BF2S Forums Loose Change

imortal wrote:

...as for the "controlled demolition,"  the two most common points were that the fire was below the melting strength for steel and that they windows blew out on the way down from top to bottom as it fell.

The tempurature difference between steel melting and jet fuel burning has been joyiously pointed to by conspicacy therorists.  The problem is that the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to fall.  All that had to happen was for the supporting struts to lose a little bit of their strength.  Not much; perjhaps as little as 10%.  Steel looses strength and becomes more pliant at lower tempratures than its melting temp.

The WTC towers were comercial endeavors.  They had to be physically and economically feaasable.  The means designing and building them to hold and stay up, but to do so with the minimum of materials to lower the costs to make it affordable.  That means using enough steel to support the weight of the building, and the piddly lightweight things like people and furniture that goes inside.  There would be a bit of excess capacity, but not much.

As the steel support beams warmed, they became more pliant, and lost some of theri strength.  Not much.  But enough.  As soon as the support was weak enough that it could not hold up, the roof it was holding fell.  It most likely started witha  single, maby 3 or four nearby pillars.  the roof collapsed, and then the weakened-but-not-quite-failing struts under the first pillar had a LOT more weight to deal with, and they collapesed, along with a few to each side.  So more deris hit the next floor down.  Also a bit weakened, but even more debris hit it, so it collapsed.  and so on, and so on, until it was entire floors collapsing at once.

Considering where the most weight is in the building along with the fire bweing inside, the hottest part of the fire was most likely in the center.  So the most likely failure point would be in the center, above the plane impact point.  The initial collapsing would be internal, and if there was any motion at first, it would be not only subtle, and obscured by smoke. 

Once the collapse reached the entire floor-state, two things happened.  First is that the areas above that had not collapsed lost its support from underneath, and it fell.  This would be the first obvious sign of external collapse, as the area above the fire began to sag and fall as one.

Estimated time from the first, intial support failure  to when it is visibly noticeable would only be 5 - 15 seconds.  Once a failure happens, the chain reaction would happen FAST.   Also, with the intial collapse happening inside the building, the collapsing structure is pulled in on itself, instead of being pulled over to the side.  By the time the collapse reached to non-damaged areas, the weight of collapsing material is way above any tolerances designed, and failure is almost instantanius.  Entire floors are collapsing at once.

This brings up the second point.  As the entire floor collapses, the air inside the building has to go somewhere.  remember that a building is mostly empty air. As the floor collapses and nears teh next floor down, the air is compressed, and air pressure builds until it exceeds the saftey limits on the glass.  The glass is shattered, and the air (and whatever the air can lift) is expelled out the windows.  Then that floor collapses, and the process is repeated.

Common sense time:  take a paperclip, and straighten it out.  Once it is straight, grab the parperclip in both hands, and bend it back and forth repeatedly.  What happens?  It snaps.  If you feel at the failure area, you will notice heat from the friction of you bending it.  But it is not melted at all.  The tempurature difference was enough to comprimise the metal.  Onviously, this is small scale, but shows teh basic theory.

Second, take a hard cover book, and a flat surface.  Hold your face close to the flat surface, and slam the book flat against the surface, near your face.  Take care not to hit your face.  Do you feel the air being pressed out from under the book?  Experiment with paper crumpled up near the edge and see if you can get the book to move light items with the air you displace.

DISCLAIMER:  I am not a professional engineer.  I did not pull this off of any website.  I took what I have heard and read about the WTC collapse and put muy interpretation of what I thnk happened here.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

"Ask questions.  Demand answers."

The final words of the video, and perhaps my future sig after I watch the video again tomorrow.

imortal wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

"Ask questions.  Demand answers."

The final words of the video, and perhaps my future sig after I watch the video again tomorrow.

...and if you don't like what they tell you, come up with your own.

The basic start of most conspiracy theories is that they don;t believe things could really happen the way they were presented.  But the entire point of low-probabilaty disasters like this is that a LOT of things have to fall exactly into place for it to actually happen. 

Conspiracy theorists refuse to believe it can. 

But it actually does happen.  Maybe not often.  That is why when it does, it always gets looked at funny.  After all, during the Columbia accident, what are the odds that a mission patch would be ripped off the suit of one of the astronauts, and have it fall miles to the ground, and actually found right side up?  But  improbable things DO happen.  IF they didn't, no one would ever win a lottery.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-09 17:57:30)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

[But essentially, isn't the theory that it was done by Bin Laden just another such conspiracy without (edit:typo) proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved?

