IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th April 2016, 12:08 PM   #201
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post

Fire made them fail first, then the weight of the building did.
Fire made every support column fail at once? Really?

Quote:
I based my feeling on the pretty well established common knowledge that steel doesn't fare well in fire.
If steel doesn't fare well in a fire, then why use it as a building material? If it does not fare well in a fire, then why haven't more steel-framed buildings collapsed from fire? Oh, I forgot. Firefighting. Yeah, right.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:11 PM   #202
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Yes, some columns are standing while the floors are pulverized and ejected laterally. You should really stop saying that they fall. It makes people assume that everything came straight down. That is not what happened.
I'm pretty sure that's just you.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:12 PM   #203
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
FF,
Nothing ever wrong with having questions and asking them.. and expecting to receive a decent answer. It's probably a healthy thing to question because that leads to understanding.

It appears that there is misunderstand about what NIST did and what their objective was. Accordingly what they published in their reports contains errors, is incomplete, are hypotheses explaining the collapses and is not intended to be proofs. NIST had to use assumptions and values to generate their studies and models. Hulsey will be doing the same. Absent a complete data set all models will produce a resulted limited by and constrained by the assumptions used.

I personally, find their "initiations" to the progression of runaway mechanical failures.. their so called global collapse not satisfying. They may have nailed it. But the complexity of the events means that the unwinding of these buildings could have had a different path.. could have begun in a different location for example. But ultimately all hypotheses need to produce an outcome which matches the visuals...and sounds which is all we have to check the model.

The effects of uncontrolled fires on steel is well known. Same for concrete and other materials. Steel will weaken, will expand, concrete will weaken and spald. Other materials will ignite and burn.

Building have systems to mitigate the effects of fire... steel has insulation and there are sprinklers to cool and extinguish fires. if the suppression systems fail then the fire will do its thing... the materials will lose strength, integrity, distort by twisting, sagging, breaking and so on.

Connection elements are not as strong as the things they connect. It's absurd to expect every single component down to a bolt or a weld to have the strength of the beams and columns and plates and so on they join. It's pretty clear from examining the WTC debris that connections failures played a huge part in the complete collapse of the buildings.

Of course there was the force of gravity which drove the PROGRESSIVE collapse in most cases. This required a threshold mass large enough to destroy the connections etc. on the components upon which they fell for the collapse to proceed in a downward runaway fashion. Buildings with few floors are not given to progressive downward runaway collapse, facade peel, or columns toppling from being too slender when stripped of their bracing. To collapse the low rise structures would require undermining of the structure at the bottom.

The form of a gravity driven collapse is in the "DNA" of the structural design... and were the initial failures are.

Total collapses are usually progressive events. Parts of the structure fail and the mass to be supported has not changed so the other parts of the structure assume additional loads. Structures are designed to perform well below the yield strength and ever component has a "factor of safety" though none is expected to have the same value of FOS. However as parts of the structure fail, and loads are carried by parts of the remaining structure... those redistributed loads will push the factor of safety lower to members and connections seeing new and increased loads. This can eventually lead to the service loads seen as exceeding the yield strength and another connection or member fails... loads ger redistributed and the cycle will repeat especially during the period of constant heat being added which weakens and distorts and fails elements of the remaining structure. The process progresses at an increasing speed and becomes runaway and can involve the entire structure if the design does not have a means to ISOLATE the failures laterally. Ronan Point did... the twin towers' and 7wtc did not.

We will never know precisely how the the failures progressed. There is no time related data. There are no proofs. The hypotheses are driven by the visual record and the design along with understanding of how materials perform under mechanical loads and thermal stress.


And as in a CD... it is gravity which is the main destroyer. Once threshold mass is deprived of designated axial load paths... collapse will be ensue... locally and possibly globally. This is settle science. Gage and his dropping blocks is a prime example of dumb and failing to understand and take into account the structure, engineering and mechanics on the required level.

There is much to learn from engineers, physicists, critical thinkers who have studied and written about these collapse.

If you really want to learn the material is out there on this and other sites like 911 freeforum.

If you want to remain steeped in ignorance and junk science and confirmation boas because you believe everything the media and gov says is a lie... you will not learn a thing.
I have just now seen this post. Please give me time to read it, understand it and then reply. I am not ignoring you.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:13 PM   #204
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Fire made every support column fail at once? Really?

