Callipygous Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Yes, "uniform" implies a perfect spread of the jet fuel and heat, "fairly uniform" implies a fairly perfect spread of jet fuel and heat. not really. it merely assumes that enough jet fuel was spread to have jet fuel burning over the surface long enough to weaken the supports. there could very well have been enough jet fuel to keep burning much longer in some places, it doesnt have to be equal at all. given the nature of an explosion however, i would be surprised if there wasnt a fair amount of jet fuel on just about everything in there. you have to forgive our assumption that someone arguing that the official story is a lie would be arguing for the most commonly believed alternative.
Ndi Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Inconsistencies in one story do not make another story true. Nobody claimed that. I think. Just because this is in pseudoscience doesn't mean we each get a version and defend it. not really. it merely assumes that enough jet fuel was spread to have jet fuel burning over the surface long enough to weaken the supports. It would have to burn aided by a flow of oxygen in the correct amount for an hour. If it stops and the fire subsides, the beams cool by radiating. If a structure didn't fall while being heated it will not do so while cooling, when supports that already took the punishment regain strength. given the nature of an explosion however, i would be surprised if there wasnt a fair amount of jet fuel on just about everything in there. You can bet there was, at least in trace amounts, all over, you can see it quite well in the footage (the explosion going all over). Problem is, spreading such a fireball thins the film of kerosene quite well. Substract already burned fuel by engines, subtract what was spilled, the fact that tank wasn't full, what burned in the explosion, etc. Then rearrange what is left into a sphere-like surface (the hole), and there isn't that much left. I do believe that it was not enough to burn that hot for an hour. Aided combustion eats fuel like crazy, just because it burns for an hour as an open flame doesn't mean it burns for an hour if aided. If you set up a flame the size of an engine exhaust it would burn days, yet a jet engine just hours hours at half throttle. Way less on an afterburn scenario. And a single hotspot is not enough. You need quite a blaze to melt down several support beams, the beams radiate heat like crazy. If you stick a beam with one end in a furnace, the beam will probably be red hot about half a meter or a meter from the fire, then cool down. It loses heat quite well, and the hotter the fire the greater the temperature difference, the more energy you lose to the atmosphere. If the flame was in the open, helped by wind, then my bet is it can't run full strength for an hour, knowing it was spread out and had burned away quite fast. The WTC has an effective office area of 3000 square meters, with a total area of 4000 sq meters. Over several floors with a spray you have ~10.000 sq m to spray on. Also, it drips, you can't have 100 liters per meter. you have to forgive our assumption that someone arguing that the official story is a lie would be arguing for the most commonly believed alternative. Why throw politics in this and look for lies and implications when the physics are murky waters? Who said any of the stories was false/true? We'll never be able to prove anything, with no experiment at scale. We keep dancing around throwing burden of proof. None of us have no "proof" since none of us have samples of the fuel, data about spread, samples and tests on steel and so on. I was kinda hoping for the best estimate and if it is reasonable to doubt that the WTC collapsed by fire alone. I'm doubting it was fire alone and I'm trying to establish if I'm right or wrong in doubting, not whether the towers fell by flame or not.
Callipygous Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 It would have to burn aided by a flow of oxygen in the correct amount for an hour. and are you defining "the correct amount" as a carefully calculated flow of oxygen designed for maximum heat? because i think the standard breeze you can expect at the 90th floor would be enough to fan the flames. and how did you decide that it would have to have that?
Sisyphus Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I love how this turns every conspiracy wacko into an armchair structural engineer, who somehow make definitive statements about what could or could not have happened despite no training, no knowledge of the specific damage inflicted (which nobody has), and the totally unprecedented nature of the event. Is it imperfectly understood and worthy of study? Of course, that's why it's STILL being studied so intensely. The jump from that to "it couldn't have happened!" is EXACTLY the same fallacy as the "God of the gaps," where people claim phenomena which are not yet perfectly understood COULD NOT have happened naturally and therefore must be miraculous. Frankly, I've read through this whole thread, and not seen anything all that implausible. Taking out half the support columns and dousing the damaged remainders in kerosene and diesel fire seems like enough to weaken steel enough that one mangled floor (not even the main support columns, just the beams connecting columns to floor) would eventually collapse and cause a pancake effect on each successive floor below it. But then, I'm not an engineer and I don't have detailed computer models of the structure and possible damage scenarios, so I'll leave the investigation to those who actually know something about it.
Callipygous Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 but sisyphus... dont you realize that it was actually a cruise missile filled with the bodies of people the planes? all the people who know anything about it are clearly being paid off by the government to tell everyone it was afghanistan, which then allows us to invade iraq for oil. i guess i need to include a disclaimer that the above is a joke, and should be taken lightheartedly.
hotcommodity Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I love how this turns every conspiracy wacko into an armchair structural engineer, who somehow make definitive statements about what could or could not have happened despite no training, no knowledge of the specific damage inflicted (which nobody has), and the totally unprecedented nature of the event. Is it imperfectly understood and worthy of study? Of course, that's why it's STILL being studied so intensely. The jump from that to "it couldn't have happened!" is EXACTLY the same fallacy as the "God of the gaps," where people claim phenomena which are not yet perfectly understood COULD NOT have happened naturally and therefore must be miraculous. Frankly, I've read through this whole thread, and not seen anything all that implausible. Taking out half the support columns and dousing the damaged remainders in kerosene and diesel fire seems like enough to weaken steel enough that one mangled floor (not even the main support columns, just the beams connecting columns to floor) would eventually collapse and cause a pancake effect on each successive floor below it. But then, I'm not an engineer and I don't have detailed computer models of the structure and possible damage scenarios, so I'll leave the investigation to those who actually know something about it. We're all armchair engineeers? Well God forgive us as we speculate and share ideas. You shared your thoughts on the collapse as well, I suppose that makes you guilty too. but sisyphus... dont you realize that it was actually a cruise missile filled with the bodies of people the planes? all the people who know anything about it are clearly being paid off by the government to tell everyone it was afghanistan, which then allows us to invade iraq for oil. When logic fails, resort to mocking your opponent. Yes, a winning strategy indeed. It was Mark Twain who said "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Your freedom to express your thoughts so openly is a product of the bravery of those who were once hated and scorned. Yet you use that privilage to mock others, and make statements of no substace. Come back when you have something to offer. Inconsistencies in one story do not make another story true. What story am I claiming to be true? Which government officials are those, and why do you think your as-yet-unnamed sources speak for the government as a whole? I thought Cap'n, implied "as a whole," so I addressed it. What unnamed sources are you speaking of? I've spoken off a handful of articles and issues, so you'll have to be more specific. You might also note the airliner-as-missile idea formed the central theme of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor, in which an airliner was used to destroy the Capitol Building during a joint session of Congress, killing the overwhelming majority of congressmen and the president (and lead to the inevitable promotion of Jack Ryan from Vice President to President) Noted. Don't forget that Family Guy predicted that Osama bin Laden would sneak through airport security by singing show tunes. What relevance does that have here? Again, you'll have to be specific, the argument won't make itself for you. I see absolutely nothing which I would consider to be evidence in your post. Using logic, I would say that as the claimant you have the burden of proof. Unattributed anecdotes, coincidences, and fictional plot lines are not proof of anything. Did i ever say "here! I have proof" ? Or did I say that I'm pointing out inconsistencies and/or issues that need to be addressed promptly. If you stop worrying about what my motive is, you may be able to address the issues stated above in a progressive manner.
Callipygous Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 When logic fails, resort to mocking your opponent. Yes, a winning strategy indeed. It was Mark Twain who said "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Your freedom to express your thoughts so openly is a product of the bravery of those who were once hated and scorned. Yet you use that privilage to mock others, and make statements of no substace. Come back when you have something to offer. i already responded to your post, so ill just feel free to come back whenever it pleases me, thanks. What relevance does that have here? Again, you'll have to be specific, the argument won't make itself for you. for those of us who put a little bit of thought into it did a fine job of making the point. "just because we saw it on tv doesnt mean we do, or should, expect it to happen."
hotcommodity Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 i already responded to your post, so ill just feel free to come back whenever it pleases me, thanks. Well when your post lacks substance, its considered spam. You mocked your opposition and offered nothing to back it up. In any other case I'd approve of its deletion, but to a degree I'm glad you posted it, as it shows the mindset of my opposition. for those of us who put a little bit of thought into it did a fine job of making the point. "just because we saw it on tv doesnt mean we do, or should, expect it to happen." And what point do you think you made?...The second part of your post makes no sense to me, please elaborate.
Callipygous Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Well when your post lacks substance, its considered spam. You mocked your opposition and offered nothing to back it up. In any other case I'd approve of its deletion, but to a degree I'm glad you posted it, as it shows the mindset of my opposition. my response to your post was logical and on topic. im curious how this post ranks any better. And what point do you think you made?...The second part of your post makes no sense to me, please elaborate. 1. its not a point I made, its a point that bascule made (and if i misinterpereted it, sorry bascule) 2. i really dont know how to make it any clearer. just because we saw it on tv doesnt mean we do, or should, expect it to happen.
hotcommodity Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 my response to your post was logical and on topic. im curious how this post ranks any better. Did I make an attempt to mock you? If no, then it automatically ranks better. I have more respect for you than to mock your position. 1. its not a point I made, its a point that bascule made (and if i misinterpereted it, sorry bascule) 2. i really dont know how to make it any clearer. just because we saw it on tv doesnt mean we do, or should, expect it to happen. I see I see, I think you mean just because tv shows infered 9/11 style events doesnt mean we should expect it to happen, and I agree. I simply posted the video to counter the idea that no one ever expected terrorists to use airliners as weapons. I believe condellizza rice made that comment when she testified, but I'll have to double check.
Phi for All Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I believe condellizza rice made that comment when she testified, but I'll have to double check.Condoleezza Rice did say that she could not have or did not anticipate that jets would be used as weapons was a possibility, despite having been given a great deal of intel on just that possibility. Didn't she prepare the Presidential Daily Briefing that mentioned the possibility and subsequently got ignored? I don't buy into much of the conspiracy but she did trip up on that.
bascule Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Condoleezza Rice did say that she could not have or did not anticipate that jets would be used as weapons was a possibility, despite having been given a great deal of intel on just that possibility. Didn't she prepare the Presidential Daily Briefing that mentioned the possibility and subsequently got ignored? I don't buy into much of the conspiracy but she did trip up on that. The August 6th PDB is definitely screwey. It was prepared by the CIA. The CIA originally claimed it was generated internally, then revised their story to say that it was prepared at Bush's request. However, it was delivered to Condi as Bush was on vacation at the time. The second page, which consists of a single paragraph (in the version that was released) notes that there has been recent surveillance of buildings in New York and terrorist activities consistent with preparation for hijackings. The White House has this page where they attempt to debunk speculation into what that last paragraph meant: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040410-5.html
silverslith Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Guys, Steel beam buildings almost always collapse in fires. 500c is plenty to soften the steel even before it starts to glow red at 600-700c. The heating does not need to be at all uniform because triangulated truss structures lose all their strength when alignment is lost. 250c is enough to fail these structures DUE to the uneven heating. Steel conducts heat badly so usually the thermal distortion of a beam when one side gets hotter than the other makes it bow out of column and fold under its load. When one corner drops all the stiffness in the rest of the structure goes too causing the concrete slabs to pancake, or the roof to fall in a factory or hanger. Wood beam buildings actually survive fires much better cause big beams just char not burn. Its quite possible that GW and Osama planned the whole thing. Its been a big boost to both their-mutually beneficial causes. I don't think they thought the towers would drop. The picture shown of the Pentagon "Impact" a few months ago made up my mind. I already had concerns about the relative sizes and damage only to a wing closed for renovations. That explosion was totally inconsistant with tonnes of kero impacting at over 500kmph. Symmetrical short duration bloom with no smoke!!! Was not an impact or kero. That plane probably never existed. The one that was shot down was the biggest scam. Engines do not detach and land 8 miles back along the flight path by themselves. I saw a govt spokesman say: " its perfectly consistant with the weather patterns of the day for that to have happened" when interviewed about this the day it happened. -what, the plane crashed, and an engine bounced into the air and was blown 8 miles back the way it had come by the weather? An air force pal told me they heard from their usaf contacts the day it happened, that they'd shot it down.
