0966: "Jet Fuel"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

JohnStumbles
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:12 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby JohnStumbles » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:23 am UTC

So who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories?

Andromeda321
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Andromeda321 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:58 am UTC

Haha I like this one.

I spent a summer working at the SETI Institute once and it was rather entertaining to hear how people dealt with various conspiracy nuts who would call. Apparently you can't just give them the info of the last guy who called before so they can annoy each other, for example, because then one will call back complaining that the other guy is completely nuts. :lol:

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:06 am UTC

good to see a new "my hobby" i always like those ones.

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:49 am UTC

swabifyoudare wrote:Jet-A1 burns at 2000 degrees Celsius.

The current version of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1 temporarily doesn't support this claim.

VDZ
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:17 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby VDZ » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:06 am UTC

KittenKaboodle wrote:Oh My God, GOMHR, I’ve been thinking about why people keep at the totally ridiculous "controlled demolition" "theories when they are so patently ridiculous, and I realized a possible logical explanation is that the government is starting the stories to make anyone who might reveal the truth look like crackpots.
It seem to be working pretty well, I haven’t seen any “conspiracy” hypothesis that didn’t sound crackpot.

Another possibility is that people are just stupid (and there is a lot more evidence for this) but that isn’t any fun, it’s just depressing.

alun009 wrote:This reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago. I and a friend deduced that there is a metaconspiracy: a body somewhere generating fake conspiracy theories in order to give conspiracy theories a bad name. Thus when a huge and damaging truth leaks out it is lumped in with all the other conspiracy theories and many otherwise intelligent people don't give it a second glance. In fact, reputable intellectuals will recoil from repeating it in case they suffer damage to their reputation.

If true, it is the classiest ideological weapon conservatism has ever invented. I would doff my hat, but then the radio signals would get to my brain and they could control me.

Although I doubt they're spread purposely for misinformation, it is true that conspiracy theories harm the credibility of actual information.

I mean, we know ECHELON ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON ) is real and doing exactly what we're afraid it's doing, we know the US is doing blatantly unacceptable things for political advantage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO ) and we know they even tried to research mind control ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA ). Is it really too ridiculous to think the US government let the attacks happen, even if they didn't organize them themselves ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate )? We have tons of proof people knew the attacks would happen, but whenever I bring it up I get called a conspiracy theorist and lumped with the 'controlled demolition' people and other conspiracy theorists.

EDIT: You cannot use certain BBCodes: (url tag). Sheesh.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Hawknc » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:13 am UTC

VDZ wrote:EDIT: You cannot use certain BBCodes: (url tag). Sheesh.

It's a conspiracy to prevent the truth from being told! Or, you know, a spam prevention measure that goes away after you have five posts.

MichaelKarnerfors
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby MichaelKarnerfors » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:15 am UTC

Welcome To My Head Randall.... been saying this for years. :)

There is only one conspiracy: conspiracy theories.

On a more serious note... no, I don't believe that for real because Occam's Razor has a much better explanations as to why people put forth ludicrous claims.

Among them are...

1) Mental illnesses. See "A Beautiful Mind"... it can really turn that bad.
2) Money-grubbing/attention-wh*ring. It works... everyone pays attention to the monkey that eats his own feces.
3) Immaturity. Having never gotten over/into their youth revolt years they are breaking away from authorities by rejecting everything they say. Just like teens...
4) Inability to understand and handle reality. So they reject reality and substitute their own.
5) Plain ol' hatred. Nothing suspends disbelief better than wanting to believe anything bad said about someone.

/Michael

sharpnova
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:34 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby sharpnova » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:22 am UTC

My hobby: Pretending I don't watch popular comedy shows or haven't heard common jokes so I can pass them off as my own.

cynicalbastard
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby cynicalbastard » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:31 am UTC

Anyone see the pilot episode of "The lone Gunmen"?

Shot summer of 2001 it deals with
Spoiler:
a govermnent/military-industrial-complex/CIA/whatever plot to radio-control a 747 to crash into the WTC... - It was not aired...


