View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #2021
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo View Post
    You are obviously making guesses about my opinions. You are not making good correlations with the exact content of my posts.

    I am entertaining the notion of melted steel, both possibly seen flowing and claimed to have been found solidified. Melted steel has to be considered the least likely candidate for the metal flows that were seen and photographed. So I am first considering other candidates.

    Each tower had very recently had 200 tons (or whatever an airliner weighs) of Aluminum enter it through a breached wall. And Stryder has pointed out that there was Aluminum cladding on the wall exterior. Aluminum melts at a low enough temperature to be easily attained by burning jet fuel. Aluminum has to be the first candidate to explain large flows of molten metal on the outside wall.

    I somehow got the impression that you knew a good bit about building construction. Maybe I got you confused with somebody else. I apologize. Somebody who knows a bit about commercial building construction knows that office buildings have a vast amount of copper electric wiring built-in in the ceiling space (coincident with the floor space in a building with a floor structure like the WTC) mainly to serve lighting fixtures. And as tenants rent and customize their spaces, electric wiring also is built-in in the walls to serve wall outlets mainly. WTC was a top-of-the-line office location. I have not researched it, but it is most likely that HVAC was executed by fan coil units in the ceiling serviced by runs of copper pipe to and from central heaters and chillers in the core area. There probably was, although I have admittedly not researched it, built-in runs of stubbed copper water piping and waste piping in regular arrays in the ceiling space to make it easy for tenants to construct executive bathrooms, kitchenets, drinking water fountains, decorative fountains, and whatever other perks the rich and famous tenants of a luxury office building might fancy. WTC was not a bottom of the line sleaze building. The sprinkler may have had steel pipes, but could well have had copper piping. The stand pipe fire department hose supplies may have been copper pipes. The water supply and soil stacks in the core area could have been copper pipes. Copper melts at a low enough temperature to be attained by burning jet fuel.

    It is not really comprehensible for you to claim that molten metal could not originate in the core. On two sides of the building, there was only 35 feet between the core and the outer wall And on the other two sides there was only 65 feet. You believe that molten metal could not run across those distances to obtain an exterior wall? Please get serious.

    I am much too early in new found interest in 9/11 to have very many definite opinions. My posts largely represent a work-in-progress to try to figure out the matter. As such, it will be very easy for a pundit to read a tentative thought of mine and criticize it unjustly. Please do not do that.
    I was going by what you had said where the implication was that you did not think the molten material was steel. If you did not mean to imply that then I'll take you at your word.

    As for the distance from the corner of the core to the northeast outside corner of WTC 2 it would have been about 70 feet and even further from lavatories in the core.

    It is highly unlikely that the amount of copper wiring in the ceiling could have been a cause of that flow. If there were a lot of copper pipes in the ceiling maybe. However, if it was something from the ceiling it would have had to fall on the floor and then flow over to the corner which adds complication and decreases the liklihood.

  2. #2022
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    what's this achilles heel you mentioned?



    keystone kop konspirators? do you realize what would be involved if this was an inside job? you not only have to rig the building for demolition but you must also find someone willing to fly a planeload of passengers into it, all without anyone saying a word.

    People, without malicious intentions, I am sure, keep on misquoting me.

    Achilles heel: I spoke of a possible flaw which I must verify/disprove by further research of the Structural Blueprints and Specifications. Arguing about 9/11 is not my day job. This will be taken care of when it gets taken care of. Until then, I am not going to state any definite conclusion. So, I am not going to specifically explain what and where the Achilles Heel is. (Possible Achilles Heel, to be precise).

    Uno Hoo is really not the dumbest bear in the whole forest. Uno Hoo has some vague idea of what all would have been involved if it was a conspiracy.

  3. #2023
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    I was going by what you had said where the implication was that you did not think the molten material was steel. If you did not mean to imply that then I'll take you at your word.

    As for the distance from the corner of the core to the northeast outside corner of WTC 2 it would have been about 70 feet and even further from lavatories in the core.

    It is highly unlikely that the amount of copper wiring in the ceiling could have been a cause of that flow. If there were a lot of copper pipes in the ceiling maybe. However, if it was something from the ceiling it would have had to fall on the floor and then flow over to the corner which adds complication and decreases the liklihood.


    You are being most intellectually dishonest when you say that I said that i did not think that the molten flow was steel. I have been careful to try to state that i think the flow could have been steel whereas i most strongly consider that it was probably other metal(s) with a lower melting point. You are increasingly seeming to appear as someone who does not desire to carry on an honest discussion of idea versus counter-idea, but only wish to conquer a debate on terms of verbal tricks.

    It was my guess that the most likely candidate to explain the nature of the metal flow was Aluminum. However, it also occurred to me that there would have been Copper in the building. It being unlikely that somehow Aluminum would have chosen one exclusive exit way whereas Copper would chosen another exclusive exit way, it was my guess that the two melted metals would have mingled before finding their way to an egress. Therefore it was my guess that the observed molten flows were most likely, though definitely not certainly, Aluminum with intermingled Copper.

    I do hope that this has not been too complicated for you to follow.

  4. #2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo View Post
    People, without malicious intentions, I am sure, keep on misquoting me.
    where have i misquoted you?
    i may have misunderstood you but i've never put anything in quotes and attributed it to you without you actually saying it.
    Uno Hoo is really not the dumbest bear in the whole forest. Uno Hoo has some vague idea of what all would have been involved if it was a conspiracy.
    it was the way you said it that i found ironic.

  5. #2025
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    You didn't know what the workstation tests were.... I pointed to you to the NIST document which explains the tests.... You refuse to acknowledge them because the document is too large.

    I'm not going to be reading through 180 page documents just because you think it has evidence in your favour. I'm amenable to reading -1- page from an outside source; leopold frequently doesn't even want to do that.
    You did not know what they were. I pointed you to the document. Are you refusing to even acknowledge that it exists?
    I'd heard about the workstation tests a bit in the past; whether they existed or not is not the issue; the issue is whether those tests showed any concrete evidence that the office fires could have taken down the twin towers at near free fall speeds; I don't believe so, but if you can provide any excerpt or 2 from the document that you feel supports this conclusion, by all means excerpt away.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    I don't expect you to read the whole thing but to refuse to even look at it because it is too long is just another dodge.
    shaman, I can't remember the amount of times that you've complained about looking at the links I post. Feel free to call my not wanting to read your 180 page documents a 'dodge'. If I want you to read something badly enough, I'll excerpt what I want you to read; even then there's no guarantee, ofcourse, but I certainly don't expect you to be reading 180 pages worth of peer reviewed documents over at 9/11 studies.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Again you ignore any evidence that might damage your conspiracy.
    You mean I'm not willing to do your homework for you. If you can't or are too lazy to excerpt what you believe to be evidence in the 180 page document, I think it speaks volumes of your interest in the whole thing. I remember you once bringing up a document from Gregory Ulrich back in post 394, who has actually had a paper published on 9/11 studies. The paper you brought up wasn't, but since he'd actually gotten his foot in the door in a site that I deeply respect, I decided I'd not only take a look at the paper you mentioned, but respond to many of his points. The posts I dedicated to responding to his paper:
    544, 551, 567, 580, 597, 608, 614, 616, 618-626. Psikeyhackr made a comment of a piece of it in post 627. So; the posts I made in response to the paper from Gregory Ulrich that you linked to: 18. From psikeyhackr: 1

    The amount of posts you made in response to the 19 posts from me and psikey: 0

    I understand that it saves you time to throw large documents at me and say that I'm 'dodging' when I don't give them more then a brief glance. But I think it's safe to say that when it comes to actually dealing with points exhaustively, you simply can't compare to the work I've done.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    You aren't after the truth you just want to maintain your 911 religion.
    shaman, I know you like to simplify everything; I have a 911 'religion' and/or I'm dishonest or whatever. I don't attempt to make such simplifications for you. Again, I understand that it saves you time to see things this way just as I'm sure it saved you time to completely ignore my 18 posts concerning a document that you also felt was important and I'm sure you would have claimed that I'd 'dodged' if I hadn't 'taken a look'; but there are times when simplifying things can greatly distort the truth.
    Last edited by scott3x; 02-22-09 at 03:26 AM.

  6. #2026
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I'd heard about the workstation tests a bit in the past;
    You thought they were computer simulations! It took several attempts to get through to your thick skull that they weren’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    whether they existed or not is not the issue; the issue is whether those tests showed any concrete evidence that the office fires could have taken down the twin towers at near free fall speeds; I don't believe so, but if you can provide any excerpt or 2 from the document that you feel supports this conclusion, by all means excerpt away.

    shaman, I can't remember the amount of times that you've complained about looking at the links I post. Feel free to call my not wanting to read your 180 page documents a 'dodge'. If I want you to read something badly enough, I'll excerpt what I want you to read; even then there's no guarantee, ofcourse, but I certainly don't expect you to be reading 180 pages worth of peer reviewed documents over at 9/11 studies.

    You mean I'm not willing to do your homework for you. If you can't or are too lazy to excerpt what you believe to be evidence in the 180 page document,
    Scott. You said “I thought that your workstation tests -were- the computer simulations. If this isn't the case, please provide a link that details the tests you had in mind.”

    Then when I did you complain that it is too large and refuse to even acknowledge the tests unless someone can write a two page summary for you.

    You are a joke.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I remember you once bringing up a document from Gregory Ulrich back in post 394, who has actually had a paper published on 9/11 studies. The paper you brought up wasn't, but since he'd actually gotten his foot in the door in a site that I deeply respect, I decided I'd not only take a look at the paper you mentioned, but respond to many of his points. The posts I dedicated to responding to his paper:
    544, 551, 567, 580, 597, 608, 614, 616, 618-626. Psikeyhackr made a comment of a piece of it in post 627. So; the posts I made in response to the paper from Gregory Ulrich that you linked to: 18. From psikeyhackr: 1

    The amount of posts you made in response to the 19 posts from me and psikey: 0
    I missed some posts around the 10 – 20 page mark of this thread. You have missed plenty of my posts as well. But that is completely different to someone requesting information then refusing to look at it!

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I understand that it saves you time to throw large documents at me and say that I'm 'dodging' when I don't give them more then a brief glance. But I think it's safe to say that when it comes to actually dealing with points exhaustively, you simply can't compare to the work I've done.
    I work long hours as an IT consultant. I am never going to be able to waste as much time on this subject as you are. It's not really something you should be proud of.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    shaman, I know you like to simplify everything;
    They are observations. You may not like them but they are fairly close to the truth.

    But If I do simplify things it is because I need to just get you to understand. You have been wrong on a few minor points that you have later conceded but only after I have repeated myself over and over until one of the conspiracy supporters confirms that you are wrong. And they are just the minor points.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I have a 911 'religion' and/or I'm dishonest or whatever. I don't attempt to make such simplifications for you.
    Your posts are full of spam, sarcasm and arrogance. Don’t pretend you are an angel Scott. You can’t defend the articles you link to so you try to compensate by repeatedly spamming the links as much as possible.

  7. #2027
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    So we are supposed to believe the floor is LEVEL after being hit by an airplane doing 500+ mph but at the same time believe the plane could make the entire building with this LEVEL floor collapse in less than an hour.

    I can see who the clown in the circus is.

    Debating bullshit that can "rationalize" anything. ROFL

    psik
    The buildings were retrofitted to deal with "shockwave impacts" (I remember seeing a documentary in the mid-1990's on the subject of structures and their designs to deal with various stress loads. It covered a number of scenario's like Earthquakes causing liquidation of the earth on which buildings stand on, earthworms undermining structural supports, the constant lifting of Venice from sinking. In the Earthquake scenario most buildings were retrofitted with shock absorbers, of course the question you could ask is how they were fitted since they didn't just wrap around rigid supports, they actually had to replace certain joints with this new shock absorbing method. (I can't say if it was applied in the WTC towers.)

    There was even a lovely piece on a building in Japan that had a partial collapse during an Earthquake. It's top floors collapsed on the bottom ones, the reason was that during construction they had started to run out of funding by the time they got near the top, so they started to use cheaper materials. This meant during the earthquake while the building was shaking, it's bottom sections were shaking differently to the top, because the top was weaker the soliton reverberation was so great that it caused them to collapse.

    I did look into structures a little bit back then because I had a sideline project which I never undertook, although if I ever get the money together I will make sure it gets done.

