|
Jaxyon posted:Some architect/engineer can probably do better than me, but as far as 6 goes, the empire state building is built in an entirely different way and the plane that hit it was entirely different in a number of important ways. regarding the building, the empire state building is way "overbuilt" for what needs to be. it is made of a bunch of heavy steel and masonry, as was the style of early skyscrapers. in fact, from the period 1880-1920 skyscrapers were evolving quickly as architects learned more about how to engineer and build ever taller buildings. remember that all of this work was being done without computers, being drafted and calculated by hand, so the safety factor was a bit larger than architects use today (if we think of safety factor as extra materials, thus extra cost, you want to shave this down a bit but not too much, for safety). as tall buildings shifted from all-masonry, to masonry supported by steel, to a steel/masonry hybrid, architects were busy figuring out optimal balances of both. you can really only build about 10 stories tall with all masonry construction, before the bottom walls are too thick to have windows or doors. (10 stories is already above the practical limit of daily stair climbing, this is why poor people before elevators lived in the attic) steel lets you get a lot, lot taller, shifting the structure of the building from internal masonry supports to a steel skeleton with a masonry wrapper the empire state building itself was also caught up in a roaring twenties race to have the tallest building. as architects got better at building bigger, then everyone wanted to have the biggest building. especially everyone in new york, it was a for real race to have the biggest dick in town. the plans for the empire state building and its immediate precursors kept getting taller and taller, so there's a bit of 'extra' in the design just in case yet another set of revisions came along trying to stack another five floors on top. while the empire state building is near the limit of practical engineering for the time, the main reason it was capped was because it was already The Tallest and also there was concern that additional floors would be increasingly difficult to rent, so they capped the whole thing off with a ridiculous zeppelin mooring mast and signed off in comparison, the WTC is a hallmark of late international modernist design. instead of the empire state, which is basically a shitload of interlocking steel girders with a heavy masonry shell, the WTC 1 and 2 were a very tall core pillar of elevator and service tubes, around which a bunch of floorspace hung. imagine a giant concrete tree trunk, encased in a thin steel and glass truss. on neither building was the outer shell structurally supportive, but with the WTC the outer skin handled stress redistribution and wind load more than the outer skin of the empire state building, which was primarily decorative and to keep the weather out. both buildings are well designed, but the WTC 1 and 2 towers could be bigger and have more floor space relative to the cost, which is your goal when you're building an enormous tower now, regarding the planes. the plane which hit the empire state was a ww2 vintage b-25 medium bomber. this plane had two propeller engines, had a maximum weight of 30 tons fully loaded, and a maximum speed of about 270 mph. both the WTC towers were struck by variants of the boeing 767, a modern jetliner which has a max speed roughly twice as fast, and a maximum weight roughly five times greater than the b-25, depending on configuration. the 767 is a modern, much bigger, much faster plane the b-25 which hit the empire state building was transporting people between military bases when the pilot became disoriented in a thick fog over new york. he took a wrong turn and flew right into the side of the empire state building. the plane was not fully loaded, it had no weaponry on board and an adequate but not full load of fuel. the pilot was flying at a slow rate of speed because he was navigating in poor visibility over a city, and so he slowed down a bit to try to figure out where he was and also, to not crash into anything in comparison, the hijacked 767s were fully loaded with fuel. the hijackers specifically targeted cross country flights because they would have more fuel, because due to the fact that lugging fuel around costs fuel and thus money, common aeronautical practice is to just put in as much fuel as you need to get to where you're going plus a bit extra to be safe. a flight going from NYC to boston will have much less gas on board than one going from NYC to LA. the hijackers then flew these fully loaded planes at maximum speed into the towers in broad daylight, for maximum damage both buildings were completely penetrated by aircraft debris. because the empire state building had thicker walls, relatively heavier internal construction, and was struck by a smaller plane traveling at a slower speed with less explosive potential, the amount of damage done to the building was relatively lesser. the damage was mostly localized to the immediate location of the strike. on the other hand, both WTC 1 and 2 were struck by aircraft roughly five times larger, traveling roughly five times faster, and with a much larger quantity of explosive fuel on board. this damage was spread all through the building. in all cases, the aircraft strikes started fires, but because of the massive damage done to the internal core of WTC 1 and 2, fire response was unable to begin fighting the fire before the structures collapsed the heavier masonry walls and lighter force applied meant that the damage to the empire state building was never critical. a dozenish people died, mostly due to the immediate strike, which took out two adjoining office suites on a high floor and set them on fire. the structure of the building was not compromised, and the repairs were largely cosmetic. on the other hand, both WTC towers found their internal cores completely severed due to the speed and violence of the aircraft strike, which had a number of effects -it compromised the ability of victims to escape, and first responders to assist -it compromised the structural integrity of the building itself -it allowed fire to spread from the immediate site of the impact (which was itself much larger) into adjacent areas that's about as good of a summary as i can spit out. total apples to oranges when it comes to aircraft flying into buildings and killing people
