Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[dafydd]

Because numerous industrial steel columns will provide more resistance to collapse than air can. That's just common sense. For 2.25 seconds WTC 7 fell as fast as a cinder block through the air, and you see nothing wrong with that? No red flag? This building had 80+ columns. The overwhelming majority of the structure never suffered from any fire damage. It literally fell like a house of cards. Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?

Can you give me a detailed resume of what you think happened on 911? Be the first truther here to do that.

 

[kerikiwi]

Can you give me a detailed resume of what you think happened on 911? Be the first truther here to do that.

I tried that question a while back and his answer in #352 was interestingly evasive.

 

[DGM]

I tried that question a while back and his answer in #352 was interestingly evasive.

I think it's worth noting that if the "debate" gets down to exact "wording" tempesta29 is right there. If the argument actually concerns facts and science he runs like as child.


typical "truther" bot if you ask me.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I state that a 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy is 100% impossible, yes.

You should absolutely be ashamed of yourself for having such a state of mind.

A "state of mind?" What?!

I have, after considerable thought, determined that such a secret operation, by necessity the most complex and sizable in history by far, come to the realization that it is so very, very unlikely (setting aside the presence of the counter evidence as well as absence of any follow-up attacks) as to be so close to impossible to succeed that it might as well be 100%. That's called a "conclusion." (And a pretty crappy sentence, but hey.)

It's one thing to declare "black being white" or "zero having the value of one" impossible, but it is another altogether to deem what is merely a complicated conspiracy 100% impossible.

"Merely a complicated conspiracy." You're funny.

It simply underscores the fact that you don't know what possibility is.

You never scored in the first place, so it's a bit presumptuous to declare an underscore.

Oh, and you're wrong. Pity that.

You are a disgrace to critical thinking, sir, and I will no longer be responding to your counter-intuitive drivel.

Again with the empty rhetoric. You have not once engaged a point I made, so to boldly claim I am deficient at a skill (let alone a disgrace) without demonstrating how, and declaring any of those points counter-intuitive without demonstrating how leaves you looking a little like you cannot.

 

[A W Smith]

Because numerous industrial steel columns will provide more resistance to collapse than air can. That's just common sense. For 2.25 seconds WTC 7 fell as fast as a cinder block through the air, and you see nothing wrong with that? No red flag? This building had 80+ columns. The overwhelming majority of the structure never suffered from any fire damage. It literally fell like a house of cards. Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?

Engineering is not "common sense"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

When load is constantly being applied on a member, such as column, it will ultimately become large enough to cause the member to become unstable. Further load will cause significant and somewhat unpredictable deformations, possibly leading to complete loss of load-carrying capacity. The member is said to have buckled, to have deformed.

 

[tempesta29]

Engineering is not "common sense"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

Yeah. And buckling columns still provide resistance. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[tempesta29]

A "state of mind?" What?!

I have, after considerable thought, determined that such a secret operation, by necessity the most complex and sizable in history by far, come to the realization that it is so very, very unlikely (setting aside the presence of the counter evidence as well as absence of any follow-up attacks) as to be so close to impossible to succeed that it might as well be 100%. That's called a "conclusion." (And a pretty crappy sentence, but hey.)

Thanks for sharing.

You never scored in the first place, so it's a bit presumptuous to declare an underscore.

Tell me this wasn't an attempt at cleverness.

Again with the empty rhetoric. You have not once engaged a point I made, so to boldly claim I am deficient at a skill (let alone a disgrace) without demonstrating how, and declaring any of those points counter-intuitive without demonstrating how leaves you looking a little like you cannot.

What points have you made? That a 9/11 conspiracy was impossible? Some people would think a bunch of undertrained, undereducated fools penetrating the world's greatest domestic defense infrastructure on the planet is impossible. It's conjecture. They aren't points. You want me to demonstrate the how? Have you demonstrated the how? Have you demonstrated how a 9/11 conspiracy is "impossible"? No, you haven't, and you won't be able to. There is nothing physically impossible about it. It would require immense planning and coordination, but it isn't impossible. Care to show us how it's impossible?

 

[BasqueArch]

Yeah. And buckling columns still provide resistance. Thanks for pointing that out.

Here's a common sense way to understand it: Once a low story column broke, all the columns atop it had no support.

 

[A W Smith]

Yeah. And buckling columns still provide resistance. Thanks for pointing that out.

"COMPLETE LOSS" of load-carrying capacity.

Doesn't say some, or half, or 70 percent, or 80 percent. You cannot grasp English?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complete

4. thorough; entire; total; undivided, uncompromised, or unmodified: a complete victory; a complete mess.

—Antonyms
1. partial. 3. defective.

 

[TJM]

the world's greatest domestic defense infrastructure on the planet

Citation please.

 

[BasqueArch]

Because numerous industrial steel columns will provide more resistance to collapse than air can. That's just common sense. For 2.25 seconds WTC 7 fell as fast as a cinder block through the air, and you see nothing wrong with that? No red flag? This building had 80+ columns. The overwhelming majority of the structure never suffered from any fire damage. It literally fell like a house of cards. Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?

Someone not educated as an engineer does not know what is troublesome and what is not.
Here is a small cause that results in a large effect; a structure not damaged falling like house of cards.

 

[tempesta29]

"COMPLETE LOSS" of load-carrying capacity.

Doesn't say some, or half, or 70 percent, or 80 percent. You cannot grasp English?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complete

Yet said columns also buckled. Buckling is a process. Throughout said process the buckling columns are still offering resistance. The column doesn't go from bearing a load directly to offering no resistance. There is a process, despite your proclivity to underlining.

 

[tempesta29]

Someone not educated as an engineer does not know what is troublesome and what is not.
Here is a small cause that results in a large effect; a structure not damaged falling like house of cards.

Yet even in this structure, the collapse is cascading. WTC 7 doesn't do this. The roofline comes down together and virtually parallel with the horizon.

 

[BasqueArch]

Yet even in this structure, the collapse is cascading. WTC 7 doesn't do this. The roofline comes down together and virtually parallel with the horizon.

This is what you said

The overwhelming majority of the structure never suffered from any fire damage. It literally fell like a house of cards. Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?

This example disproves that:

 

[TJM]

The roofline comes down together and virtually parallel with the horizon.

No, it doesn't.

 

[A W Smith]

Yet said columns also buckled. Buckling is a process. Throughout said process the buckling columns are still offering resistance. The column doesn't go from bearing a load directly to offering no resistance. There is a process, despite your proclivity to underlining.

so you admidt that in this process, there is a point where the buckled columns offer no resistance?

 

[EventHorizon]

I see this thread becoming long, drawn out, and achieving nothing.

If you had been a little more specific I think you could have won the MDC.

 

[kerikiwi]

Some people would think a bunch of undertrained, undereducated fools penetrating the world's greatest domestic defense infrastructure on the planet is impossible. It's conjecture.

They would be right to think that. But the people who perpetrated the atrocity were not undertrained, not undereducated and not fools.
And no, it's not conjecture. It's evidence.

 

[Craig4]

Thanks for sharing.



Tell me this wasn't an attempt at cleverness.



What points have you made? That a 9/11 conspiracy was impossible? Some people would think a bunch of undertrained, undereducated fools penetrating the world's greatest domestic defense infrastructure on the planet is impossible. It's conjecture. They aren't points. You want me to demonstrate the how? Have you demonstrated the how? Have you demonstrated how a 9/11 conspiracy is "impossible"? No, you haven't, and you won't be able to. There is nothing physically impossible about it. It would require immense planning and coordination, but it isn't impossible. Care to show us how it's impossible?

If you have evidence of a conspiracy please share it. Possible and actually happened are two different things. How's it coming finding the explosive residue?

 

[tempesta29]

This is what you said

...

This example disproves that:

No, it doesn't. First, these two constructions don't appear to be similar at all. Second, they don't collapse in a similar manner at all.

No, it doesn't.

A single photo from an odd angle is meant to prove what?

Here is a video of WTC 7's collapse that is even with the horizon line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

That looks rather parallel to me.

so you admidt that in this process, there is a point where the buckled columns offer no resistance?

That depends on how those columns react to buckling and how they buckle under particular circumstances. I don't see how a column can offer no resistance unless it is severed in some way. Buckling is deformation, and it involves resistance. If you compress a business card at both ends it will offer resistance until your fingers touch unless the business card snaps. The same principle applies to steel columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_failure

Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself. Structural failure is initiated when the material is stressed to its strength limit, thus causing fracture or excessive deformations. In a well-designed system, a localized failure should not cause immediate or even progressive collapse of the entire structure. Ultimate failure strength is one of the limit states that must be accounted for in structural engineering and structural design.

I wonder why the bold occurred to WTC 7. Was this modern, high profile structure not well-designed?

They would be right to think that. But the people who perpetrated the atrocity were not undertrained, not undereducated and not fools.
And no, it's not conjecture. It's evidence.

Well, they didn't seem to have well-developed English skills, nor did they possess any significant degree of proficiency piloting airplanes, at least not those described by flight instructors.