Does Math Lie?

[DcupSheepNipples]

Or are the facts incorrect!

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WTC *LINK*
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

 

[HULKSTER]

So, DCUP, what do you think really happened? Was there a bomb placed on board the airplanes, so that additional fuel and explosives would be available to raise the temperature high enough to melt the steal beams? Or was the steel inside the WTC towers much less effective than previously listed, thus confirming that the builders of the WTC towers committed fraud against the people of NY?

 

[Bulldog_10]

That's interesting, but did they account for the fact that an airliner (plus 31,000 kg of fuel) had just crashed into the building significantly weakening the entire structure?

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

So, DCUP, what do you think really happened? Was there a bomb placed on board the airplanes, so that additional fuel and explosives would be available to raise the temperature high enough to melt the steal beams? Or was the steel inside the WTC towers much less effective than previously listed, thus confirming that the builders of the WTC towers committed fraud against the people of NY?

A combination perhaps if I was thinking like HULKSTER! How would I now? Or would I?

 

[anabolicmd]

Or are the facts incorrect!

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WTC *LINK*
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

Assuming that the math and other calculations are correct, it would be undeniable proof that 9/11 was staged. But since 99.99% of the country will never be able to grasp the science behind it, it will soon be forgotten.

 

[2Thick]

We will have to wait 72 years until we know the truth.

 

[HULKSTER]

We will have to wait 72 years until we know the truth.

Why, what's going on in the year 2075? lol

 

[anabolicmd]

That's interesting, but did they account for the fact that an airliner (plus 31,000 kg of fuel) had just crashed into the building significantly weakening the entire structure?

The story says that there was only 10 000 kg of fuel because it was a shorter flight.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Why, what's going on in the year 2075? lol

Declassification of Gov Files!

 

[Bulldog_10]

The story says that there was only 10 000 kg of fuel because it was a shorter flight.

10,000 gallons = 31,000 kg

Plus the weight off the people, and the plane...that plus the heat of the fire and the duration of the fire would be more than enough to knock over the top of a skyscraper.

Please, no more about this being staged...that is fucking rediculous.

 

[Bulldog_10]

The fact that they didn't even account for the collision tells me that this "study" was poorly thought out.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

10,000 gallons = 31,000 kg

Plus the weight off the people, and the plane...that plus the heat of the fire and the duration of the fire would be more than enough to knock over the top of a skyscraper.

Please, no more about this being staged...that is fucking rediculous.

Censorship? Why?

 

[anabolicmd]

10,000 gallons = 31,000 kg

Nope. 10 000 gallons is more like 37,800 kg. You really dont like the facts coming out, do you?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Nope. 10 000 gallons is more like 37,800 kg. You really dont like the facts coming out, do you?

Well, thank you for backing me up.

This is a direct fucking quote from the link: "Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs."

So don't give me your fucking attitude unless you grow a brain first.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Censorship? Why?

I don't mean it in that way...I just think (know) that theory is rediculous.

 

[anabolicmd]

Well, thank you for backing me up.

This is a direct fucking quote from the link: "Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs."

So don't give me your fucking attitude unless you grow a brain first.

Nice job. Just how much is the gvernment paying you to confuse the masses?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Nice job. Just how much is the gvernment paying you to confuse the masses?

That's very clever...you're obviously very intelligent.

 

[2Thick]

Structural engineers have been claming all along that those building were build to withstand bombs and earthquakes. They have also claimed that the impact and the fuel could not have caused the whole building to buckle like it did.

The buildings were built out of steel and they do not buckle like that. They tend to weaken on one side and fall over. The chances of both towers buckling in very low.

At least on should have fell on its side.

Once again, 75 years.

 

[anabolicmd]

That's very clever...you're obviously very intelligent

Youd love to recruit me, wouldnt you? Well Im sorry, my brains cannot be bought!

 

[Bulldog_10]

Structural engineers have been claming all along that those building were build to withstand bombs and earthquakes. They have also claimed that the impact and the fuel could not have caused the whole building to buckle like it did.

The buildings were built out of steel and they do not buckle like that. They tend to weaken on one side and fall over. The chances of both towers buckling in very low.

At least on should have fell on its side.

Once again, 75 years.

Bombs and earthquakes are VERY different from a PLANE crashing into the side of the building. How fast was the plane going? Anyone know?

To say that ANY building should have survived that type of collision is absolutely RIDICULOUS!

 

[2Thick]

Bombs and earthquakes are VERY different from a PLANE crashing into the side of the building. How fast was the plane going? Anyone know?

To say that ANY building should have survived that type of collision is absolutely REDICULOUS!

Are you a structual engineer?

 

[2Thick]

Nah...I probably could be though.

I see.

You made I sound like you were one.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Are you a structual engineer?

