Need to keep that footage link for the next time…that was perfect!
Fair enough.
-XT
Again, if you want to continue discussing this, we should really do it in a different thread.
Are you one of those people that’s, like, obsessed with “getting the last word” or something? I keep trying to tell you I don’t want to discuss this, and never particularly did (again: you brought it up), but you keep poking at it. Let it go.
Okay, well, if you don’t want to discuss it, we can do that in a different thread too.
I’ll throw the truthers a bone pick a point from here and let’s discuss it.
Should be straight forward since we all know that either you believe the NIST is either part of the conspiracy or believe a few key people sould get their engineers degrees revoked.
I’ve watched some more of it now and while the “gravity” comment is definitely the pinnacle of the piece thus far I had to do a double-take at “pyroclastic flows”. There are really people suggesting that there were pyroclastic flows in New York City on 9/11? Really??? I cannot comprehend this. I mean, you’d think someone might have noticed a few thousand flash-fried New Yorkers.
I’m still trying to figure out why it is significant whether a building swayed 12 inches or 15 inches on impact. Is this supposed to demonstrate that the towers were not knocked over by the impact of the planes?
If so, then it is evidence against an argument that no one is making. Otherwise I would appreciate a clue where this line of inquiry is expected to lead.
I think his idea is that if we know the amount of kinetic energy that the plane had in flight and the amount of energy that it took to sway the building, the difference between the two will be the amount of energy that was dissipated in shredding the plane and the building. What he expects to do with this number, I do not know. You would need an extremely sophisticated model that allowed you to calculate exactly where the plane went into the building, what columns, etc, it hit, the elasticity of each of those collisions, etc, to make any sort of use of that number. Certainly not something the average Joe is going to pull off.
I realize it’s a hijack of a hijack, but the sun’s actually white. However, due to atmospheric scattering of blue light it looks yellow when it’s low in the sky. At high noon, it’s white. Of course, at high noon you can’t stare at the sun all that long.
I just didn’t discuss it with you in that thread, and if I do say so myself I crushed you like a bug. Are you OK? You seemed to be off your game a bit.
I also liked the part where she is endlessly going on about ‘explosions’ every time someone says ‘it sounded like an explosion’, and then one witness says something like ‘it sounded like a freight train coming down’ and the guy who put all this together says something like 'I’m surprised you don’t think the collapse was brought about by freight trains, using your own logic. Similes and all that.
Another funny part was when Judy Wood breathlessly is describing a camera watching the Towers and then you see the camera jiggle a bit and she informs the viewers in a subdued voice that this must have been caused by an ‘explosion’ (9 seconds before the first tower comes down), and in text the guy doing the video says something like ‘I guess it never occurred to you that someone may have bumped the camera stand? Seismic data shows that there was no significant activity prior to the collapse, so obviously this was purely a local event’ (IOW…someone hit the freaking camera or maybe the wind was blowing).
I just wish that they could have them both debate the issue live, with some real back and forth…gods, it would be a riot.
-XT
This is one of the best contributions to this thread so far. Much better than that guy who keeps saying it’s Kirk’s fault.
Definitely…going to keep that video as a link for the next time a Truther brings up Lincoln Logs or the like. Did you check out some of the comments after the video? I loved the guy who said something like ‘I didn’t realize so many people thought the Towers were hollow’. It’s a taste of what the Truthers will say the next time one brings up a Lincoln Log analogue and someone links to that video…‘Well, it’s not the same, because it’s hollow… … … Um, perhaps if we built a Giant Badger…’
Had some time on my hands so re-watched that part (it’s about at 1:10 into the video, if you don’t want to slog through the whole thing and only want a good laugh) and it’s pretty hilarious. I guess there ARE people who think that there were pyroclastic flows in New York. I have to admit, I’m baffled by where Mrs. Wood was going with all that (possibly it has to do with her own theory about space based finger quotelasersfinger quote being the actual method used to take down the buildings (in case the planes and ‘squibs’ weren’t enough, of course).
-XT
I’ve seen 'em on other boards. The term gets applied to the “eruption” of debris but if one stopped to think about what the term entails…
Sixth’d (or whichever). This is an incredible if accidental display of how a tall structure composed mainly of rigid framework and air would collapse.
I particularly liked how it survived the initial ‘plane’ hit (with minimal swaying! :p), only to be later felled when further damage (admittedly by a different kind of ‘fire’) caused the area to lose the remainder of its structural integrity.
:D:D:D:D
ETA: I so want to see our resident truthers comment on that video. Not parodies of them, the actual people.
It’s not a true test, since
A: the structure was hollow
B: it was “Lincoln logs” and you already pointed out how stupid I was for making that analogy.
C: Not hit anywhere close to the place the planes hit.
And that video could have been half as long, why did we need a slow motion shot of a miss?
In contrast with the Twin Towers that were solid, right? :smack:
Yes it is. You made the comparison based on the height and said something tall and thin might tip over. You said that was especially true if it was hit near the base, and that model was hit closer to the base than the WTC was.
So you’re shucking and jiving here. Your new objections to the test don’t address your original comparison.
Not relevant to how the towers it fell over. It’s not like the WTC was supported by office furniture.
Ale, who posted the video, was not one of those people. I’ll admit this tower had more internal support than what I imagined you could do with Lincoln Logs. (I don’t know how similar the types of toys are.)
If anything this tower was more likely to tip over than the WTC towers. AND the toy tower crumbled the same way the WTC did: above the impact, it tilted to one side, then straightened out - without the help of any explosives- and collapsed close to straight down, with some debris raining over the sides. It didn’t even come close to tipping over.
This event was not a deliberate modeling of the tower fall; it was a separate event in which all the happenings in it were notable, including the miss. Sort of how when you watch a football game the first time you don’t cut out all of it but the (eventually) famous touchdown.
A: The WTC towers were hollow. Where do you suppose the people using the offices worked? Hanging off the outside the the building?
B: Take what you can get. Note that like all models it doesn’t replicate every aspect of the collapse (note the lack of ‘squibs’); just ones pertinent to the similarities between the two situations.
I think actual lincoln logs, assuming they were stacked in the usual log-cabin style, would have the additional problems of having a vastly-disproporitionately strong resistance to un-notching and sliding down past one another, and a distinct lack of ability for the sides to crunch downward through the logs below. This lack of crunchability would result in them being unable to replicate the uncrunchability of the towers and being forced to tip further before becoming disconnected, resulting in it very likely being a much worse model of the WTC than this random event turned out to be.
Of course if you stacked the lincoln logs in a vertical lattice like this model rather than in their usual solid-walled configuration, their collapse would probably end up looking a lot like this one.
C: The two towers weren’t hit in the same place either; should one not have collapsed because it didn’t model the other?
The hit in the video was “well above the ground”, which alone makes it a much better model than any controlled demolition. To some degree the amount of tower above and below is irrelevent after a certain point, as long as there’s enough weight above to bring it down and enough below to demonstrate the crushing effect. And for an event that wasn’t planned as a model of the towers, it’s honestly not bad at all for demonstrating what it does.
Thanks for replying, though. I’m not at all surprised that you refuse to admit what this demonstration shows.
My internet connection is slower than usual so I couldn’t find a better picture, but I’ve seen several photographs of the Twin Towers with the rising sun shining through them as in the first photo in this page.
So, Mozart, looking at that picture please tell us, were the Twin Towers mostly hollow or not?