Talking Turkey

[skyeagle409]

YET ANOTHER ONE...doesn't collapse

let the formulaic flowchartian drone-tone responses begin...

http://www.dailymail...rise-Dubai.html

reader comments and votes at the above link are very interesting...take a look.

Check out this building where its steel structure collapsed after a fire, which left only the concrete core standing.

In Thailand, three steel-framed buildings collapse the same day due to fire.

Edited November 19, 2012 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

YET ANOTHER ONE...doesn't collapse

YET ANOTHER CONSPIRACIST can't tell the difference in fire resistance between steel and concrete construction. The building in question is concrete, WTC were steel.

http://skyscrapercen...ame=DAR Consult

[Babe Ruth]

Little Fish

Thanks for putting up today's most recent contained high rise fire picture.

11 September was such a special day--the laws of physics were on holiday, eh?

[+Liquid Gardens]

YET ANOTHER ONE...doesn't collapse

let the formulaic flowchartian drone-tone responses begin...

Ha, yea I know! All those flowcharts and formulas and maths and stuff getting in the way of your 'real' scientific analysis. So tell me, how big was the plane that hit that building?

[Babe Ruth]

Ha, yea I know! All those flowcharts and formulas and maths and stuff getting in the way of your 'real' scientific analysis. So tell me, how big was the plane that hit that building?

The better question LG, is whether it was a drone or actually carrying passengers? And were there any sensitive financial records in the building?

[+Liquid Gardens]

The better question LG, is whether it was a drone or actually carrying passengers? And were there any sensitive financial records in the building?

Actually, in the context of this conversation I think the only question is whether this is at all an analog to WTC. It wasn't hit by a plane and is a little over a third of the height in WTC in stories. Taking all of the evidence into account, it appears that sometimes fire alone causes steel structures to collapse and sometimes it doesn't. So? Why do only CTs cherry-pick from this fact and to make what argument exactly?

[flyingswan]

Actually, in the context of this conversation I think the only question is whether this is at all an analog to WTC.

You may have missed my post #702 above, it wasn't even a steel-framed building.

[+Liquid Gardens]

You may have missed my post #702 above, it wasn't even a steel-framed building.

Thanks swan, I read too fast and did miss that your post was in reference to the same building, I was looking for a strike three. As in:

- not hit by a plane (or damaged at all except from fire I believe) - strike one

- less than half the height of WTC in stories - strike two

- not even a steel-framed building - strike three

One wonders why it was posted in the first place.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks swan, I read too fast and did miss that your post was in reference to the same building, I was looking for a strike three. As in:

- not hit by a plane (or damaged at all except from fire I believe) - strike one

- less than half the height of WTC in stories - strike two

- not even a steel-framed building - strike three

One wonders why it was posted in the first place.

So maybe the question then becomes: are concrete buildings more or less susceptible to fire damage than steel buildings?

Being neither an architect nor an engineer, I don't know the answer.

Are you suggesting that taller buildings fall more quickly or more slowly than shorter buildings?

Edited November 19, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[skyeagle409]

So maybe the question then becomes: are concrete buildings more or less susceptible to fire damage than steel buildings?

Being neither an architect nor an engineer, I don't know the answer.

I am very sure the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Architects can help you out.

[+Liquid Gardens]

So maybe the question then becomes: are concrete buildings more or less susceptible to fire damage than steel buildings?

Being neither an architect nor an engineer, I don't know the answer.

Are you suggesting that taller buildings fall more quickly or more slowly than shorter buildings?

No, overall I'm suggesting that there is a fundamental inconsistency in how 'precedent' for collapses of buildings from fire is often treated by some CTs. When an example like the Dubai high-rise is presented, this is presumably supposed to say something meaningful about WTC (I'm guessing here, the initial post on this forgot to include a specific argument along with the snark), such as how unlikely it is that WTC did collapse, or something. When examples of buildings, made of steel no less, are provided showing collapse just from fire, CTs change the standards of their argument and all of a sudden discover nuance and structural specifics and (rightly IMO) point out how the WTC is so different from whatever fire-based collapse example is provided. This just happens to be one of the more blatantly inconsistent and least analogous examples.

