You cannot argue against this
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you due to bigger experience.
FTFY
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I thought the first part was horrifying enough >.>
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Foothill wrote:
it is more likely that either the architecture was shoddy, the building materials were substandard, or it had help. I guess the ramifications from any one of those three was worse then just blaming it on fire.
Your presumption however is full of assumptions itself which lead to a conclusion. For starters what exactly is "shoddy"? Should every building ever built be built to withstand two 747s hitting it dead on? What about 4 of them? Or 8? Should every building also be built to withstand a magnitude 10 earthquake? 11? And then there is the assumption that it wasn't sound in the first place. What if every building was built to withstand a magnitude 8 40 years ago but now the standard is 11, so then should every old building be evacuated until new buildings up to the new code be built? And how does one determine if the building is up to code in the first place? If 40 years ago the test for a magnitude 8 building worked for those buildings but now there is a new way to test it should all of the old buildings be torn down and rebuilt? Not to mention how can we be sure that the building can withstand those 8 planes in the first place. What if we fly 8 planes at the north wall and it holds up, should we then presume the south wall will hold as well? What about a corner? What about flying them at a 30 degree angle to one wall? Complexity alone guarantees that the vast number of possible eventualities cannot be accounted for and most definitely cannot be afforded. And the post analyses are nothing but conjectures but the conspiracy alternatives require a vast network of assumptions which are not supported by evidence or even the nature of humans.
I really don't get what point you're trying to make. It's impossible to account for every possibility but what we can do is build better buildings. The building's construction were designed on a thin line in order to minimize construction costs. This led them to use architectural principles that were untested on structures of that size. By placing over half of the supporting steel in the outside walls, they managed to build two very large office buildings for a reduced cost. However, hindsight shows that was a grave design error. The concentration of structural supports in the outside walls and center core could be the building's undoing. When I watch the video, it is almost like the buildings are unzipped as they collapsed. A building that is unable to resist the force of a partial collapse is, IMHO, shoddy architecture. And they were Boeing 767-200's BTW, not 747's.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Foothill wrote:
Yes, with enough oxygen fire will get hot enough to melt iron but smelting requires that air be injected
Your conjecture about what happened and how it happened (both) are incorrect. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center[^]
Your link contains these very words: FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." My original statement was counter to OG's post that people believe that fire cannot melt steel. I was making the point that in the circumstances surrounding the event, they are, in fact, correct that a fire inside a building, even when fueled by aviation kerosene, cannot get hot enough to melt the steel supports. Weaken yes, melt no. I am sorry if I am sounding a little angry but I get irritated when I present fact-based counter arguments to commonly held 9/11 beliefs and people just jump over the facts and think that I am trying to take the side of the conspiracy theorists. I don't for a minute agree with them.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Your link contains these very words: FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." My original statement was counter to OG's post that people believe that fire cannot melt steel. I was making the point that in the circumstances surrounding the event, they are, in fact, correct that a fire inside a building, even when fueled by aviation kerosene, cannot get hot enough to melt the steel supports. Weaken yes, melt no. I am sorry if I am sounding a little angry but I get irritated when I present fact-based counter arguments to commonly held 9/11 beliefs and people just jump over the facts and think that I am trying to take the side of the conspiracy theorists. I don't for a minute agree with them.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
I am sorry if I am sounding a little angry but I get irritated when I present fact-based counter arguments to...
This... is... THE SOAPBOX. I'll go get my coat
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
jschell wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at but the theory of the collapse is not about "melting" but rather about "failing" which is different.
OG was talking about melting.
jschell wrote:
And the building came down.
