Looking at 9/11 with actual science

[shibumiseeker]

Hoisted on my own petard!

By. Or With.

 

[rhino]

I'd like to know which "laws of physics" were violated. They may need some counseling. Plus, once they are identified, I intend to violate them too. Maybe more than once.

Fun fact: much of the structural members in the WTCs were bare metal. This is a bad idea in a skyscraper (because fires happen and fires are hot and hot stuff raises temperatures and that reduces the yield strength of steel which is bad because that makes them really, really easy to buckle and when one buckles, it puts a bending stress on the others that they can't tolerate because they're not designed to handle much in that direction so they buckle too and if one floor collapses like that, even if there is some rotation and it's not completely "even," the load is going to be distributed fairly well by the floor that it impacts below it, but it's going to buckle and fail too, but probably a bit more symmetrically and then when you get a couple of those incredibly massive badboys dropping the rest below are going to . . . "pancake"), which is why they used to spray asbestos-containing insulation onto the columns because it works really, really well . . . but that sort of became illegal . . . (I think during the construction of the towers) . . . and instead of using a substitute, they left them bare (maybe with a coat of paint or two, which we all know can survive the impact of a jumbo jet followed by some fiery hotness).

Lets not forget the impressive pressure wave of all of that air and other gases getting compressed and pushed out suddenly. Probably got a little breezy there for a little while.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[rhino]

By. Or With.

I ride upon (on) my own expelled gases, sir. But you are historically correct and I bow to your innate superiority in all matters of petardery.

 

[dross]

I'd like to know which "laws of physics" were violated. They may need some counseling. Plus, once they are identified, I intend to violate them too. Maybe more than once.

Fun fact: much of the structural members in the WTCs were bare metal. This is a bad idea in a skyscraper (because fires happen and fires are hot and hot stuff raises temperatures and that reduces the yield strength of steel which is bad because that makes them really, really easy to buckle and when one buckles, it puts a bending stress on the others that they can't tolerate because they're not designed to handle much in that direction so they buckle too and if one floor collapses like that, even if there is some rotation and it's not completely "even," the load is going to be distributed fairly well by the floor that it impacts below it, but it's going to buckle and fail too, but probably a bit more symmetrically and then when you get a couple of those incredibly massive badboys dropping the rest below are going to . . . "pancake"), which is why they used to spray asbestos-containing insulation onto the columns because it works really, really well . . . but that sort of became illegal . . . (I think during the construction of the towers) . . . and instead of using a substitute, they left them bare (maybe with a coat of paint or two, which we all know can survive the impact of a jumbo jet followed by some fiery hotness).

Lets not forget the impressive pressure wave of all of that air and other gases getting compressed and pushed out suddenly. Probably got a little breezy there for a little while.

I'm just sayin'.

Here's what I just read:

Blah, blah, science stuff, blah, blah, I'm a sheep with a strange horn growing out of my noseforehead thingy, blah, physics, blah.

Haven't you ever seen a tree struck by lightning?

 

[Joe Williams]

Quite possibly the most ignorant statement of the thread.

You joke about not being rocket science but evidently havent taken a moment to look at the facts. Neither tower fell into Bldg 7. You can see it standing in all its structurally-sound integrity 8 hours after the towers went down.

As mentioned in the opening statement, why not watch the video instead of throwing in your two cents. You might have learned something before making such an asinine statement.

All kinds of crap from those two buildings fell onto WTC 7, and surrounding buildings. If you had a case to make, you would make it without distorting the truth.

JOC, were you watching live when the towers fell, and when WTC 7 fell later in the day?

 

[Joe Williams]

Obviously your view of rationale is different than mine. I just prefer to keep my head out of the sand.

The sand is a lot cleaner than where you appear to have your head right at the moment!

 

[Joe Williams]

Something else I'm curious about... since the towers fell straight down into their own basements and none of the debris went outside the boundary of the buildings (we are just going to have to ignore what we saw on that day that says that's NOT what happened, cause the so-called "truthers" say we didn't see what we saw,) what happened to that poor Greek Orthodox church? Since the towers didn't fall on it, the government must have blown it up, apparently because the X-files were contained in it.

Now, why the heck would the government put the X-files in that church? That just seems irresponsible, somehow.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Something else I'm curious about... since the towers fell straight down into their own basements and none of the debris went outside the boundary of the buildings (we are just going to have to ignore what we saw on that day that says that's NOT what happened, cause the so-called "truthers" say we didn't see what we saw,) what happened to that poor Greek Orthodox church? Since the towers didn't fall on it, the government must have blown it up, apparently because the X-files were contained in it.

Now, why the heck would the government put the X-files in that church? That just seems irresponsible, somehow.

Because the church was secretly built by the Free Masons and double secretly run by the Knight's Templar, so Mulder knew they were safe. Gosh, everybody knows that Joe.

See, there's always a reasonable explaination for everything.

 

[Eddie]

Wait... you are bringing God into this? So God let everything happen and then doesnt want any other buildings to get hurt so he carefully pushed them straight down? Just destroy the evil that resided in those three buildings only? THREAD OVER, YOU WIN

Why is it so strange that something fell straight down? Don't most things fall straight down?

 

[Randall Flagg]

Why is it so strange that something fell straight down? Don't most things fall straight down?

Nope. In physics all objects take the path of least resistence, which 99.9% of the time is not straight down onto there lower undamaged half of whatever is falling.

Fun fact: much of the structural members in the WTCs were bare metal. This is a bad idea in a skyscraper (because fires happen and fires are hot and hot stuff raises temperatures and that reduces the yield strength of steel which is bad because that makes them really, really easy to buckle

This is a fun WRONG fact, in the cardington fire tests it showed that not only do steel framed compsite stuctures not need fireproofing, but that some buckling helps hold the building together during a fire.

The cardington fire tests were done before 9-11, so no truther bias there.

Tests showed that the recovered metal could noto nly hold the load, it could do so for twice as long as the towers were up.

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

[14] Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf), 25.
[15] NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers(Draft) (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf), 195.

Nist tests on recovered steel showed temps got NO WHERE NEAR hot enough for long enough to do any kind of damage.

Our staff developed a forensic test based on paint cracking due to thermal expansion of the steel. This test placed limits on the time and temperature exposure of the recovered columns. Results indicate that only three locations on these 16 recovered columns reached temperatures above 250 °C.

NIST Metallurgy Division Publications - NISTIR 7248

No need to go further then this to show the governments conspiracy theory has no backing.

If ANYONE has any PROOF of a raging inferno that can soften every steel support in all three buildings at the exact same time needed for a straight down collapse, please help the government out because as of today, their "raging inferno" theory has NO PROOF what so ever.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Ok, now try this experiment kids. Bldg two had a jet go through a corner of the building. Not through the middle of it, just through a corner. Throw all that fuel in that corner of the building and flame it up. If it truly weakened the integrity of the steel, wouldnt that corner have fallen in on itself and caused it to topple, instead of the top section falling uniformly at the same time? Oh wait, this was MAGIC EXTRA HOT BURNING JET FUEL that splashed 270 degrees behind it in order to coat all 4 corners of the building evenly. Yeah, thats it.

1) The main supports were in the center of the building. It was not a traditional steel grid type building.

2) The fuel didn't have to get to all 4 corners, it just had to be mostly in the middle, which it was.

The rest is history.

 

[dross]

1) The main supports were in the center of the building. It was not a traditional steel grid type building.

2) The fuel didn't have to get to all 4 corners, it just had to be mostly in the middle, which it was.

The rest is history.

Here's what I just read:

Blah, blah, architecture stuff, blah, blah, I'm a blue sheep with wheels instead of legs, blah, steel, blah.

Haven't you ever seen a tree struck by lightning?

 

[dross]

I'm going to draw on the fields of physics, architecture, metallurgy, chemistry, and aircraft engineering for this explanation.

On September 11, 2001, two huge jetliners crashed into two tall buldings. The buildings caught fire, then later they fell down. I deduce from the the two facts presented that it was indeed the airplanes crashing into the buildings that caused them to catch fire and then fall down.

The end.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Aw man, you just keep poking with that stick to see if there's any life left in this thread, don't you?

 

[dross]

Aw man, you just keep poking with that stick to see if there's any life left in this thread, don't you?

Like a cat toying with a mouse, it's been so much fun perhaps I'm still tossing it up in the air even after it's dead. If it takes off again, I'm going to pounce, I tell you.

 

[Eddie]

Nope. In physics all objects take the path of least resistence, which 99.9% of the time is not straight down onto there lower undamaged half of whatever is falling.




This is a fun WRONG fact, in the cardington fire tests it showed that not only do steel framed compsite stuctures not need fireproofing, but that some buckling helps hold the building together during a fire.

The cardington fire tests were done before 9-11, so no truther bias there.

Tests showed that the recovered metal could noto nly hold the load, it could do so for twice as long as the towers were up.




Nist tests on recovered steel showed temps got NO WHERE NEAR hot enough for long enough to do any kind of damage.




No need to go further then this to show the governments conspiracy theory has no backing.

If ANYONE has any PROOF of a raging inferno that can soften every steel support in all three buildings at the exact same time needed for a straight down collapse, please help the government out because as of today, their "raging inferno" theory has NO PROOF what so ever.

I have some proof. On September 11th, 2001 exactly this happened. It happened three times. Despite what tests showed, in real life the buildings fell straight down after having burned for a while.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I have some proof. On September 11th, 2001 exactly this happened. It happened three times. Despite what tests showed, in real life the buildings fell straight down after having burned for a while.

Well no, not like the OP posited: All three buildings fell straight down, but not at the same time. I'm sure that was just a mis-statement he was making rather than the monumental ignorance it appears to be.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I have some proof. On September 11th, 2001 exactly this happened. It happened three times. Despite what tests showed, in real life the buildings fell straight down after having burned for a while.

To add to this, it is assumed that the lower half of the structure was not damaged. This is a bad assumption. It also assumes that as the top half fell, the bottom half would not transmit any load or be damaged. Another bad assumption.

Also, the fact that all 3 buildings fell around the same time supports the theory that the structures failed based on reduced strength of steel as a result of high temperatures. Knowing that steel temperature is a function of time and surrounding temperature, and given that the fires were the same approximate temperature, it is a logical conclusion that they would fail around the same time.

I would take any government report with a grain of salt. People work for the government for 2 reasons. They either can't hack it in the private sector, or they're really altruistic. Either way, it doesn't necessarily qualify them as the "best" in their field. Quite the opposite usually. There are some exceptions, but having dealt with the federal government for quite some time, I have found it to be a good rule of thumb.

 

[Eddie]

To add to this, it is assumed that the lower half of the structure was not damaged. This is a bad assumption. It also assumes that as the top half fell, the bottom half would not transmit any load or be damaged. Another bad assumption.

Also, the fact that all 3 buildings fell around the same time supports the theory that the structures failed based on reduced strength of steel as a result of high temperatures. Knowing that steel temperature is a function of time and surrounding temperature, and given that the fires were the same approximate temperature, it is a logical conclusion that they would fail around the same time.

I would take any government report with a grain of salt. People work for the government for 2 reasons. They either can't hack it in the private sector, or they're really altruistic. Either way, it doesn't necessarily qualify them as the "best" in their field. Quite the opposite usually. There are some exceptions, but having dealt with the federal government for quite some time, I have found it to be a good rule of thumb.

This is probably my main reason for doubting the conspiracy theories; when I see the federal government in action it does not seem competent enough to pull off a complex conspiracy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This is probably my main reason for doubting the conspiracy theories; when I see the federal government in action it does not seem competent enough to pull off a complex conspiracy.

We can't even keep classified military documents off the internet.