Mojlnir Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I will accept your silence as an admition of defeat. I am also requesting a moderator lock this thread before it becomes a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakkara Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 WTF!? Silence? You gave me no more then an hour to respond! I am editing my post to add quotes damn you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakkara Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 Ok, editing done, NOW you may bark! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Alright, I apologize if you feel you did not have sufficient time to respond. Please, by all means respond. However, I must tell you that I do not appreciate being sworn at and I have already requested that this thread be locked. Since there is no moderator on the boards at this time, there should be sufficient time for you to craft a response. Watch your tongue though, because we are being watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakkara Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 I agree that we should keep this civilized, sorry for my earlier remarks, but I am getting extremely frustrated by certain aspects of your and White Wolf's posting style. Oh and I am not going to change posting style because "we're being watched", I don't need a nanny :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 At this point our debate is becoming semantic. It is clearly evident that we are not going to agree, and that we both think the other is dead wrong. I will address your the comments of your last post as well as include some additional information whcih I have located that I feel vindicates my point. First: I find your posting style to be frustrating as well and I accept your apology. If this is going to remain open, we need to be civil, and I will do my best. ;) Second: I have read the sites you posted and addressed them, and White Wolf has also clearly read the sites and addressed them as well. See, we are reading your info as well. I was simply pointing out that you were accusing us of incapable of reading, when from this perspective it appears that you are doing the same thing. Third: It is my opinion that your arguments have been countered very well, as well as being backed by significant amounts of scientific data. This is, however, a matter of perspective again. Fourth: Implosion mean that the building fell upon itself and did not tip over on its side. This is a product of the location of the airplane impacts. Had the buildings been damaged at lower levels (and keep all other factors the same) the towers may very well have fallen over on their sides. That some of the walls were forced outward is a function of the forces exerted and is covered in the additional information that I have included at the bottom of this post. Fifth: Its all about angle when we're talking about the Pentagon. The report that I provided the link to discusses the damage caused by the plane and why much of it was internal to the building itself. Because the plane did not come down on top of the Pentagon, there was much less exterior damage than would have been otherwise visible. It is important to remember that the plane was flown deliberately into the building, it did not "crash" in the traditional sense of the word. The result you is what you see in the pictures as well as in the report. Note the location of damaged and destroyed columns that are laid out in the report, as well as the location of the flight recorder. Okay, there you go. I tried to address each of your points in order, as well as explain issues where you indicated there were unclear statements. Included below is a link to more research (done by MIT) on the collapes, much of which I have found to be extremely helpful. More MIT articles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 As I said, I use rods and pieces too, NOT JUST FOIL! Jesus, if you cannot read I will just leave parts out next time, since you only focus on the things you want to read, and ignore everything else I say! Sorry, but I can really get frustraded by this kind of behavour. The fact is that after the thing finishes burning, there usually is no molten heap of aluminium and casing, but instead the objects that didn't burn up completely are still very recognizable. Since we got a digital camera last week, I can make some movies or pictures to prove this. The circumstances of a large aluminium construct being subjected to the relatively gentle heat of a fire is far different to aluminium foil and/or small rods being subjected to the intense but short lived heat of a firework. This difference could very well cause aluminium to melt rather than burn. That is the point I was making. Secondly, I did not ignore the facts I didn't like, I merely missed out the words 'or small rod', so my sentence: This, combined with the fact that, due to it being in foil form, rather than the soild form it is used in plane construction, the reaction is much more rapid, is what causes the aluminium to burn. Would have read: This, combined with the fact that, due to it being in foil or small rod form, rather than the soild form it is used in plane construction, the reaction is much more rapid, is what causes the aluminium to burn. ( :oops: just noticed my spelling mistake - 'soild' instead of 'solid'.) Please give me an example not 9/11 related. And I hold the opinion that mountain or pentagon makes little difference. ALL other plane crashes to date prove my point. Firstly, why should I give you one not 9/11 related? Are you trying to say the plane crashing in Pittsburgh is faked as well? Secondly, as I said, you give me an example of any plane crash similar in the ways I have stated to the Pentagon crash. You can't compare the results of a car crashing into a stone wall at 30 with a car crashing into a granite wall at 60 and expect to get the same results. Similarly, you cannot get the same results