Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:07 PM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," Skilling told the Seattle Times. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, the designers did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists hit the Twin Towers with two larger Boing 767's.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he told the Seattle Times. "The building structure would still be there."
My bolding.
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/soun...rs-2162069.php
From that same article:

The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing”

Spilling did not anticipate that factor.

__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #202  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:39 PM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," Skilling told the Seattle Times. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, the designers did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists hit the Twin Towers with two larger Boing 767's.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he told the Seattle Times. "The building structure would still be there."
My bolding.
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/soun...rs-2162069.php
One of my pet peeves: people who don't read the article they excerpt. Here are some excerpts that should help you:

Quote:
W. Gene Corley, the director of the original investigation, commented, "The towers really did amazingly well. The terrorist aircraft didn't bring the towers down; it was the fire which followed...."

The fire weakened weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where the exterior steel columns pulled inward, according to Wikipedia. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling of the exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse.
So your very cite says fires caused the collapse. Furthermore, according to the book 102 Minutes [, written by two New York Times reporters,

.
Quote:
...the engineers and architects working for the Port Authority in the 1960s...did not know if the innovative floors proposed for the towers--thin, lightweight webs of steel built into trusses--would survive a fired...no one had experience in fireproofing those webbed trusses, known as "bar joists," with the techniques proposed and ultimately used in the trade center--a spray-on mixture of mineral fibers and adhesive. Both the architect and the structural engineer for the project refused to vouch for the ability of the floors to withstand fire. The Port Authority has no records of any tests to determine if the lightweight structure was adequately protected.
[Bolding mine.]

And I'm sure someone has mentioned this already, but the entire support for the towers came from exterior steel columns and a core consisting of shafts housing elevators, electrical conduits, and stairs. The 1968 building code also allowed less fireproofing than the earlier code. The stairwells were encompassed not by concrete but by drywall.

I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, but other Dopers are. They're explained to you why it's certain that no explosives were used to bring down the towers. Trust them.
  #203  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:14 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," Skilling told the Seattle Times. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, the designers did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists hit the Twin Towers with two larger Boing 767's.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he told the Seattle Times. "The building structure would still be there."
My bolding.
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/soun...rs-2162069.php
Both Towers were built to withstand impact by a 707, inbound from Europe, low on fuel, lost in fog, on approach to JFK. Not a 767, nearly full of fuel for a cross-country trip.
  #204  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:45 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
That statement by Skilling is from 27 February 1993, so clearly not in reference to 9/11.
  #205  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:58 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
From that same article:

The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing”

Spilling did not anticipate that factor.

How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off? Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent? 75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.

Why haven't there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn't happen again?
  #206  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:14 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
I've personally seen fireproofing flaking off steel beams simply due to age. What would you expect would happen to old fireproofing, already flaking off, when hit by a very large object travelling at nearly 600 mph?
  #207  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:22 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Neither Tower ever had asbestos where the planes hit:
Quote:
"It was being installed for probably the first third of the first tower, but since we were on the cusp of spray fireproofing with asbestos versus spray fireproofing without, because it was when asbestos started to become suspect, the Port Authority stopped its being installed and the rest of the building was installed without it," the source said.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-16-2019 at 11:23 PM.
  #208  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:32 PM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off? Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent? 75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.

Why haven't there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn't happen again?
The fireproofing wasn't "reinstalled." It was a spray mixture, as I said in my earlier post. The NY Port Authority sued the manufacturer, stating that the fireproofing mixture contained asbestos and wasn't adhering well. Originally, they used 1/2 inch spray-on coating. In 1995, six years before 9/11, the Port Authority switched to an asbestos-free fireproofing and sprayed on 1.5." There was no scientific basis for this. No tests were conducted.

Why do you need a video? Here. Read this:

"The insulation is going to turn out to be the root cause," said James G. Quintiere, a professor at University of Maryland's Fire Protection Engineering Department who analyzed the fireproofing in the two towers.

Neither tower, he found, had fireproofing thick enough to withstand the fire's blast furnace intensity for two hours, which is considered the minimum needed for those on the upper floors to escape the towers. "A two-hour fire resistance is right on the ragged edge," Quintiere said.

And the NIST determined all this by examining 236 pieces of the steel structure, as well as computer simulations, witness testimony, etc.
  #209  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:10 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off?
Observation of the WTC remains and testing. As one would expect.

Quote:
Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent?
If you had ever visited the WTC towers you would see the stuff was a spray-on mixture. It was actually kind of ugly.

Quote:
75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.
While not in video format for your convenience, the method for testing the fragility of the spray fireproofing is explained in the NIST report. Fun fact: a shotgun is involved!

Quote:
Why haven't there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn't happen again?
a) I'm pretty sure they have.
b) Even before NIST finished their report most architects & structural engineers knew what the inherent weakness of the WTC tower's design was and used different designs. Hence why the tallest building in Philadelphia, the Comcast tower has a hefty concrete core vs the WTC tower's steel core. The demand for concrete in this skyscraper actually meant there were local shortages of concrete for other projects.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #210  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:46 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
No, I don't think they would topple because they were especially well built. They were resilient. No one has made the accusation of shoddy work or faulty materials or flawed engineering. The weight of the buildings is a constant and its support system was handling the task of holding it up adequately.

The only additional forces the lower floors of the building endured were the weight of the plane and the impact of the upper floors collapsing onto the area damaged by the planes. That is a quantifiable amount of energy. Are you arguing that the collapse acted as a pile driver causing a complete symmetrical collapse?

While the force of the collapsing floors is great, it has to seen relative to the entire building and how that kinetic energy would distribute itself.

The WTC buildings were designed like giant square tube-shaped bundle of sticks with each floor being suspended from the outer load-bearing perimeter and the inner core by a series of pins and trusses. The floors also serve to bundle the outer perimeter together to provide strength. One thing that the WTC lacked was a lot of inner load-bearing columns.

IOW it seems pretty straightforward to me that once a couple of floors broke loose from the outer perimeter due to damage from the impact and fire weakening their supports, it would cause a cascading failure that acted very much like a pile driver. The 95th floor would land on the 94th, detaching it. Both floors would land on the 93rd. The debris from 4 floors landing on the 92nd, so on and so forth, accelerating as it goes.

Such a collapse would likely not happen in a conventional steel frame building because the columns are designed to take the load of the entire building above it.
  #211  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:33 PM
Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off? Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent? 75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.
Maybe you should try reading the NIST report before you come here asking a bunch of questions that have been long answered.

Here. The NIST report links were provided to you four days ago. I'll do so again.

If you can't be bothered to read the investigation of how the towers collapsed, why do you think your criticisms have any validity or that anyone should take you seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Why haven't there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn't happen again?
You want new building codes to cover fireproofing protection in the event of an airliner impact at speed?
  #212  
Old 09-17-2019, 06:35 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off? Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent? 75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.

Why haven't there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn't happen again?
As far as NIST goes, I think they used a combination of goat entrails and a Ouija board to arrive at their conclusions. There definitely was 5 feet or so of asbestos abatement on each and every load bearing beam in the place, and folks saying that it used a façade based perimeter loading structure are part of the conspiracy. You've masterfully seen through both!

As for new regulation, yeah, I agree! I mean, we have 2-3 fully loaded and large air craft flying at nearly top speed hitting buildings every year now, so we need to step it up on those new regulations to stop them all from burning (though, they never fall down, so that is pretty telling!). You have put your finger on a high probability event that definitely needs a ton of new regulations (instead of the ones we actually got which were lame, amIrightorwhat??) for 10 or even 20 feet of asbestos abatement for not only load bearing members but really for each item inside the building, including office furniture, PC's, mops and cleaning supplies and even baby cribs! Maybe 30 feet! And non-flammable bubble wrap for the occupants, though not sure how much. I need to check back on that after watching the Mythbusters again with their bubble wrap episode...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #213  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:56 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,446
LAZombie, you've been asked several times if you don't believe the that the pance and resulting fires brought down the buildings, what do you think did?

