Missile??

[tmd2_1]

What your asking for is a bit ridiculous. In fact I will tell you what it is kind of like asking for. I assume you accept NIST's analysis as correct...right? Yet they haven't "produced" anything. What I mean by that is the towers haven't been rebuilt and planes flown into to them at the same speeds in the same locations. I mean that's the only way we can be sure what they say is right...would it not? But you still accept NIST's analysis right? But you know I think it's a great idea (of course I know it won't happen), we should build all 3 towers, exact replicas, put them the exact distance from each other, and fly planes into the exact location at the same or similar speeds. Of course we would need people on both sides to make sure things are fair and exactly the way things would have been on that day, you know just in case....I'd love to see the results to that especially 7, most of you would be probably be hyper ventilating, because you have a pretty good idea the results of this experiment would not be what you want to see.

I see it has all passed you by. I wasn't really being serious that this is something that should be done (though if someone wants to do it and has the resources I certainly wouldn't stop them) It was rhetorical and spoken tongue in cheek, and reinforcing my point about having to "produce" something. But think about it...just think about it, what if a test like this is run? This is all hypothetical of course. Do you honestly think the results would look anything like we saw that day? I'll guarantee it wouldn't. In fact I'm almost certain the results would be so different there would be no other conclusion that something else was at work that day. This is the point I was trying to make.

 

[TJM]

I see it has all passed you by. I wasn't really being serious that this is something that should be done (though if someone wants to do it and has the resources I certainly wouldn't stop them) It was rhetorical and spoken tongue in cheek, and reinforcing my point about having to "produce" something.

Well since you put it that way....no. You made a rather lame analogy and got your nose rubbed in it. Man up for once.

But think about it...just think about it, what if a test like this is run? This is all hypothetical of course. Do you honestly think the results would look anything like we saw that day? I'll guarantee it wouldn't. In fact I'm almost certain the results would be so different there would be no other conclusion that something else was at work that day. This is the point I was trying to make.

I think you'll find the opinion here is you're point isn't lost on us; It's stupid beyond belief.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But think about it...just think about it

You're only telling us to think because we don't agree with you. You believe if you get us to "think" enough that we will see things your way.

You exclude the possibility that we already have thought about it and come to the conclusions that we have.

what if a test like this is run? This is all hypothetical of course. Do you honestly think the results would look anything like we saw that day?

Yes, absolutely.

I'll guarantee it wouldn't.

You have no education, training, or experience in the appropriate fields. Your guarantee is worthless.

 

[dtugg]

I see it has all passed you by. I wasn't really being serious that this is something that should be done (though if someone wants to do it and has the resources I certainly wouldn't stop them) It was rhetorical and spoken tongue in cheek, and reinforcing my point about having to "produce" something. But think about it...just think about it, what if a test like this is run? This is all hypothetical of course. Do you honestly think the results would look anything like we saw that day? I'll guarantee it wouldn't. In fact I'm almost certain the results would be so different there would be no other conclusion that something else was at work that day. This is the point I was trying to make.

Nobody gives a crap what some random twoofer "guarantees".

 

[triforcharity]

SOT, Congrats on 10,000 posts.

I'll guarantee it wouldn't.

That reminds me of something.

Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I'm listening.

Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?

Ted Nelson, Customer: What's your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of ****. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

TMD has basically taken a huge, nasty, stinking, corn filled **** in a box, and tried to give it to us as some kind of present.

I'm returning it. Immediately.

 

[Travis]

I see it has all passed you by. I wasn't really being serious that this is something that should be done (though if someone wants to do it and has the resources I certainly wouldn't stop them) It was rhetorical and spoken tongue in cheek, and reinforcing my point about having to "produce" something. But think about it...just think about it, what if a test like this is run? This is all hypothetical of course. Do you honestly think the results would look anything like we saw that day? I'll guarantee it wouldn't. In fact I'm almost certain the results would be so different there would be no other conclusion that something else was at work that day. This is the point I was trying to make.

Actually it might look very different indeed. But that relates to the way that highly chaotic events play out. The end result of a thoroughly destroyed building would be the same though.

 

[Dash80]

SOT, Congrats on 10,000 posts.



That reminds me of something.

Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I'm listening.

Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?

Ted Nelson, Customer: What's your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of ****. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

TMD has basically taken a huge, nasty, stinking, corn filled **** in a box, and tried to give it to us as some kind of present.

I'm returning it. Immediately.

Ew I wondered what that god awful smell was, put me right off my breakfast.

 

[Oystein]

What your asking for is a bit ridiculous. In fact I will tell you what it is kind of like asking for. I assume you accept NIST's analysis as correct...right? Yet they haven't "produced" anything. What I mean by that is the towers haven't been rebuilt and planes flown into to them at the same speeds in the same locations. I mean that's the only way we can be sure what they say is right...would it not? But you still accept NIST's analysis right? But you know I think it's a great idea (of course I know it won't happen), we should build all 3 towers, exact replicas, put them the exact distance from each other, and fly planes into the exact location at the same or similar speeds. Of course we would need people on both sides to make sure things are fair and exactly the way things would have been on that day, you know just in case....I'd love to see the results to that especially 7, most of you would be probably be hyper ventilating, because you have a pretty good idea the results of this experiment would not be what you want to see.

I see it has all passed you by. ...

What a transparent lie. You got a number of very fitting replies:

Stundied.

You have lost touch with the reality of 911. That is just nonsense. Stundie of the month? That is the all time winner.

Are you *********** serious? Rebuild 3 buildings, two of them the tallest in Manhattan and fly planes into them? What the **** dude!

Just NO! That is not how investigations are done, not even before computer modeling.

The British Board of Trade didn't rebuild the Titanic and sail her into an iceberg, just to see exactly what would happen.

There are no words to describe how hard you fail.

Truly epic.

Wow.

I guarantee that if a 47 story building were set ablaze on multiple floors and allowed to burn for a full afternoon without so much as a firefighter wizzing on it, it would collapse.

Feel free to do it. Good luck coming up with the billions to buy two 767s and build replicas of the buildings.

In the real world, however, no sane person is going to do this because it would be a gigantic waste of money. Us sane people already know exactly what happened.

Perhaps you would like to read this just to check your "position":

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911-conspiracists-vindicated-after-all-these-years/

No kidding. I love how he equates a multi-year study:

1. That covers multiple lines - not pieces, lines i.e. complete collections - of evidence.
2. Applies known principles of material behavior to recorded observations (known principles which have been validated time and time again over the course of decades if not centuries).
3. Draws initial conclusions from such observations which guides their examination of one line of evidence (recovered steel) and is validated by the predicted states of those steel pieces.
4. Tests explanations for the multiple observations against computer models.
5. Applies more complex levels of engineering knowledge gained from either specific incidents, or specific tests (obviously referring to the Cardington tests here).
6. Creates a theory which either encompasses conclusions drawn by other numerous, independent studies, or is actually validated by them (the Purdue study, the various Worcester ones regarding the corrosion, and so on), and which provides a legitimate base of knowledge for dissent (Arup, James Quintiere).
7. Subjects that theory to open commentary by soliciting direct commentary/critiques
8. And was compelling enough of a theory that various bodies are actually implementing the findings into building code, even today.

.... with a simple drawing and some pages of text for a proposal of a new product.

[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/facepalm.gif[/qimg]

Yeah. I totally see the equivalence.

And on a more serious note:

This fantasist suffers from an abysmal ignorance of what exactly the NIST report is. The reason you don't need to build a physical mockup of the Twin Towers - even a scale one - is because the whole point of the investigations was to apply known material properties as well as engineering knowledge to analyze the event and construct an explanation of the collapse. There's no need to physically model things because the individual elements of the theory - namely the effect of the fires on the steel and the effect of the design in handling the loads and damage - have already been modeled in the past. They've not been modeled as a total system before, but don't tell me that experiments like the Cardington tests do not inform engineers as to how steel assemblies react in fires. And don't tell me that such knowledge cannot be applied to real-world circumstances; if that were the case, not a single vehicle crash in the world would be describable from other wrecks in the past.

In short, the whole NIST project in regards to the WTC was an exercise of applying what's known to what happened. Steel components of a structure have suffered fires before and their behavior well studied and described. And entire university disciplines as well as professional ones exist around knowing how a structure's design influences how it handles loads and damage. They took all that and applied it to a specific set of cases.

And then they did model the collapses. But virtually, via computer FEA.

So why the truther insistence on actual, physical reconstructions (this guy's not the only one who's proposed this)? Is it for the same reason that they insist on critiques of their hero's papers also being peer reviewed i.e. because they don't actually know how things work and they're pulling things out of their (*bleep*)s?

No kidding. That has got to be close to the "silliest" (I'm being polite here) thing I've read in my 10 years on this forum.

tmd, you should retire from the field. You have defeated yourself.

The problem with your post that all these people saw is that you have no idea what engineering is: Engineers always apply known principles of physics and known properties of materials, model them, compute their composite properties, and make predictions about how structures will perform under various kinds of stress.

