Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,622
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.
What do you think really happened in regards to the 9-11 disaster?
  #152  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:01 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
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??
Hey, its a Youtube video that supports what I already want believe! That's all the evidence I need. We can close the thread now.
  #153  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:03 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Hey, its a Youtube video that supports what I already want believe! That's all the evidence I need. We can close the thread now.
Actually, it's a National Geographic video that just happens to be on YouTube. The second video I posted is definitely a Youtube video that simply supports my joy at the use of the (to paraphrase the guy on the video) phrase 'you people are morons', which I fully support.

Yes, we can close the thread now. Unless you had something to add?
__________________
-XT

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

Last edited by XT; 09-13-2019 at 03:03 PM.
  #154  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:05 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.
That's ridiculous. If jet fuel were combustible there'd by planes exploding all over the sky. No one would be safe from falling debris.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #155  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:14 PM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,241
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.


Okay, so what does this say about your alleged conspirators? They were sophisticated enough to covertly wire two or three giant buildings for demolition, let 19 terrorist hijackers into the country, get the planes to hit the buildings right where the preplanted explosives were placed, and then cover up all the evidence that would have literally been strewn over many blocks of New York City while essentially every TV camera in the city were pointed at them. And yet, somehow they couldn't get anyone to add a fake recommendation directed to "reducing flammables and fires themselves" that they blamed the collapses on.

Does that seem reasonable to you?
  #156  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:20 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Take it easy, man. He's just asking questions.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #157  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:52 PM
Just Asking Questions is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
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
Ironically, part of that crash was a test of a new anti-misting fuel additive that was supposed to reduce risk of fire. The plane was supposed to hit the ground level and the fixed metal "wing cutters" were supposed to slice the tanks open. But the airplane came down "crooked" to the wing cutters and, well, you saw the result.

Proving that there is no such thing as a "normal" crash.

Last edited by Just Asking Questions; 09-13-2019 at 03:54 PM.
  #158  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:21 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,645
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.
It could be that "jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization"... I don't really know. However in the particular case of the 9/11 planes into the WTC the jet fuel burned REAL efficient-like. It blowed up real good. Remember the huge fireball when the plane hit the building?

So whatever the nuances and possibilities of the combustibility of jet fuel, whether that day was a freak occurrence or would happen every time, on 9/11 you witnessed on TV the combustibility of jet fuel. Unless you believe that the huge fireball was part of the "controlled demolition"?
  #159  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:26 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
So whatever the nuances and possibilities of the combustibility of jet fuel, whether that day was a freak occurrence or would happen every time, on 9/11 you witnessed on TV the combustibility of jet fuel. Unless you believe that the huge fireball was part of the "controlled demolition"?
(bolding mine)

I've actually seen that particular CT in the wild; a "Hollywood explosion" followed by conventional demolition charges. Never mind the fact that any conventional charges present would have been heard throughout lower Manhattan and probably across the river in New Jersey as well.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-13-2019 at 05:27 PM.
  #160  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:36 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
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??
But do they have rules for Cthulhu-ian crises?
And what are the rules for flamethrowing mices?
Would it matter if King Kong struck a match?
While atop Empire State, swatting jet-fighters, natch!
Is it alright to roast God on a spit?
(Zeus, Yahweh, or Xenu, don't matter a bit)
How does the Fire Code protect us from ETs?
Can they shoot 20's Death rays, violating our Treaties?

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 09-13-2019 at 05:38 PM. Reason: because reasons
  #161  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:09 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
(bolding mine)

I've actually seen that particular CT in the wild; a "Hollywood explosion" followed by conventional demolition charges. Never mind the fact that any conventional charges present would have been heard throughout lower Manhattan and probably across the river in New Jersey as well.
I wonder if they realize the irony...a 'Hollywood explosion' uses gasoline and an explosive charge. And, yeah, jet fuel would work for that as well. Just fine.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #162  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:17 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,914
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.
I would be curious to know how a "fairly limited number of people" cold have planted sufficient explosive in all the load-bearing walls of two separate skyscrapers in a short enough period of time to be unnoticed by all of the thousands of people around whom they would have had to work for however long it took to set the charges. (And how would those charges be detonated without being seen from outside the building. This latter could be done, but would add months to the preparation.)
  #163  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:40 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,445
But there’s more than jet fuel at play here. Don't forget the mind control and weather control chemicals that the government sprays from jet liners. Who knows what temperature THAT stuff burns at? Chem trails, baby.

(With apologies to xkcd) https://xkcd.com/966/
  #164  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:36 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
It could be that "jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization"... I don't really know. However in the particular case of the 9/11 planes into the WTC the jet fuel burned REAL efficient-like. It blowed up real good. Remember the huge fireball when the plane hit the building?