I'll ask again LAZombie, why do you think they collapsed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The only additional forces the lower floors of the building endured were the weight of the plane and the impact of the upper floors collapsing onto the area damaged by the planes. That is a quantifiable amount of energy. Are you arguing that the collapse acted as a pile driver causing a complete symmetrical collapse?

While the force of the collapsing floors is great, it has to seen relative to the entire building and how that kinetic energy would distribute itself.
I don't know why you can't grasp that tens of floors collapsing onto the rest of the building would create a catastrophic failure that the building wasn't designed to hold.

Say I wanted to hand you a bundle of shingles that weigh about 80 pounds. That would be heavy by not an issue. Say I was on the roof (about one story) and I wanted to toss the 80 pound bundle down to you, would you still offer to catch it? I be you wouldn't. Same thing with tens of floors collapsing onto one floor. That acceleration increases the force of the floors crashing onto the rest of the buildings.
  #214  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:35 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
[QUOTE=spifflog;21867343]LAZombie, you've been asked several times if you don't believe the that the pance and resulting fires brought down the buildings, what do you think did?

I'll ask again LAZombie, why do you think they collapsed?

I've been trying to stay of this, and I have not read the whole thread. I feel I must respond to this question.

When I'm asked this question now, and yes I'm still a 911 truther, I simply say I don't know, but we know the official story is not true. I will then explain how I know this by using known science. Only then will I offer my opinion on how the buildings were brought down.

That question is basically a gotcha. They want you to come up with some kind of answer like laser beams or directed energy. The goal is to make anyone that doesn't believe the official story sound crazy, thereby preventing a real investigation.

Almost 20 years later, I think people are waking up and understanding that our reality today was born in the lies of 911.
  #215  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:52 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I've been trying to stay of this, and I have not read the whole thread. I feel I must respond to this question.

When I'm asked this question now, and yes I'm still a 911 truther, I simply say I don't know, but we know the official story is not true. I will then explain how I know this by using known science.
Well that would certainly make a change from every other thread on the subject we've had.

Quote:
Only then will I offer my opinion on how the buildings were brought down.

That question is basically a gotcha. They want you to come up with some kind of answer like laser beams or directed energy. The goal is to make anyone that doesn't believe the official story sound crazy, thereby preventing a real investigation.
"They" do? It seems to me that Truthers (collectively) are perfectly willing to put forth every crazy theory under the sun all on their own (my personal fave: "pyroclastic flows". Naturally there was a YouTube video about it.). I don't know about "they", but we would certainly like the crazies to shut the hell up. If you've got an actual argument that isn't predicated on false assumptions, poor logic and incorrect or deliberately distorted data we'd love to hear it (but again, it would differ from every other thread here on the subject).

Please don't say "freefall".

Quote:
Almost 20 years later, I think people are waking up and understanding that our reality today was born in the lies of 911.
This is true, although I don't think the lies you mean are the lies I mean.
  #216  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:29 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
I mean they as in the collective, now a religion that a lot of the country believes as fact and I know your trying to bait me with your personal fave.

I'll admit, I don't know how the buildings were brought down. We also know that science does not allow the official story to be true either. The fact that I cant explain the collapse doesn't make the official story true.
  #217  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:35 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I'll admit, I don't know how the buildings were brought down. We also know that science does not allow the official story to be true either. The fact that I cant explain the collapse doesn't make the official story true.
From previous threads your misunderstanding of what science is and what it isn't, coupled with dubious cites from even more dubious people lend serious street cred to the official story.
  #218  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:38 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
\

I'll admit, I don't know how the buildings were brought down.
I love how this part is in singular, first person.

Quote:
We also know that science does not allow the official story to be true either..
But this part is plural, as if you are trying to boost yourself by standing on tiptoe.

