9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

Post Reply
User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:52 pm
hippiewannabe wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:25 am
Spezialist wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm
...concrete don't turn to dust in midair, in the paradigm we live in.
Sure it does, like here: https://www.videoblocks.com/video/teari ... 42-jmcuwg/

The concrete floors couldn't possibly stay together and not turn to rubble and dust as each failed in turn.
Did I forget to update you, Don? I read some interesting engineering analyses that really do make your point. Some of these new building methods are as shoddy as a new chipboard contractor' McMansion , so foreign to me after the 270 year-old house I grew up in. Give me some time to process.
So the junky-ass skyscrapers warp and fall apart from trashcan fires. Okey-dokey.
Colin :blackeye:
Ha ha. I don't know if you've ever read the FEMA report, but they were actually complimentary that the the things stayed up long enough for so many people to escape. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/asse ... ments/3544

You might be particularly interested in the chapter about WTC 4. 5 & 6, which were destroyed to varying degrees but didn't suffer progressive collapse. Lot's of facts and figures, and pictures of things like softened steel that bent but didn't quite fail. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

Spezialist
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:44 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:25 am
Spezialist wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm
...concrete don't turn to dust in midair, in the paradigm we live in.
Sure it does, like here: https://www.videoblocks.com/video/teari ... 42-jmcuwg/

The concrete floors couldn't possibly stay together and not turn to rubble and dust as each failed in turn.
Smug and condescending as I may appear, I don't need to see a video telling me something I allready understand. Thanks.
Now if you can explain in your own words how concrete and steel falling in midair vaporizes have at it.
Unlike Colin when I say I will respond I will.

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:15 pm

Spezialist wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:44 pm
hippiewannabe wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:25 am
Spezialist wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm
...concrete don't turn to dust in midair, in the paradigm we live in.
Sure it does, like here: https://www.videoblocks.com/video/teari ... 42-jmcuwg/

The concrete floors couldn't possibly stay together and not turn to rubble and dust as each failed in turn.
Smug and condescending as I may appear, I don't need to see a video telling me something I allready understand. Thanks.
Now if you can explain in your own words how concrete and steel falling in midair vaporizes have at it.
Unlike Colin when I say I will respond I will.
Yeah, well. Not so much smug and condescending as stubborn. Trying to convince a conspiracy believer of the truth of their fetish is like convincing a hard core Abrahamic religion believer of the truth of evolution. They are impervious to the evidence.

So here's one. Each floor of WTC was 200' x 200' x 4" = 13,200 cu ft of concrete. Concrete is about 10% cement, which is essentially dust. So when each floor broke apart, it released some portion of 1320 cubic feet of pure dust, plus whatever sand and gravel became airborne. Big cloud of dust when it broke apart. Explosives could have caused small puffs, but the huge clouds of dust were caused by major collapse of the floors, regardless of the proximate cause.
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

Abscate
Getting Hooked!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Abscate » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:14 pm

You guys do know how reinforced concrete is reinforced, don't you?

Its with steel.

Under enough heat, steel turns to butter and is no longer reinforcing. The insulation sprayed into every bulding you enter is to protect the steel of the building long enough in the event of a fire for the fire department to come put it out, before the steel softens.

Hippie called it correctly above - unanswered questions about WTC7 don't logically allow a conspiracy theory launch on all of 911.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:48 pm

Abscate wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:14 pm
You guys do know how reinforced concrete is reinforced, don't you?

Its with steel.

Under enough heat, steel turns to butter and is no longer reinforcing. The insulation sprayed into every bulding you enter is to protect the steel of the building long enough in the event of a fire for the fire department to come put it out, before the steel softens.

Hippie called it correctly above - unanswered questions about WTC7 don't logically allow a conspiracy theory launch on all of 911.

This response seems a little late to the discussion. Rebar is not the steel I was talking about. The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way. Then, only a couple of floors down, the steel never even got hot . . . at all. So how did those vertical columns just give it up at the speed of free fall?

Understand that I will not automatically launch into a conspiracy theory. I am strictly trying to understand the physics and I am aghast at how building 7, which had an even more localized low-temperature fuel fire (diesel), managed to pancake so perfectly.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

Abscate
Getting Hooked!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Abscate » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:26 am

Im not sure if this was covered earlier but there is a solid piece of engineering analysis on how 1 and 2 came down, which were torsional failure and pancake failure - the difference attributable to where the most heat from the fires was located.

Why conspiracy theories lack cogency is because they never have evidence for their version - they just have evidence against the current theory - usually scantily clad.
The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way.
Why don't you think steel can soften in fire? Or are you referring to the steel away from the fire here?

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:37 am

Abscate wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:26 am
Im not sure if this was covered earlier but there is a solid piece of engineering analysis on how 1 and 2 came down, which were torsional failure and pancake failure - the difference attributable to where the most heat from the fires was located.

A) Why conspiracy theories lack cogency is because they never have evidence for their version - they just have evidence against the current theory - usually scantily clad.
The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way.
B) Why don't you think steel can soften in fire? Or are you referring to the steel away from the fire here?
a) the cogency of the "official explanation" also has huge holes in it.

b)I wrote, "The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way. Then, only a couple of floors down, the steel never even got hot . . . at all. So how did those vertical columns just give it up at the speed of free fall?"
What is your view on this?
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

Abscate
Getting Hooked!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Abscate » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:43 am

Once the floors begin to either twist (WTC 2) or pancake (WTC1) the steel below fails due to live load, vs static load.

The steel fails from trying to stop the falling floors above, rather than just holding them up.

Does that make sense?

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:05 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:48 pm
. Rebar is not the steel I was talking about. The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way. Then, only a couple of floors down, the steel never even got hot . . . at all. So how did those vertical columns just give it up at the speed of free fall?

Understand that I will not automatically launch into a conspiracy theory. I am strictly trying to understand the physics and I am aghast at how building 7, which had an even more localized low-temperature fuel fire (diesel), managed to pancake so perfectly.
Colin
This may be an example of what I was talking about. I have explained a few times, the FEMA report goes in to detail, and Popular Mechanics reinforced in layman terms. Virtually any fire, be it paper, wood, plastic, jet fuel, diesel, is plenty hot enough to weaken steel to the point it will fail it's intended structural purpose. If you don't want to believe the well understood and experimentally confirmed physics, as explained by unbiased experts, I'm not sure what purpose is served by further discussion.
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:12 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:05 pm
Amskeptic wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:48 pm
. Rebar is not the steel I was talking about. The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way. Then, only a couple of floors down, the steel never even got hot . . . at all. So how did those vertical columns just give it up at the speed of free fall?

Understand that I will not automatically launch into a conspiracy theory. I am strictly trying to understand the physics and I am aghast at how building 7, which had an even more localized low-temperature fuel fire (diesel), managed to pancake so perfectly.
Colin
This may be an example of what I was talking about. I have explained a few times, the FEMA report goes in to detail, and Popular Mechanics reinforced in layman terms. Virtually any fire, be it paper, wood, plastic, jet fuel, diesel, is plenty hot enough to weaken steel to the point it will fail it's intended structural purpose. If you don't want to believe the well understood and experimentally confirmed physics, as explained by unbiased experts, I'm not sure what purpose is served by further discussion.

Are you attempting to shame my skepticism? YOU have explained a few times?? Don, many many many buildings, some without the rigorous inspection protocols of this country! have endured fires all across the world, long fires with lots of "paper, kerosene, wood, plastic, diesel", whatever, and they did not collapse. As a matter of fact, I don't think we HAVE an example of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing ever from any fire. Stop with your parochial blinders and pat explanations and pre-ordained conclusions. I AM KEEPING MY MIND OPEN. I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED.

I read that Popular Science article, and I find the writing gets a little strident. I also know that FEMA is populated by people, and their report glosses over a number of observations. It is just a fact. Their report had some glaring holes. The NIST reports were not peer reviewed and are not scientific reports. I don't have to "believe" an author. I will however *consider* (not to be confused with "belief") the real science and the real physics that is far and away past Popular Mechanics. Just for fun, and to round out your own "beliefs", try this video. No armchair speculator here, he did the science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

So go ahead, Don, explain the presence of molten steel at the 9/11 site, and a few other *observations* that suggest an alternative to your pre-ordained conclusion. I cannot at this time accept conclusions. I do, however, welcome fellow questioners who do not shame me with their reminders of how much they have explained to me. No, there is more here than meets the eye of the Popular Science readership.
Colin

(p.s. another tidbit to test your mind, your beliefs, whether or not you are open or closed to all kinds of information:
At a press conference in Nov 2008 Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated (correctly) that it was impossible for Building 7 to have collapsed at free fall acceleration due to resistance from the steel structure below. The problem was that its easy to measure the acceleration of the collapse so the when the NIST final report was released a month later they were forced to admit in it that the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. They have since completely refused to explain how. This is one of hundreds of problems with the official investigations.
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

Abscate
Getting Hooked!
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Abscate » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:07 pm

If you read the WHOLE report, not just the pieces chosen by conspiracy theorists. You find NIST reported three phases of fall, phase one, slower than free, phase 2, exterior collapse at near free fall, phase 3, less than free fall.

This is consistent with structural internal collapse. Exterior free fall, then final full building collapse.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:20 pm

Abscate wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:07 pm
If you read the WHOLE report, not just the pieces chosen by conspiracy theorists. You find NIST reported three phases of fall, phase one, slower than free, phase 2, exterior collapse at near free fall, phase 3, less than free fall.

This is consistent with structural internal collapse. Exterior free fall, then final full building collapse.
Is your post in reference to the towers or Building 7?
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:23 pm

Abscate wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:07 pm
If you read the WHOLE report, not just the pieces chosen by conspiracy theorists.
Easy there . . . the WHOLE report was written by exactly the same people who wrote the pieces chosen.

Be careful that you do not lump me in with the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. I am still in the camp of skeptical but willing to consider the real science, the real science of materials and engineering, ya pup.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

Post Reply