Interesting question, are concrete buildings more or less likely than steel ones to withstand a fire-based collapse, I'm not sure of the answer either not being an engineer or architect myself. I'm of the uneducated opinion though that there are enough variations in the structures of buildings that it is not valid and a little silly to draw specific conclusions from one building collapsing to another one with different attributes not collapsing, pretty much period. Especially for us laymen, a group that I'm pretty sure includes Little Fish.

[W Tell]

I meant the metal structure supporting whatever ceiling was present. I doubt very much if many ceiling tiles would remain in place seeing how close the area was to the impact level.

I see what you mean. It's a good point. But I'd like to add that the steel in those grid systems, though they do their job well, is flimsy. It's easily bent with human hands and is suspended with wire. I don't see the support system hanging around (pun intended) as just the panels were displaced by the impact. It would be toast to.

I say this as someone that's been hired to install a few of them, so I know the material. But I don't feel a few installs makes me an expert . (I personaly think most places wouldn't even bother finishing off the ceiling if the room was just to store batteries)

[W Tell]

I'm not sure I get what your point is about the height. The colour at the top corresponds to too low a temperature to be molten steel, so a lower melting-point metal is a good fit. The area of the building where the flow comes from contained both a UPS room with a lot of battery lead and aluminium from the aircraft. Either would provide the required large amount of molten material.

Like I said, your picture doesn't do it justice. Here's another shot of it that doesn't even show the impact zone.

Whatever dropped that far was very hot. Enough to keep it's color after free falling through the air 700 to 800 feet. Makes it worse if people want to call these droplets, you haven't but some have, since the larger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

I suppose what I'm getting at is... you can't show a picture of it falling fifty feet and claim it's aluminum and lead, when a much better shot of the spill shows that whatever spilled from that corner retained it's color ..if not to the ground, dang near to it. Molten aluminum does not have this charecteristic. The battery banks and molten lead won't have this charecteristic either. ( We still have not decided if the batteries were even a factor.)

[W Tell]

If that material was molten, it would not have retained its shape and would have pooled as a blob on the ground.

The rails buckled due to heat, not from movement on the ground.

[media=]

Don't want to get into it. You're comparing railroad tracks to skyscrapers. That's worse than apples and oranges. IMO.

Edited November 20, 2012 by W Tell

[skyeagle409]

Don't want to get into it. You're comparing railroad tracks to skyscrapers. That's worse than apples and oranges. IMO.

Metal is metal. Ever wondered why the airframe of the SR-71 is built the way it is? It has to do with heat expansion, as is the case with structural steel columns when they are subject to high heat.

[skyeagle409]

Like I said, your picture doesn't do it justice. Here's another shot of it that doesn't even show the impact zone.

Whatever dropped that far was very hot. Enough to keep it's color after free falling through the air 700 to 800 feet. Makes it worse if people want to call these droplets, you haven't but some have, since the larger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

I suppose what I'm getting at is... you can't show a picture of it falling fifty feet and claim it's aluminum and lead, when a much better shot of the spill shows that whatever spilled from that corner retained it's color ..if not to the ground, dang near to it. Molten aluminum does not have this charecteristic....

Yes it does, and I have seen burning aircraft before.

[media=]

[/media]

And remember, the WTC buildings were observed buckling just prior to their collapse, which is a clear indication that the structures of the WTC buildings were in the process of failing as the fires raged on.

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives2.html

Edited November 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

Whatever dropped that far was very hot. Enough to keep it's color after free falling through the air 700 to 800 feet. Makes it worse if people want to call these droplets, you haven't but some have, since the larger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

The videos show a highly irregular flow, so no problem in it showing at various times different temperatures or lump sizes and hence falling different distances before it cools. The point is that in the picture where you can see it cooling, the bottom part of the flow has the same colour as the aluminium cladding of the building.

[Babe Ruth]

No, overall I'm suggesting that there is a fundamental inconsistency in how 'precedent' for collapses of buildings from fire is often treated by some CTs. When an example like the Dubai high-rise is presented, this is presumably supposed to say something meaningful about WTC (I'm guessing here, the initial post on this forgot to include a specific argument along with the snark), such as how unlikely it is that WTC did collapse, or something. When examples of buildings, made of steel no less, are provided showing collapse just from fire, CTs change the standards of their argument and all of a sudden discover nuance and structural specifics and (rightly IMO) point out how the WTC is so different from whatever fire-based collapse example is provided. This just happens to be one of the more blatantly inconsistent and least analogous examples.

