|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted September 14, 2011 03:43 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:51, 14 Sep 2011.
|
Funny to see people trying to use scientific arguments when they clearly don't know the first thing about chemistry or physics.
Lesson #1. Material properties are not determined only by phase assignment - classifying materials ONLY on the basis of liquid, solid, gas is a very 4th grade way of looking at things. Yes, these are basic phases of matter, but the solid phase, for instance, is not as simple as you make it out to be. Did you know there have been at least 15 different types of solid water (ice) discovered, with vastly different physical properties, which depend only on temperature and external pressure? More relevant: Physical properties of steel at 100 C are very different from those of steel at 1000 C - not to mention steel that's supporting the weight of an entire building.
In short, steel doesn't have to melt in order for it to lose its strength.
Melting point of steel and burning point of jet fuel is a commonly used argument that's laughed at by scientists because it just shows the complete ignorance of the people using it. Melting point of steel (unpressurized) is roughly 1400 C, depending on steel type, age, and etc. However, you wouldn't have to change steel to liquid state in order to change its strength to a degree that would compromise its ability to support a building.
People have known this as a practical fact for millenia, by the way, so its rather amusing that the conspiracy theorists completely forget it. Consider - does a blacksmith have to melt steel in order to shape it? You can soften a steel bar enough in a bloody WOOD FIRE to shape it into a sword by pounding it with an iron hammer. You don't think that burning steel supports for over an hour in JET FUEL would be enough to soften them to the extent that they can't bear the weight of a 100+ floor building? Steel begins to soften appreciably at around 550 C or so.*
Constantly amazed at the crazy stuff people will believe in order to convince themselves of the truth of a conspiracy theory.
*Another source, linked in a post below, states it can start at even lower temperatures, ~425 C. I always learned 550 C, but then again "softening point" isn't a well defined term.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 04:24 PM |
|
|
OK, lets have a peck at how controlled demolition works, in theory:
Basically you must have a large enough amount of weight, then you must place dynamite under that, blow up the pillars, let it fall, blow up another set up pillars, and keep on going until the mass at the top reaches a high enough speed to generate/hold enough kinetic energy so that any pillars it will hit will burst from the sheer force without slowing it down.
If you fail at just 1 set of pillars(uneven detonation of several pillars) then the top will start to bend over, and it will sooner or later fall to the side.
To put it in a another way: What amazes me about WTC is that with only being hit by a airplane, and a small fire, it collapses in a controlled fashion.
Or to put it even more bluntly: Going by "chance of X happening", the chance of it collapsing completely evenly is extremely small, and yet it happen.
That means that either the security strcutre of the building was insanely fragile, or it was a controlled demolition.
Or to say it yet again: Doomforge, why did it not fall to the sides? Why was the structure perfectly even in the collapse the first 20-30 floors?
Edit:
Quote:
BTW.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
Its "He who sacrifices permanent freedom for temporally security deserves neither".
Whats the difference? I sacrifice a great deal of freedom just for being security by the police and court systems, and i sacrifice a great amount of freedom to not live in anarchy.
I also sacrifice a great amount of freedom to keep the schools and education system and the roads going.
However, what Franklin aims at is somebody who gives away their freedom to a despot, for protection, due a arbitary war, invasion, or minor problem.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 04:39 PM |
|
|
Where'd you get your professional demolition training from, diablo? Do you have a degree in engineering or something?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doomforge, why did it not fall to the sides? Why was the structure perfectly even in the collapse the first 20-30 floors?
Actually, if you check the southern tower collapse video, you can see that the "tip" of the building rotated as it fell.
Why not earlier? well, it weights 100.000 tons. It won't really spin around like a feather.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Where'd you get your professional demolition training from, diablo? Do you have a degree in engineering or something?
Where did you get yours?
Quote:
Quote:
Doomforge, why did it not fall to the sides? Why was the structure perfectly even in the collapse the first 20-30 floors?
Actually, if you check the southern tower collapse video, you can see that the "tip" of the building rotated as it fell.
Why not earlier? well, it weights 100.000 tons. It won't really spin around like a feather.
Mass != Area
You want volum, and i think i see your point.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 04:52 PM |
|
|
@diablo
Let's put it in a different way then. Imagine an extremely heavy, pretty much hollowed inside block that collapses under its own weight.
in my book it goes directly down at first. The tip may spin (and it did) later on.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:03 PM |
|
|
Doomforge: The roof would collapse inside it, and the walls may or may not partially collapse.
It is something entirely different from a multi layer cage structure.
Here is the problem: How did a fire managed to spread across several floors, heat up 70-80% of the metal bars present mostly evenly(just so they get soft), and then collapse quickly under its own weight?
This may instead raise further questions:
1. Why are the building center caged? And why is this center cage not secured against fire?
2. Why are the floors made in such a way that a single fire is capable of demolishing the entire building?
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:07 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:08, 14 Sep 2011.
|
@diablo
Quote:
Where did you get yours?
Dodging the question, are you?
Very well. I have a doctorate in physical science, so I am an expert on chemistry and physics. But I'm not an expert in demolition and wouldn't be able to determine the difference between a tower collapsing as a result of an external explostion and subsequent weakening of the infrastructure, and it collapsing as a result of placed explosive charges.
You, however, are claiming to be able to tell the difference, and just from watching news footage. That must make you quite the expert. You said it's quite obvious that the towers falling were a result of controlled demolition, and alluded to the small likelihood that it couldn't be something else.
So, I wanted to know where you got your expertise in controlled demolition. Or are you just regurgitating crap that you read on the internet?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:15 PM |
|
|
Corribus: Physic student who also have had a few classes on the Reltivity theory for now(and still studying).
As for your note: You are claiming that I am wrong, and claiming to also have some "moral highground".
Or, as you say: "You, however, are claiming to be able to tell the difference, and just from watching news footage"
Lets start out by things you should have pulled:
-WTC uses a unsafe caging method. There is only a central/middle cage layer, meaning that a fire does not need to compromise entire floors, but only to reach the core, and then burn a bit.
-The plane managed to penetrate the tower until the core, and anything of enough mass will cause a fire if it penetrates a object and the correct materials is present.
-The softening point of the steel? 600-700C was it? That is quite feasable to reach during a normal fire. You did mention this, but not how low it was. The difference between a few 100 degree is a lot after all.
Look at it this way: I am willing to admit i might be wrong, but I am more willing to hold more possibilites open.
Either one must explain why one is wrong, point out a few things, or shut up.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:17 PM |
|
|
huh, what if the air jack failed, or for x reasons the planes did not hit the towers? Can you imagine a quick expedition of hundred peoples which had to remove tones of explosive in a few hours, so it does not look ridiculous when suddenly collapsing without reason? Fairy tales.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doomforge: The roof would collapse inside it, and the walls may or may not partially collapse.
It is something entirely different from a multi layer cage structure.
Here is the problem: How did a fire managed to spread across several floors, heat up 70-80% of the metal bars present mostly evenly(just so they get soft), and then collapse quickly under its own weight?
Well, it's pretty simple. The plane exploding inside was something like cutting the building in the middle and hollowing it in the centre of the cut. Don't forget the explosions threw gallons of burning jet fuel around, it's not like it leaked from the broken gas container. It was expulsed around...
Quote:
This may instead raise further questions:
1. Why are the building center caged? And why is this center cage not secured against fire?
I'm pretty sure it would do well against fire, but I don't think gallons of burning jet fuel are actually the "fire" you design buildings around...
Quote:
2. Why are the floors made in such a way that a single fire is capable of demolishing the entire building?
I guess they aren't explosion-proof. Can you make a skyscraper that resists a harpoon-class missile strike? no? well that was something like that (of course not as deadly, but packed with tons of fuel instead). Living flying bombs aren't exactly the main hazard in skyscraper architecture, if you know what I'm getting at...
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:27 PM |
|
|
That reminds me of the "faked moon landing" nonsense.
What a great show the X-Files were. 
The Truth Is Out There!
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:29 PM |
|
|
Doomforge: Ok, gasoline spreading out. Thats.... 4-5 floors? I think you still need a few more.
2. Then your claim that the building collapse due the burning gasoline, and nothing else.
3. Nuclear powerplants are secured against missile attacks.
What makes skyscrapes such a different breed? Lax building safety codes?
Edit:
Salamandre: And why would they remove explosives? Most of the material used would be gone due the very nature of the devices?
Even if: Why would they clean it up? All thats left is several holes in the building, perhaps a fire, a few broken floors, and quite a lot of dead civilians.
If a terror group did it, they claim credit for it.
If the CIA did it, they can just blame it on somebody else.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:40 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:04, 14 Sep 2011.
|
@diablo
Quote:
Corribus: Physic student who also have had a few classes on the Reltivity theory for now(and still studying).
So not an expert.
Quote:
As for your note: You are claiming that I am wrong, and claiming to also have some "moral highground".
I'm not claiming anything. You've been claiming. I wanted to know if you have any basis to be making claims.
Does lack of expertise mean you're wrong? No. But it does call into question where you're getting your information, if you're not just making it up completely.
Moral ground, high or low, has nothing to do with it.
Part of the problem is that people rarely ever admit, even to themselves, the limits of their knowledge. It's ok to have an opinion, but to pass that opinion off as fact isn't helping anyone. The truth is, you are NOT an expert in demolitions, and so you're just using reasoning to get at an answer - reasoning that may or may not be influenced by a conclusion you're wishing to believe in.
On a related note, have you noticed that NO professional engineers, experts in demolition, university professors, etc., have come out with a rigorous analysis showing that the WTC collapse is the result of controlled demolition? The only people who are arriving at this conclusion are amateurs, who probably actually know very little about controlled demolition, engineering physics, or chemistry and likely have a predetermined agenda that is guiding their analysis. In point of fact, all rigorous analyses by REAL experts, such as this one, are quite easily able to explain how and why the WTC collapsed as a result of being hit by, as Eager and Musso put it, "a 90,000 L Molotov coctail".