Erm, the only source I can find on the NASA patch says it was found with the remains of one of the astronaughts.  Assuming that NASA works within the laws of gravity and the remains of the astronaughts did indeed fall to earth as they predict, and that the patch is made of much thicker material than normal clothing, wouldn't the odds be 50/50 of falling the right way up?  And do you have a source which says it was 'found' the right way up?  It doesn't mention that here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/0 … .columbia/

The photo shows it the right way up, but it would probably not be much of a picture the other way round.

imortal wrote:

[Wolfpack]KaptMiller wrote:

We can stare at each bit for bit and find things to one side or the other. But we have too see it all together and a pattern turns up. And that is a cover-up no matter how you put it, its not the first time by a long shot, but it is the biggest and it keeps on going. Cause 911 changed things and keeps on changing for us all.

The war on terror is bogus and a pre-emptive attack on the western worlds civil rights.

I find that a reach.  Not as much of a reach as I would like to claim, because I can certainly see the danger.
I would prefer you present it as an opinion instead of a fact, however.  Unless you have some sort of proof that cannot be challenged.  But unless it is a gradual process being conducted by groups of Republicans AND Democrats, I don't see it holding.  It would have to be a teamwork process, unless Bush announces plans to not step down in 2008.  That is what protects America; the President can only hang around 8 years.  Okay, 10 if he is really, really sneaky.

One of my real peevs, and what completely destroys peoples' creditibility is to present their opinions as unchallengable fact.

And yes, at times I am just as guilty, as much as I try not to be.

[Wolfpack]KaptMiller wrote:

Do you belive in God and in what way...i mean line of religion and if not how would you make them prove God to you with unchallengable fact..good luck

imortal wrote:

Well, the guy claims to be responsible, the consensus from the varied intel groups says it was him.  Bin Laden has better resources than your average terrorist, and he has been ramping up for more spectacular attacks against the US for years.  If the man was proclaiming his innocence, I would be looking more skeptically at it.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-09 18:45:21)

duka wrote:

Marconius wrote:

THANK YOU imortal!  It's about time someone posted proof supporting the other side.  I'm not saying that I'm going to change my mind about the conspiracy, but you've actually gone out and done the research to prove us wrong, rather than just saying "OMG your all Retardss!1!"

Marconius, Imortal only posted credible evidence dispelling what common sense at the very least should cause you to question. Furthermore, what Imortal offered you via post was evidence establishing truth, not a theory born our of an unhealthy sense of paranoia or at the very least poorly founded skepticism. Acknowledging it as proof and then adding that a change in your mind remains questionable is ridiculous.

IronFerret wrote:

That video its so sad.. i like a lot the US, but that goverment is just dark.. i miss a lot B.Clinton even im not U.S. citizen, americans has to realize that the shit of this goverment its spreading all over the world..

Last edited by lowing (2006-03-10 14:00:25)

Marconius wrote:

You want to know what I think, lowing?  I think you need to open your fucking eyes for once and look at the world around you.  I've stated my positions and have written in these forums extensively documenting and backing up my stances.

I know about the PNAC doctrine, which details out the agenda of the Bush administration.  Despite it being talked about for several months now, it is JUST now reaching the mainstream media.  I know that the 9/11 Commission report was released but heavily edited, and due to the current affairs with the CIA and FBI, I strongly think the censoring had nothing to do with protecting National Security.  The credibility of Bush's cabinet has gone into the toilet, and his approval rating has hit lows that no President of the United States has ever hit...even lower than Warren G. Harding.

You seem to not notice the blatant manifest destiny rearing its head again in the form of "liberating Iraq."  You are not catching the extreme tides of growing sectarian violence in Iraq due to our own terrorist attack on them.  The invasion was brought about by the president twisting the truth to his needs before presenting evidence to Congress, and the current right-wing sentiment was brought by him melding key speech points together to whip everyone up into an anti-Arab frenzy.  You don't seem to see how fucking STUPID it is to go to war against a Concept.  You are letting race and civil liberty infringements slide just so we can feel "protected."

PROVE that they have been stopping attacks!  PROVE that their Homeland Security department is up to snuff.  PROVE that my tax dollars are stopping terrorist attacks when they couldn't even respond to the calls for hurricane aid.  PROVE to me that this administration is actually causing nothing but good around the world, and that the rest of the world favors what we are doing.  I back myself up because that's the very nature of Debate!  Don't expect me to lower my stances or think any different if all you can do is spout slanted and uneducated trash at me and expect me to take it at face value with nothing but insults.

And don't pull that "people are dying for your freedom" bullshit with me.  Soldiers are dying, but in a country that was not in any way responsible for the hijacking.  There was no direct threat to my freedoms until we went over there and kicked up a shitstorm, but the threat doesn't come from "our enemy."  It comes from people like you and the current administration who are so cavalier about the destruction of something that's unstoppable, and the loss of our own liberty and country foundations at the expense of doing so.

You, sir, are a failure of the highest degree.