Comments Posted By Troll feeder
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 21 Comments
9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
Frank IBC 352, 353, 354: I doubt that any of what you are asking is relevant. The dog bolinger finally wends his way to describing didn't bark. Must be evil. No other possibility. QED.
One question, though, when (and how) did we determine that Dick Cheney "had sole responsibility that day for the air defense of the country[?]" I'm no expert, but I'da kinda sorta thunk maybe that "air defense" would have been left up to air traffic controllers (who rely on working transponders to some limited extent) and maybe some of the .... whatcha call its? .... oh, yeah, military-types.
The VP had sole responsibility all day for the whole country, though. Double tough, man. Dude is double tough.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 14.09.2007 @ 20:42
Bolinger 346: Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
I did not argue that the government was uninvolved in the collapse of the buildings; I argued that they were unnecessary, and that no proof - as opposed to innuendo - had been provided to indicate that they were either necessary or involved. Your question is completely separate from a discussion of the verifiable facts of building construction etc.
But nice of you to come straight out with your real agenda instead of making up asinine questions whose answers you care about not a whit.
What proof do you have that the government definitely does have evidence hidden yada yada yada? How and why do you know this for certain?
If we're going to "omit nothing and have all our unanswered questions answered", I want to know why my boogers are clear sometimes, yellow other times, green other times, and once - and this was a really weird one - kind of a fluorescent orange. And don't repeat that old cock and bull story about allergies and viruses and bacteria and vitamin overdoses; that really is beyond the pale. I am certain it is because the government is putting poison in the sky behind big jet plane thingies and fluoridating the water and other stuff to corrupt my precious bodily fluids.
I know, I know...boogers. Real mature.
Better than arguing that the government did it because you just knows it, man!
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 13.09.2007 @ 20:14
CMM 339: Sorry. This one was just too pathetic to leave alone.
"here are the basics.
large buildings are not supposed to fall like that ever or at all, period. if you think otherwise you are speaking from a total lack of structural knowledge regarding building design in the latter part of the century."
Along the same line of argument, pipelines are not supposed to leak, moorings are not supposed to break, ships are not supposed to sink, wardrobes are not supposed to malfunction, innocents are not supposed to get hurt, and mascara is not supposed to run, ever or at all. And yet, strangely, all of these things do happen. Particularly when someone actively tries to make them happen.
The Towers were not supposed to be rammed by fuel-heavy, 100+ tonne, 400+ mph aircraft either. They were, and they stood long enough to save most of their tenants. For that we may thank God, and luck, and engineers and architects of considerably more understanding than you have shown yourself to possess.
There is no such thing as unobtanium. No matter how many X-Men comics you read, that isn't going to change.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 12.09.2007 @ 21:06
Troll feeder 341:
"Refer to 328" should read "Refer to 323."
Not that there is anything wrong with 328.
Apologies for the error.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 11.09.2007 @ 14:37
CMM 339: You are basing your argument on the premise that diesel (and, by analogy, jet fuel) are not flammable? And also that nothing else in the towers was flammable?
Whoop-dee-doo that you can safely throw matches into a bucket of diesel all day long when the diesel is below its 60 deg C flash point and not vaporized. You yourself acknowledge that there was a fireball. The conditions existed for the combustion of the fuel carried on the airplanes and for the flammable elements in the buildings
FrankIBC did not claim that the fuel would "spontaneously ignite[.]" FrankIBC 325 stated, "On the other hand, both a 1 story wood frame house and a 3 to 6 story masonry and wood townhouse would very quickly burn to the ground if diesel fuel from the truck spilled and ignited."
The "spontaneous" ignition and your outrage against it is entirely of your own fabrication. Please don't attribute to any of us nonsense of your own making. Particularly given your own statements claiming that ignition did, in fact, occur.
Refer back to 328. The ability of the structure of floors above the impact and fire site to redistribute loads is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the ability of the structure of the floors that suffered the impact and fire damage to sustain the weight of the floors above. Your entire argument based on redistribution of loads is nonsense.
Redistribution does come into play to answer this argument of yours: "again, to give worst case the bearing median wall is insufficient and the joists begin to sag and eventually collapse over the damaged area. this [sic] still does not account or allow for undamaged trusses to collapse." The failure of some trusses REDISTRIBUTES the load that they once carried to the trusses adjacent to them. Potentially causing them to fail themselves, in turn. Pretty much the exact opposite of your argument about redistribution being a helpful thing in this situation. Again, refer to 323.
Once again, the above is a specific response to questions that you have raised. Raised multiple times without bothering to read the responses, apparently. You don't like the answers; you cannot (have not attempted to, at least) directly respond to the answers; so, you claim that you have not been answered. I say again, you have been answered, you just don't like that the answers undermine your position.