No, why would you assume that? I know, you have a problem understanding gravity loads (and no understanding of structures).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:16 PM   #205
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Fire made every support column fail at once? Really?
Who said they did? Some failed an hour or so before the building collapsed.


Quote:
If steel doesn't fare well in a fire, then why use it as a building material?
Because it's strong, when it's not heated up.

Quote:
If it does not fare well in a fire, then why haven't more steel-framed buildings collapsed from fire? Oh, I forgot. Firefighting. Yeah, right.
And here you suggest that a building that's on fire, and has no effort to suppress the fire, should fare just as well as a building where the fire is being fought - assuming identical construction.

NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:16 PM   #206
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
FF.. My credentials in these issues don't matter.

I am a practicing architect.
I worked for the architects of the WTC in 1970
I do no design high rise buildings
I have been in the twin towers scores of times
I have worked with Ed DiPaola's engineering firm Severud (structural engineers) who visited the site post collapse and wrote after reports
I have worked with Guy Nordenson who also wrote a brief in support of a lawsuit alleging there were design flaws in WTC7.
I have been associated with AE911T for less than 6 months beginning in Fall '09 and was appointed to their board. I was tossed out because I was seeking the truth not interested in promoting the bullet points and incorrect points in their Blueprint for Truth and that nano thermite was responsible for the collapse.
I have attended numerous Truth events, communicated with several present and former truthers such as Harrit and Gordon Ross.
I have produced scores of my own graphics about the WTC collapses
I don't publish nor speak at conferences about 911.
I am just a dumb old architect

I am convinced that there was no CD and the collapses were caused by mechanical damage and uncontrolled fires.
Thanks for providing this. I will now give much more thought to your posts. I know I will be attacked for saying this, but I want to make it perfectly clear that everything you say will carry much more weight that you think it does.

That being said, I am still not convinced. I am only saying this now to show you that I am looking over your posts right now. I am not ignoring you. You have put quite a bit of thought in your posts, and they deserve a meaningful response.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:18 PM   #207
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Because it's strong, when it's not heated up.
Engineers know that buildings catch on fire. If steel was so problematic, why would they keep using it?

Quote:
And here you suggest that a building that's on fire, and has no effort to suppress the fire, should fare just as well as a building where the fire is being fought - assuming identical construction.
I have never said this. You are only making an assumption.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:18 PM   #208
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
For reasons that others have mentioned this is not a suitable analogy. I'm beginning to think that you're not sincere about wanting to debate this issue in a rational manner.
Beginning?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:24 PM   #209
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Thanks for providing this. I will now give much more thought to your posts. I know I will be attacked for saying this, but I want to make it perfectly clear that everything you say will carry much more weight that you think it does.

That being said, I am still not convinced. I am only saying this now to show you that I am looking over your posts right now. I am not ignoring you. You have put quite a bit of thought in your posts, and they deserve a meaningful response.
Nope. Your actual problem is that you did not expect to find a motley assortment of actual pilots, architects, scientists and engineers who know for a fact that your baloney claims, are in fact baloney.

You thought a priori that you were dealing with others who were as ignorant of science and physics as you proudly claim to be. You thought that you were dealing with laymen like yourself.

The last thing you expected was to confront subject matter experts, right here.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:27 PM   #210
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Engineers know that buildings catch on fire. If steel was so problematic, why would they keep using it?
Because they knew other engineers that made this stuff you can put on the steel to protect it. It's interestingly called "fireproofing", something of a misnomer though, as it doesn't make it impervious to fire indefinitely.


Quote:
I have never said this. You are only making an assumption.
You absolutely did, when you minimize the role of firefighting. You said exactly that.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:27 PM   #211
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Engineers know that buildings catch on fire. If steel was so problematic, why would they keep using it?
.
1) They did not expect a loss of a significant number of columns due to aircraft impact PLUS a widespread fire attack on these structures. It was not designed in anticipation of that.

2) The structure's passive fire resistance was somewhat compromised by aircraft impact, something again not taken into account in design.

3) The structure's active fire fighting was compromised, water supplies to affected floors was destroyed.

However, had you deigned to read the FEMA and/or NIST reports, you'd already have known this.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:27 PM   #212
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The material coming horizontally out the windows (broken) is basically the clg tiles, gyp bd partitions, particle board furniture, carpets and all things which were not strong and strongly attached to the structure.
OK. I completely understand your statement. I am not rejecting it. I simply have a question.

