Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

[kylebisme]

Which changes your entire experiment.

Which was exactly my intent.

In what possible scenario do you think that pre-planting explosives in a densely populated area is a good idea. Do you have any idea about what is required to safeguard and protect explosives from accidental detonation? My job used to be sitting in a room with over 7,000 pounds of explosives (class A, B and C) and almost 800 gallons of self oxidizing fuel whose fumes, if ignited, would kill you in about 30 seconds. You're damned straight that I know what it takes, but do you?

A scenario involving the possible disaster I mentioned above, and planed against using much different materials than you have worked with.

 

[Brainache]

I believe anything is possible as long as I have no rational argument to suggest otherwise. Surely you don't think you have a rational argument to against those aforementioned possibilities?

There's your problem. You think that any stupid thing you make up is possible and that it is the responsibility of others to disprove you. You are wrong. If you can't support your assertions with something a bit more solid than "it's true because I say so!!", then no one here needs to disprove them. You are the one making the claim, it is up to you to prove it.

Now that is a silly argument, and the rest of them too.

why? Why do you think it is possible that anyone would wire the WTC with explosives in the interests of PUBLIC SAFETY?

The mass could vary greatly depending on the girth of the tub, but that wouldn't change the rate the ball fell, and my point remains regardless. That siad, I'll check out your paper.

The point is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but you presume that you are the smartest person in the world.

You make me laugh, but if I was your father, I'd be crying right now.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

A scenario involving the possible disaster I mentioned above, and planed against using much different materials than you have worked with.

Your "Disaster" is a physical impossibility because a steel framed building has never toppled over whole... ever, mainly because they rely on gravity and the being vertical thing to be able to stand.

And what exactly are those materials? Be as explicit as possible.

 

[Brainache]

Which was exactly my intent.


A scenario involving the possible disaster I mentioned above, and planed against using much different materials than you have worked with.

So, what kinds of explosive were the black hearted demolition teams secretly hiding in the towers all those years ago?

Remember, this is your "plausible scenario" so invisible exploding squirrels may not be used...

 

[kylebisme]

Yes, we know that. That's why the collapses took about 15 seconds (not counting the core remnants, which failed ~20 seconds after) rather than about 9 seconds.

What you're doing, however, is using this analogy to claim there's no way "gravity alone could have made the buildings down, particularly as quickly as they did." This is wrong.

What you're doing we refer to around here as the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy. In this case, Quantity A is how fast your giant baseball in water would take to fall. Quantity B is how fast the Towers would collapse with gravity alone as the responsible agent. You haven't calculated A, you don't know B, yet you insist that you do know the relationship between them.

Balderdash. Once again, there are peer-reviewed papers on the collapse timing, multiple ones from independent sources, and they all agree with the actual collapse times. You're simply ignorant of this science. And your weak analogy is hardly sufficient to challenge them.

It was an analogy off the top of my head, admittedly simplified, and not well thought out in regard to the baseball. However, about 2/3 free fall is what I was estimating for the towers, and around what one could get with a block of lead falling though water. However, before I go any further with that point, I would like to look though the information you allude to. Could you please note where the specifics of the collapse are discussed in the "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" paper you linked previously?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

invisible exploding squirrels may not be used..

Drew Curtis is beyond the scope of this thread...

 

[Hokulele]

Could you please note where the specifics of the collapse are discussed in the "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" paper you linked previously?

Which specifics are you looking for? The analysis of the collapse times and the energy calculations are in Appendix B, as was stated earlier.

 

[kylebisme]

There's your problem. You think that any stupid thing you make up is possible and that it is the responsibility of others to disprove you. You are wrong. If you can't support your assertions with something a bit more solid than "it's true because I say so!!", then no one here needs to disprove them. You are the one making the claim, it is up to you to prove it.

What exactly do you want me to prove? The fact that if enough support is removed from the base of a structure, it will topple over? The fact that a powerful enough bomb can remove enough support to do that? Are you seriously suggesting these are just possibilities I made up? Would anything short of that actually happening leave you arguing it is impossible?

 

[Mr.D]

I didn't suggest it would be limited to the towers, but I'm sure if it is done, buildings are selected by far less simplistc reasons that you suggest.

!!

In your world, this is the more plausible explanation? The government has gone around and secretly wired up likely terrorist targets for controlled demolition.

For PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS.

*blink*

Apropos of nothing; I've heard the newest generation of antipsychotics have fewer side effects.

Most notably, the lack of anyone but complete morons suggesting intense fire cannot weaken steel.

Oh, so you've met some of the other truthers then. Good, go tell them that fire does indeed weaken steel.

It is the molten steel found at the base of the towers which stands in contradiction to the official story.

What molten steel?

Besides that, they used a weaker beam

Cite?

and on its weaker orientation,

What orientation should have been used and why?

ran the fire under nearly ideal conditions allowing it to reach about 67% hotter than anyone suggests the fires in the WTC got,

Cite?

did not secure to more steel which would distribute the heat, or anything at all for that matter, and stacked the weights in the center.

So, what SHOULD the fire and steel experiment have looked like?

 

[Hokulele]

What exactly do you want me to prove? The fact that if enough support is removed from the base of a structure, it will topple over? The fact that a powerful enough bomb can remove enough support to do that? Are you seriously suggesting these are just possibilities I made up? Would anything short of that actually happening leave you arguing it is impossible?

Yes to all of the above.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf

 

[kylebisme]

Your "Disaster" is a physical impossibility because a steel framed building has never toppled over whole... ever, mainly because they rely on gravity and the being vertical thing to be able to stand.

Like trees rely on gravity and the being vertical thing to be able to stand, but if you cut away enough of the base of the tree, what happens? Your argument ignores the fact that "has never" and "physical impossibility" are hardly the same.

And what exactly are those materials? Be as explicit as possible.

I was explicit as possible, lacking omnipresence as I do.

So, what kinds of explosive were the black hearted demolition teams secretly hiding in the towers all those years ago?

Remember, this is your "plausible scenario" so invisible exploding squirrels may not be used...

Remember, I suggested noble purposes, nothing black hearted.

 

[Hokulele]

Like trees rely on gravity and the being vertical thing to be able to stand, but if you cut away enough of the base of the tree, what happens? Your argument ignores the fact that "has never" and "physical impossibility" are hardly the same.

Good grief. From the link I just posted:

Some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. However, buildings such as the WTC towers are not like trees. For one thing, they are not solid, rigid structures, but for the most part are open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.).

...

For a portion of the tower to roll to either side, it must first acquire angular momentum, which can only occur if the structure can pivot long enough about a stable plane (e.g. the stump in a tree). However, the forces concentrated near the pivoting area would have been so large that the columns and beams in the vicinity of that area would simply have crushed and offered no serious support permitting rolling.​

 

[dtugg]

Bombs secretly planted in the towers so they could be brought down safely in the event of a disaster? And that's the most plausible explanation that this latest twoofer can come up with? Wow. Let's ignore for a moment how completely stupid the idea is that the government or whomever goes around planting bombs in buildings for "public safety." What I want to know is why, if this were the case for the WTC, did they blow up the towers with people still inside

 

[Brainache]

What exactly do you want me to prove? The fact that if enough support is removed from the base of a structure, it will topple over? The fact that a powerful enough bomb can remove enough support to do that? Are you seriously suggesting these are just possibilities I made up? Would anything short of that actually happening leave you arguing it is impossible?

You don't get it do you?
R.Mackey tried to explain it and he is much better than me at this stuff, but here I go: The towers are made of a steel framework of millions of separate beams all bolted together. If you remove one side of it at the bottom, it won't topple like a tree. The bolts will shear off because the load is no longer vertical and the whole thing will collapse straight down. More like a house of cards than a tree. That is of course an over-simplification, but I'm no engineer.

I'm sorry I accused you of making stuff up, you appear to just be parroting some stupid lies that you read on a loony website.

 

[Arus808]

I appreciate the friendly welcome, as for the question; put simply, the buildings could have been rigged to blow for the sake of public safety.

Yes go into a burning building blow it up with 100's of rescue workers trying to dig out survivors. Can you explain any logical reason why this would need to be done?

wouldn't a 110 story building collapsing on 100's of firefighters, citizens and police officer create and UNSAFE environment as well as burying DEEPER those who were survivors?

Imagine how much much death and destruction would have resulted had the top of the building slid off the side. Then imagine how even more horrific the results would have been had the towers been toppled over after being bombed at their bases.

why would teh "top" slide off. NO way in all of reality would any "top" slide off the building.

Those were undeniable possibilities, particularly after the 1993 bombing. In the worst case scenario of such an attack, being able to demolish the towers into their footprint, or at least as they fell, would prevent a far worse situation than what otherwise would have resulted.

absolute nonsense

Granted, telling the public at large that such high value targets are rigged to blow would result in many being irrationally wary of ever going near them. So those involved would have to be sworn to secrecy, and at least most with little or nothing to compel them to come forward with such information today.

where in this post did you describe how the buildings were rigged. you only gave a rehashed reason of why they'd be demolished; an unrealistic one by the way

 

[kylebisme]

Which specifics are you looking for? The analysis of the collapse times and the energy calculations are in Appendix B, as was stated earlier.

I see that now, my bad.

So, what SHOULD the fire and steel experiment have looked like?

The beam strength and temperature differences were mentioned in the program itself, but according to R.Mackey's earlier comment, the temps they cited for inside the building were wrong, and I'll take his word over theirs for now considering how pitiful the program was. As for orientation, an "H" provides more vertical support than an "I", having two lengths of steel holding the weight rather than one.

Anyway, it was a silly experiment regardless, since steel deforming under such temperatures is common knowledge. However, correcting the issues I mentioned would have at lest more applicable to the case at hand.

As for the moten steel, I'll have to do some digging for good sources and get to that in my next post.

 

[Brainache]

...

Remember, I suggested noble purposes, nothing black hearted.

And yet, these noble public servants who so kindly concealed explosives in crowded office space, see no need to come forward and stop all the lies that the Government and Engineers in Universities all over the world have been telling about what happened that day. Every single one of them is happy to go along with the big lie, right?

 

[Arus808]

it took two men to expose Nixon and Watergate, all within 2 years of it happening.

Its been 8 years; a conspiracy that would have taken 1000's of people involved.

 

[kylebisme]

Good grief. From the link I just posted:

The link you posted is talking about how why the towers did not topple over after being hit by planes, while I was talking what would have happen if a powerful enough bomb was set off at the base. Are you inncapable of compherending the difference?

 

[Arus808]

did you miss MAckey's post about why even a powerful explosion at the base will not topple an acre big, 110 story building?