Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 11:36 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:20 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also the planes were only going cruise speed.

Only? Facepalm

Quote:Also.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a

No tests were carried out - only calculations.
You keep making incorrect claims that are easily fact-checked.

Analysis can be synonymous with test. Objection overruled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:37 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:21 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:14 AM)ukatheist Wrote:  Hey you knobsack, usual top speed for a 767 at sea level is 403 mph (581mph at 30000 ft). To say that going 590 mph at a mere 1300 ft is 'essentially cruise speed' as though its not going particularly faster than normal is completely dishonest.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Correction. The top speed for a 767 at sea level is 0 mph, it would be inert.

The cruise speed of a 767 is 530, 60 miles over that is equivalent of us going 70 mph in a car to 78 mph. an increase of speed by only 11%. Which as has been stated before the tests conducted for the WTC was for speeds going 600 mph.

Ohmyfuckinggod.

"Sea level" refers to air pressure (14.7 psi, or 1013.20 hPa), not altitude. It's also dependent on temperature.

Also, first year physics: force = mass x acceleration

While the increase in speed may be 11% (I haven't checked the math but I'll give you that) that's only one component in the amount of force. A 767 weighs more than a car. As well, the difference in speed (acceleration) is 60 mph. Multiply that by the mass of the aircraft and you're going to get huge numbers.

Newton's Second Law, my friend.

You're so not right, you're not even wrong.

Done here. (I know, I said that before, but some assertions made by C_W here are so off the mark that they can't be ignored.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
25-01-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:36 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Only? Facepalm


No tests were carried out - only calculations.
You keep making incorrect claims that are easily fact-checked.

Analysis can be synonymous with test. Objection overruled.

No, it can't. That's why there are different words.

You are a moron.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-01-2017, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 01:33 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:20 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Mama this thread is off topic, it was never meant to facilitate a debate nor was it meant to be about any specific conspiracy theory.

Also the planes were only going cruise speed.

Also.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

Yeah jdog I've had to put up with quite a lot in here I to miss the brain cells I had at the start of this.

Except they didn't calculate the impact of a 707 at 600mph. They presumed that any aircraft hitting the tower would be flying slowly (not even cruise speed) at that altitude, perhaps lost in fog, low on fuel and seeking to land at one of the two nearby airports. There is no other scenario in which planes fully loaded with fuel would be recently taken-off and headed at full throttle into the towers.

They did actually another error for you rocket.

Quote:Secondly, the calculations for the impact of the 707s did not take into account-- as no one, prior to the 1975 fires could-- how intense a structure fire could be on a building of that size. They simply calculated whether or not the impact would bring down the towers.

They didn't even have a sprinkler system before 1975...

Quote:The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.


The continuing fire from internal flammable materials, in addition to the fuel's initially very intense burn, is what did the job. The damage from the impact of a 767 at 500+ mph was intense enough to blow clean through the building, shredding entire stairwells, water pipelines, and pretty much everything else it met, and to explode out the far side of the building. [Image: 9-11-attacks-twin-towers.png]

Only intense enough from the fuselage itself, and maybe an engine or two. Its damage to the other side was limited. And as for the explosion, that's a result of the fuel. which would have done less damage to the concrete lining the beams.

Quote:In the case of Building 7, such internal fires alone were enough to bring down the smaller skyscraper, though impact from falling debris and internal diesel fuel tanks did contribute a little to the collapse.
very puny fires.

Quote:While the bomb in 1993 did quite a bit of structural damage to the concrete floors-- on the bottom floors-- it was not even close in terms of damage done to the structure, nor was it accompanied by a fire of remotely similar power. And even then, major and very rapid work had to be done because of the damage to the retaining walls that held back the river water, as well as a number of structural members. The '93 bombers failed because their goal was to try to damage vertical structural columns in order to get one tower to topple into the other, bringing both down. That, as we have been saying, was not possible-- even the aircraft impact did not damage the vertical structural members to that point, which is why the collapse we see was the "pancaking" of floors breaking away from the vertical supports and falling onto the ones below, and triggering collapse because the vertical columns buckled once bereft of their lateral support.

You are comparing apples and oranges, in several ways.

Mate, mate, mate. In 1975 they didn't even have a sprinkler system in the twin towers, and it survived that fire. Secondly here's why the pancaking theory doesn't work in laymans terms. We can see both towers tipping when they begin to collapse, at least above the impact area. Both of them. Now they are going to continue going to the path of least resistance, which isn't straight down.

(25-01-2017 11:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:36 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Analysis can be synonymous with test. Objection overruled.

No, it can't. That's why there are different words.

You are a moron.

test

Grammatical error for you Chas.

(25-01-2017 11:37 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:21 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Correction. The top speed for a 767 at sea level is 0 mph, it would be inert.

The cruise speed of a 767 is 530, 60 miles over that is equivalent of us going 70 mph in a car to 78 mph. an increase of speed by only 11%. Which as has been stated before the tests conducted for the WTC was for speeds going 600 mph.

Ohmyfuckinggod.

"Sea level" refers to air pressure (14.7 psi, or 1013.20 hPa), not altitude. It's also dependent on temperature.

Also, first year physics: force = mass x acceleration

While the increase in speed may be 11% (I haven't checked the math but I'll give you that) that's only one component in the amount of force. A 767 weighs more than a car. As well, the difference in speed (acceleration) is 60 mph. Multiply that by the mass of the aircraft and you're going to get huge numbers.

Newton's Second Law, my friend.

You're so not right, you're not even wrong.

Done here. (I know, I said that before, but some assertions made by C_W here are so off the mark that they can't be ignored.)

See this is another perfect example of what it means to be synonymous Chas. And Heath, the sea level thing was a joke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 12:56 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Except they didn't calculate the impact of a 707 at 600mph. They presumed that any aircraft hitting the tower would be flying slowly (not even cruise speed) at that altitude, perhaps lost in fog, low on fuel and seeking to land at one of the two nearby airports. There is no other scenario in which planes fully loaded with fuel would be recently taken-off and headed at full throttle into the towers.

They did actually another error for you rocket.

No. They didn't. And they said so. You really piss me off when you blatantly lie.





The calculations were done for a 707 under conditions similar to that of the B-25 that had previously hit a tower... lost and trying to land, low on fuel. It's the only scenario they could envision in which a plane would be at that altitude and in that location. Planes taking off, fully loaded with fuel, climb as quickly as possible away from the city, and turn in a direction that does not take them over/near the skyscrapers. Because pilots aren't morons.

(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Secondly, the calculations for the impact of the 707s did not take into account-- as no one, prior to the 1975 fires could-- how intense a structure fire could be on a building of that size. They simply calculated whether or not the impact would bring down the towers.

They didn't even have a sprinkler system before 1975...

The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.

The impact was the primary contributor to the conditions that did bring down the tower, though. Are you being willfully dishonest?

The impact itself did not topple the buildings, as calculated. But as you'll see the designers tell you, they did not calculate for the fuel load of the aircraft (much less any resulting structure fire afterward) when calculating whether it would survive the impact in the longer term. As the engineer put it, "How could we?"

Also, the calculations were for a speed about half as fast, which as the chief engineer tells us, is 1/4th the impact energy due to the velocity squared rule.

But saying that the impact didn't bring down the towers is like saying that a person lighting a fuse isn't what blows up a firecracker, it's the fuse burning into the explosive powder. While technically true, it's missing the cause-and-effect of the sequence of events.

Also, while they didn't have a sprinkler system, they did have firefighting hookups (primary lines for hoses to be hooked up). After the 1975 fire, there was extensive water damage to the floors below the fire. The reason they hooked up a sprinkler system is because they became aware of the amount of damage such a fire could do in a building as difficult for firefighters to reach.


(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:The continuing fire from internal flammable materials, in addition to the fuel's initially very intense burn, is what did the job. The damage from the impact of a 767 at 500+ mph was intense enough to blow clean through the building, shredding entire stairwells, water pipelines, and pretty much everything else it met, and to explode out the far side of the building. [Image: 9-11-attacks-twin-towers.png]

Only intense enough from the fuselage itself, and maybe an engine or two. Its damage to the other side was limited. And as for the explosion, that's a result of the fuel. which would have done less damage to the concrete lining the beams.

No, no no no. Jet fuel doesn't "explode". It burns. It's a low-volatility fuel, chosen because its heat-per-mass is high (less weight, more energy). The "explosion" you're looking at in that picture is a "Hollywood" explosion, not an explosion at all but actually fuel burning as it is propelled into the air, so it looks flashy. All you're seeing there is the momentum of the fuel that made it clean through the building as it sprays out into the air and combusts. It is the mass of the aircraft as it traveled through the building at nearly 600mph that sprayed the fuel throughout (and through) the structure.

The damage was from impact. Period. The fuel then started heating up the exposed metal beams rapidly, followed by added heat from the structure fire. After an hour of continuing burn, something in the mangled structure failed, and caused a cascade.

(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Mate, mate, mate. In 1975 they didn't even have a sprinkler system in the twin towers, and it survived that fire. Secondly here's why the pancaking theory doesn't work in laymans terms. We can see both towers tipping when they begin to collapse, at least above the impact area. Both of them. Now they are going to continue going to the path of least resistance, which isn't straight down.

Re-read what I wrote. I said it was a combination of factors that brought each structure down. And the structure fire that took out 7WTC was not the same fire as the one you're talking about. Completely different buildings, internal designs, and structural issues. You can read the report to see what failed, and why.

In the case of 1 & 2 WTC, there's no failure of the vertical support columns until the floors begin to fall, and they are bereft of the lateral structure to which they are connected, at which [point] they fail like spaghetti. Fucking learn a bit about basic architecture, "mate".

Also, you need to learn that just because "there was a fire" does not mean they were the same in terms of location, in terms of which specific structural elements were attacked by the heat, and/or what other contributing factors added to the damage total, in order to cause total failure. Saying "well it survived the 1975 fire!" is like saying that you got punched in the stomach by a big guy and lived, and therefore it's impossible that the guy who got punched in the head by a professional boxer died. The comparison ignores the improved force of the latter punch, the location of said punch, and contributing factors such as the concussion or skull fracture that was not involved in the former, gut-punch scenario.

In other words, you are being willfully ignorant about this, and I'm baffled as to how you can look at yourself in the mirror.

Now quick, come back with a retort along the lines of "but you're the blind one, and I don't see how YOU can". I'll be waiting. Dodgy

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-01-2017, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 01:04 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 12:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  They did actually another error for you rocket.

No. They didn't. And they said so. You really piss me off when you blatantly lie.





The calculations were done for a 707 under conditions similar to that of the B-25 that had previously hit a tower... lost and trying to land, low on fuel. It's the only scenario they could envision in which a plane would be at that altitude and in that location. Planes taking off, fully loaded with fuel, climb as quickly as possible away from the city, and turn in a direction that does not take them over/near the skyscrapers. Because pilots aren't morons.

(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  They didn't even have a sprinkler system before 1975...

The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.

The impact was the primary contributor to the conditions that did bring down the tower, though. Are you being willfully dishonest?

The impact itself did not topple the buildings, as calculated. But as you'll see the designers tell you, they did not calculate for the fuel load of the aircraft (much less any resulting structure fire afterward) when calculating whether it would survive the impact in the longer term. As the engineer put it, "How could we?"

Also, the calculations were for a speed about half as fast, which as the chief engineer tells us, is 1/4th the impact energy due to the velocity squared rule.

But saying that the impact didn't bring down the towers is like saying that a person lighting a fuse isn't what blows up a firecracker, it's the fuse burning into the explosive powder. While technically true, it's missing the cause-and-effect of the sequence of events.

Also, while they didn't have a sprinkler system, they did have firefighting hookups (primary lines for hoses to be hooked up). After the 1975 fire, there was extensive water damage to the floors below the fire. The reason they hooked up a sprinkler system is because they became aware of the amount of damage such a fire could do in a building as difficult for firefighters to reach.


(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Only intense enough from the fuselage itself, and maybe an engine or two. Its damage to the other side was limited. And as for the explosion, that's a result of the fuel. which would have done less damage to the concrete lining the beams.

No, no no no. Jet fuel doesn't "explode". It burns. It's a low-volatility fuel, chosen because its heat-per-mass is high (less weight, more energy). The "explosion" you're looking at in that picture is a "Hollywood" explosion, not an explosion at all but actually fuel burning as it is propelled into the air, so it looks flashy. All you're seeing there is the momentum of the fuel that made it clean through the building as it sprays out into the air and combusts. It is the mass of the aircraft as it traveled through the building at nearly 600mph that sprayed the fuel throughout (and through) the structure.

The damage was from impact. Period. The fuel then started heating up the exposed metal beams rapidly, followed by added heat from the structure fire. After an hour of continuing burn, something in the mangled structure failed, and caused a cascade.

(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Mate, mate, mate. In 1975 they didn't even have a sprinkler system in the twin towers, and it survived that fire. Secondly here's why the pancaking theory doesn't work in laymans terms. We can see both towers tipping when they begin to collapse, at least above the impact area. Both of them. Now they are going to continue going to the path of least resistance, which isn't straight down.

Re-read what I wrote. I said it was a combination of factors that brought each structure down. And the structure fire that took out 7WTC was not the same fire as the one you're talking about. Completely different buildings, internal designs, and structural issues. You can read the report to see what failed, and why.

In the case of 1 & 2 WTC, there's no failure of the vertical support columns until the floors begin to fall, and they are bereft of the lateral structure to which they are connected, at which [point] they fail like spaghetti. Fucking learn a bit about basic architecture, "mate".

Also, you need to learn that just because "there was a fire" does not mean they were the same in terms of location, in terms of which specific structural elements were attacked by the heat, and/or what other contributing factors added to the damage total, in order to cause total failure. Saying "well it survived the 1975 fire!" is like saying that you got punched in the stomach by a big guy and lived, and therefore it's impossible that the guy who got punched in the head by a professional boxer died. The comparison ignores the improved force of the latter punch, the location of said punch, and contributing factors such as the concussion or skull fracture that was not involved in the former, gut-punch scenario.

In other words, you are being willfully ignorant about this, and I'm baffled as to how you can look at yourself in the mirror.

Now quick, come back with a retort along the lines of "but you're the blind one, and I don't see how YOU can". I'll be waiting. Dodgy

Rocket you and I could go on for days, I'm sure, how would you feel about a little reprise? Until I get all of the stuff organized that should be organized for a good and proper debate about 911?

Do understand that this thread likely won't pop up for a few weeks, I have very little motivation to debate such matters in the first place. This entire thing only STARTED because certain people kept asking questions, calling me evasive, hurling insults at me, not bothering to listen to reason when I said it would be a futile endeavor. I mean I've seen this all before, I throw out this tripe in an disorderly fashion which in turn gets more tripe in just the same disorderly fashion. Aside from the reasons that I didn't want to be involved in a debate about conspiracies in the first place, I also know that if you do start a topic about conspiracies, don't do it in the middle of a thread, do it in a new thread.

But I was just trying to please your demands. You guys all got what you wanted, you know my stand on this now, and you have some evidence as well. More will come, but this fashion of he said she said really has to stop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 01:02 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Or, you could admit you lied about what calculations were made.

I brought evidence: the words of the chief engineer himself. Out of his own mouth. On camera.

You brought... assertions.

Edit to Add: I have no reason to debate you on this unless you are willing to demonstrate a basic level of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-01-2017, 01:06 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or, you could admit you lied about what calculations were made.

I brought evidence: the words of the chief engineer himself. Out of his own mouth. On camera.

You brought... assertions.

Edit to Add: I have no reason to debate you on this unless you are willing to demonstrate a basic level of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

He's just like every idiot that's ever tried to debate this topic. #AlternativeFacts

I've been waiting for Psink (whatever his name was) to show up in this thread...too bad the two of them can't have a circle jerk with two people..


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 01:29 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 02:20 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or, you could admit you lied about what calculations were made.

I brought evidence: the words of the chief engineer himself. Out of his own mouth. On camera.

You brought... assertions.

Edit to Add: I have no reason to debate you on this unless you are willing to demonstrate a basic level of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

I have no reason to continue proving your and everyone else's errors. You can not deny I've done a good deal of that. Correcting other people's mistakes.

But if you want. I will disprove your chief engineer.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but NIST could not locate the documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis"

And then there's the 767 being fully loaded with fuel, it only had 10,000 gallons of fuel, a far cry from having 24,000 that is the maximum for the most capable of 767s.

"At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board."

And then for the fuel load not being considered, he admits to the best of his knowledge that it wasn't considered. IE meaning, he doesn't know if it was or wasn't. Given how many YEARS ago that was, he could have very easily have forgotten the finer details of the plan.

And then he compares the fuel loads which is actually again. Wrong. the fuel loads of the 707 and the 767 match accordingly. Even the 13,000 gallons of the 707 with the smallest fuel tank could match the 10,000 gallons the 767s had on them that day.

That's three errors for your engineer and one error for you.

(25-01-2017 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.

(25-01-2017 12:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The impact was the primary contributor to the conditions that did bring down the tower, though. Are you being willfully dishonest?

You replied to what you yourself said... because of a quotation error on my part. ONE ERROR FOR CELESTIAL WONDER! But seriously though Rocket, you didn't even notice that... soo... another error for you as well. I would haphazard to say that... this indicates that I am more observant than you are. I would almost never use asterisks around a word. Also that I didn't remember writing it because I didn't write it, and you didn't remember writing it even though you did write it.

(25-01-2017 01:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  He's just like every idiot that's ever tried to debate this topic. #AlternativeFacts

I've been waiting for Psink (whatever his name was) to show up in this thread...too bad the two of them can't have a circle jerk with two people..

You know generally if two sides get into a debate and one side keeps on making errors the side that is making the errors is usually in the wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 01:39 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I, for one, would not mind seeing C_W and RocketSurgeon76 chatting to one another in the 'Boxing ring'. Angel


(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have no reason to continue proving your and everyone else's errors. You can not deny I've done a good deal of that. Correcting other people's mistakes.

Facepalm

Again you miss the point. Well... my point any way.

YOU are the one who is supposed to be providing evidence. Not nit-piking select details in others responses.

(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But if you want. I will disprove your chief engineer.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but NIST could not locate the documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis"

Um... so hearsay, then? Consider

Still.. have fun in the boxing-ring you two. Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: