According to himself:

"This video was made possible by a generous grant from the U.S. Shadow Government's Ministry of Information Control ;-)"

They were 767's

You should have stopped typing after that first comma.

Eight seconds of slow catastrophic asymetrical progressive internal collapse which is plainly observable.

good point. Today I something new that fire can do.

--- sarcastic dick again sorry... done now.

If you watch that clip and think that fire did that, you're a fucking moron. If someone tells you fire did that and you believe them, you're a fucking moron.

no sarcasm, just being a dick now.

I feel like you may be getting somewhere because it seemed like you started out thinking it was preposterous that two towers would randomly fall on their own. Now at least you've noticed the fire.

DancingShadow, I am a Mechanical Engineer in my last year at UCB. I deal specifically in in the tensile and compressive strengths of new(ish) alloys and composites these days, but I've just about tested to the failing point of every commercially available alloy out there under just about every condition we could recreate.


Did a jet fuel fire do that alone? No.
Did a plane do that alone? No.
Did a large coincidence of many, many factors all stemming from the crash and resulting fire do that? Absolutely, especially when you think about how the place was built.

There is no mystery as to why or how the towers fell. I watched a truck fire make a section of the freeway fall down near my house in Oakland. It wasn't even that hot compared to the fire in the WTC. My point being, steel doesn't need to melt to fail. The two are far apart from one another.

I am clearly a fucking moron., though.

I am not a psychiatrist, but I can still tell you that you wasted your effort writing this post, the dude is either trolling or a complete fucking moron

Depends on what you mean by 'wasted'.

Yay, Ursa_minor, I assume you had to pass physics 100 or perhaps like pys 171 or something if you couldn't quite do the math.

You mentioned planes and gasoline so I assume you didn't realize that the clip I referenced was building 7.

I will repeat your answer, which is pretty similar to NISTs:

Due to "a large coincidence of many, many factors all stemming from the crash and resulting fire" considering "how the place was built" the building fell to earth.

Give me one of those factors. Just one besides fire. Check with your TA first so you'll get full marks.

Well, besides the fire, I'd say a plane hitting it probably helped quite a bit.

Oh.

That's how you talk to someone who has studied things like this almost their entire adult life?
Nevermind then. You're not interested in details. No amount of technical data will change your mind. You've made your mind up. Just like...
Well, I guess the people who also flew some planes into those buildings. No amount of reason or data or discourse could change their minds either.
I guess, congrats on carrying the flag?

"Give me one of those factors. Just one besides fire."

Debris from the North Tower falling dozens of floors onto WTC7.

Ursa minor, you need to go to the Rhetoric department and learn Aristotle's distinction between logos, pathos, and ethos, then reformulate your argument towards DancingShadow such that it relies on/uses pathos and ethos primarily. For DancingShadow the conspiracy of the collapsing towers is not about the truth or what is the case, rather it signifies a larger and more abstract belief/fear DancingShadow has about unrestrained power and his/her own vulnerability to it.

In this case that underlying belief/fear is manifested as government conspiracy to bring down the towers, in other cases it might manifest as a significant other cheating on him/her, etc. Make use of the emotional so your argument presents more at stake emotionally for DancingShadow than the belief/fear of power and vulnerability do. Perhaps this might mean appealing to the vulnerability one faces when not relying on good evidence/science.

Dancingshadow, you need to find ten rednecks, some gasoline, some gunpowder, and a weekend to spend out in the middle of nowhere blowing stuff up. You need to get this out of your system and see first hand how this stuff works. It's a vacation anyone can have.

oops. meant as a reply.

Your dad obviously rigged that can with explosives so that it would fail. There's no way just standing on that can would've made it collapse all by itself.
If you think it was just your weight that crushed that can, you're a moron.

Your dad's a smart man to give such an enlightening lesson.

If you put a baseball on the can and you flicked it, I don't think it would crush the can.

If you put an encyclopedia on a can and flicked it, it might crush some of the way.

If you put an Ursa minor on the can and his dad flicks it, it crushes to the ground.

when you lift a mass up you give it energy, the more mass, the more energy.

When the can is flicked, the structure that was distributing the load is broken and the energy of the mass above it begins deforming the material. It takes energy to deform material; in this case, bending the aluminum. The greater the energy above it, the more the material will be deformed.

(breaking apart concrete takes lots'a energy!)

What happened on 911 would be like having 4 cans stacked, flicking the 3rd up, and the top one crushing all the others to the ground.

Clearly someone else has used this anecdote, for he has a reply readily available.

His reply is probably always going to be [anecdote] - [anecdote subject] + [WTC 7] + [IT'S OVER 9000!].

Give him long enough, and WTC 7 will have been brought down by a conspiracy armed with an infinite supply of Coke cans. His mindset won't accept anything else.

Those Titan's are crazy. A fully loaded Titan with a thermonuclear warhead in Damascus, Arkansas exploded when a worker accidentally dropped the socket from a wrench off a catwalk and it ricocheted into the side of the missile.

Ursa_minor, look at it this way;

Because you can accept reality when it does not support your prejudices, and because you are a student of science, you will live a life with your feet firmly planted on the ground, and you will apply real world knowledge to real world problems and get actual results. dancingshadow will not.

The belief system that makes a person refuse to believe all of the convincing evidence that proves that planes caused the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th is facile, sad, and not conducive to a positive existence. Nothing will ever come of dancingshadow's belief on this issue outside of some disingenuous arguments on message boards across the internet. ds will continue to drift through life with this deranged attitude, disconnected from the real world, yet overwhelmingly convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority on this and many other issues. And every day will be a minefield of reality bombs, when actual experience serves up constant reminders of how sad and immature this worldview is.

So, fuck it. You won before you ever typed a word. I'm just sorry your football team sucks so hard. Go USC Trojans.

DancingShadow,

Well, no.
The WTC did not have the luxury of having a contiguous surface around the outside perimeter, nor anywhere inside. Instead, it was made up of a million tiny little pieces that all relied on one another to stay rigid. Billions of little soda cans.

If the the WTC was as strong and light, to scale, as 4 soda cans stacked on one another, the plane simply would have bounced off.

Your analogy doesn't work.

Ursa_minor, you get my stars for being cool and having a cool dad.

Haha, thanks!

Actually, both of my Dads, Step and Blood are both ex-Aerojet rocket engineers. Weirdly enough, both are friends and work at the same small start up in Sacramento. Both of are incredible dudes, who both display a level of maturity I simply will never be able to match.

My mom apparently has a type.

Stars are for UMs astronaut soap opera of a life!

"it was made up of a million tiny little pieces that all relied on one another to stay rigid."

Man, look at when the planes hit them... they don't move a bit. Those fuckers would have stood for centuries. An hour later they falls down instantly?

Sorry for takin so long to respond. Thanks for responding to my actual point Ursa. Most of the comments talk about conspiracies and things. I just really don't have time to care too much about that. I'm just telling you the NIST explanation is impossible.

Clearly because dancingshadow did not see much of anything happening to the structure of the buildings, absolutely nothing was happening. They could have stood for a hundred years! Why? Because they seemed from the outside to be okay!

Also, stars for 'an hour later they fall down instantly'.

This guy is amazing.

I know what you mean. I feel like I'm having to "outgrow" some people as the years ago on.

Here's my take on it: Wikileaks and others. There'd have been something by now.

Plus we have seen that there are suicide bombers out there in the world. It's not that much of a stretch to think some of them took flying lessons.

The problem I have, the big problem I have, with all the hoaxers, is not that they believe in the 9/11 thing, but that they tend to also believe a lot of other really crazy shit. Like Bigfoot, UFOs, Alien Lizard People have infiltrated everything like in the show "V", Hollow Earth, magick, psychics, Book of Revelations, RFID = Mark of the Beast or whatever it is these days, Chemtrails, Ogone, etc.

I mean I get it; the world is an insane place. People do really fucked up things that defy logic. I wish I could believe there was some overarching conspiracy that tied it all together or that there was some kind of God watching out for us and making sure it's all going to be alright, but the truth is that we're all just on our own. That can be a good thing if we let it. That is, if we try to rise to the occasion, instead of ending up all "Lord Of The Flies". I think we are slowly getting better at that.

Living in fear of what all might be is just another way to an early grave.

The point that the Truthers keep missing is, it was a terrorist attack that was potentially preventable (seeing as there were at least some rumblings in law enforcement circles that could have been followed up on), but the Bush administration's failing was incompetence, not complicity. Some folks have trouble imagining incompetence so comprehensive that you can hand the guy a warning and still he doesn't think to act on it, but unfortunately that was the pattern of pretty much all of the Bush presidency.