A bird can destroy a plane , what happens when a plane hits a giant pile of concrete and steel that was specifically designed to withstand being hit by a plane .
Discuss.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
we design buildings to be able to withstand the impact of an airplane. what happens when its on fire for hour afterwards is anybodies guess
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
What if the building is just on fire and then pancakes?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
was it just on fire for 7 hours?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yes and it was the first "high-rise building" to ever collapse from a fire.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
lazy fire department. where they sleeping when this happened cause any commercial/residential building is constructed with materials that have a ul fire rating of a few hours but thats completly depending on the fire department showing up to put the fire out. should probably fire those firemen that worked that day. on a positive note. the building survived twice the amount of time it should have
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Seems this was the first time the fire department was late, hence the one collapse. Some buildings have burned way longer than 7 hours and no collapse. I think the record is 18 hours. Probably better fire rating.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
if a building burned for 18 hours. what are the odds it probably had the fire department putting water on it during those 18 hours and long after the flames went out?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well obviously, otherwise it would have collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed on it's own foot print.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
buildings usually only do that when the fire department is currently buried under the building next door that collapsed. which building are we talking about anyways?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
The one and only high-rise building that collapsed due to a fire.
Don't know why they bother with demolitions anymore. Just set it on fire and it neatly falls on it's footprint.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
the one and only? that narrows it down. so was it the one and only in iran in 2017 or the one and only in brazil in 2018? cause those would be ones that collapsed due to a fire. the others are probably fires started from debris falling from a building next door thats double its heigth. but i'm sure debris falling 50 stories onto another building does absolutely no damage
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Was reading straight from official report. So correction, the first one to collapse due to a fire as of 2001.
Could be that the debris from other building caused symmetrical damage, hence the symmetrical collapse.
So I guess there were no fire fighter doing their job in the Iran and Brazil cases so it collapsed?
I think I'll start my own demolition company. All I really need is some matches.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
a high rise is just a building over 20 floors. we've been building them higher than that for over a hundred years. do you really think its the first one to collapse from a fire?
forgeting that you're saying a building thats hit buy another building which causes fires on multiple floors which leads to its collapse only collapsed because of a fire... it wasn't symmetrical. it was a progressive collapse that started from one side and went to the other. i'm sure the fire raging for seven hour on multiple but seperate floors held the collapse off but it probably made the collapse quicker. i'm sure the situation could have been avoided if it wasn't for two high rises on fire or the eventual rubble of those two buildings
i can't remember which one is which but iran and brazils building lasted an hour and half and the other three and half hours. should make you wonder how diffrerent the buildings were, same shape? same contents? same floor plan? same materials?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"a high rise is just a building over 20 floors. we've been building them higher than that for over a hundred years. do you really think its the first one to collapse from a fire?"
What? Are you questioning the official story?
"it wasn't symmetrical"
Sure it was. I'm sure you can find some footage.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
you should be the one provodiing footage. after all. its the only one to ever happen if you ignore the other two we know of. tells us the dimensions of the building and post of video of it collapsing. if its symmetrical, its going to be in the middle
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
If you are genuinely interested, you can find all that easily yourself if you want to. Also, interesting thing to look at is why it came down at free-fall speed.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
being geniunely interested in it would have put you in a spot where you knew about the other 2 buildings.
i like that pinch on the left side. its so symmetrical
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Google asymmetrical collapse and see the difference.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
symmetrical: made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis
what has to happen inside the building to only have on side pinch in like that?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Of course it's never perfect when were talking about collapsing buildings, but thats should be common sense. Did you google what asymmetric collapse of a building refers to?
Indeed, what has to happen inside a building for it to collapse like that? Even more important, what has to happen so it reaches free fall speed, ie no resistance at all.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bradlox (Long Spike)
I never said anything about 9/11
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
i shouldn't have to look it up. its self explanitory in its wording. its either asymmetric or symmetric. no wiggle room. controlled collapses require explosions that can be heard for miles. of all the footage i've seen, i haven't seen any with the bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang before the collapse. probably a bunch of mk ultra victimes commiting a sychronized sawzall of the support beams on 40 floors
it collapsed like that because at that point it was only an outside shell. the fire burned for 7 hours causing the connection between the floors and the beams to pop sending floors down crashing downwards, taking out some of the support beams and causing some to fold inwards. no resistance because nothing was left to put up resistance
windows on about 20 floors on the left side popped when the ac went through the roof. thats because the ac unit took out what ever was left supporting the walls because the wall bent inwards causing them to pop. what ever fell caused a similar issue on the right side. meaning nothing was inside supporting that wall anymore either at the time the outside shell fell
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"i shouldn't have to look it up. its self explanitory in its wording. its either asymmetric or symmetric. no wiggle room"
If you say so.
"controlled collapses require explosions that can be heard for miles."
Never said anything about explosives. The gif is just there for reference how quick it came down and really how months of demolition planning can be replaced with simply setting it on fire. Easy. I'll be setting up my company soon, I'll just have to get those matches.
