The Official Goatse Thread

Quote from: Hara Taiki on September 17, 2008, 08:07:02 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2008, 08:04:51 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 17, 2008, 07:51:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2008, 07:43:24 AM

Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot. 

So what do you do to tighten its strength?

You create better alloys. 

Brilliant.

That's is actually exactly what you do.  If the WTC's support beams had around 10 percent of another metal(I can't remember which one) it would have been able to keep enough strength, at the same temperature, to keep the towers up.   

Are you thinking the ever expensive titanium? 10% titanium to 90% steel alloy can still be quite expensive to manufacture, and even more so to purchase, and in a set of buildings such as World Trade Center, I think it would have been out of the budget when they were being built in the 1970's.

Although, I did read they are using a much cheaper way to produce titanium now. Maybe in the near future buildings will be comprised of such alloys.

Also, cold rolling and annealling.

10% is really high, I can find the steel grade and specs for the new towers at work tomorrow.  I'm pretty sure it's significantly lower than that though.

I have a cold hardened steel blade in my pocket. Pretty sweet. Holds and edge like none other, but sharpening it is a fucking bitch.

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2008, 08:10:46 AM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on September 17, 2008, 08:07:02 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2008, 08:04:51 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 17, 2008, 07:51:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2008, 07:43:24 AM

Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot. 

So what do you do to tighten its strength?

You create better alloys. 

Brilliant.

That's is actually exactly what you do.  If the WTC's support beams had around 10 percent of another metal(I can't remember which one) it would have been able to keep enough strength, at the same temperature, to keep the towers up.   

Are you thinking the ever expensive titanium? 10% titanium to 90% steel alloy can still be quite expensive to manufacture, and even more so to purchase, and in a set of buildings such as World Trade Center, I think it would have been out of the budget when they were being built in the 1970's.

Although, I did read they are using a much cheaper way to produce titanium now. Maybe in the near future buildings will be comprised of such alloys.

Not titanium. The metal doesn't have to be strong to create a strong alloy.

Wow, I can't believe this thread has over 200 responses already! FES is so full of goatse!

The reason the trade center fell is easy. There were main supports and tiny little joists connecting everything, distributing the weight. The heat resistant foam was knocked off by the impact of the plane. The burning jet fuel, and officer furniture and everything else on fire inside the trade center heated these joists up to a point where they had less ability to withstand a load. If you doubt this principle then a simply forge can show you that unmelted metal is severely weakened when heated.

The impact of the plane had destroyed some of these joists forcing the load to be redistributed to other joists. These joists are now heated so that their load bearing ability is lessened, but also they have a larger load than was intended. One or two give out increasing the load for others, until the entire weight is on the main supports collapsing them. This process no happens clear down the building at an increasing rate.

But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.

But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.

No you can't. Also an explosion is a rapid expansion of air. Seems reasonable to see debris flying out when supports and such are snapping under tons of pressure. When things give out from a load, it tends to look about like an explosion.

Back on topic please, Raist. If you're not going to post Goatse, don't post in this thread at all.

The reason the trade center fell is easy. There were main supports and tiny little joists connecting everything, distributing the weight. The heat resistant foam was knocked off by the impact of the plane. The burning jet fuel, and officer furniture and everything else on fire inside the trade center heated these joists up to a point where they had less ability to withstand a load. If you doubt this principle then a simply forge can show you that unmelted metal is severely weakened when heated.

The impact of the plane had destroyed some of these joists forcing the load to be redistributed to other joists. These joists are now heated so that their load bearing ability is lessened, but also they have a larger load than was intended. One or two give out increasing the load for others, until the entire weight is on the main supports collapsing them. This process no happens clear down the building at an increasing rate.

there was one other part I heard was involved. there was a gas line going up the tower. No one knew about it so it kept pumping the gas up to the fire. that is why the fire burned for so long.

there was one other part I heard was involved.

That's what she said.

A 9/11 conspiracy is far less plausible than a RE conspiracy.

A 9/11 conspiracy is far less plausible than a RE conspiracy.

Really?  Where's the list of over 600 scientists who think something's fishy with RE?  Because here's the list of architects and engineers who see through the bullshit:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on April 29, 2009, 04:52:49 PM

A 9/11 conspiracy is far less plausible than a RE conspiracy.

Really?  Where's the list of over 600 scientists who think something's fishy with RE?  Because here's the list of architects and engineers who see through the bullshit:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Yeah, and they couldn't even find a person to make them a decent website. The second a conspiracy site gets a half decent website is the day half decent websites take no skill to make.

edit: most of the statements were simply "jetfuel doesn't burn at the 3,000 degrees necessary to "deform and fail joints" Which would be true, if you took the tower while completely intact and coated it in jetfuel and burned it, then it would survive. But thanks to its design (the way it supports itself) and the fact that it had a massive gap in its supports, it is likely that it would fail at this lesser weakening of the steel.

But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.

Don't start. 


And Crotchy stop trolling.  You're as bad as Proleg.

Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on April 29, 2009, 03:19:24 PM

But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.

Don't start. 


And Crotchy stop trolling.  You're as bad as Proleg.

I'm dropping it, Wardogg, but you know I'm not trolling.  Planes and fires did not cause the towers (much less Bldg 5) to collapse.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 29, 2009, 07:19:50 PM

Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on April 29, 2009, 03:19:24 PM

But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.

Don't start. 


And Crotchy stop trolling.  You're as bad as Proleg.

I'm dropping it, Wardogg, but you know I'm not trolling.  Planes and fires did not cause the towers (much less Bldg 5) to collapse.

