of course i find fault in your assumptions about me. but i cant see how you can sit here and tell me you are not naive after some of the things you have said.
That is something a child would say.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
of course i find fault in your assumptions about me. but i cant see how you can sit here and tell me you are not naive after some of the things you have said.
That is something a child would say.
Emotions are about BELIEVING things not understanding them.
The person I responded to chose to mention LOGIC. Logic is about understanding not BELIEVING therefore anyone making that claim should be dealing willing to with the physics. Of course they are probably implying that anyone who disagrees with them is illogical. Hardly any better than a moron. LOL
I am not going to try to psychoanalyze everyone I communicate with. I really don't even regard this as a debate, it's PHYSICS. Old Newtonian physics actually. I don't discuss the government, at all. I definitely don't mention FDR and Pearl Harbor. This is strictly about the physics of what could and could not happen on 9/11 and what information is necessary to do a proper analysis.
You can't build 1360 foot 110 story skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put where. So even if the official story is 100% true to have gone SEVEN YEARS without having that data to analyze the collapse is INSANELY ABSURD. So what possible reason could there be not to have it? Might it make it too obvious that a top down gravitational collapse is a physical impossibility because the top 16 stories of the north tower would have had to bend, break and move too much mass.
Curing this level of scientific incompetence in the nation that put men on the moon is more important than finding who did it at this point.
Get kids reading REAL SCIENCE Fiction from the 50s and 60s. LOL
http://www.readmorescifi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50
psik
How do I sound like an 'ambulance chaser'?
Look, no office fire can produce molten iron. And yet, previously molten iron was definitely found in ground zero.
It'd have to get through 90-100 stories first; and note that this was -before- the alleged 'pancake collapse'.
Well, I can imagine that you don't think that your views concerning 9/11 are clouded by your emotions.
What things did you have in mind?
What draws you to that conclusion?
Not if it was external. But it could have been many things like my post about steel bending and the violent force when its limits are reached. Believe me it can sound very much like a small explosion. Small in a way but similar to a quarter stick of dynamite or something similar. Could be electrical explosions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5HuO-2Ci0
Last edited:
You seem to be implying that you can't believe in something you understand. There is, ofcourse, the other issue of believing you understand something, whether you actually understand something or not...
Philosophers use logic, but that doesn't mean that they're well versed in physics.
Personally, I'd rather be called illogical then a moron. The term 'moron' is just too base, in my view. If I'm called illogical, I can ask why the person who calls me this feels this way. But I personally would rather just report someone who calls me a moron, as the term is inflamatorry and, in my view, doesn't help any discussion.
psi, let's assume for a moment that you do, in fact, have a good understanding of physics and that people who disagree with you don't. Even in this scenario, I fail to see how you can argue that we aren't engaged in a debate here. As with many debates, I believe that one side is right on more points than the other. But I believe that it can frequently take a long time for most people in the debate to agree on which side is the 'generally right' one. If people lack a knowledge of physics in the debate, simply saying that this is the case will probably not win many kudos. Demonstrating it, on the other hand, can.
I contend that your debating style is simply different then mine. It may be that your knowledge of physics is stronger then your knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Not that my knowledge is all that extensive regarding Pearl Harbor, but I do believe that there is sufficient evidence that shows that Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was something Theodore Roosevelt wanted to have happen.
Psikey, I've noticed that you frequently only focus on one particular issue- the weight of the steel and concrete in the WTC towers, something that you have apparently not resolved to your satisfaction. However, there are -many- other issues concerning 911 and I, atleast, feel that many of those other issues should be addressed.
While this may be true, surely you realize that ? I know that people such as Astaneh and someone else (forget who) were upset with the secretive nature of the people with information on the WTC towers, but as far as I know, you are the only person who has been so concerned regarding these points precisely. Nevertheless, if you would like to get in contact with Jerry Russell, I can send you his email address by PM. As far as I know, he has done the most extensive analysis on the weight of concrete in the WTC towers. I believe that the amount of steel in the WTC towers was already mentioned elsewhere.
Perhaps.
I think that's debateable. How do you know it's incompetence? Perhaps, as you say, "it make it too obvious that a top down gravitational collapse is a physical impossibility because the top 16 stories of the north tower would have had to bend, break and move too much mass."
Very funny
.My impression was that it was internal.
What could have bent a huge steel girder on the ground level before the actual collapse other then explosives?