Nah...I probably could be though. But it doesn't take a structural engineer to know that the three are very different. Are you a structural engineer?

 

[anabolicmd]

Nah...I probably could be though.

Yeah, on the internet...

 

[Bulldog_10]

Yeah, on the internet...

Again...very intelligent. So are you saying that the collision would have nothing to do with the building toppling? You know, sometimes you have to forget about the flaming and actually think about what you're saying.

Was I NOT correct in saying that the collision would have something to do with the building falling over?

 

[anabolicmd]

Again...very intelligent. So are you saying that the collision would have nothing to do with the building toppling? You know, sometimes you have to forget about the flaming and actually think about what you're saying.

Was I NOT correct in saying that the collision would have something to do with the building falling over?

Look, you do have a point. but you are coming off as if its a 100% sure thing that the planes could have done it. Well, knowing our governments propensity for lying to us, doesnt it nmake sense to examine new ideas when they come along? Now, I remember how it was said on TV that it wasnt the planes flying into the buildings that took them down. They said that it was the high heat that melted the metal structure. Well, some say that is not possible, that that kind of heat would have been impossible to generate. It is entirely possible that there was another factor besides the impact and he heat. Your unwillingness to even consider a very realistic possibility tells me that the "official version" is gospel to you, no matter how little sense it makes. Well, Im more of an independent thinker myself which I guess is scary to crowd-following people.

 

[gwl9dta4]

Guys, what happened with the Trade center has already been discussed. The colision of the plane with the building builtup enough force to blast the heat insulation of the steel, thus exposing the now bare steel to the very intense heat of the burning fuel. This is why a collision is defferent from a bomb or an earthquake. This caused the steel to weaken and start to bow under the pressure of the floors above it. It's thaks to the use of steel that the buildings fell like a stack of pancakes.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Look, you do have a point. but you are coming off as if its a 100% sure thing that the planes could have done it. Well, knowing our governments propensity for lying to us, doesnt it nmake sense to examine new ideas when they come along? Now, I remember how it was said on TV that it wasnt the planes flying into the buildings that took them down. They said that it was the high heat that melted the metal structure. Well, some say that is not possible, that that kind of heat would have been impossible to generate. It is entirely possible that there was another factor besides the impact and he heat. Your unwillingness to even consider a very realistic possibility tells me that the "official version" is gospel to you, no matter how little sense it makes. Well, Im more of an independent thinker myself which I guess is scary to crowd-following people.

Well, they said that it was the heat...but i think what they meant (or it was supposed to be assumed) is that it was a combination of the damage from the collision and the high heat.

There may have been a bomb on board, but would that change anything? All it would do is strengthen the opinion that there needs to be more security at airports, which would be beneficial to the government.

Aside from that...logically speaking, it would be near impossible to find any remnants of a bomb in all that wreckage...they could do some sort of chemical analysis, but I still feel that there is just too much to go through to find anything.

And I'm not a physicist, or a structural engineer, or anything like that...but I'm assuming many of them have been working on this...and no one has proven anything that leads me to believe there is something that the big bad government isn't telling us about this situation.

I could have my physics professor look over the numbers though, if he has time. Maybe I'll ask...

 

[anabolicmd]

Thats cool, sorry if I came across like a dick.

 

[2Thick]

Guys, what happened with the Trade center has already been discussed. The colision of the plane with the building builtup enough force to blast the heat insulation of the steel, thus exposing the now bare steel to the very intense heat of the burning fuel. This is why a collision is defferent from a bomb or an earthquake. This caused the steel to weaken and start to bow under the pressure of the floors above it. It's thaks to the use of steel that the buildings fell like a stack of pancakes.

I am quoting structual engineers.

Unless you are one, then you have no room to talk.

 

[anabolicmd]

thanks

You must spread your Karma around before giving it to Bulldog_10 again.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Thats cool, sorry if I came across like a dick.

haha...same here man...karma to ya

 

[2Thick]

you "quoted" structural engineers about bombs and earthquakes, neither of which are being discussed here. You also said that the building should have weakened on one side, then fallen over...which is bullshit.

If they designed a building in the middle of new york to weaken on one side and fall over, that has the potential to destroy an entire city in the event of an earthquake...buildings would be falling on top of buildings...not smart.

now, I'm not "quoting" anyone, I'm just using common sense.

In fact, they were talking about the buildings being hit by the planes.

I am not a professional so I am going by what I have read.

 

[Bulldog_10]

I am quoting structual engineers.

Unless you are one, then you have no room to talk.

you "quoted" structural engineers about bombs and earthquakes, neither of which are being discussed here. You also said that the building should have weakened on one side, then fallen over...which is bullshit.

If they designed a building in the middle of new york to weaken on one side and fall over, that has the potential to destroy an entire city in the event of an earthquake...buildings would be falling on top of buildings...not smart.

now, I'm not "quoting" anyone, I'm just using common sense.

 

[Bulldog_10]

thanks

You must spread your Karma around before giving it to Bulldog_10 again.

haha...did you already give me some bad?

 

[anabolicmd]

no, i gave you good but im new so its grey

 

[gwl9dta4]

I am quoting structual engineers.

Unless you are one, then you have no room to talk.

And you are no analyst, so you are in no position to deduct any specific conclusions from technical papers, you're just a man with a superiority complex. You can only guess.


And on that thought everything on my post was a fact. Take it for what it's worth and believe it or not. But the fact is that it was the heat insulation that got blown off, and this was the critical issue that made the steel suseptible to the intense heat. This has been investigated and confirmed. Nothing further to guess. At least from a self proclaimed genius like yourself.

 

[Bulldog_10]

And you are no analyst, so you are in no position to deduct any specific conclusions from technical papers, you're just a man with a superiority complex. You can only guess.


And on that thought everything on my post was a fact. Take it for what it's worth and believe it or not. But the fact is that it was the heat insulation that got blown off, and this was the critical issue that made the steel suseptible to the intense heat. This has been investigated and confirmed. Nothing further to guess. At least from a self proclaimed genius like yourself.

I wasn't gonna say anything

 

[2Thick]

And you are no analyst, so you are in no position to deduct any specific conclusions from technical papers, you're just a man with a superiority complex. You can only guess.


And on that thought everything on my post was a fact. Take it for what it's worth and believe it or not. But the fact is that it was the heat insulation that got blown off, and this was the critical issue that made the steel suseptible to the intense heat. This has been investigated and confirmed. Nothing further to guess. At least from a like yourself.

It does not a "self proclaimed genius" to decipher a professional clearly stating that the heat from the impact and jet fuel are not enough to make the building buckle.

BTW, I am a professional analyst.

 

[***]

i didn't think i'd have the attention span to look at all the calculations, but i did!

this guys is WAY off on his calculations. he took into account 350,000kg of nitrogen, 97,429kg of CO2, and 39,857kg of water vapor that were being heated up by the fuel. this is irrelavent and should be a very insignificant number because whatever energy is used to heat these elements up would be transferred into the steel and concrete by conduction.

his calculations of 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy for 10,000 gallons of fet fuel is correct assuming it had pefect burning conditions, which it will, or close to it. this 1,364,000,000,000 should be divided by only the product of the total amount of concrete and steel in that structure with the product of their respective specific heats. furthermore, he used the calculation of both the floor and the ceiling masses where only the ceiling should be used in the calculation because the fuel burns upward, not downward, so he overestimated the mass by a factor of 2 for both concrete and steel. lastly, the specific heat of lightweight concrete is not 3300 j/kg*C!!! there is no way that can be nearly 3x that of water vapor and nitrogen gas.

 

[***]

btw, thanks for making me waste half my day staring at that poop!

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

btw, thanks for making me waste half my day staring at that poop!

Good job your welcome!

 

[jnuts]

Or are the facts incorrect!

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WTC *LINK*
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

I guess I'm surprised at the level of conspiracy theory dudes here. Never would have guess it.

Anyways....I liken this dudes math in the above link as being a bit "simplistic" when taken into the overall construct of what happened. How about the kinetic energy imparted into the WTC when a B767 - flying well *past* it's redline speed - slammed into building? How much structural damage did that cause and what was its impact on the collapse of the floor? All of these not so little impacts must be placed into a large model to truly see what happened. Doing some math about how hot it gets isn't going to fucking cut it.

All it takes is enough damage and enough heat to drop one part of one of those floors and the building was toast. From the article, they estimate that a floor weighed 1,400,000 kgs. Nothing is gonna stop that mass once it starts falling.

 

[gwl9dta4]

It does not a "self proclaimed genius" to decipher a professional clearly stating that the heat from the impact and jet fuel are not enough to make the building buckle.

BTW, I am a professional analyst.

Correct, the impact and the jet fuel are not enough if the bulding stands like it was built after the impact. BUT, and this is the key to the issue at hand, the Impact somehow completly blew off the insulation that is sprayed on structural steel. Structural steel is actually very vulnerable to heat as it will bow and lose structural stability. So this was the ace in the hole for a reason on why it collapsed. Nothing more to it.

 

[2Thick]

72 Years

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Re: Re: Does Math Lie?

I guess I'm surprised at the level of conspiracy theory dudes here. Never would have guess it.

I hope your not referring to me! I'm not a conspiracy Theorist! I deal in the Truth of the "Future and the Past!"

