Are real scientists expected to believe NIST?

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by elsyarango, Dec 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The idea that any of those buildings could have fallen fairly neatly into their footprints is a crackpot idea.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Ha! Given the way they were struck and weakened, expecting them to fall ANY other way is what would be crackpot!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    You actually think that statement makes sense?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Certainly - given some basic physics like center of gravity, collapsing floors pancaking onto those below, practically NO sideways thrust involved, etc.

    It really WOULD take a crackpot (or someone that doesn't understand basic physical forces) to expect them to just topple over on one side.
     
  8. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I think it takes a crackpot who doesn't understand physics to think that they will fall straight down.
     
  9. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Why don't you guys just model it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Something really simple would be an improvement over this. It can probably be found what the centers of gravity for the towers were, and then see if the maximum estimate of torque from the force of the planes could make.

    I find the towers falling sideways hard to imagine. It's a lot easier to imagine the floors falling and taking out the floors beneath than imagining a plane a tiny fraction of the towers mass cause the towers to tip.
     
  10. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Exactly!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    A debunker is someone who does not have to know anything about a subject to "know" that someone else is wrong.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,379
    Who are these "debunkers" you're talking about?
     
  13. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Basic structural dynamics:

    1) If the buildings were weakend at or near their base (well below their center of mass) they would have almost certainly "toppled" over since they would immediately have been placed in a dynamically unstable state (try balancing a pencil on your fingertip).

    2) The buildings were weakend well above their center of mass, therefore, the portions of the building below the falling mass above remained anchored and stable as the falling (and increasing) mass tended to follow the simplest path - i.e. straight down. (make a "tower" out of cards and start it falling near the top. It collapses in on itself.)

    So. I think it takes a crackpot who doesn't understand basic physics to think that they will fall other than essentially straight down.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there are only 2 ways those buildings could have fallen, and in both ways a conspiracy can be seen.
    check it out.
    scenario 1.
    the buildings fell just like they did.
    conclusion:
    explosives were used for s controlled demolition.

    scenario 2.
    pieces of the building were explosively ejected out from the flotsam.
    the buildings fell "all over the place".
    conclusion:
    explosives were used to bring the building down.

    so you see, it doesn't matter what the true cause was.
    explosives were used.
    it's a no win situation no matter how the buildings fell.

    do yourself a favor metakron.
    scare up some videos of controlled demolitions, of all types, and watch them.
    dissect them for every last bit of info you can get from them.
    after you have watched about 15 or so clips, watch the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

    i challenge you to see a controlled demolition.
     
  15. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    I've seen plenty, and in all the following are true:

    1) The prep for a clean controlled demo is immense and highly obvious.

    2) Extensive external coordinated explosions are visible in all of them (note that the bursts you see in the WTC footage (water tanks and other pressurized cavities) are neither extensive or coordinated).

    3) The presence of explosive chemical residue is everywhere.
     
  16. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    May be a real high rise building engineer could tell us what is going On? Anyone in this engineering forum?
     
  17. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    *sigh*
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    There was quite a bit of discussion in the architectural journals, Baron Max shared some of it with us and highlights were floating around in email spam. Less than a year after 9/11 experts were analyzing the collapse of the building and the details of its construction. They was a lot of debate over whether the city of New York was guilty of criminal stupidity for forcing them to complete the buildings without asbestos. It was suggested that by removing the asbestos they had saved about three people from dying of asbestos poisoning during the lifetime of the building, at the cost of 3,000 lives lost because the building was not fireproofed. This theory was eventually disproved. But there was no one who did not believe that the cause of the collapse was anything other than the impact of the airliners.
    But its leader is Osama bin Laden, who is a Saudi and a member by marriage of the Saudi royal family. They could hardly operate on Saudi soil, they needed to be someplace where there are hiding places, and especially a country that was not a U.S. ally full of U.S. military bases.
    Saudis are the major source of financing for all of the anti-Western terrorists. They build and supply all of those terrorist training camps masquerading as schools for poor children throughout the Muslim world from Afghanistan to Indonesia. There is no other Muslim country whose people have as much money as the Saudi people do. Except possibly Iran, and they're doing their part by bankrolling Hezbollah and the Palestinian extremists.
    In case you haven't noticed, the Saudi people hate America and routinely refer to us as "the Great Satan." They are outraged that what they perceive as a Christian nation has military bases within driving distance of Mecca, Islam's holiest site. The two princes who run the country and some of the petroleum executives are as transnational as the big shots in any country (including our own). They see the value of ambivalence and tread a fine line of not incurring the wrath of the U.S. But if you go just one level below them, where there are hundreds of billions of dollars available to support worthy causes, you find a fanatical level of hatred for the United States.
    The Bush administration is just as transnational as the Saudi princes. They're petroleum barons, for the goddess's sake. The Saudi petroleum barons are their buddies. Their not going to attack their own homies. "Oil is thicker than blood." At that level, with these families, there is no sense of national loyalty. The Bushes are the kind of honorless people who give capitalism a bad name. They don't give a flying fig about what happens to this country, as long as they can make money off of it. What the Bush Dynasty did after 9/11 was precisely to DEFLECT the blame away from their pals in Saudi Arabia. They blamed Afghanistan, as if Afghanistan were an actual country that could accomplish something. And they blamed Saddam, because they had it in for Saddam ever since he embarrassed George I in the First Gulf War. 9/11 gave them an excuse to finish some unfinished business; revenge and honor at the cost of American (and Iraqi) lives.
    Buildings are not like trees. I don't think they have the kind of structural strength that would allow them to crack cleanly in one place, then topple sideways and land full-length and intact on the adjacent city block. Once they get a little bit off of vertical I think they start to crumble.
    Baron Max knew a lot about this stuff but he was more interested in making himself out to be a loudmouth misanthrope than in contributing his knowledge. I agree that this is difficult to research. This long after the event, you have to be a member of an architects' society or subscribe to one of their journals to see what they were saying about it in immediate aftermath.
     
  19. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    I am sure the building designs have been analyzed and the new building they are going to replace with, will have right type of designs. There is nothing wrong in revisiting the topic as long as we can talk about how to prevent such manmade disasters.

    The asbestos issues is an interesting one. In India there are thousands of building with asbestos roofs. Over the years, they get sealed by weather, oil, wax etc and does not cause any human health issues. NYC could have encapsulated the asbestos easily and used it. The problem is no one thought that someone will pour tens of thousands of jet fuel and ignite it. That is a black swan moment.

    The only way to build a tower that can withstand such fire is using massive reenforced concrete columns, like the Malaysia Petronas towers. These days we build residential houses with toothpicks and commercials with I-beams that barely covers the code.

    Sometimes ago, I saw on TV that an entire subdivision was burnt to the ground in a California forest fire - except one concrete house built by a Taiwanese Architect.
     
  20. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Does any one ever give a fuck about my posts?
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Yes, actually, I do. I don't see why other seem to have chosen to ignore what youve already said. :shrug:
     
  22. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Sometimes post that are good are not responded to because they said everything well and the only thing left to say is "nice post", which most people don't do that frequently (if I did it for every good post I liked it would probably start to look stupid). Besides, men can't go complimenting each other frequently, you know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway, I guess some people did just ignore it, probably posted before reading the whole thread. But you know the solution: squeaky wheels.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    don't feel too bad, mine get ignored too.
    the reason is that if they are ignored the posters can keep on posting, sometimes the same tired rhetoric.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page