It's worth watching for the fantastic timing.
Poo-tee-weet?

kasmeneo
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:07 am UTC
Location: 50° 6′ 26″ N, 8° 39′ 52″ E

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby kasmeneo » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:44 am UTC

po8crg wrote:Demolition, not demoliton.


Actually "demoliton" sounds like some physical particle or pseudo-particle. You know, like electron, photon, phonon, polariton... demoliton.

And that makes it even worse. They can control demolitons now? Urgh.
It's cooler up here.

ctsketch
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby ctsketch » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:45 am UTC

What bugs me the most about the conspiracy theory is that the fuel doesn't have to be hot enough to MELT the steel. it just needs to be hot enough to significantly reduce its yield strength and modulus

-A Structural Engineer.

Thibaw
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:32 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Thibaw » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:53 am UTC

There is this anti-semitic conspiracy theory that really bothers me, because its stupid and harmful:
"There were no jews inside the towers at 9/11, they stayed at home this day and did not show up for work."
How to counter this one with another ct?

"The jews want you to believe that, because they want you to hate them. Because when everybody hates them they get all the funding/help/superweapons for their army to exterminate the palestinians" - just does not seem to cut it.
Last edited by Thibaw on Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:57 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

RogueCynic
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby RogueCynic » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:55 am UTC

Sorry, this one was in bad taste. Too many people lost thier lives that day. As for playing conspiracy theories against one another, I usually say the moon landing was a hoax. The movie, "Capricorn One", was a documentary on how the government faked the landing and O.J. Simpson, who had a role in it, was sent to prison for trying to expose the fake landing.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Hawknc » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:57 am UTC

Thibaw wrote:There is this anti-semitic conspiracy theory that really bothers me, because its stupid and harmful:
"There were no jews inside the towers at 9/11, they stayed at home this day and dindnt show up for work."
How to counter this one with another ct?

Redefine "ct" as "cluebat" and apply to subject's head. Repeat as necessary.

User avatar
Tualha
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Tualha » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:07 pm UTC

bhoot wrote:Mind control agents actually burn at 650 degrees Celsius. Just thought that everybody should know.

That's what they want you to think!

User avatar
Hooch
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:00 am UTC
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Hooch » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:08 pm UTC

I'm surprised (yet pleased) that no one has made an obnoxious Inception reference to the image description by now....
LOVE ME
djntd.bandcamp.com
youtube.com/user/DJNTDOfficial

User avatar
Tualha
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Tualha » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:09 pm UTC

I seem to recall, from what was said back then, that the girders were not actually melted; they were just softened enough that they couldn't support the weight of the buildings anymore. No?

drakvl
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:41 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby drakvl » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:35 pm UTC

RogueCynic wrote:Sorry, this one was in bad taste. Too many people lost thier lives that day. As for playing conspiracy theories against one another, I usually say the moon landing was a hoax. The movie, "Capricorn One", was a documentary on how the government faked the landing and O.J. Simpson, who had a role in it, was sent to prison for trying to expose the fake landing.


I see it the other way around. The target is not 9/11 victims, but 9/11 Truthers, and I take something of an "enemy of an enemy is a friend" approach. That, and holding one's tongue when a Truther says something stupid and obnoxious in order to keep the peace tends to result in wholehearted support of other people saying what I would like to, in a funnier way.

Also, to the people citing the South Park episode: I would like to point out that's the punchline of the mouseover text, not the main gag of today's comic.

/*([ Members of the secret webcomic cabal: Is this good enough for my initiation ceremony? ])*/

s^2
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:20 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby s^2 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

as far as I recall, during the construction of the WTC towers there was some dicussion about the use of asbestos in buildings, and the steel in the towers was initially intended to be heat-shielded by asbestos - but (during the construction phase!) they suddenly switched to something different (=much worse heat-shield) for the upper storeys; so the heat of the explosions reached the steel in the upper storeys, but couldn't escape in the lower storeys, so it heated up even more and finally melted... i.e. asbestos would probably have prevented it! :roll:

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby dp2 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:12 pm UTC

sharpnova wrote:My hobby: Pretending I don't watch popular comedy shows or haven't heard common jokes so I can pass them off as my own.

