HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Reddit: I am back after a... » Reply #3

Response to Politicalboi (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 27, 2015, 01:49 AM

3. You really haven't looked into this stuff at all, have you?

No, the firemen certainly aren't stupid: They know full well that not all explosions are caused by explosives and they certainly know that lots of stuff explodes in fires. I don't doubt that they are also smart enough to know that not everything that sounds like an explosion really is an explosion, anyway. As for the jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, read this: http://www.911myths.com/html/jet_fuel.html

Despite the disingenuous quote mining you've been reading on "truther" sites, there isn't a single published account from a fireman who was actually there who endorses the idiotic "controlled demolition" theories.

> Planes traveling at sea level speeds can NOT penetrate steel and concrete and leave NO debris on the ground below. Not one wing popped off, no tail end sticking out, and not a lot of noise either being that close to the ground.

At those impact speeds, wings don't "pop off," they're reduced to confetti, and it's beyond silly to expect to see a tail sticking out. You seem to have no concept of how much energy and momentum those collisions involved. You also seem to base a lot of faulty conclusions on things you haven't seen, but then it turns out you haven't looked very hard. In photos like this one taken before the collapse, except for the aluminum column sheaths it's impossible to distinguish plane debris from building debris. But it is possible to discount your hand-waving claims of "NO debris on the ground below":



Your imagination about what the impact did or didn't sound like is equally irrelevant.

> NIST report shows us this silly cartoon of the "pancake" collapse and have the nerve to show the steel columns still standing.

No, you're confused; the NIST report shows no such thing; you're thinking of an early Nova show on PBS, which was before the NIST report was finished. However, from the evidence in the rubble, we do know that the predominant failure mode was indeed floor structures stripped from columns. But there is no logical reason to expect the columns to remain standing for very long. Having lost the lateral restraint provided by the floor structure, most of them were simply pushed over by the falling debris. But after the main collapse, there were in fact "spires" of core column left standing for a few seconds. Those quickly collapsed under their own weight, however, because they had no lateral stability to resist buckling:



> That's the science you trust? 10 stories a second due to fire.

Your sloppy math aside, the science that explains the speed of the collapses is called the Conservation of Momentum Law. The "science" that supposes the collapse should have happened slowly is called "imaginary physics," a.k.a. "truther science." A little actual thought should give you a clue why the collapse was "near" free-fall: because it mostly was free-fall after floor structures were stripped from columns, which took a few milliseconds each. Even in cases where columns were buckled, the speed of that buckling was dictated by the conservation of momentum. Each such collision slowed the collapse a little, but Newtonian physics says that the total momentum should have increased throughout the entire collapse, and that's exactly what we see. The collapses actually proceeded at about 2/3 the acceleration of gravity, and that other 1/3 represents the energy that was absorbed in destroying the structure -- a considerable amount, but only a fraction of the total energy available. Yes, this is science I trust because it's firmly based in well established physics, and anyone who tells you differently simply doesn't know what he is talking about or is lying.

As the direct result of getting "educated" on "truther" sites, you simply don't know enough about the events of 9/11 to have a well-formed opinion about what happened.

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 3 replies Author Time Post
nationalize the fed Mar 2015 OP
William Seger Mar 2015 #1
Politicalboi Mar 2015 #2
LineLineLineNew Reply You really haven't looked into this stuff at all, have you?
William Seger Mar 2015 #3
Please login to view edit histories.