The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:19 pm

Been There wrote:Great jumping Jehosophats, Rollo!
And you think you are too well-informed to discuss this with somone who you think wouldn't understood your superior knowledge of physics?! :o :roll:

That wasn't a STEEL-STRUCTURED BUILDING!
We are talking about STEEL-STRUCTURED BUILDINGS COLLAPSING FROM FIRE (Lord have mercy. :roll: )
The Sao Paulo building was reinforced concrete. The reinforcement was STEEL REBAR. The Plasco Building in Tehran, which you have conveniently ignored, was a STEEL FRAME structure.

And besides, just where did you say we were only talking about Steel Structured buildings? Not that it really matters.
Regardless, ALL concrete structures of any size have steel reinforcement rebar in them.

Image

And just to add to that, concrete structures (with steel reinforcement of course) are more resistant to fire than steel frame:

https://www.concretecentre.com/Performa ... tance.aspx

If the material contained therein is over your head just ask me and I'll try and explain it to you if I'm in the mood. However, be cognizant of the fact that I can't "understand" it for you.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7272
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:12 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:19 pm
Been There wrote:Great jumping Jehosophats, Rollo!
And you think you are too well-informed to discuss this with somone who you think wouldn't understood your superior knowledge of physics?! :o :roll:

That wasn't a STEEL-STRUCTURED BUILDING!
We are talking about STEEL-STRUCTURED BUILDINGS COLLAPSING FROM FIRE (Lord have mercy. :roll: )
The Sao Paulo building was reinforced concrete. The reinforcement was STEEL REBAR.
Yes. Reinforced concrete. Erm... as I just tried to explain to you. :roll:

Reinforced concrete!
So...Er... That's not the same as a steel-structured building. :?

Here, let's take it step by step.
We are here discussing the WTC building collapses.
They were all solid-steel structures.
The claim you have attempted to refute is that no other steel-structured hi-rise buildings had or has collapsed because of fire.
Scott joined in and helpfully suggested that gravity might also have been an influencing factor along with fire.
You joined in and gave two examples of tower collapses due to fire. I have only looked into one so far. It wasn't comparable to the WTC collapses. It appears to have been a reinforced concrete building that was structurally unsound and scheduled for demolition.
So you don't win any points. On the contrary You actually lose credibility because you look as though you aren't arguing seriously but are only trying to win cheap points due to having made a humiliating over-reach.

Try and remember at all times that it's only the liklihood of the WTC collapses that is under discussion.
E.g. we came in, here:
Werd wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:26 pm
Two planes could not have brought down those towers and building 7. PERIOD!
The Tehran example looks promising as an example of a steel structured building that collapsed because of fire. So... Well done. You win a point. You haven't won the main argument.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:28 pm

My advice to you Been There:
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt
You said:
Yes. Reinforced concrete. Erm... as I just tried to explain to you. :roll:

Reinforced concrete!
So...Er... That's not the same as a steel-structured building. :?
Not that it matters but you never mentioned anything about "steel-structured" building initially. Only when you found yourself looking even stupider than you already have you pulled that parameter out of your ass to try and save face. The truth is, only when it comes to fire resistance does that matter as to which to use.

Since concrete is strong in compression and extremely weak in tension all concrete structures have to be built with reinforcement steel to carry the tensile loads and performs the same role as the steel in a steel-frame building. The steel in reinforced concrete is required to hold the same tensile load minimum limit as that of a steel-structured building. As I showed you, reinforced concrete is superior to structural steel in resisting fire damage. Putting a fireproofing around the steel helps but in the WTC case it was knocked off from the plane crash. With a steel-structured building more likely to come down in a fire than a reinforced concrete one your incredulity as to the WTC buildings falling down and not so with the Sao Paulo building is ass-backwards... or just your talking out of...

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:44 am

Interesting excerpt from a technical journal regarding reinforced concrete structures:
So, which material reigns supreme in the world of development today - concrete or steel?

Both provide numerous benefits. As for whether or not one is better, Buildings lets you determine which side you’re on.

1. Safety

Concrete:

The recent announcement by Ground Zero Developer Larry Silverstein regarding safety measures at the new 7 World Trade Center (WTC) building echoes what the concrete industry has been saying for years: Concrete is safer.

The building’s core (where elevators, stairs, and power systems are located) will be encased in 2-foot-thick concrete for protection in the event of a fire or terrorist attack. “Cast-in-place reinforced concrete offers outstanding resistance to explosion and/or impact. Moreover, it can endure very high temperatures from fire for a long time without loss of structural integrity,” says Alfred G. Gerosa, president, Concrete Alliance Inc., New York City.

