Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/28/14 at 5:59 pm to Ross
quote:
Dude, back up about twenty pages in this thread and I showed you definitive, empirical data regarding the heat of combustion of the fuel in the aircraft and how structural steel loses its integrity at temperatures much lower than what they'd have seen in such a combustion process. (unless I missed it, this was at no point ever addressed by anyone trying to prove that this was not the reason for failure)
You made absolutely no connection between your physics and the structural design of the towers. That was said 'about 20 pages' back, it didn't really resonate then, doubt it will hit home now.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:06 pm to Sleeping Tiger
...were the towers made of structural steel?
If you want a detailed breakdown of that connection, take a look at this excerpt from the journal JOM (Journal of Minerals & Metals), which provides the details of the design of the structures and the various failure mechanisms present from the damage due to the impact, to the gradual weakening of the now exposed steel due to the heat of combustion, to the inevitable failure given the "domino effect" of several supports failing in series. ( LINK)
I found this to be a pretty good synopsis of the entire situation if you're up for a little bit of reading. I planned on copying/pasting the article here but it proved to be too long to be allowable as a post.
But more to the point, if you could tell me specifically where exactly my branch of conventional thought is off base, we could have a much more productive discussion.
If you want a detailed breakdown of that connection, take a look at this excerpt from the journal JOM (Journal of Minerals & Metals), which provides the details of the design of the structures and the various failure mechanisms present from the damage due to the impact, to the gradual weakening of the now exposed steel due to the heat of combustion, to the inevitable failure given the "domino effect" of several supports failing in series. ( LINK)
I found this to be a pretty good synopsis of the entire situation if you're up for a little bit of reading. I planned on copying/pasting the article here but it proved to be too long to be allowable as a post.
But more to the point, if you could tell me specifically where exactly my branch of conventional thought is off base, we could have a much more productive discussion.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:12 pm to Ross
quote:
But more to the point, if you could tell me specifically where exactly my branch of conventional thought is off base,
You forgot the Magma factor, crucial mistake.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:14 pm to Ross
quote:
But more to the point, if you could tell me specifically where exactly my branch of conventional thought is off base, we could have a much more productive discussion.
I wouldn't press him too much, he's liable to crack at any time and empty a whole magmazine into each of us!
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:19 pm to Ross
quote:
...were the towers made of structural steel?
They were intricately designed, saying that steel can melt is not the same as proving how a building collapsed, especially one designed to withstand exactly what it encountered that day. That absolutely should not be that hard to understand.
Your link is meh, if I shared a comparable link it wouldn't hold much weight.
Shall I like the thousands of architects and scientists who disagree with the official story? I mean they are accredited as well, their opinions hold weight too. It's interesting that there seems to be far more detail and thorough explanation done by these individuals when explaining how the official story of the collapse is inaccurate.
Anyway, as I said in the beginning of this thread, this kind of stuff is really the gutter of this topic. When each side can give scientific data to support their case the debate doesn't ever go anywhere.
What would benefit non truthers the most in these type of threads is to hear out facts that aren't widely known in mainstream and allow these facts to build on each other, just as an exercise of growing knowledge on a topic, not as a way to sway their beliefs. 35 pages about magma and asking if steel melts is really the last way to go about this, as I've said a few times.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:19 pm to kingbob
Ha, I'm a believer that when all the emotions are taken out of a discussion like this, the facts can be laid out as we know them and we can all kind of come together around the truth.
Refresh my memory, you are a civil engineer / work in construction right? I seem to remember you having a pretty extensive knowledge of structural engineering.
Refresh my memory, you are a civil engineer / work in construction right? I seem to remember you having a pretty extensive knowledge of structural engineering.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:21 pm to kingbob
quote:
I wouldn't press him too much, he's liable to crack at any time and empty a whole magmazine into each of us!
If you're cool with saying stuff like that, then so be it, I just don't think a comment like that is deserved at all.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:23 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Shall I like the thousands of architects and scientists who disagree with the official story? I mean they are accredited as well, their opinions hold weight too. It's interesting that there seems to be far more detail and thorough explanation done by these individuals when explaining how the official story of the collapse is inaccurate.
What about the ones who agree with the official story? Which most likely overwhelmingly outnumber the ones that disagree? I haven't talked to one structural engineer yet who is a truther.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:23 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
you're cool with saying stuff like that, then so be it, I just don't think a comment like that is deserved at all.
Don't be a victim. That's ghey
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:25 pm to Ross
quote:
Refresh my memory, you are a civil engineer / work in construction right? I seem to remember you having a pretty extensive knowledge of structural engineering.