By the way how is OPLAN 04 comming along?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Re: Re: Does Math Lie?

I guess I'm surprised at the level of conspiracy theory dudes here. Never would have guess it.

Anyways....I liken this dudes math in the above link as being a bit "simplistic" when taken into the overall construct of what happened. How about the kinetic energy imparted into the WTC when a B767 - flying well *past* it's redline speed - slammed into building? How much structural damage did that cause and what was its impact on the collapse of the floor? All of these not so little impacts must be placed into a large model to truly see what happened. Doing some math about how hot it gets isn't going to fucking cut it.

All it takes is enough damage and enough heat to drop one part of one of those floors and the building was toast. From the article, they estimate that a floor weighed 1,400,000 kgs. Nothing is gonna stop that mass once it starts falling.

Yup...oversimplified. It would take a lot longer than that to explain what the hell happened in there.

 

[jnuts]

Re: Re: Re: Does Math Lie?

By the way how is OPLAN 04 comming along?

Ya got me on that one... I assuming you mean some year '04 OPLAN? The only OPLANs that I've dealt with involve theater CINCs... now called Combatant Commanders.

And I didn't mean you.... But you like fueling the fires of the Mel Gibsons of the world.

 

[***]

once again, those calculations are WRONG!

 

[gwl9dta4]

Yes.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does Math Lie?

Ya got me on that one... I assuming you mean some year '04 OPLAN? The only OPLANs that I've dealt with involve theater CINCs... now called Combatant Commanders.

And I didn't mean you.... But you like fueling the fires of the Mel Gibsons of the world.

CINCs! I was generalizing about O4! As long as they are all in place soon so in case of any "Trigger" we will be ready!

Mel Gibsons! You forgot about the Sheeple to! Muuuhaaaa!

 

[Tarheel]

Hmm, a buddy of mine is a civil engineering major.

He was in a class when it happened. The professor at the time stopped class, did some calculations and said the buildings were going to fall. The buildings fell. Not sure if he was a structural engineer or not though.

 

[bunnymt]

Math never lies.

 

[***]

Math never lies.

except when the math is done wrong

 

[bunnymt]

except when the math is done wrong

This is not mathematics. It is pure, simple, logical, and accurate. Computations done wrong is not mathematics; there is no argument there.

 

[***]

computations done wrong is inaccurate mathematics. when i get a 95% on a math test i consider myself to have completed a 100% math exam. the 5% i got wrong is still math, it's just math that was not done correctly. so inaccurate mathematical calculations can be deceiving.

 

[***]

btw, this guy seems like he's a native english speaker, but he can't seem to fully grasp proper english grammer. add that to his ambitious yet simplistic calculations of high school thermodynamics makes him come off as a retro nerdy progressive 17 - 18yr old kid desparately searching for a conspiracy theory.

don't get me wrong, i thing the wtc attacks could have been prevented and by not doing so will greatly benefit the american economy not to mention bush's own bank account, but the idea that 10,000kg of jet fuel will only raise the temperature of 700,000kg (not 1,400,000) of concrete + 250,000kg (not 500,000) of steel to ~100C when fully combusted is outrageous! there no way these attacks are staged.

another conspiracy theory for you: bush got rid of the head of the SEC after the SEC did a very successful probe of enron, worldcom, global crossing, and many other big firms to find corruption after 9/11. he invested heavily in defense stocks after he appointed his own head of the SEC to lead investigations of corrupt corporate trading practices. he pressures congress to declare war claiming that there are weapons of mass destruction that needs to be destroyed in iraq. war drives up defense stocks. bush jr. gets rich. same pattern happened in the first gulf war. if you gave your best friend $100k to look the other way do you think s/he'd actually do an investigation on your trading practices on wall street? i gotta hand it to him though, he and his admin did a great PR job promoting the war changing the focus from capturing terrorists to WMD to freeing the iraqi people and the americans bought into it. sad...

 

[2Thick]

i gotta hand it to him though, he and his admin did a great PR job promoting the war changing the focus from capturing terrorists to WMD to freeing the iraqi people and the americans bought into it. sad...

"The American people...they are dumber than we thought"

--2Thick

(In case you people do not get it, it is making fun of those tasteless marijuana commercials)

 

[***]

lol. i shouldn't generalize, but i don't think it's necessarily a lack of brain power of americans. it's just that after 9/11 rudy and bush did a great job at rallying the americans and making eveyone feel very patriotic short of nationalistic. i think these emotions carried over for many americans when bush started to rally for support for the war.

 

[bunnymt]

computations done wrong is inaccurate mathematics. when i get a 95% on a math test i consider myself to have completed a 100% math exam. the 5% i got wrong is still math, it's just math that was not done correctly. so inaccurate mathematical calculations can be deceiving.

good point.