Concrete requires no additional fireproofing treatments to meet stringent fire codes, and performs well during both natural and manmade disasters. Because of concrete’s inherent heaviness, mass, and strength, buildings constructed with cast-in-place reinforced concrete can resist winds of more than 200 miles per hour and perform well even under the impact of flying debris...

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7272
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:23 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:28 pm
You said:
Yes. Reinforced concrete. Erm... as I just tried to explain to you. :roll:
Reinforced concrete!
So...Er... That's not the same as a steel-structured building. :?
Not that it matters but you never mentioned anything about "steel-structured" building initially.
(Ho-hum) :roll:
This is what my statement in the discussion related to:
Werd wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:26 pm
Two planes could not have brought down those towers and building 7. PERIOD!
I have always been discussing the collapse of "those towers" which any honest person will concede referred to WTC 1and 2 and WTC7.

I think any honest and fair person will agree that I can not be held responsible for someone else's inability to correctly comprehend what the discussion is about.

Here is my reply in its proper context:
been-there wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:14 am
Scott wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:33 pm
Werd wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:26 pm
Two planes could not have brought down those towers and building 7. PERIOD!
Why not? Do you know how much heat energy is actually contained in that much jet fuel?
And all you have to do is weaken the bearing supports and gravity does the work...
Ha ha! :lol:

Gravity??
From fires???

Hmmmmm?
Never happened before. Never happened since. But happened THREE TIMES in one day on 911!!!
I leave it to the sagacity of the fair-minded reader to judge who is behaving most stupidly and most disingenuously here.

Whatever.
These facts remain despite Rollo's inability to discuss fairly:
• THREE high-rise, steel-structured buildings in good condition DID collapse on that day.
• They DID collapse at near free-fall speed.
• They did collapse symmetrically into their own footprint.
The official explanation for this collapse is because of office fires in a fairly limited area relative to the entire structure.

I still maintain that NOTHING comparable had ever happened like that to similar steel-structured buildings prior to 11.9.2001.
I still maintain that NOTHING comparable has ever happened like that to similar steel-structured buildings since 11.9.2001.

I still maintain that NO comparable collapse exists to those THREE BUILDINGS from office fires.

It still remains my belief that only gullible, masses subconsciously in the grip of an emotionally-conveyed mind-manipulation would except that defiance of basic physics, and all the other peculiar occurrences.

I.e. add in all the other crazy stuff, such as: all the hijacking drills; people receiving impossible cell phone calls from impossible altitudes; passports of 'hijackers' being found at ground zero but not the two indestructible flight boxes; molten steel in the rubble; all the people who testified within hours of the events occurring (i.e. before the official narrative was sealed) that they heard an explosion in the basement BEFORE any plane struck; all the incriminating steel in the rubble being sent off for recycling in China BEFORE any criminal investigative analysis had been done, etc., etc., etc.
There are so many anomolies and curiosities that to accept ALL that AND the defiance of basic physics demonstrates the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome is in effect. Intelligent, qualified people look for an explanation that confirms what they want to believe because the alternative would cause huge cognitive dissonance. So they unconsciously apply confirmation bias.
I recommend a look at the 2 year University research of Dr. Leroy Hulsey into WTC7 collspse Now THERE is someone not applying confirmation bias.
And that is yet another anomaly: WTC7. The initial official report didn't even mention that building. Not a word. How can anyone seriously believe that the official, governmental investigation commission thought it was so insignificant that they just forgot it? :-/


I still think the Sao Paolo Brazil tower collapse comparison was pathetically inappropriate. I think that should be embarassing for someone who claims superior knowledge of physics. I am of the opinion that Rollo clearly over-estimated his abilities and seems unaware of his lack of engineering appreciation. I understand its now hard for him to climb down and admit his arrogant over-reach.

I think the facts are clear: that tower was in a weakened state; was due for demolition; was built around a core of reinforced concrete; had a non-steel perimeter; was in total conflagration ON ALL FLOORS prior to collapse; and then did not collapse symmetrically. How anyone can consider that comparable is beyond me.

Then the Plasco Tehran tower example. I've just this minute looked into it, briefly. Again it is not comparable in much apart from it WAS a similar steel structure AND it DID collapse due to fire. The reality missed by Rollo in his rush to save face is that that building was also in a weakened state due to neglect and lack of maintenance. I.e. there were other relevant issues for the collapse. So nice try but no cigar.
President Hassan Rouhani received the report on Wednesday, weeks after he issued an order mandating a committee, consisting of leading academics, to look into the event and draft a comprehensive report about the incident.