While I have expertise in chemistry and chemical physics, and thus know that all the claims about fuel burning temperatures and steel melting temperatures, and all the bogus thermodynamical arguments, are false – which casts a justifiable pall of suspicion on everything these jokers have to say about conspiracies – I am most certainly not a structural engineer, engineering physicist, or demolitions expert. I am certainly therefore not going to pass off any opinions I might have on the subject as facts, and I’m not going to speak in absolutes. I’m careful to say what is fact and what is opinion. Moreover, I have to rely on information conveyed by other professionals, and on the whole the professionals offer a well-reasoned and sensible explanation of the collapse, consistent with my own expertise in physical science, that doesn’t have to invoke convoluted and frankly nonsensical conspiracy theories – which fail not only on the level of hard science but also on the level or practicality and common sense.
EDIT: It also needs to be pointed out that, from a practical point of view, if someone wanted to use controlled demolition to take down the WTC, they wouldn't have rigged it in such a way to burn for well over an hour before collapse. You could, my guess is, take it down within a few minutes with well placed charges. Unless the alleged conspirators wanted to make it LOOK like it's not a controlled demolition... but then why make collapse in a controlled way an hour later? After all, if you're going to the trouble of placing charges, you can bring it down anyway you want, right? The whole argument makes so little sense, all science aside, that it brings a smile to my face, all the more so given the amount of conviction the conspiracy theorists use while arguing it. They actually truly believe this crap, even though it fails spectacularly on just about every level of scientific and rational evaluation.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:45 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
1. Find somebody else to bother with your moralsnowry. No really.
2. That a interisting link. Thank you.
____________
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Find somebody else to bother with your moralsnowry.
*rereads Corribus's post*
...
What?
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doomforge: Ok, gasoline spreading out. Thats.... 4-5 floors? I think you still need a few more.
The explosion alone covered many more than 4-5. four floors can be blown to pieces with a single gas leak in a flat... Seen it myself, in a town near where I live an accumulated gas leak blew up three floors. Now think how much bigger explosion can a jet full of fuel do.
Quote:
2. Then your claim that the building collapse due the burning gasoline, and nothing else.
Nope - I claim it was the combined effect of structural damage from explosion and burning jet fuel making steel pillars unable to hold the weight of the "top" anymore.
Quote:
3. Nuclear powerplants are secured against missile attacks.
What makes skyscrapes such a different breed? Lax building safety codes?
How about "over 500 m height" and "made of lightweight materials mostly" ? I don't see ten meters of concrete shielding around skyscrapers...
If you tried to build a skyscraper the "sturdy" way, it wouldn't be possible at all...
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 06:28 PM |
|
|
I'm glad we can have a good, intellectual conversation, diablo.
Back to the original topic, however:
I remember well where I was the morning of the attack. I had just arrived to work (well, school I guess - I was a grad student). We always had a radio playing in the lab, and I had just laid all my stuff out that I needed for the day when a news report came on saying that a plane had crashed into one of the WTC buildings.
I remember thinking, "Wow, that's kind of crazy, but these little planes go down all the time." Then it came out that it was a commercial jet, not a small passenger plane. That was a little crazier, but still didn't think much of it, and neither did the people on the news.
So I was working some more and the second plane struck, and I think that's I think when it hit everyone that this was something far bigger than a freak accident. At this point, and I don't remember exactly why, everyone just left the University and went home. I think we were actually evacuated, because people were afraid of other attacks. I remember being at the Philadelphia train station and everyone was just kind of standing around in shock. Train station was almost quiet - people were whispering. It was really a weird situation.
By the time I got home, the first tower had already collapsed, but I turned on the TV and almost immediately they have live video coverage of the second tower collapsing. I remember this surreal feeling - like holy snow did that just happen? Most amazing thing I ever watched on TV. I'll never forget it.
All I did the rest of the day was watch news coverage.
Anyway, that's what I remember. Definitely it will be one of those days I'll always remember.
Did the attacks change the world? I most certainly think so. I can tell you they certainly changed the US. And not really in a good way. Granted, I'm older now than I was before the attacks, but I feel the US has gained a hyperinterest in security. Speaking for myself, I feel that Americans are much more attuned to the negative way (we perceive that) the world views us. I'm much more wary about traveling outside the country. Maybe I was just naive before. *shrugs*
I think it's hard to comment on whether the US retaliation was justified. Certainly all the money spent over the last decade on military intervention wasn't worth it, IMO, at least from my perspective. But then again I'm not privy to all the information the president has.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 06:30 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 18:32, 14 Sep 2011.
|
@Doom: Yeah... wind alone requires very complex systems such as material flexibility and weight-balancers and ****... scyscrapers are complicated stuff.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 14, 2011 06:40 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:41, 14 Sep 2011.
|
Yes, and prior to 9/11 at least, my guess is that most building engineers didn't design their buildings to withstand a collision with a 900,000 pound airplane loaded with jet fuel.
Frankly it's to the credit of the WTC architects that the WTC buildings didn't collapse immediately.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
