Page 11 of 16
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:59 am
by Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
[xeno]Julios wrote:
The description you gave doesn't seem compatible with this sort of collapse, based on my own internal thought simulation - in my mind, I see the building sort of topple from the top half. The hole in that one side would create an asymmetry of force, and surely this asymmetry would be reflected in the dynamics of the collapse that it inspired.
btw is the controversy over WT1 or WT7? I'm really confused here heh
It would have toppled if it was on a much smaller scale. With something that large, it's a completely different story. If it was to topple over though then you would be asuming that the sructure below the failing point would be capable of suporting the upper parts impact.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:15 am
by [xeno]Julios
topple over is perhaps not the best description of what I mean.
I just feel that there would be some asymmetry in the dynamics of the collapse - not the neat "square telescope" collapse as seen in the videos.
Then again, I haven't really examined the collapses closely.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:04 am
by Freakaloin
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:28 am
by Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
Like Achems Razor says... "the simplest answer tends to be the correct answer"
Maiden wrote:
hmm.... lets see.....
WTC sits in the heart of one of the most populated areas on Earth.
Bringing down the towers would be the biggest implosion in history, by a huge mother of a margin!
Tons and Tons of explosives.
Miles and Miles of cable
Hundreds of super invisible ninja like demolition experts.
Making them fall the way they did would require the most precise use of demolition technology available by the worlds greatest demo experts, with NO miscalculations.
Now lets fly a 737 into them first just to add a little unknown to the equation and see if we can still pull of the prefect implosion.
All that without the 150,000 people that work there or the million or so that live within spitting distance ever seeing anything fishy going on for the months it would take to set up.
yeah, right.
OR
Fender wrote:A PLANE FLEW IN TO THE FUCKING BUILDING
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:29 am
by Dave
The last one is my favorite
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:39 am
by Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
I mean FFS Freakaloin thinks it's all a plot.
If I was driving down the street and had to make a life or death decision and Freakaloin was with me... I'd ask him what to do. If he said turn left, you can guaran-fucking-tee I'll be turning right.
He's just that wrong... on so many levels.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:09 pm
by Hannibal
Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:Like Achems Razor says... "the simplest answer tends to be the correct answer"
Not to be a pendant but it was Occam...and it's not about truth, it's about preference (i.e. preferring simpler theories, ceteris paribus) as a means to avoiding error.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:03 pm
by Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
I've seen it spelled both ways.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:58 pm
by Hannibal
Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:I've seen it spelled both ways.
Hmmm...I see another spelling is Ockham. My bad. My clarification of the razor is the important bit.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:20 pm
by R00k
That is not an explosion, it's a raging fire.
Although, like Nightshade said, you have to define what epxlosion really is. With definitions that include even things as different as population explosion, it is hard to say that a sudden, raging fire can't be called an explosion. But for practical purposes, especially in the engineering world, an explosion is something completely different from a released flammable liquid burning suddenly and very quickly on a large scale.
You can ask a demolitions expert, or even someone in the highway construction industry who blasts rock to clear land for roads.
A piece of dynamite exploding is very different from jet fuel, or even gasoline, burning -- unless the fuel is in a pressurized container, and is ignited while it is still under pressure in the container, with a mixture of something that allows it to ignite, like oxygen.
The ignition of fuel/air mixture in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine could be called an explosion, but 2 gallons of gasoline on fire in the open air is only a very large fire.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:26 pm
by R00k
inphlict wrote:It’s too big to be a cover up, you would need so many people to be able to pull something like this. There is also no real evidence just speculation.
The only consipracy theory that I think could have some truth is the jfk assasination but I’m not 100% sure.
You wouldn't need that many people who knew what was going on. The intelligence community itself is an example of this -- they used highly compartmentalized information, so that anyone who gets caught in an intelligence operation can't give away the whole enchilada under torture.
For any operation, people involved never know any more than they absolutely have to in order to do their job, and don't question why. It's the same even in the military.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:26 pm
by l0g1c
Hannibal wrote:Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:Like Achems Razor says... "the simplest answer tends to be the correct answer"
Not to be a pendant but it was Occam...and it's not about truth, it's about preference (i.e. preferring simpler theories, ceteris paribus) as a means to avoiding error.
Not to be a pedant, but it's pedant.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:26 pm
by Dave
Whatever... now you're just aruging useless semantics. No matter how you define 'explosion', the fuel in that FAA simulation caught on fire and burned awfully hot. The movie shows jet fuel can catch on fire under the right circumstances
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:40 pm
by R00k
Dave wrote:Whatever... now you're just aruging useless semantics. No matter how you define 'explosion', the fuel in that FAA simulation caught on fire and burned awfully hot. The movie shows jet fuel can catch on fire under the right circumstances
No, it's a very important distinction, because I said the pancake theory (the official theory) has only ever been attributed to one other building colapse, and in that one explosives were blown near the structural foundation. Someone then said that a 767 full of jet fuel catching on fire is an explosion.
So it's an important difference.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:42 pm
by R00k
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:incorrect my friend. i have actually created such explosions for a hollywood movie
the ingredients above in a mortar with a charge and kafuckingboom
edit: the gas and deisel in garbage bags
30 foot cloud of flame
Again, that's just a 30 foot cloud of flame. I know it sounds like semantics, as Dave said, but it's a very important distinction in terms of demolition engineering, and the effects they have on different materials.
You can take a single 3-foot thick slab of steel, and instantly burn 500 gallons of diesel fuel at the base of it, and if the fire doesn't burn for longer than a few minutes, there will be no change in the steel's loadbearing ability and structural integrity.
Steel has to be very hot for a sustained period of time in order to change the temper of it - and the thicker it is, the longer it takes.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:48 pm
by Dave
I think you're making a tenuous comparison with weak evidence. The reason this stuff isn't reported in the mainstream press is because it's glib, not a cover up
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:25 pm
by R00k
Dave wrote:I think you're making a tenuous comparison with weak evidence. The reason this stuff isn't reported in the mainstream press is because it's glib, not a cover up
Glib? I'm not sure I follow your meaning?
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:14 am
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
rook
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:18 am
by Hannibal
l0g1c wrote:Hannibal wrote:Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:Like Achems Razor says... "the simplest answer tends to be the correct answer"
Not to be a pendant but it was Occam...and it's not about truth, it's about preference (i.e. preferring simpler theories, ceteris paribus) as a means to avoiding error.
Not to be a pedant, but it's pedant.
fuck me LOL. must be gittin' too big for my britches.
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:26 am
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
rook you need to start sourcing your info
you've been fed a lot of bullshit which you're just accepting
for example, the wtc columns were 18 inches wide not 36 inches
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
R00k wrote:HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
no explosives needed
That's just a fire, and it burned out in a few minutes.
look at that photo and consider your comment then think about how rational you sound making it
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:51 am
by Dave
R00k wrote:Dave wrote:I think you're making a tenuous comparison with weak evidence. The reason this stuff isn't reported in the mainstream press is because it's glib, not a cover up
Glib? I'm not sure I follow your meaning?
See 1b:
glib (gl?b)
adj., glib·ber, glib·best.
1. a. Performed with a natural, offhand ease: glib conversation.
b. Showing little thought, preparation, or concern: a glib response to a complex question.
2. Marked by ease and fluency of speech or writing that often suggests or stems from insincerity, superficiality, or deceitfulness.
Like puff said.. you need to source your facts otherwise you're making Kracus-style comments about gravity
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:56 am
by Keep It Real
Osama Bin Laden got his goons to crash planes into the twin towers and the pentagon, then Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:16 am
by R00k
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:rook you need to start sourcing your info
you've been fed a lot of bullshit which you're just accepting
for example, the wtc columns were 18 inches wide not 36 inches
I'm talking about the center columns, for the core of the building.
Hold on and I will get you a source...
edit: This is a first source I got quickly. It's the article by the former Bush administration official who recently came out and said the official story isn't plausible:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Also, Underwriters Labratories is the company contracted by the NIST to conduct the tests on why the WTC collapse happened as it did -- they are also the company who originally certified the steel in the building when it was constructed. They concluded their tests last year. They didn't release their findings publicly, but gave them over to the NIST. The NIST then released their report.
This is a letter from Kevin Ryan, of Underwriters Labratories, to Frank Gayle, of the NIST:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsar ... 1-ryan.php
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
I'll find a more official source for the thickness of the WTC core columns for you.
edit2:
Appendix B of the official FEMA WTC report:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wt ... apndxB.pdf
From that report:
The difference was up to 15 ksi (i.e., 75 ksi, 85 ksi, and 90 ksi). The core columns were
box sections fabricated from A36 steel plate and were 36 inches x 14–16 inches with plate thickness from 3/4
inch to 4 inches. Above floor 84, rolled or welded built-up I-shaped sections were used.
The shape of the core column changed above the 84th floor, but the size was the same.
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:18 am
by R00k
Keep It Real wrote:Osama Bin Laden got his goons to crash planes into the twin towers and the pentagon, then Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Goons that were known to be moving about the country, taking flight lessons, and known to be connected to people who had made public statements about crashing a plane into the WTC with an overseas flight. This was all known by the CIA as well as the FBI, before the attacks.
That is straight out of the FBI Inspector General's report which was recently released.
Hang on and I'll source that as well...