Not a clue, but I did attend an engineering school and I'm a frequent guest at Holliday Inn Express's.
Tell me what my knowledge of engineering has to do with pointing out the fact that there are thousands of real engineers, architects, pilots, and scientists who do not agree with the official story and have provided research that has not been debunked as to why its an inaccurate story.
Tell me what my knowledge of engineering has to do with my recognition that this is the last way to go about a 911 debate, and that the mainstream is really in the dark on a lot of undisputed facts surrounding that day.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:27 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
What about the ones who agree with the official story?
I recognized this in my post.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:28 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
They were intricately designed, saying that steel can melt is not the same as proving how a building collapsed, especially one designed to withstand exactly what it encountered that day. That absolutely should not be that hard to understand.
For the record, I don't think many people at all claim that any steel actually melted. The yield strength would decrease to a point where failure would occur before any actual melting occurred.
quote:
Shall I like the thousands of architects and scientists who disagree with the official story? I mean they are accredited as well, their opinions hold weight too. It's interesting that there seems to be far more detail and thorough explanation done by these individuals when explaining how the official story of the collapse is inaccurate.
Yes, please. Because I really want to see your POV explained and the physics used to justify it.
I cannot make a comment on a stance that has not been provided. Do you kind of understand where I'm coming from?
I've given you the conventional opinion on the modes of failure and the connection you were looking for as to how material properties of structural steel applies to a structure made primarily of structural steel. It's time for you to provide some refutations or alternate opinions that can hold their weight under some scrutiny or I'm afraid this topic is pointless to discuss further.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:31 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I was talking to kingbob with that post, sorry for any confusion there.
It doesn't, but honestly it's pretty relevant when having a discussion like this. You don't have to be an engineer or practice engineering, but a knowledge base around materials science would be very helpful.
Talking about the physics behind structural engineering is the last way to settle an argument on structural failure?
If you've got information that can handle scrutiny feel free to post it man. I'm open minded, and if you can convince me the error of my ways I'll listen.
quote:
Tell me what my knowledge of engineering has to do with pointing out the fact that there are thousands of real engineers, architects, pilots, and scientists who do not agree with the official story and have provided research that has not been debunked as to why its an inaccurate story.
It doesn't, but honestly it's pretty relevant when having a discussion like this. You don't have to be an engineer or practice engineering, but a knowledge base around materials science would be very helpful.
quote:
Tell me what my knowledge of engineering has to do with my recognition that this is the last way to go about a 911 debate, and that the mainstream is really in the dark on a lot of undisputed facts surrounding that day.
Talking about the physics behind structural engineering is the last way to settle an argument on structural failure?
If you've got information that can handle scrutiny feel free to post it man. I'm open minded, and if you can convince me the error of my ways I'll listen.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:33 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Don't take it personal, sleeping tiger. I'm just a fan of puns. They magma sooooo happy happy happy.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:35 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
that the mainstream is really in the dark on a lot of undisputed facts surrounding that day.
WHAT IN THE frick ARE THESE "UNDISPUTED FACTS" ?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:35 pm to Ross
quote:
Refresh my memory, you are a civil engineer / work in construction right? I seem to remember you having a pretty extensive knowledge of structural engineering.
That is correct, but i mostly deal with industrial piping and electrical and instrumentation work.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:44 pm to kingbob
Ha, then I should pass the baton on to you. I'm a mechanical engineer and as far as I know, skyscrapers shouldn't be moving a whole lot so I'm secretly out of my element. 
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:37 pm to Ross
quote:
For the record, I don't think many people at all claim that any steel actually melted. The yield strength would decrease to a point where failure would occur before any actual melting occurred.
Yet we have evidence of melted steel, in official reports and eye witness accounts. Have you not seen the magma? It's flowing, as magma does. #magma
quote:
I've given you the conventional opinion on the modes of failure and the connection you were looking for as to how material properties of structural steel applies to a structure made primarily of structural steel.
You haven't connected anything, you've simply said steel can melt and therefore the towers collapsed because steel can melt.
You shared a link that tried to explain it but it looked like something from my camp, the non mainstream side. It was hardly all inclusive, in fact it was embarrassingly thin.
First night of college football, weather is nice, guitar in lap -- not going to waste these kind of evenings on a 911 debate, especially one as pigeonholed as this.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:41 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
WHAT IN THE frick ARE THESE "UNDISPUTED FACTS" ?
There are novels worth of historical fact that have a ton to do with the events of 911.
And there are countless pieces of information that are not a part of the mainstream understanding of the day.
Will I share these? Ask magma.
Page 39 of 48
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News