Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Animal]

Well this closeup picture shows the side. You can see that it is pretty thin compared to the overall height.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...arthquake_-_Pina_Suarez_Apartment_Complex.jpg

As you can see the height of each floor fits in three times (aprox) to the width of it. Considering it is 23 stories high that's a 7.6 ratio.

Argument by assumption noted.

The WTC has a 6.6 ratio on all sides, not just one. So it could topple over in any direction.

Logical Fallacy

 

[NoahFence]

Oh, so I guess you're saying there was no wind that morning on 9/11.

Odd, because something is carrying the smoke away:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7xzQJtMalYWSOzP-E5z3sr0Mmh8e8RW3yAr_hJS6thhlAsvGe

And according to your own words:

'What I said was "The greatest force acting on a high rise tower is not gravity, it is the lateral load from winds." '

Are you really suggesting that the wind carrying the smoke away should have been enough to affect a 110 story building?

 

[Animal]

Oh, so I guess you're saying there was no wind that morning on 9/11.

Odd, because something is carrying the smoke away:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7xzQJtMalYWSOzP-E5z3sr0Mmh8e8RW3yAr_hJS6thhlAsvGe

And according to your own words:

'What I said was "The greatest force acting on a high rise tower is not gravity, it is the lateral load from winds." '

<sigh> What part of "high rise buildings are designed to resist lateral forces from the wind" don't you understand?

 

[Java Man]

Argument by assumption noted.


Logical Fallacy

It is by no means an assumption, the building is known to have had 23 stories and you can clearly measure the width and height of each floor on the photo. I am not assuming anything.

The other can't be a logical fallacy as the height and width of the WTC towers is well documented and the values I calculated are correct. They clearly counter your claim. Please reconsider your position rather than call "logical fallacy"

 

[Java Man]

Are you really suggesting that the wind carrying the smoke away should have been enough to affect a 110 story building?

Animal is clearly saying that. 9/11 wind was just like any other day wind. And he clearly says that wind is the biggest load on a building.

 

[Justin39640]

'What I said was "The greatest force acting on a high rise tower is not gravity, it is the lateral load from winds." '

To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

 

[NoahFence]

Animal is clearly saying that. 9/11 wind was just like any other day wind. And he clearly says that wind is the biggest load on a building.

Just like any other day wind.

Okee doke.

Like maybe, the same as in a thunderstorm? The wind on 9/11 was pretty much the same as it was in Hurricane Carol?

yep.

 

[Animal]

It is by no means an assumption, the building is known to have had 23 stories and you can clearly measure the width and height of each floor on the photo. I am not assuming anything.

Liar....here is you quote

"As you can see the height of each floor fits in three times (aprox) to the width of it"

What is the exact floor to floor height and the exact width of the building......without that information, yu are making assumptions.

The other can't be a logical fallacy as the height and width of the WTC towers is well documented and the values I calculated are correct. They clearly counter your claim. Please reconsider your position rather than call "logical fallacy"

Yes the WTC towers data is known, the values you calculated were a guess. Claiming that the WTC could topple in any direction because a building 1/4 its size with a vastly different ratio did is a logical fallacy. Once again you are wrong.

 

[Java Man]

What is the exact floor to floor height and the exact width of the building......without that information, yu are making assumptions.

Aprox 3, that's the value. Not 4 not 2. In the whereabouts of 3. Not 2.5 not 3.5. Get it?

 

[Animal]

Just like any other day wind.

Okee doke.

Like maybe, the same as in a thunderstorm? The wind on 9/11 was pretty much the same as it was in Hurricane Carol?

yep.

Troofers have a problem with separating the concept of "DESIGN LOAD" with "LIVE LOAD"

 

[Animal]

Aprox 3, that's the value. Not 4 not 2. In the whereabouts of 3. Not 2.5 not 3.5. Get it?

I get it, you are guessing, got caught in a lie, and won't admit it.

 

[Java Man]

I get it, you are guessing, got caught in a lie, and won't admit it.

Look, even doing a more precise measurement you get around a 6.5 ration which is similar to the WTC. So yes maybe it was imprecise, but still after reconsideration the ratio is similar to the WTC tower.

