Home | Community | Message Board


Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5380253 - 03/09/06 04:47 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

> Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

You do real good until the above statement, at which point your argument falls apart. The key word in here is "seemed". In other words, "it is a guess" and a guess can be correct or incorrect. A guess is unknown. To turn a guess into a fact is a huge ethical error in science.

Ignore all the WTC stuff, and all the conspiracy stuff, and work with me through a simple thought experiment...

Think about putting a nail into a block of wood with a hammer. You set the nail against the wood, and then smack it with the hammer from a distance. You do not set the nail against the wood, the hammer against the nail, and then push the nail in with the hammer.

Why does the first method work well, and the second method does not? With the first method, I can pound a nail into a block of wood in almost no time at all with one good solid swing up the hammer. With the second method, I can push on the hammer all day and the nail still doesn't budge.

Now lets go back and think about the WTC towers falling... but think of the top floors as the head of the hammer and the bottom floors as the nail. Once the top floors started to move, the bottom floors didn't stand a chance, the same way the nail didn't stand a chance against the swung hammer. If the building had been solid, then the second anallogy would apply... a hammer pushing on a nail... but the towers were mostly open space and glass held up by a bit of steel and concrete, just like the air between the hammer and the nail in the first analogy.

> it's just that I highly doubt the energy came from the falling towers.

The potential energy that was in the towers before they fell had to go somewhere... each tower had a mass of around 5x10^8 kg with a height of about 411 m, resulting in the potential energy around 10^12 J for each tower. The majority of this energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below the tower as the tower fell. The same energy could power almost five million 60-watt light bulbs for one hour. That is a lot of work taken over the handfull of seconds that it took the tower to drop.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 5 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5380339 - 03/09/06 06:40 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Yes analogies... what do they prove when you get them wrong?

I understand what you mean with your hammer and nail, but get it correct then. Let's assume the pancake theory is right. If the 47 central steel beams of the tower failed at the same moment at the level where the plane came in (how likely is that?), then the upper part of the tower came down one floor, which then failed, falling on the next, which failed as well, etc. There are a few problems here:

1. In your analogy, this means lifting the hammer about an inch and then hitting. There was no huge momentum like if you hit the hammer full force from as far as you can. There was the force of the weight, of course (but the lower part of the building had withstood that for decades and was designed to hold up more), but there was little momentum. Wrong analogy.

2. Lacking the momentum, the successive failure of the dozens of floors would definitely and significantly slow down the process. We have near freefall speed here.

3. Where has the upper part of the building gone? If the part above the plane impact remained strong enough to make all the floors fail until ground level, how do you explain it collapsed onto itself once it hit ground level? Surely if it had not remained intact, we should have extremely large debris here. Yet everything was smashed to small pieces.
Also, the contrary force of the successive floor failures should have broken the fall of the upper parts of each tower, decreasing its momentum until it would simply stop falling and remain there on a huge pile of pancaked floors. Instead of that, there were just huge clouds and piles of dust, but no large remaining chunks. Have you ever seen a building that pancaked, from an earthquake, for instance? You can still count the floors pressed against each other. It's like some  giant stepped on them and flattened them, but they don't just crumble to dust. You can still see the layers.
Another one about upper parts: on the South Tower collapse, you can see the upper part starting to topple over, which means initially it had a sideways support point which formed the axis of the toppling (sorry about the sloppy explanation, I don't know how to word this in English, but I guess you see my point). If the failure was initially asymmetric, how did it suddenly, in the course of the fall, become symmetric so that you see the tilting movement stop, the upper part that initially tilted fall straight down for a short while, before disappearing altogether. Isn't this kinda strage, considering the laws of physics? (I know, they've been abused quite a lot...)

4. How does the central core fit into the pancaking, and how come it failed down to ground level? That just doesn't make sense. David Ray Griffin has a nice analogy (again :grin:) for this in "9/11 revisited" (it's just past half the movie, if you watch it you'll see tell-tale graphic animations and pics):
Quote:

The other problem is: what happened to the 47 massive steel columns, that constituted the core of each of these twin towers? They were the weight-bearing structures of each tower. Even if the pancake theory were true, those 47 steel beams should have been sticking out at least several hundred feet into the air, just like the old phonograph, where sometimes the 78 records would collapse, with the spindle still sticking up in the air. It should have 47 spindles still sticking up in the air.


Ever thought about that? I had, and I was glad to find someone had explained it so clearly. Can you imagine the strength of the central core of the towers near ground level? And explain how this core just vanished down to about ground level?

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
You do real good until the above statement, at which point your argument falls apart. The key word in here is "seemed". In other words, "it is a guess" and a guess can be correct or incorrect. A guess is unknown. To turn a guess into a fact is a huge ethical error in science.


Yeah, that's it, pick on the words. I didn't write that, it was a quote. IMHO, the word "seemed" is a tongue in cheek understatement. I'm pretty sure the author would have written "is definitely" if his irony mode had been off. If this is the worst weakness in my argument, I consider I've won.  :rolleyes:

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
The majority of this energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below the tower as the tower fell.


It's strange that you would put heat in the first place. I think most would have been absorbed by material rupture, and then some heat. But even if the majority was heat, that doesn't account for the concentration of that heat on small parts of the metal. How can you get more than 2000? in some very specific places (not all the steel melted, far from), and about normal temps elsewhere? Why would the whole energy transfer from a falling building concentrate on relatively minute spots? And if a normal fire burns at about 600?C, how do you get more than 2000?C from a collapsing building? Why do you never get those temperatures in buildings that collapse from earthquakes?
In a word, stop spawning theories out of your ass until you can slightly substantiate them with at least a hint of factual info.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5380368 - 03/09/06 07:13 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


How can you get more than 2000? in some very specific places




Possibly with thermite (Fe2O3 + Al).

Watch this movie showing molten metal pouring out of the South Tower just before it collapsed, and remember that jet fuel and office inventory can not produce a hot enough fire to cause this.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm



--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Una]
    #5380595 - 03/09/06 09:37 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

> Possibly with thermite

I wouldn't argue against thermite... unlike explosives, thermite is a real possibility.

> Yeah, that's it, pick on the words.

It isn't the words... it is the meaning of the words. The points made were nice and scientific until a GUESS was inserted... and treated as if the guess were a scientific fact. Misleading, and unethical. It isn't the words I am picking on, but the misleading slight going from fact to guess.

> In a word, stop spawning theories out of your ass until you can slightly substantiate them with at least a hint of factual info.

Be very careful. Debate the topic, not the poster. The statement about where the energy went came from a report released by Eduardo Kausel, a Civil and Environmental Engineering professor at MIT.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 5 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5380890 - 03/09/06 11:13 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Well, I'd love some further reference to said report. It definitely looks interesting.

No comments about my other points? You just agree then...?
And if you deem thermite "a real possibility", who do you think would have placed it there?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5381994 - 03/09/06 04:21 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Hah! Evidence! The one thing only the government could have gathered from the crime scene. That is so cheap. Of course we'll never get material evidence, it was all disposed of by the 'investigators'.
When a death looks just slightly suspicious, the standard procedure is to start a criminal investigation, which involves leaving the crime scene intact until everything is examined. That is also why criminals always try to wipe out as much evidence as possible. In this case, it seems the government was both criminal and investigator, so it could wipe out the evidence in plain sight. Is there another explanation for the disposal of almost everything found at the crime scene? The burden of proof and explanation is on the official side here, precisely because they're the ones who got rid of all the evidence.




Well at least you got your tin foil hat prepared. Why would the events look suspicious to the government? What evidence did they get rid of. It is their assertion there was a valid explanation and that the debris was just scrap to be sold. They can't throw away evidence which doesnt exist. Can you honestly say the day it happened when you went to sleep you were thinking, "the american government was behind this, an official investigation must be launched!"?

Quote:

Don't waste your energy, FEMA tried it that way and had to admit it was extremely improbable. Given half a chance, they would have promoted this one as the only possible explanation. If they themselves admit it's unlikely, you can bet it's totally impossible.




Reference FEMA saying the time line of events they proposed were extremely improbable. I think you were fooled into thinking what someone else added into the report was originally there.

Quote:

I don't think you realize what's required to obtain temperatures of over 1500?C or 2000?C. The energy transfer of the falling building is way too diffuse to achieve anything near it. Really, find something else, this looks way too contrived (and you're the one talking about a "hunch" :grin:). Do a search to find instances where collapsing buildings produced molten metal, and do the same one for explosives. That should be instructive.




The molten slag is a red herring. Cite a controlled demolition that results in large pools of molten slag. You won't be able to find any. If thermite were used there would be very large deposits of Al2O3 and Fe which were not found. And you think its too diffuse, that doesn't make it so. And yes i admit this is my guess but it seems rational and fits with what occurred, unlike your fantasies.


Quote:

See, you don't even have to take my word for it...




Umm one of the guys you quoted even said you could see concrete.... Are you seriously trying to tell me there were no chunks of concrete anywhere. I don't doubt there was not much though.

Quote:

You're right about that one. I should've written: "near freefall speed". But then, freefall speed is calculated in vacuum conditions, and according to my sources, there was atmospheric resistance in New York on 9/11. So this could explain why it was only near freefall speed.




What atmospheric resistance existed to cause a discrepancy in time like this? You think it could not have fallen that fast, because it seems like it shouldn't. I think it could have fallen that fast due to the mass involved and structural integrity of the joist brackets used.

Quote:

From www.physics911.net:
About WTC7:
Quote:

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.



About the Twin Towers:
Quote:

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.


Again, don't take my word for it, you can easily compute those calculations for yourself. And please do so before calling me an ignorant liar.




If you want to get technical, wtc7 took about a minute to collapse. Maybe you should actually read FEMA's wtc7 report. Neither of us are qualified to judge for ourselves if they could have fallen that fast. The idea that they must have been demos because they looked like one and fell rather fast is laughable. And it seems impossible? Why, is it because of your unfounded presumptions on the collapse of buildings? I said either ignorant or a liar. According to you, you were just wrong. I forgive you.

Quote:

Of course it was a transfer of energy, it's just that I highly doubt the energy came from the falling towers. There must have been some huge additional source. See above for my take on this issue.




All you can do is doubt it for no substantiated reason. There is no way explosives or thermite cause them.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5382204 - 03/09/06 05:15 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Yes analogies... what do they prove when you get them wrong?

I understand what you mean with your hammer and nail, but get it correct then. Let's assume the pancake theory is right. If the 47 central steel beams of the tower failed at the same moment at the level where the plane came in (how likely is that?), then the upper part of the tower came down one floor, which then failed, falling on the next, which failed as well, etc. There are a few problems here:

1. In your analogy, this means lifting the hammer about an inch and then hitting. There was no huge momentum like if you hit the hammer full force from as far as you can. There was the force of the weight, of course (but the lower part of the building had withstood that for decades and was designed to hold up more), but there was little momentum. Wrong analogy.

2. Lacking the momentum, the successive failure of the dozens of floors would definitely and significantly slow down the process. We have near freefall speed here.

3. Where has the upper part of the building gone? If the part above the plane impact remained strong enough to make all the floors fail until ground level, how do you explain it collapsed onto itself once it hit ground level? Surely if it had not remained intact, we should have extremely large debris here. Yet everything was smashed to small pieces.
Also, the contrary force of the successive floor failures should have broken the fall of the upper parts of each tower, decreasing its momentum until it would simply stop falling and remain there on a huge pile of pancaked floors. Instead of that, there were just huge clouds and piles of dust, but no large remaining chunks. Have you ever seen a building that pancaked, from an earthquake, for instance? You can still count the floors pressed against each other. It's like some  giant stepped on them and flattened them, but they don't just crumble to dust. You can still see the layers.
Another one about upper parts: on the South Tower collapse, you can see the upper part starting to topple over, which means initially it had a sideways support point which formed the axis of the toppling (sorry about the sloppy explanation, I don't know how to word this in English, but I guess you see my point). If the failure was initially asymmetric, how did it suddenly, in the course of the fall, become symmetric so that you see the tilting movement stop, the upper part that initially tilted fall straight down for a short while, before disappearing altogether. Isn't this kinda strage, considering the laws of physics? (I know, they've been abused quite a lot...)

4. How does the central core fit into the pancaking, and how come it failed down to ground level? That just doesn't make sense. David Ray Griffin has a nice analogy (again :grin:) for this in "9/11 revisited" (it's just past half the movie, if you watch it you'll see tell-tale graphic animations and pics):
Quote:

The other problem is: what happened to the 47 massive steel columns, that constituted the core of each of these twin towers? They were the weight-bearing structures of each tower. Even if the pancake theory were true, those 47 steel beams should have been sticking out at least several hundred feet into the air, just like the old phonograph, where sometimes the 78 records would collapse, with the spindle still sticking up in the air. It should have 47 spindles still sticking up in the air.


Ever thought about that? I had, and I was glad to find someone had explained it so clearly. Can you imagine the strength of the central core of the towers near ground level? And explain how this core just vanished down to about ground level?

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
You do real good until the above statement, at which point your argument falls apart. The key word in here is "seemed". In other words, "it is a guess" and a guess can be correct or incorrect. A guess is unknown. To turn a guess into a fact is a huge ethical error in science.


Yeah, that's it, pick on the words. I didn't write that, it was a quote. IMHO, the word "seemed" is a tongue in cheek understatement. I'm pretty sure the author would have written "is definitely" if his irony mode had been off. If this is the worst weakness in my argument, I consider I've won.  :rolleyes:

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
The majority of this energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below the tower as the tower fell.


It's strange that you would put heat in the first place. I think most would have been absorbed by material rupture, and then some heat. But even if the majority was heat, that doesn't account for the concentration of that heat on small parts of the metal. How can you get more than 2000? in some very specific places (not all the steel melted, far from), and about normal temps elsewhere? Why would the whole energy transfer from a falling building concentrate on relatively minute spots? And if a normal fire burns at about 600?C, how do you get more than 2000?C from a collapsing building? Why do you never get those temperatures in buildings that collapse from earthquakes?
In a word, stop spawning theories out of your ass until you can slightly substantiate them with at least a hint of factual info.




analogies are stupid

1. Yea it was a bad analogy but you're idea of the situation is not correct. When the first floor collapsed 45,000+ tons fell 10 feet onto the lower floor. Only the weak part which were the joist brackets(rated to withstand 1,300 tons more than their weight) had to fail, causing that floor to fall.

2. The resistance would not have been significant IMO.

3. Basically dropping 45,000 tons worth of floors from 1360 feet is significant. It does not surprise me that not much was left. If it was a controlled demo, why these floors be gone anyway?
      They should have broken the fall of the upper parts of each tower, decreasing its momentum until it would simply stop falling and remain there on a huge pile of pancaked floors? No they should not have. You seem to have difficultly grasping that the towers were not designed like the average concrete or concrete/steel building. There existed a weak point, joist brackets, and this allowed for such a fast collapse that was relatively unimpeded. You compassion of the collapse to that of a concrete building in an earthquake is retarded. Let me say that one more time, retarded.
      The south tower collapsed due to weakened and completely destroyed columns of support. Due to the location of the plane crash, the east side was more damaged and it collapsed in  this direction. When this fell 10 feet onto lower floor, the brackets failed on that floor all at once and that entire floor came down onto the next floor and so on. The central core columns which would have bent but not snapped would have prevented these upper floors from falling any further to the east and outside of the buildings footprint once the collapse of the whole building began. This only proves that the planes caused the initial collapse beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is it now your insinuation that once they saw this initial collapse someone pressed a button to cause a controlled demo? Why would they do this?

no laws of physics were broken

4. Not surprising this doesn't make sense to you. That analogy is horrible. You debase seuss's analogy and then cite this crap, come on now. When the building began to collapse the core was still connected to the rest of the building by the top floors even though it was separating from the now collapsing floors at the joist brackets. As this massive amount of weight came down it twisted and bent the core taking it down with it. They were never designed or expected to withstand these kind of collapsing forces. Why you think they could have, i have no fucking idea. This transfer of energy that twisted and manipulated the columns brought down the core resulting in large pools of molten slag IMO.

Seuss was wrong actually, you were never doing real good. Your whole argument is based on things looking like other things and your ignorant common sense/presumptions about the collapse of the towers and buildings in general.

IMO the transfer of energy between the building collapsing and the core and other supporting columns was the cause of pools of molten slag. Depending on how each column was twisted and manipulated in the collapse some would have absorbed more energy than others resulting in difference. No one is saying the fire melted steel. The amount of energy involved in the collapse was astronomical, get that through your head. Has the wtc towers ever collapsed before? Stop making idiotic comparisons. And again how do you explain the creation of large pools of molten steel with CTs?

And yea, your posts are just filled to the brim with factual info. You sure are a hypocrite.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5382516 - 03/09/06 06:31 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Well at least you got your tin foil hat prepared. Why would the events look suspicious to the government? What evidence did they get rid of. It is their assertion there was a valid explanation and that the debris was just scrap to be sold. They can't throw away evidence which doesnt exist.




WTC 7 was the first steel skyscraper to ever collapse from a fire. I think engineers would like to know why so they could prevent it from happening. The magazine Fire Engineering sent a letter to the goverment demanding that they stop destroying the evidence so they could determin what went wrong.

Anyway I decided that there is alot of unexplaned stuff about 9/11 but that dosn't mean the goverment did it. The only thing I have setteld on is that the Goverment is using too much secrecy in concealing many things about the 9/11 attacks. Like videos of the pentagon being hit, black boxes, and flight manifests.


Edited by Turn (03/09/06 06:33 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5382627 - 03/09/06 07:07 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I think you are underestimating the damage done to wtc7. I think it was a combination of fire damage that got worse due to the tanks of diesel and quite a bit of structural damage. Here are the only two photos i could find showing the damage and they are not that great. I've heard reports of firefighters detailing that quite a bit was scooped out at the bottom and there was a gash on the face of the south side.

click on them for bigger pics





These are some clear pictures created by NIST.













--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 5 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5385512 - 03/10/06 01:03 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

[Edit: I cut my post in two parts, and it seems to work]

Quote:

d33p said:
Well at least you got your tin foil hat prepared. Why would the events look suspicious to the government? What evidence did they get rid of. It is their assertion there was a valid explanation and that the debris was just scrap to be sold.


Don't pretend you don't understand what I meant. When I say "looks suspicious" (about a single death case), I mean of course "looks like it could be a crime, and not natural death". From the moment you have a (suspected) crime, standard mandatory procedure is to start a criminal investigation, in which everything found at the crime scene is considered evidence. Whoever engineered 9/11, it was obviously a vicious crime and not an accident, so a criminal investigation should have been started and not a single crime scene exhibit should have been disposed of without close examination. What the government did to the crime scene was a criminal offense in itself.
And yes, even when a crime looks very obvious and everybody saw who did it, a criminal investigation is required.

Quote:

Reference FEMA saying the time line of events they proposed were extremely improbable. I think you were fooled into thinking what someone else added into the report was originally there.


The following is from the FEMA report about WTC7. Again, don't pretend you've never read this, it's been quoted all over. It has nothing to do with a timeline, but with FEMA's theory of what caused the collapse of WTC7. They propose, as you do, fires, debris and fuel tanks, but admit themselves this theory doesn't seem acceptable. They just propose the only thing they can think of, but undermine it themselves by expressing major doubt. In a word, they admit they haven't got a clue.
Quote:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.




Quote:

If thermite were used there would be very large deposits of Al2O3 and Fe which were not found.


Correction: "which were not looked for".

Quote:

Umm one of the guys you quoted even said you could see concrete....


Wow, you're really grasping at straws here. The main thing they were conveying was: the concrete has mostly been pulverized. If you dispute that, you're really far gone.

Quote:

When the first floor collapsed 45,000+ tons fell 10 feet onto the lower floor. Only the weak part which were the joist brackets(rated to withstand 1,300 tons more than their weight) had to fail, causing that floor to fall.


So you're saying the strong part, i.e. the 47 central support columns, did NOT have to fail. But if it didn't, why was it pulverized?


Edited by Aldous (03/11/06 03:25 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 5 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5389528 - 03/11/06 03:27 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

2. The resistance would not have been significant IMO.
3. Basically dropping 45,000 tons worth of floors from 1360 feet is significant. It does not surprise me that not much was left.


