Purdue computer simulation of 9/11 attacks

[worth]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

From the point of view of someone who needs a conspiracy to make sense of his world, it is indeed worth mentioning since it helps disqualify something contrary to his belief.

All sides of an argument engage in the practice, some more than others.

Cowperson

Sure...whatever you say.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

Sure...whatever you say.

That sure doesn't help present the other side. If you have something worthwhile, post it.

[Burninator]

I thought the bulk of the structural support were the exterior walls on the twin towers? Unlike most towers where the core is the mainsupport structure.

[ken0042]

^^^ Ah, yes. The "you are an idiot" rolling of the eyes when somebody doesn't believe a conspiracy theorist.

Edit- that wasn't meant for you, Burninator.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I thought the bulk of the structural support were the exterior walls on the twin towers? Unlike most towers where the core is the mainsupport structure.

Maybe so, I'm not 100% sure, but in either case, the methods used to hold a building up, are entirely different than what is required to keep a plane from crashing right through it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I thought the bulk of the structural support were the exterior walls on the twin towers? Unlike most towers where the core is the mainsupport structure.

Apparently there were both. What we could see from news footage from that day was two sides of each building comprimised. What this video shows was what we couldn't see; and that was the central core.

With the central core and two sides gone; I now see how the buildings came down "so easily."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Apparently there were both. What we could see from news footage from that day was two sides of each building comprimised. What this video shows was what we couldn't see; and that was the central core.

With the central core and two sides gone; I now see how the buildings came down "so easily."

Yep. And prior to the towers falling, you could see the wall bending in on itself.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by worth

Perhaps predictable, but is it worth mentioning? Absolutley.

No, it's not worth mentioning. It's no more worthy of mention than the fact that Stephen Harper has never told us whether or not he is sexually attracted to dogs. It's a fact...he may or may not be...so why won't he address the issue? He's just not talking! What's he afraid of?

[worth]

stephen harper being attracted to dogs probably isn't going to impact the way the country is run.

having funding coming from a questionable source when you state the research is independent is misleading and could very well impact the validity of the scientific research.

And PS, I never once said in this thread that I believed the so called conspiracy theory. Personally I think the argument is up for debate. I suppose by most of your responses, there should be no debate, and those that would consider an alternative theory are all completly braindead. All i've heard here is how conspiracy theorists disregard anything that doesn't apply to their side of the story. Perhaps the other side is doing the same?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Apparently there were both. What we could see from news footage from that day was two sides of each building comprimised. What this video shows was what we couldn't see; and that was the central core.

With the central core and two sides gone; I now see how the buildings came down "so easily."

The perimeter columns supported virtually all lateral loads, such as wind loads, and shared the gravity loads with the core columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_T...uctural_design

It does appear to be both, which is still more than most office towers. Regardless I don't dispute the fact that any building was hit by a plane. Nor I am surprised they fell down. I have a hard time understanding how some people don't believe that a building getting hit a plane must have some other factor that must have took it down.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by worth

And PS, I never once said in this thread that I believed the so called conspiracy theory. Personally I think the argument is up for debate. I suppose by most of your responses, there should be no debate, and those that would consider an alternative theory are all completly braindead. All i've heard here is how conspiracy theorists disregard anything that doesn't apply to their side of the story. Perhaps the other side is doing the same?

The conspiracy theories are on par with "intelligent design." With both theories, it is possible to make arguments in favour of one's position, but the arguments are invariably specious, circumstantial, or just factually incorrect. Conspiracy theorists do not deserve anything more than mockery, and are incapable of having a debate.

When there is ONE single, irrefutable piece of evidence that the 9/11 attacks comprised anything other than 19 nutjobs, 4 passenger jets, and a lot of institutional errors, I'll give you the time of day. So far, I'm still waiting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

stephen harper being attracted to dogs probably isn't going to impact the way the country is run.

having funding coming from a questionable source when you state the research is independent is misleading and could very well impact the validity of the scientific research.

And PS, I never once said in this thread that I believed the so called conspiracy theory. Personally I think the argument is up for debate. I suppose by most of your responses, there should be no debate, and those that would consider an alternative theory are all completly braindead. All i've heard here is how conspiracy theorists disregard anything that doesn't apply to their side of the story. Perhaps the other side is doing the same?

Anything is up for debate. I'm sure most of us here have looked at both sides, and came to the conclusion that the planes brought down the Towers. Its the CT side who can't verify their information.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The WTC 7 I would like to know more about as well as the pentagon. There are things about both of those that don't seem to add up. But I won't jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until I see real evidence or at least a compelling case. Just because all the details aren't there, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. The leap to that doesn't make sense in my mind.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

here's a good link about WTC 7. It's probably been posted in other threads, but I think it handles the conspiracy theory pretty well.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
this one pertains to the pentagon. It is an attempt to debunk the pentagon conspiracy. I don't know how much to trust the source, but it's worth reading too.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

The conspiracy theories are on par with "intelligent design." With both theories, it is possible to make arguments in favour of one's position, but the arguments are invariably specious, circumstantial, or just factually incorrect. Conspiracy theorists do not deserve anything more than mockery, and are incapable of having a debate.

Couldn't agree more.

Thanks for those links lifer.

[lifer]

no problem. enjoy them.

[Vulcan]

I'm not a CT but at first glance a building imploding because it suffered damage near the top doesn't make sense. It's like topping a tree causing it's base to be damaged and falling over. It doesn't happen.
The explanation I've heard is that the fire caused by the fuel was so intense it melted the columns all the way to the base but if this happened the heat should have been so bad that no one would have survived to escape. Anyone care to comment.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not a CT but at first glance a building imploding because it suffered damage near the top doesn't make sense. It's like topping a tree causing it's base to be damaged and falling over. It doesn't happen.
The explanation I've heard is that the fire caused by the fuel was so intense it melted the columns all the way to the base but if this happened the heat should have been so bad that no one would have survived to escape. Anyone care to comment.

I'll comment...the explanation that you heard was very wrong. Either the person who told you that was misinformed, or you interpreted the explanation incorrectly.

I won't give details, but the jist of the collapse is this: fire heated steel, significantly reducing its strength...the steel did not melt, even at the heart of the jet fuel fire. The heated beams sagged under their own weight, stressing connections. Some of these failed, largely due to the fact that dozens of outer support columns were severed. In the end, a progressive collapse was triggered when one floor fell onto the one below, adding to the already stressed joints. Since the floors themselves were not designed to handle the weight of higher floors (only the columns & core were designed for this), they failed. As the floors continued to collapse, the outer steel columns were bent, stressed, and otherwise robbed of all of the horizontal support they required to remain standing vertically. The building fell. Thank you, and good night.

A tree is not a building. A mountain is not a building. A chicken wire & toothpick model is not a building. What happened happened. It's unfortunate that you were misinformed, but now that's been fixed.

[Azure]

I can't say it much better...

Simply put: 1) Each structure sustained a high speed impact from a large airliner. This caused: A) Severe structural damage including the severing of exterior and core columns. B) Stripping of fireproofing material from floor trusses. C) Large fires starting simultaneously across multiple floors. 2) Fed by the jet fuel fires, and supported by the wind feeding into the gaping hole in each tower, the fires igniting the building contents, resulting in an inferno spreading across multiple floors. 3) The badly damaged, and unprotected floor trusses began to soften in the heat, sagging as they did so. 4) The sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns of the towers inwards across an entire face. 5) With additional loading on the exterior columns due to other severed columns, and increasing lateral loading due to bowing, the exterior columns failed across an entire face of each building. 6) The upper structure twisted and fell through the destroyed impact floors, hitting the first fully intact floor with 10 GJ (WTC1) or 30 GJ (WTC2) of energy. It failed virtually instantly, adding its own weight to the mass falling on the next floor. 7) The floor mass collapsed down inside the tube created by the exterior columns. 8) The force of the collapse forced exterior columns below the impact point outwards, peeling them away from the structure in multi-story sections. 9) The debris fell to the ground, leaving the badly damage core standing to at least its height. 10) The core section, unable to stand on its own, collapses.

Posted by a very knowledgeable person on... the JREF forum.

[ken0042]

You need to think of the physics of gravity, Vulcan.

We see gravity as it normally appears to us, we drop something, it falls. Cause, then effect. The fact is gravity is is a force upon objects at all times. Thing of Superman pushing against a car's bumper. The tires are spinning and burning rubber, but the car isn't going to move. The split second that Superman lets go, the car will speed off in the direction it's facing.

OK, now for the next little bit. Have you ever tried to hammer in a nail by just resting the hammer on the head of the nail, then pushing down with all your weight? Of course the nail isn't going to go anywhere. But hit the nail from a few inches abouve, and it will go down.

So now, take the force of gravity on the top of the building, and have one floor pancake. With ~20 floors above, you are talking about 100s of tonnes of force that has been pushing down for 30 years; waiting for a weakness to allow it to go down. Using my nail analogy, it would be like hitting that nail with a 500 pound sledge hammer.

As for the heat- keep in mind the heat was not so intense to melt the steel. It was just simply hot enough to weaken the steel. We all know steel workers heat steel to bend it. That's because when it gets hot it weakens.

And there's proof I watch entirely too much Discovery Channel.

[Vulcan]

The floors falling on each other makes sense as in my building trade magazine they had an article on a building under construction doing exactly that. I watch too many Discovery shows too but it's more to relive my own experiences erecting these steel buildings as I've had a couple of welding tickets, done some connecting, plumbing of the buildings, bolting up, curtain wall and even some rebar. Thanks for the answers everyone, I was misinformed. Oh yeah and cubical guy, you gave a good answer but why so snippy?