HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » OK then. Just the facts. ... » Reply #40
In the discussion thread: OK then. Just the facts. 9-11 [View all]

Response to cbrer (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 08:22 AM

40. No, you are not seeking information

Let's look at your OP, stating "just facts":

"1. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt structural steel. Especially when encased by fireproofing. Proven by NIST doing gov. tests."

That an open jet fuel fire doesn't melt steel is an irrelevant fact. The collapse of the towers does not require anything to melt. "Jet fuel can't melt steel" is a truther talking point and is not relevant to the collapse of the towers. But having digested a laundry list of truther talking points, you assert it as some sort of relevant fact. It sure as heck isn't a "question" seeking an "answer".

Can petroleum fuel fires weaken steel to the point of collapse? Certainly:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tanker_truck_fire_causes_collapse_on_Oakland_Freeway

So your point about melting is more of red herring than anything else, but listed as your "fact" number 1.

Now let's look at your "fact" number 2:

"2. Timing does show some free fall throughout collapse of towers. And in fact the upper block of tower one accelerated during collapse."

No, the timing does not show any free fall, and you posted a reference which disproves that statement. And, absolutely, the upper block is going to continue to accelerate as long as the kinetic energy gained by dropping even a single floor exceeds the energy required to break what's below it. And nothing in the towers was designed to take that kind of impact. But is it accelerating at "free fall"?

Anyone with eyeballs can see it is not, by simply looking at a single still photograph of the event:



Do you see that big chunk of the outer structure just to the left of the tower?

What does the presence of that piece of debris - broken off from above and falling next to an as-yet uncrushed section of the tower - tell you about whether the collapse front is moving at "free fall"?

Even in the festival of wrong which is the Chandler paper, he did get one thing right - the acceleration of the collapse front was far below free fall.

A 100 story building is a machine that is designed to support a 100 story building. It is not an 80 story building that is designed to have a 20 story building dropped onto it. If you cannot grasp the difference between those two things, then try this experiment:

If you are of reasonable strength, you can probably support a 12 pound bowling ball in the palm of one extended hand. Go ahead and try that. Now, have someone hold that bowling ball just a few inches above your hand, and ask them to drop it onto your hand. What you are going to find is that the dynamic force of impact from that bowling ball falling just a few inches is going to far exceed the static force you exerted to simply hold the bowling ball, and your arm is going to give way like a wet noodle.

Watch what can happen to a building when one floor is compromised:



You are free to think that buildings can't collapse that way, so you'll just have to ignore your lyin' eyes.


Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
cbrer Feb 2012 OP
zappaman Feb 2012 #1
Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2012 #30
zappaman Feb 2012 #31
William Seger Feb 2012 #2
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #63
William Seger Mar 2012 #67
jberryhill Feb 2012 #3
cbrer Feb 2012 #4
earcandle Feb 2012 #5
William Seger Feb 2012 #6
cbrer Feb 2012 #7
AZCat Feb 2012 #8
cbrer Feb 2012 #10
LARED Feb 2012 #13
AZCat Feb 2012 #15
cbrer Feb 2012 #17
AZCat Feb 2012 #22
William Seger Feb 2012 #23
jberryhill Feb 2012 #9
cbrer Feb 2012 #11
jberryhill Feb 2012 #12
cbrer Feb 2012 #14
jberryhill Feb 2012 #34
cbrer Feb 2012 #20
jberryhill Feb 2012 #24
cbrer Feb 2012 #25
jberryhill Feb 2012 #33
BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #54
jberryhill Mar 2012 #57
BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #58
William Seger Feb 2012 #16
cbrer Feb 2012 #18
William Seger Feb 2012 #26
cbrer Feb 2012 #27
William Seger Feb 2012 #28
cbrer Feb 2012 #29
LARED Mar 2012 #45
cbrer Mar 2012 #46
LARED Mar 2012 #50
cbrer Mar 2012 #53
LARED Mar 2012 #62
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #59
LARED Mar 2012 #61
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #70
OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #32
cbrer Feb 2012 #19
jberryhill Feb 2012 #35
cbrer Feb 2012 #21
jberryhill Feb 2012 #36
cbrer Feb 2012 #37
jberryhill Feb 2012 #38
cbrer Feb 2012 #39
LineLineLineLineLineReply No, you are not seeking information
jberryhill Feb 2012 #40
OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #41
cbrer Mar 2012 #47
jberryhill Mar 2012 #51
libodem Mar 2012 #42
zappaman Mar 2012 #43
libodem Mar 2012 #48
jberryhill Mar 2012 #52
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #60
BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #55
zappaman Mar 2012 #56
terrafirma Mar 2012 #44
libodem Mar 2012 #49
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #64
cbrer Mar 2012 #68
Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #69
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #71
Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #73
William Seger Mar 2012 #74
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #76
William Seger Mar 2012 #78
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #81
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #75
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #72
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65
sgsmith Mar 2012 #66
Broderick Mar 2012 #77
cbrer Mar 2012 #79
Broderick Mar 2012 #80
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #82
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #83
cbrer Mar 2012 #84
OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #85
Please login to view edit histories.