It is objectively wrong that science does not allow the official story to be true. Either such claims are based on massive misinformation or outright lies.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #219  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:39 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I mean they as in the collective, now a religion that a lot of the country believes as fact and I know your trying to bait me with your personal fave.

I'll admit, I don't know how the buildings were brought down. We also know that science does not allow the official story to be true either. The fact that I cant explain the collapse doesn't make the official story true.
Just focus on the second part, since you've decided to wade in. I actually DON'T know that 'science' (however you are defining that) doesn't 'allow' for the official story to be true. In fact, quite the opposite. I have never seen anything in the 'official story' that is contradicted by actual science. This isn't about faith. It's about actually understanding the science and engineering.

But, feel free to expound on this. My guess is you won't because, but maybe I'll be surprised by a real answer.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #220  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:42 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I mean they as in the collective, now a religion that a lot of the country believes as fact and I know your trying to bait me with your personal fave.

I'll admit, I don't know how the buildings were brought down. We also know that science does not allow the official story to be true either. The fact that I cant explain the collapse doesn't make the official story true.
It may give you some comfort to think you're far too clever for those "egg-headed" experts to pull the wool over your eyes, but just because you don't understand enough science and engineering on the subject, doesn't mean others don't. It especially doesn't mean that those who do understand it are in a conspiracy to deceive you.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #221  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:43 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
Yes yes, my cites are dubious but yours are above reproach of course.
  #222  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:48 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
(my personal fave: "pyroclastic flows". Naturally there was a YouTube video about it.).
Leaving out the heat, what's the primary cause of pyroclastic flows? Collapsing rock. Such as 110-floors of drywall & concrete falling to Earth.
  #223  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:48 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I mean they as in the collective, now a religion that a lot of the country believes as fact and I know your trying to bait me with your personal fave.
I'm not "baiting" you. It is literally my favorite of the theories that have been put forward on the matter. There's also the "the planes were actually missiles projecting holograms" one, but I'm not convinced that guy actually believed that one. But you say you've got a science-based argument. Bring it.
  #224  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:52 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
Yes yes, my cites are dubious but yours are above reproach of course.
Well, no, they're not. But that's the point. The data is out there for people to review.

And overwhelmingly, the civil engineers who have reviewed the data agree with the government findings while the people who still have their doubts, even the ones with STEM degrees or specialties, are overwhelmingly not civil engineers.

Experts, like the ASCE, have signed off on the official findings. These are professionals who do civil engineering for a living. And that's not exactly a monolithic group but a professional society with independent members.
  #225  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:55 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
Yes yes, my cites are dubious but yours are above reproach of course.
In this thread you haven't given any cites. However, in previous threads all you managed to do was invoke AE911T, to which the term 'dubious' would be an extraordinary kindness.

Our cites certainly can be criticized. And in some cases they have been (note that NIST was publicly reviewed by the world's engineering community, a process much harsher than paper peer review.).
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #226  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:01 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
I'm a layman, but we can do amazing things now. Like analyze a video and get feet per second of a moving object. I personally don't know anything, but we know how objects in Earth's gravity well behave according to physics

These are know facts, laws of nature.

How do you explain the buildings collapse approaching terminal velocity?
  #227  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:01 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
The WTC buildings were designed like giant square tube-shaped bundle of sticks with each floor being suspended from the outer load-bearing perimeter and the inner core by a series of pins and trusses. The floors also serve to bundle the outer perimeter together to provide strength. One thing that the WTC lacked was a lot of inner load-bearing columns.

IOW it seems pretty straightforward to me that once a couple of floors broke loose from the outer perimeter due to damage from the impact and fire weakening their supports, it would cause a cascading failure that acted very much like a pile driver. The 95th floor would land on the 94th, detaching it. Both floors would land on the 93rd. The debris from 4 floors landing on the 92nd, so on and so forth, accelerating as it goes.

Such a collapse would likely not happen in a conventional steel frame building because the columns are designed to take the load of the entire building above it.
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response.

