BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11

Subject: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:17 PM

Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/150807_not_collapse.htm

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:24 PM

Sorry, Froth. It proves nothing.

Many, many variables are involved. Not just fire, but structural dammage caused by the impact of the planes, among other things.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

Factors like fire retardant around the columns? The WTC buildings had the retardant, this one didn't. Why didn't this building fall?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:06 PM

When was it built? Of WHAT was it built -- "steel" isn't a complete answer. How does it stand in relation to other buildings and how does that affect the airflow?

Geez, for a self-proclaimed physics major I'd think you'd know that there's much more involved than wishing something was so....

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:11 PM

The article linked is "quaint," but uninformative.

the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

"commonly accepted" ????? by whom? [derogatory quesses as to identity and qualifications deliberately suppressed].

I suppose it's "commonly accepted" that any common wood framed home that suffers limited fire damage may "explode" withing 30 minutes as well, but I had a recent fire in my home that scorched the bean soup severely and produced "noticeable" smoke and odor. While the "fire" was confined to the stove burner where it was more or less expected, it was only by some miracle defying the laws of physics" I, and my family, and my home, survived.

I think I deserve equal time in the media.

Damage was severe. I had to clean the pot and open another can.

(If the thread originator is in fact a "Physics Major" it might be suggested that out of respect for those who deserve the title his/her usage might be withheld pending the second year of high school.?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:13 PM

The Shanghai building looks pretty open to airflow. The blast furnace effect required to achieve temperatures needed to soften steel should have been operating unhindered.

Some people believe the World Trade Centers were brought down by demolitions:

Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move. Why is this picture so interesting? It shows the antenna, which is held up by the core columns, fall before the rest of the building while the fire line on the 78th floor doesn't move. Torin then goes through the hard physics of the scene we're looking at and explains how it directly contradicts the official story, "This building is not collapsing on the 78th floor. The antenna falls 56 feet before the 78th floor falls."

http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

Lots of kooks out there, huh? I know there's a simple explanation for why the Shanghai building didn't fall. What is it?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:26 PM

Oh, gee, how did I know this was another 9/11 conspiracy nut thread? Physics Major, if you wish to continue to participate in discussions at Mudcat, please remember that you are required to use a consistent name each and every time you post.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM

Why didn't the Shanghai building fall? Maybe because it didn't get hit by a couple of airliners?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:35 PM

Now I get it. It was the PLANES that brought down the World Trade Centers. What kind of plane hit World Trade Center 7?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: gnu
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:51 PM

The 78th floor may well have failed prior to the failure of the 78th floor exterior walls. As would normally be the case. The floors hold up the walls. The exterior walls are the weakest part of most multible bay high rise structures.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:00 PM

Here we go.... Another 300 plus thread where people argue about issues where they've already made up their minds. No one's viewpoints will be changed one bit. Just another waste of space. YMMV. Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:14 PM

That would be nothing new. Try...

                this one

                and this one

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:20 PM

"Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours."

This is simply a sarcastic bit of crap!!.....You can read the correct analysis- you just don't wish to!

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

Yep. All the dogs are barking exactly as they usually do. No surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:47 PM

No cause was given for the fire in China, and there was no indication of what burnables were present.

For present purposes I'll just assume it was the cardboard hamburgers being fed to the work crew, and that they don't burn very hot. It would be expected that they'd make a lot of smoke(?).

That's sufficient to satisfy my curiosity until some "facts" (as opposed to imaginary delusions) and some "competent opinions" (as opposed to gossip mongering) appear.

It is, of course, encouraging when young and immature minds show an active interest in science and engineering, but it does get tedious constantly explaining that they haven't learned everything just because their high school teacher told them what to read in their introductory texts.

John

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:54 PM

According to last night's news report, a welder's torch set fire to combustibles within the building and started the fire. If there were any point in it, I would try to explain the difference in the fires and building structures to Physics Major but there isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:10 PM

People decide first what view to espouse. That's step # 1.

They then set about explaining, in what they feel is a totally reasonable fashion, why it is obvious that their view is the right one.

And they could just as well have chosen the opposite point of view, in which case they would be arguing with equal confidence from that angle.

And 5 years later, they may indeed be espousing the opposite view, and have forgotten that they once opposed it.

Any thread on the 911 conspiracy theories is a perfect example of people's utter capriciousness and inflexibility in this regard. If you read the discussions dispassionately, and with a degree of humor, you can immediately see that everyone (probably including yourself) has...

#1 - Made up their minds already that their viewpoint (whatever it is) is the only right one, the only one that can be right...and that that is bloody obvious to anyone who doesn't wear a tinfoil hat.

#2 - Set out to examine all the available evidence they can find, which evidence PROVES... to their delight, yes, it PROVES that they are dead right! (no matter what it is they think) And it proves that their opponents are illogical idiots who refuse to look at "the facts". ;-)

#3 - They then watch like hawks for those "idiots" to dare to contradict them, in which case they will have another good excuse to show how brilliant they are by refuting those opponents' pitiful arguments...

You know what it adds up to? Nothing but a big, empty battle of windbag egos. But it gives those restless minds something to do, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM

Gun control and abortion are two other subjects that fall into this category."I think it - so it must be right".

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:21 PM

You know, up to now I have always thought that the terrorist airplanes hitting the twin towers were responsible for them collapsing. After reading the story in the link provided by GUEST,Physics Major, I am now convinced that it was all a government plot. Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:22 PM

You know what it adds up to? Nothing but a big, empty battle of windbag egos. But it gives those restless minds something to do, doesn't it?

Frankly no. Its as boring and pointless as stirring whaleshit in a tumbler. Why we don't just kill these simpleass fuckin' threads from the gitgo is the real question and incomprehensible to me as well.

Physics Asshole----Blow Me

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:32 PM

I too have changed my mind!

I now believe the Twin Towers were brought down by George W. Bush.

He had just mastered the art of piloting the UFO but had not yet mastered the death ray.

He was aiming at Pete Seeger's house and hit the Trade Towers instead.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:59 PM

Stirring whaleshit in a tumbler? Never tried it. Where do you get the whale shit? What size tumbler? What size turd for that matter? Do you stir with a spoon or an electric mixer? This is fascinating stuff...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 05:06 PM

How about combining this thread with all the other threads on the same subject? All of this crap has been argued about ninety-eleven times before.

GUEST,Physics Major, if you're not a graduate yet as your monicker implies (if that is indeed your field at all), it would seem that you have a lot to learn yet. Why are you here pestering the grown-ups? Go hit the books!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 05:16 PM

You think that stirring whaleshit in a tumbler is boring and pointless, Spaw? Ha! How little you know. I bet you've never even tried it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM

Got a point there Hawk. But I figure its something similar to talking with a psychiatrist and I have very little experience at that as well. But the experience that I have had leads me to believe its much the same.

Still waitin' for the blow job Physics Dork.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

Yeah, it is a bit like that, actually...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Grab
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:18 PM

Didn't they used to use whaleshit for a perfume base, on the grounds that it actually smells pretty good? Imagine how pissed off you'd be as a whale if you took one final vengeful shit on the bloke who shot you, and he thinks it's a bonus!

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:25 PM

Gee. Thank you all for the well thought out responses. I realize the point made in the initial article is rather biased, and that's why I was seeking clarification. And you people sure cleared up the issue for me. Tell me, are you all philosophers or something? I'll have to take your responses to my department head and see what he has to say. Offhand, though, I can see that a larger issue has been brought to light here--does catspaw49 rotate AROUND the thumb in his ass, or is it the thumb that rotates?

I personally believe the 19 men with boxcutters survived the crashes, fell through the roof of WTC7 and hacked away at that building until it fell. They found one of the passports of the Al Qeada Islamo-fascists on top of the smoking rubble of the WTC, and the paper document was a bit scorced but it survived the fireball and pulverization, so that's proof that at least ONE of the hijackers leapt to safety from the plane.

Thanks again for all the help on that Newtonian crap. I'm so glad we don't have to study that anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: skipy
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:25 PM

Troll food anyone? if so I can't put it on Ebay for you, if you don't want to feed him, them leave the thread alone & let him starve!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM

Ambergris (Ambra grisea, Ambre gris, ambergrease, or grey amber) is a solid, waxy, flammable substance of a dull grey or blackish color, with the shades being variegated like marble. It possesses a peculiar sweet, earthy odor similar to isopropyl alcohol. Now largely replaced by synthetics, it is occasionally still used as a fixative in perfumery.

Ambergris was also molded, dried, decorated and worn as jewelry, particularly during the Renaissance. It was often formed into beads.

Ambergris occurs as a biliary secretion of the intestines of the sperm whale, and can be found floating upon the sea, or in the sand near the coast. Because giant squids' beaks have been found embedded within lumps of ambergris, scientists have theorized that the whale's intestine produces the substance as a means of facilitating the passage of hard, sharp objects that the whale might have inadvertently eaten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambergris

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 08:29 PM

"does catspaw49 rotate AROUND the thumb in his ass, or is it the thumb that rotates?"

Well you may THINK you is a 'Fiscis Majer', but you sure ain't no "Anatomy Major'...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:19 PM

I think they both rotate simultaneously, but I am not about to investigate the matter up close, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:25 PM

I personally use a blender to stir whaleshit. Just make sure the lid is on tight or your wife gets really, really mad.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:26 PM

"Tell me, are you all philosophers or something?"