"no resistance because nothing was left to put up resistance"
What kind of temperatures would you need to get large structural steel beams to the point that if gives zero resistance?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
you know. i did actually look it up. didn't find anything. well, i did find a bunch of stuff about paragliders cause asymmetric collapse is a term they use. so i could really only think that maybe you meant to type collapse of an assymetric building
you never said anything about explosives but the point you're trying to make implies it
an old user put out a video years ago about the steel. still relevant today
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Instead of a furnace I'd like him to see throw that rod into an office fire (of course no jet fuel included in this case) and see if it comes out with the same results. Then next try a 16-inch i-beam if he get the same glow.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
"In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit" now, imagine a fire for 7 hours
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Imagine a proper fire.
All floors on fire, with good chimney effect to feed the flames with fresh air for 60 hours and still standing.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
ok so this is a proper fire. this place had a working fire supressent system. ie, sprinklers. within 10 minutes of the fire starting, the fire department was on site putting it out and continued to fight the fire both outside and inside for the 60 hours it was on fire. of that 60 hours, it was really on a real fire for 24 and little fires that were starting up after that. so how does this compare to wtc7?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bradlox (Long Spike)
I heard of a guy a while back who was planning on a giant test .
Was going to reproduce to scale an exact replica of 2 or 3 floors of the wtc. Then launch a plane down a train track with rockets ( some kind of test facility) and research the impact .
Could be interesting ?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Quite shitty sprinkler system. Fire spreads through most of the building unimpeded and does it fast.
"so how does this compare to wtc7?"
You tell me. Smoldering fires on a few floors vs the whole building with bright flames.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
do i have to explain heat transfer rates or is just mentioning that fire on the outside doesn't really do any structural damage on the inside good enough?
you think that building would still be there if the building next door, thats twice its heigth had collapsed earlier in they day taking out its sprikler system and tying up emergency services?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I'm sure it would be there. The sprinkler system doesn't seem to do shit. It's intended to stop fires, which it did not do.
It's clearly burning from the inside too.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
sprinklers saves up to 65% of lives and buildings. doesn't always put out a fire but it does supress them till the fire department can get there. 2 building fires, one with no fire department and sprinklers is the one to fall. shocking
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yes very shocking.
I'll remember to turn off the sprinklers when I get my first demolitio job. Got the matches already.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
you think that over the 20 years and countless professional being trained. you have million of metalurgists who share your views, but you don't. you got to go to web forums with people that have no experience to get those views
start your own company, just remember that your going to have to take tests to get the permits. from what i've seen in the last few days. i'd be suprised if you pick up the literature that informs you how to apply for a permit
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Timmy Tosser (dumb cunt)
Wasn't that guy a spiked member?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
you don't quit spiked nation
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bradlox (Long Spike)
Was it Andy ?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
what has to happen so it reaches free fall speed, ie no resistance at all.
it doesn't reach "free fall speed", it only comes close
hence it does not have "no resistance" it has very little resistance as the support beams are not designed for this kind of load and wobbling movement
the collapse is slower at the start but with the added weight and "wobble" the support beams break more easily during the process. you can even see this in the low quality gif above.
all this was discussed up and down foillowing 9/11. "physics defying" collapse blah blah blah. All debunked, still the conspiracy theorists are all over it. We also never landed on the moon, all fake.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"it doesn't reach "free fall speed", it only comes close"
You would think that since that shouldn't happen but it did reach free fall. It's in the official report.
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Looking at the first video here, even those "stages" don't seem accurate. After the entire roof line starts to fall, it's constant all the way down, well at least as far a we can see.
You have an engineering background, right? Found this free video / physics analysis program. You can plug in the numbers (building size, frame rate) and track the roof line frame by frame to get a fairly accurate measure of the acceleration. Mind taking a look at it? That way no need to rely on conspiracy theories or even the official reports.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Looking at the first video here, even those "stages" don't seem accurate. After the entire roof line starts to fall, it's constant all the way down, well at least as far a we can see. "
But they do, you can see how trhe building top shifts slightly to the left once breaking or bending the beams.
It is like when you press on a drinking straw, it is very sturdy until it collapses. After it gets a kink to one side the force to press it down is minimal.
I'll look at the simulation tomorrow.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"It is like when you press on a drinking straw, it is very sturdy until it collapses. After it gets a kink to one side the force to press it down is minimal."
Sure but it's made of many interlinked "straws". How many points of failure do you think it needed to bring the whole building down?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
not as many as one would think.
You have to distinguish between static and dynamic loads. A beam can withstand a whole lot of static load but add movement and impact and maybe heat and the whole thing changes dramatically.
Example: In case of the twin towers, the buildings withstood the initial impact but the structure had been weakened so little more additional impact (heat) was needed to get the already slightly bent and thus severely weakened beams to collapse.
I am not specialised in static design of buildings so I can't give you the "full story".
What we can say, though, without any doubt is that in the aftermath none of "skeptics" and conspiracy theorists that did not believe the results of the studies were specialists in the field from reputable universities or similar but bloggers, nutters and politicians.
There are plenty of articles and videos from qualified people explaining this.
We use explosives to demolish buildings is simply that for safety reasons this needs to be a very controlled process.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"What we can say, though, without any doubt is that in the aftermath none of "skeptics" and conspiracy theorists that did not believe the results of the studies were specialists in the field from reputable universities or similar but bloggers, nutters and politicians."
So there are no architects or engineers that question the official story?
I leave the judgement of this to the experts. Not all "architects and engineers" are experts, probably most of the loud mouth "skeptics" are not even architects or engineers.
