Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I’d like to believe that sane, level headed people who enjoy discussing computers and electronics visit the Dvorak blog.
But after glancing at some of the nutty comments from Mike and Dallas, I have to wonder if their reality checks bounced.
#32,
no they weren’t. Or maybe you didn’t just read what I wrote. Center columns supported elevator shafts and help support the center of the floors but all the load is carried on the outside by beams that span and are riveted to those outside cage beams
I was a firefighter for about 8 years and we had a school burn and in that school the steel supports bent and twisted… no jet fuel involved. Steel does not have to liquefy to fail.
>> Grandpa said, on September 15th, 2010 at 1:25 am
>> #4 we were attacked because we are infidels and all infidels must be killed.
That’s the simplistic Fox News islamophobe explanation.
If that was the reason, there where plenty of infidels a lot closer and a lot easier to hit than the WTC towers.
For some reason, most Americans absolutely refuse to learn about the real reasons why so many Muslims dislike or hate America.
I’m not saying they have to agree — they don’t even want to understand.
If there was some kind of conspiracy by the government then wouldn’t it have been easier to make the conspiracy be that instead of arranging these planes to be hijacked and secretly exploding the buildings that they made it look like terrorists that planted the explosives? Instead of all the chaos and time for people to get away during the time between the plane crash and the buildings falling there is just a boom and the buildings explode out of nowhere. That would have been a lot more “terrifying.”
>> Cursor_ said, on September 15th, 2010 at 12:09 am
>> No the truth is that all regimes since the end of WWII never thought that a major terrorist attack would happen to them.
What do you mean “no”?!?
The facts are — the Bush administration had numerous and loud warnings that Al Qaeda was about to attack.
Look. You can have your own opinions about the facts — but you don’t get your own facts.
>> Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on September 15th, 2010 at 4:15 am
>> And how did WTC7 burn for so long with no NYFD?
What the heck kind of question is that?
Where you watching the Home Shopping Network when the rest of us where watching the Twin Towers fall?
>> jccalhoun said,
>> If there was some kind of conspiracy by the government then wouldn’t it have been easier to make the conspiracy be that instead of arranging these planes to be hijacked and secretly exploding the buildings…
A even harder questions for the “Truthers” is.
Wouldn’t AT LEAST ONE PERSON have noticed workers wiring the buildings for explosives?
There isn’t even one janitor who noticed a bunch of bombs and wires and crap running up and down the building?
“Now that you mention it, I DO remember a bunch of dynamite strapped to the pillar by the copy machine. I didn’t think much of it at the time but….”
Seriously, what the “Truthers” are claiming is so absurd, so impossible, so self-evidently wrong, that the whole burden of proof is on them.
But all they do is ask question after question, going on to the next when their last one is answered. That’s the way conspiracy nuts do it. They believe that a series of ill-considered questions makes a point.
There was not super long term conspiracy to artificially bring down any buildings. If you know anything about physics and have worked with demolition, you know that you can’t just put some fuel into a building and expect it to fall. You have to pre-remove all the surrounding concrete around the support beams, cut through them so they’re 50%-80% weakened and put in large amounts of shaped explosives. You can’t just put in some diesel and expect it to fall, won’t happen.
HEY NUTS! Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? Google it.
GregAllen…Hey, I don’t know when this video fits into the timeline, looks like after the collapse of one or both big towers??? This reporter is there, where are the thousands if NYFD that weren’t killed? Just wondering why this guy is there but nobody else. How does that happen? I’m sure there’s an explanation for it.
LDA, the neat pile is improbable only because you say it’s improbable.
glass half full is completely full of batshit insane.
Yes you can. Google the fuel truck that crashed on a overpass in LA a few years back. Just one truck of jet fuel, burning outside, with no other fuel melted the concrete and steel and caused the whole bridge to collapse in less time than the Towers…..moron
#43 – There are 221 fire-stations in all of NYC, with a total of 11,213 personnel (source: http://numberof.net/number-of-fdny-fire-stations/)
This is a 2009 number. I assume in 2001 there were fewer.
Do you really think all 11,000 members from all 221 fire-stations were sent all at once?
Once the buildings were burning there was no chance of putting out the fires – so the objective was to get people out of the buildings. They didn’t have the time or resources to go putting out car fires.
jman.
PARTIAL collapse…
Concrete makes up the lions share of the bridge so when the rebar melted/weakened, the weight of the concrete would cause it to fail.
Your citation actually goes to support the NORMAL people that know and accept that all the carnage on 9/11/01 was from terrorists and incompetent politicians. Nothing more, nothing less. Weakened steel is no longer inside design limits and the structure fails. The metal only needs to get soft.
Contrary to popular thought from the nutters, steel and other metals do not stay solid as room temperature until it actually gets to melting temperature… Watch a freaking sword smith and grow a FREAKING BRAIN!!!!! Or a horse shoe smith if you cannot get to a sword smiths!!!!
GOOD GRIEF!!!!
Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is TERMINAL.
Next time you fly across the shark infested waters of the Pacific ocean, keep in mind that you are basically riding in an extremely lightweight aluminum tube, with wings that are basically a strong thin beam surrounded by a thin aluminum skin. An object of that type hitting a solid wall head-on at 600 MPH basically vaporizes on impact, leaving very little behind. The only thing that survives is the engines and landing gear, plus miscellaneous bits and pieces of steel.
All 4 planes during 9-11-2001 did exactly that, hitting solid objects (including the ground) head on at maximum speed, leaving a couple of holes behind and that’s about it.
