WTC Collapses

I request he doesn't as I think he brings up very good points and I wouldn't want to lose that. I also think that you bring up some good points at times as well.

psikey, there's a difference between intentionally and unintentionally distorting what a person is saying, just as there is a difference between someone who says something that isn't true but doesn't know it and someone who is lying.

In other words, I believe that leopold unintentionally misinterpreted what you said.

leopold, I can understand that psikey may at times frustrate you. I have certainly been frustrated by people here as well, amoung them shaman, who constantly seems to think that I'm being dishonest and (in my view) providing equally lame reasons why he believes this to be so. I still respond to him, however, because he also does include a fair amount of points that I feel need to be addressed.

Anyway, if you really can't stand what psikey says, you can certainly ignore him, or at the very least not respond to him for a while. There are others you can respond to as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds fine to me. It doesn't help Stryder's argument, however.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Been listening to this song for a while; I don't know, this whole debate reminds me of something that's just very complicated and prone to some blown fuses at times, but that, for this very reason, is quite cool as well. The fact that I wanted to be an astronaught when I was a kid may have something to do with it too ;-)


Major Tom (Coming Home)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ignore lists only work after logging in. I only log in when I intend to post so I will have already seen what I choose to respond to.

You can ignore me if you like. I make the decisions about what I ignore. I sometimes enjoy aggravating people. The internet is better than television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1y8ESrmE0A

psik

 

The funny thing is that it took me a while to figure out what he was talking about. I even searched this site to see if I ever used the word bathroom. I was racking my brain trying to figure out what the Pentagon had to do with a bathroom. ROFL

Then the vaporization and condensation of the aluminum came to me after I had saved the post. I had to go back and edit it. These debates go on largely because people look at reality differently. Most of this talk about the government comes across as a waste of time to me. Comparing the government to physics is like comparing a cockroach to a grizzly bear and I regard that analogy as an understatement.

Like there is a Lawyers for 9/11 Truth now. That is funny. Did the New York legislature have to pass the law of conservation of momentum? So this stuff just looks like a lot of unnecessary gyrations to stumble over the obvious. If the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do the job in that little time then some other agents had to have been responsible. This whole thing comes across as the psychological nonsense of the majority of people not wanting to come to the REALLY UGLY but obviously inevitable conclusion.

psik

 

When someone stings me, sometimes I want to sting back a bit. I also generally don't like not seeing what someone is saying when they're talking about something I'm interested in. This doesn't mean that I have to respond to them, ofcourse, but sometimes I do for the reason mentioned above. However, as many have noticed, even when I insult, I tend to do so subtly. I really do believe that revenge is a dish best served cold

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't believe in 'dumb people' per se, but god I was laughing when I saw that clip

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A truther psychologist has essentially made that argument as well, atleast the part about people not wanting to come to see a certain dark reality. I certainly believe that that is a large factor in why the truth is taking so long to come to the light for many. However, I think another enormous factor is that most people would never spend the amount of time that a lot of the people in this forum have spent to uncover the truth.

This is why I have hope for some of our more dedicated opponents- atleast they're clocking in the hours. I know you have a fair amount of knowledge concerning engineering and physics psikey and I'm certainly willing to believe that with your grasp of it, it's obvious that the twin towers couldn't have been brought down by the jet initiated fires. However, most people simply don't have much of a grasp on either and, unlike someone like me, whose mother dealt with a lot of thorny issues concerning depleted uranium that were brought up by the first guld war and who read a book called "Rule by Secrecy", concerning the types of secret societies that could have pulled something like 9/11 off around the time that 9/11 happened and subsequently read another book by the same author speaking specifically about 9/11.

So they can simply believe the official 9/11 story and be done with it. I believe, however, that it is getting more and more difficult for the official story to continue the way it is. The reason is that knowledge spreads; one person gets enough information to realize that 9/11 was an inside job and he/she shares it with someone they're close to; and then that person shares it with someone else, etc. The process, however, can certainly take some time.

There are, ofcourse, many people who simply aren't all that interested in learning the truth- they have concerns that they deem to be more important for themselves. As I said, my mother used to be a major advocate concerning issues of depleted uranium; but then the organization she worked for turned on her (this is a very long story) and dealing with that organization became way more important. I've told her I speak a fair amount concerning the issue of 9/11 and she says she's just not interested in getting into it. I believe there are a lot of people like this and I believe that because there are all these other concerns, the day that there will finally be a public acknowledgement of what really happened is further pushed further into the future.

But well, that's life.

 

This is from the other thread but I only want to post in one.

Fires require oxygen and ventilation is a factor. What WTC had that the other skyscraper fires didn’t was a nice big hole caused by planes entering the building.

So you can get the pizza out?

No I’m saying next time you have a fire in your kitchen put a towel over it to smother it.

One of Griffin’s arguments was that the fire was supposedly oxygen starved. Do you disagree?

I have given you examples where those temperatures were reached with a fire that was only in one corner of a building. Even if you go from the smaller figures in the raw data (which i'm not sure is actually the same test) and not the ones in the report there are still temperatures well over 600C.

According to popular mechanics it burns 426C to 815C.

The mechanism that led to collapse is the same. It demonstrates that a normal fire can weaken steel.

Truthers are trying to assert that the fires couldn’t get hot enough to weaken the steel. They can. It has been demonstrated that it was at least possible. If this can happen then what happened on 9/11 is not so surprising at all. Just because the buildings involved are a different shape does not change the behavior of the fire on the unprotected steel. It is not a valid objection.

The intestate 580 overpass was not weak, nor was it flammable. The steel supports collapsed on the Madrid tower. It wasn’t a barn.

As shown in the Cardington tests, adjacent steel pieces do not conduct the heat particularly well.

That roof did not have thirty more stories above it.

No it is not my top example. I have only mentioned it a few times. It’s just that I repeat myself over and over while pointing out the examples that the truthers so feebly dodge that I feel a tendency to use different ones after a while.

The document I gave you is not a third party website.

There were some pretty graphs too.

Actually I posted that as well.

There is a discrepancy there and I don't know which is correct at this stage.

I’m not downloading that from work, however it is still entirely possible for the collapse to begin after the fires were at their peak. The temperatures do not drop off straight away and the temperatures have still been high. Perhaps another ten minutes at those temperatures was all that was needed for enough of the steel to be affected by the atmospheric temperature. Cooling does not mean that it was cold or that the temperatures were ineffective to the structure. I don’t know what happened, only that I think this is possible.

If steel had been affected by thermal exansion as well as being bent, when cooling it could potentially be contracting and pulling the structure in such a way that weakened it further. :shrug:

 

Another factor that bugs me and I'm not sure what to make of it is the involvement of foreign countries like Japan. There are skyscrapers in Japan. Why was the Japanese parliament talking about Al Queda instead of demanding detailed info about the WTC. Why doesn't Iran make a stink about the physics of the WTC?

After SEVEN YEARS there is another psychological factor. How do EXPERTS admit that it is necessary to know the distribution of steel and concrete to analyze this without having figured that out and mentioning it years ago? Like they are going to suddenly figure this out the physics skyscrapers? LOL

But I think the world has a bigger problem with something as innocuous as the planned obsolescence of automobiles. There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. When do economists say anything about the depreciation of that junk. That is $300,000,000,000 per year just for the United States. That is FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS since 1995. What is it for the entire world? So if planned obsolescence means there have been unnecessary TRILLIONS lost and economists and politicians have said nothing about it then that is a bit of a mess. But the global warming problem doesn't let us just pretend it ain't there. How much unnecessary pollution has been created just from making cars that don't last.

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

I read that and had no problem with it until the last couple of chapters. Ancient alien gods just didn't cut it with me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

 

response to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2139177&postcount=1208

You are proving my point. heat was unable to build up above the equilibrium fire temperature produced by office contents and jet fuel. I think you misunderstand fire. In an enclosed space, heat temperature from a fire will build up until it escapes. The hotest point of a building fire inside an enclosed room is usually just before the windows break. This is the principle of an oven, if you open the oven door you will be met with a blast of heat, opening the door will reduce the temperature inside the oven, therefore an oven with an open door is not as hot as an oven with a closed door, therefore a burning building with a plane sized hole in it is not as hot as a fire inside an enclosed building.

An enclosed building is not a vaccuum. This has been the problem with your style of posting here, you take every detail applying equal weight to non equal arguments. This enables you to disagree on every single point and always in your mind to present a discussion in an equally weighted 50:50 framework. This binary thinking enables you to choose what reality is, it will damage your ability to think if you train yourself to think that way. The mainstream news media propaganda programs people's thinking like this all the time, "israel has said they have intelligence that iran is developing a nuclear weapons, iran denies it is developing a bomb", then offer false dichotomy choices. "Have your say- should we invade North Korea or Iran? results after this short CNN break".(Nevermind the proof that iran is not developing a bomb).

You have fallen for Mackey's sophistry propaganda yet again. Let me explain how you got your bad information.

If you had read Griffin's book (instead of letting Mackey impress a false reality on you), you would have discovered that David Ray Griffin wrote this "Thomas Eager <Professor of Materials Engineering and Materials Systems, MIT> estimated, given the fact that the fire was putting out black smoke, that the fire was burning at a temperature of 648 C and 704 C (1200 F - 1300 F)" you would then have been able to get to the original source and found that Eager's published and peer reviewed words were "It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke". You'll also find that Eager said "The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire". It is clear that Eager's and Griffin's point is that the jet fuel was burning ineffeciently and thus well below jet fuel's maximum efficient burning temperature. Magic master magician Mackey conjurs it up as "Dr. Griffin next uses the presence of black smoke as an argument that the fire was oxygen starved". You are the victim of bad information and Mackey is a disgrace to science.

Actually Popular Mechanics in their book state "Jet fuel burns at 1100 C to 1200 C" but this shouldn't surprise you given they are proven liars as evidenced by Pop Mech's Davin Coburn claiming he had seen photos of a third of wtc7's south face half way into the building scooped out on the Charles Goyette radio show. Of course we now know this is a completely made up falsehood with the release of NISTs wtc7 report, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because we know this magazine that is usually at home reviewing lawn mowers is owned by the Hearst corporation which is the usual place to find yellow journalism war propganda.
http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

steel weakening due to fire follows a smooth curve. weakening leading to catastrophic collapse is a binary state, one moment the structure is stable, the next moment there is collapse, these are different concepts and you are confusing them.

this is a lie. nowhere have i seen anyone state this. Mackey magic again?

This is bad logic. Demonstrating that something is possible by using an example that in no way resembles the real situation is pure sophistry. By the same logic i could deceptively argue that a plane could not enter the twin towers by using the example of a glider colliding into a solid steel wall.

it was a bridge! it was not a welded interconnected steel structure built to skyscraper standards.

the perimeter columns did not support the building, the core supported the building. what collapsed from the madrid tower collapsed gradually over hours, it did not collapse catastrophically.

compare the madrid perimeter columns:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

with the wtc core columns:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the above photo with molten steel puring out of the window, compare the ratio of steel to window space on the perimeter with the madrid perimeter photo at the top. There is probably 6 times more steel on the wtc perimeter than on the madrid perimeter. The Madrid fire was even hotter AND the building was fully involved with flame - dig up a video of the Madrid fire and see for yourself. these factord matter hugely. You can only find the weakest of comparisons, and fire weakening steel is not a scalable argument.

the truth is that the anti-truther wesbites have collected every example of steel fire failure in the history of the world, they have about 10 examples all of which are not qualitively comparable to the twin towers or wtc7. all you do is go to that listette of shit examples.

the NIST fire simulation data show the core atmosphere temperature to be 200 C - 300 C at time of collapse. the steel in the core would be lower than this still.

consider this - NIST make the claim that the trusses sagged from the heat, and the sagging pulled in the perimeter columns. if the trusses sagged due to thermal expansion, then the perimeter columns resisted that expansion. the trusses were strong enough to resist the thermal expansion but not the sagging?

 

This post is in response to Tony Szamboti's post 2506 in the 9/11 Conspiracy thread.

I think you mean 'mechanism for a gravitational collapse'. Because there is certainly a mechanism for a -collapse- without a deceleration of the upper block- demolition.

 

There has to be a mechanism that fits within

The airplanes did it paradigm.

Because without that they have to consider the government conspiracy paradigm. Which inevitably brings up the silent engineering schools conspiracy that has lasted for SEVEN YEARS.

What do you mean you can't analyze this whole thing without the distribution of steel and concrete information?

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

 

Definitely.

Perhaps an analysis of the types of people who run such institutions would shed further light on the matter; like the people who suspended physics professor Steven Jones, for example...

Well it seems to me that there's plenty of evidence that the twin towers couldn't have fallen at the speed they did without the help of "something else". I just checked out the video that Headspin and Tony have been talking about and it confirms this.

 

The Pentagon Attack

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 795 in this thread.

I strongly disagree with a lot of things you say here- however, this clearly has little to do with the WTC collapses. I could have put it into the enormous 9/11 conspiracy thread, but I think that that's big enough as it is. So I created a new thread for it here. Hopefully it doesn't fizzle out, but just didn't want to lump it into the huge 9/11 conspiracy thread.

 

Why fires couldn't have taken down the WTC buildings

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman's post 795 in this thread.

NIST's testing to see if the plane could have removed a fair amount of fireproofing was abysmal as Kevin Ryan has made clear in the past and which Tony Szamboti also made clear in post 797 in this thread. Just realized that you responded to Tony in post 822; so many posts, it can wear one down to keep track of them all :shrug:

Also, why is it that NIST never revealed if the testing they did of unfireproofed metal collapsed or not?

Again, from what I remember of what Kevin Ryan said, It's highly unlikely that even that was accomplished.

An attack on the NIST model might not support my claim. Kevin Ryan's, however, does. In the ending, it's his claim, not mine, and he's provided the evidence to back it up.

Actually, it is. I've answered -why- a skyscraper is a different type of building at length in other posts, but if you like I can do so again.

 

Do you realise how much molten steel would be needed to get a pour like that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And can you prove that is molten steel, can the photographer prove it.

The other thing is the stream is feathering, and molten metal pours don't do that, they spark, but their are so dense that they don't feather, they don't feather like water does.

 

The differences between steel framed skyscrapers and other types of buildings

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 795 in this thread.

Yes, it does. But personally, I like Headspin's graphic comparison of the WTC perimeter columns and the steel reinforced perimeter columns of the windsor tower in post 1210.

Sigh. I think it proves what it sets out to prove; namely that the windsor tower's perimeter was way weaker then the WTC buildings' perimeters, the fires were comparatively much more severe and longer in duration and the partial collapse of the perimeter columns was gradual, not sudden. If you weren't such a die hard official story supporter I think you would have realized that by now.

The McCormick roof only had to support a bit of snow, not up to 110 stories of weight. It was immensely weaker and 9/11 Research makes that clear.

I'm able to, but frankly, I'm not -interested- in researching obscure building fires that are probably just as irrelevant as the McCormick and Windsor tower fires. This thread already spans more then 1000 posts, the previous major thread spans more then 2000.. I just think we have better things to do then go over what are probably irrelevant issues.

 

Not really- what's your estimate?

Wouldn't it have been nice if someone had taken samples of what appears to have been the molten pools of the molten metal that a firetruck apparently went through. But the official 'investigation' seemed much more interesting in carting away all the important evidence then actually analyzing it.

Perhaps given enough temperature it would- there is evidence that parts of some of the steel beams evaporated, never mind melted, after all.

 

Tony Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen's paper published today:

"The Missing Jolt" : http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19095

well done Tony!

 

Grats Tony

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

! Will read later, a little tired right now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!