Smoking gun found by independent 9/11 scientists, proves World Trade Center brought down with explosives.

Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Smoking gun found by independent 9/11 scientists, proves World Trade Center brought down with explosives.

Once again, science to the rescue. An inconvenient truth for anyone who merely wants to scapegoat Muslims.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&hl=

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
B S

 

    These so called experts don't seem to bother with dead weight inertia.  The first 80 floors are designed to hold up the top thirty floors but only if STATIONARY;  Not when they are moving downward at 30kmh. The jets damaged the central support structures,  the burning jet fuel  melted what was left.  

     "But still 80 floors can hold back 30 floors",  I've heard that before and the answer is "NO" the dead weight tonnage hit one (1) floor only, which couldn't hold the weight and collapsed onto the next floor below - with more weight and a secondary thud (1st shock wave). If it wasn't the dead weight it was the first shock wave that collapsed the next floor in line. Shock waves may have affected the next two floors but after that the inertia simply outran any shock waves untill ground 0.

     The twin towers went down in straight neat lines, that's a sign the collapse was one (1) floor at a time. 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
[mod edit: duplicate post] 

[mod edit: duplicate post]


 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Sorry gang

 

    Any mods out there who can tell me how I ended up with two identical posts?  Can you erase one?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:     The twin

Quote:

     The twin towers went down in straight neat lines, that's a sign the collapse was one (1) floor at a time.

He's correct. You only need to consider basic physics to realize this.

Firstly, I shall presume you are familiar with the concept of a stress-strain curve. In mechanics, this is sometimes referred to as  Hooke's Law curve. The stress tensor for steel is described as a highly inelastic, up to the yield point, which is very high, but with very little strain, after which it starts to buckle. Now, there is a second-order differential equation that links temperature with the yield strength point, because the expansion causes an effect that is known as viscoplasticity, which steel exhibits above 720 Kelvin. This means that the yield point for steel at temperatures exceeding this is significantly lower than normal. There is a double-effect associated with this. A jet will sever most of the columns, and, in fact, it severed roughly 60% of the columns in question, on the floor/s in question. This means, for the floor sitting below, the thermal expansion induced will cause an inward buckle. The important point to remember here is that the critical load, that is, the stress at which the strain induces buckling, is about 10 times smaller for a multistory buckling, because the critical load decreases proportionally to the distance from the pivot at which force is applied. This effect induces a "crush down". This effect is well known. The WTC are not the only high-story buildings to fall as a result. The kinetic energy of the upper stories falling through the ejected floor is greater than the absorption capacity of the lower story (taking away the gravitational potential energy lost as a result of the shortening of the building). If this occurs, the kinetic energy being transferred by the upper part of the building will be transferred to the part beneath it. If the kinetic energy being transferred to the lower columns (which have also deformed, albeit not to as great an extent, due to differential thermal expansion) exceeds the elastic . This is combined with the fact that compaction results in the loss of GPE, which must be converted into KE, by the law of conservation of energy. It is for this reason that the civil engineering community has concluded, rightfully, that even a displacement of the upper section by half a meter will result in the collapse of the building. This force being exerted by the upper section of the building on the exposed beams prior to their yielding, is called the crushing force.

In other words, there was a multipart factor combination required to induce the transfer of KE from the upper to the lower load beams. (1) The differential expansion of the columns as a result of fire. Since the temperature of the fire exceeded 720K, the material will exhibit a viscoplastic response to stress, also called "creeping". At this temperature, the yield point for steel drops by 85%. (2) The ejection of a floor by the impact caused the dissipation of GPE. (3) The stress redistribution that resulted from the severing of most supports upon impact, added to the fact that the supports have force being exerted over a greater distance from the anchored points, causes a lateral buckle. Thus the third condition (4) Multistory buckling of exposed columns, where the force being exerted is greater than the load capacity for the exposed columns by an order of magnitude.