So whatever the nuances and possibilities of the combustibility of jet fuel, whether that day was a freak occurrence or would happen every time, on 9/11 you witnessed on TV the combustibility of jet fuel. Unless you believe that the huge fireball was part of the "controlled demolition"?
The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly.
  #165  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:59 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly.
How long after the planes hit did they fall? Is that long enough for you?
__________________
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.
  #166  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:13 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures.
When did you come to this conclusion? Just now, on the fly, or is it something that’s been stewing for a few years?

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 09-13-2019 at 08:13 PM.
  #167  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:07 PM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly.
Nope, you've got it completely ass backwards.
Wind (more oxygen) helps a fire burn faster and hotter. Are you not familiar with a campfire? Ever seen a brush fire or forest fire spread?
Do you know how a blow torch or acetylene torch work?
How about a forge? Or a welder?

Hint: they're all have ideal fuels that heat up steel or other metals very quickly causing them to change shape, etc.. Metals dissipate heat so a slow burn would have less effect, if any at all.

Last edited by Sparky812; 09-13-2019 at 10:11 PM.
  #168  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly.
What do you think really happened?
  #169  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:37 PM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly.


Why are you obsessing so much about the jet fuel? The jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in those buildings. The Jet fuel was the match that lit multiple fires throughout the building, but it was everything else in the building burning that kept the steel hot enough long enough to fail.

Focusing on just one element of a huge, and hugely complicated, event is hallmark trutherdom. It has nothing to do with reality.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?

Last edited by Horatius; 09-13-2019 at 10:37 PM.
  #170  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:55 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 345
Perhaps we could ask one of these people where the fire was and what was causing it?

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 09-13-2019 at 10:59 PM.
  #171  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:12 PM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires.
Are you familiar with bellows used in old fashioned iron smelting? Before they were invented they couldnít get the rate of combustion and the heat high enough to do smelting. Amazing what high winds applied to a fire will do.
  #172  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:20 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 345
I donít even get this whole line of a argument because it is VERY clear from the plethora of videos out there that both buildings were on fire after the impact. I mean, if you have the stomach for it, you can open up the short five minute video I posted in 170 and see orange flames at times through the massive, gaping hole as people are hanging and then jumping out of windows with smoke streaming out of them.

So clearly SOMETHING was burning prior to the collapse. Which leads me to join the crowd of people asking... LAZombie, what do you think happened? How do you account for that?
  #173  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:42 AM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
So clearly SOMETHING was burning prior to the collapse. Which leads me to join the crowd of people asking... LAZombie, what do you think happened? How do you account for that?


And part of that "something" would have been the explosive charges that were allegedly planted. Here's a nice little video of C4 burning without exploding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zomQLTotik0

And some TNT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzil8fHEVM


After over an hour of being on fire, we're expected to believe that the explosives were intact enough to still take down the building exactly as intended?
  #174  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:13 AM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,779
For those with an interest, the site metabunk has a thread on the Hulsey report that was started right as it was released.

https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019...alysis.t10890/

The analysis by several engineers and other people on this thread show that the Hulsey model has some *serious* issues.

1) The model has several columns just 'disappear'. Not buckle, not break, not cut. Just...gone.
2) The model used was *not* a dynamic modeling. It apparently is just an animation program and a static analysis program.
3) There is no distribution of temperature, values were just placed where they wanted.

Number 1 is pretty sloppy, and number 2 is crucial. You just don't evade using a dynamical model when modelling a collapse like this. They seem to have gone out of their way to avoid using one. Doubtless because it did not give the results that AE911T paid for.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #175  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:29 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And part of that "something" would have been the explosive charges that were allegedly planted. Here's a nice little video of C4 burning without exploding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zomQLTotik0

And some TNT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzil8fHEVM


After over an hour of being on fire, we're expected to believe that the explosives were intact enough...
Or the wiring supposedly in place to set off any demolition charges; these are exactly why Danny Jowenko said neither Tower could have been a controlled demolition and had "no explanation" for 7 after being told he had been looking at footage of 7.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-14-2019 at 10:30 AM.
  #176  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:52 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Are you familiar with bellows used in old fashioned iron smelting? Before they were invented they couldnít get the rate of combustion and the heat high enough to do smelting. Amazing what high winds applied to a fire will do.
I've been watching a lot of forest fire coverage in the past few years, and the firefighters do not pray for high winds, to put it mildly.
  #177  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:18 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,307
I never understood the conspiracy theorists need for explosives and planes in the same theory, anyway.