Please watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
Around 30 seconds the collapse becomes visible enough to clearly see smoke and pulverized building contents being laterally ejected. Are you claiming that what I see is pulverized ceiling tiles, gypsum board, particle board, furniture and all the things that were not strong and attached to the structure immediately after the collapse started? Are you claiming that all of this material consists of what you mentioned, but no floor material? If so, where are the floors?

At 54 seconds you can clearly see the top portion of the building is nearly gone. Where did the floors go, if they are not part of the pulverized contents?

Quote:
The air speed reached as much as 400 mph if you calculate how fast the air around the core on the long span side (60' from the facade) moved in about 0.1 seconds.
Are you sure floors would have caused this? Could anything else explain the airspeed you claim?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:30 PM   #213
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
1) They did not expect a loss of a significant number of columns due to aircraft impact PLUS a widespread fire attack on these structures. It was not designed in anticipation of that.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The buildings did not collapse after the initial impact; therefore, they performed as they were designed to do.

Quote:
2) The structure's passive fire resistance was somewhat compromised by aircraft impact, something again not taken into account in design.
Wrong. Please provide the NIST experiment that relates to fireproofing and aircraft impacts.

Quote:
However, had you deigned to read the FEMA and/or NIST reports, you'd already have known this.
I have, which is why I have pointed out your errors.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:31 PM   #214
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The last thing you expected was to confront subject matter experts, right here.
So far I have only encountered one "expert" who might have credibility. You are not that expert.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:32 PM   #215
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The buildings did not collapse after the initial impact; therefore, they performed as they were designed to do.
Is this a direct quote from the lead designer? Do you need one or do you think he lies too.........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:36 PM   #216
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Another thing you can see in the GIF is that the outside material falling through air at close to FF is moving faster than the ejections down the side of the building. The floor collapse withing the tower is SLOWER than FF.

And you can see material from the collapse coming out of several floors as its volume was quite large at the levels seen in the GIF.
Not that it matters, but I want to go on record saying that I agree with your observation. Actually it does matter, because it proves that I don't reject everything a skeptic says.

Some questions:
Don't you find it odd that it appears that the pulverized building contents are being produced at roughly the same rate? Don't you find it odd that the pulverized contents are being ejected approximately the same distance as well? It's almost like there is a new column of constant width at a constant distance falling faster than the part in the footprint. What explains such a uniform creation of pulverized contents?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:37 PM   #217
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is this a direct quote from the lead designer? Do you need one or do you think he lies too.........
If you are tying to prove I am wrong, why is it so hard for you to provide a link, or anything, other than your own statement claiming I am wrong?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:38 PM   #218
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
So far I have only encountered one "expert" who might have credibility. You are not that expert.
What are your credentials to make such a judgment? None.

How do I know that? Because you told us you have none.

I provided mine. You provided nothing but fantasies.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:40 PM   #219
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Yes, some columns are standing while the floors are pulverized and ejected laterally. You should really stop saying that they fall. It makes people assume that everything came straight down. That is not what happened.

I also see pulverized building contents being generated and ejected laterally at a near constant rate. Do you see that too?
What you see being ejected is mostly lighter contents including a hell of a lot of pulverized gypsum board. I see absolutely no evidence that concrete floor pans are being ejected laterally.

Quote:
I also wonder what the laws of physics tell us when something continues to accelerate as it falls. What do the laws of physics say about this? Something about apparent weight. Hmmm. Could that be a clue? If something is accelerating, what is it's apparent weight? Is it more or less than its static weight? Hmmm. Could the answers to these questions be clues?

Nah. Nothing to see here.
If something continues to accelerate as it falls it means that the forces directed downwards are greater than any forces acting in the opposite direction.

In the Earth's gravity well an object that is falling AT g would have an 'apparent weight' of zero, or weightless. However when it impacts something the force of impact is not zero. If you throw a cannonball into the air and let it fall on your head it will be weightless on the way down but be far from having zero force when it hits your head. In fact it will hit with more force than if you simply balanced it on your head. That is because its momentum must be imparted to your head over a period of time and momentum transferred over time IS force. Its actually the way Newton described his Second Law of Motion in his Principia Mathmatica. The change in momentum over change in time.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:40 PM   #220
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If you are tying to prove I am wrong, why is it so hard for you to provide a link, or anything, other than your own statement claiming I am wrong?
Does the lead designer say the building was designed to withstand the crash of a 707? Yes or no?

You claim it was.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 4th April 2016 at 12:42 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:40 PM   #221
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by AZCat View Post
No. Do your own homework - the rest of us did. Why should there be special rules for you?
If you claim I'm wrong, provide proof I am wrong.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:42 PM   #222
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
The answer is in your statement.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:42 PM   #223
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
What you see being ejected is mostly lighter contents including a hell of a lot of pulverized gypsum board. I see absolutely no evidence that concrete floor pans are being ejected laterally.
Then you're not looking, or you are playing a semantics game.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:43 PM   #224
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The answer is in your statement.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...g_707_767.html

How am I wrong?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:44 PM   #225
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If you are tying to prove I am wrong, why is it so hard for you to provide a link, or anything, other than your own statement claiming I am wrong?
You, yourself, have conceded that you are not an engineer, scientist or anything much of anything.

You post bollocks on the basis of a self admitted lack of knowledge.

You are corrected by those who actually are scientists and engineers and you reject those.

Religion. That is all you have.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:44 PM   #226
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The buildings did not collapse after the initial impact; therefore, they performed as they were designed to do.
And they in fact withstood the impact of Boeing 767s.
They did not however withstand BOTH the impacts plus a fire condition that saw large area fires over several floors immediately after impact.


Quote:
Wrong. Please provide the NIST experiment that relates to fireproofing and aircraft impacts
Why? you didn't know this was discussed in the NIST reports? Thought you read them.



Quote:
I have, which is why I have pointed out your errors.
No, you could not have, otherwise you'd know these things. If you'd have read these forums you'd know its been discussed many many times over the past 1.5 decades.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:45 PM   #227
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then you're not looking, or you are playing a semantics game.
B.S.!
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:47 PM   #228
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
This thread started out so nicely with jaydeehess' OP.

Then a small debate breaks out between jaydeehess and JSanderO over a specific data point. ozeco41 joins in and what occurs is a substantive discussion of ideas about the collapses with Oystein joining in.

These guys know what they're talking about and none have a horse in the official story race. Just guys debating structural failure. A layman such as I can learn a lot just from shutting up and reading this stuff.

Then the usual suspects show up.

What is clear from the first two pages and the last two up until this point is who knows what they are talking about and who does not.

Just an observation. I hope this fades back into serious discussion at some point soon.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:48 PM   #229
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
And they in fact withstood the impact of Boeing 767s.
They did not however withstand BOTH the impacts plus a fire condition that saw large area fires over several floors immediately after impact.
Do you really think the engineers would assume a plane would crash without causing a fire?

Quote:
Why? you didn't know this was discussed in the NIST reports? Thought you read them.
Have you provided the information I requested? I have read the portion necessary in order to know your claim about fireproofing is wrong. I asked you to show this information. You have failed to do so.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:49 PM   #230
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
In the way that the back of an envelope calculations done concerning a 707 impact , assumed the plane was low on fuel and circling, looking to land at JFK and thus moving slowly. Not with throttles pushed to max. and tanks loaded with 1K gallons of fuel.

THAT'S how you are wrong.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:54 PM   #231
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Do you really think the engineers would assume a plane would crash without causing a fire?
In the 70s they had no way to model such a fire. Aircraft impact was a secondary concern driven only by public fear of it occurring. It was not a driver of the engineering.


Quote:
Have you provided the information I requested? I have read the portion necessary in order to know your claim about fireproofing is wrong. I asked you to show this information. You have failed to do so.
Since you have it at your fingertips...........

Sander does not believe it was a major factor, I did not state it was a major factor, but it WAS a factor.
Quote:
Aircraft impact debrided spray on fire insulation in varying degree, on a significant number of structural components on impact floors. This reduced fire resistance of those structural steel components.
Really, you believe that one can essentially shred a 767 and have the pieces travel into the building at 100+ MPH and those pieces will simply bounce off spray foam insulation?

http://nist.gov/public_affairs/facts...aqs_082006.cfm

Last edited by jaydeehess; 4th April 2016 at 01:01 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:57 PM   #232
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This thread started out so nicely with jaydeehess' OP.

Then a small debate breaks out between jaydeehess and JSanderO over a specific data point. ozeco41 joins in and what occurs is a substantive discussion of ideas about the collapses with Oystein joining in.

These guys know what they're talking about and none have a horse in the official story race. Just guys debating structural failure. A layman such as I can learn a lot just from shutting up and reading this stuff.

Then the usual suspects show up.

What is clear from the first two pages and the last two up until this point is who knows what they are talking about and who does not.

Just an observation. I hope this fades back into serious discussion at some point soon.
I believe I pointed this out to FF before. Let me think, yes, yes I did.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Amazing! You want to sticky a thread based on response to your derail of the thread.
Do you or do you not have anything at all to contribute to the subject of the thread?
So far nada but derails and denial of facts in evidence.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 12:57 PM   #233
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Are you typing?

If yes = then <wrong>
If no = then <not_yet>

Pretty simple where I sit.

The buildings weren't designed to withstand what happened. How do we know? Because they didn't. You're pretty damn fixated on inventing scenarios that go against reality, but I don't see any thought put in to any alternatives.

Only two things could have happened.
1)Aircraft impact + Fire
2)Something else.

Why not start another thread and tell the class about your own personal view on #2?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 01:00 PM   #234
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Your CD is wrong, Cole is wrong.

The WTC towers were design to stop a 707 at 180 mph; stop it at the shell.

The 707 at 180 mph kinetic energy is equal to 187 pounds of TNT.

Flt 11 at 490 mph kinetic energy is equal to 1400 pounds of TNT. The plane will not stop at the shell, and will damage 6 core columns.

Flt 175 at 590 mph kinetic energy is equal to 2093 pounds of TNT. The plane will break the shell and damage 10 core columns.

The design of the WTC would have kept the jet fuel outside the WTC shell for a 180 mph jet impact, some fire inside, not all the fire inside.

Did you have a point in the wrong thread again?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 01:32 PM   #235
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Do you really think the engineers would assume a plane would crash without causing a fire?
What did the lead designer say about this?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 01:45 PM   #236
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What did the lead designer say about this?
One would not know from the link he provides. No direct quotes there.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 01:47 PM   #237
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
OK. I completely understand your statement. I am not rejecting it. I simply have a question.

Please watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
Around 30 seconds the collapse becomes visible enough to clearly see smoke and pulverized building contents being laterally ejected. Are you claiming that what I see is pulverized ceiling tiles, gypsum board, particle board, furniture and all the things that were not strong and attached to the structure immediately after the collapse started? Are you claiming that all of this material consists of what you mentioned, but no floor material? If so, where are the floors?

At 54 seconds you can clearly see the top portion of the building is nearly gone. Where did the floors go, if they are not part of the pulverized contents?



Are you sure floors would have caused this? Could anything else explain the airspeed you claim?
The ejected material is anything BUT the floors. The floors were behind the spandrels. For them to get pulverized and ejected horizontally they would be intact for about 2 feet of vertical drop.... being pulverized...(not) and then something would then forced them out the windows which were about 7 1/2' tall. NO

What happened was the floors fractured at first into large chunks and were then the face the the collapsing debris floor mass. Each impact on a floor caused the mass of chunks about to get crushed finner. Imagine a bag or dishes dropping multiple times... First drop big chinks of plates and saucers and next drop they get smaller and so on until after 7 or 8 drops you have a lot of very small material... and after 20 iterations it lots of dust and it just gets crushed smaller and smaller. But of course the last impacted would be the large chunck on the pile/ makeing up the pile... the dust gets carried away on the hot air from the collapse.

The top sections floors became the ROOSD mass and dropped into to top section.. some spilled out the holes in the building.

Virtually ALL the material shooting out through the facade is NOT floor slab concrete.

I am not a skeptic
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 01:52 PM   #238
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
I suspect SFPM did get removed. Not much from the plane impact because not much of the plane impacted steel and left it in place. Some of it probably shook loose.... Maybe.
The plane impacts may have sent the building materials flying about and bashing the steel and knocking it off. Maybe. Things like flying gyp bd shaft walls, metal studs would do it.

A plane part... dunno...
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 01:57 PM   #239
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I suspect SFPM did get removed. Not much from the plane impact because not much of the plane impacted steel and left it in place.

Do you consider the fuel mass as part of the plane? Purdue seems to think it had a greater effect on the structure then the NIST considered.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 02:24 PM   #240
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What did the lead designer say about this?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
One would not know from the link he provides. No direct quotes there.
This is so 2003 that so far I find that Robertson said: "The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." but the link provided at the site I was on is broken now.

Then there is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgXvmMkpRpU

"the fuel load of a 707 was not considered" ,,,, "I don't know how it could've been considered",,,,, "707 was a landing aircraft"

Satisfied NOW FF?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.