for low carbon steel begins at 724 degrees Celsius, and it will begin conducting heat much more rapidly upon reaching critical temperature. The temperature of an orange flame is 1100 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt some forms of steel, such as low carbon steel. Between 450 to 600 degrees Celsius, concrete will begin to decompose. The vast majority of an airliner is composed of aluminum. Aluminum in proximity to concrete under normal conditions will cause concrete to decompose. Heat can act as a catalyst, allowing greater dispersal of aluminum through melting and gases while the heat itself will begin causing concrete to decompose. Hence, heat plus aluminum will accelerate the decomposition. Concrete is the primary form of fireproofing for steel in construction. Wood begins burning with flame around 277 degrees Celsius. Paper begins to burn around 233 degrees Celsius. Plastics generally begin burning between 350 and 500 degrees Celsius. Look at the WTC videos. If you see orange and yellow flames, you are witnessing 1100+ degrees Celsius. These are all facts. You can look them up. Just remember, whether you see dark orange flames or bright yellow while watching the videos of the tower fires that you are witnessing at least 1100 degrees Celsius. That's over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. The longer these temperatures are present, the more likely that the structure was to fail. All it takes is for one floor to no longer be able to support the floor above it. No explosive necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typical ignition temperature of carpeting is 600 degrees Celsius. The critical temperature for low carbon steel begins at 724 degrees Celsius, and it will begin conducting heat much more rapidly upon reaching critical temperature. The temperature of an orange flame is 1100 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt some forms of steel, such as low carbon steel. Between 450 to 600 degrees Celsius, concrete will begin to decompose. The vast majority of an airliner is composed of aluminum. Aluminum in proximity to concrete under normal conditions will cause concrete to decompose. Heat can act as a catalyst, allowing greater dispersal of aluminum through melting and gases while the heat itself will begin causing concrete to decompose. Hence, heat plus aluminum will accelerate the decomposition. Concrete is the primary form of fireproofing for steel in construction. Wood begins burning with flame around 277 degrees Celsius. Paper begins to burn around 233 degrees Celsius. Plastics generally begin burning between 350 and 500 degrees Celsius. Look at the WTC videos. If you see orange and yellow flames, you are witnessing 1100+ degrees Celsius. These are all facts. You can look them up. Just remember, whether you see dark orange flames or bright yellow while watching the videos of the tower fires that you are witnessing at least 1100 degrees Celsius. That's over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. The longer these temperatures are present, the more likely that the structure was to fail. All it takes is for one floor to no longer be able to support the floor above it. No explosive necessary. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typical ignition temperature of carpeting is 600 degrees Celsius. The critical temperature for low carbon steel begins at 724 degrees Celsius, and it will begin conducting heat much more rapidly upon reaching critical temperature. The temperature of an orange flame is 1100 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt some forms of steel, such as low carbon steel. Between 450 to 600 degrees Celsius, concrete will begin to decompose. The vast majority of an airliner is composed of aluminum. Aluminum in proximity to concrete under normal conditions will cause concrete to decompose. Heat can act as a catalyst, allowing greater dispersal of aluminum through melting and gases while the heat itself will begin causing concrete to decompose. Hence, heat plus aluminum will accelerate the decomposition. Concrete is the primary form of fireproofing for steel in construction. Wood begins burning with flame around 277 degrees Celsius. Paper begins to burn around 233 degrees Celsius. Plastics generally begin burning between 350 and 500 degrees Celsius. Look at the WTC videos. If you see orange and yellow flames, you are witnessing 1100+ degrees Celsius. These are all facts. You can look them up. Just remember, whether you see dark orange flames or bright yellow while watching the videos of the tower fires that you are witnessing at least 1100 degrees Celsius. That's over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. The longer these temperatures are present, the more likely that the structure was to fail. All it takes is for one floor to no longer be able to support the floor above it. No explosive necessary. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. Every statement you just made is untrue and has been covered over and over again. Do you even understand that the structural engineering and physics are obviously beyond your grasp? Wouldn't that be "common sense"? The failure was progressive. The steel trusses failed causing the columns to fail which brought down the building. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am no structural engineer but wouldn't the failure of one of the beams start to put more force on the other supports. The load would not collapse at once but smaller failures would happen first and the load would be moving more and more to fewer and fewer supports until enough failed to start a collapse. Then once the collapse started the force would be magnified by having velocity and the weakened structure couldn't support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The impact of the plane alone compromised a number of support trusses because of how the towers were constructed. It then took an hour of bearing additional load plus intense heat to cause enough support failure for the floors above impact to come crashing down.