As FrankIBC and I have both commented previously, do your own math and provide your own research and references instead of making unsupported claims based on nothing and demanding that someone else provide the technical back up to prove what you have asserted. You have the duty to "figure it out on your own." I have no duty to figure it out for you. If you are incapable of supporting your argument, that you are acting dishonestly by advancing it, and are acting the knave by accusing us of bad faith for not doing your work for you.
Finally, in 319 you specifically attribute the collapse of the Towers to "a series of actions taken for nothing more than the accumulation of wealth and power." You make strong implications in other posts that the perpetrators of these actions are governmental and corporate interests in the United States and that Americans are, in general too stupid and Idol-obsessed to care. You rely on insinuation, innuendo, purposeful ignorance, and a vast array of truly stupid analogies and assertions without providing the slightest shred of proof or evidence or testable hypothesis. We only assert that their involvement is entirely unnecessary for events to have transpired as they did.
Again, we and others with significantly more data and detail have shown that the plane impacts plus subsequent fire were testably believably sufficient to cause the Towers to collapse.
You and your ilk have neither provided any valid points to show that the impact and fire theory is insufficient nor that any of your hypotheses are even practicably possible.
What you have and continue to do is lazy, dishonest, and tiresome. We respond in order that the kiddies know that there is an alternative to your mendacity.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 11.09.2007 @ 13:43
CMM 333: Of course the government can do evil. Capability is not the same as actual doing. You understand that, right?
Did someone (other than yourself) equate the ignition of the fuel from the planes when they rammed the Towers to "spilled diesel fuel spontaneously igniting[?]"
We are responding to your specific points. You just don't like the answers. That is poor reason to attempt to insult us with your silly name calling.
Also, it completely gives the lie to your claim that we aren't listening. We are listening; we are thinking about the points you raise; and we are systematically and thoroughly demolishing your claims with references and logic and stuff like that.
Like Dan and Steve-O and TomB and others have said or implied, we do this not for you, who are so willfully lost, but for the children. Doesn't anybody care about the children?!?!
Why, yes. Yes, indeed. _We_ do.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 30.08.2007 @ 16:53
CMM 320: Oops. Forgot one. The proper analogy would be ramming a truck half the width of your house all the way through your house at triple-digit speeds, making sure to ignite a bunch of fuel inside the house at the same time.
Despite this, I expect that you will continue lamely claiming that no one is listening to or considering your point of view. The rest of us are just responding to questions and claims we made up on our own. Echo chamber and all that.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 29.08.2007 @ 11:28
CMM 318 and 320: The Towers were not of curtain wall construction. The perimeter walls were integral, structural, load-carrying components of the buildings.
The core columns of the Towers were steel, not concrete, and they did not form a solid, 80 x 130 foot stick running up the center of the buildings. The core columns were each composed of 47 separate but connected steel box members and hot rolled sections. Like Hans, you seem to think that the core columns were somehow indestructible even though they were made of materials without mystical properties. Neither one of you has explained why this should be.
The total, safe, uniformly distributed, ASD load for a 60-foot LH-series steel joists range from 232 plf to over 800 plf. I don't know what joists were used in the Towers, nor what the safe load was for those joists, but it would be unlikely for the number to be outside that range.
The joists were on 80-inch centers. An 80-inch wide, 4-inch thick section of concrete weighs 200+ pounds per linear foot (plf), exclusive of the steel floor pan. One joist failing doubles the load on the adjacent joists, with the added load coming in eccentrically. At some point, after relatively few joists have failed, the adjacent joists fail as well.
See 184 for additional discussion of a feasible, mathematically-supported explanation of floor, joist, and column failure.
That explanation makes sense, and fits the existing evidence.
Of course, explosives that not only are located at exactly the floors where the airplanes crashed, but that also managed to survive those crashes could also be to blame. You have neither shown that such explosives would have been required, nor any testable evidence that they existed.
You might as well claim that Dick Cheney and his undocumented space immigrant friends knocked the buildings down with their evil-eye death rays.
We have provided an engineering-based, generally testable explanation of the failures that is reasonable, logical, and in compliance with the known facts (building construction, material strengths, airplane impacts).
You keep ignoring nearly all such explanations, and instead insist on logic similar to the following:
1. I think Johnny is a cheater.
2. Johnny made an A on the science test
3. Therefore, Johnny cheated on the science test! Wake up, sheeple! It's staring you right in the face!!!To spell it out for you, substitute "government" for "Johnny," "building failures" for "science test," and "blew them up theyownselves" for "cheat," and you arrive at your argument. Oh, and "engaged in blind, hate-filled, fact-deficient partisanship" for "think."
This is an example of begging the question. Among other things.
Great example of how, if you know the answer before you do the "research," the final report is really a lot easier to write.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 29.08.2007 @ 11:14
Eric Wilds 297:
"blah blah...temperature of the steel was tested and only 2% reached temperatures over 250 degrees .... blah blah"
Reference, perhaps?
How, exactly, does one test steel to determine that it has been heated to 250 degrees? Are you talking, perhaps, of 250 deg C, so that some tempering color might just barely be detectable?
Aside from the time-traveling steel temperature testing device, how, exactly, did they determine where the steel they tested had come from? 2% of the structural steel in the building is grossly all the structural steel in two floors, by the by. How much steel do you think needed to fail in order to initiate a progressive collapse? All of it in the entire building? Or maybe just some of it on one floor?
Fire proofing coatings reduce the rate of heat gain, they do not eliminate it. Most of the current ones are applied like thick paint and are fairly brittle (i.e. subject to impact damage). I don't know what was used in the construction of the Towers back in the early 70's, but I would expect it to be generally less effective than what is available today. Though the environmentalists have made some significant in-roads in their on-going drive to regress our technical capabilities, so, who knows?
The impact of the planes would have caused some damage to the coatings, exposing some steel to the ambient temperatures. However, even assuming that the impacts did no damage whatsoever, one would expect a level of heat gain by perfectly coated steel members exposed to fire to be in the range shown on page six of this file http://www.unitherm-online.com/produkte/pdfs/unitherm2003_en.pdf, a flyer for a modern fire protection coating sold by DuPont.
After one hour of exposure, steel sporting an undamaged coating of DuPont's modern fire proofing material hits 350 deg C (662 deg F) in a cold-start, 1650 deg F oven.
I suppose that I am expected to believe that perfect laboratory conditions held for the steel coatings after the Towers were hit by 400+ mph, 200,000+ lb aircraft-shaped hammers.
The reason to conclude that the fires reached temperatures in excess of 1100 deg F is that room fires regularly exceed those temperatures. Regardless, In my original post on this topic, I stated that the fire temperature estimates I used were from others, and all were above 1000 deg F. Most estimates have been between 1200 deg F and 1800 deg F. You might note that the temperature cases used in App M of the NIST report are between 1230 and 1273 deg K (1754 and 1832 deg F).
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 27.08.2007 @ 13:38
ghosttown pick a number:
Frank IBC, TomB, Mike M., many others, and I have all provided detailed, referenced, math-based explanations as to why it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the collapse of the Towers. An understanding of engineering and building design standards are all that is necessary to deduce that.
You and others have asked a few not utterly unreasonable questions (e.g. why did they fall down in 10 seconds once they collapse began?) if one assumes that you have not even the most basic understanding of some fundamental physical concepts.
Fair enough, not everyone is smart enough or industrious enough or interested enough to complete the multiple years of education and training necessary to make an informed assessment of an engineering question. Not fair enough is that you who know so very little except dismiss educated responses out of hand without making any attempt to address the reasoning behind the responses. That is bad enough.
Much worse is that your "argument" for why the "plane impacts followed by progressive collapse initiated by accumulated fire damage" explanation is inadequate eventually boils down to speculation, innuendo, and gossipy bumpf about individual and governmental motives.
Motives have nothing to do with whether the plane impact explanation is feasible.
You can fling opinion and assertion and obfuscation and misdirection all the live long day, but none of you can hold up your end in a fact and evidence based debate. The best you seem to be able to hope for is that your opponents become bored enough with your bad faith that they leave the field.
The planes did hit the Towers. The Towers did burn. In the calculation of independent people educated and trained in the disciplines necessary to comprehend the mechanics of the collapse, these two things are sufficient to result in that collapse.
In the opinion of your hero, an 18-year old high school graduate, the collapse seems suspect.
Perhaps you can get him to design your next home given your faith in his knowledge and abilities.
So that I don't leave without addressing at least one of your group's physical claims I provide the following two experiments:
Obtain a pixie stik. Hold it in a vertical orientation (i.e. like an "l" not like a "-") a few inches above a flat table. Cut the bottom off so that the pixie dust falls out. Is the diameter of the pile of pixie dust on the table smaller, the same, or larger than the diameter of the original pixie stik?
Obtain a rock and a folding ladder (as opposed to an extension ladder). The rock should be small enough to hold comfortably. Install the ladder on a driveway (the ladder should look "A"-ish from the side). Climb the ladder with your rock. WITHOUT INJURING YOUR FOOL SELF (if you can manage that), hurl the rock at the driveway. What happens to the rock? Repeat with a comfortably sized piece of steel.
Comment Posted By Troll feeder On 24.08.2007 @ 17:12