in plane crashes unless you compare plane crashes of comparable situations. Damage to the exterior on ONE SIDE yes, and not even on the entire lenght of the building! And as I have said before it is more to do with the location of the damage, not how much damage there was. Yes, from the moment that the collapse begins to the point of complete destruction it is certain what happened. However, like I have been saying, the damage to tower #2 was not sufficient to trigger such a thing, and IF it could trigger such a thing the tower would NOT have collapsed in the way it did. If we use the theory you provided, it would have instead caused the external support structure on ONE side of the building to fail, while the other side would be completely intact. This would cause the tower to bend over, and the following things could happen then: Yes, you are right as far as you went, but what happened was that the support structure on one side collapsed, so the rest of the support structure on that floor was overloaded and collapsed as well, so the entire support structure ended up being compromised, so the top ten or so floors fell straight down, not to the side. Either the floors of the upper levels come to rest on the floors of the lower leves, where the support structure is still intact, and the central core and the other undamaged parts of the external support structure (which are much more then just 50%), will hold the levels of the undamaged sides in place (partial collapse but tower remains standing, at least for a while) Or, the same scenario as above could happen, but the lower levels of the damaged side cannot halt the collapsing upper levels, the rest of the supports on all sides will give way, and the tower will collapse to one side. You are very close to what we are saying happened here. The only thing is that, as it was the entire floors crashing down, not just one side of them, this caused the tower to collapse straight down, not to the side. Or, same scenario, but instead the central core and support structure will be weakened and/or fail due to the dislocation of the levels on the other side. The tower will collapse to one side, but less then in case #2, since the opposing side will obtain more lateral velocity. It is impossible to have damage such as this result in sudden structural failure throughout the entire level. Unless the support structure being compromised in one area overloads the support structure across the rest of that floor, which causes it to be compromised as well. I think only jetfuel could have been generating enough heat to weaken the support structure' date=' not fires generated by materials present in the tower. Most jetfuel exploded OUTSIDE tower 2 (which can clearly be seen on every bit of videofootage of this crash' date=' I need no website to tell me that!) [/quote''] If you read Mojlnir's links, you see that steel softens at 425C and loses half it's strength at 650C, I wonder why you leave out the next sentances:"But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. (...) Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire." In short, I don't. I merely simplify it and put it into my own words, as follows: This, on its own, is not sufficient to cause the collapse The steel is not directly exposed, most of it is incased in concrete. This does not stop it getting sufficiently hot, especially in a non uniform manner, as Mojlnir's links describe. In fact, concrete is not a very good conductor of heat, so could have contributed to the steel getting hotter on one side than the other. Also, it is unlikely that there was sufficient oxygen to generate much heat Oxygen is not needed to generate heat. If you are talking about oxygen feeding fires, which generate heat, then there obviously was, going by the clouds of billowing smoke coming from the towers. AND like mentioned before, but still unaddressed by you, the fires were in the process of dying out (If the collapse was triggered remotely, this was probably the real reason why they chose to collapse it at that time). This was probably down to pure random chance. It just so happened that the structure was hanging on by a thread through the fire and finally gave up the ghost as the fires were dying down. If you've ever seen housefires which totally gut the houses concerned, you would see that parts of the structure, and sometimes the whole structure, can collapse at any point during the fire and sometimes after the fire has been put out. No you have not. Even IF the fires have been the cause of the collapse, which is unlikely in the case of tower #2, the tower would have collapsed to one side, for the reasons stated previously, not in an identical fashion as tower #1. The fires on their own are not the cause of the collapse. The uneven heating action of the fires on the steel support structure plus the location of the damage caused by the initial impact were the cause of the collapse. P.S. I am puzzled as to why you are frustrated at my posting style. I am merely putting my own views on this subject and explaining why I think you are wrong. If I have offended you in some way, I apologise, that was not my intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrol Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Going in direction of flamewar, locked, and put to rest. -The Raven-bah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrol Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 This is the debate area after all, I'm feeling a bit generous, so topic is reopened, However it's on probation, head towards a flame war, or flame anyone and it's locked again, and I'll add strikes to those involved if it becomes that serious. So continue your convo guys, I'll be watching. -The Raven-out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Cheers, Elrol. :D For my part, I'll keep it civil, only outlining points I want to make, not flaming or anything of that nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.