Skyscrapers on fire, not collapsing

[psikeyhackr]

@Lute Skywatcher

Trying to get warned for trolling again?

And who decides what trolling is?

Since it is obvious that skyscrapers must support more weight at the bottom then more steel must be put there. So the idea that the top of a skyscraper crushing the rest since it must have less steel is somewhat absurd.

So I can only conclude that being accused of trolling for pointing out something relevant to the subject simply means some people don’t want the subject discussed or they are just STUPID.

You can believe your warnings upset me as much as you want.

Conservation of Momentum in a Gravitational Collapse | Page 4 | Naked Science...

I’ve been banned before.

9/11 is a peculiar science problem.

Science without DATA. :smack:

psik

[Frylock]

[quote=“psikeyhackr, post:136, topic:553541”]

@Bryan_Ekers

TWO THOUSAND TIMES THEIR MASS

The mass ratio has almost no importance here at all. You could build a structure the size of mount Everest which someone could bring down with a BB gun pellet.

[Raygun99]

Set a brick on your toe. Then drop it on your toe from 3 feet up.

[psikeyhackr]

@Raygun99

No one says the impact was the reason the towers collapsed, because it wasn’t. The towers did withstand the impact of the airplanes. If there had not been subsequent fires, that would have been the extent of the damage.

The “skyscrapers are not Jenga blocks” analogy comes into relevance again here.

I never said the skyscrapers were destroyed by the impacts.

But the impacts did do structural damage and the jet fuel had to be delivered in some manner.

People are accusing me of trolling for saying that the skyscrapers WERE NOT LIKE JENGA BLOCKS.

I have never played Jenga but I presume the blocks have the same density. The density of skyscrapers must change, increasing toward the bottom but apparently mentioning that and the fact that we don’t have detailed information about that is TROLLING as defined by the powers that be. So discussion is relatively pointless. I guess physics might cause thinking.

psik

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Lute Skywatcher

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

And yet, sadly, they did not.

Technically, they did; it was the fires–which had not been taken into consideration–that brought them down.

I only intended my glib rejoinder to say (glibly and much more concisely):

• "Look. Let’s pretend for a moment that your mad fantasies about the design specs of the Twin Towers were reality and not fruitcakiness. Let’s even say the WTC towers were designed and built to withstand the direct, simultaneous impact of five 747s, fully-loaded with fuel, traveling at maximum speed.

“Even if that were the case, wouldn’t it be possible that a single, smaller jet impact could start the dominoes falling that lead to a catastrophic collapse? It would be shocking and unexpected, sure. But no excuse to start making shit up. Barring any other explanation (except Truther conspiracy-theory bat-shittiness) reasonable people would have to accept the sad truth.”*

Or, IOW, sometimes shit happens.

Of course, this is all moot because the Truthers’ mad fantasies are not even in the same multi-verse as reality.

[Frylock]

@psikeyhackr

I have never played Jenga but I presume the blocks have the same density. The density of skyscrapers must change, increasing toward the bottom

If I could provide a cite demonstrating that the typical skyscraper’s density does not decrease as its height increases, would this give you pause for thought?

[Raygun99]

@psikeyhackr

@Raygun99

No one says the impact was the reason the towers collapsed, because it wasn’t. The towers did withstand the impact of the airplanes. If there had not been subsequent fires, that would have been the extent of the damage.

The “skyscrapers are not Jenga blocks” analogy comes into relevance again here.

I never said the skyscrapers were destroyed by the impacts.

Thus the relative mass of the jets to the towers are irrelevant.

I have never played Jenga but I presume the blocks have the same density. The density of skyscrapers must change, increasing toward the bottom

This is incorrect.

[JohnT]

@Frylock

@psikeyhackr

I have never played Jenga but I presume the blocks have the same density. The density of skyscrapers must change, increasing toward the bottom

If I could provide a cite demonstrating that the typical skyscraper’s density does not decrease as its height increases, would this give you pause for thought?

No, because it was done in other threads and he still keeps making the same point.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

[QUOTE=psikeyhackr;12932620But everyone is supposed to believe that airliners could TOTALLY destroy structures TWO THOUSAND TIMES THEIR MASS in less than TWO HOURS even though skyscrapers cannot stand and withstand the wind without getting those design characteristics correct.[/QUOTE]
So if we believe your alternative of a controlled explosion, how is that better? The towers are probably 10-20 thousand times the mass of the half-ton or so of explosives needed for that. What does this matter, anyway? Does comparing the mass of the “Fat Man” bomb to the mass of the city of Hiroshima have any meaning?

P.S. The towers were NOT “totally destroyed” – just knocked down. As I recall, the city spent weeks trucking away the rubble left from when the towers collapsed.

[Skywatcher]

@JohnT

@Frylock

If I could provide a cite demonstrating that the typical skyscraper’s density does not decrease as its height increases, would this give you pause for thought?

No, because it was done in other threads and he still keeps making the same point.

