That’s how stuff works…

answer the points that have been put to you

Why should it?

That’s how stuff works…[/quote]
[/quote]

No it isn’t, this is literally what Newtons Laws are all about.

Yeah. I have looked at your account. You are are trolling fruitoop, I’m done responding to you. Threefish at least seemed like he was interested in a discussion for a while.

…with magic explosives that don’t make any sound. Aye. Right.

NIST says that an estimated 23,000 gallons of diesel were recovered several months after the collapse and that fuel oil did not contribute to the collapse- FAQ #19-https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Yeah it was ghosts, you want proof? That’s how stuff works. Or maybe it was the flat earthers, from so high up you could see the curvature of the earth so they wanted it gone. It would be funny if people didn’t genuinely believe some of this nonsense.

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials…

That’s long before you look into the bigger picture of events on the day and the people involved.

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire

So, in trying to understand this… The collapse would not be easy to replicate, so the towers in fact collapsed in quite an unpredictable way?

what were the chances of them collapsing like that? This is not rhetorical, can you make an estimate of the likelihood?

Not that i’m suggesting that because they collapsed in an unpredictable way it means that there was a controlled explosion.

But it would help with constructing the Bayesian equations

What do you actually mean by this ‘designed for’ and ‘forces exceeding’? Do you mean they were designed not to collapse from the force of a plane hitting them, cos they didn’t do that…

They collapsed not from the force of impact, but due to structural failure from the fire and contributory cumulative damage.

Plane hits != collapse
Fire != collapse

Plane hits + fire + cumulative damage = collapse.

Also ‘designed for’ is all well and good, but it wasn’t exactly possible to test it was it? Even when people do their best to ‘design for things’ it doesn’t mean they get it right, or that something unexpected didn’t happen, or a factor that wasn’t anticipated or thought of.

Hasn’t this been debunked already numerous times over?

Okaaaaaay…

So, remember this guy?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UbgEXq0sE [/video]

Apparently the buildings were designed to collapse in exactly the way they did in such an event. This was explained to a guy who was in a meeting in one of the buildings the day before the attack. Makes sense that they would be designed in this way to avoid taking out all the surrounding buildings, no?

I’ve read somewhere that the worst case scenario was for a misty day and for a Boeing 707 coming in to land at JFK striking the building. But this was coming in to land with a low fuel load not having taken off fully laden which is why the hijackers chose to use planes leaving New York on long distance flights.

The original 707 had a maximum take-off weight of 117t and a fuel capacity of 65,000 litres, the 767-200er has a MTOW of 179t and a fuel capacity of 91,000 litres.

I can’t believe I fell for JHJ. I can normally spot a troll a mile off.
People there are many good reasons to just ignore him/her. DISENGAGE.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll
http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657

My homework question is why he edited the post, adding that bit afterward… Not that I can be bothered to reply if he won’t watch valid youtube links.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UbgEXq0sE[/video]

Expanding a little further from earlier this week:

If confirmed, the arrest and detention of Bandar would constitute the most significant and high profile figure caught up in the purge – even above that of high profile billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal – given Bandar’s closeness to multiple US administrations and involvement in events ranging from Reagan’s Nicaraguan Contra program (including direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal), to making the case for the Iraq War as a trusted friend of Bush and Cheney, to directing US-Saudi covert operations overseeing the arming of jihadists in Syria.

…and given that you’d rigged three WTC buildings for demolition, wouldn’t you make sure you had arranged a plane for each building, since that’s your cover story? Seems a bit of a half hearted to organize planes for two buildings and then blow up WTC7 without bothering to fly a plane into it.

I think we can all agree that downward is the direction of gravity and that we are all amused at how often this is repeated. The issue is that there appeared to be minimal lateral forces.

It was, which is why it didn’t fall over in the same way.

So… it was predictable? One would expect that given all possible collapse scenarios, the one that occurred was quite likely?

Ghosts.

And unicorns.