The GPE, given as E=mgh, that is at the floor in question, can be found on a load against displacement graph. The energy transferred is therefore found by the integration of this area under the graph . Thus for a displacement s of a piece of tower, the energy criterion is [Int]F(s)ds. This is critical so pay attention. There is one criterion for preventing the chain reaction of collapse that results from the transfer of kinetic energy of impacting mass. The kinetic energy of the impact mass must be less than the net energy loss during one story being crushed. That in turn is calculated by the area under the force-load graph. In the case, of 9/11, the crushing force decreased quickly in response to the displacement of the upper piece of the building as it fell through the ejected floors. The primary reason for the sharp decline of F against s was the plastic buckling, due to the fact that temperature was hot enough for the metal to act as viscoplastic. As a result, the upper area fell, with little resistance, into the lower area, with the compaction resulting from the crushing of the floors in between.  As such, the total energy dissipation (found by integration) minus the GPE lost due to the compaction, was smaller than the kinetic energy which was transferred by the upper part smashing into the standing section. This is enough to trigger collapse. Since the GPE lost was quite large due the high degree of compaction and large volume of ejecta, the kinetic energy transferred exceeded this value.

 The tower, as we have seen, collapsed progressively from the top down, that is, once the top section fell through the ejected floor, the compaction and the rate of transfer of kinetic energy was sufficient for the building to collapse from the top down. As we have seen, this was caused by a multifactorial combination of thermally-induced expansion of steel columns, which decreased the yield and induced viscoplasicity, added to the shearing of insulation by the application of perpendicular force on the material by the impact, the severing, or severely weakening, of 60% of the columns by the impact on the floor, resulting in a load redistribution, the ejecting of a floor causing a dissipation of GPE, ensuring that the kinetic energy exceeded the elastic load capacity of the floor beneath it. If explosives had been planted at strategic points around the tower, with the aim of simulating these effects allowing for the accretion of mass to induce collapse, then this effect would not have been observed, primarily because (a) crush-down collapse results from a compressive force being applied from the upper part of the standing structure on the lower part and b) the application of force by ejecting a floor too low to the ground will not result in crush-down collapse. If multiple ejecta points were designated within the building itself, then instead of crush-down, more likely, it will result in the building falling over, which is dangerous in demolition work, and, obviously, not what happened on 9/11.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wrong

Take a physics course sometime and be prepared to fail.

A child can tell you free-fall collapse doesn't happen without explosives. You problem is that you want a certain conclusion that involves Wiley Coyote Physics in order to suit your emotional issues. I'm not surprised you have issues about 9/11, weaker people do, but at least show some bravery and snap out of it.


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Nonsense

I can see you know how to cut and paste but your attempt at an intellectual smokescreen is really pathetic.

Your reasoning cannot explain the fact that WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by plane or debris and not having any serious fires.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I can see you know how

Quote:

I can see you know how to cut and paste

You cannot accuse me of plaigarism without demonstrating I plaigarised. I assure you the writing is my own, and that you have not returned with a sufficient response. Please do not ignore your interloctors. You can try a web search. The only other place you will find that piece of writing is on another thread on the board where I was having the same argument with someone just as illiterate of basic mechanical engineering. This is why I could respond so quickly.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Take a physics

Ux wrote:
Take a physics course sometime and be prepared to fail.

A child can tell you free-fall collapse doesn't happen without explosives. You problem is that you want a certain conclusion that involves Wiley Coyote Physics. I'm not surprised you have "issues" about 9/11, but at least show some bravery please.

That's all you can manage? Ad-hom in the face of a rational explanation that can be checked, S.O.P. for "conspiracy" apologists.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:I can see you know

Ux wrote:

I can see you know how to cut and paste but your attempt at an intellectual smokescreen is really pathetic.

Your reasoning cannot explain the fact that WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by plane or debris and not having any serious fires.

 

Won't you find it funny when deludedgod tells you that's his original work and shows you the proof?  Asshole.

 

Why is it that we are inundated with these people who first post something like this?  It's so terribly annoying.

 

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Huh

He might as well have said pigs fly. It's a ridiculous argument, spouted by a probable bigot.

If you weren't a coward, you wouldn't scapegoat Muslims.

Real atheists embrace science and logic, not Neocon lies.

 

 

 

 


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
"Why is it that we are

"Why is it that we are inundated with these people who first post something like this?  It's so terribly annoying."

Because we care about the truth whereas you merely have a cowardly vendetta against theists.

We care about the truth whereas you care about yourself and only yourself.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It's a ridiculous

Quote:

It's a ridiculous argument

Um...articulation?

I have a suggestion for you. You could admit right now that you are not sufficiently qualified in mechanical engineering or physics to hold this conversation and leave before it just gets embarassing.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Take a physics

Ux wrote:

Take a physics course sometime and be prepared to fail.

