Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

kallsop said:
A huge plane with, what, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, crashes into a tall building and starts a large fire. The tall building relies on steel pillars for strength, and those pillars weaken in the heat, buckle, cannot support the mass above, and precipitate a collapse.

The building does not collapse like a brick on top of wet sand. Instead, the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity. The huge force necessary to redirect the direction of the massive collapse could possibly indicate foul play if it were observed. Efforts to misdirect the argument and suggest that the lack of this mystery force is evidence of foul play suggest an inferior intellect has too much time on their hands.

Accordingly, the thesis is rejected, stamped with "EPIC FAIL" and inserted into the shredder. Nothing to see here, move along.
Click to expand...

Do me a favour, i.e. do the model experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 and report if you can observe that the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity, etc, etc.
 
NutCracker said:
allegation: you are using arguments from personal belief.
Click to expand...
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here. Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air, just like I argue David Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air. Of course you all are free to believe otherwise in either case, but you can't expect me to take your word for it, as that is just not how I roll.
 
kylebisme said:
Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air
Click to expand...

Seeing as how nobody says that happened, what the hell is your point, twoofer?
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Nobody but truthers are saying that the floors vanished into thin air. That is an unscientific and inaccurate description of the collapse.

Smart engineers have studied it, and published a very well documented report. Argue the points in the report, and you have the grounds for intelligent debate.

Truther talking points avoid such things and instead focus on anomalies. (molten steel anecdotes, freefall, Larry Silverstein 'pull it' statements and the like)
 
kylebisme said:
The building fell just as quick as if it did, falser.
Click to expand...

With the collapse already well underway (for minimum 8 seconds) inside and out of view, how fast do you expect unsupported columns would fail?

When a column reaches it's failure point, how long does the actual buckling take? Any idea?

If you look at a verinage demolition (no explosives) where the lower structure is not weakened by fire (so is stronger by definition than some of WTC7's structure) the failures are quite rapid. Truthers used to argue that such top-down collapses couldn't happen. They have been spectacularly wrong many, many times - the track record is rather abysmal.

Poor understanding of engineering cannot be compensated for.
 
kylebisme said:
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here.
Click to expand...

Sorry that is wrong. The indepth investigatinos provided answers. If you feel they are wrong, then provide the evidence to support it. Otherwise it is just you pissing in the wind.

Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air,
Click to expand...

Two floors didn't "vanish into thin air" any more than the towers collapsed into their "own footprint."

Prove it.

Of course you all are free to believe otherwise in either case, but you can't expect me to take your word for it, as that is just not how I roll.
Click to expand...

I don't want you to take MY (trutherslie) word for it. I am not a structural engineer, and I didn't examine all the data. But unless you have PROOF that NIST is wrong, then you are just pissing in the wind.

Your "intuition" has shown to be full of crap and is based on lies and misinformation.
 
Originally Posted by kylebisme
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here.
Click to expand...

Sorry, lots of us saw some aspect of 9/11 and know that Twoofer claims for what we saw are silly. I'm one of those people.

Lots of us have university and professional educations that show that Twoofer claims are silly. I'm one of those people.
 
kylebisme said:
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here.
Click to expand...

No; those of us who do this for a living have many years of university level training in fields such as structural and fire engineering.
 
Heiwa said:
Do me a favour, i.e. do the model experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 and report if you can observe that the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

I have nothing to prove. If you want to build a 110 story full scale model and fly a plane into it, knock yourself out. Nobody can guarantee it will behave the same as the first two "experiments" though, so what's the point? You can crash a similar car two different times. If you want to know what happened in the two crashes, analyze those and not a third fake crash with a scale model LOL. This is pretty basic stuff, are you keeping up there?

What will convince you that there is not a conspiracy? Specifics, please.

[teachers hint - it can not be disproven....]
 
kylebisme said:
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here. Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air, just like I argue David Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air. Of course you all are free to believe otherwise in either case, but you can't expect me to take your word for it, as that is just not how I roll.
Click to expand...

That's a variation of "Evolution is just a theory as well": the Fallacy of False Equivalence.

You are wrong. It is YOU, know-nothing, comprehend-nothing, Truthers that have basically nothing but arguments from personal disbelief to work with. Your opponents have real-world facts and a body of knowledge acquired over the centuries based on these real-world facts by a process known as the scientific method on their side. So this is not a personal beliefs vs. other personal beliefs match. This is personal beliefs vs. science.
 
Last edited:
kallsop said:
What will convince you that there is not a conspiracy? Specifics, please.
Click to expand...

See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.
 
Heiwa said:
See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.
Click to expand...

but so many people actually did, I lost track of the excuses you used to discount them.
 
Myriad said:
In order to model the exact dynamics of a building collapse, at the level of predicting where each beam goes, the engineers would have to include among the "parameters":

- The precise weight distribution on every floor such as where each tenant placed banks of filing cabinets and how full they were.

- The dimensions and placement of any material that could locally stiffen a bit of the framework -- this might include the layout of aluminum-framed drywall partitions on each floor, where each elevator was in its shaft when the collapse began, even whether individual doors were open or closed.

- Any local variations in the precise quality and dimensions of the steel members, including surface flaws, internal cracks, and tiny amounts out of spec and out of true that even though within contracted tolerances could still affect the outcome.

- The exact materials, routing, and attachment of all cable and plumbing runs. (For instance, at some point in the event that could make the difference between a large broken-off floor panel immediately falling through a void below, or dangling for half a second from several 200-conductor telephone trunk cables before falling -- which changes the whole subsequent sequence of events.)

Where do you suppose your hypothetical investigating engineers mere data-entry technicians get this information?

Do you really claim that academia has either the ability to obtain all of this information that no longer exists once the building has collapsed, or the even more remarkable ability to model a chaotic event in precise detail without precise details of the initial conditions? All while lacking the basic competence to make judgments such as whether a given building would/would not collapse under the general known conditions, that are supposedly obvious to a high school student?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Not only that, but once the collapse starts, things are banging into each other at unknown angles, bending, twisting, changing direction, being ejected, being crushed, etc.

Even if you were to begin with some kind of fine scale finite element approach, there is way too much data and too much unknown data to make even one time-step practical. And your timesteps would have to be on the order of milliseconds. No amount of computing power could begin to do more than a simplified conceptual approach, similar to what was probably done with Building 7. What the point would be is certainly not clear.

Why did ragnarok get suspended?
 
Ragnarok said:
It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?
Click to expand...
You don't have a ****ing clue, do you.
Computers only do what you tell them to do.
Engineers do the modeling, computers simply crunch numbers.
You'd have to write the program, too.
welcome to ignore.

ETA: To whomever contemplated the education never got to structures--Ragnarok never got to Statics, much less Dynamics... and Strength of Materials--never.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom