With demolition you blow up the lower floors and let the weight do the rest, what you are seing ain't demolition, it crumbles from above. What looks like explosions is air escaping after getting sandwichedQuote:
Originally Posted by Risasi
Printable View
With demolition you blow up the lower floors and let the weight do the rest, what you are seing ain't demolition, it crumbles from above. What looks like explosions is air escaping after getting sandwichedQuote:
Originally Posted by Risasi
Yeah, I was wrong there. I should have said building 7, not made a blanket statement about all WTC buildings. Building 7 has always been my focus in this. But I can see that it's pointless. Everyone had already made up their mind and is not even open to actually discussing facts. Which is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's pretty obvious though that you didn't watch that link, as it specifically is footage of building 7 coming down. What you just described above of a demolition is what happens in that video. Which is pretty ironic.
Buildin number 7 was destroyed with explosives, after it was evacueted. The exposives were probably already there in case of a scenario of two planes flying into the Twin Towers. Conspiracies are never big.Quote:
Originally Posted by Risasi
LOL, far more than you have and seemingly more than NIST and FEMA ever did to prove their hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
You'd also have to rule out, as with the above, that the fires/kinetic energy of the airplane in some small areas provided enough heat to melt steel.
Surely you are joking. To heat all the members equally so that it pancaked down rather than typing or distorting on any other axis? To collapse the entire structure straight down through the path of greatest resistance, not once but twice.
I don’t think those aircraft possessed the kinetic energy to result in melted metal. There are several engineers who call into question if they had sufficient energy to penetrate the building to the extent they did. At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707. It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.
Please understand that there was a great deal of criticism of the investigation, from the beginning, as it was not conducted in a cogent manner. The agencies involved abandoned their own standards going in. It was not a fire safety investigation at all. There was no attempt to gather evidence, analyse the rubble, etc. The site was just ordered to be cleared and the handling of causes were primarily theoretical.
I happen to have a background in engineering and metallurgy and have done more than my fair share of fire protection work. However, like most people I took the government at their word for years. This is not a topic I had reason to question, nor the time, until after my retirement.
It would appear that NIST and FEMA are the ones who are voicing opinions without proper experimentation, which could be why only a couple of dozen engineers and architects have publicly supported their conclusion, while a few thousand are on record in calling for further investigations. Most simply haven’t had time or inclination to read the reports or review the data, which is understandable. This is something that takes people out of their comfort zone.
Still, there is the problem that the NIST explanation defies physics, at least as we know it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s
What is your background fisherking?
I know he cooked up a formulae for Damascus steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
They did withstand the impact. That's why it took a while before the buildings fell down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Which actually is pretty funny. I mean, we did see how the same government (aka the same people) handled getting a pretext of invading Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It sucked and it was obvious.
I don't explain anything; I question those who think they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Risasi
So, what exactly? Aluminium mixed with which impurities under which conditions? How hot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn8rb5H_fhI
This was about the melted steel supposedly found on the ground, not the structural collapse.Quote:
Surely you are joking. To heat all the members equally so that it pancaked down rather than typing or distorting on any other axis?
It's also the path of the gravity vector. One cannot reason with such things using intuition, you need to run simulations and test with the real thing. Strange and counter-intuitive effects can occur under certain circumstances.Quote:
To collapse the entire structure straight down through the path of greatest resistance, not once but twice.
And they did withstand the impacts. For a while.Quote:
At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707.
Well, that's velocity-dependent..Quote:
It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.
Energy = mass x gravity x height
A building falling down as it did is going to generate a lot of force and hence energy. Falling 400m (approx top) into the lower basements/subway will release a lot of potential energy. All that twistied steel and pulverized concrete is going to also absorb a lot of heat.
If the building was 900,000 tons and it fell on average (half its height) then the force was
= 900,000,000 x 9.8 x 200
= 1,764,000,000,000 Joules
That's a lot of energy
Simply asking a question is not a substitute for critical thought.
The aluminium experiment was conducted by Dr. Steven Jones, with predictable results. It did not fluoresce yellow-orange but developed a black film on the top.
It is an unwillingness by the government to prove their hypothesis by experimentation that has proven the problem. Those critical of the reports are calling for them to do so and get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=8&v=rxztmVmthWg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adx0ZJL-Weg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUyTDFaFHAo
The government’s official report has been proven to be in error or its assertions unproven by experiment in a number of areas.
People who would call any other such theories into question readily except it because it is the government and the alternative is too uncomfortable to contemplate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiQmtVGgcQ&spfreload=1
I would really like to see a video of that experiment. He appears to be wrong. Here's video where a "truther" pours liquid aluminium into a pan. It does not turn silvery until it has been cooled by the pan (an excellent heat conductor):Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ
https://i.imgur.com/1Hd5B3j.jpg
This was also in daylight conditions. In the comments, he tries to blame it on the glow from the crucible; but then, how will one explain that it looks silvery in this very similar setting within a second later?
https://i.imgur.com/pQmGwiP.jpg
It seems very likely to me that the aluminium itself was glowing with a bright yellow colour.
And what was the purpose of the official report? To eliminate the possibility of controlled demolition, or just a standard shallow investigation that would happen even if no buildings collapsed, to provide a detailed sequence of events?Quote:
It is an unwillingness by the government to prove their hypothesis by experimentation that has proven the problem. Those critical of the reports are calling for them to do so and get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
[...]
The government’s official report has been proven to be in error or its assertions unproven by experiment in a number of areas.
Occam's razor is the default bias of people. If I studied how electricity is supposed to be transported from the power plant to my home, I could probably find something that appears to break the laws of physics, and argue that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.Quote:
People who would call any other such theories into question readily except it because it is the government and the alternative is too uncomfortable to contemplate.
The glow was from the crucible, not the metal. It is also a generous statement that the fire could have reached 1800°F but hay, while experts point out it is a high number they let them have it. There are still problems with the claims.
The people who developed the theories of the collapse said those theories needed to be proved. They weren’t. Their own models had to be modified and those things they tried to have independently verified failed, yet they still would not revise the reports.
I fear you are woefully misinformed if you think the hard science and physics favours the reports.
Occam's razor just happens to be on the side of the people you term truths.
Just throwing the possibility out there, what if the construction company cut corners using less than ideal purities and construction methods. Would that adjust the figures enough to make it within 'range' ?
Most of the figures and examples used assume ideal conditions.
Less grand conspiracy and more shoddy corrupt workmanship in their construction.
I just illustrated with the screenshots why this is an unlikely explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
In the first frame, all the aluminium is yellow, and there is little to no variation in colour between the aluminium in the pan and the aluminium that has just exited the crucible.
In the second frame, only the aluminium mid-air or currently exiting the crucible is uniformly yellow - the aluminium in the pan has a distinct silvery appearance. This despite the fact that the crucible has barely changed position between the two frames.
In other words, the cooling of the aluminium is the likely culprit: it is no longer hot enough to glow.
If this is incorrect, just provide a video where aluminium appearing yellow in the crucible appears silvery as it falls.
I do not back up any report. That would not seem to be a particularly fruitful endeavour as a matter of principle - any report can contain errors and sloppy work.Quote:
I fear you are woefully misinformed if you think the hard science and physics favours the reports.
Occam's razor favours the simplest theory (it's one of many forms of bias); that's how it is defined. Often, the complexity of theories are easy to compare; other times, not so much.Quote:
Occam's razor just happens to be on the side of the people you term truths.
We do not know the provence of the video and they were explaining the metal was silver when they poured it.
Trust me, I have seen more molten aluminium than you could imagine and it dose not glow yellow-orange, impurities or not. Aluminium doesn't change colour between it solid state and its liquid state. If you heat a portion of it when it reaches the melting point it just begins to flow.
As to Occam's razor, explain or demonstrate how three high-rise buildings collapsed by simple office fires in their upper stories bringing them down in their own footprints at near free fall speeds.
At best they would collapse only the number of stories equal to their own weight and not the entire structure. They, themselves would be destroyed first releasing the weight and strains on the remaining structure.
Otherwise, it is a violation of Newton’s Third Law.The building below was undamaged and could support more than three to five time the weight placed upon it. Also that destruction would take the path of least resistance, most likely resolution in the upper floors toppling.
For the destruction to occur as it did, there could be no resistance from the lower floors.
Go back and watch the videos I linked and get the explanations. This is not a half baked conspiracy theory. This is engineers and scientists questioning the unreasonable explanations offered up in the governmental agencies unproven theories and assumptions.
Every other day the laws of gravity and physics have applies and remained constant. Only on 9, 11, 2001 did they seemingly take a holiday in order to make the governmental reports valid.
After the first bombing the world trade towers became the most studied buildings in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
From the remaining samples there were no substandard materials used.
They were very high profile buildings from the very beginning and fairly tightly controlled.
Here is a general history of their construction and a few other details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constr...d_Trade_Center
On the research and controversies, you may find this of great interest: Mechanisms of Destruction and Collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) Buildings on 9/11
An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 - 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mechani...on-911/5333553
Before he pours it, he says it is aluminium. At the start of the video, I think he says it is 2000 series alloy (i.e. aluminium with copper). I guess the mention of silver is a reference to the appearance of the aluminium once in the pan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
After berating people for placing their trust in official theories, this seems pretty ironic.Quote:
Trust me
There is no way for people to confirm that your observations are incompatible with glowing aluminium. Temperature could be wrong, setting might favour cooling of the surface of the liquid aluminium etc.Quote:
I have seen more molten aluminium than you could imagine and it dose not glow yellow-orange, impurities or not. Aluminium doesn't change colour between it solid state and its liquid state. If you heat a portion of it when it reaches the melting point it just begins to flow.
I can even find an entire page dedicated to a demonstration of glowing aluminium.
And why shouldn't it glow, given the general principle of black body radiation?
This is missing the point. When a plane crashes into a building and the building later collapses, the simplest theory is that the collapse of the building is related to the crash. If this theory turns out to be incompatible with observed data, then Occam selects the next hypothesis that is the simplest one and consistent with the data (but only then).Quote:
As to Occam's razor, explain or demonstrate how three high-rise buildings collapsed by simple office fires in their upper stories bringing them down in their own footprints at near free fall speeds.
It doesn't seem like you are accounting for the motion of the collapsing floors. For example, this explanation makes just as much sense as the one you provide:Quote:
At best they would collapse only the number of stories equal to their own weight and not the entire structure. They, themselves would be destroyed first releasing the weight and strains on the remaining structure.
Otherwise, it is a violation of Newton’s Third Law.The building below was undamaged and could support more than three to five time the weight placed upon it. Also that destruction would take the path of least resistance, most likely resolution in the upper floors toppling.
For the destruction to occur as it did, there could be no resistance from the lower floors.
It's not obvious that a skyscraper would be built in such a way that any floor should be able to withstand 10 more floors crashing down on it.Quote:
When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time.
Just because they are scientists and engineers does not mean that they have a point. They cannot be assumed to be qualified to answer any question relevant to their field - specialisation exists for a reason.Quote:
This is engineers and scientists questioning the unreasonable explanations offered up in the governmental agencies unproven theories and assumptions.
I am pretty sure I could find opposing arguments to any objection thrown at the notion of a "normal" collapse of the buildings. The only way to find out what is correct is to perform multiple simulations and well-designed experiments (not just any experiment that looks superficially similar).
Is this seriously a thread about whether jet fuel can melt steel beams?
If that were the case then he's be world-famous because nobody even knows what "Damascus" steel is -Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel
This whole thread needs a giant tinfoil hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
It is an injoke reference to a Game of Thrones game where he came up with a plan to mass produce damascus steel with specifically important iron ore, pig bladders and masonic rituals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Unfortunately, I don't have a saved copy of this anymore.
I remember that game, best game I had ever played, I even still have some of the quick topics saved. Who was fisherking playing again?
I had plans too - good ones!
I think Dorne is still working on them...
So, the simpler theory is that they noiselessly blew up most of the support in both buildings without getting noticed? I suppose you could have some guys working on destroying the supports for a few month in before, but that would still require enough support to have the building standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
And the something that glowed yellow (and certainly couldn't be a very hot metal, like alumina) was something critical to this step?
I haven't studied the support of the WTC buildings, but in general, skyscrapers has fairly rigid outer wall support. If the central support is collapsing first, then the path of least resistance is collapsing towards the center. Thus no toppling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
lol, Paxter RedwyneQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I may have come up with a method for making crucible steel, and maybe even spring steel but I just don’t remember any incantations. All that was based on sound engineering principles and historical models. Whether I actually had the manpower to accomplish it was my main concern.
Apparently you all seem to believe the government report without knowing what is in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
They only offered theories on the collapse of the upper sections of buildings 1 & 2. They didn’t explain the mechanism for the complete building collapses. Building 7 was not analysed.
The only reason controlled demolition is the opposing theory is because it is the only thing that explains the physics of the collapse and there is evidence in the debris to support it. Occam's razor.
Even the collapses of the upper stories was only theoretical and untested. The only testing done was of the floor joists and their presumed distortion and that testing by Underwriters Laboratories disproved their hypothesis.
In other words you accept the reports based on unproven theory and conjecture and disallow those based in science.
While it may be unthinkable that someone could be monstrous enough to destroy occupied buildings for some unknown goal the alternative is that physics and building sciences did not function on that one day. It also means that every high rise building is at risk of a similar collapse and there is no assurances that it will not happen again.
One more time, look this over and see if you don’t see any grounds for disagreement.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mechani...on-911/5333553
The collapses begins at the levels where the buildings are burning.
They collapse and the levels above come straight down funneled by the steel outer wall.
The demolition theory is not the simplest theory. It is quite complex.
It doesn't explain why it collapses from the levels are burning at. It doesn't explain how the detonation cords, devices and explosives all remain intact post impact and fire to allow a controlled demolition.
Instead there is complaints about what is the yellow glowing dripping fluid which could molten metal or burning liquids. Think of all copper network cabling, pipes, plastics, burning office equipment, glass etc that could create a burning yellow liquid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No one is delving into conjecture as to how it was done. The physics of the collapse lead to the theory of controlled demolition.
Either Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, works or it doesn’t.
What seems to have happened at the WTC is that the buildings collapsed before the upper floors could collide with them and the building went down in free fall.
The government reports do not address this.
There just is no other known method that can account for the lack of resistance from the rest of the building.
Fisherking, if there were a controlled demolition then where were the charges placed, such that they could lead to the collapse as it occurred?