As I pointed out before, the weight of the floors above was about 200x the force of an atomic blast (we are talking about the shockwave which rips buildings apart) once those floors began falling. Not much is going to stop that kind of power, especially when it is confined to a small area such as 200 ft x 200 ft. (The base of the towers was 208 ft on each side.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am no structural engineer but wouldn't the failure of one of the beams start to put more force on the other supports. The load would not collapse at once but smaller failures would happen first and the load would be moving more and more to fewer and fewer supports until enough failed to start a collapse. Then once the collapse started the force would be magnified by having velocity and the weakened structure couldn't support it. Heat failures in steel start out by drooping and redistribution of load to the other members as you suggest. However, the actual cause of failure in the case of the twin towers was the loss of shear capacity in the trusses which made them droop and act as tension members, somewhat like a suspension bridge. However, once the trusses went into tension, there was no opposing resistive force to prevent them from pulling the columns inward. The columns were also hot and losing strength rapidly. As the columns moved inward the total load resting on the columns acted against the movement to produce a moment couple in the column known as the P-delta effect, i.e., the total load on the column times the movement (moment arm) of the column. Just a few inches of movement caused the column to buckle bringing all floors above it down. The drooping of heated steel and the conversion of shear forces to tension forces is known as catenary, which also describes the tension on the hyperbolic curve of wires strung from power pole to power pole. There were several cameras on the buildings as the failure started. Zooming in reveals the lateral movement of the columns just before the building came down. The floor also acts to laterally stabilize the columns at each floor. As the floor failed the stability it provided was lost causing the column(s) to span two stories instead of one. Twice the unbraced length combined with lateral loading and resulting P-delta was far more than the columns could handle. As the floor came down ALL the columns were pulled inward resulting in rapid collapse of the floor with the weight of all upper floors coming down together. The building would have failed almost as quickly if the heat was the only factor. The amount of time to failure attributed to the damage of the plane itself is unknown. An analysis of the "probable" damage by the plane was only 15% of load support ... not enough to bring down the building. The steel structure had a 67% factor of safety for overload conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typical ignition temperature of carpeting is 600 degrees Celsius. The critical temperature for low carbon steel begins at 724 degrees Celsius, and it will begin conducting heat much more rapidly upon reaching critical temperature. The temperature of an orange flame is 1100 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt some forms of steel, such as low carbon steel. Between 450 to 600 degrees Celsius, concrete will begin to decompose. The vast majority of an airliner is composed of aluminum. Aluminum in proximity to concrete under normal conditions will cause concrete to decompose. Heat can act as a catalyst, allowing greater dispersal of aluminum through melting and gases while the heat itself will begin causing concrete to decompose. Hence, heat plus aluminum will accelerate the decomposition. Concrete is the primary form of fireproofing for steel in construction. Wood begins burning with flame around 277 degrees Celsius. Paper begins to burn around 233 degrees Celsius. Plastics generally begin burning between 350 and 500 degrees Celsius. Look at the WTC videos. If you see orange and yellow flames, you are witnessing 1100+ degrees Celsius. These are all facts. You can look them up. Just remember, whether you see dark orange flames or bright yellow while watching the videos of the tower fires that you are witnessing at least 1100 degrees Celsius. That's over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. The longer these temperatures are present, the more likely that the structure was to fail. All it takes is for one floor to no longer be able to support the floor above it. No explosive necessary. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. Every statement you just made is untrue and has been covered over and over again. Do you even understand that the structural engineering and physics are obviously beyond your grasp? Wouldn't that be "common sense"? The failure was progressive. The steel trusses failed causing the columns to fail which brought down the building. Your no engineer and neither am I but here is what the building designer said. According to [WTC designer Leslie Robertson], New York City has some of the worst wind loads in the nation ... This is because of the occasional wind generated off of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season. As a result, buildings in New York City must be designed to be twice as strong as similar buildings designed to withstand an earthquake in Los Angeles. [NYC24] "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel may soften a little at 750 but we are talking about a few rockwell points on the C scale anyhow. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. Every statement you just made is untrue and has been covered over and over again. Do you even understand that the structural engineering and physics are obviously beyond your grasp? Wouldn't that be "common sense"? The failure was progressive. The steel trusses failed causing the columns to fail which brought down the building. absurd. It was total and instant on all trusses all across from were ever the collapse started. Your no engineer and neither am I but here is what the building designer said. According to [WTC designer Leslie Robertson], New York City has some of the worst wind loads in the nation ... This is because of the occasional wind generated off of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season. As a result, buildings in New York City must be designed to be twice as strong as similar buildings designed to withstand an earthquake in Los Angeles. [NYC24] "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html New York has lower wind loads than Florida and John Skilling was the head structural engineer. Robertson just worked on the project. The wind load stresses in the New York area are far less than the seismic code stresses in California. A "designer" is lower than an engineer and only John Skilling should even be allowed to discuss the design. Mr. Skilling is in a very difficult position if he was hired to design the building to resist the fires from a fully fueled jetliner. It should be noted that the fire protection is usually designed by a specialist, not the structural engineer. It has come to light what a bad idea using light commercial building techniques in high rise buildings due to the poor quality and thin nature of "spray on" fireproofing on the steel trusses. The comments made by the original designers have not proved to be true regarding the building's ability to withstand the resulting fire from a plane crash. Yes, I am a structural engineer and an expert in failure mode analysis. My comments agree with the ASCE Structural Branch who provided the information to the government to describe how the structure failed. You, conversely are quoting material without understanding what it means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel may soften a little at 750 but we are talking about a few rockwell points on the C scale anyhow. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. Every statement you just made is untrue and has been covered over and over again. Do you even understand that the structural engineering and physics are obviously beyond your grasp? Wouldn't that be "common sense"? The failure was progressive. The steel trusses failed causing the columns to fail which brought down the building. Your no engineer and neither am I but here is what the building designer said. According to [WTC designer Leslie Robertson], New York City has some of the worst wind loads in the nation ... This is because of the occasional wind generated off of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season. As a result, buildings in New York City must be designed to be twice as strong as similar buildings designed to withstand an earthquake in Los Angeles. [NYC24] "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html New York has lower wind loads than Florida and John Skilling was the head structural engineer. Robertson just worked on the project. The wind load stresses in the New York area are far less than the seismic code stresses in California. A "designer" is lower than an engineer and only John Skilling should even be allowed to discuss the design. Mr. Skilling is in a very difficult position if he was hired to design the building to resist the fires from a fully fueled jetliner. It should be noted that the fire protection is usually designed by a specialist, not the structural engineer. It has come to light what a bad idea using light commercial building techniques in high rise buildings due to the poor quality and thin nature of "spray on" fireproofing on the steel trusses. The comments made by the original designers have not proved to be true regarding the building's ability to withstand the resulting fire from a plane crash. Yes, I am a structural engineer and an expert in failure mode analysis. My comments agree with the ASCE Structural Branch who provided the information to the government to describe how the structure failed. You, conversely are quoting material without understanding what it means. Myabe you can send him a link to your license and he will believe you are an engineer lol. I know Louisiana license has a website and I am on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel may soften a little at 750 but we are talking about a few rockwell points on the C scale anyhow. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. Every statement you just made is untrue and has been covered over and over again. Do you even understand that the structural engineering and physics are obviously beyond your grasp? Wouldn't that be "common sense"? The failure was progressive. The steel trusses failed causing the columns to fail which brought down the building. Your no engineer and neither am I but here is what the building designer said. According to [WTC designer Leslie Robertson], New York City has some of the worst wind loads in the nation ... This is because of the occasional wind generated off of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season. As a result, buildings in New York City must be designed to be twice as strong as similar buildings designed to withstand an earthquake in Los Angeles. [NYC24] "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html New York has lower wind loads than Florida