On the Transamerica Building.

[tomndebb]

@psikeyhackr

Since it is obvious that skyscrapers must support more weight at the bottom then more steel must be put there. So the idea that the top of a skyscraper crushing the rest since it must have less steel is somewhat absurd.

It is not obvious that a skyscraper must be heavier at the bottom. In fact, for those who actually know the history of skyscrapers, we are aware that that statement is utterly false.
Each story of a skyscraper need be only as heavy as every other story; that is the whole point of their construction. So you are simply wrong.

You were not accused of trolling (yet), but the point was made that your insistence on re-posting errors that have been disproven multiple times in multiple threads looks much more like trolling that it does engaging in serious discussion.

@psikeyhackr

I’ve been banned before.

From the Straight Dope Message Board?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@psikeyhackr

9/11 is a peculiar science problem.

Science without DATA. :smack:

Well, as a thought experiment, suppose I supplied evidence that each floor of the WTC main towers was composed of 40 tons of concrete and 50 tons of steel? What would you do with such numbers, now that you have them? Is 90 combined tons per floor not enough? Too much? Do you have some kind of formula waiting to have these values plugged in that will either prove the fire caused the collapse or that it could not have?

[Cisco]

@Bryan_Ekers

@psikeyhackr

9/11 is a peculiar science problem.

Science without DATA. :smack:

Well, as a thought experiment, suppose I supplied evidence that each floor of the WTC main towers was composed of 40 tons of concrete and 50 tons of steel? What would you do with such numbers, now that you have them? Is 90 combined tons per floor not enough? Too much? Do you have some kind of formula waiting to have these values plugged in that will either prove the fire caused the collapse or that it could not have?

That raises a good point.

You keep invoking science (and “physics”), psikeyhackr. Have you studied much science? If you have, then you know that the debate over the line of demarcation (what is and isn’t science) raged in the early 20th century. When the dust finally cleared, one of the few things that everybody could agree on was that science is falsifiable. If it can’t be falsified, it is not science. That’s why Freud’s theories are no longer accepted as scientific; how could you prove he was wrong?

What can falsify your claims? What facts, observations, or data could be introduced to the argument that would invalidate your claims? And while we’re at it, why don’t you - clearly and concisely - state your claims.

Put up or shut up. Don’t ask us to keep playing Calvinball with you. Give us the rules to play by and we will more than gladly play.

Same goes for you, Mozart1220, and any other truthers who might be reading.

If none of you can do this, then I can only assume you are trolling us to get your jollies, and have no more belief in or conviction about alternative 9/11 hypotheses than the other 96% of us do. And certainly, at the very least, you’ll have to quit pretending that science has anything to do with what you’re doing here.

[Musicat]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, as a thought experiment, suppose I supplied evidence that each floor of the WTC main towers was composed of 40 tons of concrete and 50 tons of steel? What would you do with such numbers, now that you have them? Is 90 combined tons per floor not enough? Too much? Do you have some kind of formula waiting to have these values plugged in that will either prove the fire caused the collapse or that it could not have?

I think 90 tons of steel would prove that there were no planes. Or no fires. Or…

You can’t win.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, what about 400 tons of concrete and 500 tons of steel per floor? What effect does a tenfold increase have on whatever hypotheses are supposedly in play?
The significance of the relative masses of building and plane elude me, though. A man weighing 100 kg can be fatally injured by a bullet weighing 2g, despite a target-to-projectile mass ratio of 50,000 to 1. It might even take him a hour or more to die.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@psikeyhackr

The nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers. But everyone is supposed to believe that airliners could TOTALLY destroy structures TWO THOUSAND TIMES THEIR MASS in less than TWO HOURS even though skyscrapers cannot stand and withstand the wind without getting those design characteristics correct.

How could anyone believe this stuff!!?!??!!?

Most of us have no problem believing it. But since you don’t, I’d like to offer some alternative theories for your perusal. Like your conspiracy theories, they’re incorrect. But at least you wouldn’t seem quite as reality-phobic if you chose to glom onto one of these instead.

So try these on for size. They’re far simpler than yours, don’t involve government black-ops, and have as their genesis either lame incompetence, or that boring, tired old chestnut–greed:

1. The “Conspiracy of Dunces” Theory

You brought up a good point when you wrote (in the passage quoted above):

*"…skyscrapers cannot stand and withstand the wind without getting those design characteristics correct."

*Suppose the architects/designers/engineers who planned the towers just fucked it up–didn’t ‘carry a four’ somewhere, or forgot to convert from metric to English units.
Or better yet…
2. The “Yo! Youz Guys… Howsabout We Take A Bit Off the Top?” Theory

What if some of the contractors conspired to use inferior raw materials to save money and then pocketed the difference? The engineering and design were spot-on, but shoddy, cheap, steel that would have faltered if you held a lighter up next to it long enough doomed the buildings.

