Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 05:39 |
Here is the latest on this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm I am waiting with anticipation to see if Max will let go of his theories. |
mgod wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 18:10 |
""One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen." That's got a lot of implications for our recent conversation here, in which it was repeatedly implied that nothing confounded engineers. Thank goodness religious belief in Popular Mechanics doesn't stand in the way of real science. DS |
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 16:51 |
That was such a predictable response, max. You're a True Believer, and no amount of evidence or analysis that runs contradictory to your beliefs can possibly count for anything. You would make a horrible engineer. |
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:13 |
with echo and reverb: NO OTHER BUILDING WITH A STEEL FRAME EVER FELL DOWN VERTICALLY NEAR FREEFALL SPEED AS A RESULT OF FIRE OR PLANE IMPACT!!! cucumber sandwitches? |
Quote: |
“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.” |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 01:25 |
SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors? |
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 23:25 |
the WTC towers had an exterior shell which was built as you mentioned with an exterior shell. the building was externally stiffened to stop it from oscillating side-to-side. this makes perfect sense! all of the load-bearing is carried by the central coloumn which is |
Quote: |
why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..? TV is a COMMERCIAL medium... turn off your TV and use your head. |
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:13 |
I could say the same about you jimmyjazz, couldn't I.. |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 02:25 |
why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..? . . . SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors? |
ssltech wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 22:44 |
Ah, Max... Whatever would we do without you! Watch this if you would... http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living? Keith |
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:16 | ||
'the heat of the fire would have softened both the...coloumns...trusses' bwahahahahaha!!!! yeah!! I suggest you go and see some welding up close friends... |
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:17 |
I love how the big chunk of tower which was falling to the side in that video disintegrated by itself as it was falling.. too much. this whole discussion is a good lesson for ME.. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 13:06 |
Doubtful, given that I hold a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 American engineering school, not to mention the title Principal Engineer for the company where I've spent the past 14+ years of my life. |
mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 10:18 | ||
No offense intended here, but that doesn't really mean much, does it? Goergie Bush the Lesser graduated from Yale with a degree, and has held the title CEO of a number of companies. So its not a good reference. What people actually do is what counts. I can't tell you how many well-educated EE's I've met who have contributed little to audio except attitude and degree spouting, as well as some brilliant self-taught folks who build real usable stuff. Technically speaking, my brother is a rocket scientist. He now says his college years were a waste except that he can brag that he is one, given that he's never spent a day doing anything with it. Our father never got past 8th grade in a village in eastern Hungary, but he built analog computers in our basement in the 60's. Your "qualifiers" may make you an expert, but they don't make you informed or correct. DS |
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:49 |
How can you possibly have a meaningful debate of any kind with a person like this? Do you have to show up at their house, build a skyscraper while they watch just so that they'll attribute some sort of value to your opinion? |
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 12:35 |
they just don't have the time to constantly argue with petulant little wannabe-experts who won't bother to learn a bit about the person they're arguing with. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 15:01 |
You don't remember George tiring of dealing with the "yeah, what do you know" crowd? |
mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 15:44 |
With the little that I know, I agree with the aspect of his PoV that I understand: All sources of info have become suspect. |
rollmottle wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:01 |
especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions... |
mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:07 | ||
Except for the problem of what constitutes the presentation of "factual evidence". Which is the entire point. DS |
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50 |
This is getting very tiresome... Dan, I know you're playing devil's advocate here and you've made your point very clear, so let's just sort one thing out if we can and move on: I will admit that it is possible that every source of information out there is corrupt, it is possible that Jim is misrepresenting his qualifications and it is possible that the world trade center collapses were an inside job IF you'll at least admit that that at the end of the day, as a rational human being, you've found these scenarios to be overwhelmingly unlikely. If something can't be "proven," then it all comes down to a matter of probabilities, doesn't it? How likely is it that solely for the purpose of this argument Jim made up all of his qualifications or is pointing you to the thesis of another Jim Andrews, how likely is it that the vast majority of people, experts or otherwise have looked at what happened and come to the wrong conclusion, how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit? None of these scenarios can be proven either way, but come on, they aren't bloody likely, are they? Let's get real, and stop this now. I happen to think that you are actually a very intelligent and rational man, and that you've made your point quite well. I also, however don't think that you necessarily believe in or live your life by what you're saying and are just trying to bring another perspective to light. There's nothing wrong with that, but I also think it would be a disservice to everyone reading this thread to pretend that you are really this paranoid and skeptical of every scrap of information that comes your way. This is the real world, not the Truman Show, and you know it. You don't seem to be the type of guy that has absolutely no faith in the good aspects of human nature to me. I've known more dudes like this than I care to mention, and they aren't fun to be around. I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement. All the best, Fox |
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50 |
I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement. All the best, Fox |
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 18:05 |
Why do you care? Have you designed anything? A skyscraper, even? Most of my design work has been on high- and ultra-high power linear electric motors and rotary machines. I've had to do a great deal of structural analysis on frames, particularly with regard to fault torque and seismic loads. I've also designed industrial mufflers, turbine alternators, and several control rooms. No skyscrapers, though. |
mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 02:29 |
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.” -- Albert Einstein |
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24 |
what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that. |
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24 |
steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly, and for that to happen there has to be massive amounts of direct heat, not the kind of fire that was in WTC towers. |
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24 |
the black smoke is a symptom of low-oxygen fire |
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 21:34 |
Tonight, even one of the biggest skeptics, Bill Maher, told all the WTC conspiracy theorists to get a life, and stop asking him to talk about it on his show. He also said that they have to be totally fucking stupid to believe what they do. Too bad they won't listen. |
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 07:24 |
steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly |
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50 |
how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit? |
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:14 |
a steel beam does not buckle and break vertically, it may bend and lose its shape but it will not buckle verically under normal circumstances. |
Quote: |
the steel beams used in construction are not like rulers they are usually H-shaped or t-shaped to make sure they don't buckle. |
Quote: |
the amount of force it would take to get the steel beams which were at room temperature in the floors underneath the fire (heat travels upward BTW) to 'buckle' and break into pieces cannot be attributed to gravity. |
Quote: |
h-beams which were encapsulated in cement (for rigidy) in the central coloumn would need so much energy to destroy the structure that the weight of the top floors could not possibly do such a clean job of destruction. |
mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 16:34 |
PS - I'm not suggesting anything about how the towers collapsed - that's beyond my ability to see or to know. I'm suggesting that there are well-grounded and logical reasons to suspect that things aren't necessarily what we're told. |
mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 11:33 |
So then, what we can come to is: the simplest solution is the likeliest. But it seems to me the problem is there are a number of ways to perceive what the simplest solution might be. For one thing - let's assume for a second that there was PNAC complicity in these acts - that doesn't necessarily lead us to controlled demolition. |
ssltech wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 08:41 |
In the case of most mechanical or structural engineers, "failure is not an option". |
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 07:24 |
what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that. |
Fox wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 19:53 |
I think that the part about getting the Saudi's out of the country was simply protecting business partners from popular backlash and/or physical attacks though. Seems to me that if it was planned out from the start they wouldn't have been in the country in the first place. |
maxdimario wrote on Sun, 16 September 2007 09:14 |
it seems strange that the internet as we know it is still standing if this is the real objective. |
mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 03:07 |
"Do not accept anything simply because it has been said by your teacher, or because it has been written in your sacred book, or because it has been believed by many, or because it has been handed down by your ancestors. Accept and live only according to what will enable you to see truth face to face." - Buddha, as quoted in "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life" by Thich Nhat Hanh DS |
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 10:12 |
labelling everything black or white, us and them etc. is necessary to control large groups of people with relatively little effort. 'conspiracy theorists', 'truthist' etc. are labels which only apply to those who are willing to get into the game and fight it out as opposing teams.... or ARMIES I do not want to belong to any such team or media-coined group, nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally. The first thing people reach for when they have difficulty digesting something uncomfortable is to dehumanize the source of info. and stick a label on them so that their buddies (comrades, fellow soldiers, team-members etc.) will step in and the fighting begins. but it really has NOTHING to do with us.. or them.. because the sort of military operations such as 911 WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY US..OR THEM! they were necessarily organized by a SMALL GROUP of INDEPENDENT people with totally different objectives, values and economic standing than the average AMERICAN or ARAB or EUROPEAN or AFRICAN citizen..any normal citizen of any land. in short labelling people 'conspiracy theorists' or any other name which incites mindless group-thinking and antagonism places the whole issue into a war-context. it also makes simple issues confusing and overly emotional. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47 |
Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it. |
mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 15:22 | ||
Who and what are the "truthers"? DS |
mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 10:22 | ||
Who and what are the "truthers"? |
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12 |
nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 18:30 | ||
Give me a break. You analyze nothing. If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it. Tell me, max. Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore? |
Quote: |
Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus, the thousand-year-old right to challenge one's accusers in a court of law. |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 12:12 | ||
a quote from a comment on the youtube video.. very good.. americans have slept right through that law.. |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 12:07 | ||||
because heat conduction is not the biggest concern, convection is.. like I said before the heat-sink effect is exactly what you are talking about, heat conducts up, down, sideways etc. but when we deal with fire we are talking about air reacting with fuel for a few seconds and then office equipment, carpet and the like so the heat will be concentrated upwards, although yes the heatsink effect is both up and down.. convection in air, heat travels upwards. as soon as you move slightly away from the hotspot the temperature drops radically. the heatsink effect is also affected by the cool atmosphere in contact with the building. |
maxdimario wrote |
...a complete load of bollocks, as usual |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 18:18 |
convection makes heat travel upwards in all fires. conduction across metal.. radiation from the fire itself and heated elements. cement inhibits radiation. ask any firefighter if the top of a fire is hotter than the bottom. heat travels upwards.. otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire.. |
maxdimario wrote |
the heat generated by radiation as well as through conduction from the heated air to the solids is significantly higher in the highest parts of the room/space. |
maxdimario wrote |
the flame is more intense in the upper part of the room because of air convection |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 18:51 |
anyway to stop the endless bickering on minutiae related to convection you need to consider the much more significant issue: no matter how hot the affected area of the building, the high temperatures could not have been transmitted through the steel structure for more than a few floors.. the building had HUNDREDS of floors.. ...continue.. |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 11:04 |
yes, of course keith. BTW, I know you are but what am I? |
maxdimario wrote |
I know you are but what am I? |