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? eye witness testimony is unreliable, and what proof do you have of these numerous out of sync explosions? lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence of squibs occurring dozens of floors below the pancaking collapse? it is compressed air being pushed down by the weight of building movement from above, the controlled demolition theory is already extremely debunked because it is very hollywood. a duffel bag of explosives isn't going to cut it and prepping columns for demolition would be extremely noticed lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the fact that out of dozens of cameras filming the section of the pentagon hit, only one with suspiciously missing frames was released? do you have proof there were dozens of cameras filming the pentagon exterior? why would this be the case? lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the fact that no timestamped video evidence of the hijackers getting on the planes has ever been released? likewise, in 2001, there is not constant recording of public spaces as became ubiquitous later (partially because of 9/11). even at this time the best you'd often get is security reusing the same vhs tape until it is completely fuzzed out. why would there be a film record of people boarding planes? as other posters above have stated, you need to make assertive proof of your claims rather than asking other people to prove your negatives ("can you prove this DIDN"T happen?") what you're really looking for is not evidence, but further reasons to entrench what it is you already feel like is the truth
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
actually, i'm not even sure what you're getting at here. your points 2 and 4 point assumes video evidence is valid and airplanes are involved, but your point 3 about suspiciously missing frames seems to hint that you think something other than an airplane hit the pentagon please take a moment to think about what you actually believe happened, and find some proof of that, rather than JAQing about what you feel happened and that something shadowy and sinister happened somewhere in some way. be specific
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:There is footage of Atta going through security. It has been released and there is literally a still of it on the wiki page. huh, timestamped and everything i was just shooting from the hip assuming the poster was repeating nonsense. i guess technically there's no footage of atta boarding the plane so we can still retreat a bit into questionland i think my assumption still holds true, in the early 2000s we were still on the cusp of ubiquitous recording of public spaces because the infrastructure necessary was still a bit too expensive and cumbersome
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:Has an actual air Marshall stopped a hijacking of a flight, yet? no, but its hard to say because hijackings are pretty rare air marshalls mostly just subdue people who get too drunk and freak out midflight RoboChrist 9000 posted:See also: part of I suspect why there's the whole myth of the Nazis as efficient badasses and Hitler as an evil genius. It's more comforting to think the world was nearly conquered by a bunch of supervillains than to realize it was nearly conquered by a bunch of insane idiots who couldn't do the most basic tasks properly. imo this is more because of nazi lost causerism from wheraboos who idolize the nazi war machine because it's more socially acceptable to talk about wunderwaffen and precise german efficiency than it is to talk about how you agreed with hitler's views on mass murder it does make a better story to imagine that the nazi state wasn't already falling apart because of the extreme quagmire which was the nazi invasion of russia Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Big Dick Cheney posted:But seriously, how did those passports survive the crash? That seems very implausible. Of course, someone dropping a passport somewhere doesn't mean that the rest of the conspiracies are true. lots of poo poo got ejected from the crash. pieces of bodies did too. most of the passports didn't survive. just because something seems implausible doesn't mean it is impossible, and implausible things are not de facto evidence of a conspiracy
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I've seen various 9/11 conspiracy stuff over the years and some of it can be quite compelling, but the thing that always gets me is the pieces don't fit together. No one can ever collect all of the individually extremely weird poo poo surrounding it and piece it into a coherent framework that explains why it fits as part of a conspiracy. This trueanon episode was interesting because all of the individual items sound pretty damning, but no one takes the next step to ask why it was done that way this is how conspiracy theories function. they only need to seed your doubt with little fragments that smell like proof, and you can be relied on to supply the context. the theory doesn't need to be a coherent whole, you'll do that work yourself. no two theories match because they're all subjective and crowdsourced, and the most compelling fake bits of proof will rise to the top ("jet fuel cant melt steel beams") where the more absurd fake bits of proof will be discarded ("the planes were really holograms projected over missiles") you can see an example of this regarding the WTC 7 Ouroboros posted:One part I did find interesting was the WTC 7 stuff, this does appear to be a reasonably rigorous investigation that shows fire was not the cause of the collapse, rather it was the simultaneous failure of all of the structural columns for some unknown reason: https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7. Is that study legit? And if so, what would explain its conclusions? the study is from an engineering department at an engineering school at an american university, authored by three engineers. it was also paid for by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the main source of 'academic' 9/11 conspiracy