Alright, humour me, what could have caused electrical explosions before the actual collapse of the building, other then explosives? And don't you think the timing was just a -little- too coincidental for comfort?
And that is the problem. As for the rest of your post, i am not going to sit here and speculate all i did was state the obvious but as usual the obvious is not good enough for you. And that is the second problem you are having.
It's a problem that I have impressions? Or that the issue hasn't been further investigated?
What "obvious" things are not "good enough" for me?
Bombs/explosives in the buildings, Round 3, part 3
This post is in response to the 4th and final part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
If I was satisfied with reading conspiracy sites, I wouldn't be here. The fact that you continue to assume that I am 'pretending' that I am after the truth is saddening. I could, ofcourse, assume you're a cointel agent, but I don't. In fact, the more I speak with you, the more I genuinely believe that you actually believe what you say. I base my view that the most likely explanation is that they were bombs/explosives on the fact that many witnesses felt they felt bombs/explosives, not exploding transformers or anything of the sort, as I made clear in this post. What's more, the possibility of explosives is the one that best explains the collapses of the WTC buildings, as Steven Jones succinctly puts it in his article Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?:
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
Not according to John Skilling. Fortunately for the official story, he died 3 years before 911, in 1998. Another staunch defender of the strength of the WTC buildings also died- on 911 itself. That man was Frank D. Martini, who was the construction manager for the twin towers. In an interview before his death, he said this:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
The WTC buildings were steel framed buildings. Much stronger then any concrete reinforced building.
It certainly has a strong potential to have a bearing on the actual conspiracy, though perhaps not in your imaginary one.
Is there actual evidence that the steel softened? I saw bent steel (which I firmly believe was due to the explosives), didn't see any softened steel.
-Hours-? I've been here since August and have almost definitely written more then 1000 posts on the subject.
Sure I do. My summary, complete with various counters to detractors of my view, can be seen here.
First, show me the evidence of 'softened' steel. Then I can proceed to debunk your supposed evidence that it was "enough to initiate a collapse."
The basement certainly wasn't the only place that explosives were placed.
Sorry, but nano-thermites do explode...
I have certaily seen no fire test that would lead one to believe this, and the Madrid tower partial collapse and the way it partially collapsed reinforces the fact that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.
As I said at the beginning of this post, if I didn't want to be exposed to alternate views, I wouldn't be here. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
This post is in response to the 4th and final part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
If I was satisfied with reading conspiracy sites, I wouldn't be here. The fact that you continue to assume that I am 'pretending' that I am after the truth is saddening. I could, ofcourse, assume you're a cointel agent, but I don't. In fact, the more I speak with you, the more I genuinely believe that you actually believe what you say. I base my view that the most likely explanation is that they were bombs/explosives on the fact that many witnesses felt they felt bombs/explosives, not exploding transformers or anything of the sort, as I made clear in this post. What's more, the possibility of explosives is the one that best explains the collapses of the WTC buildings, as Steven Jones succinctly puts it in his article Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?:
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
Not according to John Skilling. Fortunately for the official story, he died 3 years before 911, in 1998. Another staunch defender of the strength of the WTC buildings also died- on 911 itself. That man was Frank D. Martini, who was the construction manager for the twin towers. In an interview before his death, he said this:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
The WTC buildings were steel framed buildings. Much stronger then any concrete reinforced building.
It certainly has a strong potential to have a bearing on the actual conspiracy, though perhaps not in your imaginary one.
scott3x said:
So what softened the steel then? (about the 8th time I have asked) Maybe it was the fire?
Is there actual evidence that the steel softened? I saw bent steel (which I firmly believe was due to the explosives), didn't see any softened steel.
-Hours-? I've been here since August and have almost definitely written more then 1000 posts on the subject.
Sure I do. My summary, complete with various counters to detractors of my view, can be seen here.
First, show me the evidence of 'softened' steel. Then I can proceed to debunk your supposed evidence that it was "enough to initiate a collapse."
The basement certainly wasn't the only place that explosives were placed.
Sorry, but nano-thermites do explode...
I have certaily seen no fire test that would lead one to believe this, and the Madrid tower partial collapse and the way it partially collapsed reinforces the fact that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.
As I said at the beginning of this post, if I didn't want to be exposed to alternate views, I wouldn't be here. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
There are lots of details to argue about on 9/11 if that is what people want to do. Most people focus on the problem from the perspective of what did it, like controlled demolition, not on what couldn't do it. I have had a number of people get angry with me by demanding that I tell them what did it and I refuse to even go there. As soon as you go to the controlled demolition scenario you have to address the point of WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR IT. I don't have any more access to that than anyone else. It ends up coming back to taking somebody's word for some study they did.
I am not interested in taking anybody's word.
But I KNOW a skyscraper must support its own weight. I don't need to trust anyone on that. Every level must be strong enough to support everything above, so why shouldn't we have how many tons of steel were on each level?
This relates to the fire because it is not just a matter of temperature it is a matter of time to heat the steel. We KNOW very exactly the impact times and the collapse times for the towers. So the obvious question should be, "How much steel had to be heated to weaken sufficiently in that amount of time?" So we have 56 minutes for the south tower and 102 minutes for the north. If 15 lb. and 25 lb turkeys cook at the same temperature won't it take longer to cook the 25 lb. bird? So isn't the quantity of steel in the fire relevant along with nearby levels since the steel will conduct?
Then there is the matter of the top portion of each tower coming straight down and destroying almost everything below in less than 18 seconds. You can't do conservation of momentum calculations without the distribuyion of mass. Any experts should at least be wondering about that.
So we have at least 3 reasons for wanting to know the distribution of steel and concrete:
#1. To compute how much of the kinetic energy of the plane went into deflecting the building because the remaining energy did structural damage and we need to know that to figure out if the collapse could even start.
#2. To understand how much steel was on each level within the impact zone to get an idea if the fire could further weaken the steel in the available time.
#3. To do a conservation of momentum analysis for a top down gravitational collapse and determine the strength of each level to resist collapse.
Now an interesting thought experiment which should not be that difficult for building professionals to simulate would be to remove levels 89 to 94 inclusive from an accurate computer model of the north tower and run the result. Obvioulsy such a model would have to have correct information on the quantity of steel and concrete on each level. I think everyone would have to agree that removing 5 levels is more damage than the plane and fire could possibly do. So they would be eliminated from the discussion. So if the simulated building was not even nearly destroyed in such a test then I think we could safely conclude that the plane could not do it. I would bet that 40 to 50 levels of the tower would remain standing. I am conservatively assuming the falling mass would take out double its own height because every 16 levels of the building must be stronger and heavier than the 16 levels above it.
My point is, this is the EASY physics. Old Newtonian junk.
So why don't we even have suggestions about doing a simulation that simple? This may get into the subject of Wiz Kid psychology. Our schools put the smart kids together and force them to compete with each other. Sometimes they compete over stuff that is complicated but stupidly unimportant. You often end up with people more interested in constantly proving how smart they are than in solving real problems.
That is significant reason why I like Stargate Atlantis. Rodney McKay and Zelenka may be somewhat more real than a lot of people think. I was in what was called the TOP CLASS all 4 years in high school. I remember watching a classmate cry in class because he got a B in senior year. I almost started laughing, but I thought about the hundreds of hours of idiotic busywork he must have done to get straight A's in everything, until then. I got straigh D's in religion freshman year. I thought they were hilarious next to my straight A's in math.
But this 9/11 is getting so drawn out for such a simple problem that it is beyond ridiculous. I am starting to wonder if the distribution of steel in skyscrapers is supposed to be some kind of guild secret. I can't find that kind of info on any skyscraper. If it weren't for 9/11 I would never give a damn about it. But the Empire State Building is 77 years old and was designed without electronic computers so I am NOT IMPRESSED. I cannot believe this should not have been solved in a year. Or at least determined that an airliner couldn't do it. BUT THAT ALONE LETS THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG DOESN'T IT?
Debates among a lot of these kinds of people are often more about winning and proving they are smart than solving the problem. The problem now is that plenty of high school kids could understand the easy solution to this skyscraper problem. But then the question would become, "So why didn't you EXPERTS point this out already?"
So now I have two EXPERTS on two sites constantly saying it's irrelevant, but even if it is why can't a 3-year, $20,000,000, 10,000 page report mention such irrelevant information? What would it hurt? But that report can't even specify the total amount of concrete.
psik
Only because, in this case anyway, they are wrong.:shrug:
Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01.
This post is in response to John99's post 444 in this thread.
Actually, Larry Silverstein made immense profits due to the insurance provisions he had on the WTC buildings against terrorist attacks.
This post is in response to John99's post 444 in this thread.
Actually, Larry Silverstein made immense profits due to the insurance provisions he had on the WTC buildings against terrorist attacks.
HUH?
As far as I am concerned to BELIEVE means to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. Therefore belief is stupid by definition. I usually try to avoid using the word in applying it to myself.
I either say I SUSPECT or I KNOW. Most people don't use the word SUSPECT very much. In fact plenty of people use BELIEVE and KNOW almost interchangeably. They say they know when actually the believe or believe when they really know.
On the 9/11 business I strongly suspect that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a normal airliner to have produced the observed destruction and effects. But in order to know and prove it we must have the distribution of steel and concrete data. We also need to know the maximum load each level can support to know how much it would slow down the mass falling from above.
But after SEVEN YEARS how do experts say this is necessary information without having demanded it long before now?
psik
This post is in response to John99's post 448 in this thread.
Fair enough. I will continue to try to explain to you why I think you are mistaken on a great many things concerning 9/11...
Fair enough. I will continue to try to explain to you why I think you are mistaken on a great many things concerning 9/11...
Lets go through this again. You claimed that it wasn’t exactly a 'raging inferno'. To demonstrate this you showed a cropped photo of one section (the coldest) of the WTC. I am making it clear that “ to claim that you didn’t see any large fires is dishonest.”
Your games with photos alone is enough to accuse you of being deceitful. Are you still claiming that the fires were small or not?
His have not gone through much rigor either.
Except that they don’t lead to a super conspiracy so you won’t want to accept them.
I have said numerous times that I don’t know what that material is. When you have some reliable evidence for temperatures capable of producing molten iron I will consider that. Until any reasonable person will put it at the bottom of the list of possibilities.
No you are still being obtuse. You have the full picture. You can see that the fire is burning away in other areas of the building.
Of course she was going to the coldest area.
I read it somewhere and it sounded logical. It is not crucial to the point being made. Look at the whole photo wth the woman.
Do you think the fireball just caused a little bit of wind?
Not hit by planes, different construction, concrete core.
The steel supports collapsed on the building, just as they did on the WTC. The behavior of the Madrid tower in those conditions only supports the official story.
Yes they laughably claimed that it was refraction caused by heat. I have pointed out to you a few times the problems with that claim.
It has been well established that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel. We even see the steel visibly affected. Only minutes later the collapse starts. The evidence all fits without any need for superduperthermite.
Engineers like Astaneh believe otherwise. They will never construct a skyscraper like the WTC again.
Considering the McCormick Place, the Madrid Tower, the fire tests, the buckling in WTC5 and all the other examples of steel structures collapsing in a fire you are clutching at straws there.
That is not what I was referring to though, and you know it. You are now making a half hearted claim that thermite was responsible for some of the fires. So it melts metal, cuts metal, explodes, softens metal and it starts fires as well. Thermite was originally suggested as the tool for cutting the columns. Now we are seeing it as the cause of everything. Instead of working to a conclusion based on the evidence you are trying to fit the evidence into the conclusion.
No you don’t understand. Metals can become soluble while in a molten metal which has a lower melting point. I am saying that some iron could dissolve while in molten aluminum at around 1000C. It is just a suggestion I read somewhere. Don’t fall into the fallacy of thinking that it must be either pure aluminum or thermite residue.
No you don’t. One of the tests performed on the panels was a paint test! That's what I meant. It’s frustrating that I explain something over and over and then on the eleventh time I don’t describe it correctly so you just dismiss it. The figure of 250C came from analyzing the paint on the panels.
At no point was it NISTs belief that the steel did not go over 250C. Very early on they had twisted steel and estimated that parts of the fire were at 1000C. Steel without fireproof is going to be marginally below that. The conspiracy theorists pick at one part of NISTs findings and then claim that NIST said that was the maximum temperature of the steel. They are taking their findings out of context and ignoring the parts they don’t want to see. You don’t understand this and you just keep repeating their disingenuous claims.
Once again hardly any of the samples were from the impact area and few of them were from the core.
He has made it very clear that he believes there were no explosives involved. To try and represent otherwise would be more deception on your part.
But that was years ago! Why do you keep repeating his faulty claims based on insufficient information?! It's not relevant now. How many times must we go over it? Stop bringing it up.
Don’t just mindlessly cut and paste. Try to actually understand what you are bringing into the discussion.
No the rest of the fireproofing did not have to be removed, just enough from the few impact floors. The photo just demonstrates that it was possible for the impact to dislodge it.
After a long legal battle Silverstein got 4.6 billion but rebuilding WTC7 cost 6.3 billion.
Immense profits?
- Status