WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    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. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383

    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383


    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
    it was the way you said it that i found ironic.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    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.


    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, 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.


    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: Feb 22, 2009
  9. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    You thought they were computer simulations! It took several attempts to get through to your thick skull that they weren’t.

    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.


    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    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?
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    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.
     
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    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
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785

    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.
     
  14. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    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!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    psik
     
  15. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    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.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    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.


    Good point, but I still think the metaphor is way too gruesome.


    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.
     
  17. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    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.
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    psik
     
  19. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    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
     
  20. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    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".
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    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.


    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  22. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383

    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.
     
  23. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page