You saidI think if you read it again you might get it. Where did I claim the columns disintegrated? Please indicate.So I'm asking you to explain why you use that word, as I can't find any reference to columns disintegrating. What are you referring to?"As there were 47 of these columns, and at the most less than half of them failed according to your quoted source, then all should not have disintegrated - a bit of bending and facade damage, yes."
I you referring to when I said:And: are you avoiding this question? Q: Do you withdraw your previous statement that it was likely not what happened which was presented in the final cut of the video you presented as evidence that an aircraft would sever several (12?) steel core structural members (as well as the exterior wall without any apparent damage at all to the aircraft in the first instance) before decelerating and breaking up sufficiently? A: ...
then all should not have disintegrated - a bit of bending and facade damage, yes - I think the key word here is 'all' - get it now? it's pretty obvious.You said "As there were 47 of these columns, and at the most less than half of them failed according to your quoted source, then all should not have disintegrated - a bit of bending and facade damage, yes."
So I'm asking you to explain why you use that word, as I can't find any reference to columns disintegrating. What are you referring to?
How many fences can you sit on at once? Your arse must hurt
What is a 500 mph plane, if not a moving load? yes, like I said, the impact was absorbed, no problem - read what you quoted.
So - do you believe the video is a true representation of what happened and that's why they produced it in that form? Yes or no? It was your evidence, after all...
Really, now you are not being serious. You know exactly how the fire contributed to the failure of the columns.
Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think [it's quite possibly] that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. So you stand by that? I think you need to remove the wishy washy words in brackets and you're there. How do you reconcile all the different 'possibles', 'maybes' and 'seems'?
I think you verge into pedantic territory. I'll stand by my statement. I put qualifiers in to indicate the degree of certainty, as one should.
or is your answer this: I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is.
or...We don't know if they were broken or not. or....
they can't tell exactly what happened.
Or: it might have happened, they just don't know exactly what happened.
Or: The point is that it actually makes physical sense.
Or: Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. ?
Do you stand by all of these?
Yes. I stand by all those statements.
It's a simulation. It's a possible model of what might have happened.
Because it shows a sequence of events that has been computed to be plausible. I offered it up as a counter to your argument from incredulity.
And you keep on dodging this one....come on, what's up?Mick: "Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day."
I must say that I'm pretty disappointed to read a statement like this here. You think it's a reasonable account even though we know they didn't consider building 7, that some of the testimony was obtained using torture, that Bush wouldn't testify alone or under oath, that some of the testimony was destroyed, that numerous commission members including the Senior Council have concluded that their own report is based on government lies? That the largest crime scene in American history was immediately cleaned-up instead of roped off and guarded so they could perform a thorough investigation? The examples of cover-up are many, which begs the question: what exactly are they covering up and why? I have my personal suspicions, but I don't know exactly what happened. All I know is there is a cover-up on some level and we have not been told the complete truth. Whether that truth shows that "9/11 was an inside job" or that our government was simply completely inept, in the end the truth needs to come out.
So - do you believe the video is a true representation of what happened and that's why they produced it in that form? Yes or no? It was your evidence, after all... well?
and what sustained this incredibly destructive fire that a fireman said would be sorted by 'two lines'?
building 7, torture, Bush wouldn't testify, testimony was destroyed, commission members concluded that [it] is based on government lies? crime scene[destroyed]
Then to save time:
You will respond: "oh really, so some burning desks brought down the World Trade Center?"
And I'll say "workstations, but pretty much, they did a simulation, and that's what happened, they even burned some sample workstations to check it"
And you'll say "seriously? they toss some coke cans at a wall, and burn a desk, and you say that's your evidence"
So I'll respond "see, that's an argument from incredulity, they actually did experiments, performed calculations, worked out what would happen. But you just say it sounds wrong.
Then maybe you'll say "but what about the fireman who said it just needed two lines"?
And I'll say: "how many lines did they have?, then I'll say, "that quote was seconds before the collapse in WTC2 . The fires had nearly burnt out at that point. They had already done the damage"
The fact you won't address unreg's comments reinforces what I've said here before - you don't/won't address other aspects such as political, psychological, historical (and many more)...why not? They are clearly very relevant.
