One rule for Blair.....

That is the theory as to why the titanic went down , a coal fire had weakend the steel of one of the flood proof compartment bulk heads

which caused it to buckle & eventually burst open
As usual arse end, you have watched a video and your sponge-like brain has soaked up whatever was said.
The new evidence was based on 13 photographs at launch:
The album contains 13 photographs from Titanic's launch on May 31, 1911 when her prow kissed sea water for the first time.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/a...ning-unseen-photographs-of-ship-30665076.html
The 'mark' on the hull was photographed at launch in May 1911. Then another fire was attributed to the same 'mark' on the hull during the voyage form Belfast to Southampton, in April 1912, nearly a year later, following completion and sea trials!

Anyone who has done any steel plating will be well aware of steel plates to deform and buckle when welded/riveted in such a massive configuration like that. The 'mark could easily be one such deformation of the plating.

Additionally, the documentary suggested that the fire(s) weakened the external plating so as to allow the iceberg to damage the external plating.
Which just means that the reason for the sinking was exactly the same, i.e. water overflowing the supposed water tight bulkheads.

Also:
It is believed that the fire was extinguished during the evening watch (4-8 P.M.) on Saturday, April 13, by a combination of wetting down the coal pile with a fire hose and ultimately removing the burning coal into the furnaces.During the period the fire burned, steel in the lower corner of the transverse watertight bulkhead between Boiler Room Nos. 5 and 6 ultimately became cherry red[4]. ...
http://titanic-model.com/db/db-03/CoalBunkerFire.htm

As the Titanic departed on 10th April, the fire was out 24 hours prior to hitting the iceberg on 14th April, So the fire was only evident for 2 or 3 days, and the steel became only cherry red.
On April 14, 1912, however, the Titanic sideswiped a massive iceberg and sank in less than three hours. Damaging nearly 300 feet of the ship's hull, the collision allowed water to flood six of her sixteen major watertight compartments
http://writing.engr.psu.edu/uer/bassett.html

I would suggest a perusal of https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/flooding-of-boiler-room-no-4.10026/
before making an arse end of yourself.
You should pay more attention to listening, watching and questioning your favorite programmes, especially Woman's Hour! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Then you would not waste so much time spreading your fake news, which you appear to be very fond of.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Has the "ignored member" "him again want to be" aka "joe 90" (?) made a comment ?? :LOL: if it was about any thing I said I cannot respond as u are on ignore :LOL: that means I cannot see your posts.:p

Incidentally hope the wifes back is getting better ;) try to help her out by carrying some of the shopping :)

also cheap sun glasses are on ebay ;) :idea:

:LOL::LOL:
 
Just a thought ? would it not help her back if she could sit in the front seat of the car :idea: or not have to catch the bus :idea:

may be a washing machine would also help :idea: struggling down to the laundrette with a load must take its toll :idea:

also try mowing the lawn your self :idea: and putting your own slippers & shoes on :idea:

:LOL::LOL:
 
Has the "ignored member" "him again want to be" aka "joe 90" (?) made a comment ?? :LOL: if it was about any thing I said I cannot respond as u are on ignore :LOL: that means I cannot see your posts.:p

Incidentally hope the wifes back is getting better ;) try to help her out by carrying some of the shopping :)

also cheap sun glasses are on ebay ;) :idea:

:LOL::LOL:
Has the idiot 'arse end' aka 'gasbanni' claimed to be ignoring me again? :giggle::LOL:
For someone who is supposed to be (and stated several times) that you have me on ignore, you are responding well to my comments.
Are you sure you are not also gasbanni?
C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif

You sure are acting like him. :p
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:


Arse end's comments are as reliable as a chocolate teapot!
Asre end repetitively claims to be ignoring me, yet he posts on a thread that I have started:
View attachment 117789
For future reference, arse end, you cannot see threads started by those you have on ignore! As you have only been around for here for 8 years, I thought you might have sussed that out by now. :eek:
I am not ignoring you, but I do find your comments witless and pointless.
:eek::D
 
Sponsored Links
Just a thought ? would it not help her back if she could sit in the front seat of the car :idea: or not have to catch the bus :idea:

may be a washing machine would also help :idea: struggling down to the laundrette with a load must take its toll :idea:

also try mowing the lawn your self :idea:
Does it hurt that much when I expose your fantasies, that you feel the need to create more fantasies? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:;)
and putting your own slippers & shoes on :idea:
Yours would be far too small for me. :LOL::LOL: They are probably full of bullshit anyway, especially when you are wearing them.:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
You could surprise your wife by getting her a washing machine :idea:

have u tried Curry's I hear there are some good deals there at the moment :idea:

Or Argos may be :idea:

best not get a Korean made machine ?? as u might find it difficult to get spares for it

;);):)
 
Last edited:
Him again
This is the UK not saudi arabia therefore woman (your wife) are allowed to open and have there own bank accounts ;)
:idea:

;)
 
Him again
This is the UK not saudi arabia (Saudi Arabia) therefore woman (women) are allowed to open and have there (their) own bank accounts ;)
:idea:

;)
Arse end, it is sufficient to highlight your obvious poor intellect and low educational ability in response to your infantile comments. :)
 
No don't misrepresent what I said

If you reread my post carefully, you'll see I didn't misrepresent what you said, I was actually confirming your rebutal of the official line. I don't agree with it any more than you do.
 
I said there were witnessess seeing explosions over the lower floors of the buildings shortly before collapse.
And they would be who exactly? We still await the evidence of these eye witnesses. Yes people reported hearing explosions, but this is nothing new. It does not mean there was a bomb, and it would make no sense to have bombs in the buildings.
Glass facade blown out.
What else is going to happen during the collapse? As it was collapsing, the air in the lower floors was being forced into a smaller space, and so it is unsurprising that windows blew out during collapse. This is not evidence of any explosive devices.

The cascade effect was caused when the structural columns were blown out, hence the uniform freefall.
No structural columns were blown out. This would have been highly visible just before collapse (as most controlled demolition shows which takes weeks of prep). But with the twin towers, there was just fire, then collapse. This is not surprising, given they showed structural deformation prior to collapse (evidenced in photos, and by witnesses such as the helicopter pilot on the scene). And the energy release during collapse was what you expect from the structure collapsing. Nothing could have stopped it.

And it wasn't freefall. Feel free to look it up on the NIST report, or look at any picture of the collapse which shows debris fall ahead of the collapse zone. Unless you think that gravity varied around that area?
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
Or maybe look into the physics of dynamic loads.

Your posts suggest you don't understand how controlled demolition actually works. When a normal building is blown, many of the supports are cut, and the minimal amount of explosives are used. This is usually done near the bottom, and not near the top where a plane has just struck. When a building is actually blown, gravity does most of the work, so the explosives only remove a small number of supports. You sometimes get some explosives further up to direct the fall, but obviously there was no sign of this on 9/11.

There were many things that could have made explosive noises prior to collapse, all of which are far more plausible than bombs in a building that was doomed to fall anyway (see comment of structural deformation), such as jet fuel pouring down lift shafts and burning, lift gear falling from the impact or fire, electrical systems going bang..... : "As soon as we arrived, 84, a massive explosion goes off, and at this point we didn't know what it was. We thought it was a secondary explosion." Sounds like a bomb?

Well no, it was the second plane coming in:
"We didn't know that it was a second plane. In fact, I didn't know there was a second plane until much later in the evening."
http://www.npr.org/documents/2005/aug/fdnyrecords/delgado.pdf

They likely weakened the lower levels first helping to use the weight of the upper floors to level the buildings. Jet fuel? Christ don't make me laugh.
Who said jet fuel brought the towers down? It certainly wasn't NIST or any academic study. The jet fuel only burned for a limited time, which initiated the conventional fire. There was a slight lull in the intensity, which points to this, and the fire then really got going, which is what did for the steel work by expansion and weakening by heat.
 
Last edited:
Whatever matey. Structural steel encased in metre thick concrete does not fail uniformly, especially when 99% of it is cold (unaffected) by heat. Even without the concrete it's impossible. How did the jet fuel get to the 2-3rd floors to heat the steel to failure? How did it get to the 105th floor? How did it get to the 65th floor? Did it travel by elevator? Ahahaha. As already mentioned the temperatures required for structural failure are impossible to achieve given the scenario - even with the entire building swimming in the stuff it would be next to impossible to achieve uniform failure of every steel column. An impossibility. Total *******s. Idiot.

Impact stress from a plane ? 10th , 20th, 90th floor had this impact stress ? You've not opened a structural mechanics book in your life.

Just checked sources - the planes crashed into floors 93-99. Not enough force behind the crash to weaken one structural column alone. Not enough force. The plane disintegrated upon impact. The equivalent of a nissan micra hitting a freight train head on at high speed.
It was a steel structure. Steel structures can fail in a fire situation:
170119133847-12-tehran-iran-plasco-building-fire-0119-restricted-super-169.jpg

It does not need to be uniform (not least because there was already structural damage from the impact on 9/11) , and the floors where the fire occurred was more than adequate to initiate progressive collapse (having multiple floors above intact, helped of course).
 
Last edited:
Doesn't disprove anything wobs.

Yes I get myself into situations sometimes online where I trail blaze into a discussion without having every scientific fact. You can see that from my response. It doesn't make what you are saying credible or disprove any of the points I've made.


Skip to 8:45 & 9:10 & 9:50

GG7a.jpg
 
Last edited:
That guys been a firefighter for about ten years..what would he and all his workmates know? :LOL:
 
That guys been a firefighter for about ten years..

That anonymous guy on the internet claims to have been.....

It's interesting to hear his suggestion that thousands of gallons of fuel burn away in a few seconds.

That must make plane crashes very safe, and fires in crashed planes very insignificant.

So if you throw a bucket of petrol around your house and set fire to it, your house doesn't burn down.

Is that right?

Hard to imagine anyone worries about a bit of fuel catching fire, if it would just go out on its own in a few seconds.

 
So if you throw a bucket of petrol around your house and set fire to it, your house doesn't burn down.

Is that right?



May well burn out. Won't collapse uniformly onto its own exact footprint. My old mums house burnt out a few years ago. The wood went up but walls stayed put.
FWIW I can't see 911 being a conspiracy but I do consider all options when confronted with interesting views.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top