If you have a counter argument then make your measurements and do your math. Don't just come up with logical fallacy claims and no counter argument to present.

 

[Christopher7]

Man we have been circling re the molten metal in the claw.

Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight and there were no other metals in the debris pile that could account for the molten metal. There is no alternative or reason to doubt that what all those people saw was indeed molten steel. To do so is just denial. The molten steel establishes temperatures far in excess of what carbon based fires can attain.

The RJ Lee report also confirms temperatures in excess of 2800^oF.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

You would like to just move on without acknowledging this point but that is denial of the evidence.

 

[newton3376]

Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight

Incorrect.

A simple photo search proves this incorrect.

Next point.

and there were no other metals in the debris pile that could account for the molten metal.

Incorrect.

Opinion without any evidence or expertise to back it up. This has already been discussed here and you are shown to be wrong again. If your opinions cant't even make it past an internet discussion forums then you have no hope in the "real world".

There is no alternative or reason to doubt that what all those people saw was indeed molten steel. To do so is just denial. The molten steel establishes temperatures far in excess of what carbon based fires can attain.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Repeating errors does not make them correct. You are incorrect.

You would like to just move on without acknowledging this point but that is denial of the evidence.

This is the best way to deal with truthers.....first you show them the evidence proving their ideas, conclusions, and assumptions wrong.

After that you just ignore them.

At this point the majority of the world is just ignoring you guys.....I know it's likely frustrating to know that.....but no one actually cares about the truther movement.

It's entertainment on the internet and nothing more.

 

[grandmastershek]

I'd hate to see what 2000+ deg hydraulic fluid would do to all the tiny seals in the manifold let alone the gland and piston packings. If you need a machine to pick things in the molten steel heat range, you would use special attachments. That's a normal grappler. It cannot pick up stuff that is at or beyond its own melting point. All the grease in the articulating parts would be gone way before that temp.

Don't forget the thermal expansion. But according to Gage we must remember that its a wholly new phenomenon.

Glad to see Chris is still dodging the molten test.

 

[Justin39640]

Don't forget the thermal expansion. But according to Gage we must remember that its a wholly new phenomenon.

Glad to see Chris is still dodging the molten test.

Well the plastic and rubber would expand and deform prior to melting, allowing seizing and bypassing in the manifold, pistons (internal bypass), glands, o-ring seals on fitting bosses and faces, the hoses under pressure. Leaking fluid from these in close proximity would light on fire. It'd be a mess. Let's not forget that there is plastic, brass, etc bushings and stops on/for all the moving parts.

I'd love to get the PO for a grappler that the immersed its claw and boom in molten steel. You could send your kids to college on that bill.

 

[Christopher7]

Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight

Incorrect.

Pure denial.
There is NO scientific evidence to support NIST's assumption that organic material can mix with molten aluminum and make it glow orange.

and there were no other metals in the debris pile that could account for the molten metal.

Incorrect.

Name one or stop claiming that there is an alternative.

 

[Animal]

Look, even doing a more precise measurement you get around a 6.5 ration which is similar to the WTC. So yes maybe it was imprecise, but still after reconsideration the ratio is similar to the WTC tower.

If you have a counter argument then make your measurements and do your math. Don't just come up with logical fallacy claims and no counter argument to present.

Making a second lie to cover your first one only digs a deeper hole for yourself. Your first claim was 7.6, now it is "around" 6.5 claiming a more precise measure, yet you still have been unable to state what the exact floor to floor height of the building was. You are arguing from a logical fallacy, no amount of tap dancing on your part will change that fact.

 

[funk de fino]

Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight and there were no other metals in the debris pile that could account for the molten metal. There is no alternative or reason to doubt that what all those people saw was indeed molten steel. To do so is just denial. The molten steel establishes temperatures far in excess of what carbon based fires can attain.

The RJ Lee report also confirms temperatures in excess of 2800^oF.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

You would like to just move on without acknowledging this point but that is denial of the evidence.

Do you admit the photo of the claw you posted was taken at night?

 

[funk de fino]

Put a layer of dirt in the dump truck, put the molten steel/iron on it, douse with water or just allow it to cool.

Thats a Stundie.