Interesting question, are concrete buildings more or less likely than steel ones to withstand a fire-based collapse, I'm not sure of the answer either not being an engineer or architect myself. I'm of the uneducated opinion though that there are enough variations in the structures of buildings that it is not valid and a little silly to draw specific conclusions from one building collapsing to another one with different attributes not collapsing, pretty much period. Especially for us laymen, a group that I'm pretty sure includes Little Fish.

I would have to agree with your last paragraph there--specific conclusions may not be valid, and you and I are not educated sufficiently to make specific conclusions.

But as to the "precedent" in your first paragraph, aren't we just talking about statistics? If it is true that no modern(term should be defined) steel and concrete buildings have fallen thusly from fire, then the WTC buildings certainly present a huge anomaly from the statistical perspective. And then probability might come into play....?

That is, if it never happened before, isn't it a bit strange for it to happen 3 times in one afternoon?

[skyeagle409]

That is, if it never happened before, isn't it a bit strange for it to happen 3 times in one afternoon?

Nope, because it has been revealed that terrorist planned to use airliners as weapons. In fact, terrorist planned to fly an airliner into the Eiffel Tower, but that hijacking was broken up.

[+Liquid Gardens]

But as to the "precedent" in your first paragraph, aren't we just talking about statistics? If it is true that no modern(term should be defined) steel and concrete buildings have fallen thusly from fire, then the WTC buildings certainly present a huge anomaly from the statistical perspective. And then probability might come into play....?

That is, if it never happened before, isn't it a bit strange for it to happen 3 times in one afternoon?

This is starting to overlap some of the topics I'm discussing with Q and to whom I'm starting to gradually put together a more thorough response, but real quick here's my issue with what you and I are discussing. Compare these two arguments:

1:

CT: This Dubai high-rise is yet another example of how buildings don't collapse from fire, thereby making the WTC collapses a 'huge anomaly" and improbability

LG: In order for precedent to be of any use, you have to compare like to like, and this example is so significantly different from WTC and 9/11 that how it behaves tells us almost nothing of how WTC should behave.

CT: (unknown response, assuming it's along the lines of 'well it's close enough')

2:

LG: Look at the pictures sky has been kind enough to take the time to post showing steel buildings collapsing from fire alone, not even including a plane ramming it, I guess it's not true that there is no precedent for these collapses.

CT: In order for precedent to be of any use, you have to compare like to like, and these examples are so significantly different from WTC and 9/11 that how they behave tells us almost nothing of how WTC should behave.

LG: Then if we're going to be consistent, we can disregard the Dubai high-rise and all your other non-collapse examples also then as irrelevant 'precedents', since 9/11 was a unique event.

We require accurate precedents for the structure of and what happened to WTC in order to find anything 'strange' about their collapses, and this Dubai example is a pretty blatant example of cherry-picking of what's going to 'count' as a precedent and what is not. And when you're dealing with as chaotic an event as 9/11, it is very difficult to identify meaningful precedents for either position that have any relevance anyway.

[Babe Ruth]

Oh, I see--it was a chaotic event. That explains it all.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Oh, I see--it was a chaotic event. That explains it all.

Ha, that's it? Do you think that is at all an accurate paraphrase of what I just bothered to type to you? This is as deep of a response as you are capable of mustering concerning the subject of 'precedent'?

Oh well, I tried to have a normal conversation with you and tried to not hold the history of your past discussions with me, and almost anyone who disagrees with you, against you. Maybe I'll try again in a month or two to see if anything's changed.

[+Liquid Gardens]

You are welcome to that but to me it is an empty belief considering that no explanation based on damage and fire has been demonstrated within the bounds of reality – we have been over some of the many failures and false assumptions of NIST and Bazant – yet there is no need for this to be the case were truth in their favour.