No, I suppose it was explosives planted by secret agents, right?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 29, 2009, 07:19:50 PM

Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on April 29, 2009, 03:19:24 PM

But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.

Don't start. 


And Crotchy stop trolling.  You're as bad as Proleg.

I'm dropping it, Wardogg, but you know I'm not trolling.  Planes and fires did not cause the towers (much less Bldg 5) to collapse.

I think you meant 7 right? 

I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit.

I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit.

And they also saw flying objects while the planes were approaching.

srsly!?

I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit.

Actually, I think what you are attempting to belittle are the numerous (dozens) of firemen who are on radio and video during the events and just after describing secondary explosions throughout the towers, especially in the sub-levels, and huge series of explosions as the towers collapsed.  Those lunatics must have been already forming ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Seriously, have you even watched Loose Change?  Read any of the letters from engineers, architects, and scientists?  Even seen what the fucking infrastructure of that building looked like?

It was designed and rated to hold half again its own weight under twice the heat at which kerosene and construction and office equipment could possibly have burned under ideal (non-pressurized) conditions.  All the smoke makes it clear the conditions were extremely oxygen poor, meaning a fire not much hotter than one in your home bar-b-cue or kerosene lamp.  Has your grill (made of cheap mild steel wire, by the way, not structural steel) ever collapsed on your bar-b-cue?

Where is the debris from the 'plane' that 'crashed' in PA?  Where are the turbines from the 'plane' that was 'crashed' into the pentagon?  Why have less than 30% of the experienced commercial pilots who have tried to crash the same type of planes into the same buildings in simulations been successful, while three supposed terrorists were able to do it after a few weeks of flight training?

What caused the other building to collapse again?  I forget.  It wasn't hit by a plane, and no skyscraper in the history of skyscrapers has ever collapsed from a fire, even ones that burned for days.  Was it built out of substandard materials?

I suppose you all buy the 'magic bullet' theory as well?

Quote from: Wendy on April 30, 2009, 09:35:49 AM

I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit.

Actually, I think what you are attempting to belittle are the numerous (dozens) of firemen who are on radio and video during the events and just after describing secondary explosions throughout the towers, especially in the sub-levels, and huge series of explosions as the towers collapsed.  Those lunatics must have been already forming ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Seriously, have you even watched Loose Change?  Read any of the letters from engineers, architects, and scientists?  Even seen what the fucking infrastructure of that building looked like?

It was designed and rated to hold half again its own weight under twice the heat at which kerosene and construction and office equipment could possibly have burned under ideal (non-pressurized) conditions.  All the smoke makes it clear the conditions were extremely oxygen poor, meaning a fire not much hotter than one in your home bar-b-cue or kerosene lamp.  Has your grill (made of cheap mild steel wire, by the way, not structural steel) ever collapsed on your bar-b-cue?

Where is the debris from the 'plane' that 'crashed' in PA?  Where are the turbines from the 'plane' that was 'crashed' into the pentagon?  Why have less than 30% of the experienced commercial pilots who have tried to crash the same type of planes into the same buildings in simulations been successful, while three supposed terrorists were able to do it after a few weeks of flight training?

What caused the other building to collapse again?  I forget.  It wasn't hit by a plane, and no skyscraper in the history of skyscrapers has ever collapsed from a fire, even ones that burned for days.  Was it built out of substandard materials?

I suppose you all buy the 'magic bullet' theory as well?

Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.

Quote from: Raist on April 29, 2009, 03:15:09 PM

The reason the trade center fell is easy. There were main supports and tiny little joists connecting everything, distributing the weight. The heat resistant foam was knocked off by the impact of the plane. The burning jet fuel, and officer furniture and everything else on fire inside the trade center heated these joists up to a point where they had less ability to withstand a load. If you doubt this principle then a simply forge can show you that unmelted metal is severely weakened when heated.

The impact of the plane had destroyed some of these joists forcing the load to be redistributed to other joists. These joists are now heated so that their load bearing ability is lessened, but also they have a larger load than was intended. One or two give out increasing the load for others, until the entire weight is on the main supports collapsing them. This process no happens clear down the building at an increasing rate.

there was one other part I heard was involved. there was a gas line going up the tower. No one knew about it so it kept pumping the gas up to the fire. that is why the fire burned for so long.

I believe some of the fuels that where being pumped up there could have burned hotter then kerosene. second my grill has never collapsed on me. however I never had near 1/4 the weight it would take to collapse it under normal temperatures. It can hold my 150 pounds and when we are cooking there is never more then a few pounds of beef on it at a time.

Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.

Doesn't it depend on what alloy is used? I'm sure there is some sort of steel that can withstand higher temperatures.

Quote from: Raist on April 30, 2009, 07:43:25 PM

Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.

Doesn't it depend on what alloy is used? I'm sure there is some sort of steel that can withstand higher temperatures.

Oh, no one bothered to actually read the article that was posted here. There were several sources on this fact and I don't feel the need to double post sources.

Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on April 30, 2009, 07:54:31 PM

Quote from: Raist on April 30, 2009, 07:43:25 PM

Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.

Doesn't it depend on what alloy is used? I'm sure there is some sort of steel that can withstand higher temperatures.

Oh, no one bothered to actually read the article that was posted here. There were several sources on this fact and I don't feel the need to double post sources.

Well I just tuned into this thread. How far back was it?

19 young Muslim extremists who were jealous of American freedom hijacked four American airliners using only box cutters and outwitted the most powerful government in the world. Using 2 of these airplanes they managed to destroy 3 skyscrapers that were designed to survive airplanes hitting them.