Bill Maher thinks you're a fucking loony

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

You conspiracy theorists always confuse me. The fire was hot enough to create rivers of molten steel, yet it was a cold fire?

You might have it skewed. The fire could have never melted the steel...what melted it?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

catefrances wrote:

considering how deep in shit the US is in the middle east i'd have to say any investigation into the actions of anyone even vaguely related to the house of saudi or any vested interests would not be thorough.
it was a fuck up from the beginning to what we now see is a never-ending schmozzle.
covering one's arse sometimes requires ludricrous statements that those that speak them hope no one will be bothered dredging up.
for the US government the fact that such a heinous act was committed against its own people, was almost too perfect an opportunity. i'm not saying they were complicit in the hijacking of those planes or the destruction of the WTC, but what they've done since is just such a fuckup. they blew the opportunity to really show what is possible for a better world and they blew it big time.
and yes unambiguous statements are the best way to go when trying to clarify something. if you don't know something, then say so. if you do know something, then trust that those that need to be told, can handle the truth.

No way. I don't buy it. Way too many fuck ups to be coincidental, far too many lies...too much covering up of evidence.

No way.

smokeabud

MasterFramer wrote:

Half a trillion later and people still trust the government... I dont get it.

quote]
i dont trust this government ....

WindNoSail

WindNoSail wrote:

Heat causes the molecules to move in any material including steel. Any heat means there is some level of weakening of a material. In steel the temperature is much higher than say in asphault, but nonetheless it is clearly possible.

The damage to the interior structure plus the heat which was tremendous could have weakened the flooring metal which eventually cuased some to break and fall, possibly at the joints. There was a lot of kinetic energy in those towers released when it began to fall, and it wasn't neccesariy bad construction. Face it, there is no guarantee in construction of any type that would prevent the fall.

And please note that those planes hit in areas that were unlikely foreseen by the demolition theory, and yet the collapse began where the planes hit. I find it hard to believe that a crew of demolition experts rigged the entire building so they could later pick which floors to start the collapse.

But isn't it a moot point anyway? So what if they didn't fall and just burned the top 30 stories to nothing, what then? They would have demolished them anyways. The key is hijacked planes by Islamic fundamentalists hit the towers and burnt them. People died mostly in the top floors who couldn't escape the flames. Whether the buildings fall or not is irrelevent to the attack.

If the buildings were rigged with explosives, why not just blow them up earlier to create more loss of life? Hell, why fly planes into them at all if you can just blow them up? Nonsesical.

I agree with Bill.

just bumping my own post, I am a narcissus. Actually I think my words are worth a response.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

m-e-l-t-e-d s-t-e-e-l...as in how exactly?

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah, I already did read. It said nothing to explain how the steel melted.

You read that, and there was nothing that explained molten steel? Were you reading from the same site? Did you even read it?

Anyways...

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

I await your answer.

Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.

spiral out

MakingWaves wrote:

No way, I am not being pulled back into this crap again...well maybe for a little while.
I notice how that thread about the truck that hit a bridge, then burst into flames and melted the steel on that bridge a while back was ignored by certain people on here.

Come on not even the offical story supports steal melting.

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You might have it skewed. The fire could have never melted the steel...what melted it?

FIRE.

FUCKING FIRE MELTED STEEL.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

spiral out

Austicman wrote:

So you believe that official government document but everything else they tell you is a lie. Man O man!!

Erm i was just pointing out that NIST was an offical document as you didn't know what it was. Not sure what that has to do with what i think on the subject.

Austicman

spiral out wrote:

Erm i was just pointing out that NIST was an offical document as you didn't know what it was. Not sure what that has to do with what i think on the subject.

And I was just pointing that you'll call on Government sources to support your theories on one hand and dismiss any other information that discredits your theories on the other.

spiral out

69charger wrote:

I am...

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

Come on i posted a link to a guy who worked on the NIST report at the time who says that the report needs to be looked at again.

69charger

spiral out wrote:

Come on i posted a link to a guy who worked on the NIST report at the time who says that the report needs to be looked at again.

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

spiral out

Austicman wrote:

And I was just pointing that you'll call on Government sources to support your theories on one hand and dismiss any other information that discredits your theories on the other.

I don't have any theories, thanks. I have questions which have not been answered. Big difference.

spiral out

69charger wrote:

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

Are you ever going to stop asking dumb questions, i am simply pointing out to you that a person who was at NIST at the time the offcial report was written thinks that the report needs to be looked at becuase it was not a complete investigation.

You are quoting offical crap like gospel yet it is an incomplete document.

DO YOU SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT?

See you are just like everyone else you only see what you want to see. Get of your high horse.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah dude the steel was melted. So what melted it?

zoom...right over your head...

I love how you ignored the story of the truck melting the steel on the bridge again.
Ok, lets try this again. But I know you will ignore this or just come up with some BS excuse because this makes too much sense. These aren't my words by the way but I think it does a good job of explaining what happened.
As is typical of folks who do not have a scientific background, the question is purely one of temperatures. But anyone with any knowledge of the science of combustion and melting knows that it is much more complicated than that.

If it were purely a matter of temperature, then as soon as the fire reached its maximum temperature, the steel would have melted, and the buildings would have collapsed -- all in a matter of seconds.

But it didn't take seconds, did it? It took nearly an hour before the first building fell. Why is that?