You also seem to enjoy pretending to not read the OP or any of the other posts that made the same point and passing them off as your own.

User avatar
BentFranklin
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:20 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby BentFranklin » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:21 pm UTC

For what it's worth, here's what I think happened. It's close enough to the inside job theory for me to be equally angry.

1. White House has agenda to get Saddam from Day 1. (Source: Paul O'Neill book)
2. Intelligence warns white house of impending attack. (Well known)
3. White House figures it will be a plane/train/ferry bombing. Decides to let it happen and use it get Saddam. (My belief)
4. 08/11: White House tells intelligence briefer: "Don't worry, your ass is covered." (Well known)
5. 09/11/11: First national tragedy: Actual attack is much grander in scope. (Well known)
6. White House is surprised but has no choice except to continue plan to use the attack to get Saddam. (My belief)
7. 09/12/11: Second national tragedy: White House tells staffers to find a way to pin attacks on Saddam. (Source: Richard Wright book)
8. Subsequent lies/anthrax/WMD/yellowcake/UN inspectors/Plame/propaganda/Patriot Act/Iraq war/debt/downfall of America.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby SirMustapha » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:21 pm UTC

A_of_s_t wrote:Is Randall stuck in 2001 or does he just talk to people who are?


Are you kidding? NO major events happened since September 2001 anywhere in the world, ever.

Also, it seems that Randall is really obsessed with "dumb" people. It's like he desperately needs to look superior to someone. "Conspiracy theories" are already a dead horse, yet he keeps beating it. It like he has some serious issues that he just can't handle. Get over it, Randall, for fuck's sake!

User avatar
DarkLoaf
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:04 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby DarkLoaf » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:23 pm UTC

I've seen the episode of South Park people are baying about, and I don't recall mention of jet fuel and mind control chemicals in that episode. South Park isn't the only one who can make fun of 9/11 conspiracy theories, guys.

rabidmuskrat
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:37 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby rabidmuskrat » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:25 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
A_of_s_t wrote:Is Randall stuck in 2001 or does he just talk to people who are?


Are you kidding? NO major events happened since September 2001 anywhere in the world, ever.

Also, it seems that Randall is really obsessed with "dumb" people. It's like he desperately needs to look superior to someone. "Conspiracy theories" are already a dead horse, yet he keeps beating it. It like he has some serious issues that he just can't handle. Get over it, Randall, for fuck's sake!

This is at least a new to him way to approach it though. I still found it funny.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby jc » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:32 pm UTC

ctsketch wrote:What bugs me the most about the conspiracy theory is that the fuel doesn't have to be hot enough to MELT the steel. it just needs to be hot enough to significantly reduce its yield strength and modulus

-A Structural Engineer.

Actually, this is part of one of the more factual of the many WTC-collapse theories. A number of journalists have written about the warnings from the New York fire-dept analyses, to the effect that the WTC towers had too little redundancy, and the frames were susceptible from collapse due to weakening of the steel, which could be triggered by an "office fire" that burned enough of the paper that office buildings are always full of. According to this explanation, the towers would have survived the impacts of the two planes (as the Empire State Building did decades earlier). But the crashes triggered fires that ignited the paper on desks and in filing cabinets, which softened the structural steel beams enough to cause a local collapse on a couple of floors, which in turn damaged the structure in the next floor down, which ...

I suppose this doesn't really qualify as a conspiracy theory, though, since it was generated by structural engineers who studied the towers' designs beforehand and predicted the sort of collapse that actually occurred. And there wasn't really any secrecy involved; it was more like nobody paid attention to that boring geeky engineer talk. You know how those engineers can be when you let them start talking about things like structural design.

Anyway, there have also been scattered reports of the WTC structures appearing as case studies in architecture courses and texts. Sorta like the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse and other such famous structure failures. But that's not a conspiracy; it's just boring engineer stuff.

ctsketch
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby ctsketch » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

jc wrote:
ctsketch wrote:What bugs me the most about the conspiracy theory is that the fuel doesn't have to be hot enough to MELT the steel. it just needs to be hot enough to significantly reduce its yield strength and modulus

-A Structural Engineer.

Actually, this is part of one of the more factual of the many WTC-collapse theories. A number of journalists have written about the warnings from the New York fire-dept analyses, to the effect that the WTC towers had too little redundancy, and the frames were susceptible from collapse due to weakening of the steel, which could be triggered by an "office fire" that burned enough of the paper that office buildings are always full of. According to this explanation, the towers would have survived the impacts of the two planes (as the Empire State Building did decades earlier). But the crashes triggered fires that ignited the paper on desks and in filing cabinets, which softened the structural steel beams enough to cause a local collapse on a couple of floors, which in turn damaged the structure in the next floor down, which ...

I suppose this doesn't really qualify as a conspiracy theory, though, since it was generated by structural engineers who studied the towers' designs beforehand and predicted the sort of collapse that actually occurred. And there wasn't really any secrecy involved; it was more like nobody paid attention to that boring geeky engineer talk. You know how those engineers can be when you let them start talking about things like structural design.

Anyway, there have also been scattered reports of the WTC structures appearing as case studies in architecture courses and texts. Sorta like the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse and other such famous structure failures. But that's not a conspiracy; it's just boring engineer stuff.


You hit the nail on the head... this more of a design flaw than a controlled demolition. although I also must say the way it was designed to fail is brilliant. If a building must fall its best to have it fail in a way to minimize collateral damage (we design our power plants the same way) Better to pancake than to topple over. And yes you can design a building to collapse this way using the way you design your columns and frames...you don't need TNT to do it.

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Nomic » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:08 pm UTC

I somestimes read conspiracy theory sites because they tend to be kinda funny, and often have pretty good ideas for stories or rpg campaigns or stuff. There was this one site I once found that had a list of various secret army bases in USA, and I liked how it listed bases know to exist even if they're classified (like Area 51), bases where there wasn't any concrete proof of but the claims seemed pretty plausible (testing grounds for army projects, radar bases for monitoring air traffic etc.), and absolutely crazy stuff (like a secret mountan base inhabited by not one, but two different alien species), all with equal seriousness.

On a side note, I'm also pretty sure a lot of conspiracy theories are actually started by the people wanting to keep things hidden. It just make a lot of sense. We know for a fact the goverment and various weapon manufacturers have a lot of projects they want to keep secret untill they're ready (Area 51 for example exists to test experimental aircraft), and spreading a lot of false information would mean that if an information leak occurs, it would likely be lost among all the bullshit.

I'm pretty sure most people who actually believe in conspiracy theories do so because subconcioisly they find it comforting. With the goverment and the people in charge seeming to fuck up everything they try to do, it's nice imagining there is atleast some force, even if it's a nebulous evil conspiracy, that can actually get shit done and run the entire world according to their plans. That, and as the saying goes, paranoia is a very comfortable state of mind. If everybody is trying to get you, it means you actually matter.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:11 pm UTC

KittenKaboodle wrote:I’ve been thinking about why people keep at the totally ridiculous "controlled demolition" "theories when they are so patently ridiculous


It's common sense. (Common sense is what tells you the world is flat, right?)

They think it's a conspiracy. So they look for the most obvious proof, the proof that nobody reasonable can deny. And they present that.

Just, they don't know what's reasonable. They've paid attention to "controlled demolition" people who tell them their job is so difficult -- if they do anything wrong the whole building is likely to fall sideways and wreck lots of other stuff. They believe that, so they assume it takes special skill to keep a building from falling sideways. (Which I suppose it could do if it failed first at the bottom on one side....)

But a subtler conspiracy is much easier. Say that Al Qaeda had teams ready to do this particular atrocity on command, and had not given the command. Anybody who could hijack their communications could tell them to go now. I saw a report which claimed the original plan called for 80 hijackings and not just 4, but somehow only 4 got activated. Presumably the other agents got rolled up before they could do anything, but the US government has not announced anything about them. If it was true....

The official story includes a collection of wild coincidences. How would the terrorists know that this was the day that the interceptors were away doing a hijacking simulation? Why would they choose to hit the side of the Pentagon that was largely empty because it was having construction to make it stronger? Etc. It isn't particularly believable. Could it be that the interceptors simply weren't ready, and they made up the story about the hijacking simulation as an excuse?

Then there was the claim that Building 7 failed because they had an emergency management headquarters there, and it had a big store of generator fuel so it could operate when the power was out, and that fuel was stored utterly contrary to safety regulation and it caught on fire and the building collapsed! It looks to me like this claim was true, but what does it say about the NYC government? This stuff would not be believable in a novel. It appears to be completely true, but I can understand that people don't want to believe it.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:19 pm UTC

cynicalbastard wrote:Anyone see the pilot episode of "The lone Gunmen"?

Shot summer of 2001 it deals with
Spoiler:
a govermnent/military-industrial-complex/CIA/whatever plot to radio-control a 747 to crash into the WTC... - It was not aired...


It's worth watching for the fantastic timing.

Your timing is a bit off. I did see it, when it aired in March 2001. And yes, it is a remarkable coincidence. Not in a "zomg, the truth is out there!!eleventyone!" sense, of course, but rather a "wow, that's one show that will never, EVER be aired again" sort of way.

User avatar
javahead
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:29 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby javahead » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:22 pm UTC

ctsketch wrote:What bugs me the most about the conspiracy theory is that the fuel doesn't have to be hot enough to MELT the steel. it just needs to be hot enough to significantly reduce its yield strength and modulus

-A Structural Engineer.

+1
See also: Thermobaric weapons

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Adam H » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:28 pm UTC

jc wrote:I suppose this doesn't really qualify as a conspiracy theory, though, since it was generated by structural engineers who studied the towers' designs beforehand and predicted the sort of collapse that actually occurred. And there wasn't really any secrecy involved; it was more like nobody paid attention to that boring geeky engineer talk. You know how those engineers can be when you let them start talking about things like structural design.
Yeah whenever someone's like "Man, this building is unsafe - if there was a fire it might collapse," all I hear is "blah blah blah I'm a nerd blah blah blah."

"Go back home and tell your mom about it, nerdface. HA!" *highfives friends*
-Adam

Shadowman615
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Shadowman615 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:43 pm UTC

imantodes wrote:
swabifyoudare wrote:The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.


Little known fact: the "i" is silent.

Little known fact #2: It's also spelled without the "i".

Image

pokeman7452
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:17 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby pokeman7452 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:45 pm UTC

I used to be open to the idea that 9/11 was planned by more than just terrorists, until I heard this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/nyregion/911-tapes.html

No doubt in my mind anymore.

Side note: I can't use url BBCodes? What is this anti-new-member madness? :x
/me reads rules and Hawknc's post, Lulz :facepalm:

fritfrat
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:43 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby fritfrat » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:46 pm UTC

I'm not sure which would be more awesome, Randall coming up with the same joke as south park independently of them or him actually being a south park fan. It's goodness either way.

Magiko
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:29 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Magiko » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:50 pm UTC

I don't consider myself a conspiracy buff in the least. I'm a skeptic. But I also don't believe something just because everyone insists I should, and I don't think planes brought down the buildings. I won't ever say "inside job" - I will just say "not planes".

People get into the minutia of what temperature steel burns at - not the amount of steel in the building, not the height at which the steel was hit (really high), not the crazy fireball etched into our memory which should have consumed the fuel - and certainly not the surgical precision which makes buildings implode like that (it's a science to itself).