More buildings came down then there were planes, was it not?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Your link contains these very words: FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." My original statement was counter to OG's post that people believe that fire cannot melt steel. I was making the point that in the circumstances surrounding the event, they are, in fact, correct that a fire inside a building, even when fueled by aviation kerosene, cannot get hot enough to melt the steel supports. Weaken yes, melt no. I am sorry if I am sounding a little angry but I get irritated when I present fact-based counter arguments to commonly held 9/11 beliefs and people just jump over the facts and think that I am trying to take the side of the conspiracy theorists. I don't for a minute agree with them.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
My original statement was counter to OG's post that people believe that fire cannot melt steel. I was making the point that in the circumstances surrounding the event, they are, in fact, correct that a fire inside a building, even when fueled by aviation kerosene, cannot get hot enough to melt the steel supports.
And? Arguing either for or against the melting point of steel and circumstances for it are irrelevant for for 9/11 because melting steel did not cause the failure.
-
I really don't get what point you're trying to make. It's impossible to account for every possibility but what we can do is build better buildings. The building's construction were designed on a thin line in order to minimize construction costs. This led them to use architectural principles that were untested on structures of that size. By placing over half of the supporting steel in the outside walls, they managed to build two very large office buildings for a reduced cost. However, hindsight shows that was a grave design error. The concentration of structural supports in the outside walls and center core could be the building's undoing. When I watch the video, it is almost like the buildings are unzipped as they collapsed. A building that is unable to resist the force of a partial collapse is, IMHO, shoddy architecture. And they were Boeing 767-200's BTW, not 747's.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
I really don't get what point you're trying to make. It's impossible to account for every possibility but what we can do is build better buildings.
No we cannot. Just as we cannot build better cars. One of the known factors in reducing automobile deaths is better safety equipment. The safety equipment for professional race car drivers is much more than the normal consumer and professional drivers almost always walk (literally) from crashes that would lead to deaths for consumer. So why not make consumer cars better? Simple - because it costs too much (not to mention significant inconveniences.) Same for buildings. I presume every building could be made capable of withstanding a magnitude 11 earthquake. There is no evidence that such a quake would occur but magnitude 10s have been posited so safety would suggest going higher. But again the cost is significant. And requiring code changes for buildings to survive an 11 are always subjective because of the vast number of variables that cannot be accounted for. Buildings all the time are built and problems are found with conditions that have nothing to do with extreme conditions. For example failure to account for ground stability, failure to account for wind (building sway), failure to account for impacts on local conditions (wind tunnels created by the building), etc. None of that of course even accounts for fraud, incompetence, beauracy, etc. And the world can't wait for all of that to be sorted out.
Foothill wrote:
The building's construction were designed on a thin line in order to minimize construction costs.
Do you know how construction works in general? Or even commerce in general? Businesses that want to succeed strive to reduce costs. Not to mention that many 'large' engineering projects often are based on principals that are based on testing and not practice. Bridges, building, nuclear reactors, tunnels, etc. Reality is that if one needed to wait for practical before using it then everyone would still be sleeping on the ground and eating rats raw (can't catch large prey without testing something.)
Foothill wrote:
And they were Boeing 767-200's BTW, not 747's.
And that is relevant how?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
More buildings came down then there were planes, was it not?
Yes, because the structure integrity of those failed as well.
jschell wrote:
Yes, because the structure integrity of those failed as well.
From awe and shock? Tell me, how does structural integrity fail at the bottom in a jenga tower, if we only pick pieces from the middle? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Foothill wrote:
My original statement was counter to OG's post that people believe that fire cannot melt steel. I was making the point that in the circumstances surrounding the event, they are, in fact, correct that a fire inside a building, even when fueled by aviation kerosene, cannot get hot enough to melt the steel supports.
And? Arguing either for or against the melting point of steel and circumstances for it are irrelevant for for 9/11 because melting steel did not cause the failure.
This we can agree on. However, not all people see it that way. Since there has been so little official information about the cause of the collapse, some people have sort of filled in the blanks themselves.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Foothill wrote:
I really don't get what point you're trying to make. It's impossible to account for every possibility but what we can do is build better buildings.
No we cannot. Just as we cannot build better cars. One of the known factors in reducing automobile deaths is better safety equipment. The safety equipment for professional race car drivers is much more than the normal consumer and professional drivers almost always walk (literally) from crashes that would lead to deaths for consumer. So why not make consumer cars better? Simple - because it costs too much (not to mention significant inconveniences.) Same for buildings. I presume every building could be made capable of withstanding a magnitude 11 earthquake. There is no evidence that such a quake would occur but magnitude 10s have been posited so safety would suggest going higher. But again the cost is significant. And requiring code changes for buildings to survive an 11 are always subjective because of the vast number of variables that cannot be accounted for. Buildings all the time are built and problems are found with conditions that have nothing to do with extreme conditions. For example failure to account for ground stability, failure to account for wind (building sway), failure to account for impacts on local conditions (wind tunnels created by the building), etc. None of that of course even accounts for fraud, incompetence, beauracy, etc. And the world can't wait for all of that to be sorted out.
Foothill wrote:
The building's construction were designed on a thin line in order to minimize construction costs.
Do you know how construction works in general? Or even commerce in general? Businesses that want to succeed strive to reduce costs. Not to mention that many 'large' engineering projects often are based on principals that are based on testing and not practice. Bridges, building, nuclear reactors, tunnels, etc. Reality is that if one needed to wait for practical before using it then everyone would still be sleeping on the ground and eating rats raw (can't catch large prey without testing something.)
Foothill wrote:
And they were Boeing 767-200's BTW, not 747's.
And that is relevant how?
The point I am trying to make that the buildings' architectural design was doomed to failure from inception. The failure is in the tube/core design because once a critical structural failure starts anywhere the entire structure collapses. Any large fire spanning more than three floors could have caused a total collapse. I am saying that their collapse was inevitable. Other standard high-rise designs would fair much better as we have witnessed. I can't remember where but there was a fire in China where an entire 40+ story building was entirely on fire but when the fire died out, the steel structure was still there. If the builders had gone with a more tried and true design, we would still have the original Twin Towers. It would have take years to repair the damage but they would still be there. The psychological impact of that day would not have been as poignant and the people of the U.S. might not have been so keen on lashing out at other countries.
jschell wrote:
Foothill wrote:
And they were Boeing 767-200's BTW, not 747's.
And that is relevant how?
A Boeing 747 is much more massive than a 767. I would think that if one hit the World Trade Center, it would have cut the building in half causing an immediate collapse therefore, as a society, this debate over what caused their collapse wouldn't be taking place; but that is just conjecture.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
This we can agree on. However, not all people see it that way. Since there has been so little official information about the cause of the collapse, some people have sort of filled in the blanks themselves.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
jschell wrote:
Yes, because the structure integrity of those failed as well.
From awe and shock? Tell me, how does structural integrity fail at the bottom in a jenga tower, if we only pick pieces from the middle? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Foothill wrote:
Since there has been so little official information about the cause of the collapse,
NIST produced quite a bit of official analysis of the collapse.
True, but most people are not going to take the time to read an almost 300 page report containing a lot of industry-specific language that they don't understand.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
The point I am trying to make that the buildings' architectural design was doomed to failure from inception. The failure is in the tube/core design because once a critical structural failure starts anywhere the entire structure collapses. Any large fire spanning more than three floors could have caused a total collapse. I am saying that their collapse was inevitable. Other standard high-rise designs would fair much better as we have witnessed. I can't remember where but there was a fire in China where an entire 40+ story building was entirely on fire but when the fire died out, the steel structure was still there. If the builders had gone with a more tried and true design, we would still have the original Twin Towers. It would have take years to repair the damage but they would still be there. The psychological impact of that day would not have been as poignant and the people of the U.S. might not have been so keen on lashing out at other countries.
jschell wrote:
Foothill wrote:
And they were Boeing 767-200's BTW, not 747's.
And that is relevant how?
A Boeing 747 is much more massive than a 767. I would think that if one hit the World Trade Center, it would have cut the building in half causing an immediate collapse therefore, as a society, this debate over what caused their collapse wouldn't be taking place; but that is just conjecture.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
The point I am trying to make that the buildings' architectural design was doomed to failure from inception.
Not sure exactly what you mean. Certainly the buildings continued to stand until hit by the planes. Nothing suggested up until then that there were problems. A bomb was set off under one of them in 1993 and that didn't take it down.
Foothill wrote:
Any large fire spanning more than three floors could have caused a total collapse.
In 1975 there was a fire on 6 floors. And that didn't take it down either. Do you have an article perhaps before 2003 that suggests the design was flawed? Or a post 9/11 study that suggests that, per the original design and not via hindsight, that the architects and structural engineers that did the analysis were lax and/or incompetent?
-
Foothill wrote:
The point I am trying to make that the buildings' architectural design was doomed to failure from inception.
Not sure exactly what you mean. Certainly the buildings continued to stand until hit by the planes. Nothing suggested up until then that there were problems. A bomb was set off under one of them in 1993 and that didn't take it down.
Foothill wrote:
Any large fire spanning more than three floors could have caused a total collapse.
In 1975 there was a fire on 6 floors. And that didn't take it down either. Do you have an article perhaps before 2003 that suggests the design was flawed? Or a post 9/11 study that suggests that, per the original design and not via hindsight, that the architects and structural engineers that did the analysis were lax and/or incompetent?
jschell wrote:
Not sure exactly what you mean.
I mean that, with the tube/core design used for the towers, if enough of the structure failed, a total collapse would occur. If another design approach was used, they would still be standing.
jschell wrote:
A bomb was set off under one of them in 1993 and that didn't take it down.
Yes, but the bomb was set off outside the thick concrete foundation wall and did not damage any part of the building that was a critical load bearing member.
jschell wrote:
Do you have an article perhaps before 2003 that suggests the design was flawed?
Not from before 2003 but the NIST report (same one that you mentioned in the other post), pages 150-154 outline the initial collapse vectors. It is apparent that when the upper floors collapsed, they caused a chain reaction; debris fell ripping through the thin support trusses between the outside wall and the center core causing the support wall on each floor to peel outward as the collapse descended. Incompetence is not really a factor. It was a piss poor design choice from the beginning.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
jschell wrote:
Not sure exactly what you mean.
I mean that, with the tube/core design used for the towers, if enough of the structure failed, a total collapse would occur. If another design approach was used, they would still be standing.
jschell wrote:
A bomb was set off under one of them in 1993 and that didn't take it down.
Yes, but the bomb was set off outside the thick concrete foundation wall and did not damage any part of the building that was a critical load bearing member.
jschell wrote:
Do you have an article perhaps before 2003 that suggests the design was flawed?
Not from before 2003 but the NIST report (same one that you mentioned in the other post), pages 150-154 outline the initial collapse vectors. It is apparent that when the upper floors collapsed, they caused a chain reaction; debris fell ripping through the thin support trusses between the outside wall and the center core causing the support wall on each floor to peel outward as the collapse descended. Incompetence is not really a factor. It was a piss poor design choice from the beginning.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
It is apparent that when the upper floors collapsed, they caused a chain reaction; debris fell ripping through the thin support trusses between the outside wall and the center core causing the support wall on each floor to peel outward as the collapse descended. Incompetence is not really a factor. It was a piss poor design choice from the beginning.
You outlined the analyze of the failure and then conclude from that that the original design was flawed. That is not a just nor valid conclusion. So again I am still looking for something that suggests that the original design and the original structural analysis on the design was analyzed and the analysis and/or process that was followed was flawed. And for it to be "shoddy" there should also be some element that suggest that the analysis and/or process was known to be defective.
-
True, but most people are not going to take the time to read an almost 300 page report containing a lot of industry-specific language that they don't understand.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Not sure what you point is. There was an official, very official, analysis. It explains the factors in detail. As one would expect. There have been summaries, in various medias, of those that did read it and reported on the points that they found significant.