That's just your opinion then. The (lower part of the) building was very strong, since it had sustained the upper part for years. You don't seem to understand that the very weight of the building, which you take as an argument for the forces of destruction, was also what guaranteed its solidity. Imagine the huge forces throughout the building that kept it together for years. Imagine the incredible forces it takes to tear it as completely apart as it was on that day. Its mere weight doesn't account for that. It can account for a failure here or there, that could even make the building topple or maybe collapse, but not pulverize it like it was, and not in a matter of seconds.
And it?s not like if you dropped 45,000 tons from 1360 feet with nothing in between. That?s a blatant misrepresentation.

Quote:

There existed a weak point, joist brackets, and this allowed for such a fast collapse that was relatively unimpeded.


That weak point, provided it was real, was purely internal. The joist brackets supposedly broke loose from the outer steel structure and from the inner steel columns. This does not account for the breaking of the steel in small pieces (not supposed to happen) on the outside, and for the vanishing of the inner steel columns. The phonograph analogy is still valid here.

Quote:

You compassion [sic] of the collapse to that of a concrete building in an earthquake is retarded. Let me say that one more time, retarded.


I admit to something of a stretch because of the steel, but it was meant to show that a mere collapse doesn't vaporize concrete. But with the steel taken into account, you're right, because a building could not pancake. Steel doesn't just break, and if it bends under extreme temperatures, the process is progressive, not instant. It's the pancake theory that is retarded.

Quote:

The central core columns which would have bent but not snapped would have prevented these upper floors from falling any further to the east and outside of the buildings footprint once the collapse of the whole building began. [...] As this massive amount of weight came down it twisted and bent the core taking it down with it.


If the core didn't snap, where is it? Where are the huge pieces?

Quote:

Has the wtc towers ever collapsed before?


Actually, no single high rise building had ever unintentionnally entirely collapsed in this fashion before. The fact that 3 of them did that day is only one of the elements that makes the case suspicious.

Quote:

I think you are underestimating the damage done to wtc7. I think it was a combination of fire damage that got worse due to the tanks of diesel and quite a bit of structural damage. Here are the only two photos i could find showing the damage and they are not that great. I've heard reports of firefighters detailing that quite a bit was scooped out at the bottom and there was a gash on the face of the south side.


Neither these explanations or the pictures account for an instant and perfectly symmetrical collapse.
Make up your mind now: did the building fail because "quite a bit was scooped out at the bottom and there was a gash on the face of the south side", and maybe the damage to the southwest corner, or because of internal failure like FEMA says? In the first case, the failure could never have been symmetrical. The second case could be accounted for only by fire (no debris fallen from the outside could have caused internal failure), and that would be a first in history. Neither case accounts for instant, symmetrical collapse.

Quote:

Depending on how each column was twisted and manipulated in the collapse some would have absorbed more energy than others resulting in difference.


What you are saying here is that you think you could melt metal by applying stress to it in the right way. Hm. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Your whole argument is based on [...] your ignorant common sense/presumptions about the collapse of the towers and buildings in general.


Yet another compliment that goes back untouched to it sender.

A few scattered quotes:
Quote:

And yes i admit this is my guess but it seems rational and fits with what occurred, unlike your fantasies.
You think it could not have fallen that fast, because it seems like it shouldn't. I think it could have fallen that fast due to the mass involved and structural integrity of the joist brackets used.
The idea that they must have been demos because they looked like one and fell rather fast is laughable.
The resistance would not have been significant IMO.
Let me say that one more time, retarded.


Hm, I miss real solid arguments throughout. It's mostly: "you think this, you're retarded, I think that, I'm right." Loads of opinions, lack of debatable factual stuff (I know, you'll say the same about me).
I also miss a general impression of good faith on your part, and I fully admit that is 100% subjective opinion. But I'm asking no-one to share it.

I guess I'll leave it at that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Negro Project!!! Ellis Dee 775 5 04/08/02 11:38 PM
by
* Passenger List from 9/11...notice anything weird?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RonoS 8,281 101 08/26/02 04:39 AM
by Rono
* The Middle East. MOoKie 2,555 8 05/22/01 04:02 PM
by Innvertigo
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
dee_N_ae 11,467 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,693 63 11/01/02 08:19 AM
by Innvertigo
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 5,016 40 03/03/02 09:53 PM
by sparafucile

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,127 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.087 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 16 queries.