Because the problem isn't one of pure temperature, it is one of HEAT CAPACITY and THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY.

"Heat capacity (usually denoted by a capital C, often with subscripts) is a measurable physical quantity that characterizes the ability of a body to store heat as it changes in temperature. It is defined as the rate of change of temperature as heat is added to a body at the given conditions and state of the body (foremost its temperature). In the International System of Units, heat capacity is expressed in units of joules per kelvin. It is termed an "extensive quantity" because it is sensitive to the size of the object (for example, a bathtub of water has a greater heat capacity than a cup of water). Dividing heat capacity by the body's mass yields a specific heat capacity (also called more properly "mass-specific heat capacity" or more loosely "specific heat"), which is an "intensive quantity," meaning it is no longer dependent on amount of material, and is now more dependent on the type of material, as well as the physical conditions of heating." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/heat_capaci...

"In physics, thermal conductivity, k, is the intensive property of a material that indicates its ability to conduct heat.

It is defined as the quantity of heat, Q, transmitted in time t through a thickness L, in a direction normal to a surface of area A, due to a temperature difference ΔT, under steady state conditions and when the heat transfer is dependent only on the temperature gradient.

Thermal conductivity = heat flow rate × distance / (area × temperature difference) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/thermal_con...

So, the poroblem here is not strictly one of temperature, but how much heat was being pumped into the steel, versus how quickly it could conduct that heat to other areas to cool itself down. If the steel conducts heat away from the fire faster than it is being pumped into the steel, the steel remains rigid. If heat is pumped into the steel faster than it can be conducted away, the temperature of the steel RISES ABOVE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FIRE, eventually reaching the plastic deformation (softening) temperature. At that point, the steel girders deform, and the rest is purely momemtum (mass times velocity).

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah dude the steel was melted. So what melted it?

zoom...right over your head...

I love how you ignored the story of the truck melting the steel on the bridge again.
Ok, lets try this again. But I know you will ignore this or just come up with some BS excuse because this makes too much sense. These aren't my words by the way but I think it does a good job of explaining what happened.

As is typical of folks who do not have a scientific background, the question is purely one of temperatures. But anyone with any knowledge of the science of combustion and melting knows that it is much more complicated than that.

If it were purely a matter of temperature, then as soon as the fire reached its maximum temperature, the steel would have melted, and the buildings would have collapsed -- all in a matter of seconds.

But it didn't take seconds, did it? It took nearly an hour before the first building fell. Why is that?

Because the problem isn't one of pure temperature, it is one of HEAT CAPACITY and THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY.

"Heat capacity (usually denoted by a capital C, often with subscripts) is a measurable physical quantity that characterizes the ability of a body to store heat as it changes in temperature. It is defined as the rate of change of temperature as heat is added to a body at the given conditions and state of the body (foremost its temperature). In the International System of Units, heat capacity is expressed in units of joules per kelvin. It is termed an "extensive quantity" because it is sensitive to the size of the object (for example, a bathtub of water has a greater heat capacity than a cup of water). Dividing heat capacity by the body's mass yields a specific heat capacity (also called more properly "mass-specific heat capacity" or more loosely "specific heat"), which is an "intensive quantity," meaning it is no longer dependent on amount of material, and is now more dependent on the type of material, as well as the physical conditions of heating." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/heat_capaci...

"In physics, thermal conductivity, k, is the intensive property of a material that indicates its ability to conduct heat.

It is defined as the quantity of heat, Q, transmitted in time t through a thickness L, in a direction normal to a surface of area A, due to a temperature difference ΔT, under steady state conditions and when the heat transfer is dependent only on the temperature gradient.

Thermal conductivity = heat flow rate × distance / (area × temperature difference) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/thermal_con...

So, the poroblem here is not strictly one of temperature, but how much heat was being pumped into the steel, versus how quickly it could conduct that heat to other areas to cool itself down. If the steel conducts heat away from the fire faster than it is being pumped into the steel, the steel remains rigid. If heat is pumped into the steel faster than it can be conducted away, the temperature of the steel RISES ABOVE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FIRE, eventually reaching the plastic deformation (softening) temperature. At that point, the steel girders deform, and the rest is purely momemtum (mass times velocity).

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

I love how you ignored the story of the truck melting the steel on the bridge again.

So you are on the record as a definite yes for open air fire melting steel?

Can you please tell NIST so they can be informed of this as well?

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So you are on the record as a definite yes for open air fire melting steel?

Can you please tell NIST so they can be informed of this as well?

Stay focused...

How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

I await your answer.

Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So you are on the record as a definite yes for open air fire melting steel?

Can you please tell NIST so they can be informed of this as well?

Are you telling me that the bridge collapsing didn't happen?

The steel didn't melt before the towers collapsed. That happened afterward, but just keep on making up stuff so you can keep convincing yourself.

Now back to the bridge. Is that part of this conspiracy also?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Are you telling me that the bridge collapsing didn't happen?

The steel didn't melt before the towers collapsed. That happened afterward but just keep on making up stuff so you can keep convincing yourself.

Now back to the bridge. Is that part of this conspiracy also?

I just want to know how it was possible for the temperatures (at WTC not some bridge) to have melted the steel at any point in the process.

NIST says it didn't happen. Why?

Can you not see that for what it is without all the ..."gee you must be a conspiracy theorist" rhetoric?