When the WTC was planned and designed, that is exactly what they did: Run analytical models! On paper even.
Yes, they also did some tests on real models - for example, LaClede Steel company had to assemble a full scale floor truss and actually measure its strength. They also build scale models of the complete towers and put them in wind canals.
NIST in their 9/11 investigation also did some real tests on real assemblies - but both they and the engineers who built the towers did most of their work on paper and in computers, trusting that their skills will allow them to get close enough to reality.

In fact, pretty much every unique house that's ever built is built without testing the structural engineer's predictions in a built-up model.


Your post demonstrated clearly to everyone here that you have not the very first idea why the profession of "engineer" even exists to start with.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You mean that they don't just slap some steel together and see if it holds up?

 

[Oystein]

You mean that they don't just slap some steel together and see if it holds up?

I could have said as short and sweet as you did, it's just not my style

 

[Travis]

I think part of the problem is that Truthers really do not appreciate engineering. They really do think that the only way to know if something is strong enough is to just build it and then see if it holds up. They have no concept that there are existing formulas and algorithms that allow things to be estimated beforehand. So, because of their ignorance, they then assume the only way to understand how something failed is to just go and make it fail again but this time with cameras everywhere!

 

[dafydd]

I think part of the problem is that Truthers really do not appreciate engineering. They really do think that the only way to know if something is strong enough is to just build it and then see if it holds up. They have no concept that there are existing formulas and algorithms that allow things to be estimated beforehand. So, because of their ignorance, they then assume the only way to understand how something failed is to just go and make it fail again but this time with cameras everywhere!

The only formula that truthers are familiar with is the one for frying a hamburger.

 

[NoahFence]

I see it has all passed you by. I wasn't really being serious that this is something that should be done (though if someone wants to do it and has the resources I certainly wouldn't stop them) It was rhetorical and spoken tongue in cheek, and reinforcing my point about having to "produce" something. But think about it...just think about it, what if a test like this is run? This is all hypothetical of course. Do you honestly think the results would look anything like we saw that day? I'll guarantee it wouldn't. In fact I'm almost certain the results would be so different there would be no other conclusion that something else was at work that day. This is the point I was trying to make.

If the powers that be were to duplicate the impacts of the twin towers, and let them burn for as long as they did, the exact same thing would happen.

How can I say this with any certainty?

Because it's ALREADY HAPPENED.

One building was subjected to the exact same damage as the other. One collapsed. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine the other one collapsing too? I'd say no, because that's exactly what happened.

 

[tmd2_1]

What a transparent lie. You got a number of very fitting replies:












The problem with your post that all these people saw is that you have no idea what engineering is: Engineers always apply known principles of physics and known properties of materials, model them, compute their composite properties, and make predictions about how structures will perform under various kinds of stress.

When the WTC was planned and designed, that is exactly what they did: Run analytical models! On paper even.
Yes, they also did some tests on real models - for example, LaClede Steel company had to assemble a full scale floor truss and actually measure its strength. They also build scale models of the complete towers and put them in wind canals.
NIST in their 9/11 investigation also did some real tests on real assemblies - but both they and the engineers who built the towers did most of their work on paper and in computers, trusting that their skills will allow them to get close enough to reality.

In fact, pretty much every unique house that's ever built is built without testing the structural engineer's predictions in a built-up model.


Your post demonstrated clearly to everyone here that you have not the very first idea why the profession of "engineer" even exists to start with.

If you read my subsequent post (and in fact you should have gathered from that post) I wasn't being serious. Besides what "real" engineer would object to such a test. I mean assuming time and resources were not a problem. I mean if computer models were the be all and end all why do they flight test A/C, why do they test anything at all for that matter? I think...no I know what the real problem is. You don't like the question so you ridicule questioner. Though certainly no such test will ever take place, if one were to take place (this is hypothetical of course) you would be 100% terrified of the results. Because you know they will not be what we saw that day. Of course I know you will come here, and say you'd expect to see the exact same thing (or something very close to it) to happen. But if you were honest with yourself you know that's not true.

 

[dafydd]

If you read my subsequent post (and in fact you should have gathered from that post) I wasn't being serious. .

Twoofers post so much crap that is impossible to tell when they are being serious or not. So,you were not serious about the missile.? You were serious about building replicas and now you are trying to scrape the egg off your face. Why don't you give this up and go and do something that you're good at?

 

[djlunacee]

If you read my subsequent post (and in fact you should have gathered from that post) I wasn't being serious. Besides what "real" engineer would object to such a test. I mean assuming time and resources were not a problem. I mean if computer models were the be all and end all why do they flight test A/C, why do they test anything at all for that matter? I think...no I know what the real problem is. You don't like the question so you ridicule questioner. Though certainly no such test will ever take place, if one were to take place (this is hypothetical of course) you would be 100% terrified of the results. Because you know they will not be what we saw that day. Of course I know you will come here, and say you'd expect to see the exact same thing (or something very close to it) to happen. But if you were honest with yourself you know that's not true.