As far as WTC7… the NYPD fire department by then was in complete shock, and the few remaining efforts being made were getting people out of the area… they knew that with the manpower and condition that they were in, they could not fight that fire, so they abandoned the building to it’s fate. As you can see, a whole floor was in flames, and the building just suddenly gave way when just a few central columns failed.
Comparing the B-25 bomber crash to a 767 crash is just plain stupid. The 767’s were flying at over twice the speed and weighed 15 times as much as the B-25, and were aimed directly in, while the B-25 was turning hard to avoid the collision, and almost made it, pancaking into the side of the building rather than head on. The 767s were loaded with fuel, while the B-25 carried partially filled tanks. To total kinetic energy of the 767 was 80-100 times that of the B-25, crashing into a very differently built structure.
#23 id say our financial systems in a hole right now 🙂
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JASON?
that’s exactly what i’m arguing, against the nutters…….
reading comprehension much?
Chuck, Awake…thanks. Maybe the nutters have studied this stuff, but all I know is what I read in magazines and saw on the History Channel…not much detail. If there’s a good and comprehensive book about it from a related perspective it might be a good read.
I’d have to agree with #49 (nick the rat) on that.
9/11 killed 3,200+ people and cost us a few billion; the crash of 08 cost us a thousand times more, a few trillion and Bernie Madoff’s evil is going to remain far longer than Bin Laden’s (which we’ve already got over [though we’ll see what 9/11/11 brings]).
Dan, you are a liar. Everyone knows that fire does not melt steel.
how did this building get set on fire again? all the other buildings surrounding it seem fine, and its not right next to the wtc
“the wtc7 fires look like diesel fuel fire, which is, after all, what brought (all the buildings) down.”
*sigh*. none so blind as those who will not see. this video shows a series of small, controllable fires burning with dirty, black smoke which means, of course, **that it was coming off a cool fire.** small, sporadic fires that burned for just a very few hours.
and then the building collapsed in 10 seconds into its own fooprint. uh-huh. then why o why did the windsor towers in madrid, which burned white-hot like a roman candle for 24(!) HOURS, and – when the fires finally were extinguished – it remained standing? (but hey, don’t take MY word for it: youtube has all kinds of vid on it. windsor towers fire, madrid spain, 12 feb 2005.)
there’s a WHOLE lot of things about the 9-11 saga that stinks to high hell – but the WTC7 collapse leads the pack. youtube will ALSO show you the BBC reporting the “collapse of the salomon brothers building” (i.e., WTC7) **22 minutes before it happened.**. when questioned, the BBC said they’d “lost” their tapes of the most significant news day of the last 40 years. hell, you can SEE the building standing behind the bbc reporter as he/she makes his/her “little goof”.
what color is the sky in your crazy little world?
#7 David
Here you go http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html some examples of fires of taller buildings, that burned more extensively and for a longer period of time and never even came close to collapsing, let alone in their own footprint at free fall speed.
The site is the first hit if you google “Skycraper Fires” not too hard if you’re curious.
Aahhh, so much stupidity.
It was the WTC that brought down WTC7. Their fall created many cracks in their shared foundation. Basically, it was a localized earthquake. While the Twin Towers fell from the top down, WTC7 fell from the bottom up.
WTC7 was built above a ConEd sub station. Also, there were several generators and a 24,000 gal Diesel Fuel storage tank to feed the various generators. It was the generator fuel that fueled most of the fire, especially in the basement and lower floors.
When the Twin Towers fell their debris flew in all directions. Some damaged portions of the WTC7 which had been unscathed up to that point. While the earthquake damaged the foundation, it also caused much of the diesel fuel to spill which was ignited by the burning debris.
The internal fires could have been brought under control but because of the Twin towers collapse destroying the water pipes, there was insufficient water pressure. It is doubtful it could have remained a viable building after the foundation was compromised.
One thing the conspiracy nuts didn’t bring up was the “Pull the building” comment by the owner. This was an agreement/authorization with the fire chief to pull all firefighters from the building as it was deemed hopeless and expected to collapse. The building did collapse a couple of hours later.
#58 Mr Fusion
Okay maybe, but buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over. The whole foundation doesn’t fail instantly across it’s entire area.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html
And where is your information coming from? I haven’t heard ths theory before. Is this in a report somewhere or are u just suggesting this may be what happened? I’d like to read it if I could.
The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, new Air Force Weapons Systems, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the extensive investigation following 9/11 (which didn’t bother to include the WT7 building) and billions spent on media manipulation and payoffs have saved us from further controlled demolitions by the U.S. You don’t see any dead Jews in the video, because they were told to stay home that day.
#53, Lyin’ Mike,
Dan, you are a liar. Everyone knows that fire does not melt steel.
Apparently Mike knows something “everyone” else doesn’t. A blast furnace doesn’t melt steel.
BUT, that aside, steel (and iron) doesn’t need to melt. All it need do is soften and lose it’s strength. Believe it or not, steel is elastic. It will bend even at room temperature. Load bearing steel supports will lose their strength and ultimately collapse under the weight in fires such as what the WTC7 experienced.
#59, Mike,
Okay maybe, but buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over. The whole foundation doesn’t fail instantly across it’s entire area.
Actually they do. No engineer I know of claims the WTC fell at free fall, that is a troofer claim and impossible to attain under the circumstance. And a building doesn’t need to collapse across the entire footprint.
Your claims are from an ignorant person pretending to understand physics and engineering. Obviously you don’t. Most troofers attribute properties that the materials don’t posses.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
I’m with this guy nothing unaccountable happened in the collapse
can we hot link?
if not just copy past and add the p to the http
htt://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085