I see what you are saying. I maintain my skepticism because I still believe the lower floors should have slowed the cascading collapse to a greater extent than what we saw. I also believe a floor collapse must have been a scenario factored into the engineering of the buildings. Perhaps someone can cite whether that's true or not.

Beyond that, in order for your scenario to work, there had to be a uniform collapse on all of the lower floors. As I see it, at least one section would hold out slightly longer than the others. Let's say the NW section of the 94th floor held out slightly longer than the other sections of the floor. In the ensuing collapse to the 93rd floor, the NW section would hold out even longer and downward forces would vary as rubble would assuredly be uneven due the chaotic nature of the situation. The same would happen on the 92nd floor and so forth until the collapse lost its uniformity.
  #228  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:04 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
As I see it, at least one section would hold out slightly longer than the others.
The cores did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie
Let's say the NW section of the 94th floor held out slightly longer than the other sections of the floor. In the ensuing collapse to the 93rd floor, the NW section would hold out even longer and downward forces would vary as rubble would assuredly be uneven due the chaotic nature of the situation. The same would happen on the 92nd floor and so forth until the collapse lost its uniformity.
Once the roof was gone, so was much of the stability.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-18-2019 at 10:06 AM.
  #229  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:04 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
Yes yes, my cites are dubious but yours are above reproach of course.
You haven't given any. In fact, you haven't given anything at all. You haven't said how science disproves 'The Official Story(tm...arr)', or anything else. You made some vague claims and that's about it.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #230  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:06 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response.

I see what you are saying. I maintain my skepticism because I still believe the lower floors should have slowed the cascading collapse to a greater extent than what we saw.
Why?

No really, why? Please show the math involved that would indicate a required slowdown. Or reference someone who has.

Your faith in this slowdown is essentially being surprised that a bicycle on the railroad tracks did not stop or even slow the speeding locomotive.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #231  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:10 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I'm a layman, but we can do amazing things now. Like analyze a video and get feet per second of a moving object. I personally don't know anything, but we know how objects in Earth's gravity well behave according to physics

These are know facts, laws of nature.

How do you explain the buildings collapse approaching terminal velocity?
In all the threads you have participated in on this subject how do you explain your inability to accept answers given over and over and over again?
  #232  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:12 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
Yes yes, my cites are dubious but yours are above reproach of course.
Have you ever given us a cite from a peer-reviewed journal?
  #233  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:12 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I'm a layman, but we can do amazing things now. Like analyze a video and get feet per second of a moving object. I personally don't know anything, but we know how objects in Earth's gravity well behave according to physics

These are know facts, laws of nature.

How do you explain the buildings collapse approaching terminal velocity?
By saying it didn't, and that this claim has been debunked. 9/11 Truthers CLAIMED this, but as with everything else, their claim is false. Getting them to admit it, however, has gone as well as getting them to admit the other myriad errors or intentional deceptions they have perpetrated.

Don't believe me? It's really, really easy to prove this one. Watch one of the towers fall. See the debris that is falling away from the tower going down? The large pieces falling around the tower but not in the central area? Notice anything strange? You would if you watched it. You would notice that those pieces are falling faster than the main collapse. Know why? Because those pieces ARE in free fall. And they are not falling at the same speed as the tower is collapsing. This is so easy to debunk, yet you guys are STILL using it despite that. And this is just one of myriad deceptions and lies that the Truthers tell.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #234  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:13 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
So if it was a tube that the floors just slid down the tube should have been standing right?
  #235  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:15 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
So if it was a tube that the floors just slid down the tube should have been standing right?
Who made that claim?
  #236  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:18 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
So if it was a tube that the floors just slid down the tube should have been standing right?
In several videos you can see that the lower part of the central tube was left standing for a brief moment. But it wasn't meant to stand free and came down very shortly thereafter.