hotcommodity Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Guys, Steel beam buildings almost always collapse in fires. 500c is plenty to soften the steel even before it starts to glow red at 600-700c. The heating does not need to be at all uniform because triangulated truss structures lose all their strength when alignment is lost. 250c is enough to fail these structures DUE to the uneven heating. Steel conducts heat badly so usually the thermal distortion of a beam when one side gets hotter than the other makes it bow out of column and fold under its load. When one corner drops all the stiffness in the rest of the structure goes too causing the concrete slabs to pancake, or the roof to fall in a factory or hanger. Wood beam buildings actually survive fires much better cause big beams just char not burn. It sounds like you've seen steel buildings collapse from fires, and if so I'm quite interested because it seems inconsistent with what you've stated. The wtc takes an impact from a multi-ton airliner along with an explosion, and eventually comes down. Steel structures are brought down all the time by fires? Are the steel structures you speak of also hit by multi-tons airliners all the time? You have two opposing sets of logic here. Its quite possible that GW and Osama planned the whole thing. Its been a big boost to both their-mutually beneficial causes. I don't think they thought the towers would drop. GW and Osama planned 9/11?! Yes, we all know what a diabolical super genius George Bush is, and you cant forget about the desert dwelling diabetic. Boy, when you put those two together, theres no stopping them! Its because of assertions like these that makes people suspicious about those who question the official story. If you truly believe in something, you've got to back it up with some type of evidence and/or logic. The picture shown of the Pentagon "Impact" a few months ago made up my mind. I already had concerns about the relative sizes and damage only to a wing closed for renovations. That explosion was totally inconsistant with tonnes of kero impacting at over 500kmph. Symmetrical short duration bloom with no smoke!!! Was not an impact or kero. That plane probably never existed. I'm suspicious about the pentagon crash myself, but until all of the pentagon surveillance videos are released, I'm not so sure we can be definite about what happened there. But the fact that they are withholding footage should raise some suspicions.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 It sounds like you've seen steel buildings collapse from fires, and if so I'm quite interested because it seems inconsistent with what you've stated. The wtc takes an impact from a multi-ton airliner along with an explosion, and eventually comes down. Steel structures are brought down all the time by fires? Are the steel structures you speak of also hit by multi-tons airliners all the time? You have two opposing sets of logic here. Not really. Steel buildings collapse when they're on fire, that's what he says. The WTC was on fire. The WTC was a steel building.
insane_alien Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 It sounds like you've seen steel buildings collapse from fires, and if so I'm quite interested because it seems inconsistent with what you've stated. The wtc takes an impact from a multi-ton airliner along with an explosion, and eventually comes down. Steel structures are brought down all the time by fires? Are the steel structures you speak of also hit by multi-tons airliners all the time? You have two opposing sets of logic here. don't you think being on fire AND being hit by a few hundred tonnes of jet liner at 500mph would be complimentary rather than opposing? i mean, could you imagine what the emergency services would say if that was the way it worked? guy1: holy crap its on fire! its gonna fall! guy2: nah its cool, it was hit by a fully fueled plane. it'll be fine. guy1: oh fair enough. something indicates to me that you might be the wrong one in this respect hc.
hotcommodity Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 I thought my quote might be misinterpreted, but thats my fault. This is what I'm getting at... He says steel structures collapse from fires all the time, I'd like to know what buildings he's speaking of. Steel structures do not collapse from fires, that's just common sense. -In 1988, the Interstate Bank Building burned for 4 hours, and did not collapse. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/la.jpg -In 1991, the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, but did not collapse. -In 2005, the Windsor Building in Spain burned for 2 days, and still did not collapse. http://www.cadenaser.com/composicion/images/portada/200502/13/1108304834.jpg http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/02/incendio_windsor/img/inc5.jpg These are all steel structures, and not a single one of them collapsed. I've never heard of a steel structure collapsing from an office fire. Now you may say "wait! the wtc's were hit by airliners packed with jet fuel." Well, yes, but building 7 was not hit by an airliner, so you cant have it both ways. Look at the damage done to building 6: http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/911/images/disaster1.jpg. Now look at the damage done to building 7: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/eh_wtc16.jpg Which one seems more likely to collapse? That is, if steel structures do indeed collapse from office fires alone.
insane_alien Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 well, for one you showed the least damaged part of WTC7 and the most damaged part of WTC6 which skews the results and after a perfunctory goole search eliminating the WTC from the results i came up with a few links about other steel structure fires. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205 although not a total collapse it did undergo partial collapse and it wasn't heavily damaged to begin with. this is an interesting link http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/ePubs_Innovative_Ideas/FactsForSteelBuildingsFire.pdf it mentions that steel only has half its strength at 593*C and 20% at 704*C these are reachable in office fires. it also has a bit of a case study on the WTC and other buildings that collapsed and partially collapsed dure to fires. EDIT: oops, i meant to add this... Steel buildings are equipped with fire resistance around all steel structural elements in case of a fire. the logic behind this is that it will keep the steel structure safe until either 1/ the fire is extinguished 2/ it burns itself out. it does not however take into account severe damage to the fireproofing and structural elements (like in the three WTC buildings) or a few thousand gallons of jet fuel burning away.
hotcommodity Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 well, for one you showed the least damaged part of WTC7 and the most damaged part of WTC6 which skews the results and after a perfunctory goole search eliminating the WTC from the results i came up with a few links about other steel structure fires. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205 although not a total collapse it did undergo partial collapse and it wasn't heavily damaged to begin with. this is an interesting link http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/ePubs_Innovative_Ideas/FactsForSteelBuildingsFire.pdf it mentions that steel only has half its strength at 593*C and 20% at 704*C these are reachable in office fires. it also has a bit of a case study on the WTC and other buildings that collapsed and partially collapsed dure to fires. EDIT: oops, i meant to add this... Steel buildings are equipped with fire resistance around all steel structural elements in case of a fire. the logic behind this is that it will keep the steel structure safe until either 1/ the fire is extinguished 2/ it burns itself out. it does not however take into account severe damage to the fireproofing and structural elements (like in the three WTC buildings) or a few thousand gallons of jet fuel burning away. If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that steel structures tend not to collapse, just as I stated. The first link you provided spoke about the Windsor Building in Madrid, which I provided a link for as well in my previous post, and the building did not collapse. You say that steel structures are equipped with fire resistance around the steel itself, which would reduce the likelihood of a collapse. I would take into account that there was jet fuel accompanied with the burning in the wtc's, but the fact that building 7 collapsed without being hit by an airliner/fuel explosion is suspicious. I haven't seen, or found one example of a steel structure collapsing due to an office fire. In fact, given the links provided above, we've seen quite the opposite.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 You're misreading him. Read the whole post carefully.
hotcommodity Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 You're misreading him. Read the whole post carefully. Feel free to expand on his post, otherwise you might as well let him respond.
insane_alien Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 hotcommodity, i was arguing that steel structures CAN collapse due to fire. its just that there are safety measure in place so it means that a LOT of things have to happen for it to completely fail. as it stands, even with the fire proofing office builings have partially collapsed due to fire, the winsdor building you gave is an example. the windsor building didn't have a whole side shaved off it like WTC7. the heavy damage on WTC7 was the reason it failed. if it wasn't damaged then it would not have fallen due to the fire.
hotcommodity Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 hotcommodity, i was arguing that steel structures CAN collapse due to fire. its just that there are safety measure in place so it means that a LOT of things have to happen for it to completely fail. as it stands, even with the fire proofing office builings have partially collapsed due to fire, the winsdor building you gave is an example. the windsor building didn't have a whole side shaved off it like WTC7. the heavy damage on WTC7 was the reason it failed. if it wasn't damaged then it would not have fallen due to the fire. If you could find a picture of the damage you speak of regarding building 7, and tell me what caused that damage, I'd sure like to know. Building 7 is so far away from the wtc's, I'm interested in how it got damaged. How did a big chunk of it get shaved off when it wasnt hit by anything? You say the structures "can" collapse, but I have still not seen any example that shows when a steel structure "did" in fact collapse due to fire. Again, they dont spend millions of dollars to build structures that can be taken down by office fires. If that were the case, I doubt any self-respecting insurance company would insure them for any large amount of money. It would be bad business. Larry Silverstein was awarded 5 billion dollars for the wtc's alone. You say "alot" of things have to happen for a buildings structure to completely fail, so I guess you're assuming that 3 buldings met this criteria, all within a nine hour period. That's extremely coincidental at best.
insane_alien Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 does this look like minor damage http://judi.kw.nl/uploads/fok/wtc7-sw-corner1.jpg the smoke pouring out one whole side thing i mentioned earlier http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/WTC7.jpg/300px-WTC7.jpg the partial collapse of the winsdor building where steel structural elements collapsed but it didn't cause the rest to collapse http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album2/img/10.jpg i assume WTC7 got damaged when two of the worlds tallest buildings fell down quite near it. also, what is wrong with three buildings meeting this criteria in 9 hours? it was pretty damn exceptional circumstances wouldn't you agree? its not everyday planes get flown into some of the tallest buildings in the world.
Callipygous Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 You say "alot" of things have to happen for a buildings structure to completely fail, so I guess you're assuming that 3 buldings met this criteria, all within a nine hour period. That's extremely coincidental at best. thats like saying its extremely coincidental that 4 airliners got highjacked in one day. its not at all coincidental, its a direct product of the circumstances.
Recommended Posts