IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )


2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> china's tallest building catches fire, doesn't collapse
Seeker
post Aug 15 2007, 10:48 AM
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 5,275
Joined: 22-February 06
Member No.: 2



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/augus...ot_collapse.htm

i thought all giant steel buildings collapsed when they catch on fire?

only thermite specially placed on the support columns and synchronized to go off bring down giant steel buildings
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Aug 15 2007, 10:52 AM
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



QUOTE (1up @ Aug 15 2007, 11:48 AM) *
only thermite specially placed on the support columns and synchronized to go off bring down giant steel buildings

or burning jet fuel from a plane that just crashed into it perhaps?

I must have missed the part where it said the chinese building was lit on fire with 60,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seeker
post Aug 15 2007, 10:54 AM
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 5,275
Joined: 22-February 06
Member No.: 2



jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel (molten steel was found at ground zero)

NEXT!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hartmann
post Aug 15 2007, 10:55 AM
Post #4





Group: Admin
Posts: 3,402
Joined: 23-February 06
From: PDX/TXL
Member No.: 35



oh God....

First of all, the building isn't even completed and the fire wasn't caused by a JET flying at 500 mph and full of jet fuel.

When all that is burning is concrete and construction equipment, yeah, I wouldn't expect it to collapse, but when a jet penetrates the interior and center structures of a building, I do.

I am still trying to figure out if you actually believe this stuff or if you post to simply get a rise out of us.


--------------------

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: that of the fashionable non-conformist."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Aug 15 2007, 10:55 AM
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



since you apparently missed your 5th grade science class, the term "melt" is when matter goes from solid -> liquid. the building would fall long before the steel got to that point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Aug 15 2007, 10:57 AM
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



QUOTE (Hartmann @ Aug 15 2007, 11:55 AM) *
I am still trying to figure out if you actually believe this stuff or if you post to simply get a rise out of us.

I thought that for a while, but a guy that came to work at my company in lubbock really was this bad so I guess these weirdos do exist. He sure is persistent if he's just joking around.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
schwab
post Aug 15 2007, 11:28 AM
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1,761
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Lubbock/Dubai
Member No.: 57



um...now every building has to collapse at teh smallest of fires? there is a huge difference between a plane colliding with a freakin building and exploding...then just a small fire


--------------------
bored...so i did this
http://beerlist.wetpaint.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
THECHICKEN
post Aug 15 2007, 11:32 AM
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1,302
Joined: 20-February 07
Member No.: 721



Everyone knows a lone gunman on the grassy gnoll brought down the twin towers with illuminati mind bullets...

The Multiple tons of Airplane running into the support structure of the towers, combined with wind creating heat conditions that warped the medal enough for the collapse are purely scientific and thus idiotic...

Praise jesus


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nattyice
post Aug 15 2007, 11:46 AM
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 5-January 07
Member No.: 549



QUOTE (impala454 @ Aug 15 2007, 11:52 AM) *
or burning jet fuel from a plane that just crashed into it perhaps?

I must have missed the part where it said the chinese building was lit on fire with 60,000 gallons of jet fuel.


The planes that hit the twin towers had a max fuel capacity of around 11,000 gallons, but were destined for short routes so probably had much less than that on board.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hartmann
post Aug 15 2007, 11:56 AM
Post #10





Group: Admin
Posts: 3,402
Joined: 23-February 06
From: PDX/TXL
Member No.: 35



QUOTE (nattyice @ Aug 15 2007, 12:46 PM) *
The planes that hit the twin towers had a max fuel capacity of around 11,000 gallons, but were destined for short routes so probably had much less than that on board.


Uh, BOS-LAX (UA Flight 175, North Tower) that's a longhaul flight, one that would have been fully loaded with fuel, especially with the low load of people it was carrying, probably doubled as a mail hauler.

BOS-LAX (AA Flight 11, South Tower), another longhaul flight, same equipment. Larger load, more than likely full of fuel, anticipating delays at BOS (which there were).

Also, A 767-200 carries right at 23,000 gallons of fuel fully loaded.

The plane that crashed in Shanksville and the one that hit the Pentagon were both 757-200s, single-aisle, transcon aircraft.


--------------------

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: that of the fashionable non-conformist."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Aug 15 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



QUOTE (nattyice @ Aug 15 2007, 12:46 PM) *
The planes that hit the twin towers had a max fuel capacity of around 11,000 gallons, but were destined for short routes so probably had much less than that on board.

even if you were right, which apparently according to hartman you're not, do you think that say, 5,000 gallons of jet fuel would weaken a structure enough to bring the building down?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GOB
post Aug 15 2007, 03:36 PM
Post #12


monogamous gays & stem cells


Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 22-February 06
Member No.: 8



the best part:

QUOTE
The World Financial Center in Shanghai bravely remains standing after fires gutted its top floors, a modern day miracle of science and a bizarre contradiction to the officially revised version of physics that came into effect on September 11, 2001.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Aug 15 2007, 03:50 PM
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



yeah it's the best part because it shows how little they understand physics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John6.7
post Aug 16 2007, 12:53 PM
Post #14


Your Private Eye


Group: Members
Posts: 252
Joined: 23-February 06
Member No.: 60



That building has floor suports on every floor... the wtc only had an outer and an inner supports to give each floor an open loft.

Different ways of building a building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
prefix
post Aug 18 2007, 06:23 PM
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 290
Joined: 23-February 06
Member No.: 59



when will people learn wtf they are talking before they open their mouth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th December 2025 - 01:31 PM
Skin made by: skeedio.com