What seems plausible to laymen when it is explained by "skeptics" appearing to be "in the know" because it is intuitive is often not the reality. This also is true for climate change, corona and many other issues. Way too many people (laymen) overestimate their capabilities in understanding complex issues with the very limited information available to them. Then ask other non experts in discussions like this questions in the ball park of "What do you think about the multiple accounts of molten steel found on the site? All made up or misidentified?" trying to force a conversation about a topic neither participant has expert knowledge about (and even if the one that was asked had, it would be dismissed anyway). A tactic you amply applied in the other discussion above, btw.
That, and probably a general mistrust in science and the educational system, often paired with vulerability to conspiracy therories is the problem with the "I can think for myself" people.
FYI I (and I am not an axpert) do not think you can compare 1:1 the fires of the grenfell towers with 9/11 as there are too many differences (design and building materials, height, impact, accelerants).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Way too many people (laymen) overestimate their capabilities in understanding complex issues with the very limited information available to them."
Yes I fully accept that I do not understand jack shit about buildings and their structures.
All I got is it was the first building to be brought down by fires (till 2001) and the collapse was almost perfect pancake on it's foot print with not that significant fires. Also something like NIST providing a simulation of the collapse but doesn't want to share the actual collapse models they used always makes me wonder. I'd imagine the more people could learn from it, the better. Could prevent such future incidents.
"then ask other non experts in discussions like this questions in the ball park of "What do you think about the multiple accounts of molten steel found on the site?"
Well, the point of my question isn't really to get a scientific analysis from you, but rather just your personal oppinion and ask if you've ever heard of it. It seemed like you never heard about the free fall speed and just assumed it didn't happen.
Maybe it raises questions in your mind, maybe not? It's just a discussion among laymen. We aren't going to prove anything here.
Maybe this is just aluminum somehow colored red by the debris. Also news reports say the debris were smoldering for the next 100 days.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I don't know what it is and won't speculate, the quality is way too poor for that.
Does it really surprise you that shit buried underneath tons of rubble with some very limited oxygen supply smolders for a long time when a tiny charcoal pit will smolder for a few days:
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Could be that there were enough combustable material for it to smolder for 3 months and somehow not get wet when they were dowsing the pile for the whole duration
Again from an article:
"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley, a firefighters' union representative. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
So? What is your point? We don't know where the water went, if it formed a "lake" then it most definitely did not get absorbed into the ground and reach everywhere as intended. Is the firefighters' union representative an expert in this? Are there any experts in many aspects of this kind of unprescedented event?
Each building had 110 overground and 7 underground floors spread on an area of an acre, more than 4000sqm.......
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Just an observation.
I (a non expert) am curious how do you sustain a fire for 3 months continuously with out running out of combustible materials. There's no doubt the rubble provided some good ventilation (chimneys) for the fires, but how can it be sustained for so long?
You can't expect that everything that could burn, did burn in that building.
Only the pockets where there were combustibles + sufficient heat + the conditions to support fire + not burn too fast so it would put itself out quickly OR not burn / smolder so slow that it puts itself out + shielded from the constant water flow.
Whats your non expert reasoning for it burning so long? :)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"There's no doubt the rubble provided some good ventilation"
How can you generalise that? This may be correct for some locations and not for others.
AGAIN: I am not an expert, I can't tell you anything about it other than if a fire can be sustained underneath earth cover in a small pit for several days to make charcoal, I can't rule out it can be for weeks or months in an exponentially larger place. Also if you throw water on a large enough heat source it will just evaporate.
Are you really entertaining the "demolition" idea?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"How can you generalise that? This may be correct for some locations and not for others."
I can't. Just trying to see it from your side. Fires after all need air to burn.
"Are you really entertaining the "demolition" idea?"
I'm asking why there was orange liquid falling from the building and multiple eyewitness accounts of molten metal & 3 month fires among many others things. I'm curious about it, are you not?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Fires after all need air to burn."
Yes, and they need way less to smolder, they were by NO MEANS "3 month fires", the material was smoldering and flared up when disturbed and thus oxygen introduced, this is "natural" and expected and would happen in a charcoal pit too.
Also look at this (probably not co-incidental) post: https://www.spikednation.com/videos/ground-fire
Have you read all the reports about it?
I believe these questions are 1. "loaded" (due to an agenda) and 2. probably answered in the reports. Some are just not "happy" with these answers.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Also look at this (probably not co-incidental) post: https://www.spikednation.com/videos/ground-fire"
If you think that is comparable to a buildings rubble, then I can't really help you. An entire forest full of roots systems and drought. Sure it's gonna burn a long time. No lack of conbustables.
"Have you read all the reports about it?"
All the reports? No. Years back I looked at what was being questioned about the official report or not included. I looked at what was in the official report about these things. For example the the falling liquid is never mentioned. Theres a video where the lead investigator was asked about this, started fidgeting nervously, and just denied there were no such things.
" I believe these questions are 1. "loaded""
How should I rephrase the question "what is that falling liquid" for it not be loaded?
"2. probably answered in the reports."
Probably? Shows how much you've looked into it.
No mention of the liquid in question, NIST just denies it's existence.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
what liquid? NOBODY can make a judgement based on such low quality videos. That is probably why nobody except conspiracy theorists and other "afficionados" mentions it.
"If you think that is comparable to a buildings rubble, then I can't really help you. "
ikr. The ONLY explanation you would accept is what you already think you figured out in your head.
In contrary to you I think I can trust reputable experts that looked into this more than some bloggers with various agendas or fellow SN member who is known to disagree with current science despite not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth.
BTW I just posted a video of an underground fire burning for 40 years now, but hey, can't compare that neither, right, lol.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"what liquid? NOBODY can make a judgement based on such low quality videos. That is probably why nobody except conspiracy theorists and other "afficionados" mentions it."
Ok, better then just to ignore it.
"The ONLY explanation you would accept is what you already think you figured out in your head."
No, but SOMETHING would be good.
"or fellow SN member who is known to disagree with current science despite not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth."
Your defending this and throwing thing like...."it's probably in the report".
If you didn't notice, your accusing of others what your doing right now.
"BTW I just posted a video of an underground fire burning for 40 years now, but hey, can't compare that neither, right, lol."
Even worse example. An underground cole fire with virtually unlimited supply of shit to burn.
Don't think we need to go any further with this. You stick with yours and live happily ever after. I'll be in my conspiracy cave.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"If you didn't notice, your accusing of others what your doing right now."
NOT AT ALL, quite the opposite actually.
Like I said I trust the experts, YOU don't! Hence the onus is on YOU to provide evidence that what you suspect is actually vialble or true.
NOBODY who is competent in the field and was involved in the investigation actually questions these fires, only people with a deep mistrust in any authority and who are prone conspiracy theories do.
This is why you "ask questions" the way you do (or probably this wasn't your idea in the first place but raised by bloggers who do this kind of thing). You know there CANNOT be an answer on "what is the orange stuff" falling from the building based on the quality of the material provided. Or "how can something burn that long" dismissing any example then given as ludicrous.
This is skeptoid level deluded!
Hence my involvement ends here, thank you and have a nice day.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"NOT AT ALL, quite the opposite actually."
Well I don't want to drag this along but can't help myself.
I said that WTC7 reached free fall speed. You denied it.
I said it's in the official report, as it is.
I'd say that falls in the category of "not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth."
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
actually, the report says the collapse took longer than free fall. like 40% longer. the report states the building fell in three stages.two of them were slower than free fall. the second started off as free fall but ran into resistance and slowed down. this is in the official report
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yes. I posted this above a few days ago.
It did reach free fall speed.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
you didn't get what you posted above a few days ago from the official report. you got it either from a 9/11 truther website or you got it from a FAQ page on the investigation. if you looked at the official report. it would have seen a more detailed version of it. mathematics, graphs and expanded details of the stages
• In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12–62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.
• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
• In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.
when you focus in on what the conspiracy really is. it's a building that collapsed in three staged primarily because of one side of the building is symmetrical. and that a portion of a 52 floor building collapsing at free fall speed for 8 floors even though the entire time of collapse is longer than free fall. the building collapsed in a free fall
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
No, I get that. There was a portion of the fall that reached free fall, meaning very little / insignificant resistance.
Thats what I've been saying all along.
Here a simulation of the collapse. Quite amazing.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Old Spike)
at 8 seconds in you see the side fold in. on the 27 i mentioned support beams folding inwards. that wasn't a coincidence. anything you show me i was looking up last week as a refresher
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol
"I'd say that falls in the category of "not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth.""
It is but not for the sake of "debunking" the official report but because I trust what the competent investigators found.
What you do is different you have a hunch then do some half arsed extremely sloppy research on a topic you have no clue about, from sources that are rather questionable, then you ask "beanyhat- style" loaded questions and dismiss arguments from everyone that disagrees.
A beautiful example of your utter incompetence on the subject is your argument dismissing the underground fire example.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"A beautiful example of your utter incompetence on the subject is your argument dismissing the underground fire example."
Again, if you actually think the conditions are comparable, then I can't help you. Just my non expert opinion but you can always enlighten me with your non exper opinion how you think they are similar.
Your retired right? You have all the time in the world to look into this if you want to instead of arguing with me. It seems to always get so emotional so you can do it all by yourself.
Not that hard. Search for conspiracy claims about the event and check them against the official report. I can help you get started, my conspiracy cave is full of documents.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"You have all the time in the world to look into this...."
I really don't see the need and explainig this to you would be a waste of my time, you have your mind set and just want it confirmed, go and discuss this with your peers on conspiracy channels they give you the answers you want, good night.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You misunderstand.
You don't have to explain anything to me. Nothing.
The point is for you to do it by yourself to avoid this back n' forth that really gets us no where.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Yep, nobody can explain anything to you that does not agree with your bias, backtoid.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
This is what I mean, just slowly devolves into name calling. Better to go about it by yourself.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
You taking offense like that just shows I have a point. ;o)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pdub (Old Spike)
The pile you refer to probably wasn't really made of steel and concrete. That's the big cover up. That is why it crumbled to bits.
Comments
(Long Spike)
A bird can destroy a plane , what happens when a plane hits a giant pile of concrete and steel that was specifically designed to withstand being hit by a plane .
Discuss.
(Old Spike)
we design buildings to be able to withstand the impact of an airplane. what happens when its on fire for hour afterwards is anybodies guess
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
What if the building is just on fire and then pancakes?
(Old Spike)
was it just on fire for 7 hours?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yes and it was the first "high-rise building" to ever collapse from a fire.
(Old Spike)
lazy fire department. where they sleeping when this happened cause any commercial/residential building is constructed with materials that have a ul fire rating of a few hours but thats completly depending on the fire department showing up to put the fire out. should probably fire those firemen that worked that day. on a positive note. the building survived twice the amount of time it should have
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Seems this was the first time the fire department was late, hence the one collapse. Some buildings have burned way longer than 7 hours and no collapse. I think the record is 18 hours. Probably better fire rating.
(Old Spike)
if a building burned for 18 hours. what are the odds it probably had the fire department putting water on it during those 18 hours and long after the flames went out?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well obviously, otherwise it would have collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed on it's own foot print.
(Old Spike)
buildings usually only do that when the fire department is currently buried under the building next door that collapsed. which building are we talking about anyways?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
The one and only high-rise building that collapsed due to a fire.
Don't know why they bother with demolitions anymore. Just set it on fire and it neatly falls on it's footprint.
(Old Spike)
the one and only? that narrows it down. so was it the one and only in iran in 2017 or the one and only in brazil in 2018? cause those would be ones that collapsed due to a fire. the others are probably fires started from debris falling from a building next door thats double its heigth. but i'm sure debris falling 50 stories onto another building does absolutely no damage
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Was reading straight from official report. So correction, the first one to collapse due to a fire as of 2001.
Could be that the debris from other building caused symmetrical damage, hence the symmetrical collapse.
So I guess there were no fire fighter doing their job in the Iran and Brazil cases so it collapsed?
I think I'll start my own demolition company. All I really need is some matches.
(Old Spike)
a high rise is just a building over 20 floors. we've been building them higher than that for over a hundred years. do you really think its the first one to collapse from a fire?
forgeting that you're saying a building thats hit buy another building which causes fires on multiple floors which leads to its collapse only collapsed because of a fire... it wasn't symmetrical. it was a progressive collapse that started from one side and went to the other. i'm sure the fire raging for seven hour on multiple but seperate floors held the collapse off but it probably made the collapse quicker. i'm sure the situation could have been avoided if it wasn't for two high rises on fire or the eventual rubble of those two buildings
i can't remember which one is which but iran and brazils building lasted an hour and half and the other three and half hours. should make you wonder how diffrerent the buildings were, same shape? same contents? same floor plan? same materials?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"a high rise is just a building over 20 floors. we've been building them higher than that for over a hundred years. do you really think its the first one to collapse from a fire?"
What? Are you questioning the official story?
"it wasn't symmetrical"
Sure it was. I'm sure you can find some footage.
(Old Spike)
you should be the one provodiing footage. after all. its the only one to ever happen if you ignore the other two we know of. tells us the dimensions of the building and post of video of it collapsing. if its symmetrical, its going to be in the middle
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
If you are genuinely interested, you can find all that easily yourself if you want to. Also, interesting thing to look at is why it came down at free-fall speed.
(Old Spike)
being geniunely interested in it would have put you in a spot where you knew about the other 2 buildings.
i like that pinch on the left side. its so symmetrical
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Google asymmetrical collapse and see the difference.
(Old Spike)
symmetrical: made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis
what has to happen inside the building to only have on side pinch in like that?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Of course it's never perfect when were talking about collapsing buildings, but thats should be common sense. Did you google what asymmetric collapse of a building refers to?
Indeed, what has to happen inside a building for it to collapse like that? Even more important, what has to happen so it reaches free fall speed, ie no resistance at all.
(Long Spike)
I never said anything about 9/11
(Old Spike)
i shouldn't have to look it up. its self explanitory in its wording. its either asymmetric or symmetric. no wiggle room. controlled collapses require explosions that can be heard for miles. of all the footage i've seen, i haven't seen any with the bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang before the collapse. probably a bunch of mk ultra victimes commiting a sychronized sawzall of the support beams on 40 floors
it collapsed like that because at that point it was only an outside shell. the fire burned for 7 hours causing the connection between the floors and the beams to pop sending floors down crashing downwards, taking out some of the support beams and causing some to fold inwards. no resistance because nothing was left to put up resistance
windows on about 20 floors on the left side popped when the ac went through the roof. thats because the ac unit took out what ever was left supporting the walls because the wall bent inwards causing them to pop. what ever fell caused a similar issue on the right side. meaning nothing was inside supporting that wall anymore either at the time the outside shell fell
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"i shouldn't have to look it up. its self explanitory in its wording. its either asymmetric or symmetric. no wiggle room"
If you say so.
"controlled collapses require explosions that can be heard for miles."
Never said anything about explosives. The gif is just there for reference how quick it came down and really how months of demolition planning can be replaced with simply setting it on fire. Easy. I'll be setting up my company soon, I'll just have to get those matches.
"no resistance because nothing was left to put up resistance"
What kind of temperatures would you need to get large structural steel beams to the point that if gives zero resistance?
(Old Spike)
you know. i did actually look it up. didn't find anything. well, i did find a bunch of stuff about paragliders cause asymmetric collapse is a term they use. so i could really only think that maybe you meant to type collapse of an assymetric building
you never said anything about explosives but the point you're trying to make implies it
an old user put out a video years ago about the steel. still relevant today
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Instead of a furnace I'd like him to see throw that rod into an office fire (of course no jet fuel included in this case) and see if it comes out with the same results. Then next try a 16-inch i-beam if he get the same glow.
(Old Spike)
"In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit" now, imagine a fire for 7 hours
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Imagine a proper fire.
All floors on fire, with good chimney effect to feed the flames with fresh air for 60 hours and still standing.
(Old Spike)
ok so this is a proper fire. this place had a working fire supressent system. ie, sprinklers. within 10 minutes of the fire starting, the fire department was on site putting it out and continued to fight the fire both outside and inside for the 60 hours it was on fire. of that 60 hours, it was really on a real fire for 24 and little fires that were starting up after that. so how does this compare to wtc7?
(Long Spike)
I heard of a guy a while back who was planning on a giant test .
Was going to reproduce to scale an exact replica of 2 or 3 floors of the wtc. Then launch a plane down a train track with rockets ( some kind of test facility) and research the impact .
Could be interesting ?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Quite shitty sprinkler system. Fire spreads through most of the building unimpeded and does it fast.
"so how does this compare to wtc7?"
You tell me. Smoldering fires on a few floors vs the whole building with bright flames.
(Old Spike)
do i have to explain heat transfer rates or is just mentioning that fire on the outside doesn't really do any structural damage on the inside good enough?
you think that building would still be there if the building next door, thats twice its heigth had collapsed earlier in they day taking out its sprikler system and tying up emergency services?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I'm sure it would be there. The sprinkler system doesn't seem to do shit. It's intended to stop fires, which it did not do.
It's clearly burning from the inside too.
(Old Spike)
sprinklers saves up to 65% of lives and buildings. doesn't always put out a fire but it does supress them till the fire department can get there. 2 building fires, one with no fire department and sprinklers is the one to fall. shocking
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yes very shocking.
I'll remember to turn off the sprinklers when I get my first demolitio job. Got the matches already.
(Old Spike)
you think that over the 20 years and countless professional being trained. you have million of metalurgists who share your views, but you don't. you got to go to web forums with people that have no experience to get those views
start your own company, just remember that your going to have to take tests to get the permits. from what i've seen in the last few days. i'd be suprised if you pick up the literature that informs you how to apply for a permit
(dumb cunt)
Wasn't that guy a spiked member?
(Old Spike)
you don't quit spiked nation
(Long Spike)
Was it Andy ?
(Old Spike)
what has to happen so it reaches free fall speed, ie no resistance at all.
all this was discussed up and down foillowing 9/11. "physics defying" collapse blah blah blah. All debunked, still the conspiracy theorists are all over it. We also never landed on the moon, all fake.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"it doesn't reach "free fall speed", it only comes close"
You would think that since that shouldn't happen but it did reach free fall. It's in the official report.
Looking at the first video here, even those "stages" don't seem accurate. After the entire roof line starts to fall, it's constant all the way down, well at least as far a we can see.
You have an engineering background, right? Found this free video / physics analysis program. You can plug in the numbers (building size, frame rate) and track the roof line frame by frame to get a fairly accurate measure of the acceleration. Mind taking a look at it? That way no need to rely on conspiracy theories or even the official reports.
(Old Spike)
"Looking at the first video here, even those "stages" don't seem accurate. After the entire roof line starts to fall, it's constant all the way down, well at least as far a we can see. "
But they do, you can see how trhe building top shifts slightly to the left once breaking or bending the beams.
It is like when you press on a drinking straw, it is very sturdy until it collapses. After it gets a kink to one side the force to press it down is minimal.
I'll look at the simulation tomorrow.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"It is like when you press on a drinking straw, it is very sturdy until it collapses. After it gets a kink to one side the force to press it down is minimal."
Sure but it's made of many interlinked "straws". How many points of failure do you think it needed to bring the whole building down?
(Old Spike)
not as many as one would think.
You have to distinguish between static and dynamic loads. A beam can withstand a whole lot of static load but add movement and impact and maybe heat and the whole thing changes dramatically.
Example:
In case of the twin towers, the buildings withstood the initial impact but the structure had been weakened so little more additional impact (heat) was needed to get the already slightly bent and thus severely weakened beams to collapse.
I am not specialised in static design of buildings so I can't give you the "full story".
What we can say, though, without any doubt is that in the aftermath none of "skeptics" and conspiracy theorists that did not believe the results of the studies were specialists in the field from reputable universities or similar but bloggers, nutters and politicians.
There are plenty of articles and videos from qualified people explaining this.
We use explosives to demolish buildings is simply that for safety reasons this needs to be a very controlled process.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"What we can say, though, without any doubt is that in the aftermath none of "skeptics" and conspiracy theorists that did not believe the results of the studies were specialists in the field from reputable universities or similar but bloggers, nutters and politicians."
So there are no architects or engineers that question the official story?
What do you think about the multiple accounts of molten steel found on the site? All made up or misidentified?
(Old Spike)
I leave the judgement of this to the experts. Not all "architects and engineers" are experts, probably most of the loud mouth "skeptics" are not even architects or engineers.
What seems plausible to laymen when it is explained by "skeptics" appearing to be "in the know" because it is intuitive is often not the reality. This also is true for climate change, corona and many other issues. Way too many people (laymen) overestimate their capabilities in understanding complex issues with the very limited information available to them.
Then ask other non experts in discussions like this questions in the ball park of "What do you think about the multiple accounts of molten steel found on the site? All made up or misidentified?" trying to force a conversation about a topic neither participant has expert knowledge about (and even if the one that was asked had, it would be dismissed anyway). A tactic you amply applied in the other discussion above, btw.
That, and probably a general mistrust in science and the educational system, often paired with vulerability to conspiracy therories is the problem with the "I can think for myself" people.
FYI I (and I am not an axpert) do not think you can compare 1:1 the fires of the grenfell towers with 9/11 as there are too many differences (design and building materials, height, impact, accelerants).
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Way too many people (laymen) overestimate their capabilities in understanding complex issues with the very limited information available to them."
Yes I fully accept that I do not understand jack shit about buildings and their structures.
All I got is it was the first building to be brought down by fires (till 2001) and the collapse was almost perfect pancake on it's foot print with not that significant fires. Also something like NIST providing a simulation of the collapse but doesn't want to share the actual collapse models they used always makes me wonder. I'd imagine the more people could learn from it, the better. Could prevent such future incidents.
"then ask other non experts in discussions like this questions in the ball park of "What do you think about the multiple accounts of molten steel found on the site?"
Well, the point of my question isn't really to get a scientific analysis from you, but rather just your personal oppinion and ask if you've ever heard of it. It seemed like you never heard about the free fall speed and just assumed it didn't happen.
Maybe it raises questions in your mind, maybe not? It's just a discussion among laymen. We aren't going to prove anything here.
Maybe this is just aluminum somehow colored red by the debris. Also news reports say the debris were smoldering for the next 100 days.
(Old Spike)
I don't know what it is and won't speculate, the quality is way too poor for that.
Does it really surprise you that shit buried underneath tons of rubble with some very limited oxygen supply smolders for a long time when a tiny charcoal pit will smolder for a few days:
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Could be that there were enough combustable material for it to smolder for 3 months and somehow not get wet when they were dowsing the pile for the whole duration
Again from an article:
"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley, a firefighters' union representative. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
(Old Spike)
So? What is your point? We don't know where the water went, if it formed a "lake" then it most definitely did not get absorbed into the ground and reach everywhere as intended. Is the firefighters' union representative an expert in this? Are there any experts in many aspects of this kind of unprescedented event?
Each building had 110 overground and 7 underground floors spread on an area of an acre, more than 4000sqm.......
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Just an observation.
I (a non expert) am curious how do you sustain a fire for 3 months continuously with out running out of combustible materials. There's no doubt the rubble provided some good ventilation (chimneys) for the fires, but how can it be sustained for so long?
You can't expect that everything that could burn, did burn in that building.
Only the pockets where there were combustibles + sufficient heat + the conditions to support fire + not burn too fast so it would put itself out quickly OR not burn / smolder so slow that it puts itself out + shielded from the constant water flow.
Whats your non expert reasoning for it burning so long? :)
(Old Spike)
"There's no doubt the rubble provided some good ventilation"
How can you generalise that? This may be correct for some locations and not for others.
AGAIN: I am not an expert, I can't tell you anything about it other than if a fire can be sustained underneath earth cover in a small pit for several days to make charcoal, I can't rule out it can be for weeks or months in an exponentially larger place. Also if you throw water on a large enough heat source it will just evaporate.
Are you really entertaining the "demolition" idea?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"How can you generalise that? This may be correct for some locations and not for others."
I can't. Just trying to see it from your side. Fires after all need air to burn.
"Are you really entertaining the "demolition" idea?"
I'm asking why there was orange liquid falling from the building and multiple eyewitness accounts of molten metal & 3 month fires among many others things. I'm curious about it, are you not?
(Old Spike)
"Fires after all need air to burn."
Yes, and they need way less to smolder, they were by NO MEANS "3 month fires", the material was smoldering and flared up when disturbed and thus oxygen introduced, this is "natural" and expected and would happen in a charcoal pit too.
Also look at this (probably not co-incidental) post: https://www.spikednation.com/videos/ground-fire
Have you read all the reports about it?
I believe these questions are 1. "loaded" (due to an agenda) and 2. probably answered in the reports. Some are just not "happy" with these answers.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Also look at this (probably not co-incidental) post: https://www.spikednation.com/videos/ground-fire"
If you think that is comparable to a buildings rubble, then I can't really help you. An entire forest full of roots systems and drought. Sure it's gonna burn a long time. No lack of conbustables.
"Have you read all the reports about it?"
All the reports? No. Years back I looked at what was being questioned about the official report or not included. I looked at what was in the official report about these things. For example the the falling liquid is never mentioned. Theres a video where the lead investigator was asked about this, started fidgeting nervously, and just denied there were no such things.
" I believe these questions are 1. "loaded""
How should I rephrase the question "what is that falling liquid" for it not be loaded?
"2. probably answered in the reports."
Probably? Shows how much you've looked into it.
No mention of the liquid in question, NIST just denies it's existence.
(Old Spike)
what liquid? NOBODY can make a judgement based on such low quality videos. That is probably why nobody except conspiracy theorists and other "afficionados" mentions it.