Any incredulity I have with the regard to the three buildings collapsing is based on knowledge of the apparent violation of Newton's laws. If that's not about the physical, I don't know what is. That would seem like a reasonable thing to be incredulous about, don't you think? I haven't heard you mention inertia, motion etc. I haven't heard you 'debunk' Newton's theory. Why not have a go?
Yes, the fire had burned out because it had used all the fuel available - you got that right. They had already done the damage is where you got it all very wrong and simply are believing what you are told because you want to believe it. The alternative is too difficult to even entertain for you. Steel is a pretty good conductor of heat - and concrete isn't bad either - a lot of the heat from those short burning and not particularly intense, or hot, fires (ONE HOUR in one case and not much more in the other) would have been absorbed and distributed to other steels adjacent, the large surface area to volume ratio (scale and dimensions again) of steel columns assists with the conducting of heat out as it travels along and through. The wood-fired oven is actually quite a good example of this in action (through the concrete or bricks, depending what it's made from) and it gets up to 800 celcius - consider that it takes a couple of hours of constant feeding of fuel into an enlosed space to achieve these temperatures locally. And still the structure doesn't fail - I'm pretty sure the A393 mesh I put in the concrete of mine hasn't melted yet, and thats only 5-6mm reinforcing tied to 10mm rebar with a four inch concrete pad over (same as the floors in wtc), the concrete is a bit blackened, but you'd expect that with an 800 C fire sitting on it. There is no deformation after being used well over a hundred times at 800C for three to four to five hours each use. This intense heat in a relatively small, contained space - the towers were a different proposition altogether - takes a while to build, and the oven is designed to retain the heat as far as possible. The towers were not built to retain any heat from fires and the amount of heat being conducted along and out of the steel and concrete present in the towers would be pretty high given the huge amounts of steel and concrete available into which redistribution and release takes place.
You can 'prove' any theory if you choose the wrong parameters for your so-called experiment. Yes it is an experiment, but it's the wrong experiment. It's a shame you won't even begin to discuss the political and pychological aspects when it is clear that your position is based as much on those as it is on 'official' science.
You keep mentioning my apparent 'incredulity' and use it, trying to debase my position by repeating it is 'personal'; you are, though, unable to see the selectivity of your own credulity.
I am somewhat incredulous. The difference here is that I don't use it as the basis of my argument.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by:
Because I don't think it means what you think it means.the large surface area to volume ratio (scale and dimensions again) of steel columns assists with the conducting of heat out as it travels along and through.
This is asymmetric collapse. How do you explain that this tilting top section of building arrested its momentum? Would that, according to Newton's inertia laws, require some other (greater) force acting upon it?
Interesting question. Okay, lets suppose that the "greater force" was not present. What would happen next, after the point in time of that photo?
Surface area to volume ratio is a relatively simple property that is very important. It's why the Mrs can be cold while you're not. Why road rock doesn't break down very fast, why sand leaches and why clay doesn't let go of fertilizer.
Surface:volume ratio is often a factor in the reactivity, or the rate, at which a chemical reaction can take place.
Materials with large surface area to volume ratios (eg. very small diameter) react at much faster rates than larger materials, because more particle surface is available to react. A good example is grain dust; while grain is not typically flammable, grain dust is explosive. Another example is steel wool; steel wool will burn, but take a nail and try to set it on fire. You see the problem now? Good luck with that nail - why don't you do an experiment with a blowtorch using Mapp and a 150mmx3mm nail in a vice next to some steel wool. Put the nail in the vice sideways and clamp it so there is tension. Get the torch on it till it fails. See how hot your vice gets by the transference of heat from the small points of the nail being in contact. Are you now trying to suggest that steel doesn't really conduct heat? Do you realise how hot a piece of steel of structural dimensions needs to get before it gets weakened? How intense and focused that heat needs to be? Clearly not.
I understand what surface area to volume ratio is. I was wondering why you said the columns had a large one, especially as you mentioned scale.
So I'm a little confused as to what you think IS arresting its momentum (by which I assume you mean rotational momentum).
I'm assuming for the sake of simplification you are treating the entire top of the building as a rigid body?
and where have all your mates gone?
don't they want to support your film's findings?