Sorry to be so slow here...
If the events of 9/11 are not testable and repeatable then how can scientific conclusions be drawn about what happened?
Happy Patriot Day!
If the events of 9/11 are not testable and repeatable then how can scientific conclusions be drawn about what happened?
Computer simulations are a great way to model complex system, with many parts, and large parts. Not to mention the impracticality of conducting this (9/11) as a test. The gov't does have some pretty bitchin' supercomputers, so getting the test conducted isn't an impossibility.
in the same way that the events of man discovering fire are not testable and repeatable therefore we could assume the theory that dragons made the first fire.
Do you need a scientific test to prove to you that the planes crashed into the buildings and that they then burned then subsequently collapsed?
But the people running the test are going to LIE to you! Don't you understand?? The only truth that exists is whatever you KNOW deep down to be true.
I accept that all these things happened. I still don't understand how the burning caused the collapse though.
Steel becomes weaker when heated. The load on any individual structural member will increase significantly when other members are severed.
If you don't think that steel can be weakened enough to fail in an open fire look at older building that have been retrofitted with steel floor beams that mount inside brick walls. The ends of the beams are cut at 45 degree angles because during fires the beams can bend and fail. A straight cut beam can lift up the brick walls like a crowbar and causing the whole building to collapse, a chamfered end will not do this. This is done because building used to catch fire, steel floor beams failed and took the whole building down.
Weakened steel + increased load = failure
I know I am wasting my time trying to explain this.
But the people running the test are going to LIE to you! Don't you understand?? The only truth that exists is whatever you KNOW deep down to be true.
Even Frankenstein understands Fire = Hot
Steel doesn't even have to get to it's melting point (the fire would not have gotten this hot) for that to be a problem. Structural steel will soften about 450 C and loose half it's strength at 650 C, tempature and heat that was well within the capabilities of the fire in WTC 1 and 2 that day. Even with that, a 50% in the load carrying capacity of the structure is not enough to enduce a collapse, given a strictly static set up where a structural member is heated to 650 C and given the structural safety margins with the WTC's.
The real problem is the distortion of the steel, not nessecarily how hot they got. The whole building was not on fire, so there were areas long the steel columns that made up the "shell" of the building that were heated to 650 C temps and adjacent areas that were not exposed to any fire. With the thermal expansion of steel, a 150 C tempature difference in a structural steel member can induce yeild level (the point at where the member has loads imparted on it to the point it begins to deform) stresses. The irregular heating and associated distortion resulted in buckling failure of these strutural members. So the steel failed in two modes: the temp of the fire weaked the structural steel (that alone would not have been enough to induce a collapse) and the distortion from the uneven heating from the fires.
Well that along with the huge holes in the side of the building where a big ass jet slammed into them..................
Ah, the old assjet theory (ed: hypothesisbig ass jet slammed into them..................
)raising its ugly head again. So implausible as to be laughable.
As you stated, the fire caused asymmetrical heating and there was asymmetrical damage. What I don't understand is how this created a symmetrical collapse.
Yeah, I guess the ass jet is probably responsible.Well that along with the huge holes in the side of the building where a big ass jet slammed into them..................
Scale
Big-ass things don't work the same as regular size things.
There was undoubtedly some assymetry but the buildings were so ****ing huge you can't tell. Same reason why and ant can lift 3X it's body weight, we can't and a blue whale crushes itself to death when out of water.
Ever try cutting down a big-ass tree? When cutting down a big tree you can't just saw straight through it it will not fall. You have to cut a notch and finish with a back cut.
Last edited:
You're assuming the collapse was "symmetrical".........with a mass of in the neighborhod of 50,000 tonnes the inertia alone for that means it's falling straight down unless acted on by a force from the side........there was little wind that day and thus no significant side wind load on the building.
This is one of the largest structures to collapse in modern times (that I can recall in my 39 years on this planet), the mass alone of this structure is astounding, so this is something that you just can't compare to the little 20 floor building they control demo'd just around the corner.
Thanks guys. I have some things to think about.
One questuion I have about the whole ordeal is why is the hole in the Pentigon so ****ING small?
Not puttiong on my tinfoil hat, but its one of I few big points that I can't explain/nor has anyone explained to me.
Someone care to take the "kool-aid" out of my hands?
Not puttiong on my tinfoil hat, but its one of I few big points that I can't explain/nor has anyone explained to me.
Someone care to take the "kool-aid" out of my hands?
What was the wall of the P-gon made out of? How much of the structure of an airplane do you think (even with the kinetic energy expended at impact) would be intact to drive through the wall vs. being crushed / burned up?
I have No idea. Thats why im asking a question instead of giving an answer.
I would just expect a 300,000 pound plane going, what, 300 MPH to make a pretty big hole
Didn't the plane hit the ground before it slid in to the pentagon?
Well, if it slid in then maybe it wouldn't be going so fast as to vaporize it?
Yet again, im a med student not physics so im outta my realm on this one.
I was at the Pentagon working a few days after 9/11. The impact area was much larger than you think it was, watching on TV. It also went fairly deep into building. Again, scale. The aircraft wasn't vaporized, either, there were landing gear parts, engine parts, most of the titanium and stainless steel parts were removed from the rubble.
Funk. I thought you guys had me sold.
The plane cut a notch, and the fire weakened the steel to complete the back cut?
What about the fact that WTC2 was already starting to tip before the building collapsed?
Oh, and what about all that concrete and structural steel underneath the point of collapse initiation? How did all that massive structure suddenly cease to provide support for the floors above it?
Isn't that a pretty good comparison of what happened at the WTC?
The plane cut a notch, and the fire weakened the steel to complete the back cut?
What about the fact that WTC2 was already starting to tip before the building collapsed?
Oh, and what about all that concrete and structural steel underneath the point of collapse initiation? How did all that massive structure suddenly cease to provide support for the floors above it?
There's a difference between a static load and dynamic load.Funk. I thought you guys had me sold.
Isn't that a pretty good comparison of what happened at the WTC?
The plane cut a notch, and the fire weakened the steel to complete the back cut?
What about the fact that WTC2 was already starting to tip before the building collapsed?
Oh, and what about all that concrete and structural steel underneath the point of collapse initiation? How did all that massive structure suddenly cease to provide support for the floors above it?
For example;
Lets say we decide to protect you from the government betterer, by placing a 5lb lead hat over your head. Sure, it'll be heavy, but you'll be fine. Now lets drop this hat from 2 feet above you on top of your head...
Last edited:
If you simply set the head of a sledge hammer on top of an aluminum can, it can support it pretty easily. If you bring the hammer down with any kind of force, the structure fails.
OK, that's it...I see what you're doing here...hee hee, baiting all of us into your continuing argument...
There is absolutely no way you do not understand the basic laws of physics enough to NOT ask that question...
No it's not.
The origin of species presented it as such but there's been a whole lotta proof since then.
Am I the only one that played with fruit flies in high school and college?
Did you ever happen to do chromosome/genetic mapping in your genetics classes?
Jesus, what a pain in the ass.
Dude - I know nothing as well but you should watch the video that I posted on the previous page. It was quite entertaining whether or not it was the truth. It had me donning a tinfoil hat.
Edit: Video is top of page 6.
Probably not to the same extent you did but yes, some.
Separating DNA was a joy too.
My TA called it Damn Nuissance Annoying.
Funk. I thought you guys had me sold.
Isn't that a pretty good comparison of what happened at the WTC?
The plane cut a notch, and the fire weakened the steel to complete the back cut?
What about the fact that WTC2 was already starting to tip before the building collapsed?
Oh, and what about all that concrete and structural steel underneath the point of collapse initiation? How did all that massive structure suddenly cease to provide support for the floors above it?
And you can see it did tip a little but the notch was small considering the over all cross section of the building. To get something to fall over you have to push the center of gravity past any supporting members. We see the tower as a tall thin structure that we would expect to see tip over. But the initial failure happened near the top so you really need to consider it as more of a cube. And once things start moving the uncompromised floors below will fail. Burly's soda can example is a good one. If you are careful you can stand on a soda can but it will easily crush even if a small child stomps on it. That is the difference between static failure and dynamic failure. Things can handle a static force but not always an impact which is quantified as energy.
Think of it this way, pretty much any house can have an extra few floors added to it without having to strengthen the original floor with no problems. But if you drop a single story house on it from 8 feet it will have no chance of standing. Buildings are not designed to take impacts.
The hole was nearly the exact same size as the fuselage of a 757, which really isn't that big around. (Never flown coach...?)
The often-quoted size of the plane accounts for the hangar size of the craft, which goes from the bottom of the deployed wheels to the top of the tail. Again, deceitful parsing of an actual fact.