Nor have they demonstrated it as being outside the bounds of reality, even if we assume the ludicrous that the NIST is absolutely infallible in their analysis. What you characterize as failures and false assumptions, and the ramifications you believe they have, are highly debatable.

The problem is that we know the circumstantial evidence cannot absolutely prove a case to anyone predisposed not to believe it.

To exactly the same degree that circumstantial evidence provides a vague subjective framework by which almost any idea can seem 'blatant' to the biased. You don't mind if I put some of my own poison in your well, do you?

That’s why I think it perhaps necessary to ask what the official theory proposes as an alternative and how likely it is in comparison. If that draws anyone to a conclusion of, “I don’t know for sure what happened”, I’ll take that as a victory because the most pertinent question that follows is why the official story sold their version of events as an absolute and fired the Western public into a war frenzy.

I guess I don't see how this is superior to the normal rules of circumstantial evidence. I think it's pretty much settled that there isn't a scientific case for a demolition, there isn't enough evidence, we wouldn't even be talking about circumstantial if that was the case. So fine, we go to a circumstantial case likening it to a court of law, but you don't apparently want the burden that goes along with that, of disproving other alternatives as is normally required. We're not even to the point where I'd be 'predisposed' to not believe your circumstantial case based on the positive evidence for it; you haven't given me good enough reason to not think the alternatives for each of your circumstantial evidence points are outside even your definition of 'bounds of reality'.

I don’t like the idea of testing points in isolation because this precludes corroboration of the evidence.

It doesn't preclude it, they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think the validity of the individual points is just as if not more important than the corroboration of them. Some testing of the points is necessary to even determine if it's even properly called 'evidence', otherwise it's unknown whether it has any corroboration value at all. I think I see another Sasquatch hiding behind a bush up this road a ways.

And I don’t think it really matters whose intuition we use in the end; the official story ends up astronomical anyhow. Put your own probability on this for me: a government exercise that morning involving a civilian aircraft departing from the same airport as Flight 77 and simulating a crash into a government building just 30 miles West of the Pentagon at the precise time and location that the real Flight 77 passed overhead, with a government spokesperson describing the reflection of real world events as “bizarre”. There are logical reasons, accepting a false flag background, which make the probability of that occurrence very high. In the official theory, that event is treated as non-evidence or just a quirk to be ignored – so what are reasonable odds of this ‘coincidence’? If we can agree that the occurrence is somewhat peculiar/unlikely, then I have much more to add, which taken together show the official theory beyond belief.

Okay, cool, something new to me, I think this is the fourth point you mentioned in your later post that you'd like to talk about more about. I can google on my own, but can you give me a good search phrase on this? Everything I've tried has come up with discussions of the pilot's training and the Hani maneuver and such.

Perhaps different discussion, but I’m sure the same argument.

“That’s a thermite device.”

“No, it could be anything.”

“But it matches a thermite device.”

“Yes, but it could be somthing else.”

“What?”

“Batteries, crushed metal, aircraft debris, paint chips, rust, a natural thermite reaction.”

“How does that match?”

“I don’t have a step by step explanation.”

Official story adherents will make any case to avoid an unfavourable probable answer.

You have a step-by-step explanation presumably then, what's been taking you so long to provide it? You can't provide me even a drawing of your selectively indestructible thermite device, can't tell me where and how it was installed, etc, because of course you have no unambiguous evidence of there even being such a device near WTC at all. You try to use the fact that there is a lack of evidence to work from (how exactly did the molten aluminum pool?) against these alternatives, but spare your own theory from these same critiques that are based on lack of evidence. To which your critiques are even more applicable anyway, as we have good reason to believe that there was aluminum, fire, other materials, and a UPS system there from which to derive possibilities because there is unambiguous evidence to work from; that's a huge leg up on your thermite devices you're trying to infer into existence.

Are you now claiming that ‘remote-controlled’ is unbelievable? Despite there being all manner of remote-controlled devices. Or is it more that you find the functioning of the electronics after a plane crash unbelievable? Despite the electronics within aircraft black boxes surviving after a plane crash. These are really not good arguments you are making.

They don't always survive after plane crashes though, do they? This device in particular apparently suffered a tremendous force since it was dislodged, or is it your opinion that the technology to protect electronics from impact is more evolved than the ability to firmly attach an object to a steel beam? Oh but sometimes they do survive, so that's good enough. Again, my overall point is why are you just free to choose from all of possibility. In this specific example, I don't consider black boxes to be 'mundane' which is how you characterized them, especially since they are an evolving technology and currently still have a failure rate. I can't wait to apply probability to the likelihood of your device suffering a force strong enough to dislodge it yet keeps the electronics functioning. When you don't have any evidence at all to work with to determine probabilities, that doesn't mean you get to just default your theory to 100%; it should be treated as the null value it is.

About the WTC2 molten metal flow, thank you for your further input. I think we can summarise the leading theory you have come up with: -

1. Airliner debris crashes through the UPS room, avoiding destroying the battery circuit but conspiring to create a short circuit in the system.
   
2. The increase in temperature is so rapid that before either the battery or shorting connection fail, the battery lead vaporises.
   
3. The heat and shockwave from the explosion/vaporisation melts all of the surrounding batteries to 1,000^oC+.
   
4. The fire insulates this molten metal until the floor sporadically fails, releasing the material in bursts.
   

All points are highly unlikely though 3. In particular is impossible. Even if a whole battery were vaporised to10,000^oC, and given a perfectly efficient energy transfer (which is ridiculous – it’s a random explosion, not a shaped charge), it is still not enough to heat lead of the 20 or so surrounding batteries required to 1,000^oC+. Further, there is no example you can provide of this phenomenon ever having occurred before or since. The reason is that batteries, short-circuits and explosions or not, simply cannot produce the effect – you cannot go from having a rack of batteries to having a large mass of molten lead in a second.

Nice try, but under the rules of circumstantial evidence this is just another alternative you need to disprove, and this has the huge benefit of being based on things we have reason to believe were actually present. See, I don't think there is enough evidence to prove what that flow is, and therefore think you're going to have a lot of trouble likewise disproving what it could be. Maybe we've discussed this, but didn't NIST do studies showing that the building fire could have reached 1000C (gotta learn how to get that degrees sign in there)? How have you determined the unlikelihood of point 1 above? You are an expert in the relevant fields plural? This is again not a snark, at a higher level, what do you think is required as expertise in order to determine unlikelihoods of certain possible events in this scenario? I don't know what you find unusual about the sporadic nature, you were expecting what and for what exact reason? If this was molten aluminum from the plane, the counter theory to the flow we witnessed that is more probable, and why, is?

Okay, so having said my peace on circumstantial evidence, I think I'm fine with trying it your way with the competing theories idea, I don't know how it will go. We seem to have a few roads heading towards a little more discussion of coincidence and overall argument structure, and I also want to look into the simultaneous airplane-flying-into-a-building exercise you mentioned because it's new. I've got not only Thanksgiving and work this week I have half of my Xmas celebration Sunday so I may be shot on being able to allot the time I need to respond until next week. If you celebrate, have a good Turkey day!

[cerberusxp]

Quote: "Here's the question. Are we still under the assumption that America is still under the control of the people, or is it conceivable that the American government has grown to such a size that it is separated from the people?"

Answer: Separated, for about a hundred years they have been setting themselves up as an aristocratic class above the people.

As for the WTC fires they burned for more than ninety days despite having millions upon millions of gallons of water on top of it. Even being under water logical answer is THERMITE. HERE

Copious amounts no less.

At the very bottom there would be large amounts of gold and silver the steel would have burned away into slag much of the silver would have vaporized as well.

Edited November 21, 2012 by cerberusxp

[skyeagle409]

As for the WTC fires they burned for more than ninety days despite having millions upon millions of gallons of water on top of it. Even being under water logical answer is THERMITE. HERE

Thermite does not leave behind molten metal for days and would not have been capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, which is one reason why demolition companies use RDX, not thermite. You might want to check this out.

]Exothermic Chemical Reactions[/b]

Exothermic chemical reactions produce heat. In this reaction vinegar is used to remove the protective coating from steel wool, allowing it to rust. When the iron combines with oxygen, heat is released.

http://chemistry.abo.../exothermic.htm

Edited November 21, 2012 by skyeagle409