|
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. |
4th April 2016, 12:08 PM | #201 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Fire made every support column fail at once? Really?
Quote:
|
4th April 2016, 12:11 PM | #202 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:12 PM | #203 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:13 PM | #204 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
4th April 2016, 12:16 PM | #205 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
Who said they did? Some failed an hour or so before the building collapsed.
Quote:
Quote:
|
4th April 2016, 12:16 PM | #206 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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. |
4th April 2016, 12:18 PM | #207 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:18 PM | #208 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
4th April 2016, 12:24 PM | #209 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
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... |
|
4th April 2016, 12:27 PM | #210 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
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:
|
4th April 2016, 12:27 PM | #211 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
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. |
4th April 2016, 12:27 PM | #212 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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:
|
4th April 2016, 12:30 PM | #213 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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:
Quote:
|
4th April 2016, 12:31 PM | #214 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:32 PM | #215 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
4th April 2016, 12:36 PM | #216 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
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? |
4th April 2016, 12:37 PM | #217 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:38 PM | #218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
4th April 2016, 12:40 PM | #219 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
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:
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. |
4th April 2016, 12:40 PM | #220 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
4th April 2016, 12:40 PM | #221 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:42 PM | #222 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:42 PM | #223 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:43 PM | #224 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:44 PM | #225 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
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... |
|
4th April 2016, 12:44 PM | #226 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
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:
Quote:
|
4th April 2016, 12:45 PM | #227 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:47 PM | #228 |
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. |
4th April 2016, 12:48 PM | #229 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Do you really think the engineers would assume a plane would crash without causing a fire?
Quote:
|
4th April 2016, 12:49 PM | #230 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
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. |
4th April 2016, 12:54 PM | #231 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
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:
Sander does not believe it was a major factor, I did not state it was a major factor, but it WAS a factor.
Quote:
http://nist.gov/public_affairs/facts...aqs_082006.cfm |
4th April 2016, 12:57 PM | #232 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
4th April 2016, 12:57 PM | #233 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
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? |
4th April 2016, 01:00 PM | #234 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
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 |
|
4th April 2016, 01:32 PM | #235 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
4th April 2016, 01:45 PM | #236 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
4th April 2016, 01:47 PM | #237 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
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 |
4th April 2016, 01:52 PM | #238 |
Illuminator
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... |
4th April 2016, 01:57 PM | #239 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
4th April 2016, 02:24 PM | #240 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
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? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|