    The point is that buildings are usually built to stand up to various "Acts of God" which can be just as horrific as any "Act of Terror" (Usually more so)

    We could ask when San Francisco was hit by a severe earthquake that caused pancaking of the highway structures, why wasn't their a truth movement asking if demolitions had been involved?

  8. #2028
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    You thought they were computer simulations!
    Even you seem to recognize that it's past tense. shaman_, I admit that you have brought up many good points. But the way you do it, insults and all, can wear a person down. I think I'll take a break from that style of posting for a bit.

  9. #2029
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by Stryder View Post
    The buildings were retrofitted to deal with "shockwave impacts" (I remember seeing a documentary in the mid-1990's on the subject of structures and their designs to deal with various stress loads. It covered a number of scenario's like Earthquakes causing liquidation of the earth on which buildings stand on, earthworms undermining structural supports, the constant lifting of Venice from sinking. In the Earthquake scenario most buildings were retrofitted with shock absorbers, of course the question you could ask is how they were fitted since they didn't just wrap around rigid supports, they actually had to replace certain joints with this new shock absorbing method. (I can't say if it was applied in the WTC towers.)

    There was even a lovely piece on a building in Japan that had a partial collapse during an Earthquake. It's top floors collapsed on the bottom ones, the reason was that during construction they had started to run out of funding by the time they got near the top, so they started to use cheaper materials. This meant during the earthquake while the building was shaking, it's bottom sections were shaking differently to the top, because the top was weaker the soliton reverberation was so great that it caused them to collapse.

    I did look into structures a little bit back then because I had a sideline project which I never undertook, although if I ever get the money together I will make sure it gets done.

    The point is that buildings are usually built to stand up to various "Acts of God" which can be just as horrific as any "Act of Terror" (Usually more so)

    We could ask when San Francisco was hit by a severe earthquake that caused pancaking of the highway structures, why wasn't their a truth movement asking if demolitions had been involved?
    .
    But you are trying to convince us that a specific floor hit by an airliner 80 stories up would remain level so molten aluminum could stay in place to be heated beyond its melting point to attain a certain color that you saw from overheating aluminum. And now you want to say earthquakes have something to do with this one floor 80 stories up.

    Some people can't comprehend when they are talking ridiculous shit.

    ROFLMAO

    Please research Occam's Razor. Do the world a favor. Use it to slash your wrists.

    psik

  10. #2030
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    ...It took several attempts to get through to your thick skull...

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Please research Occam's Razor. Do the world a favor. Use it to slash your wrists.
    How do these types of comments help the discussion? I sometimes feel frustrated by not getting across what I'd like to. However, when I feel burnout, I simply -leave- for a while. I go play World of Warcraft or go out or whatever. If you can't say something constructive at any given point in time, especially online, I usually find that it's better to simply not say anything at all.

  11. #2031
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    How do these types of comments help the discussion? I sometimes feel frustrated by not getting across what I'd like to. However, when I feel burnout, I simply -leave- for a while. I go play World of Warcraft or go out or whatever. If you can't say something constructive at any given point in time, especially online, I usually find that it's better to simply not say anything at all.
    .
    Get over it Scott. You can pamper the egos of people talking nonsense all you want.

    Let me know how much blood can be drawn by slashing one's wrists with Occam's Razor.

    You think someone talking about a floors being level in earthquakes after a floor is supposed to be level enough to keep molten aluminum from flowing after being hit by an airliner is worth taking seriously? This is hysterical!



    psik

  12. #2032
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo View Post
    You are being most intellectually dishonest when you say that I said that i did not think that the molten flow was steel. I have been careful to try to state that i think the flow could have been steel whereas i most strongly consider that it was probably other metal(s) with a lower melting point. You are increasingly seeming to appear as someone who does not desire to carry on an honest discussion of idea versus counter-idea, but only wish to conquer a debate on terms of verbal tricks.

    It was my guess that the most likely candidate to explain the nature of the metal flow was Aluminum. However, it also occurred to me that there would have been Copper in the building. It being unlikely that somehow Aluminum would have chosen one exclusive exit way whereas Copper would chosen another exclusive exit way, it was my guess that the two melted metals would have mingled before finding their way to an egress. Therefore it was my guess that the observed molten flows were most likely, though definitely not certainly, Aluminum with intermingled Copper.