"If you think that is comparable to a buildings rubble, then I can't really help you. "
ikr. The ONLY explanation you would accept is what you already think you figured out in your head.
In contrary to you I think I can trust reputable experts that looked into this more than some bloggers with various agendas or fellow SN member who is known to disagree with current science despite not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth.
BTW I just posted a video of an underground fire burning for 40 years now, but hey, can't compare that neither, right, lol.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"what liquid? NOBODY can make a judgement based on such low quality videos. That is probably why nobody except conspiracy theorists and other "afficionados" mentions it."
Ok, better then just to ignore it.
"The ONLY explanation you would accept is what you already think you figured out in your head."
No, but SOMETHING would be good.
"or fellow SN member who is known to disagree with current science despite not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth."
Your defending this and throwing thing like...."it's probably in the report".
If you didn't notice, your accusing of others what your doing right now.
"BTW I just posted a video of an underground fire burning for 40 years now, but hey, can't compare that neither, right, lol."
Even worse example. An underground cole fire with virtually unlimited supply of shit to burn.
Don't think we need to go any further with this. You stick with yours and live happily ever after. I'll be in my conspiracy cave.
(Old Spike)
"If you didn't notice, your accusing of others what your doing right now."
NOT AT ALL, quite the opposite actually.
Like I said I trust the experts, YOU don't! Hence the onus is on YOU to provide evidence that what you suspect is actually vialble or true.
NOBODY who is competent in the field and was involved in the investigation actually questions these fires, only people with a deep mistrust in any authority and who are prone conspiracy theories do.
This is why you "ask questions" the way you do (or probably this wasn't your idea in the first place but raised by bloggers who do this kind of thing). You know there CANNOT be an answer on "what is the orange stuff" falling from the building based on the quality of the material provided. Or "how can something burn that long" dismissing any example then given as ludicrous.
This is skeptoid level deluded!
Hence my involvement ends here, thank you and have a nice day.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"NOT AT ALL, quite the opposite actually."
Well I don't want to drag this along but can't help myself.
I said that WTC7 reached free fall speed. You denied it.
I said it's in the official report, as it is.
I'd say that falls in the category of "not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth."
(Old Spike)
actually, the report says the collapse took longer than free fall. like 40% longer. the report states the building fell in three stages.two of them were slower than free fall. the second started off as free fall but ran into resistance and slowed down. this is in the official report
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yes. I posted this above a few days ago.
It did reach free fall speed.
(Old Spike)
you didn't get what you posted above a few days ago from the official report. you got it either from a 9/11 truther website or you got it from a FAQ page on the investigation. if you looked at the official report. it would have seen a more detailed version of it. mathematics, graphs and expanded details of the stages
• In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage
corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north
face, as seen in Figure 12–62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.
• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling
progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north
face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled
between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
• In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face
encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s
and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.
when you focus in on what the conspiracy really is. it's a building that collapsed in three staged primarily because of one side of the building is symmetrical. and that a portion of a 52 floor building collapsing at free fall speed for 8 floors even though the entire time of collapse is longer than free fall. the building collapsed in a free fall
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
No, I get that. There was a portion of the fall that reached free fall, meaning very little / insignificant resistance.
Thats what I've been saying all along.
Here a simulation of the collapse. Quite amazing.(Old Spike)
at 8 seconds in you see the side fold in. on the 27 i mentioned support beams folding inwards. that wasn't a coincidence. anything you show me i was looking up last week as a refresher
(Old Spike)
lol
"I'd say that falls in the category of "not being bothered to look into the matter in any depth.""
It is but not for the sake of "debunking" the official report but because I trust what the competent investigators found.
What you do is different you have a hunch then do some half arsed extremely sloppy research on a topic you have no clue about, from sources that are rather questionable, then you ask "beanyhat- style" loaded questions and dismiss arguments from everyone that disagrees.
A beautiful example of your utter incompetence on the subject is your argument dismissing the underground fire example.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"A beautiful example of your utter incompetence on the subject is your argument dismissing the underground fire example."
Again, if you actually think the conditions are comparable, then I can't help you. Just my non expert opinion but you can always enlighten me with your non exper opinion how you think they are similar.
Your retired right? You have all the time in the world to look into this if you want to instead of arguing with me. It seems to always get so emotional so you can do it all by yourself.
Not that hard. Search for conspiracy claims about the event and check them against the official report. I can help you get started, my conspiracy cave is full of documents.
(Old Spike)
"You have all the time in the world to look into this...."
I really don't see the need and explainig this to you would be a waste of my time, you have your mind set and just want it confirmed, go and discuss this with your peers on conspiracy channels they give you the answers you want, good night.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You misunderstand.
You don't have to explain anything to me. Nothing.
The point is for you to do it by yourself to avoid this back n' forth that really gets us no where.
(Old Spike)
Yep, nobody can explain anything to you that does not agree with your bias, backtoid.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
This is what I mean, just slowly devolves into name calling. Better to go about it by yourself.
(Old Spike)
You taking offense like that just shows I have a point. ;o)
(Old Spike)
The pile you refer to probably wasn't really made of steel and concrete. That's the big cover up. That is why it crumbled to bits.
(Old Spike)
(Long Spike)
Good discussion
5/5