Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:21 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,059
It is false that the conspiracy would require a "few thousand" people. It would actually require the entire population of New York City. People were actually there, in person, who watched the planes hit the towers with their own eyes, as it happened.
  #102  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:27 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It is false that the conspiracy would require a "few thousand" people. It would actually require the entire population of New York City. People were actually there, in person, who watched the planes hit the towers with their own eyes, as it happened.
Apparently those were missiles projecting holograms, according to one CT.
  #103  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:28 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
My beliefs are entirely irrelevant.
Since you are not willing or able to post any facts, your beliefs are the only thing we can work with here. And your beliefs are dead wrong.
  #104  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:41 AM
namahoo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
Since you are not willing or able to post any facts, your beliefs are the only thing we can work with here. And your beliefs are dead wrong.
My two *factual* contributions so far were:

1. There is a new (Sep 2019) scientific study from the University of Alaska that contradicts NIST findings re WTC7 ( https://youtu.be/Xd7tqpwdlpQ?t=45 )

2. There is a worked out, detailed, sensible alternative theory to the official version, which doesn't require thousands of conspirators. It just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge.

Also, I haven't stated any belief one way or the other.

Do you not see how obvious all of the above is to any person in good faith? How unfair your summary is?

Cheers, to all people of good faith everywhere.
  #105  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:44 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
2. There is a worked out, detailed, sensible alternative theory to the official version, which doesn't require thousands of conspirators. It just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge.
Then post it. Just saying "there is one" sounds like bull.
  #106  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:50 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
My two *factual* contributions so far were:

1. There is a new (Sep 2019) scientific study from the University of Alaska that contradicts NIST findings re WTC7 ( https://youtu.be/Xd7tqpwdlpQ?t=45 )

2. There is a worked out, detailed, sensible alternative theory to the official version, which doesn't require thousands of conspirators. It just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge.

Also, I haven't stated any belief one way or the other.

Do you not see how obvious all of the above is to any person in good faith? How unfair your summary is?

Cheers, to all people of good faith everywhere.
1. Already addressed.
2. Never presented

And your beliefs are as obvious as a bug splat on a windshield.
  #107  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:53 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
My best friend worked at WTC. He was extremely lucky and had not made it in to the building when the planes hit. He witnessed the fires and the collapses from the street below. He took shelter on a city bus when the wall of dust and debris hit.

There were no explosions before or after the planes collided nor the collapse.
It started as a low rumble which got quickly louder and the ground began to shake.
The buildings did not fall straight down.
The debris field spanned several blocks surrounding the site.
All the surrounding building were damaged.
There was some heat, but nothing extreme or enough to create molten steel.

He began working with clean-up and recovery almost immediately.
He won't talk about that part too much.
  #108  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:58 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
...

Also, I haven't stated any belief one way or the other.
????

Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
This is provably false.

For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it *could* have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously.
So... you're on the fence then?
  #109  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:06 AM
namahoo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
1. Already addressed.
It's like talking to pod people. Of course I had presented this fact. I started the thread with it. I restated it in answer to an accusation of not presenting any facts.

As for the worked out theory, I stated as matter of fact that such a reasonable theory exists in answer to someone claiming that *any* alternative would require thousands of conspirators.

There's no need for me to present Christopher Bollyn's work here. He gives plenty of presentations and wrote a few books on the subject.

If you people haven't read his arguments, maybe you are just not very inquisitive on this topic that seems so dear to your hearts.

Overall, this forum is like a depressing grotesque caricature of rational human reasoning, I'm sad to say.

Do plug away at the same, if you think it's of any use. Cheers and good-bye.
  #110  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:27 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
As for the worked out theory, I stated as matter of fact that such a reasonable theory exists in answer to someone claiming that *any* alternative would require thousands of conspirators.

There's no need for me to present Christopher Bollyn's work here. He gives plenty of presentations and wrote a few books on the subject.

If you people haven't read his arguments, maybe you are just not very inquisitive on this topic that seems so dear to your hearts.
You mean the way we specifically asked you to present a summary of the theory and a source for it in order to evaluate it?

It's not our job to make your argument for you, nor to do the homework behind it. You didn't even manage a YouTube video link on that one. Instead, you claimed that what I said was "provably false"...and then wouldn't prove it. That's all on you. We can only conclude that you've got nothing.

(Also, of course, you have neatly ignored the rest of the sentence of mine you excerpted, in which the various conspiracy theories remain ludicrously implausible regardless.)

Quote:
Overall, this forum is like a depressing grotesque caricature of rational human reasoning, I'm sad to say.

Do plug away at the same, if you think it's of any use. Cheers and good-bye.
Ah, the usual Truther flounce - "Your refusal to accept extreme hypotheticals supported by deliberate misinterpretations of incorrect data demonstrates that you're all mindless sheeple! I'm going back to where people blindly accept my unsubstantiated nonsense!"

Frankly, I give it a 3.5 - very neatly written, but no originality or personaility to it. Must do better in future.

Last edited by Gyrate; 09-13-2019 at 07:28 AM.
  #111  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:28 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
It's like talking to pod people. Of course I had presented this fact. I started the thread with it. I restated it in answer to an accusation of not presenting any facts.
What "fact" did you present?

Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
As for the worked out theory, I stated as matter of fact that such a reasonable theory exists in answer to someone claiming that *any* alternative would require thousands of conspirators.
??? It's not a "matter of fact" and your definition of "reasonable" is flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
There's no need for me to present Christopher Bollyn's work here. He gives plenty of presentations and wrote a few books on the subject.
Yes, there is. You're the OP, you need to explain your argument clearly and concisely providing evidence, cites, etc.. You are to provide the research for others to consider.


Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post

If you people haven't read his arguments, maybe you are just not very inquisitive on this topic that seems so dear to your hearts.

Overall, this forum is like a depressing grotesque caricature of rational human reasoning, I'm sad to say.

Do plug away at the same, if you think it's of any use. Cheers and good-bye.
This is Great Debates, why post here if you don't want a debate?

Last edited by Sparky812; 09-13-2019 at 07:30 AM.
  #112  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:43 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
There's no need for me to present Christopher Bollyn's work here. He gives plenty of presentations and wrote a few books on the subject.
Its not our job to research points you bring up and then refuse to substantiate. Frankly it sounds like you're trying to generate clicks.
  #113  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:15 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Let's sidestep the physics and math for a moment. One issue 9/11 Truthers have never answered is why the U.S. government (or whoever was nefarious enough to rig this thing) would want to knock down WTC7. What does knocking down the relatively-obscure, little-known building called WTC7 get them that knocking down the two big Twin Towers alone didn't?
You'll realize why if you think about it for a moment.

The studio where Spielberg filmed the Moon landings was in the basement of WTC7. More and more people were catching on to the Moon landing hoax, so they had to be sure the studio was totally destroyed before some intrepid patriotic reporter discovered the truth!

It all makes sense if you open your mind.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #114  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:29 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
Cheers and good-bye.
I'm gonna miss him.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #115  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:40 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
Do plug away at the same, if you think it's of any use. Cheers and good-bye.
This is, of course, the normal trajectory for 9/11 Truthers on this board. Really, we need to sticky this as it's a perfect example of the last nearly 20 years on this board with this silly subject. OP comes in, posts some vague, weak bullshit and is Just Asking Questions. Gets no traction because, well, it's vague, weak bullshit. Is refuted to varying degrees or just laughed at by most posters. Perhaps gets an assist by one or two posters who also act the same way. Gets frustrated by the lack of traction for their loopy CT nonsense and eventually head back out to presumably more fertile places with folks with wider eyes and lower bullshit tolerance.

The good thing is, maybe we are down to just 1 or 2 of these a year at this point, perhaps on or near the anniversary as this one was.

Quote:
Overall, this forum is like a depressing grotesque caricature of rational human reasoning, I'm sad to say.
It begs the question of where you think you've been that engaged you in 'rational human reasoning', or exactly what your definition is. Of course, this thread wasn't the effort this board has given in the past wrt debunking the ridiculous...we are basically burned out on this subject and I think everyone (me for sure) were going through the motions. But then, your OP was weaker than most as you didn't really do much to foster a debate, didn't provide cited and quoted evidence that supports points you were making. You basically did a drive by OP and told folks to go read some books or watch some videos and get back to you. Of course, you basically just joined the board, so you don't, perhaps, know better, but that's not how debate or 'rational human reasoning' works. You'd have been better off putting this in the MPSIMS forum, or perhaps IMHO though, frankly, it's weak even for that.

At any rate, thanks for playing The Straight Dope video game. We would have some lovely parting gifts for you, but, frankly, you don't even qualify for the ceramic dog...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-13-2019 at 08:41 AM.
  #116  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:32 AM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
...

Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings.

...
Just a comment on this "fact": Vaporization is exactly what the fuel needs to burn. If you've ever seen fuel - gasoline, kerosene, Jet A - burn in an open container, the liquid itself does not burn; it's the vapor above the liquid where sufficient oxygen has blended to make the flammable mixture.

The atomization of the fuel from the impact would have helped the burning, not hindered it.
  #117  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:54 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
What kind of noises do you think towers like that will make when the concrete starts to shatter?
Not to mention that the sound of jumpers' bodies hitting pavement has been described as "the popping of wet paper bags".
  #118  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:17 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
I think the more relevant thing is that there almost certainly WERE actual explosions. I seriously don't know what most of these 9/11 Truther types think are in buildings, but it's like they can't picture things like cleaning solvents or other highly flammable and potentially explosive chemicals that are basically in every office and building out there. Not to mention things like paint and paint thinner, which were part of ongoing renovations that are mentioned often in conjunction with supposed black operations to implant sooper dooper high tech micro-nano-termite anti-matter charges throughout the building. It's like on the one hand they talk about it, but the implications of that never cross their mind.

I think most of the 'explosions' folks heard were just what Grim Render said there...basically, when stressed concrete gives way, it's going to be pretty spectacular, especially under the kinds of loads we are talking about. I saw a demo once of a hydraulic machine doing a variety of stressed concrete failure tests (basically squishing a concrete cylinder made of different types and cures of concrete with different or no reinforcement materials until it fails), and I can tell you that hearing protection was not only encouraged but absolutely required...as was being in a protected room while the test happened. The concrete exploded, like a really, really loud rifle report or the firing of something like a cannon. It was intense. And that was just a small concrete cylinder. Just one. I can imagine what a whole floor of such supports being crushed would sound like.

And, of course, there were very large diesel storage bunkers on multiple floors in each of those buildings. They were for backup power generators that various groups were using (there were also, IIRC, at least 3 building UPS systems with high voltage capacitors and batteries as well).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #119  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:39 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I think the more relevant thing is that there almost certainly WERE actual explosions. I seriously don't know what most of these 9/11 Truther types think are in buildings, but it's like they can't picture things like cleaning solvents or other highly flammable and potentially explosive chemicals that are basically in every office and building out there. Not to mention things like paint and paint thinner, which were part of ongoing renovations that are mentioned often in conjunction with supposed black operations to implant sooper dooper high tech micro-nano-termite anti-matter charges throughout the building. It's like on the one hand they talk about it, but the implications of that never cross their mind.

I think most of the 'explosions' folks heard were just what Grim Render said there...basically, when stressed concrete gives way, it's going to be pretty spectacular, especially under the kinds of loads we are talking about. I saw a demo once of a hydraulic machine doing a variety of stressed concrete failure tests (basically squishing a concrete cylinder made of different types and cures of concrete with different or no reinforcement materials until it fails), and I can tell you that hearing protection was not only encouraged but absolutely required...as was being in a protected room while the test happened. The concrete exploded, like a really, really loud rifle report or the firing of something like a cannon. It was intense. And that was just a small concrete cylinder. Just one. I can imagine what a whole floor of such supports being crushed would sound like.

And, of course, there were very large diesel storage bunkers on multiple floors in each of those buildings. They were for backup power generators that various groups were using (there were also, IIRC, at least 3 building UPS systems with high voltage capacitors and batteries as well).
Lacks intrigue, novelty and sub-plot. I give it 2.5 out of 10 for the flammable pyrotechnics. Would not watch.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #120  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:14 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
My two *factual* contributions so far were:

1. There is a new (Sep 2019) scientific study from the University of Alaska that contradicts NIST findings re WTC7 ( https://youtu.be/Xd7tqpwdlpQ?t=45 )

2. There is a worked out, detailed, sensible alternative theory to the official version, which doesn't require thousands of conspirators. It just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge.
1) Let's rephrase this. An organization whose goal is to promote conspiracy theories paid three engineers (two engineers specializing in bridges, and one specializing in tunnels), to support their claims that building did not collapse like NIST said it did. The engineers wrote a non-peer reviewed white paper criticizing the NIST model and providing a simulation that showed the buildings not collapsing the way it aw observed to have done.

So we have two competing models. One developed by a commission of civil engineers specializing in collapsing buildings, that has been largely accepted by the engineering community, and a second developed by 3 engineers chosen from around the world, none of whom specialize in sky scrapers, who developed a model matching the results they were paid to find. Now all models require certain assumptions about starting conditions and force interactions, and no model is perfect. Depending on those assumptions you get different answers. Now a priori I have no idea which model has the correct assumptions it could be that NIST was right, it could be that the Hulsey model is right and NIST is wrong, or it could be that the Hulsey is right that NIST and wrong, but that the Hulsey model is also wrong. The real test of a model is how well it confirms with observed reality, and in this case observed reality was Building 7 collapsing. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say whether or or not there were problems with the NIST model the Hulsey model is wrong. When your model of aerodynamics says that Bumble bees can't fly. Then the conclusions shouldn't be that bumble bees don't fly, or bumble bees are magic, it should be that there is something wrong with your model.

2) I agree that there might be an alternative theory to the official version, which just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge. But as to it being worked out, detailed or sensible I'm going to need some convincing. Please feel free to outline it here. If it requires a whole book to explain then I'm betting Occam's razor will cut it to shreds.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 09-13-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #121  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:20 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
An organization whose goal is to promote conspiracy theories
And is not above pushing manipulated footage when trying to garner support.
  #122  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:20 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post

Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings.

WTF!?
You need someone to "state" that jet fuel is an accelerant and would burn in such a way to facilitate a fire?
  #123  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:24 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
WTF!?
You need someone to "state" that jet fuel is an accelerant and would burn in such a way to facilitate a fire?
Who knew that jet fuel was combustible?
  #124  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:29 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Who knew that jet fuel was combustible?
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-13-2019 at 11:29 AM.
  #125  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:33 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.
So you’re saying members of the military would know? Lending further credibility to the idea that this was a conspiracy involving the US government. Because no civilian would ever think to use jet fuel as a pretense to bring down a couple of buildings. And yet it’s just plausible enough to serve as a cover story for the truth...

ETA: That’s a joke. I feel I have to be clear on that point because, standing beside some of the other things said in this thread, I realize there’s room for ambiguity.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 09-13-2019 at 11:35 AM.
  #126  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:36 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.
Well I would never have thought that the fuel for an internal combustion engine was used for combustion. What else is the military keeping from us???
  #127  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:37 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.
AHA! If they'd used a safer non-combustible jet fuel, we might not even be having this conversation.

It's the old helium vs. hydrogen debate all over!
  #128  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:51 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.
Awwwlrighty then!
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #129  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:36 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
WTF!?
You need someone to "state" that jet fuel is an accelerant and would burn in such a way to facilitate a fire?

Yeah, this jet fuel argument is the equivalent of claiming a match can't burn down a house. It's like they never noticed that fire spreads.
  #130  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:13 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
WTF!?
You need someone to "state" that jet fuel is an accelerant and would burn in such a way to facilitate a fire?
Are gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and rocket fuel different in any significant way? While they are all combustible and dangerous, jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization. Jet fuel has a much lower volatility than gasoline. One could argue that much of the jet fuel never even burned but simply spilled away. Without some sort of containment, the fuel may have burned so quickly that could not do the damage that is claimed. That's what I'm asking.

I don't have that answer and posting a link to a Living Color video doesn't help.

Beyond that, why was the fire so devastating? Doesn't New York have fire inspectors that would mandate non flammable furnishings and limiting the amount flammable substances. It seems to me if the approved narrative is true, massive changes to the fire code are needed. Why haven't they been changed?
  #131  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:21 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,522
Not only do they not have rules for humungous passenger jets flying into buildings, would you believe they have no regs concerning massive meteor strikes??

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-13-2019 at 01:21 PM.
  #132  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:22 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Beyond that, why was the fire so devastating? Doesn't New York have fire inspectors that would mandate non flammable furnishings and limiting the amount flammable substances. It seems to me if the approved narrative is true, massive changes to the fire code are needed. Why haven't they been changed?

They were changed.
Of course they were changed. Obviously they were changed.

The real question is, why on Earth would you think that they hadn't been changed?
  #133  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:24 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Are gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and rocket fuel different in any significant way? While they are all combustible and dangerous, jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization. Jet fuel has a much lower volatility than gasoline. One could argue that much of the jet fuel never even burned but simply spilled away. Without some sort of containment, the fuel may have burned so quickly that could not do the damage that is claimed. That's what I'm asking.

I don't have that answer and posting a link to a Living Color video doesn't help.

Beyond that, why was the fire so devastating? Doesn't New York have fire inspectors that would mandate non flammable furnishings and limiting the amount flammable substances. It seems to me if the approved narrative is true, massive changes to the fire code are needed. Why haven't they been changed?
Just how much energy do you think it took to disintegrate a jet going 500+ mph? Are you saying that it wouldn't be enough to ignite the fuel and everything else?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #134  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:26 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,101
Here's a test of a plane wreck that doesn't even require full disintegration of the plane. See those huge flames?

https://youtu.be/G7lBeaceQKg
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #135  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:28 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Well I would never have thought that the fuel for an internal combustion engine was used for combustion. What else is the military keeping from us???
Wait - "internal"?? No wonder spraying jet fuel on the outside of my engine wasn't working.

Last edited by manson1972; 09-13-2019 at 01:28 PM.
  #136  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:38 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post

They were changed.
Of course they were changed. Obviously they were changed.

The real question is, why on Earth would you think that they hadn't been changed?
Did you read your own cite?

None of the changes were would have mitigated the fires. Saved lives, yes. But I did not read anything about reducing flammables and fires themselves.
  #137  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:39 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Are gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and rocket fuel different in any significant way? While they are all combustible and dangerous, jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization. Jet fuel has a much lower volatility than gasoline. One could argue that much of the jet fuel never even burned but simply spilled away. Without some sort of containment, the fuel may have burned so quickly that could not do the damage that is claimed. That's what I'm asking.
There are an awful lot of uses of the word may in that post. With certain circumstances/models it may have been possible for a plane to crash into the World trade center without bringing it down. But apparently those circumstances/models didn't apply that day because the towers did in fact collapse. We've done the experiment, so we know the answer. Just think of it as a giant tragic episode of myth busters.
  #138  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:41 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
What if we made buildings out of the same material they use to make airplane black boxes?
  #139  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:44 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Did you read your own cite?

None of the changes were would have mitigated the fires. Saved lives, yes. But I did not read anything about reducing flammables and fires themselves.
For the simple reason that making a building that is impervious to jet liner crash is totally impractical. Aren't you one of those people who are complaining that there are too many burdensome regulations?
  #140  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:49 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Did you read your own cite?

None of the changes were would have mitigated the fires. Saved lives, yes. But I did not read anything about reducing flammables and fires themselves.
HEY, WAIT! I've got a new complaint!
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #141  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:52 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Did you read your own cite?

None of the changes were would have mitigated the fires. Saved lives, yes. But I did not read anything about reducing flammables and fires themselves.
These two don't have anything to do with reducing flammables and fires themselves?

Quote:
  • A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall;
  • More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, which will be less likely to be dislodged by impacts or explosions;
  #142  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:14 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
These two don't have anything to do with reducing flammables and fires themselves?
No, they don't. They only require that there are greater protections from the fires not a reduction in the fires.

True changes would be the reduction in flammable materials that posters and NIST are claiming fueled the massive fires in the 911 attacks.
  #143  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:17 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
No, they don't. They only require that there are greater protections from the fires not a reduction in the fires.

True changes would be the reduction in flammable materials that posters and NIST are claiming fueled the massive fires in the 911 attacks.
So, are you saying the International Code Council is in on it as well?
  #144  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:17 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,370
The problem with many of these 9/11 Truther debates is that the Truthers are always in the position of the challengers, and the people who believe the actual story (not sure the name for them - "normies?") are in the position of the defenders. And the challengers are simply the ones who get to pick apart and ask questions away while the normies have to keep defending.

So let's flip the tables a bit. Here in this thread, LaZombie and namahoo are the CT-ers. Why don't you tell us for a moment who you think really did 9/11, and then lay out your case for your theory? The U.S. government? Some secret faction or group?

It's not fair for us to be defending all the time, and you to be asking/challenging all the time. Tell us about your beliefs for once.
  #145  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:18 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
No, they don't. They only require that there are greater protections from the fires not a reduction in the fires.

True changes would be the reduction in flammable materials that posters and NIST are claiming fueled the massive fires in the 911 attacks.
You mean like jet fuel? I've always wondered why buildings needed tanks full of that stuff.
  #146  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:19 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
No, they don't. They only require that there are greater protections from the fires not a reduction in the fires.

True changes would be the reduction in flammable materials that posters and NIST are claiming fueled the massive fires in the 911 attacks.
You mean the papers, furniture, computers, and all that stuff that you need to have in an office to make it an office?

Yeah, I'm not sure why they're not getting rid of that stuff.
  #147  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:22 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
No, they don't. They only require that there are greater protections from the fires not a reduction in the fires.

True changes would be the reduction in flammable materials that posters and NIST are claiming fueled the massive fires in the 911 attacks.
I agree. There should immediately be a new law that limits the amount of jet fuel allowed in an office building over 400 feet tall.

edited to add: darn you, running coach!

Last edited by manson1972; 09-13-2019 at 02:23 PM.
  #148  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:42 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Are gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and rocket fuel different in any significant way? While they are all combustible and dangerous, jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization. Jet fuel has a much lower volatility than gasoline. One could argue that much of the jet fuel never even burned but simply spilled away. Without some sort of containment, the fuel may have burned so quickly that could not do the damage that is claimed. That's what I'm asking.

I don't have that answer and posting a link to a Living Color video doesn't help.

Beyond that, why was the fire so devastating? Doesn't New York have fire inspectors that would mandate non flammable furnishings and limiting the amount flammable substances. It seems to me if the approved narrative is true, massive changes to the fire code are needed. Why haven't they been changed?
Why was the fire so devastating? Well, you are in luck! Here is a link to National Geographics brand new! (in 2009) video on they had done on simulating the WTC Tower 1 (North Tower) and how and why it caught fire and why it was so devastating. Basically, what you are saying above is sort of kind of right wrt jet fuel (JP-A is I think what would have been in the jets in question) wrt it not exploding in normal conditions. But the conditions were extreme, as what happened to the jet fuel tanks on the planes going into the towers. This video specifically goes over the simulation for the tower we are talking about that hit WTC 7, so it's relevant to the thread. I'm certain that after carefully watching the video and gaining some understanding of the environment, including modeling of the fluid dynamic involved, you are now convinced...right??
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #149  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:46 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
You mean like jet fuel? I've always wondered why buildings needed tanks full of that stuff.
It's for when you absolutely positively need to burn the place to the ground to cover something up, or start a land war somewhere in Asia.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #150  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:54 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
Ok, just had to add this (slightly newer...2015) video where the guy is talking about jet fuel and structural steel. Really more for the entertainment value, as I think mostly the 9/11 crowd has finally figured out how stupid they looked with the 'jet fuel can't melt steel' argument.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
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 01:54 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