A child can tell you free-fall collapse doesn't happen without explosives. You problem is that you want a certain conclusion that involves Wiley Coyote Physics. I'm not surprised you have "issues" about 9/11, but at least show some bravery please.

Uhmm....

You should realize the deludedgod is a physicist. In other words, he passed his physics courses.

My father was an explosives expert for 40 years. (Well, probably only "expert" for 30 of them.) My brothers mostly followed in his footsteps. Pretty much unanymously, they say the WTC collapse does not look like a planned demolition. The give all kinds of jargon about lateral vs. vertical compression, and how that looks as it collapses, and so on.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:He might as well

Ux wrote:
He might as well have said pigs fly. It's a ridiculous argument, spouted by a probable bigot.

If you weren't a coward, you wouldn't scapegoat Muslims.

Real atheists embrace science and logic, not Neocon lies.

Oh, your rational, evidence-ridden argument has convinced me. Prediction: This thread moves to trollville in 3... 2... 1...

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
"My father was an explosives

"My father was an explosives expert for 40 years. (Well, probably only "expert" for 30 of them.) My brothers mostly followed in his footsteps."

Oh really? And what do your little buddies say about the collapse of WTC 7?


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:I have a

deludedgod wrote:

I have a suggestion for you. You could admit right now that you are not sufficiently qualified in mechanical engineering or physics to hold this conversation and leave before it just gets embarassing.

In fact I did take 3 physics courses, got A's in each one. But that's immaterial since falling objects, when they encounter solid objects connected to bedrock, do slow down. Yet the twin towers did not. Furthermore, the presence of numerous particles of thermate (military grade explosives, patent owned the US military) in the WTC dust is pretty damning.

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This is the last time I am

This is the last time I am going to ask before I leave this thread: Are you here with the intention of having a discussion about mechanical engineering, or aren't you?

Quote:

In fact I did take 3 physics courses, got A's in each one.

What level?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:I can see you know

Ux wrote:

I can see you know how to cut and paste but your attempt at an intellectual smokescreen is really pathetic.

Your reasoning cannot explain the fact that WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by plane or debris and not having any serious fires.

No serious fires? According to eyewitnesses and film, the entire building was on fire by mid-afternoon. This, coupled with the debris damage from earlier in the day, caused the collapse, according to a recent report.

The debris damage to WTC 7 is actually evidence for an uncontrolled collapse of the WTC. Any demolitions would've minimized fly so that it was non-existent.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:This is the

deludedgod wrote:

This is the last time I am going to ask before I leave this thread: Are you here with the intention of having a discussion about mechanical engineering, or aren't you?

Answer the question: Why did WTC 7 collapse? Or are you going to try to save face by acting upset before you scamper away with tail between legs?

Really, you people are worse than creationists in how you dodge good arguments, rely on wishful thinking, and appeal to bogus authority.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
toweer seven

Ux wrote:

I can see you know how to cut and paste but your attempt at an intellectual smokescreen is really pathetic.

Your reasoning cannot explain the fact that WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by plane or debris and not having any serious fires.

 

     Ux,  #7 went down after the twin towers, hit the deck and wiped out the underground supports integrity. Notice the collapse went sideways toward the twin towers.  In laymans terms (which I prefer) it pulled the rug out from under #7's feet.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:    

Jeffrick wrote:

     Ux,  #7 went down after the twin towers, hit the deck and wiped out the underground supports integrity. Notice the collapse went sideways toward the twin towers.  In laymans terms (which I prefer) it pulled the rug out from under #7's feet.

Wishful thinking. It was too far away. It fell straight down. You don't know or care about the facts.

You're arguing like a creationist.

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:In fact I did take

Ux wrote:

In fact I did take 3 physics courses, got A's in each one. But that's immaterial since falling objects, when they encounter solid objects connected to bedrock, do slow down. Yet the twin towers did not. Furthermore, the presence of numerous particles of thermate (military grade explosives, patent owned the US military) in the WTC dust is pretty damning.

Ah. I see. You believe it wasn't designed to be a controlled demolition, but was designed to look like an uncontrolled collapse.

Thermate is not an explosive. It is an incindiary. It's essentially thermite (powdered aluminum and metal oxide) with some sulfer. In other words, thermate would do exactly what the jet fuel was hypothesized to have done: melted the internal support structures. The physics of what you propose (a thermate demolition) would be essentially the exact same as the fuel-based demolition, only with thermate along the core instead of jet fuel.

So the validity of the free-fall evidence would be about the same for both scenarios.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
WTC7 was a short building,

WTC7 was a short building, making it more prone to thermally induced viscoplastic buckling, which, unsuprisingly, induced structural failure after a load point on the 13th floor gave way. The WTC7 had a very high load placed on each column, making the induced buckling of a single column prportionally more damaging than on a better distributed system like WTC1 or 2 (however, the compromised sections of WTC1/2 were far higher up and had more GPE). Considering that the building burned uncontrollably, it was unsuprising that it fell given that the small load/column ratio severely compromised the central structural integrity.

Quote:

In fact I did take 3 physics courses, got A's in each one.

What level?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Insulting

Ux wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

     Ux,  #7 went down after the twin towers, hit the deck and wiped out the underground supports integrity. Notice the collapse went sideways toward the twin towers.  In laymans terms (which I prefer) it pulled the rug out from under #7's feet.

Wishful thinking. It was too far away. It fell straight down. You don't know or care about the facts.

You're arguing like a creationist.

 

 

  I'm the one who was NOT useing insults to correct you, don't insult me.  Wishful thinking is what your doing, honestly your like a kid with a new toy. Basic engineering simply doesn't back up what you are hoping for.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Thermate

nigelTheBold wrote:

Thermate is not an explosive. It is an incindiary. It's essentially thermite (powdered aluminum and metal oxide) with some sulfer. In other words, thermate would do exactly what the jet fuel was hypothesized to have done: melted the internal support structures.

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt structural steel. Never has, never will.

And yes, thermate is the military variant of themite, it was used as an explosive. Chemical analysis shows it was embedded in solgel.

Why don't you take a little time to learn about the details? It's all in the details. Watch the above video.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yet the twin towers

Quote:

Yet the twin towers did not. Furthermore, the presence of numerous particles of thermate (military grade explosives, patent owned the US military) in the WTC dust is pretty damning.

I certainly hope your physics is better than your chemistry. Thermate employs the thermite reaction, a displacement reaction between Aluminium and a metal oxide, usually iron. It does not explode. It is an incendiary. It would produce an identical scenario to fuel-induced burning.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Jet fuel doesn't burn

Quote:

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt structural steel. Never has, never will.

It doesn't have to. It only has to reduce the stress tensor sufficiently for inward buckling. Read the explanation above.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:WTC7 was a

deludedgod wrote:

WTC7 was a short building, making it more prone to thermally induced viscoplastic buckling, which, unsuprisingly, induced structural failure after a load point on the 13th floor gave way. The WTC7 had a very high load placed on each column, making the induced buckling of a single column prportionally more damaging than on a better distributed system like WTC1 or 2 (however, the compromised sections of WTC1/2 were far higher up and had more GPE). Considering that the building burned uncontrollably, it was unsuprising that it fell given that the small load/column ratio severely compromised the central structural integrity.

Try as you might to obfuscate an obvious controlled demolition, any child can see it was imploded. The video even shows squibs.

The owner of the building announced it was going to be "pulled", which is demolitions jargon for imploded. BBC News said it had collapsed 30 minutes before it had. Word had gone out WTC was going to be collapsed.

You're resisting coming to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Why not just tell us which reason it is:

  • fear the truth, or
  • work for the government, or
  • are bigoted against Muslims, or
  • have some vendetta against religion, or
  • are cashing in from the homeland security boon, or
  • by some strange chance you're a Zionist.

Be honest.

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:any child can see it

Quote:

any child can see it was imploded

Of course it imploded. That's exactly what happens when GPE is transferred to KE from the upper part of the building and the transfer is sufficient to overcome the elastic potentials of the load points. Please read the explanation above.

Quote:

Be honest.

I don't need to remind you that you are the one who has refused to read the long explanation of precisely how these events occur.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:It doesn't

deludedgod wrote:

It doesn't have to. It only has to reduce the stress tensor sufficiently for inward buckling. Read the explanation above.

By that logic we'd be seeing steel buildings falling left and right. Any major highrise fire would result in collapse, according to you. Yet they don't. They never have, except on one day, the day when NORAD stood down : 9/11.

WTC was over-built specifically to withstand an airliner impact. Do some research if you don't believe it.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:By that logic we'd be

Quote:

By that logic we'd be seeing steel buildings falling left and right.

That is absurd. Please read the lengthy explanation above of how the multifactorial causal chain from aircraft impact resulted in the implosion of the building and why this causal chain necessitated the factors that resulted from the aircraft hitting the building.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Of course

deludedgod wrote:

Of course it imploded. That's exactly what happens when GPE is transferred to KE from the upper part of the building and the transfer is sufficient to overcome the elastic potentials of the load points. Please read the explanation above.

Really? Then tell me why WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11 and not on any other day.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Jet fuel doesn't

Ux wrote:

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt structural steel. Never has, never will.

And yes, thermate is the military variant of themite, it was used as an explosive. Chemical analysis shows it was embedded in solgel.

Why don't you take a little time to learn about the details? It's all in the details. Watch the above video.

An explosive would disperse the thermate before it could be effective. Thermate cannot be used as an explosive. Doesn't anybody bother to learn about their basic weaponry these days?

If you took a physics class, then you know that heat can be trapped. Also, you'll know that you don't need to melt steel to soften it. Also, you'll know that the WTC was filled with much more than 10,000 G of jet fuel -- there was literally tons of paper, plastics, paint, and other flammables.

People constantly forget that a standard fire in your standard office building can cause it to collapse (depending on conditions). Couple that with 10,000 of fuel to help spread the fire quickly, shock damage from the two jets, and you have the non-surprising result of a collapsed building.

Ux, I don't put it past the current administration to have engineered something like this. But I doubt they could've pulled it off; too many people would be involved to keep it quiet. Now, if you had evidence of a tiny nuke going off inside the building, you might be on to something, as that would only take one person. But to load a building with enough thermate to take it down as you suggest would be a massive undertaking, and would've left tons of physical evidence, such as eyewitness accounts of strange trucks, strange people moving throughout the building, and so on. It's not like the WTC was ever empty to give people free reign to load it full of thermate.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Really? Then tell

Ux wrote:

Really? Then tell me why WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11 and not on any other day.

Impact damage (as seen on the TV reports earlier in the day) and a massive fire (as seen on TV reports in the afternoon, and eyewitness accounts from firefighters and others in the area).

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Really? Then tell me

Quote:

Really? Then tell me why WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11 and not on any other day.

Because on "any other day" the upper part of the building didn't fall several stories into the lower part.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Please read

deludedgod wrote:

Please read the lengthy explanation above of how the multifactorial causal chain from aircraft impact resulted in the implosion of the building and why this causal chain necessitated the factors that resulted from the aircraft hitting the building.

Your causal chain theory (like any security blanket) does not explain the events that actually took place. It's wishful thinking.

Secondary explosions, squids flying out of all 3 buildings, the upper part of the building clearly exploding in mid-air.

But you're ignoring everything I'm saying.

MOLTEN IRON flowed out of the twin towers. Your theory doesn't explain it.

Explosions in the basement before the planes hit. Your theory doesn't explain it.

And on and on.

 

 

 

 

 


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Because on

deludedgod wrote:

Because on "any other day" the upper part of the building didn't fall several stories into the lower part.

That happened to the twin towers, NOT TO WTC 7.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Conspiracy theorists are the

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are like theists - they don't let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the upper part of the

Quote:

the upper part of the building clearly exploding in mid-air.

The upper part of the building did not explode. It fell through the ejected floors. Please read the section indicating why multiple points of ejecta from multiple explosives placed of various points throughout the building would not have resulted in the effects observed.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Conspiracy

MattShizzle wrote:

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are like theists - they don't let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Oh that was mature. Big fan of Beevis and Butthead, are you?

 


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:....In

deludedgod wrote:

....

In other words you have no intention to address anything that your bogus theory doesn't explain. Good bye.

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That happened to the

Quote:

That happened to the twin towers, NOT TO WTC 7.

 

Structural failure throughout the building resulting from viscoplascitiy induced crush-down collapse. That is equivalent to saying that the upper part fell through the lower part. In the WTC1, the upper part actually fell through ejected floors into the lower part, which triggered collapse, which did not happen in WTC7. However, WTC7 was much shorter, and the load failures resulting from viscoplastic buckling would have been sufficient to cause the building to implode.

Returing to the previous point, the reasons that buildings don't "fall over left and right" is because buildings are usually not exposed to extreme temperatures whilst simultaneously being ignited by over 10000 gallons of fuel while having multiple floors of ejecta being removed to substantially weaken the supports owing to an aircraft having flown into it. Again, this is all covered in the explanation. The physics work perfectly. Every causal factor sufficient to take down the building can be attributed directly to the aircraft. Explosives planted at strategic points both above and below the impact floor and ejecta points would produce a form of crush-up phase. The WTC fell via a crush-down collapse phase, not a crush-up.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Your causal chain

Quote:

Your causal chain theory (like any security blanket) does not explain the events that actually took place. It's wishful thinking.

Did you read it? Do you actually know how to compute thermally induced differential expansion?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Your causal chain

Ux wrote:

Your causal chain theory (like any security blanket) does not explain the events that actually took place. It's wishful thinking.

Secondary explosions, squids flying out of all 3 buildings, the upper part of the building clearly exploding in mid-air.

But you're ignoring everything I'm saying.

MOLTEN IRON flowed out of the twin towers. Your theory doesn't explain it.

Explosions in the basement before the planes hit. Your theory doesn't explain it.

And on and on.

"Squibs." Not squids. I'd be terribly surprised to see squids flying from the building.

The only molten metal I recall is that found under the wreckage, not "flowing out" of the buildings. I'd be very interested in reading about this -- do you have a reference? Also the one about the explosions in the basement. I'd heard that before, but I've never seen a reference to the original eyewitness reports, only reports of hearsay. References here would be great, as I love conspiracy theories.

Though the fire probably didn't completely melt the steel, the collapse of thousands (millions?) of tons of building would've generated incredible heat, certianly enough to melt steel.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
...

I hate to be a party-pooper, but:

This fellow is obviously a troll. He's not arguing at all, just trying to push emotional buttons with insults and suggestions of cowardly or racist motivations in others.

Really: He's not said one thing that could be construed as a rational argument, every retort is either a bald assertion or an ad-hom.

What's the point in arguing with a troll?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:The only

nigelTheBold wrote:

The only molten metal I recall is that found under the wreckage, not "flowing out" of the buildings. I'd be very interested in reading about this -- do you have a reference?

Good, you're open-minded. I have the video itself: video.google.com/videoplay

For your information, firemen in the building reported the fire was mostly out and containable when they arrived. The initial fireball used up most of the jet fuel.

 


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:t in arguing

JillSwift wrote:

t in arguing with a troll?

Because I'm not a troll: I'm trying to get you to think for yourself despite your closed minds.

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:He might as well

Ux wrote:

He might as well have said pigs fly. It's a ridiculous argument, spouted by a probable bigot.

If you weren't a coward, you wouldn't scapegoat Muslims.

Real atheists embrace science and logic, not Neocon lies.

deludedgod can defend his own character.  Don't accuse me of scapegoating Muslims or of embracing Neocon lies.  I am no bigot.  I'm not American.  I have no vested interest in defending the American governmen, so if there were repudible evidence that the events of 9/11 were staged with such tragic consequence I would find it reasonable to believe.  There is, however, no such evidence and instead evidence to the contrary.  What exactly would the purpose of the events have been were they staged anyhow?  The international community is well aware, if Americans are not, that the 'supposed' bombers were not Iraqi nor Afgani, and that the subsequent invasions of both those countries were sanctioned in the United States based on forgery and lies.  Typically such conspiracies, when attributed to governments, have some sort of point or end goal, but I'm afraid I see no such point beside the unsurprising lack of evidence.  Shove it.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:deludedgod can defend

Quote:

deludedgod can defend his own character.

I am not American either, I live 7000 miles from the United States and couldn't care less about the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks, nor am I concerned with "defending my character". I am here solely because I am concerned with defending the principles of mechanical engineering.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

deludedgod can defend his own character.

I am not American either, I live 7000 miles from the United States and couldn't care less about the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks, nor am I concerned with "defending my character". I am here solely because I am concerned with defending the principles of mechanical engineering.

There we have it.  I'm considering making this my signature.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."