If you were going to place explosives there, why do you need to complicate everything enormously by involving somethings as out there as planes? Just detonate the explosives and blame Al-Quaida. They tried to take the towers down with explosives before, no-one would have blinked at that.
  #178  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:28 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Have you not seen the articles that assert the planes never hit the Towers? It was all CGI, to make people think planes struck the towers, covering up the controlled demolition.

It's all very simple, really.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #179  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:36 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
They tried to take the towers down with explosives before, no-one would have blinked at that.
Theoretically, the truck bomb would have worked had they parked up against a support rather than between supports and this thread wouldn't be here.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-14-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #180  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:47 PM
msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Explain this:

(1) Why did all three buildings collapse symmetrically as in a controlled demolition?
(2) Why did all three buildings collapse at free fall rates of speed ?
(3) WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. Why would normal office furnishings and material cause such a massive structural collapse?
(4) Why wasn't the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation?
(5) What were the explosions that many people heard?
(6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse?
(7) How did the fire get so "bad" in a relatively modern structure that would surely pass code?
(8) Why has no other skyscraper collapsed the way these three buildings did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=LgYNPaO1rNY
The controlled demolition of a skyscraper is something that takes weeks to prep using heavy equipment and explosives. And it's a bit more complex than sticking a couple of magic satchel charges to the main columns and pressing an "arm" button. Is the hypothesis that a crew came into WTC7 either during the 9/11 attack or in the weeks beforehand, drilled a bunch of holes, laid a bunch of charges and strung a bunch of det-cord without anyone noticing and leaving no trace of their presence during one of the most observed scrutinized events in human history?
  #181  
Old 09-14-2019, 05:59 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Why are you obsessing so much about the jet fuel? The jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in those buildings. The Jet fuel was the match that lit multiple fires throughout the building, but it was everything else in the building burning that kept the steel hot enough long enough to fail.

Focusing on just one element of a huge, and hugely complicated, event is hallmark trutherdom. It has nothing to do with reality.
I'm not obsessing over the jet fuel.

My number one issue is that the buildings collapsed in a symmetrical fashion. I can accept that the supports in the area where the planes struck were severed and that the fires ultimately caused the collapse of supports in that area.

What I have trouble accepting is that the floors beneath the impact site suffered universal failures so great that it would allow a free fall compression of the entire building. Likewise the floors above the impact site were obliterated and did not retain their form in any manner either.

It is certainly possible, and even NIST's model suggests, that as one side failed, it would cause the remaining supports to fail. One side would pull down the sides that were still intact. The inability to explain a universal failure of the supports is what keeps me skeptical.

Here's a compilation of demolition fails. What these fails suggest is bringing down a building is much harder that one might imagine and that a symmetrical collapse is highly unlikely without planning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM
  #182  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:09 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I'm not obsessing over the jet fuel.
What is your theory as to what happened that day?
  #183  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:11 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
What I have trouble accepting is that the floors beneath the impact site suffered universal failures so great that it would allow a free fall compression of the entire building.
For how long have you had trouble accepting this? I mean, a good chunk of the building above those floors (ie, the floors in the impact zone and above) did come down on them with a lot of momentum already.
  #184  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:33 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I'm not obsessing over the jet fuel.

My number one issue is that the buildings collapsed in a symmetrical fashion. I can accept that the supports in the area where the planes struck were severed and that the fires ultimately caused the collapse of supports in that area.

What I have trouble accepting is that the floors beneath the impact site suffered universal failures so great that it would allow a free fall compression of the entire building. Likewise the floors above the impact site were obliterated and did not retain their form in any manner either.

It is certainly possible, and even NIST's model suggests, that as one side failed, it would cause the remaining supports to fail. One side would pull down the sides that were still intact. The inability to explain a universal failure of the supports is what keeps me skeptical.

Here's a compilation of demolition fails. What these fails suggest is bringing down a building is much harder that one might imagine and that a symmetrical collapse is highly unlikely without planning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM
Taller buildings fall easier. I have touched upon why in several posts in this thread. None of the real demolition fails in your link are tall buildings, they are only a few floors. When the steel supports weakened, there were what, 20 floors resting on them? And not tiny, small square footage floors, huge ones. When a support fails, the load will instantly increase on the rest of them.

And as for the youtube video... come on. Even the comments are remarking on how fake some of those are. 0:55 could hardly look more fake if you tried, and some of the others are dubious-looking.

It seems to me like you are thinking the towers would topple sideays rather than fall. The problem is, the towers are heavy, and gravity pulls straight down. Nothing is pushing them sideways and you'd need a lot of force to make something that heavy move sideways. Nor are they going to pivot on the walls, walls don't have that kind of material strength. They basically act like a liquid under that kind of stress.

Nothing is going to" retain their form" the forces involved here make sure of that.
  #185  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:18 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
My number one issue is that the buildings collapsed in a symmetrical fashion.
What's so symmetrical about a very large portion of 1 impacting 7?

What's so symmetrical about a very large portion of 2 crossing the street to fall on a Greek Orthodox church?

What's so symmetrical about nearly all of 7 crossing the street to fall on Fiterman Hall followed by the southwest corner of 7 separating and sliding into the Verizon building next door?

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-14-2019 at 07:18 PM.
  #186  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:22 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,079
NOAA image of all the debris in situ

Notice all the debris at the foot of the Bankers Trust building and between the Merill Lynch & American Express buildings? Human remains were recovered from the American Express property and the parking lot on the other side of Vesey Street from the American Express property. How would any symmetrical collapse account for all of this?

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-14-2019 at 08:22 PM.
  #187  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:46 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What do you think really happened in regards to the 9-11 disaster?
Planes crashed, buildings collapsed -- they were never designed to take that kind of stress.
  #188  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:47 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That's ridiculous. If jet fuel were combustible there'd by planes exploding all over the sky. No one would be safe from falling debris.
Jet fuel is combustible. That's why it's fuel. However, it is not usually explosive.
  #189  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:53 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Take it easy, man. He's just asking questions.
See JAQing Off.
  #190  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:57 AM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,322
I used to play with wooden blocks as a kid (well ok, my entire life). My towers always fell down in an almost symmetrical pattern.

I could get them to fall sideways a little bit with a bad foundation.

I could get the side to fall off if I had a low wall.

But my tall towers fell pretty much straight down when there was a structural failure fairly high up (which, as it happens, is what you get when you build with blocks)
  #191  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:06 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Taller buildings fall easier.

It seems to me like you are thinking the towers would topple sideays rather than fall. The problem is, the towers are heavy, and gravity pulls straight down. Nothing is pushing them sideways and you'd need a lot of force to make something that heavy move sideways. Nor are they going to pivot on the walls, walls don't have that kind of material strength. They basically act like a liquid under that kind of stress.
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.
  #192  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:20 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
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.
No it doesn’t. It only needs to be seen relative to the floor beneath it. If the floor beneath it can’t handle the load and it collapses along with the materials above it. If that one floor can’t handle the dynamic load and collapses, then repeat for the floor beneath it until, you either find a floor that can handle an ever increasing mass of material falling down on it, or until you’ve reached the bottom. The buildings didn’t collapse from the bottom, they collapsed from the points of impact down. Which also explains why they didn’t topple over like some of your completely different demolition fails. The lower floors of WTC 1 & 2 didn’t fail until the floors above them came crashing down on them with the aid of gravity.

So what do you think happened and for how long have you been of the belief that the official narrative was seriously flawed?

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 09-15-2019 at 10:22 AM.
  #193  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:37 AM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I never understood the conspiracy theorists need for explosives and planes in the same theory, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Have you not seen the articles that assert the planes never hit the Towers? It was all CGI, to make people think planes struck the towers, covering up the controlled demolition.

It's all very simple, really.

Well, as Northern Piper points out, there are people who do just that, but when they get rid of the planes, they sound even more crazy, so most truthers have to keep them.

As for the explosives, they have to keep those too, because the vast majority of Truthers became truthers because the collapses "didn't look right", and they've spent years (almost decades now!) finding "evidence" to support that original belief. For them to now admit that explosives are incredibly unlikely would require them to realize that their original impressions of the collapses were in error, and thus their entire belief structure is with a foundation.

And one thing every debunker has seen is that most Truthers are constitutionally incapable of admitting error, no matter how small. Hell, just take a look at that list LAZombie has been posting, and consider how many of the "factual" points in that list have been comprehensively shown to be wrong. And yet, he still posts it. They ALL still post it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I'm not obsessing over the jet fuel.

My number one issue is that the buildings collapsed in a symmetrical fashion. I can accept that the supports in the area where the planes struck were severed and that the fires ultimately caused the collapse of supports in that area.

...

It is certainly possible, and even NIST's model suggests, that as one side failed, it would cause the remaining supports to fail. One side would pull down the sides that were still intact. The inability to explain a universal failure of the supports is what keeps me skeptical.


Okay, here is an absolutely critical question, that may very well address the fundamental error you're making in trying to understand the collapse: in each instance where you refer to "the supports" above, which "supports" are you talking about? Be very, very specific, please.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #194  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:55 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,307
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.
It doesn't matter if it was shoddily built or not. Its not a paper airplane. Its not going to go sideways unless it has a force pushing it sideways, and for something massing that much, it would need to be a very large force and distributed over a large area. Otherwise it'd just penetrate the structure without transferring enough energy. Like trying to push a cubic meter of jello with the point of a needle. Old disaster movies don't actually give you a real impression of how structures this large behave.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
No it doesnít. It only needs to be seen relative to the floor beneath it. If the floor beneath it canít handle the load and it collapses along with the materials above it. If that one floor canít handle the dynamic load and collapses, then repeat for the floor beneath it until, you either find a floor that can handle an ever increasing mass of material falling down on it, or until youíve reached the bottom. The buildings didnít collapse from the bottom, they collapsed from the points of impact down. Which also explains why they didnít topple over like some of your completely different demolition fails. The lower floors of WTC 1 & 2 didnít fail until the floors above them came crashing down on them with the aid of gravity.

So what do you think happened and for how long have you been of the belief that the official narrative was seriously flawed?
Like ASL v2.0 points out the force does not distribute itself over the entire building, just the area it impacts. What ASL v2.0 is leaving out is that the you are not talking about just the force that cause the weakened iron to collapse plus the floor that just collapsed:

The mass is under acceleration!

For an extremely simplified calculation, the towers massed about half a million tons, so very roughly 5 000 tonnes plus contents per floor. When supports give and twentyish floors start to fall, those hundred, hundred and fifty thousand tons do not just put a hundred and odd thousand tons of weight to the next floor. They impact it at about 7.5 meters per second. That is a lot more force than just having the weight placed on you. It is the difference between supporting yourself on your legs as you stand, and dropping from ten feet to land on your feet.

Now that floor gives, so the one beneath it takes that weight plus ten-fifteen thousand tons more now traveling at 10 m/s. Ten floors on, the mass is traveling at 25 m/s. That is equal to the difference between jumping of a ten foot ledge and one a hundred foot off the ground.

Yes, you can quantify the force hitting the floor below (actually the area of the floor won't significantly matter it doesn't contribute enough to resistance, it'll be the area of the walls and supports) and that force is very, very, large and scaling up rapidly for every floor it falls.
  #195  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:41 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
The lower floors of WTC 1 & 2 didnít fail until the floors above them came crashing down on them with the aid of gravity.
And, even then, much of the cores of both remained standing for a significant period of time.
  #196  
Old 09-15-2019, 01:56 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,914
How symmetrical is symmetrical?

In every film I have seen, the collapse begins with a slight tilt to one side or another.
The tilt ends to go away when the overall building begins to collapse.
Are you aware of the size of those buildings? Each had a footprint of approximately one acre. Are you aware of how much force is required to shift an acre of steel and concrete sideways?

I guess that if you used explosive to blow out a single wall, you might get it to lean over, but the fires weakening the girders and joists involved the entire floor--walls, paint, furniture, office supplies, carpeting, decorative features, etc. (That is what the fuel ignited; no reputable source has claimed that the fuel burned long enough to torch the supports.)

So with an acre of burning objects, even if one support failed first, (no argument against that), all the supports had been under stress long enough so that the failure of one portion cause the immediate failure of nearby supports.
  #197  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:56 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I'm not obsessing over the jet fuel.

My number one issue is that the buildings collapsed in a symmetrical fashion. I can accept that the supports in the area where the planes struck were severed and that the fires ultimately caused the collapse of supports in that area.

What I have trouble accepting is that the floors beneath the impact site suffered universal failures so great that it would allow a free fall compression of the entire building. Likewise the floors above the impact site were obliterated and did not retain their form in any manner either.

It is certainly possible, and even NIST's model suggests, that as one side failed, it would cause the remaining supports to fail. One side would pull down the sides that were still intact. The inability to explain a universal failure of the supports is what keeps me skeptical.

Here's a compilation of demolition fails. What these fails suggest is bringing down a building is much harder that one might imagine and that a symmetrical collapse is highly unlikely without planning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM
You obviously do not understand the structural design of the WTC towers and how they differed from other constructions. The steel supports formed the perimeter of the building allowing for unobstructed floor space in the interior.
This tube-framed design contained most of the collapse to the centre.
  #198  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:05 PM
Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 2,030
For those who are interested, Ryan Mackey wrote On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation which covers a lot of the conspiratard bullshit being posted by LAZombie, and why it's all bullshit. Worth a read.

Here's the link. [pdf warning]

Last edited by Patch; 09-16-2019 at 08:05 PM.
  #199  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:39 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 318
"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
  #200  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:47 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,340
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
Obviously, the idiot is wrong.
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 10:54 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