theories, and their conclusion is: quote:The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. This conclusion is based upon a number of findings from our different analyses. Together, they show that fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building, nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse. quote:Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior. if you reject the idea that fires did it, then... who knows? but it wasn't fires, because we take it as a given that jet fuel cannot melt steel beams this directly contradicts the NIST report on WTC 7, which was an investigation conducted by dozens of engineers on behalf of the federal government and states conclusively that fire initiated the collapse, and not some unknown non-fire medium present in the building which was damaged and also on fire. seems like fire was very likely the immediate cause of the collapse! but if you reject this out of hand and substitute some mysterious "simultaneous universal collapse" of the structural members then that sounds a whole lot like "controlled demolition" without me actually saying those words, and i don't actually have to do any work to prove controlled demolition - i just reject the most sensible conclusion and let you fill in the blanks anyway, here's the NIST report https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/11/nist-releases-final-wtc-7-investigation-report
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave? i dont know enough about structural collapse to be able to tell one report from the other, and i'm not going to spend hours reading them to find out all i know is that the building was real fuckin on fire so if someone tells me the fire had nothing to do with it i'm going to be real suspicious of their motivations, especially if their study is being sponsored by the literal "fire doesn't melt steel beams" people and they can't even come up with a realistic explanation for why fire wasn't the immediate cause (ghosts? a strong wind? an angry circus strongman?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off? what's happening is that your self perception of yourself as an independent, rational thinker is collapsing under some fairly mild pushback if you weren't so invested in these theories being true, i don't think you would feel on the defense when the theories get ridiculed this is another essential component of conspiracy thinking - feeling shamed and then doubling down when you get external criticism of the idea you were intrigued by. its a feeling of "i couldn't have been so gullible... those people must just be assholes" anyway you are getting what you wanted, these ideas are being debunked. they're just not being debunked in the manner you would prefer, or as kindly as you would prefer Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Sep 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
you're very clearly on the defensive at this point because of wounded pride over some theories you bought into being roundly mocked. i'm not in a position to tell you what to do with your life but i urge you not do this debunking conspiracy theories means debunking conspiracy theorists. you may have identified yourself as "not a conspiracy theorist" when you first posted in this thread, but your posting has seemed to take a change in tone
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
just for laffs i went back through the AE9/11T sponsored report and saw that they breifly addressed two other structural engineering reports, created for both sides of a lawsuit around the collapse of WTC 7, both of which also found that fire was essential to the collapse of the structurequote:Separate from the NIST investigation, two studies of WTC 7’s collapse were commissioned by opposing sides in the lawsuit “Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Company, L.P.” Experts working in connection with engineering firms Ove Arup & Partners (Arup) and Guy Nordenson and Associates (Nordenson) were retained by the plaintiffs. The engineering firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. (Weidlinger) was retained by the defendants. After evaluating NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis, we reviewed the Arup, Nordenson, and Weidlinger reports and found the following: it is actually not extraordinary at all, office fires can easily get well over 1100*C if they are allowed to get fully inflamed and if the fireproof cladding is damaged from, say, a debris strike... i guess that fact is inconvenient for the conclusion the authors have been paid to discover so we just skip right past that without comment in this passage anyway yeah it's not just one report this report is trying to disagree with, but three of them, and its just using a ton of words to say "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" which is of course a cliche of irrational, blinkered thought, and then the conclusion at the end is just a wink-nod "we don't know what happened, but all of the columns must have simultaneously moved" because if they actually said "it was controlled demolition" any last bit of plausibility would be gone
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
however, based on a deeper glance of the evidence, it is all pretty clearly laid out
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
there are always going to be truther goons. conspiracy theories and a lot of other extremely radical politics like the Big Lie are sourced mostly in a person feeling powerless in some way, and discarding whatever capacity they have for critical thought (if they have any) in favor of some narrative which feels good and empowering. you can't debunk it because you can't take away someone's emotional security blanket that only they know the real truth and everyone else is just a brainwashed sheep. like antivax bullshit isn't really about fear of science in most cases, its someone barking about what a badass rebel they are in about the tamest, safest way possible, because for whatever reason they really want everyone to know how extremely hardcore they are to fight the power like this so essentially, truthers are just emotionally vulnerable people looking for relief, and if i know goons, well...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2022 06:03
|
|