Yes!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:29 PM

I definitely am, and proud of it too. A philosopher is a great thing to be, but they don't have the kind of respect now that they did in more enlightened societies of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:36 PM

""Tell me, are you all philosophers or something?""

Yep!

But there ain't no money in it these days...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:45 PM

Do you prefer fruit cup or the pudding?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:56 PM

I'm greedy - I'll take both!

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:00 PM

"I'm greedy - I'll take both!"

Made with whaleshit??? Now that is foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:06 PM

Ah, but if it's made outta whaleshit, at least it won't catch fire, explode and fall down when some robot controlled plane flies into it...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:14 PM

Yes indeed. You're philosophers with a capital F. With so much gray matter having put the matter of 9/11 to rest, I don't know why any wackos out there would pay attention to statements like this:

...Add to his (Torins') resume the fact that he designed and implemented well over 100 controlled demolitions. He was not just helping at a lower level in the demolitions - he was the guy responsible for calling the shots....

... With his demolitions experience, he immediately knew those towers could not have fallen like that without explosives....

..."But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?" Torin asks rhetorically. "Fire." The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, "When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support." The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation....

...A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction....

...Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. "The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds." How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds....

..."For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores." Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."...

http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

It goes on and on and on, but the man is obviously a raving psychotic. And I don't care if he saved over a hundred lives in Iraq and is more decorated than a wedding cake, he's dangerous. Imagine talking like that about the OFFICIAL government version of 9/11. What should we do with people like this? They're obviously guilty of treason, questioning the government and all, when we're at war with terrorism. Should we just toss them across the border the government has wisely left open in this war? Should we force them onto drugs, for their own safety? Forced-labor camps, to make them pay for the harm they've done to the American way of life? I mean, this 9/11 wacko talk is endangering my educatation, dammit. If I can't graduate and serve the Homeland, then why bother? These people threatening our Homeland need to be dealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:18 PM

"fall at so close to free fall speed"

s = 1/2 g t² ...

It's obvious then, the towers were made of whaleshit...


La la lalalala

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: open mike
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:19 PM

it is not whale excrement it is re-gurgitated..
and i thought spaw said staring at whale shit
in a tumbler. you would be less likely to get
any on you that way.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:25 PM

"Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse"

This shows that our 'Fiscis Majer' is gonna fail... except in Mental Masturbation 101... and destroys any credibility of the 'expert source' quoted...

Things fall, not with a 'speed' or velocity to use real Physics Jargon, but with an 'acceleration'. This means that each subsequent falling floor would 'fall in a different period of time'... each one shorter than the one before...

Back to the tinfoil hat mate...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:39 PM

Here's the Chief. The soo-pah Chief, fellas. Ol'Chief Broom. Here you go, Chief Broom...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:45 PM

I know the guy's full of it. What the heck would he know about demolitions? He only did a hundred of them. So do you think he's insane?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:46 PM

Physics Major - Hey, man, I believe you. But why are you trying to convince a handful of people on this forum who don't believe you? What's the use, really? And what difference would it make even IF you managed to convert one or two of them?

...which you are not going to....obviously...

Most people would rather die than change their minds, after all.

Why do you bother?

Why here, I mean? Talk about an exercise in futility. I gave up talking about a couple of specific things on this forum as time went by, because it's just not worth the aggravation. It achieves nothing. It's like talking to a dog about Mark Twain's books. Completely useless.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:57 PM

Hey Hawk......Listen, if you had a Weim instead of that Dachsie you would happily be reading and discussing Twain classic every day. AND, I'll have you know I can and DO change my mind! Like in this case here.......Physics Limpdick can blow a whale instead!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:04 AM

LOL! Awww...shit, Spaw. Man, my dachshund can talk rings around those danged weimaraners, but he doesn't like Twain, that's all. He prefers reading those weird Florida-crime-satirical novels that have been so popular lately.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:28 AM

Every forum is different, Little Hawk. On this one, I've found a bunch of people who know the truth but are afraid to admit it, and it amuses me to rub their noses in it.

Mainly I just copy and paste (like from that excellent site I've referenced a couple of times here), and I copy to several forums. Mudcat...I guess it amuses me because so many here are older, and it's hard for the old to accept change. But their grandkids are being taught that the old folks are just in the way, and the U.S. rocks! Kill the Arabs! Old folks saw this in Germany, and it's happening here, and no one should be allowed to close their eyes to it. Deny it if they must, but they have to be made to watch.

Then you have moderators on mudcat who openly say they look forward to the destruction of America, so you have to hate people like that. Best way to gig them is with the truth. I hope America falls right on them.

Mixture of reasons I post on mudcat, if it matters.