Either one of these conspiracy theories (if they actually happened) could have contributed mightily to the Towers’ collapse. Both of these theories are far, far more likely than whatever nonsense you are polluting the interwebs with. Have you ever considered anything like the above theories? Or are they just not “twisted-dark adolescent-oriented X-Files-knockoff comic book” for you"? Yeah. I kinda thought so.

In any event, the one conspiracy we KNOW to have occurred (a group of extremist, religious fundamentalist, whack-job terrorists conspire to crash jetliners into American symbols of power killing thousands of people) is the likeliest CT of them all.

Because it actually happened.

---

**
Try the New Occam Penta-Blade V!
for a Smoother, More Comfortable Evisceration of Mouth-Breather CrazyWhack Shit-Spew – Guaranteed!!!*

**

Try the new Occam Penta-Blade V and we guarantee you’ll begin to understand logic, reasoning, and the scientific method, or your ignorance back!
**Any ‘understanding’ at or above kindergarten picture-book level shall be considered sufficient for the purpose of this guarantee (hey, we ain’t miracle-workers!). Offer not valid in some states… of mind (you know who you are).

[CurtC]

@Algorithm

Hint: if you say anything about the color of the smoke reflecting the heat of the fires, you lose.

The temperature of the fire is correlated to the color of the smoke. Black smoke, like what was coming from the towers, indicates a hotter fire, while whitish-looking smoke indicates a cooler fire.

Cite

In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn’t work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.

[bdgr]

@tomndebb

@psikeyhackr

Since it is obvious that skyscrapers must support more weight at the bottom then more steel must be put there. So the idea that the top of a skyscraper crushing the rest since it must have less steel is somewhat absurd.

It is not obvious that a skyscraper must be heavier at the bottom. In fact, for those who actually know the history of skyscrapers, we are aware that that statement is utterly false.
Each story of a skyscraper need be only as heavy as every other story; that is the whole point of their construction. So you are simply wrong.

You were not accused of trolling (yet), but the point was made that your insistence on re-posting errors that have been disproven multiple times in multiple threads looks much more like trolling that it does engaging in serious discussion.

@psikeyhackr

I’ve been banned before.

From the Straight Dope Message Board?

Looks like they banned him from Randi’s board. andw others. He actually brags about being banned on some message boards. Not something I would be proud of.

[XT]

Personally, if I was going to go with a plausible conspiracy that actually fits the facts, it would be something like this (mind, this isn’t what happened, nor do I THINK it’s what happened):

A conspiracy to attack the US is perpetrated by some group either in our government or outside of it for reasons unknown, but possibly having to do with some sort of profit (insurance, perhaps, or maybe concerning speculation on the stock market). They use their contacts to infiltrate AQ at the highest levels, and convince them that they want to help them strike a blow against the US. They form a plan and create a team, and then use their influence and pull in the government to block access or create pathways by which the terrorists are able to get themselves into position. Then they enable the hijackers to actually take control of the planes (possibly with a backup plan that allows them to take over remote control of the planes). The planes are then flown into the buildings exactly as we see them, and the results are as we’ve seen.

THAT would at least fit the facts. The CT as it’s propagated by the Truthers and other 9/11 CT nutters is completely implausible. Controlled demolitions? Too complicated, even if there was any sort of evidence, which there isn’t. We know for a fact that jet planes hit the WTC. We know the collapse started approximately where the planes hit. We know the collapse pretty much propagated from impact site downward. In order to put demolitions into the mix we’d have to assume that the folks wiring the building (using non-detectable magic explosives and equally non-detectable magical detonation devices) would know exactly where the buildings would be struck, AND would be able to ensure that the explosives and detonators wouldn’t be adversely effected by the impacts of large air craft at high speeds into the general area where the explosives and detonators were located. Further, they would have to take into account the fires, and we’d have to assume that, for reasons both opaque and mysterious, that they waited for a fairly long period of time (while the fires were raging) before sending their mystery signal to their magical detonators to bring down the building in such a way that the collapse would start pretty much where the impact was.

Occam’s Razor pretty much slices this into ribbons. Even leaving aside the fact that zero evidence has been found of detonators or magic explosives (of course, being magical there wouldn’t be much evidence), the simplest explanation is that the jets caused the collapse. So, if you are of a CT mindset, it seems to me the most likely avenue for at least marginal plausibility would be that either the hijackers themselves had been tricked by agents of this sooper sekrit gummit organization, or that the same organization had put devices on the planes to simulate the air traffic from a supposedly hijacked air craft, turn off their transponders, then using remote control to fly the planes into the buildings.

Even that is shredded by Occam (the actual simplest explanation is, of course, what really happened…that some schlubs from SA got lucky), but at least it has the benefit of quasi-plausibility, since it sort of fits the actual facts.

-XT

[Bryan_Ekers]

@CurtC

The temperature of the fire is correlated to the color of the smoke. Black smoke, like what was coming from the towers, indicates a hotter fire, while whitish-looking smoke indicates a cooler fire.

Or a new Pope.