As time passes, I'm ever more surprised to learn how many people forget a very important fact about that day: There were 2 planes, and yet three buildings fell. That's not a theory to think a 3rd building fell - that actually happened. I, personally, do no like talking about "what it would mean" because no one knows for sure who did what and when. But that idea makes everyone so uncomfortable, and so they really resist wanting to talk about it - or even hear that it could be "not planes". So as a society, "we're" all more interested in just acting like the standard explanation makes sense. Really, it's more comfortable to believe the standard explanation - and I know it is.

But people say these ideas are part of a crackpot theory... Isn't it more crackpot to think that 2 planes not only brought down the 2 main buildings, but they also did it in a way that matches controlled demolition (watch a bunch of videos of controlled demolition - it's neat stuff), and worse, they somehow took out a 3rd building in the process, and worse that 3rd building also looks controlled (in complete absence of a 3rd plane)? Planes have hit buildings before, and they've never imploded. 3 in 1 day with 2 planes.

Do an experiment and ask those around you how many buildings fell on 9/11. As time goes on, I notice more and more the 3rd building is completely forgotten about.

User avatar
CatCube
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby CatCube » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:00 pm UTC

ctsketch wrote:What bugs me the most about the conspiracy theory is that the fuel doesn't have to be hot enough to MELT the steel. it just needs to be hot enough to significantly reduce its yield strength and modulus

-A Structural Engineer.


Amen, brother. A temperature of 1000°F--well within the believable temperature of a major fire--will cause a 50% reduction in Young's Modulus, and therefore a 50% reduction in the strength of a column, and the failure of the floor system providing the brace will produce a 75% reduction in column strength--how this "Gee Willikers Fulez can't melt steelz!!11!!" thing got started has always been a fucking mystery to me.

(BTW, the board system's replacement of the "Oh My God" acronym with "Gee Willikers" works way better for this application.)

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:14 pm UTC

Magiko wrote:As time passes, I'm ever more surprised to learn how many people forget a very important fact about that day: There were 2 planes, and yet three buildings fell. That's not a theory to think a 3rd building fell - that actually happened. I, personally, do no like talking about "what it would mean" because no one knows for sure who did what and when. But that idea makes everyone so uncomfortable, and so they really resist wanting to talk about it - or even hear that it could be "not planes". So as a society, "we're" all more interested in just acting like the standard explanation makes sense. Really, it's more comfortable to believe the standard explanation - and I know it is.


I actually saw a show about this third building, 7 WTC, and it certainly happened, but I for one think it has been well explained in mundane terms.

Firstly, it caught fire and was allowed to burn throughout the day. Any building subjected to that would be hard pressed to stay up, though most would. However, any weakness in the construction would surely be revealed by such a test. The weakness that the design and construction had was an outcome of where it was built. It was built over an electricity sub station. 7WTC couldn't lean on the substation, so the mass of the part of the building hanging over the substation had to be transferred to other places. The method of transfer was a series of cantilevers that held up a significant proportion of the mass of building. In the normal run of events that arrangement would not fail, but the building was hit by debris and allowed to burn throughout the day.

So, it fell because it was allowed to burn for eight straight hours and was designed to fit around a preexisting structure. This is covered in a great deal of detail on the WP page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Volbla
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:41 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Volbla » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:22 pm UTC

imantodes wrote:
swabifyoudare wrote:The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.


Little known fact: the "i" is silent.

I have never heard of this dispute before, so just a quick question to assertain how stupid it is. Are the i-s silent for all elements that end with ium?

ctsketch
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby ctsketch » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:40 pm UTC

Volbla wrote:
imantodes wrote:
swabifyoudare wrote:The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.


Little known fact: the "i" is silent.

I have never heard of this dispute before, so just a quick question to assertain how stupid it is. Are the i-s silent for all elements that end with ium?


People from different regions and countries pronounce it different. The i is not silent and the i also is silent. pronounce it as you will

NiteClerk
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:22 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby NiteClerk » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:48 pm UTC

This sounds like something out of the "If I Was an Evil Overlord" list. You keep spreading crackpot theories. Then when someone tries to spread the news about your true evil plot to achieve world domination, it gets lost in the background noise of rumors.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chridd and 121 guests