• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravity defying buildings? :D

Anders Lindman said:
Theoretically yes. For example if the cores of the WTC towers were pulled down by an additional force. Note, I do NOT believe that myself :p, for that would require hollowing out a huge cavern under the basements of the towers and some machinery to pull down the cores faster than could have been produced by gravity alone. But, yeah, depending on what you mean by 'defying gravity' it's possible. I thought you had figured that out by now. ;)
Click to expand...

Also notice that this gives a new meaning to the phrase 'pull it'. lol. :D
 
bardamu said:
Did NIST's simulation take all these variables into account?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am certain that they did. Since they knew the time, wind speed, direction, temperature, and humidity, they could absolutely account for that.

bardamu said:
So even if somebody knew which parts of the structure were vulnerable to thermal expansion and even if they could open the windows and turn off the sprinkler system, they'd still have a hard time bringing the building down by starting fires, because too many conditions that are out of their control would have to be just right. Have I got it?
Click to expand...

Sort of. To get it to fall exactly the same way, or even a precise way, you would need to account for those variables. Wind speed would be a major factor, as would direction. Too much oxygen, the fire burns too quickly, and may not do what it was designed to do. Too little oxygen, and the fire will not burn hot enough, or may not spread the correct way.

Remember, this was not an insitant fire, but one that spread throughout the floors.

Too many variables.
 
Java Man said:
May I ask what melted the airplane aluminum? I mean what type of heat source and what fueled that heat source?
Click to expand...

Office fires, and office content. Remember, the building was on fire??

Office fires will easily reach 1800 deg. F very easily.
 
Java Man said:
Yes I have no doubt about that. It's the effect on aluminium that has me concerned. Take a look at the pictures I've compiled. The airplanes "burn up" rather than melt. Obviously there was no thermite involved in these accidents so basically what we have is jet fuel and plastics involved. I don't see any dripping of molten aluminum. No molten aluminum puddles underneath the aircraft. The closeup on the cabin even shows how the fuselage looks like burnt paper. Definitely no molten metal drops as we see in the WTC columns when they cut them with blowtorch.

I have a very hard time believing the airplanes that crashed into the WTC were any different than the ones shown here and that their aluminium fuselage would melt like steel rather than burn up like the aluminium alloys we see here.

So no I don't buy the idea that the blobs of molten metal were airplane aluminium alloys.

[qimg]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5juAbFwOdxf8cBRNgldmLz2nZ0mmA[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/25/article-1305792-0AE89248000005DC-123_634x413.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.geekologie.com/2008/12/23/twitter-crash.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/SudanCrashPA_450x250.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/af5672/1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/11/article-1025542-018EE63600000578-662_468x312_popup.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The pictures are not in good enough detail, and are not focusing on the fine debris.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Theoretically yes. For example if the cores of the WTC towers were pulled down by an additional force. Note, I do NOT believe that myself :p, for that would require hollowing out a huge cavern under the basements of the towers and some machinery to pull down the cores faster than could have been produced by gravity alone. But, yeah, depending on what you mean by 'defying gravity' it's possible. I thought you had figured that out by now. ;)

Anders Lindman said:
Also notice that this gives a new meaning to the phrase 'pull it'. lol. :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

"The results appeared to show that WTC 7 fell unresisted at a speed of 10 m/s-squared, just a hair faster than gravity!" :eek: From: http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/faster-than-gravity/
 
triforcharity said:
Sort of. To get it to fall exactly the same way, or even a precise way, you would need to account for those variables. Wind speed would be a major factor, as would direction. Too much oxygen, the fire burns too quickly, and may not do what it was designed to do. Too little oxygen, and the fire will not burn hot enough, or may not spread the correct way.

Remember, this was not an insitant fire, but one that spread throughout the floors.

Too many variables.
Click to expand...

Which means the probability that fires started at random would lead to a collapse that looks very much like a controlled demolition is extremely low.
 
bardamu said:
Which means the probability that fires started at random would lead to a collapse that looks very much like a controlled demolition is extremely low.
Click to expand...

Even if what you say is true, so what?

Winning the lottery is extremely unlikely. Someone wins every week. A few people win more than once.

Your use of words like probability just show that you don't know what the word means.
 
bardamu said:
Which means the probability that fires started at random would lead to a collapse that looks very much like a controlled demolition is extremely low.
Click to expand...

And coral snakes look like king snakes too.

Looks like=/= it is. Sorry about your fail, again.
 
T.A.M. said:
Wrong. For about 2.25 seconds, part of the building (the northern face, IIRC) fell at approximately Free Fall.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Ok. It would have been interesting though if they used underground rockets or something like that.
 
BigAl said:
Even if what you say is true, so what?

Winning the lottery is extremely unlikely. Someone wins every week. A few people win more than once.

Your use of words like probability just show that you don't know what the word means.
Click to expand...

If somebody won several dozen lotteries in one day, you'd think there was something up.
 
The better analogy is this...

The 9/11 attacks were large in scope, and complex in nature (in terms of them being planned well in advance, involved many people, and occurred at different locations simultaneously).

Consider the entire event a rug. It has many threads woven together to provide us with an accurate, complete account of the day.

Now within that rug are going to be several, perhaps many little bits of thread sticking out, most of which when plucked out, will simply come out in your hand, end of story. The problem with the truthers, is they think each of these thread bits are the magical thread that will unravel the entire rug...

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
Yes they are, they are very close up and quite detailed. Please don't try such a poor excuse for a counter argument.
Click to expand...

Really? Show me something in those photos that we can examine closely in ANY of those pictures, that would fit in a briefcase.

We'll wait.......
 
Java Man said:
Yes they are, they are very close up and quite detailed. Please don't try such a poor excuse for a counter argument.
Click to expand...

I have looked at all 6 pictures. Pictures 1,3,4,5 are all too small to make out anything significant regarding your claim.

Pictures 2 and 6 are a little, LITTLE, better (not much) and in those I can see areas where their easily could be puddles or pieces of molten or previously molten aluminum.

Try again.

TAM:)
 
I am posting this in response to Javaman's comments regarding aluminum dripping from the side of the WTC.


1. The WTC was covered with Aluminum.
2. There were other sources of aluminum.
3. You have NO EVIDENCE that the entirety of the fuselage burned up.
4. impurities could come from any number of sources, including office material, plants, humans, etc...
5. You are basing your comment of floating debris on S. Jones ridiculous experiments where he threw a few dozen wood chips into a cup of aluminum. Try dumping a bucket full of debris into the aluminum, and it will not all simply float and burn...sorry. As well, not all organics or impurities are woodchips...
6. Melting Point of Aluminum is 1220F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

Try again.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom