Yes, of course. I am not a pacifist. Try and steal my beer and I'll punch your lights out.Do you ever think there are circumstances when violence is justified? For instance: Do you think the nation of Britain was justified in defending against Hitler?
September 11, 2001
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
The plane's mass in comparison to that of the building per se, is negligible. Aluminium doesn't "burn" orange/yellow when molten, it "burns" white. I don't think it is an option of explanation for the molten material in question. Plus, without a catalyst I don't see why any metal would have remained in that state as long as those pools of molten material did.Jason wrote:Maybe it was another metal, like aluminium, maybe from the plane or other parts/contents of the building.DHodges wrote:In the rubble of the twin towers, I read about the workers finding these pools of molten metal - still molten, weeks after the towers fell.
I would say no.Is there any chance that the collapse itself could create enough friction or compression etc to heat steel above its melting point?
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Um, I'm not sure what that proves...Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Hehe - here's proof that Bush can keep his mouth shut about advance knowledge of 9/11.
video
I believe that is the second piece of footage officially released by the Government. It looks like the original footage to me.edit Here's a video of the pentagon. I didn't think this had been released - can anyone tell if it has been doctored?
.
You aren't an expert, Dan. And even if an "expert" were to comment, as some have in various conspiracy videos, I wouldn't immediately believe them. There are many variables...almost too many to factor in. It would almost need to be replicated in order to say for sure.
The molten material....so the conspiracy theorist's explanation is that it was incendiary devices that went off and collapsed the steel structure? WEEKS later? I wonder what kind of incendiary devices burn for weeks on end...
The molten material....so the conspiracy theorist's explanation is that it was incendiary devices that went off and collapsed the steel structure? WEEKS later? I wonder what kind of incendiary devices burn for weeks on end...
- Scott
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
True enough, but I'm also not stupid. I can read and weigh up evidence/argument. To date there has been no meaningful official explanation for the molten materials and their longevity. They have been almost entirely glossed over. All one is asking for is half decent explanations for the multitude of seeming anomolies of the day's events.sschaula wrote:You aren't an expert, Dan.
I would hope not. But the file of unexplained (or poorly or intelligence-insultingly explained) things is as thick as Mike Tyson's cranium.And even if an "expert" were to comment, as some have in various conspiracy videos, I wouldn't immediately believe them.
That's probably true. However, the events and actions surrounding the building collapses are in and of themselves sufficient cause for alternate theories to arise. When a Government isolates its own investagative bodies from the evidence you know something is deeply wrong. When people know a building is about to collapse without any historical precedent (e.g. Guilliani) you know something is wrong or there are facts not in evidence.There are many variables...almost too many to factor in. It would almost need to be replicated in order to say for sure.
As Nat said, thermate does. That is one possible explanation for the molten material. There are other visual clues which suggest thermal cutting of steel not explicitly in the plane strike zone. All one is asking for is a half decent explanation for them.The molten material....so the conspiracy theorist's explanation is that it was incendiary devices that went off and collapsed the steel structure? WEEKS later? I wonder what kind of incendiary devices burn for weeks on end...
There are also a multitude of peripheral facts that make it almost impossible to believe that 19 arseholes did it on their own. There are situations pertaining to that day that helped make the whole thing possible that I find too extraordinary to simply put down to coincidence.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
I don't know enough about structural engineering to say whether that could have happened. It sounds plausible although unlikely. It doesn't strike me as any more likely than the molten steel being caused by demolition.Scott wrote:So what if the force of the building falling upon itself caused some of the steel to melt?
It would be good if someone who knows a lot about this sort of thing could address it, though.
I live in a tub.
You know how bombs work right? Heat+pressure. You know friction causes heat, right? You know that heavy floors don't just fall at the same rate and force all the way down, but they are multiplied each time they impact another floor and cause that to fall, right?I wasn't quite so candid about this with Jason, but I think that notion is clearly absurd.
I find it more absurd to believe the US government flew airplanes into a building on their own soil, killing a couple thousand people, detonating the building so it would collapse, and covering any evidence of their involvement up by blaming terrorists. Especially when so many people were involved, and so much evidence points to the fact that terrorists did it.
Lets say that the terrorists did do it but the WTC buildings were all set to detonate as a security measure...there would be a lot of people involved in that who would have to cover their tracks.
Really, I find my guess not so absurd.
- Scott
Scott,
Well worth a look if you haven't, even if you don't consider it relevant to 9/11. Quoting from the article:
Fair enough, but have you seen Operation Northwoods?I find it more absurd to believe the US government flew airplanes into a building on their own soil, killing a couple thousand people, detonating the building so it would collapse, and covering any evidence of their involvement up by blaming terrorists. Especially when so many people were involved, and so much evidence points to the fact that terrorists did it.
Well worth a look if you haven't, even if you don't consider it relevant to 9/11. Quoting from the article:
The scenario you described as "absurd" in the portion of your post I quoted is basically identical to the Northwoods scenario, which was very nearly implemented in 1962. So, absurd or not, we have hard evidence that the US government has seriously considered such actions in the past.Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
I live in a tub.
-
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
There would be more force with the weight of each floor added on, but the rate would be slower than if an object were just dropped through the air - and that is one of the arguments for explosives. The building went down at the rate it would if it was just falling through air - not at the rate of even any of the floors encountering resistance on the way down.sschaula wrote:You know that heavy floors don't just fall at the same rate and force all the way down, but they are multiplied each time they impact another floor and cause that to fall, right?
.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Yeah, they go "boom" and shit flies everywhere.sschaula wrote:You know how bombs work right?I wasn't quite so candid about this with Jason, but I think that notion is clearly absurd.
No, never heard of it. Sounds interesting though...You know friction causes heat, right?
No, I don't know that. At least not in this case. The greater part of the mass of those floors was pulverised and blew/fell outside the area of the floors beneath. Much of the mass claimed to have created the pancake effect wasn't there to create it. Steel doesn't pancake at near free fall speed unless cut/weakened first. As David Hodges pointed out, the cores of the WTC1 and WTC2 were very significant structures.You know that heavy floors don't just fall at the same rate and force all the way down, but they are multiplied each time they impact another floor and cause that to fall, right?
Wow, quite the non-sequiter! I don't recall making that argument.I find it more absurd to believe the US government flew airplanes into a building on their own soil, killing a couple thousand people, detonating the building so it would collapse, and covering any evidence of their involvement up by blaming terrorists.
Really? I think you'll find that if the accused were to face trial posthumously they would quite likely be aquitted. What I find amazing is how quickly all the culprits were identified - and on that same day. The case was closed literally hours after a seemingly unexpected event. My spider sense is tingling over that one.Especially when so many people were involved, and so much evidence points to the fact that terrorists did it.
I personally think that in a different political environment in the US, which will hopefully occur at the next election, people will begin to come out of the woodwork (i.e. beyond those that actually already have).Lets say that the terrorists did do it but the WTC buildings were all set to detonate as a security measure...there would be a lot of people involved in that who would have to cover their tracks.
Nat,
E,
Yes I've heard of it. It wasn't nearly implemented. AFAIK, it was suggested by one guy who was then removed from his position. The US govt didn't seriously consider it...as is seen by its rejection.Fair enough, but have you seen Operation Northwoods?
Well worth a look if you haven't, even if you don't consider it relevant to 9/11. Quoting from the article:
Quote:
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
The scenario you described as "absurd" in the portion of your post I quoted is basically identical to the Northwoods scenario, which was very nearly implemented in 1962. So, absurd or not, we have hard evidence that the US government has seriously considered such actions in the past.
E,
Yes, the building went down as if it was just falling through air precisely because with each added floor's weight the entire structure falls faster. If weight wasn't a factor and there was simply resistance at each floor, you'd have seen the structure fall SLOWER than if it were just dropped through the air. The fact is that as it went down, its speed increased somewhat exponentially.There would be more force with the weight of each floor added on, but the rate would be slower than if an object were just dropped through the air - and that is one of the arguments for explosives. The building went down at the rate it would if it was just falling through air - not at the rate of even any of the floors encountering resistance on the way down.
- Scott
Dan,
Yes and what causes that is heat and pressure.Yeah, they go "boom" and shit flies everywhere.
Perhaps you should learn a little more about it.No, never heard of it. Sounds interesting though...
Really?No, I don't know that. At least not in this case. The greater part of the mass of those floors was pulverised and blew/fell outside the area of the floors beneath.
Really?Much of the mass claimed to have created the pancake effect wasn't there to create it.
Really?Steel doesn't pancake at near free fall speed unless cut/weakened first.
I don't know about how they were designed. Perhaps that is true. I'm not going to take his word for it.As David Hodges pointed out, the cores of the WTC1 and WTC2 were very significant structures.
I do recall you making it, but not in this thread. :)Wow, quite the non-sequiter! I don't recall making that argument.
Yes, it should have taken the agencies dedicated to figuring those things out three weeks...that would have made much more sense to you.Really? I think you'll find that if the accused were to face trial posthumously they would quite likely be aquitted. What I find amazing is how quickly all the culprits were identified - and on that same day. The case was closed literally hours after a seemingly unexpected event. My spider sense is tingling over that one.
We'll see if it happens.I personally think that in a different political environment in the US, which will hopefully occur at the next election, people will begin to come out of the woodwork (i.e. beyond those that actually already have).
- Scott
Yeah. There have been calculations done that suggest the sort of "pancake collapse" proposed by NIST and FEMA would require 90 seconds or more. While I question this conclusion to some degree, I do think that the extreme speed of the collapses (10-15 seconds) raises serious questions. How could the collapses occur at a rate consistent with no structural resistance whatsoever? While I could possibly accept the lower floors being destroyed this quickly due to the enormous weight falling on them from above, I think this offers no insight into why the first 30 or 40 floors fell so rapidly, or why there was apparently no variation in the speed of collapse throughout.Scott wrote:Yes, the building went down as if it was just falling through air precisely because with each added floor's weight the entire structure falls faster. If weight wasn't a factor and there was simply resistance at each floor, you'd have seen the structure fall SLOWER than if it were just dropped through the air.
It also fails to explain why the top floors were pulverized to dust rather than being found in the pancake-like pile of rubble associated with other "pancake" collapses (thus the name). If they encountered structural resistance on the way down, they should have been slowed and prevented from being totally pulverized as a result of free-fall impact from an enormous height. And if they didn't encounter structural resistance, why not?
Edited: Attributed the quote wrongly.
Last edited by Unidian on Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I live in a tub.
-
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Ever hear of this guy called Galileo? He proved that objects of different weights fall at the same speed. It does not matter how heavy it got, it only was going to fall so fast or slower if it encountered any resistance at all, and at least the first 30 floors or so would have encountered enough resistance to make it fall slower - as evidenced by timing the falls of demolished buildings of that height. Actually, it was said that the more floors, the slower it falls because of resistance. I'm even granting extra leeway because these were the tallest buildings to go down. It should have gone down at least a little slower than total free-fall due to the resistance of the first 30 floors or so.sschaula wrote:Yes, the building went down as if it was just falling through air precisely because with each added floor's weight the entire structure falls faster. If weight wasn't a factor and there was simply resistance at each floor, you'd have seen the structure fall SLOWER than if it were just dropped through the air. The fact is that as it went down, its speed increased somewhat exponentially.
.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kv4s3fn8jDcThere have been calculations done that suggest the sort of "pancake collapse" proposed by NIST and FEMA would require 90 seconds or more. While I question this conclusion to some degree, I do think that the extreme speed of the collapses (10-15 seconds) raises serious questions. How could the collapses occur at a rate consistent with no structural resistance whatsoever? While I could possibly accept the lower floors being destroyed this quickly due to the enormous weight falling on them from above, I think this offers no insight into why the first 30 or 40 floors fell so rapidly, or why there was apparently no variation in the speed of collapse throughout.
When I review the falling of the structures in this horribly exploitative video, I see the breaks happen right where the planes hit. That tells me that the planes would've had to fly precisely into the area the bombs were in order for the detonation theory to be plausible. I see the structures in those areas gradually weaken, and finally give way to the weight of the upper part of the building. Then I see the buildings start to fall, and increase in both speed and destruction on the way down.
About the calculations: rarely in real life does math work the way it should.
The floors below them broke apart when they encountered the resistance, which wasn't much bearing in mind the weight and the speed. I don't know why you're saying the top floors were pulverized to dust. I'm sure there was rubble.It also fails to explain why the top floors were pulverized to dust rather than being found in the pancake-like pile of rubble associated with other "pancake" collapses (thus the name). If they encountered structural resistance on the way down, they should have been slowed and prevented from being totally pulverized as a result of free-fall impact from an enormous height. And if they didn't encounter structural resistance, why not?
- Scott
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Scott,
WTC Cores
You don't think it's kind of odd that you're arguing with me about what bombs do? Are you saying there might have been bombs in the buildings? If so, I'm not going to argue with that postulation.Yes and what causes that is heat and pressure.Yeah, they go "boom" and shit flies everywhere.
Nah, it's not that interesting and I feel no need to return to primary school science.Perhaps you should learn a little more about it.No, never heard of it. Sounds interesting though...
Seen the footage? One of the reasons that it's hard to determine the physics of the collapse is because of the huge amount of material falling and expanding around the periphery of the building. I'd argue this is a non-trivial point.Really?No, I don't know that. At least not in this case. The greater part of the mass of those floors was pulverised and blew/fell outside the area of the floors beneath.
Well, I just made that one up as there's no real precedent from which to judge. But, if steel stuctures in highrise buildings could pancake as has been suggested then we'd have rather different feeling about the safety and structural integrity of them all.Really?Steel doesn't pancake at near free fall speed unless cut/weakened first.
Nor should you. However, you damn well should take mine! :)I don't know about how they were designed. Perhaps that is true. I'm not going to take his word for it.As David Hodges pointed out, the cores of the WTC1 and WTC2 were very significant structures.
WTC Cores
Yes, actually, it would have. For them to have solved it almost completely within mere hours is ludicrous to me, given their complete and utter incapacity to predict or prevent it. Got their act together pretty quick, didn't they?Yes, it should have taken the agencies dedicated to figuring those things out three weeks...that would have made much more sense to you.Really? I think you'll find that if the accused were to face trial posthumously they would quite likely be aquitted. What I find amazing is how quickly all the culprits were identified - and on that same day. The case was closed literally hours after a seemingly unexpected event. My spider sense is tingling over that one.
It took 30 yars for the truth about the USS Liberty to come out and lots of people from more than one nation knew about it.We'll see if it happens.I personally think that in a different political environment in the US, which will hopefully occur at the next election, people will begin to come out of the woodwork (i.e. beyond those that actually already have).
It does when we're talking about resistance.It does not matter how heavy it got
I don't know why you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking about here.it only was going to fall so fast or slower if it encountered any resistance at all, and at least the first 30 floors or so would have encountered enough resistance to make it fall slower - as evidenced by timing the falls of demolished buildings of that height.
Yes, that's why weight was an important factor!Actually, it was said that the more floors, the slower it falls because of resistance.
Read my reply to Nat, above this one.I'm even granting extra leeway because these were the tallest buildings to go down. It should have gone down at least a little slower than total free-fall due to the resistance of the first 30 floors or so.
- Scott
Dan,
Did you not understand the point? I was trying to explain to you the physics of how the building simply could have collapsed, rather than have been detonated from the inside.You don't think it's kind of odd that you're arguing with me about what bombs do? Are you saying there might have been bombs in the buildings? If so, I'm not going to argue with that postulation.
I see a need there.Nah, it's not that interesting and I feel no need to return to primary school science.
Yes, but I wouldn't say that the greater part of the mass of the floors blew outside of the area of the floors beneath. You may want to watch the video again.Seen the footage? One of the reasons that it's hard to determine the physics of the collapse is because of the huge amount of material falling and expanding around the periphery of the building. I'd argue this is a non-trivial point.
I definitely don't feel as safe as I do on solid ground, while in a skyscraper. They sway in the wind.Well, I just made that one up as there's no real precedent from which to judge. But, if steel stuctures in highrise buildings could pancake as has been suggested then we'd have rather different feeling about the safety and structural integrity of them all.
I looked at the website and don't see your point. I also don't trust info from websites like that, but that's beside the point.Nor should you. However, you damn well should take mine! :)
WTC Cores
The airport has records of everyone going on the airplanes...also I don't remember them solving it that very day, but I'm willing to go along with you here. If they did actually, I can easily see how it'd be possible. The agencies in our country are quite efficient at things like that.Yes, actually, it would have. For them to have solved it almost completely within mere hours is ludicrous to me, given their complete and utter incapacity to predict or prevent it. Got their act together pretty quick, didn't they?
I have no idea about that incident, being a youngin who only recently started paying attention to the world.It took 30 yars for the truth about the USS Liberty to come out and lots of people from more than one nation knew about it.
- Scott
Re: The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
How does that make a difference? There could very well be enough aluminium in the plane or in the building to create puddles of it on the ground, and I thought that was what we were discussing. Or did someone work out the volume of the molten metal and the volume of aluminium on the plane and figure it didn't match up?Dan Rowden wrote: The plane's mass in comparison to that of the building per se, is negligible.
I work with metal, but I usually do brazing with copper and brass. I have worked with aluminium a little before, but just to be certain, after I read your response I went out into my shed, and used my torch to heat up some aluminium. Result: it turns to liquid without any noticeable colour change at all, further heating whilst it is liquid turned it a deep orange, then it turned yellow. I stopped after that.Dan Rowden wrote:Aluminium doesn't "burn" orange/yellow when molten, it "burns" white. I don't think it is an option of explanation for the molten material in question. Plus, without a catalyst I don't see why any metal would have remained in that state as long as those pools of molten material did.
I assume further heating would eventually turn it white, but that doesn't matter, it was molten when it was yellow or orange. My understanding is that that the glowing colour of heated metals is generally related to their heat, and aluminium melts at around 600C from memory(wikipedia says 660C), which is below visible light emission temperature, which means that whilst in the molten state it would probably traverse the spectrum from red, organge, yellow, white.
Anyway, my five minute, first-hand experiment, appears to have debunked one bit of your "evidence". That seems quite problematic no?
I have no idea what that means, do you?Dan wrote:Plus, without a catalyst I don't see why any metal would have remained in that state as long as those pools of molten material did.
Jason wrote:Is there any chance that the collapse itself could create enough friction or compression etc to heat steel above its melting point?
Why would you say that? Because you did a computerized simulation using the most likely variable values, followed by real experiments, all backed up by a degree in material science with twenty years experience in metallurgy fields, in collaboration with a large team of structural engineers, architects, physicists etc? Didn't think so.Dan wrote:I would say no.
That's one of the problems I have with a lot of this: a considerable amount of these claims really relate to very specialized and technical fields of knowledge(probably even interdisciplinary) that most people know little or nothing about. I agree that intuitively some of the arguments do seem to make sense, the point about how the buildings should fall sideways or buckle under localized assymetric damage seems intuitively correct, but intuition isn't enough for me in answering such questions.
Last edited by Jason on Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No, not necessarily. Molten aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, meaning that although it will luminesce faintly across the standard red-yellow continuum, it appears silvery-gray in highly illuminated daylight conditions. Physics professor Steven E. Jones, among others, has shown this to be the case. What sort of lighting conditions were used in your experiment?Jason wrote: Anyway, my five minute, first-hand experiment, appears to have debunked one bit of your "evidence". That seems quite problematic no?
I live in a tub.