    I do hope that this has not been too complicated for you to follow.
    Give it a break there Un Hoo. You are way over the top in saying I am being intellectually dishonest and then trying to mock my ability to understand your points. It is now obvious that I was right that you had implied that you didn't think it was steel and have proven that here. You say here, in this post, that you believe the flow was Aluminum mingled with Copper.

    Let's debate that point with rationale for why you believe what you do and I will give my rationale. That is what I thought was going on. There were no verbal tricks, and it is ridiculous for you to say that.

  13. #2033
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    Get over it Scott. You can pamper the egos of people talking nonsense all you want.
    The same logic is used against us psikey. Personally, I don't think the problem here is a bunch of pampered egos; I think the problem is that the issues are complex and one can easily be led astray into untruths.


    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
    Let me know how much blood can be drawn by slashing one's wrists with Occam's Razor.
    Good point, but I still think the metaphor is way too gruesome.


    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
    You think someone talking about a floors being level in earthquakes after a floor is supposed to be level enough to keep molten aluminum from flowing after being hit by an airliner is worth taking seriously? This is hysterical!
    Perhaps to you; the problem is that it's not apparent to everyone; not even me and you know what side of the debate I'm on.

  14. #2034
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    But you are trying to convince us that a specific floor hit by an airliner 80 stories up would remain level so molten aluminum could stay in place to be heated beyond its melting point to attain a certain color that you saw from overheating aluminum. And now you want to say earthquakes have something to do with this one floor 80 stories up.

    Some people can't comprehend when they are talking ridiculous shit.

    ROFLMAO

    Please research Occam's Razor. Do the world a favor. Use it to slash your wrists.

    psik
    All you're posting suggests to me is that you don't care about the truth, you are just here to wind people up.

    While you can say the floors may very well have been uneven due to damage, doesn't it go against the premise that the towers fell due to demolitions charges verses because they had an aircraft flown into the side?

    I mean the usual argument was that the tower was "so structurally sound, they couldn't possible have fallen alone". Now you are telling me that the building was "Sloping because of the collision" (Paraphrased I might add).

    I think you've put holes in your own theory.

  15. #2035
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by Stryder View Post
    All you're posting suggests to me is that you don't care about the truth, you are just here to wind people up.

    While you can say the floors may very well have been uneven due to damage, doesn't it go against the premise that the towers fell due to demolitions charges verses because they had an aircraft flown into the side?

    I mean the usual argument was that the tower was "so structurally sound, they couldn't possible have fallen alone". Now you are telling me that the building was "Sloping because of the collision" (Paraphrased I might add).

    I think you've put holes in your own theory.
    .
    What theory have I proposed about ANYTHING?

    I have said we need to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers to analyze this. How is that a theory?

    You are saying that the liquid coming out of the building could be aluminum but to be that color it has to be superheated. But how could it get superheated? Somehow this fire accidentally confined the aluminum so it could stay in place in liquid form until it was superheated and the floor was level even after being hit by an airliner. But the floor was level because the building was designed to resist earthquakes. But this floor was EIGHTY STORIES UP!

    But my non-existent theory has holes in it.

    Your explanation for this superheated aluminum is totally bulletproof.

    How fast do you think Occam can spin in his grave?



    psik

  16. #2036
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
    .
    Get over it Scott. You can pamper the egos of people talking nonsense all you want.
    The same logic is used against us psikey. Personally, I don't think the problem here is a bunch of pampered egos; I think the problem is that the issues are complex and one can easily be led astray into untruths.
    .
    No, there are lots of complicated details but how many of them are worth paying attention to? If the top of the north tower was incapable of coming straight down and crushing the rest then all other details are extraneous regardless of complexity.

    Does whether or not that liquid is aluminum affect the ability of the top 16 stories to crush the rest? There are vast numbers of details to DEBATE for eternity if that is what people want to do. I only commented because that was so ludicrous. How do you superheat molten metal without deliberately creating an artificial situation?

    psik

  17. #2037
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    What theory have I proposed about ANYTHING?
    Your position is for the absurd over the conventional where events just played out the face value, with no slide of hand.

    To continue this "argument", really proves who has the "Ego".

  18. #2038
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    No, there are lots of complicated details but how many of them are worth paying attention to? If the top of the north tower was incapable of coming straight down and crushing the rest then all other details are extraneous regardless of complexity. Does whether or not that liquid is aluminum affect the ability of the top 16 stories to crush the rest?
    I can agree with this part; the flawed evidence that NIST uses to sell the idea that the towers could have crushed themselves is pretty bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
    There are vast numbers of details to DEBATE for eternity if that is what people want to do. I only commented because that was so ludicrous. How do you superheat molten metal without deliberately creating an artificial situation?
    I admit it sounds unlikely; but I haven't seen anyone debunk it, as they've debunked the idea that the towers could have been brought down by the planes and the ensuing fires. The whole thing about the molten iron is to prove that thermate was used. Come to think of it, I've realized that Stryder still hasn't said why he believes that molten aluminum can glow yellow in daylight conditions.

    Anyway, I hope we can stick to these issues; you know, less about thick skulls (shaman to me) and killing themselves with metaphorical tools (you to Stryder) and who has the most pampered ego and more about the WTC buildings themselves :-p.

  19. #2039
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Stryder View Post
    The buildings were retrofitted to deal with "shockwave impacts" (I remember seeing a documentary in the mid-1990's on the subject of structures and their designs to deal with various stress loads. It covered a number of scenario's like Earthquakes causing liquidation of the earth on which buildings stand on, earthworms undermining structural supports, the constant lifting of Venice from sinking. In the Earthquake scenario most buildings were retrofitted with shock absorbers, of course the question you could ask is how they were fitted since they didn't just wrap around rigid supports, they actually had to replace certain joints with this new shock absorbing method. (I can't say if it was applied in the WTC towers.)

    There was even a lovely piece on a building in Japan that had a partial collapse during an Earthquake. It's top floors collapsed on the bottom ones, the reason was that during construction they had started to run out of funding by the time they got near the top, so they started to use cheaper materials. This meant during the earthquake while the building was shaking, it's bottom sections were shaking differently to the top, because the top was weaker the soliton reverberation was so great that it caused them to collapse.

    I did look into structures a little bit back then because I had a sideline project which I never undertook, although if I ever get the money together I will make sure it gets done.

    The point is that buildings are usually built to stand up to various "Acts of God" which can be just as horrific as any "Act of Terror" (Usually more so)

    We could ask when San Francisco was hit by a severe earthquake that caused pancaking of the highway structures, why wasn't their a truth movement asking if demolitions had been involved?

    The twin towers, according to my research into the structural design, did not have a huge 700 ton tuned mass damper in the attic like many similar buildings of more recent vintage have had, for seismic resistance, as I initially guessed. The twin towers, each, had 10,000 shock absorbing devices in lieu of plain bolted connections at the connection of floor trusses with supportive columns, as Stryder has said in more general terms.

    And, as Stryder has capably explained in general terms, Building Codes have seismic resistance structural requirements which often may coincidentally exceed strength to withstand many forms of terrorist attacks. It is not too unusual for the code to require such strength that a building could theoretically be picked up and turned on its side, and, supported only by its original bottom, be in a cantilevered position, and suffer no gross structural failure. This is a separate requirement from the need for a tuned mass damper or its equivalent, multitudinous shock absorbers. It depends on the Official Seismic Zone where the building is located.

  20. #2040
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Give it a break there Un Hoo. You are way over the top in saying I am being intellectually dishonest and then trying to mock my ability to understand your points. It is now obvious that I was right that you had implied that you didn't think it was steel and have proven that here. You say here, in this post, that you believe the flow was Aluminum mingled with Copper.

    Let's debate that point with rationale for why you believe what you do and I will give my rationale. That is what I thought was going on. There were no verbal tricks, and it is ridiculous for you to say that.

    Tony: read my lips.

    I have never said that I didn't believe it was melted steel. I said that I thought it was less likely than other metals.

    I have said that i thought it was more likely to have been Other Metals.

    You are seemingly eagerly trying to prove your own intellectual dishonesty by repeatedly misquoting me.

    Are you non-fluent in English, and do not understand the difference between "believing" and "probably"?

    I am tired of this. The count on you is two strikes and no balls. One more strike and you are out.

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •