|
|
| Re: What if Barack Loses in November? (347456) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 8 |
||
|
| (348045) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 26 15:01:57 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 14:08:48 2008. That is answered in this article:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html |
|
|
| (348047) | |
Re: When Barack Doesn't Lose in November? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:02:57 2008, in response to Re: When Barack Loses in November?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Aug 25 19:13:40 2008. And why McCain will lose:Biden proposed a plan that you may not have heard of for Iraq...but it was well-supported by 75 of 100 senators, and it involved breaking up Iraq in three sovereign states. Also, Obama will win Virginia (11) and Colorado (9), which will mean a win for Obama by ONE VOTE. |
|
|
| (348049) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 26 15:04:14 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 26 14:09:40 2008. It depends on the fires that would have been taking place at the foundation of the second tower. You could have had the same effect as what happened with WTC7. But yes, it's speculation. I can't say either way. One thing for sure though, is that if the second tower did not get hit, and it did collapse, it would have given out from the bottom, not the top, and actually could have fell over a much wider area.Again, all speculation. |
|
|
| (348051) | |
Re: When Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:05:43 2008, in response to Re: When Barack Loses in November?, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 26 14:51:22 2008. Actually, it's looking like Indiana and Colorado will lend 20 electoral votes to Obama...resulting in a win by TWO ELECTORAL VOTES for Obama. |
|
|
| (348052) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:07:59 2008, in response to What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Aug 25 04:58:48 2008. Nothing...because it won't happen.The 19 states that went blue in 2004 will go blue again in 2008. Then you have Virginia or Indiana going blue, and Colorado also going blue...and that is all that's needed. |
|
|
| (348053) | |
Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 15:08:50 2008, in response to Some WTC Thoughts...., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 12:22:21 2008. Before I begin my comments, let me establish my qualifications on this topic: I am a 20 year veteran of the New York City EMS as well as a "fire medic" cross-trained in firefighting principles and operations. (Those days are behind me but I haven't forgotten what I've learned.) The material I discuss below is directly from in-service training, instructional courses taught by faculty from the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, MD, and by the FDNY EMSC's own expertts, including 9then) Capt. Stephen Holliday. The textbook I refer to the most is "Building Construction For The Fire Service", by Frank Brannigan, SFPE, who is recognized by most in the emergency services community as one of the fathers of modern structural firefighting.WTC 1 and 2 were constructed using "core-frame construction", which was compliant with new-law (post-1967) building codes for NYC. To maximize available office space, as well as enhance the mechanical live load-bearing strength of the towers, 47 columns comprised the inner core of the structure. Within this inner core, were the elevators, HVAC ductwork, plumbing and electrical conduits, and communications wiring. The central core of each tower carried about one third of the live load to the ground. The outer core of the towers were ringed with columns carrying the remaining live load and the window glass, some 200 additional tones of live load for each tower. The core construction concept, as built, performed three critical functions: 1) Transmit the total live load of the entire building to the ground. 2) Allow for additional load stressors, including winds, future improvements to the structure, and impacts from flying aircraft, up to and including the 707/720 jet aircraft (the largest jet flying in and around NYC at the time of design). 3) Carry the load around (and over) the basement substructure, which included connecting tunnels between WTC 1, 2, and the other buildings in the WTC complex, and the joint NYCT/PATH lines, which were connected by a shopping mall. Brannigan teaches us (In the first chapter!) that high-rise buildings are our enemy when they are burning. Structural strength of steel load-bearing members decreases proportionally with corresponding increases in temperature; the character of the metal changes. With these changes in the properties of the load-bearing members, comes a new subset of live load figures. Given that gravity is trying to pull the structure down at all times (-G on all live load bearing members=32fps squared), pliable, softened metal with no fireproofing (as was stripped away in boh towers upon impact of each plane), will begin to "give" as it tries to continue distributing the live load of the building to the ground. WTC 1, the north tower, was struck by a Boeing 757-200 flying at around 450 mph. struck by a 767-300ER flying nearly 100 mph faster than that. Both planes have a MGTOW (Maximim Gross Take-Off Weight) at least half again that of a 707. In the case of WTC 1, the plane strick the tower broadside, pulverizing itself and Columns A23 through 29 on the outer core, and virtually all of the columns on the inner core. The live load of the building was instantly redistributed to the remaining intact or partially intact columns. Add to this several thousand gallons of JP-5 jet fuel, which is kerosene, and tons of burning office materials. Brannigan reminds us that in addition to burning buildings being our enemy, we are constrained to a very short timetable in which to fight the fire and make our rescues. I was present at the WTC as a lieutenant from 9:01 AM onwards on 9/11 and I digress a moment here, but you can best believe the damage to both buildings, on visual inspection (FDNY crews actually reached both crash sites before collapse) was far in excess of what the towers would have typically been able to handle. Anyway, in our very limited window in which operations at the scene may be carried out, Brannigan writes,"Every column which is removed from the structure increases the likelihood of its collapse exponentially." Put another way, remove enough cards, and the house WILL come down. Add to this the fact that there were open spaces immediately below the footprints of each tower. Those who have visited the pre-9/11 PATH station at the WTC will recall that track level was three levels below the shopping mall, or five levels below the street. Because the tracks entered the Hudson River tunnels directly from the WTC, the station was driven deep. This contributed to the collapse of both towers because once the collapses began, they were accelerating into a series of voids below. Additionally, the WTC 2 took two other buildings down with it during its collapse, adding to the total tonnage that had to be delivered to the ground. WTC 2, in fact, sustained even more critical structural damage than did WTC 1, as it sustained a corner strike from the plane that hit it. It lost outer columns B1-16 and C20-36, plus 23 of the 47 core columns. The fact that it collapsed in just 30 minutes as opposed to WTC 1's nearly 90 minute delay, speaks to this. Fires from both planes, however, were the accomplices, not the direct causes of each collapse. The buildings fell primarily from severe structural loss and the inablitity of the surviving columns to carry the redistributed load to the ground, exactly as Brannigan predicted in his textbooks. WTC 7 sustained a tremendous amount of damage from being struck by falling debris from the earlier collapse of both towers. I myself saw the south face of WTC 7 after the smoke cleared a bit, and it was evident that large sections of the facade and much of the load bearing beams had been gouged away. Ths fact is often overlookede in reports of WTC 7. THe fires in WTC 7 burned as long as they did because: 1) After the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, water mains in the area were broken in over 20 places, 2) Unprecedented losses in manpower and equipment, plus a massive, ongoing rescue and recovery operation (without the upper echelon of FDNY management, almost all of whom had died by that time), left hardly any resources available to fight a high-rise fire at WTC 7. Brannigan states that when the right conditions are met (as they WERE in WTC 7) gravity will take over and bring the building down. In conclusion, trust me: there was NO "controlled demolition" of ANY building at the WTC on 9/11, Controlled demolition requires weeks or months of planning, and it is necessary to make the structure as light and as weak as possible, to prevent a partial demolition. All three high-rises (WTC 1, 2, and 7, were way too heavy on 9/11 for controlled demolition to work, even if there was an actual conspiracy afoot.) The towers were EXEPTIONALLY well engineered, as evidenced by the fact that they remained standing in failure mode far longer than even Brannigan predicts they should have. THe design and performance of each tower is the reason 25,000 people were saved that day. The death toll would have been far higher had the buildings not been so well-thought-out. I await your reply. |
|
|
| (348054) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Tue Aug 26 15:11:59 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:07:59 2008. Michigan may go for McCain if Romney is on the ticket. |
|
|
| (348059) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:15:22 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Tue Aug 26 15:11:59 2008. However...Romney has a history of failure as the Massachusetts governor, and the current governor is trying to clean up the mess. |
|
|
| (348061) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Aug 26 15:17:17 2008, in response to Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 15:08:50 2008. Thank you for an interesting post. Just be aware that you are not replying to a rational person. |
|
|
| (348064) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by jan k. lorenzen on Tue Aug 26 15:25:30 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by R33/R36 Mainline on Tue Aug 26 13:13:41 2008. really goooood druuuuugggggggsssszzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z z z z z z |
|
|
| (348065) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:27:07 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 15:15:22 2008. Now, simply put...the election will be won by Obama because of Mark Warner, who is going to win a Senate seat held by a retiring Republican in a laugher, campaigning for Obama while campaigning for himself (as if he needs to do any more---he is a solid Democrat in a Republican state).Now, I don't see the Democrats getting a veto-proof Senate, however. |
|
|
| (348068) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 15:46:04 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by AlM on Tue Aug 26 15:17:17 2008. THank you. Sorry about the typos...I tried to go back and make corrections, but whenever I backspaced and tried to retype, the post kept eating the next character in line. But as for K-Car, I will await his reply...I beg to differ with him about WTC, as you can see... |
|
|
| (348069) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 15:49:26 2008, in response to Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 15:08:50 2008. Thank you for this info... I undertand where you are coming from, I know the fire heated the metal, and made it softer...I know that some columns were destroyed.... But you gave very good details..thanks.However, if they were desinged to withstand a 707...why couldn't they withstand a 757?? I know the 757 is a bigger wide body airplane, but I still think the towers fell rather rapidly.... And by the way, even though the buildings were mostly damaged on the upper floors, the entire buildings came down...so even if it were a controlled demolition, they could just blast the upper floors, so that the rest of the building pancakes... It could have been a sloppy demolition...And what about WTC 7 falling down??? Much like a controlled demolition... And take note of this: the fire was strongest probably for the first few minutes, but weakened as the fuel was burned up, plus, as you say, firefighters were up there...It is strange that they stood for as long as they did, and STILL collapsed...if they survived tho most intense moments, then they should have stood up afterwards... |
|
|
| (348070) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 15:52:48 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 15:46:04 2008. I will say this: I am not sure about anything...I am not sure if it was purely terrorists, or an inside job...I cannot say, really I cannot argue, I just give evidence supporting the inside job theory, but I am aware that it could be totally terrorist stuff...And the fact that the post eats the next character in the line is easy to fix: You must have pressed the "insert" button on your keyboard, above the arrows, to the left of the number pad, to the right of the backspace key...you probably accidentally hit "insert". |
|
|
| (348073) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:06:20 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 15:49:26 2008. You missed the line where he aid the buildings lasted longer than the author he was referencing had predicted. The original prediction did not anticipate an intentional strike, either.Oh, 757 is not a widebody; 767 is, and it shares the avionics package with the 757. They were developed together. Max gross TO weight of the 757 is 255,000lbs, fuel capacity 11,500g; for th 767, it's 450,000lbs, fuel capacity 24,100g. The largest varient of the 707, the 707-320B, had a max gross TO weight of 333,600lbs (original 707 was 222,000lbs). I have been unable to find info on fuel capacity. |
|
|
| (348074) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:07:30 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 15:52:48 2008. You can't show any evidence supporting a false theory that has been disproven. |
|
|
| (348075) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:09:57 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:06:20 2008. Hmm, so theoretically, the plane hit by the 757 should have survived, no? |
|
|
| (348077) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:16:40 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 15:49:26 2008. Taking your last assertion first, the fires in both towers were fed by both jet fuel and any combustible materials ignited upon impact of each plane. Long-term exposure to continuous high temperature environments will aggravate existing structural damage to a building. The "shock load" generated by the impact of each plane was, again, in excess of what the towers were designed to typically withstand. That the towers stood as long as they did argues for the quality of their design, not against it.As for your further assertion that in a controlled demolition, only the upper floors needed to be destroyed, "sloppy" though that would be, let's refer to Brannigan once more. In a "progressive collapse" which is what actually happened to both towers, the surviving columns and load-bearing trusses on each floor failed as gravity began to work on their damaged sections. Brannigan follows Newton in concluding that the entire live load of a building must be delivered to the ground. Put another way, the energy needed to bring the structure down is stored in the structure itself, until acted upon by an external force (like an airplane). If a controlled demolition of only the upper floors is attempted, there would be pre-collapse shock loads delivered along the outer columns directly to the ground, resulting in a partial demolition. For controlled demolition to work, explosives must be placed throughout the building. The aircraft which struck the towers were much larger and heavier than a 707, and flying at cruise flight. The WTC designers ebvisioned a scenario in which a 707 struck a tower while attempting to land or take off from JFK. This of necessity meant they were anticipating a slow-flying aircraft, not planes traveling at high Mach components. As for the towers' rate of collapse, the time frame is consistent with a progressive collapse and Brannigan's Law. (In a structural collapse, the breakup of the individual load bearing members allows them to fall to the ground individually and independently.) You can see this principle illustrated very vividly in footage of the WTC 1 collapse, as the outer columns fall away from the building separately. WTC 7, as I stated earlier, was severely, severely damaged by the collapse of its neighbors, but managed to remain standing in failure mode for another 7 hours. WTC 7 did NOT, by the way, collapse onto its footprint. It appeared that way from TV footage, but in reality, debris from WTC 7 was recovered as far away as the E10/L10 firehouse adjacent to Liberty Street, almost 500 feet away. A small, but telling fact: The IRT Cortlandt Street station remains closed to this day because of the volume of debris which collapsed onto it, actually knocking the tunnel alignment out of true by almost two degrees. That's because the upper columns hit the station by an offset of almost ten degrees from vertical as they failed and split off from their trusses... |
|
|
| (348079) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:21:05 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:06:20 2008. You're correct. The 1965 design for WTC anticipated an impact by a 707-120, the earliest Boeing version. The 720 was a smaller, lighter version of that early aircraft. |
|
|
| (348085) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:27:46 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:16:40 2008. So, In the part about the controlled demolition...had they just blown the upper floors, the rest of the tower would have stood? You think the shock from the plane hitting them caused enough damage to change the outcome?And here is my thought on the first few moments of fire...the planes hit...The fuel ignites...and burns off after about a minute(as reports say), this is not long enough to superheat the beams to a point where they really sag...and after the fuel is burned up, the temperature lowers...then the beams eventually heat up, but not to a point hot enough to melt them...they would sag until they reach an equilibrium...which would happen maybe after the first couple of minutes...UNLESS the temperature increased as time went on, which would be strange, wouldn't it? Unless they put some very flammable stuff in those offices...Hmmm... |
|
|
| (348088) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:33:22 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:09:57 2008. Thoeretically, yes; BUT, it was designed to sustain the IMPACT, not the results of the impact. The buildings survived long enough to give those located below the collision floors time to escape before there was a catastrophic failure of the building. From that point of view, it's quite the success. |
|
|
| (348093) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 26 16:41:17 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:16:40 2008. The aircraft which struck the towers were much larger and heavier than a 707Depends on the 707. The 767-200 has a lighter MTOW than the 707-320B, and the 767-200ER's MTOW is greater than the 707-320B by about 31 tons. |
|
|
| (348094) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:44:33 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:27:46 2008. Temperatures as high as 1350 degrees Fahrenheit were observed in hot spots in the WTC rubble for several days following the collapse. Fires burned at Ground Zero for MONTHS after 9/11. THe jet fuel did not "burn off" after about a "minute". The fireballs from impact dispersed after a minute or so. The (burning) jet fuel was distributed over the entire crash site, along with all the contents of the planes' oxygen canisters (did you forget about those---oxygen vigorously assists combustion), plus any combustibles or accelerants on the floors where the planes hit. Modern offices do contain LOTS of flammable things, everything from cleaning solvents, to tons of paper and wood, natural gas, and carpeting. All these items burned continuously, and, again, long after the collapsers.The confined-space nature of the fires also raised the interior temperatures in both