and John Skilling was the head structural engineer. Robertson just worked on the project. The wind load stresses in the New York area are far less than the seismic code stresses in California. A "designer" is lower than an engineer and only John Skilling should even be allowed to discuss the design. Mr. Skilling is in a very difficult position if he was hired to design the building to resist the fires from a fully fueled jetliner. It should be noted that the fire protection is usually designed by a specialist, not the structural engineer. It has come to light what a bad idea using light commercial building techniques in high rise buildings due to the poor quality and thin nature of "spray on" fireproofing on the steel trusses. The comments made by the original designers have not proved to be true regarding the building's ability to withstand the resulting fire from a plane crash. Yes, I am a structural engineer and an expert in failure mode analysis. My comments agree with the ASCE Structural Branch who provided the information to the government to describe how the structure failed. You, conversely are quoting material without understanding what it means. Myabe you can send him a link to your license and he will believe you are an engineer lol. I know Louisiana license has a website and I am on it.  whatever. Leslie Earl Robertson (born 1928) was one of the chief structural engineers of the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features. He has since been structural engineer on numerous other projects, including the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Robertson |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 08/26/11 04:40 AM
|
|
Bin Laden, Impact, Fire and Gravity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel may soften a little at 750 but we are talking about a few rockwell points on the C scale anyhow. Regardless the key word is soften and that means it will bend easier. We saw no bending or sagging we saw totaly collapse. That would imply that every support had to give way at the exact same time, even if on one floor that would be absurd given the fact that the fire didnt cover every thing exactly accross the frame of the building. one side would be hotter the other side normal or maybe even slighty warmer than normal, regardless we would have sagging and breakage on the hottest sections first. That is just plain common sence. Every statement you just made is untrue and has been covered over and over again. Do you even understand that the structural engineering and physics are obviously beyond your grasp? Wouldn't that be "common sense"? The failure was progressive. The steel trusses failed causing the columns to fail which brought down the building. Your no engineer and neither am I but here is what the building designer said. According to [WTC designer Leslie Robertson], New York City has some of the worst wind loads in the nation ... This is because of the occasional wind generated off of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season. As a result, buildings in New York City must be designed to be twice as strong as similar buildings designed to withstand an earthquake in Los Angeles. [NYC24] "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html New York has lower wind loads than Florida and John Skilling was the head structural engineer. Robertson just worked on the project. The wind load stresses in the New York area are far less than the seismic code stresses in California. A "designer" is lower than an engineer and only John Skilling should even be allowed to discuss the design. Mr. Skilling is in a very difficult position if he was hired to design the building to resist the fires from a fully fueled jetliner. It should be noted that the fire protection is usually designed by a specialist, not the structural engineer. It has come to light what a bad idea using light commercial building techniques in high rise buildings due to the poor quality and thin nature of "spray on" fireproofing on the steel trusses. The comments made by the original designers have not proved to be true regarding the building's ability to withstand the resulting fire from a plane crash. Yes, I am a structural engineer and an expert in failure mode analysis. My comments agree with the ASCE Structural Branch who provided the information to the government to describe how the structure failed. You, conversely are quoting material without understanding what it means. Myabe you can send him a link to your license and he will believe you are an engineer lol. I know Louisiana license has a website and I am on it. whatever. Leslie Earl Robertson (born 1928) was one of the chief structural engineers of the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features. He has since been structural engineer on numerous other projects, including the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Robertson There is only one Chief Structural engineer on any project. Please look up the meaning of the word "chief". The records list John Skilling who referred to Robertson as "one of the designers". Both Skilling and Robertson have egg on their face after claiming the building was designed to resist the fires caused by crashing a 707 into the building when every competent analysis indicates that the building had no chance of resisting such a fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myabe you can send him a link to your license and he will believe you are an engineer lol. I know Louisiana license has a website and I am on it. Yes, I could do that, but there is not a single fact that has ever been presented that he appears to accept or understand. There is no source of information that has any effect on the presentation of the goofiest theories about 9/11. He is only concerned with beating the "hate Bush" drum endlessly. Facts don't matter. He even claimed to be a "heat treatment guru" and doesn't even understand the simplest basic data on the heat that weakens steel. Facts don't matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not want to know the truth. I will no longer respond to your posts. Theories are not truth. You whole theory is based on a lack of evidence. An absence of proof is not the proof of absence as they say. There is an official story and you are trying to disprove it. Despite what you say in your posts YOU are the person that has to prove your point. What do you think if Galileo just said "no the Earth orbits the sun. Prove the Sun orbits the Earth." If you are to challenge what is accepted as true you are the one to hold the burden of proof. I was merely pointing out your failed logic in your statements. If the government cant prove it to you its a lie.. well if you cant prove what I want to me its a lie. See how that logic is flawed? the theory of electricity electricity is just a theory. i invite you to prove it doesnt exit for us and yourself just grab some wires apply voltage and the theory of gravity gravity surely doesnt exist so go climb to the top of a tall building and jump off and then Please understand the meaning of words Theories as for conspiracies 2 : abstract thought : speculation Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> Also its the LAW of Gravity not theory. Gravity is a scientific LAW not a theory. Electricity is also not a Theory. Ever heard of Ohms LAW? Didn't think so. This shows you lack of scientific knowledge. but yes i know all about ohms law since 4th grade they used to teach electrons flowed from + to - then one day it was just the opposite chemtrails are a theory but you can see them allmost everyday right before your own eyes but im sure you dont believe in them either |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not want to know the truth. I will no longer respond to your posts. Theories are not truth. You whole theory is based on a lack of evidence. An absence of proof is not the proof of absence as they say. There is an official story and you are trying to disprove it. Despite what you say in your posts YOU are the person that has to prove your point. What do you think if Galileo just said "no the Earth orbits the sun. Prove the Sun orbits the Earth." If you are to challenge what is accepted as true you are the one to hold the burden of proof. I was merely pointing out your failed logic in your statements. If the government cant prove it to you its a lie.. well if you cant prove what I want to me its a lie. See how that logic is flawed? the theory of electricity electricity is just a theory. i invite you to prove it doesnt exit for us and yourself just grab some wires apply voltage and the theory of gravity gravity surely doesnt exist so go climb to the top of a tall building and jump off and then Please understand the meaning of words Theories as for conspiracies 2 : abstract thought : speculation Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> Also its the LAW of Gravity not theory. Gravity is a scientific LAW not a theory. Electricity is also not a Theory. Ever heard of Ohms LAW? Didn't think so. This shows you lack of scientific knowledge. but yes i know all about ohms law since 4th grade they used to teach electrons flowed from + to - then one day it was just the opposite chemtrails are a theory but you can see them allmost everyday right before your own eyes but im sure you dont believe in them either You didn't read the definition of a theory did you? Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> -----------------> I believe in these 2 : abstract thought : speculation -------------> conspiracy theories. You might have learned Ohms law in 4th grade but i doubt you learned "all about it" Also electrons move from negative - positive current is the measure of moving from positive to negative. Hence physicists typically do circuit analysis from negative to positive (following the electrons) and electrical engineers usually do the opposite following the current. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
volant7
on
Fri 08/26/11 08:53 AM
|
|
You do not want to know the truth. I will no longer respond to your posts. Theories are not truth. You whole theory is based on a lack of evidence. An absence of proof is not the proof of absence as they say. There is an official story and you are trying to disprove it. Despite what you say in your posts YOU are the person that has to prove your point. What do you think if Galileo just said "no the Earth orbits the sun. Prove the Sun orbits the Earth." If you are to challenge what is accepted as true you are the one to hold the burden of proof. I was merely pointing out your failed logic in your statements. If the government cant prove it to you its a lie.. well if you cant prove what I want to me its a lie. See how that logic is flawed? the theory of electricity electricity is just a theory. i invite you to prove it doesnt exit for us and yourself just grab some wires apply voltage and the theory of gravity gravity surely doesnt exist so go climb to the top of a tall building and jump off and then Please understand the meaning of words Theories as for conspiracies 2 : abstract thought : speculation Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> Also its the LAW of Gravity not theory. Gravity is a scientific LAW not a theory. Electricity is also not a Theory. Ever heard of Ohms LAW? Didn't think so. This shows you lack of scientific knowledge. but yes i know all about ohms law since 4th grade they used to teach electrons flowed from + to - then one day it was just the opposite chemtrails are a theory but you can see them allmost everyday right before your own eyes but im sure you dont believe in them either You didn't read the definition of a theory did you? Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> -----------------> I believe in these 2 : abstract thought : speculation -------------> conspiracy theories. You might have learned Ohms law in 4th grade but i doubt you learned "all about it" Also electrons move from negative - positive current is the measure of moving from positive to negative. Hence physicists typically do circuit analysis from negative to positive (following the electrons) and electrical engineers usually do the opposite following the current. do you know the resister color code? mhos? i think you have me mistaken with your hero bush |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not want to know the truth. I will no longer respond to your posts. Theories are not truth. You whole theory is based on a lack of evidence. An absence of proof is not the proof of absence as they say. There is an official story and you are trying to disprove it. Despite what you say in your posts YOU are the person that has to prove your point. What do you think if Galileo just said "no the Earth orbits the sun. Prove the Sun orbits the Earth." If you are to challenge what is accepted as true you are the one to hold the burden of proof. I was merely pointing out your failed logic in your statements. If the government cant prove it to you its a lie.. well if you cant prove what I want to me its a lie. See how that logic is flawed? the theory of electricity electricity is just a theory. i invite you to prove it doesnt exit for us and yourself just grab some wires apply voltage and the theory of gravity gravity surely doesnt exist so go climb to the top of a tall building and jump off and then Please understand the meaning of words Theories as for conspiracies 2 : abstract thought : speculation Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> Also its the LAW of Gravity not theory. Gravity is a scientific LAW not a theory. Electricity is also not a Theory. Ever heard of Ohms LAW? Didn't think so. This shows you lack of scientific knowledge. but yes i know all about ohms law since 4th grade they used to teach electrons flowed from + to - then one day it was just the opposite chemtrails are a theory but you can see them allmost everyday right before your own eyes but im sure you dont believe in them either You didn't read the definition of a theory did you? Scientific theories. : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> -----------------> I believe in these 2 : abstract thought : speculation -------------> conspiracy theories. You might have learned Ohms law in 4th grade but i doubt you learned "all about it" Also electrons move from negative - positive current is the measure of moving from positive to negative. Hence physicists typically do circuit analysis from negative to positive (following the electrons) and electrical engineers usually do the opposite following the current. do you know the resister color code? mhos? i think you have me mistaken with your hero bush Yea BBROYGBVGW Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Grey white Then of course there is the tolerance with gold silver or none. I learned a mnemonic for the order back in my electronics class but its kind of racy so I will not share it here. It did help me remember the order. mhos really is just a reciprocal. Nothing too special. I never said Bush was my hero. Just because I know there was no conspiracy? More flawed logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myabe you can send him a link to your license and he will believe you are an engineer lol. I know Louisiana license has a website and I am on it. Yes, I could do that, but there is not a single fact that has ever been presented that he appears to accept or understand. There is no source of information that has any effect on the presentation of the goofiest theories about 9/11. He is only concerned with beating the "hate Bush" drum endlessly. Facts don't matter. He even claimed to be a "heat treatment guru" and doesn't even understand the simplest basic data on the heat that weakens steel. Facts don't matter. Well it would snap like a twig if it was a hard brittle steel but if it were hard and brittle the fire would actualy temper it a little and make it softer so it would BEND! a basic lesson for you. A hard brittle steel is good for a wear surface. A softer steel is better for some applications because it will bend before it breaks. You fellows crack me up, thanks for starting my weekend off right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The impact of the plane alone compromised a number of support trusses because of how the towers were constructed. It then took an hour of bearing additional load plus intense heat to cause enough support failure for the floors above impact to come crashing down. As I pointed out before, the weight of the floors above was about 200x the force of an atomic blast (we are talking about the shockwave which rips buildings apart) once those floors began falling. Not much is going to stop that kind of power, especially when it is confined to a small area such as 200 ft x 200 ft. (The base of the towers was 208 ft on each side.)
|
|
|
|
|