Wrong. Forgive me if I choose to take the expertise of people in the relevant fields. Not a random trutherbot regurgitating ideas that have long since been debunked and think they are new. You have been shown a number of times in this thread why a missle firing system attached to the planes is not feasable, or even necessary. It is not the fault of those on the forum that you can not comprehend. That is on you, I guarentee it.

 

[Sabrina]

If you read my subsequent post (and in fact you should have gathered from that post) I wasn't being serious. Besides what "real" engineer would object to such a test. I mean assuming time and resources were not a problem. I mean if computer models were the be all and end all why do they flight test A/C, why do they test anything at all for that matter? I think...no I know what the real problem is. You don't like the question so you ridicule questioner. Though certainly no such test will ever take place, if one were to take place (this is hypothetical of course) you would be 100% terrified of the results. Because you know they will not be what we saw that day. Of course I know you will come here, and say you'd expect to see the exact same thing (or something very close to it) to happen. But if you were honest with yourself you know that's not true.

I highly recommend you cease telling us what to think and start examining your own conclusions, tmd. I also recommend that you discard what you think you "know", because it couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter is, many of us here have given serious consideration to the notion that a test of the sort you suggested should be done (albeit, we were considering a very much scaled down version, wherein the towers would be rebuilt to scale at a smaller size and the planes would be scaled down equivalently; reason being this would be much more cost effective than a full-scale rebuild), but we all came to the conclusion that it was pointless. Computer modeling and the various tests NIST conducted on physical models more than suffice to examine the cause of the collapse.

This is how engineering and architecture are CONDUCTED these days; mathematically constructing the device or building via modeling software, or even paper drawings if need be, and then applying different variables to see how the device/building would react. Physics doesn't, at this point in time, lie; the laws of thermodynamics and motion and everything else are still in effect to this day, and based off of the application of that knowledge, the towers did pretty much exactly what we expected them to; i.e., COLLAPSE. Nothing more was required beyond a giant passenger plane loaded with full tanks of fuel and traveling at nearly top speed slamming into the buildings, combined with fires that were left burning for anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half, further weakening the already shaky supports, to cause the buildings to collapse. Engineers have modeled this; physicists have modeled this and have proven in MATHEMATICAL terms (and everything designed by human hands has some form of mathematical formula behind it) that the outcome of the crashes into the building could indeed have happened and DID. No other outcome fits the formula so well.

You have been shown mathematically how a missile fired from the plane would add virtually NOTHING to the physical force applied by the plane striking the towers, and yet you hand wave it away in favor of your nebulous "flash" that, when you view high definition video of the crash, occurs AFTER the nose of the plane has already impacted and in the vicinity of the oxygen tanks located in that area of the plane, which can and do explode given the right conditions, and yet you refuse to consider that this might in fact be the cause. I have never, in all my time on this forum, seen someone so stubbornly obtuse as you, tmd; bravo.

 

[dafydd]

I have never, in all my time on this forum, seen someone so stubbornly obtuse as you, tmd; bravo.

I second that. Tmd,have you talked to your physics teacher in school about this?

 

[NoahFence]

Besides what "real" engineer would object to such a test.

the one paying for it??

you would be 100% terrified of the results.

The results would be WERE the same.

 

[Travis]

If you read my subsequent post (and in fact you should have gathered from that post) I wasn't being serious. Besides what "real" engineer would object to such a test.

An engineer that doesn't like seeing billions of dollars wasted.

I mean assuming time and resources were not a problem.

So this will be done in an imaginary world?

I mean if computer models were the be all and end all why do they flight test A/C, why do they test anything at all for that matter?

They flight test aircraft because aircraft have numerous moving parts made by many manufactures. A building.....just sort of sits there obeying laws of physics.

I think...no I know what the real problem is. You don't like the question so you ridicule questioner.

I ridicule what I think is ridiculous. That's sort of how that works.

Though certainly no such test will ever take place, if one were to take place (this is hypothetical of course) you would be 100% terrified of the results. Because you know they will not be what we saw that day. Of course I know you will come here, and say you'd expect to see the exact same thing (or something very close to it) to happen. But if you were honest with yourself you know that's not true.

I'm all up for the test if there is a few billion sitting around that would otherwise go to waste. There is certainly something to be learned.

But afraid of the results I am not.