towers. The footage of thick, black smoke venting under pressure is direct evidence of a hot, poorly ventilated fire. The reason you see firefighters breaking windows and ripping the roof open is to ventilate the fire. If this is not done, the fire will ventilate itself--by destroying the structure. Fire Science 101: Heat rises. It then collects at the ceiling. (Brannigan goes on at length to inculcate us as to the dangers of "the floor above" the fire.) This accumulated heat can be expressed as energy, which imparts itself into the trusses and columns by convection and conduction. (Ever try to handle a metal spoon after you've left it in a boiling pot too long?) The damage from the planes is ABSOLUTELY the primary cause of the progressive collapse of both towers. As I stated before, the fires were only the secondary reason the towers fell. I do believe that massive structural damage--no fire--would have eventually brought both towers down, albeit not as quickly as they were when assisted by high-volume conflagration. |
|
|
| (348095) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:46:44 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:33:22 2008. That's why the term "failure mode" is used to describe the post-impact state of both buildings...very perceptive, Hank. |
|
|
| (348097) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:49:21 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:44:33 2008. Hmm...I cannot argue with some of that...Except that I disagree...If the planes hit, and the fire was put out, I suspect they would have stood...And how would firefighters rip the roof of the WTC open? |
|
|
| (348098) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:49:58 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:27:46 2008. The fuel ignigted and burned, but as ytou state, it would burn very quickly; however, it also ignited 'fireproof' materials in the offices, and these burned contuinuously. It was the constant heat that had the effect, not the just the temperature of the flames.The plane hitting the building certainly changed the outcome, as the collisions destroyed or damaged a number of supporting columns. Skyscrapers have burned before. One Meridian Plaza The building did not collapse, but it was later dismantled. |
|
|
| (348099) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 26 16:50:50 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:33:22 2008. Darn thread drift caused by a lunatic that can't focus thoughts . . . heh. |
|
|
| (348102) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:53:37 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 16:49:58 2008. "Fireproof" materials are actually "fire resistant". ANYTHING will burn if it gets hot enough.One Meridian Plaza did not suffer gross structural damage, and I've already said several times that the planes' impact changed the outcome... |
|
|
| (348104) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:54:24 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:53:37 2008. ...but JSK car isn't hearing me... |
|
|
| (348105) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:55:21 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:49:21 2008. I was referring to normal operations at a structure fire, where the roof must be vented. |
|
|
| (348106) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:57:43 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:54:24 2008. I am hearing you, I agree with most of your posts...It is just that I am not as sure as you are about this subject...I still speculate... Of course, if a plane hits such a building, and the fire burns hot enough, it will fail...but SHOULD the fires have burned as hot as they did? There was evidence of thermite found around the site...and there were videos of MOLTEN STEEL falling out of the towers before collapse...a sign that the fires were hotter than they say... |
|
|
| (348107) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:58:14 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:55:21 2008. I see... |
|
|
| (348108) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 17:02:19 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:57:43 2008. Proof of thermite? |
|
|
| (348109) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:02:31 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 16:57:43 2008. And one more thing..something else that fuels my speculation is the POLITCS involved...now, I dislike politics, but I find it strange that 9/11 turned out to be a convenient for some people, like the oil cronnies, and the like...And didn't the owner of the WTC collect BILLIONS in insurance? That is a shame...since I though it was owned by the PA, but one man gets all the $$$ what a shame..such corruption.. |
|
|
| (348110) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:04:45 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 17:02:19 2008. If you go to youtube, type in thermite evidence 9/11...You will se the video of molten steel pouring out... It was RED...Also, there is a college professor, that most have declared a kook, that has done studies on the material, and has found evidence... |
|
|
| (348111) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 17:06:01 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:02:31 2008. The land on which the WTC stood was PANYNJ property but Larry Siverstein was the tenant, and he owned the WTC buildings. The PANYNJ as a government agency, is self-insured. Siverstein, as a real estate developer, collected on the policies he held on the WTC.In any disaster, there will be those who benefit. |
|
|
| (348116) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:17:50 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 17:06:01 2008. SHAME!!! NOBODY SHOULD BENEFIT!!!And should we go into Larry Silverstein's ethnicity? It is Jews like *HIM* who make other jews look bad... I am sorry if anyone was offended by that, but I am not an anti-semite...just angry at that guy... And he does make jews look bad, especially since he isn't the only jewish person to display that behavior... But in the end, you cannot judge people by ethnicity, or religion...there are A-holes everywhere...just that some stereotypes are strengthened more often than others...I hope you understand... |
|
|
| (348117) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 26 17:26:25 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:17:50 2008. Nope, you're an antisemite. |
|
|
| (348119) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 17:29:22 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:16:40 2008. The only fault I find here is that the Cortlandt St IRT station is closed because there isn't anyplace to put the station; the tunnel was rebuilt, but there's nothing around it but air. |
|
|
| (348120) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 26 17:32:30 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 26 11:12:41 2008. Olog's ideas aren't scandalous?They aren't my "ideas". They are reality, and they are independently reported. his opinions certainly (and fortunately) differ dramatically from those of the Supreme Court Why "fortunately", and what makes the Supreme Court any kind of authority superseding the other branches of government as well as our constitutional documents of law? |
|
|
| (348122) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Aug 26 17:32:51 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 26 14:29:58 2008. I wouldn't bet my future on the chances of hitting it. |
|
|
| (348124) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 26 17:33:56 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 26 07:36:45 2008. If that's not foreign propaganda, I don't know what is. |
|
|
| (348125) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Aug 26 17:34:11 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by Railman718 on Tue Aug 26 13:35:47 2008. It was implied.How else would someone be able to Pay Bills + Eat + Enjoy Life? |
|
|
| (348127) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Aug 26 17:36:07 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 26 14:42:34 2008. We won't know for sure until something like that happens, eh? |
|
|
| (348129) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 17:36:46 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 26 16:46:44 2008. Failure mode...THAT's what I was trying to think of.I'm no expert, but I paid enough attention that I have a bit more than a base understanding of a number of subjects. And what I don't know, I find out if I need to. Now, if only a few others here could do that... |
|
|
| (348132) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Tue Aug 26 17:40:11 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:17:50 2008. That was as anti-semitic as you can get. |
|
|
| (348133) | |
Re: Some WTC Thoughts.... |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Aug 26 17:40:54 2008, in response to Re: Some WTC Thoughts...., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 14:00:52 2008. You say there WAS evidence of thermite and videos of molten steel?Don't take this the wrong way but show it. |
|
|
| (348134) | |
Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 17:42:20 2008, in response to Re: Building Const. For Fire Service (Was: Some WTC Thoughts), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:17:50 2008. That was the most blatant anti-semetic line I've ever read here. WTG! |
|
|
| (348136) | |
Re: What if Barack Loses in November? |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Aug 26 17:44:29 2008, in response to Re: What if Barack Loses in November?, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Aug 26 17:34:11 2008. You've got a sugar daddy...or sugar mommy... |
|
|
| (348146) | |
Re: Some WTC Thoughts.... |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Aug 26 17:55:03 2008, in response to Re: Some WTC Thoughts...., posted by daDouce Man on Tue Aug 26 17:40:54 2008. I do not have high speed internet to check all those videos now, but go here: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=thermite+9%2F11&search_type=&aq=flink See for yourself...molten steel in some of those videos...Not best evidence, but something...not sure which video, so click through them, if you have high speed internet... |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 8 |
||