+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: 9/11 Debate (/thread-5114.html)
Re: 9/11 Debate - flyboy77 - 03-18-2021
(03-18-2021, 11:26 PM)Mav link Wrote:Again ... Trump. He said all the quiet bits out loud. His anti-democratic white supremacist administration has left much more relevant and alarming damage in its wake than the 9/11 conspiracy could ever uncover. And it has current real-world implications. Sorry if I won’t obsess over a hang-nail when cancer is mestasticising all over the place.
White supremacist?
That's total, fabricated spin.
Re: 9/11 Debate - kruddler - 03-18-2021
(03-18-2021, 11:26 PM)Mav link Wrote:Again ... Trump. He said all the quiet bits out loud. His anti-democratic white supremacist administration has left much more relevant and alarming damage in its wake than the 9/11 conspiracy could ever uncover. And it has current real-world implications. Sorry if I won’t obsess over a hang-nail when cancer is mestasticising all over the place.
For all trumps trumping all it did was damage the US brand and show how ignorant the American public can be.
9/11 started wars, witch hunts and...scared the public into giving up basic human rights like privacy...the world over.
Trump was a person.
9/11 was a while government
Re: 9/11 Debate - Mav - 03-18-2021
Trump was the whole govt.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-18-2021
(03-18-2021, 10:08 PM)kruddler date Wrote:Again, with the black and white, you sure you dont barrack for collingwood?No black and white in my statement, only what you think you see, you're always paranoid after our losses.
There is a clear grey area that exists between believing everything you hear and believing nothing you hear. I am not implying tens of thousands of people are corrupt with this AZ thing. Not even close.
If I am Australia, I am just saying, look into it. Why are major nations gun shy. Why are they flipping? And flipping back? Something doesn't add up. Don't believe the media, do the research yourself.
Ive pointed out a few times that there are always issues on the front line....hang back and see first. Read the room. Adapt, improve....don't simply follow.
You say you agree but continue to argue and paint me as an extremist when its far from the case.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-18-2021
(03-18-2021, 09:59 PM)Baggers date Wrote:Richard Gage represents approx. 3,400 architects, globally, not satisfied with the official explanation of 9/11.As part of basic bushfire research, CSIRO did extensive testing of various building materials, and found steel and some metals although less likely to catch would also suffer the most catastrophic failures at lower temperatures or from being heated to high temperatures. The structural members buckle and fold like a melted straw once they get above a critical temperature.
The longest survived structures in bush fires are solid log constructions, because although they burn the timber chars on the outside but doesn't become structurally weaker in the process lasting much longer before failure. Sort of makes sense when you see the charred forests after regional fires. For this reason they are now developing new building codes that may permit construction up to 10 stories structurally built out of wood.
It's probably fair to say the Twin Towers must have been exposed to some extreme heat, they were basically 100 story chimneys. I think CSIRO and other local scientists debugged the 9/11 conspiracies very well a long time back on The Conversation website, you might still be able to find that information.
There will always be alternate opinions, some because they just refuse to accept what they think is right is wrong, others because they have some external motive affecting their judgement, others because they want there to be a conspiracy.
Re: 9/11 Debate - kruddler - 03-19-2021
(03-18-2021, 11:50 PM)LP link Wrote:As part of basic bushfire research, CSIRO did extensive testing of various building materials, and found steel and some metals although less likely to catch would also suffer the most catastrophic failures at lower temperatures or from being heated to high temperatures. The structural members buckle and fold like a melted straw once they get above a critical temperature.All that is debunked lp.
The longest survived structures in bush fires are solid log constructions, because although they burn the timber chars on the outside but doesn't become structurally weaker in the process lasting much longer before failure. Sort of makes sense when you see the charred forests after regional fires. For this reason they are now developing new building codes that may permit construction up to 10 stories structurally built out of wood.
It's probably fair to say the Twin Towers must have been exposed to some extreme heat, they were basically 100 story chimneys. I think CSIRO and other local scientists debugged the 9/11 conspiracies very well a long time back on The Conversation website, you might still be able to find that information.
There will always be alternate opinions, some because they just refuse to accept what they think is right is wrong, others because they have some external motive affecting their judgement, others because they want there to be a conspiracy.
I watched 20minutes of what was posted before. ive seen others talking about it too.
No skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire.....ever......anywhere. 3 happened on the same day.
Jet fuel can't burn hot enough to get to the heat required for the type of failure seen.
Even still, all beams and columns are fire rated to withstand fire and heat for 2-3 hours. They were completely down in an hour.
They fell at free fall.
Clearly if this was the perfect storm of a freak accident and a 1 in a trillion event, you'd want to look at evidence.....but that was shipped off immediately to China and destroyed. Maybe it wasn't a freak accident and maybe they didn't want to look at the evidence.
Fwiw, military grade thermite was found in an a nearby apartment where it was analysed in a lab.
The way some beams were sheared/cut is not consistent with a fall but rather....yep....thermite and controlled demolition.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-19-2021
(03-19-2021, 12:11 AM)kruddler date Wrote:All that is debunked lp.Not really debunked [member=20]kruddler[/member] just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.
You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in something like concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.
Re: 9/11 Debate - kruddler - 03-19-2021
(03-19-2021, 12:18 AM)LP link Wrote:Not really debunked [member=20]kruddler[/member] just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.Apparently YOU can.
You can't ignore the basic engineering...
Listen to the people who designed them, architects and engineers. THEY are the ones who have done the research.
Stop arguing about something you havn't seen.
Re: 9/11 Debate - Baggers - 03-19-2021
(03-19-2021, 12:18 AM)LP link Wrote:Not really debunked [member=20]kruddler[/member] just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.
You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.
The steels beams/supports of the WTC were painted with a special fire / heat retardant (forget the name) making them almost 4 times more resistant for fire / heat.
Re: 9/11 Debate - flyboy77 - 03-19-2021
(03-19-2021, 12:18 AM)LP link Wrote:Not really debunked [member=20]kruddler[/member] just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.
You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.
Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....
That's really poor for a scientist.
By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.
What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?
Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?
That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......