BTW, this is not a cite, this is random nitpicking.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #237  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:19 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
A few post above says it was just a tube with sticks
  #238  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:20 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
So you guys are saying the sticks attached to the tube wouldn't pull the tube down as well
  #239  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:21 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
A few post above says it was just a tube with sticks
This is not a cite. This is nitpicking.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #240  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:22 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
So you guys are saying the sticks attached to the tube wouldn't pull the tube down as well
If you want to know why 911 truthers are laughed at on this board, just take a look at this level of gameplaying. Earlier split was complaining that his nobly and honestly given cites were rejected cruelly, but a few posts later he is playing the standard truther games.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #241  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:23 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
or the upper floors wouldn't slow down as they crashed into the lower floors
  #242  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:24 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
The WTC buildings were designed like giant square tube-shaped bundle of sticks with each floor being suspended from the outer load-bearing perimeter and the inner core by a series of pins and trusses. The floors also serve to bundle the outer perimeter together to provide strength. One thing that the WTC lacked was a lot of inner load-bearing columns.

IOW it seems pretty straightforward to me that once a couple of floors broke loose from the outer perimeter due to damage from the impact and fire weakening their supports, it would cause a cascading failure that acted very much like a pile driver. The 95th floor would land on the 94th, detaching it. Both floors would land on the 93rd. The debris from 4 floors landing on the 92nd, so on and so forth, accelerating as it goes.

Such a collapse would likely not happen in a conventional steel frame building because the columns are designed to take the load of the entire building above it.
Here you go
  #243  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:24 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
or the upper floors wouldn't slow down as they crashed into the lower floors
Why would they? Show your math. Stop nitpicking and prove your assertions.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #244  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:27 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
This feeds the NIST narrative that it was just a spindle and the floors were the records sliding down. Like a pile driver lol
  #245  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:29 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
This feeds the NIST narrative that it was just a spindle and the floors were the records sliding down. Like a pile driver lol
I see we've reached the 'not even trying' stage of truther antics in just a couple of hours.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #246  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:30 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
or the upper floors wouldn't slow down as they crashed into the lower floors
Again, they DID slow down. WTC 1, which is often the one used, took over 15 seconds to collapse...more like 20-25. Debris falling from the tower that actually was in free fall took around 9 seconds. As to the 'tube' collapsing, I have no idea even what your point is. But if you are trying to build some sort of case for why the tower fell in 'free fall', you are starting with a false premise. Obviously, you don't know anything about structural or material science. But it's pretty evident that even if you don't have a clue (which you don't) about this science stuff you can see, for yourself, that debris falling from the tower next to the collapsing building fell a lot faster than the tower collapsed.

Seriously, you have to have watched the video at least once...right? Did you never question the idiots telling you that it was falling 'in free fall' while watching large chunks of the building and other debris fall to the ground first??
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #247  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:33 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
In fact, we all the top basically stop as soon as it hit the lower floors. That's on video. How do you explain that slowed momentum? How do you explain that thing becoming a pile driver after that?
  #248  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:34 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
This feeds the NIST narrative that it was just a spindle and the floors were the records sliding down. Like a pile driver lol
Maybe you should actually look at the 'NIST narrative', as your caricature is pretty stupid to anyone who has actually read it and seen the models. This is one of those things that only flies with others who ignorant of the details.

So, essentially, you have nothing. Just more ignorance. Well, not like I'm surprised.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #249  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:34 AM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic View Post
I see we've reached the 'not even trying' stage of truther antics in just a couple of hours.
Did you read what I quoted? That's you guys saying that.
  #250  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:36 AM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off? Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent? 75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.

Why haven't there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn't happen again?
LAZombie, on the first page of this thread, you complained that posters were being sarcastic and mocking those who were Just Asking Questions. You said you wanted an honest debate.

THIS IS WHY Truthers are mocked and these threads start with tons of sarcasm. It always devolves into "the buildings wouldn't have fallen that way" or "the jet fuel wouldn't have burned like that" or "the fireproofing would have protected the building". It is stupid minutia not based in any factual evidence.

You said you were open minded. You're not. You will never accept the rational answers given to your questions. This is why mocking and sarcasm accompanies Truther posts. The SDMB has done this before with the exact same results and and we'll do it again next year with the exact same results.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017