The report found that the owner of the building, Mostazafan Foundation, had been negligent in the face of warnings by authorities on the possibility of disaster, noting that enforcing regulations by the owner and the municipality had been possible in the Plasco building without affecting the businesses.
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/412459 ... g-released
Older readers at RODOH will perhaps be familiar with Rollos resistance to admitting error when confronted with it, from his stubborn behaviour with Fritz Berg. E.g. see here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2283&start=10#p66497
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:36 pm

Are you for real Been There or are you hoping that if you babble enough incoherent nonsense I'll just go away?
Been There wrote:Whatever.
These facts remain despite Rollo's inability to discuss fairly:
• THREE high-rise, steel-structured buildings in good condition DID collapse on that day.
• They DID collapse at near free-fall speed.
• They did collapse symmetrically into their own footprint.
The official explanation for this collapse is because of office fires in a fairly limited area relative to the entire structure.
Let's take these "facts" one by one:
• THREE high-rise, steel-structured buildings in good condition DID collapse on that day.
They were no longer in "good condition" after a nearly two hundred ton airplane travelling about 500 mph crashed into them tearing out a good percentage of supporting columns and causing raging fires that weakened the remaining steel to a point it could no longer support the structure above it. WTC 7 is a different story but I'll leave Been There to read up on the analysis of why that building collapsed.
• They DID collapse at near free-fall speed.
Although Been There doesn't believe it there is this thing called "Gravity". Everything that falls will do so at near free-fall speed depending on the resistance. No mystery there.
• They did collapse symmetrically into their own footprint.
Not quite. They didn't tip over like a block and one wouldn't expect it to. At least one who understands physics. The force vector acting on the building, gravity, is straight down to the ground. For any debris to fall outside the foot print it would have had to have been subjected to some lateral force. Believe it or not, with close scrutiny, one can see some pieces and remnants of the perimeter shell tipping over. There is no mystery in how in fell to the ground. Here's a video of the collapse of one of the towers. Maybe Been There can point out the BIG MYSTERY:


I still maintain that NOTHING comparable had ever happened like that to similar steel-structured buildings prior to 11.9.2001.
I still maintain that NOTHING comparable has ever happened like that to similar steel-structured buildings since 11.9.2001.
Maybe that's because no one has slammed a fully laden 200 ton aircraft flying at 500 mph into them before or since. There's your explanation Been There.
I still maintain that NO comparable collapse exists to those THREE BUILDINGS from office fires.
I just showed you two examples from "office fires" but you cover your ears and close your eyes so you won't see them and yell "blah, blah', blah... I can't hear what you're saying!!!".

Did you look at my other youtube clips on why the towers fell? Nooooooo! Of course not.
Been There wrote:Older readers at RODOH will perhaps be familiar with Rollos resistance to admitting error when confronted with it, from his stubborn behaviour with Fritz Berg. E.g. see here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2283&start=10#p66497
A cute deflecting tactic but it's non-sequitur and I didn't admit any error. There was none on my part. It just shows how desperate you are to extricate yourself from this bungle you've gotten yourself into.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7272
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:15 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:36 pm
Been There wrote:Whatever.
These facts remain despite Rollo's inability to discuss fairly:
• THREE high-rise, steel-structured buildings in good condition DID collapse on that day.
• They DID collapse at near free-fall speed.
• They did collapse symmetrically into their own footprint.
The official explanation for this collapse is because of office fires in a fairly limited area relative to the entire structure.
Let's take these "facts" one by one:
• THREE high-rise, steel-structured buildings in good condition DID collapse on that day.
They were no longer in "good condition" after a nearly two hundred ton airplane travelling about 500 mph crashed into them tearing out a good percentage of supporting columns and causing raging fires that weakened the remaining steel to a point it could no longer support the structure above it.
ALL THE FLOORS BELOW IMPACT were in good condition. So that's about 80 and 98 floors in good condition that collapsed at near free fall speed and symmetrically. I still maintain that defies basic physics.

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:36 pm
WTC 7 is a different story but I'll leave Been There to read up on the analysis of why that building collapsed.
Are you familiar with Dr.Leroy Hulsey's two year University research? I think I provided a link.

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:36 pm
• They DID collapse at near free-fall speed.
Although Been There doesn't believe it there is this thing called "Gravity". Everything that falls will do so at near free-fall speed depending on the resistance. No mystery there.
Oh boy! :roll: :?
Now you argue that I don't believe in gravity. Wow! Your argument is getting increasingly desperate.

It would take 9.22 seconds for an object dropped from the top of each tower to reach the ground in a vacuum, i.e. without air resistance.
Yet NIST estimated the times for each towers collapse to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

In Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the official explantion has this:
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”
Myself and many others believe that the claim “or even to slow the falling mass” is nonsensical and defies basic physics. In my opinion, it is a Sheeple phenomena which explains why so many believe the 'official' report, i.e. it's because they have been emotionally manipulated into being unable to think about the topic critically and independently.

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:36 pm
been-there wrote:I still maintain that NO comparable collapse exists to those THREE BUILDINGS from office fires.
I just showed you two examples from "office fires" but you cover your ears and close your eyes so you won't see them and yell "blah, blah', blah... I can't hear what you're saying!!!".
:roll:
Holy moly!!?
I went into your examples in detail with references concerning them.
So I just showed how in my opinion they are NOT comparable.

How can you honestly argue that I close my eyes so won't see them?

You aren't really paying attention, are you?
You have your belief and are sticking with it, whatever evidence or argument is provided, isn't that it?

For anyone else reading who is genuinely interested in understanding the physical impossibility of the collapses from gravity in the way we saw and at the speed we saw, here is a link to an explanation refuting the 'pancake collapse' theory:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/ ... Balls.html

Her calculations estimate a Pancake collapse starting at the 110th floor would take 96.7 seconds while it would take 87.9 seconds from the 100th floor.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:25 am

Before I say anything else you need to watch and digest what I'm about to show you. Of course, you may not want to believe your lying eyes and believe what the "truthers" are telling you. Watch it and later I'll continue to show you how ignorant you really are with the basic physical principles regarding the collapse of the buildings. I have a few things to do today. The "format" should be more to your liking:


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7272
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:09 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:25 am
Before I say anything else you need to watch and digest what I'm about to show you. Of course, you may not want to believe your lying eyes and believe what the "truthers" are telling you. Watch it and later I'll continue to show you how ignorant you really are with the basic physical principles regarding the collapse of the buildings. I have a few things to do today. The "format" should be more to your liking:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Oh boy! But Rollo! That's another strawman argument.

I have never argued that the two towers fell AT free-fall speed. God's teeth, you are behaving like a really stupid true-believer who is clinging to a belief-system increasingly desperately. First with arguing that I don't believe in gravity and now this.
Think logically. Refrain from avoiding doing that with such ridiculous arguments that posit things that aren't in contention.

I only watched the first 26 secs and it just kept repeating the same nonsensical strawman argument. OF COURSE the towers didn't fall at exactly free-fall speed. I myself already told you what that would be. It would be 9.22 seconds without any air-resistance.
I then gave you the NIST estimate of each towers collapse.
Holy moly. Didn't you read that? Or is it the arithmetic that is problematical for you?

And then I'm not believing what ANYONE is telling me. I thought it through for myself. It clearly makes no sense.

So instead of projecting your own approach upon others, I suggest that you look at what you yourself are doing.

Just like with that other mass-delusion, known as 'THE Holocaust', consider that this is also, for the unthinking majority, not about the empirical reality, nor the physics, but its about human psychology and the nature of irrational 'belief' as a group. Herd mentality. It about herd mentality trusting 'authority'. Think about that.

I just demonstrated that your examples weren't comparable.
Now I'm suggesting that you bought into those non-comparable examples in order to irrationally buttress a belief.
So now I ask you to consider this; I suggest to you that you are fixating on stubborn, strawman quibling about gravity to avoid the reality that your own governmental officials and organisations had and still have been hijacked by people who do not have yourself or your nation's well-being as their motivation. I suggest that you have believed a bull-shit story and are now motivated by egocenticity and cognitive dissonance into irrationally defending it.

Look at not just the individual anomalies and inconsistencies but also consider ALL the events of 911 taken together. The twin towers, WTC7, all the Pentagon wierd shit, everything.

C'mon, do you seriously think the fact that they confiscated all the film of private cameras and from that and all their own cameras they only released five frames of security camera film of a strike on the most heavily guarded building on the planet makes any kind of sense? Why haven't they released all the film from the multiple angles?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by Scott » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:56 pm

Just because the Junior Bush Administration and the Neocons capitalized on the Jihadi attacks (which themselves got lucky) and easily in implemented their alien Interventionism and Global mischief, that does not necessarily mean that they caused those attacks. I just don't understand Truther logic here.

It is clear that we need to control our borders, but that is the last thing that we will be allowed to do. The Deep State is already running things and they will resist any change in these circumstances.

:)

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest