PDA

View Full Version : Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11


Pages : [1] 2

DarthJebus05
06-02-2008, 01:39 AM
(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

I only had to watch this to believe that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand:

Paraphrase the message or find a clip with no language. Thanks.

~9

Whatever.

True_Avery
06-02-2008, 02:38 AM
The 2 747 Passenger planes may have had something to do with it as well, and I doubt explosives would have added much to that explosion.

But, if you are talking about there being knowledge of the chance of an attack on the centers, then you would be mostly correct. We had intelligence that stated that there may or may not be an attack that the Clinton administration received in the early nineties. That information was passed onto the Bush administration when Clinton went out of office.

Whether that information was considered or not is debatable. The thing is, you never really know the date, damage, or location for an attack like 9/11. What were you expecting them to do? Line the Twin Towers with AA guns and missiles? Then the attack would have been put towards another building(s). Some things just cannot be fully prevented.

(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")
I can also put in "world trade center" and "bill" and get a site that explains, in detail, how the 9/11 attacks were prophesied on the 20 Dollar Bill.

ForeverNight
06-02-2008, 08:26 AM
If I recall correctly, the part of the attacks on 9/11 (Or 11.9 for our Europeans) that Bush 'knew' about was the fact that a Terrorist Group was going to hijack a Airliner... Not ram it into the World Trade Center (New York).

But, as True Avery said, what the heck are you going to do about it? It goes back to the Rakata Computer on Kashyyyk, when it asks you what you would do if you had intelligence that a planet under your soverignity was going to be attacked...

Explosives wise, well, a 747 carries a lot of Jet Fuel, which, if I recall correctly, is very volitile, which then makes it very explosive. So, I guess that could be considered an Explosive...

How does the title relate to your original post anyway?

Darth InSidious
06-02-2008, 10:17 AM
Hmm...let's see, now.

A massive great hunk of metal full of kerosene crashes into the side of a building in desparate need of major structural work...and it collapses.

Such an obvious conspiracy.

@Ave:

You can also discover that it was the Jesuits wot done it. (http://www.vaticanassassins.org) Srsly.

DarthJebus05
06-02-2008, 11:16 AM
This is what he said: (not an exact quote)

Those operatives were to make sure the explosives went off at a high enough... went off at a high enough level... to make sure the people above... couldn't... get out.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 11:43 AM
A massive great hunk of metal full of kerosene crashes into the side of a building in desparate need of major structural work...and it collapses. :lol:
A little more complicated than that :)

Darth InSidious
06-02-2008, 12:00 PM
:lol:
A little more complicated than that :)
Well, yes. But that's delving into things like physics, of which my grasp is rudimentary at best. :p

Achilles
06-02-2008, 12:06 PM
I can help if you'd like.

Darth InSidious
06-02-2008, 12:18 PM
I can help if you'd like.
Thank you for the offer, but I just don't seem to be terribly good at this side of things. In any case, I wouldn't want to waste your time.

Web Rider
06-02-2008, 12:23 PM
This is what he said: (not an exact quote)

Those operatives were to make sure the explosives went off at a high enough... went off at a high enough level... to make sure the people above... couldn't... get out.

of course, what's sneakily hidden between these ellipsis are:

Those operatives were to make sure the explosives went off at a high enough went off at a high enough level, usually level 70. To make sure the people above in heaven couldn't eat cheeseburgers and get out.

really, don't buy into stuff with a lot of ellipsis, especially when they have one on either side of a single word, that's pretty solid proof somebody is taking something out of context.

EnderWiggin
06-02-2008, 01:33 PM
(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

I only had to watch this to believe that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand:

Paraphrase the message or find a clip with no language. Thanks.

~9

Whatever.

Can someone give me an idea of what this clip actually was? I would like to know as I came too late to see it but would still like to participate in the discussion.

_EW_

Achilles
06-02-2008, 01:42 PM
If I recall correctly, the part of the attacks on 9/11 (Or 11.9 for our Europeans) that Bush 'knew' about was the fact that a Terrorist Group was going to hijack a Airliner... Not ram it into the World Trade Center (New York). Mostly correct. The difference are so minor that they aren't worth pointing out.

Explosives wise, well, a 747 carries a lot of Jet Fuel, which, if I recall correctly, is very volitile, which then makes it very explosive. So, I guess that could be considered an Explosive...Indeed. So volitile that you can see it being burnt off on impact :)

Thank you for the offer <snip> You're welcome :)

really, don't buy into stuff with a lot of ellipsis, especially when they have one on either side of a single word, that's pretty solid proof somebody is taking something out of context. I agree for the most part. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not the most eloquent of public speakers so it's quite easy to assume that he's just "being Bush" here.

Can someone give me an idea of what this clip actually was? I would like to know as I came too late to see it but would still like to participate in the discussion. The part referenced in the title was a clip of bush making reference to a bomb in the WTC buildings (Web Rider quotes it in his post above). Unfortunately, it's not clear what Bush means by this. Taken literally, it could be seen as an admission of their actually being (an) explosive device(s). Taken figuratively, Bush could be referencing the hijacked planes as "bombs".

FWIW, I think there is enough evidence to prevent ruling out explosive devices that we do not need to rely on Bush's comments alone.

DarthJebus05
06-02-2008, 04:27 PM
Go to YouTube and type in: 9/11 Coincidences Part 12

The first video to come up.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 05:07 PM
If you're going to watch a movie related to the title of this thread, you're probably better off with 9/11 Mysteries (bring your bag o' salt and draw your own conclusions).

DarthJebus05
06-02-2008, 05:12 PM
It's a documentary. Did you even bother to search for it?

Achilles
06-02-2008, 05:15 PM
It's a documentary. Did you even bother to search for it?Yes, I did and I've already seen it. I'm recommending 9/11 Mysteries instead because I think it's a "better" film.

EnderWiggin
06-02-2008, 05:37 PM
Ok. Thank you for the recommendations. I'll take a look at them later.

_EW_

DarthJebus05
06-02-2008, 11:54 PM
Yes, I did and I've already seen it. I'm recommending 9/11 Mysteries instead because I think it's a "better" film.

I'm sorry, I was out of line. Been sick these past few days. We cool?

Achilles
06-03-2008, 12:10 AM
Absolutely :)

Get well soon.

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 12:22 AM
It's a documentary.
It may say 'documentary', but just about anything can say it's a documentary and be put up on youtube as if it were fact.

We can conspiracy-theory this thing to death, but regardless of whether it was a bomb that took it down or just the planes themselves, at least hundreds were going to die if the buildings stayed up. It would have been a horrible tragedy with or without any conspiracy-theory bombs.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 03:36 AM
It may say 'documentary', but just about anything can say it's a documentary and be put up on youtube as if it were fact. Anything can say it's a documentary and be put up anywhere. Fact has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that millions of people eagerly discount Michael Moore, yet to the theaters his movies go. Scientists couldn't wait to take shots at Ben Stein's new movie, but it's in the theaters as well. So to suggest that making it into a theater is some sort of litmus test for "fact" is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst. ;)

We can conspiracy-theory this thing to death, but regardless of whether it was a bomb that took it down or just the planes themselves, at least hundreds were going to die if the buildings stayed up. It would have been a horrible tragedy with or without any conspiracy-theory bombs.I don't think anyone is arguing that those deaths weren't a tragedy.

JediMaster12
06-03-2008, 03:40 AM
I agree. We can conspiracy the September 11 (I refuse to call by its alternative) attacks to death but the fact of the matter is that we may never know even with the help of documentaries like the ones on youtube or Loose Change. Heck I know that none of it changes my granpa's mind.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 03:59 AM
I think you're exactly right. I don't think we'll ever have all the information, so we'll never know for sure. In the mean time I'll continue to think that "both sides" probably have part of the truth but not all of it.

Q
06-03-2008, 04:14 AM
Since when was Kavar's invaded by people wearing tin-foil hats?

Achilles
06-03-2008, 04:22 AM
About the same time as the people that believed everything the media told them to believe :)

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 09:33 AM
Anything can say it's a documentary and be put up anywhere. Fact has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that millions of people eagerly discount Michael Moore, yet to the theaters his movies go. Scientists couldn't wait to take shots at Ben Stein's new movie, but it's in the theaters as well. So to suggest that making it into a theater is some sort of litmus test for "fact" is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst. ;)
I think you read too much into what I was saying. I didn't say it was false, and never meant to imply that. I do take any 'conspiracy theory' documentaries, especially expletive-laden ones on youtube, with a pound of salt. I wasn't making a judgment call on the video itself since I hadn't seen it. I was pointing out to him that just because anything calls itself a documentary doesn't mean that a. it's really a documentary, or b. that we should believe everything it says.

I don't think anyone is arguing that those deaths weren't a tragedy.I never meant that either. I just wanted to give perspective. We can debate conspiracy theories to death, but it would have been a tragedy whether the government was involved directly or not.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 10:57 AM
I do take any 'conspiracy theory' documentaries, especially expletive-laden ones on youtube, with a pound of salt. Speaking of reading into things too much :) The clip had footage of the first plane hitting. Hopefully you'll forgive the witnesses their expletive-laden language.

We're in agreement on the salt though.

I wasn't making a judgment call on the video itself since I hadn't seen it. I was pointing out to him that just because anything calls itself a documentary doesn't mean that a. it's really a documentary, or b. that we should believe everything it says.Okay.

I never meant that either. I just wanted to give perspective. We can debate conspiracy theories to death, but it would have been a tragedy whether the government was involved directly or not.How about the theory that 19 men conspired to hijack planes and fly them into high-profile targets (and a field) on September 11th, 2001? Because that's a conspiracy theory too. It seems to me that you are rather accepting of some conspiracy theories and rather dismissive of others. You seem to favor the one promoted by the media and the gov't and I'm just wondering if there is a very good reason why.

mimartin
06-03-2008, 01:20 PM
Hmm...let's see, now.
A massive great hunk of metal full of kerosene crashes into the side of a building in desparate need of major structural work...and it collapses.
A little more complicated than that :)
Other than substituting thousands of pounds of jet fuel for kerosene, I agree with Darth InSidious simplistic view. Cause enough damage to the structure and then let the laws of gravity take over.

I don’t really know how much the building were in need of major structural work, but from what I've read they were design defeats that made them vulnerable to these types of attacks. I don’t believe the terrorist knew this and I believe they just happened upon them.

Yes, there are many different theories about what happened and I have no way of knowing the truth, but I going with the simplest most widely accepted cause (Occarn’s Razor). ;)

Since when was Kavar's invaded by people wearing tin-foil hats?Fashion statement. Remember everyone shiny side out, it is the only way to ensure the brain probes cannot penetrate. Also don’t forget to chant.

Darth InSidious
06-03-2008, 01:34 PM
At this time, I'd like to disavow any claim to authority, knowledge or expertise in, on or relating to physics.

Meta-physics, however, I have been known to dabble in. :p

Achilles
06-03-2008, 01:34 PM
Other than substituting thousands of pounds of jet fuel for kerosene, I agree with Darth InSidious simplistic view. Cause enough damage to the structure and then let the laws of gravity take over.Ok, keeping things simple: how much damage is enough? When you respond ask yourself if you really know the answer or if you are just repeating something that you've heard/been told?

Keep in mind that these are the only steel-frame buildings in history to collapse due to fire and they failed in under two hours whereas other similar buildings have experienced infernos lasting much longer and only suffered isolated damage. Not promoting one theory over another, just asking you to think about it and ask if that really makes sense.

I don’t really know how much the building were in need of major structural work, but from what I've read they were design defeats that made them vulnerable to these types of attacks. Each building was designed to withstand mulitple airplane collisions (according to the engineers that designed it anyway).

Yes, there are many different theories about what happened and I have no way of knowing the truth, but I going with the simplest most widely accepted cause (Occarn’s Razor). ;) I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're trying to apply Occam's Razor to an argument that you don't even understand because you haven't taken the time to hear it. I hope that I'm wrong.

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 04:14 PM
Speaking of reading into things too much :) The clip had footage of the first plane hitting. Hopefully you'll forgive the witnesses their expletive-laden language.Actually, that came from a brief mod discussion and not your comments. I have no doubt there were a lot of 'Holy sh##!'s uttered that day, and I would never blame them for that.


How about the theory that 19 men conspired to hijack planes and fly them into high-profile targets (and a field) on September 11th, 2001? Because that's a conspiracy theory too. It seems to me that you are rather accepting of some conspiracy theories and rather dismissive of others. You seem to favor the one promoted by the media and the gov't and I'm just wondering if there is a very good reason why.
Hijackings are planned out and executed with, unfortunately, some frequency. Al Qaeda had already demonstrated their ablity to attack the WTC with some success.

Gov't plans to put explosives in a building in the biggest city in the country, the Pentagon, and possibly the Capitol (where apparently no explosives have been found) and then hiring guys to fly planes into these structures at just the right moment so we all could pretend it was bin Ladin but attack Iraq where he's not sounds more far-fetched.

I don't know about you, but there was nothing else on that day but news about what happened. You'd figure at least one major news organization would have caught explosions after analyzing all that footage ad nauseum. I didn't see evidence of extra explosions that day. Granted any video can be altered, but arranging for all the news organizations to use the same doctored videos seems quite unlikely.

I also think that a heavy plane loaded with jet fuel and flying at 600 mph (or whatever their speed was at the time) could wreak havoc with the structural integrity of a skyscraper even without the fires. A friend of mine is a firefighter on the NYC hazmat team and was at ground zero on 9/11. He's not put stock into other conspiracy theories. The planes had sufficient force and the heat from the fires did sufficient damage to allow this scenario to happen. If anyone knows what fire can do to buildings, he does. You, of course, are not required to believe him since you haven't talked to him.

Your infernos in other steel buildings example does not apply--those buildings were not first hit with airplanes. The engineers may have thought the buildings would survive airplane strikes, but it doesn't sound like they also included fuel-enhanced fire in the equation.

The results of the investigation seem to explain the events without further complicating it with shadowy agents planting explosives in the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol, managing to keep that secret (I've never known any American gov't agency that could keep something of that magnitude secret), bribe all news outlets into outright lying and managing to keep -that- secret, etc.

Al Qaeda had already attacked the WTC. It's not far-fetched to think they'd try again to be more 'successful'.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 05:54 PM
Hijackings are planned out and executed with, unfortunately, some frequency. Al Qaeda had already demonstrated their ablity to attack the WTC with some success. I think you're missing the point. I am not questioning that these men conspired to hijack the planes. The point is that both explanations can accurately described as "conspiracy theories" however only one carries a connotation with it.

Gov't plans to put explosives in a building in the biggest city in the country, the Pentagon, and possibly the Capitol (where apparently no explosives have been found) and then hiring guys to fly planes into these structures at just the right moment so we all could pretend it was bin Ladin but attack Iraq where he's not sounds more far-fetched.I'm not aware of any suggestions that explosives were placed in the Pentagon or in the Capitol. I'm also not familiar with any suggestions that the hijackers were hired by anyone (other than al-Queda, I suppose). Could you please tell me where you're hearing these suggestions so that I can see what else they have to say?

I don't know about you, but there was nothing else on that day but news about what happened. You'd figure at least one major news organization would have caught explosions after analyzing all that footage ad nauseum. I didn't see evidence of extra explosions that day. Granted any video can be altered, but arranging for all the news organizations to use the same doctored videos seems quite unlikely. There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.

FWIW though, I tend not to put too much into them though because everyone knows that eyewitness accounts tend to be sketchy at best. I do find the pervasiveness of them pretty interesting though.

I also think that a heavy plane loaded with jet fuel and flying at 600 mph (or whatever their speed was at the time) could wreak havoc with the structural integrity of a skyscraper even without the fires.Thank you for your opinion.

As I pointed out above, interviews with a member of the team responsible for the buildings' construction indicate that both structures were designed to withstand multiple airplane crashes.

A friend of mine is a firefighter on the NYC hazmat team and was at ground zero on 9/11. He's not put stock into other conspiracy theories. The planes had sufficient force and the heat from the fires did sufficient damage to allow this scenario to happen. If anyone knows what fire can do to buildings, he does. You, of course, are not required to believe him since you haven't talked to him.Do I take his word over the firefighters interviewed in more than a few of the films available? They were at ground zero also. What about the recordings of firefighters that were in the building but didn't survive to give interviews? They would be equally trained, no?

Your infernos in other steel buildings example does not apply--those buildings were not first hit with airplanes. Okay (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=92525&page=1)

The engineers may have thought the buildings would survive airplane strikes, but it doesn't sound like they also included fuel-enhanced fire in the equation. Engineers planned for airplanes, just not airplanes carrying fuel. Got it.

The results of the investigation seem to explain the events without further complicating it with shadowy agents planting explosives in the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol, managing to keep that secret (I've never known any American gov't agency that could keep something of that magnitude secret), bribe all news outlets into outright lying and managing to keep -that- secret, etc.Thanks goodness for easy answers from our government :)

Al Qaeda had already attacked the WTC. It's not far-fetched to think they'd try again to be more 'successful'. I agree.

The Source
06-03-2008, 06:08 PM
Did anyone mention that they were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

Darth InSidious
06-03-2008, 06:14 PM
I don't think so. Why?

The Source
06-03-2008, 06:17 PM
I don't think so. Why?
I thought someone would blame 9/11 on an invasion from Mars, so I was checking to see if someone knew about the hijackers actual origins.

EnderWiggin
06-03-2008, 08:03 PM
I thought someone would blame 9/11 on an invasion from Mars, so I was checking to see if someone knew about the hijackers actual origins.

This is neither helpful nor relevant, IMHO. The origins of the hijackers weren't disputed.

_EW_

DarthJebus05
06-03-2008, 08:50 PM
Though, we can all agree that explosives were used as part of the 9/11 attacks, just as Bush revealed accidentally. And when the leaseholder of this buildings said to "pull" it, "they" pulled the building (demolition term of bringing down a building). In the documentary, it said it would take weeks of planning and the bombs would have to be put in place before the attacks. And he did make $5 billion from the destruction of those buildings.

Corinthian
06-03-2008, 10:34 PM
Funny, I don't see a video or an article where that's stated...maybe if you could substantiate your claims, I might lend you a hairsbreadth of credence.

Okay. Metallugry 101, kids.


"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Now, are we done here?

mimartin
06-03-2008, 11:38 PM
Ok, keeping things simple: how much damage is enough? When you respond ask yourself if you really know the answer or if you are just repeating something that you've heard/been told? I’m not avoiding the questions, but there is no way to answer these questions and you know it. I’m not a structural engineer and they cannot even agree on these questions.

Not promoting one theory over another, just asking you to think about it and ask if that really makes sense. No, but it makes more sense than the alternative. At least if I want to sleep at night.

Each building was designed to withstand mulitple airplane collisions (according to the engineers that designed it anyway). As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building I know the video states multiple, but according to the NIST it was a single impact.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 11:51 PM
I’m not avoiding the questions, but there is no way to answer these questions and you know it. I’m not a structural engineer and they cannot even agree on these questions. Neither am I :)

However if we must admit that we don't know the answer to something, then I don't know what we gain by pretending that we do.

...and that was my point.

No, but it makes more sense than the alternative. At least if I want to sleep at night. I can't help you with that.

I know the video states multiple, but according to the NIST it was a single impact.They might be absolutely right and this information might be absolutely accurate. However it might also be reasonable to be skeptical of a government funded study that was conducted after the fact. My 2 cents.

Question for you: If we were reading about some similar tragedy in Africa or South America (places known for having corrupt governments), do you think we would be so quick to dismiss reports of conspiratorial acts carried out by the government against their own citizens? Is it possible that our egocentric thinking tells us that stuff that only happens to "other countries"?

Jae Onasi
06-04-2008, 01:03 AM
I think you're missing the point. I am not questioning that these men conspired to hijack the planes. The point is that both explanations can accurately described as "conspiracy theories" however only one carries a connotation with it.The difference is one scenario actually happened, the other is wishful thinking by people trying to accuse the gov't of something it likely shouldn't be accused of.

I'm not aware of any suggestions that explosives were placed in the Pentagon or in the Capitol. I'm also not familiar with any suggestions that the hijackers were hired by anyone (other than al-Queda, I suppose). Could you please tell me where you're hearing these suggestions so that I can see what else they have to say? Oh geez. How many ridiculous theories have you heard over the years? I've heard hundreds. I didn't catalog them. Have you sourced all the ridiculous theories you've heard? I've seen a youtube vid of some supposed explosion happening at the Pentagon prior to the plane actually making impact (which by definition requires explosives to have been planted prior). I've heard people speculate that the gov't adjusted the information to make it look like Al Qaeda hired the terrorists when it was some super-secret black ops thing. Most of it was pure crap and half-baked pseudo-science, and I didn't waste brain space remembering where I'd seen/heard that stuff.

There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.
FWIW though, I tend not to put too much into them though because everyone knows that eyewitness accounts tend to be sketchy at best. I do find the pervasiveness of them pretty interesting though.
When the B-25 hit the Empire state building, people thought they heard bomb-like explosions, too.

Thank you for your opinion.
As I pointed out above, interviews with a member of the team responsible for the buildings' construction indicate that both structures were designed to withstand multiple airplane crashes.They were designed to withstand crashes by 707s, not 767's which are considerably heavier and fly faster. The 767s hit with about 3.4 times greater force than what the designers anticipated.

From the Fema report (http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm):
The WTC towers were the first buildings outside of the military and nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960's design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds. However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with considerably greater weight, or mass, and traveling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact. (p. I-17)
Before anyone gets their shorts in knots about the different sizes of Boeing 707s (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html), note that the report says 'the Boeing 707 that was considered in the [1960's] design' was the one listed above in the quote.

Do I take his word over the firefighters interviewed in more than a few of the films available? They were at ground zero also. What about the recordings of firefighters that were in the building but didn't survive to give interviews? They would be equally trained, no?If they're also hazmat trained firefighters (because that is an extra, very specific level of training), then they might have the same credibility. Have you identified the full credentials of all the firefighters in those films?

Okay (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=92525&page=1)
A B-25 Mitchell (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=81) is considerably smaller (MTOW 34,000 lbs), flies a lot slower (272 mph), and has a much smaller fuel load of 974 gallons (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/nortb25.html) than a Boeing 767 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html)'s 23,980 gallons. I don't see how you can possibly begin to compare those. Not to mention they use 2 different fuel types.

Engineers planned for airplanes, just not airplanes carrying fuel. Got it. OK, that did sound dumb on its own so let me clarify: they did not plan for a 767 of that weight going that speed with that great of a load of fuel.

Thanks goodness for easy answers from our government :)
Well, there are some things that don't fit any of the scenarios well. There are so many things that happened on that day that we'll never know completely understand because the forensic data is destroyed. I understand that some of the remaining evidence can be viewed and/or twisted to fit various theories.

The simplest explanation is still 'bad guys ram planes into WTC, this causes tremendous structural strain on the building both from physical and fire damage, buildings collapse under the strain'.

Any conspiracy theory is much more complex and has room for way too many errors to happen. For example, this theory, which may or may not be grounded in some reality and/or fantasy: 'bad guys, who may or may not have been hired by the the CIA, KGB, MI-6, Guoanbu, and/or the Mossad to make it look like an Al Qaeda plot (and Saddam Hussein if we can at all possibly implicate him), were sent on a mission to plow some planes into buildings that we had pre-wired with explosives to collapse in the event of, shockingly, just such an occurrence, so that we could make sure lots of Americans die (and Brits too, we're sorry about that, Your Majesty, but it's all for a good cause!). That way, we'll get lots and lots of sympathy from the American (and maybe British) people so that we can go whack Osama bin Ladin, who we've blamed for this whether he did it or not, take out the Taliban because we don't like how they've covered up women so we can't leer at them anymore, and most importantly, get a bunch of bad intel and quite possibly completely made-up crap in Iraq to give us an excuse to go beat the snot out of Hussein, especially if it looks real enough to fool Powell. That should provide us with enough sympathy (and/or abject stupidity) from the American people (and the Brits because we like to fight with them, not against them) so that we can take out Saddam & Sons and Make Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan) A Bastion of Democracy in the Middle East (even if the real reason is just to get back at Saddam). Oh, and by the way, we're going to swear several hundred people to abject secrecy, despite the fact that some of them can be bought at any time for the right price. If any secrets do leak out, like in the FBI, we'll just 'make sure' that the leaks are never made again and we'll make up even more outrageous stories to cover our first stories. That way, Bush can have 'his little war", and we will have promoted Truth, Justice, and The American Way to the world!'

Sure, that's pretty simple. I might find a way add in some aliens while we're at it. :D

DarthJebus05
06-04-2008, 01:06 AM
Funny, I don't see a video or an article where that's stated...maybe if you could substantiate your claims, I might lend you a hairsbreadth of credence.

Okay. Metallugry 101, kids.



Now, are we done here?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

:EDIT: Just because you don't believe theres a conspiracy, does not mean the people that do, are idiots. I'm not naming names, but you know who you are.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 01:44 AM
The difference is one scenario actually happened, the other is wishful thinking by people trying to accuse the gov't of something it likely shouldn't be accused of. You're still missing the point, but that's okay :)

Oh geez. How many ridiculous theories have you heard over the years? I've heard hundreds. I didn't catalog them. If you don't have a source, then I can't rule out that you're just making this up.*

* Awww...come on, Achilles! Was that comment really necessary? You know how difficult it would be to look out for those sources after all that time given the incredible number of ridiculous things that have been posted on the net about that event. Don't forget that this is a starwars forum...Jae wasn't making a Master dissertation. Posting sources is good but not being able to do so shouldn't discourage people from posting. Instead of implying that she could be making things up why not simply say that you'd like to see the source? No need to be so hard on people! - d3 :)

edit: I think there may have been a false alarm on the snark-detector, d3 :).

Have you sourced all the ridiculous theories you've heard? I've seen a youtube vid of some supposed explosion happening at the Pentagon prior to the plane actually making impact (which by definition requires explosives to have been planted prior). I haven't seen it so I can't comment. If I find it at some point then maybe I'll be able to then.

To the best of my knowledge however, only 5 frames of footage have been released and they don't match what you're describing here, so either your source was making it up or you are. *shrugs*

Keep in mind that the Pentagon and surrounding building have multiple security cameras both indoors and out and if the government really wanted to shut up the "conspiracy theorists" all they would have to do is show about 10 seconds of footage from any of them (and allow an independent expert to confirm that the footage wasn't doctored of course).

See, that's how you quiet people with bad information: you provide indisputable evidence to the contrary. Poorly funded, slapped together, biased-sourced "investigations" that take place years after the fact don't necessarily meet that standard.
I've heard people speculate that the gov't adjusted the information to make it look like Al Qaeda hired the terrorists when it was some super-secret black ops thing. Again, this isn't something I've heard, so I can't comment. If you find that source, please let me know.

Most of it was pure crap and half-baked pseudo-science, and I didn't waste brain space remembering where I'd seen/heard that stuff.Did you attend some course to become an expert in crap spotting? Are you credentialled? Or are you asking me to adopt your opinion for no good reason?

If I am missing the point entirely because you have rational arguments based on critial thinking that you would like to present, then please forgive my obtuseness and know that I am prepared to read whatever you'd like to post whenever you'd like to post it.


When the B-25 hit the Empire state building, people thought they heard bomb-like explosions, too. Not sure what your point is here.

From the Fema report (http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm) Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a government report at face value.

If they're also hazmat trained firefighters (because that is an extra, very specific level of training), then they might have the same credibility. Have you identified the full credentials of all the firefighters in those films? Which of these credentials make him or her uniquely qualified to makes such an assessment?

As for the 2nd part of your question: I have not, but feel free to assume that they are similarly qualified for the sake of my point.

A B-25 Mitchell (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=81) is considerably smaller (MTOW 34,000 lbs), flies a lot slower (272 mph), and has a much smaller fuel load of 974 gallons (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/nortb25.html) than a Boeing 767 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html)'s 23,980 gallons. I don't see how you can possibly begin to compare those. Not to mention they use 2 different fuel types. Your comment was that they had not been struck by a plane. The evidence is to the contrary. Perhaps you wanted to convey some other point though?

OK, that did sound dumb on its own so let me clarify: they did not plan for a 767 of that weight going that speed with that great of a load of fuel. Source please?

Well, there are some things that don't fit any of the scenarios well. There are so many things that happened on that day that we'll never know completely understand because the forensic data is destroyed. Gee, this sounds awfully familiar to what JediMaster12 and I said in posts 22 and 23 respectively.

The simplest explanation is still 'bad guys ram planes into WTC, this causes tremendous structural strain on the building both from physical and fire damage, buildings collapse under the strain'.Simple yes. The simpler explanation still would be that the buildings wanted to fall down all along and the planes just helped. However, I suspect that we're all aiming just a little bit higher than "simple". I suspect that many of us would perfer an explanation that fits all the evidence. As you pointed out above, there are some things "that don't fit". If some things "don't fit" then it's impossible that the offered explanation fits all the evidence.

Any conspiracy theory is much more complex and has room for way too many errors to happen.
<snip>Nicely done! :D

Seems just as complex as the "official story" though so I'm not sure how that supports your point.

Sure, that's pretty simple. I might find a way add in some aliens while we're at it. :DIt's your fiction. Go nuts :)

:EDIT: Just because you don't believe theres a conspiracy, does not mean the people that do, are idiots. I'm not naming names, but you know who you are.*adds DarthJebus05 to Buddy List*

EDIT: For those interested in hearing from the WTC construction project manager : Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM)

Darth InSidious
06-04-2008, 01:50 AM
I thought the Jesuits used their telekinetic mind powers to bring the towers down...

DISPROVE ME.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 01:57 AM
I thought the Jesuits used their telekinetic mind powers to bring the towers down...

DISPROVE ME.You do this just to hear me rant about burden of proof, I know it. :xp: *

Edit: Oooh...burden of proof! That falls within my area of expertise! I can rant about that too! - d3 :D

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 02:06 AM
I'd reply with a lot of text on how when you remove the 61st floor from between the 60th and 62nt floors, there's nothing to support the top of the building and that(now unsupported) building is very heavy, but this should be rather obvious.

Corinthian
06-04-2008, 02:11 AM
Okay, you're telling me that untrained people from a long distance could tell the difference in sound from a secondary explosion to steel giving way under pressure and entire floors collapsing on top of each other? I mean, that's off the cuff stuff. I'd probably have thought it was secondary explosions too at the time. But with the benefit of hindsight, I think it can be reasonably stated that they were mistaken about secondary explosions.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 02:14 AM
I'd reply with a lot of text on how when you remove the 61st floor from between the 60th and 62nt floors, there's nothing to support the top of the building and that(now unsupported) building is very heavy, but this should be rather obvious.Link (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)
Date: February 27, 1993
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Corinthian
06-04-2008, 02:29 AM
So he screwed up his calculations, didn't reckon for certain factors. What does that prove, exactly, Achilles? The guy was wrong.

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 02:33 AM
B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell
Boeing 757: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

A casual glance will tell us two things. One: that the Boeing 757 was built after the WTC(some 20 years or so), and two, that the Boeing 757 travels much faster, and is significantly larger, than the B-25(The 757 is 41.2m, and the B-57 is 16.1m, 757 wingspan is 38m, B57 is 20m). Therefore entailing more force in the acceleration times mass equation, and more fuel.

I also have to wonder what relevance a 200 pound bomb has to do with anything. the difference between a 200 pound bomb and hundred-ton+ plane moving at over 200 mph filled with massive quantities of jet fuel should be obvious to anyone with eyes.

The steel supports on the damaged floors holding the floors above them are designed to take vertical pressure and slight horizontal movement. Additionally the construction differences between the Empire State Building, built some 30 years earlier, make the effects of a powerful impact entirely different. To be specific, the ESB was designed from the top down, and based on the plans of an even earlier building.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building)

Achilles
06-04-2008, 02:37 AM
B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell
Boeing 757: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

A casual glance will tell us two things. One: that the Boeing 757 was built after the WTC(some 20 years or so), and two, that the Boeing 757 travels much faster, and is significantly larger, than the B-25(The 757 is 41.2m, and the B-57 is 16.1m, 757 wingspan is 38m, B57 is 20m). Therefore entailing more force in the acceleration times mass equation, and more fuel. Relevance?

I also have to wonder what relevance a 200 pound bomb has to do with anything. the difference between a 200 pound bomb and hundred-ton+ plane moving at over 200 mph filled with massive quantities of jet fuel should be obvious to anyone with eyes. I included the date for a reason. This article was published after the first terrorist attack on the WTC. Thus the article makes reference to the bomb used in that attack. If the reference was confusing, then I apologize for not snipping it.

The steel supports on the damaged floors holding the floors above them are designed to take vertical pressure and slight horizontal movement. Additionally the construction differences between the Empire State Building, built some 30 years earlier, make the effects of a powerful impact entirely different. To be specific, the ESB was designed from the top down, and based on the plans of an even earlier building.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building)Again, relevance?

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 02:43 AM
Relevance?
Um, that more weight and more mass, and more fuel at a higher speed creates increased amounts of damage?

I included the date for a reason. This article was published after the first terrorist attack on the WTC. Thus the article makes reference to the bomb used in that attack. If the reference was confusing, then I apologize for not snipping it.
that explains things.

Again, relevance?
That "a plane hitting a building" is not some kind of standard? The damage incurred depends greatly on the design of the building as well as the way the damage is delivered.

ex: if you punch a wall, you'll probably hurt your fist, and not bother the wall much. If you throw a wrench at your TV screen, you'll seriously damage your TV.

the key factors here are the design of what is being hit, and the manner in which you are hitting it. That's the relevance. We can't blankly say that a B25 plowing into the ESB is the same as Boeing 757 hitting the Twin Towers.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 02:58 AM
Um, that more weight and more mass, and more fuel at a higher speed creates increased amounts of damage?Ok fine, but what does B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber have to do with the multiple, fully-loaded Boeing 707s that the WTC building were designed to withstand or the Boeing 757s that struck them?

that explains things. Glad to hear it. Sorry again for the confusion.

We can't blankly say that a B25 plowing into the ESB is the same as Boeing 757 hitting the Twin Towers.I think you may be confused about what's being discussed there. I think I may have addressed this above, but please let me know if I did not.

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 03:06 AM
Ok fine, but what does B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber have to do with the multiple, fully-loaded Boeing 707s that the WTC building were designed to withstand or the Boeing 757s that struck them?
my apologies, I missed that he was discussing that it was Boeing 707's the building was designed to withstand.

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length. My conclusion is thus:

Either the plane hit at a "sweet spot" and just hit all the right places, and burned up all the right things to soften the floor supports up(which is entirely possible), their calculations may have been incorrect, though buildings are tough, as they said, the Twin Towers were unprecedented things, and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of time and wear and tear.

However, I am curious if their "impact analysis" took into account the heat of the jet fuel and the explosion of the plane. As they said, they're not demolition experts, so taking the pure force exerted by the plane without the explosions or the heat from the fuel would leave a substantial part of the equation out. They said they thought the fuel would "dump into the building", I am assuming this to mean they thought the fuel would flow down the many floors, causing a much larger, but much less constrained fire. I suppose there could be a gap in their determinations there too.

True_Avery
06-04-2008, 03:11 AM
http://www.foldmoney.com/

I can do it too.

So, a 767 passenger plane going 500 miles an hour weighing 400,000 pounds and carrying 23,000 gallons of jet fuel had little to nothing to do with the buildings collapsing...

It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire.
Yep, 100% true. They were also hit by 767 Passenger Planes. Maybe the inferno didn't do a lot of damage, but I bet those two planes did a fair amount themselves. Seeing as those buildings were already laughing at gravity...

Okay, you're telling me that untrained people from a long distance could tell the difference in sound from a secondary explosion to steel giving way under pressure and entire floors collapsing on top of each other? I mean, that's off the cuff stuff. I'd probably have thought it was secondary explosions too at the time. But with the benefit of hindsight, I think it can be reasonably stated that they were mistaken about secondary explosions.
Also, bodies landed all around the ground around the towers. When a human hits terminal velocity and hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. The sounds many people heard could very much have been bodies hitting the ground, or the remains of the planes still exploding inside the towers. Or, as you said, the building groaning under its own weight and support beams snapping. Just because there -is- a loud noise does mean it was made by an explosive.

The Twin Towers fell straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a similar characteristic of a controlled demolition. The dust cloud and its make up are considered un-characteristic of a gravity-driven collapse.
Yep. They just happened to be 1,300 feet high though. Due to their massive height and weight, it isn't surprising that moderate structural damage from a 767 passenger plane caused it to succumb to its own gravity and collapse. The two buildings were impressive, but were also huge. As they say, the bigger they are... the harder they fall. Maybe they wanted to fall all along and the planes were the extra nudge they needed.

There is a small chance that our government could have helped out in the attacks, I'll give you that. There is also a small chance of most conspiracies to be correct, like the "Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA" conspiracy.

Don't get me wrong, I hate this government and honestly, this country. But, I would not assume that the United States government planned this entire attack out, however. I wouldn't be surprised if some small strings were pulled, or that this administration is just blind... but I wouldn't assume that we would place bombs in 3 buildings and set them off, considering the right-wing conservative nature of this administration. Maybe I would consider it more if it appeared the administration and namely Bush was less self-obsessed.

Just because you don't believe theres a conspiracy, does not mean the people that do, are idiots. I'm not naming names, but you know who you are.
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx

I'll say the same thing to you all as well, namely Achilles. Just because a few things don't fit doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. And just because we don't see the holes in the events as you do doesn't make us any less than you. This is still a conspiracy theory, and goes right up there with "Kentucky Fried Chicken makes black men impotent". Achilles, I'll have to find the documentary you spoke of about 9/11... but honestly I'd take it with a mountain of salt in the same way I do Michael Moore. I'll soak it in and double check everything said, but that doesn't make it any less questionable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)
Date: February 27, 1993
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Boeing 707
Wingspan 130 ft 10 in (39.90 m)
Length 144 ft 6 in (44.07 m)
Takeoff Weight 257,000 lb (116,570 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/707.htm

(9/11 Planes) Boeing 767-200ER
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Plane 1:
About 466 mph

Plane 2:
About 545 mph

The two 767 planes that hit the WTC were significantly larger and heavier than your 707. More mass hitting those towers with more power behind the explosion, making the comparison of a 707 to a 767 irrelevant. You can argue that the 707 information matches the 767, but the numbers say otherwise. Both planes hit those buildings at roughly 500 mph with roughly 400,000 lb of force behind them along with the exploding jet fuel.

And, as Web said, the ESB is not the WTC. They are built differently, and the WTC was significantly larger.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpgg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length. My conclusion is thus:
American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER
United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222ER

Both of them are a good 20%+ bigger than the 707.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 03:26 AM
my apologies, I missed that he was discussing that it was Boeing 707's the building was designed to withstand. It's no problem. I'm glad we found the source of the misunderstanding.

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length. Don't let Jae hear you say that. :xp:

My conclusion is thus:

Either the plane hit at a "sweet spot" and just hit all the right places, Heck of a coincidence that probably has truly astounding odds (assuming that such an explanation is even valid)

and burned up all the right things to soften the floor supports up(which is entirely possible), Steel trusses, welded and bolted. Floors constructed of concrete. Otherwise ditto what I said above.

their calculations may have been incorrect, And multiple tests carried out by agencies responsible for certifying the results all missed it. Yes, possible but how likely?

though buildings are tough, as they said, the Twin Towers were unprecedented things, and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of time and wear and tear. Steel, concrete, glass, and aluminum. Also possible, but I think that's going to be a very hard sell.

However, I am curious if their "impact analysis" took into account the heat of the jet fuel and the explosion of the plane. Yep, per the aforementioned testing and certified results (per the sources I've seen, FWIW).

As they said, they're not demolition experts, so taking the pure force exerted by the plane without the explosions or the heat from the fuel would leave a substantial part of the equation out. We see the fuel being burned off in the fireball on impact. Unless those planes were carrying napalm instead of jet fuel, I'd say that's going to be another tough sell.

They said they thought the fuel would "dump into the building", I am assuming this to mean they thought the fuel would flow down the many floors, causing a much larger, but much less constrained fire. I suppose there could be a gap in their determinations there too.True.

Darth InSidious
06-04-2008, 08:26 AM
You do this just to hear me rant about burden of proof, I know it. :xp:

Well, actually I was hoping for someone to rant about how the Jesuits are taking over the world, but I suppose a rant on the burden of proof would come close second for entertainment value. :xp: :D

In seriousness, though, how many buildings have been crashed into by 'planes prior to the September 11th attacks? I can't think of any myself.

And I'm afraid that projections often are inaccurate. In 1929, Hoover projected that shares had hit a permanently stable plateau. The Orion Correlation Theory projected that the Great Pyramid was built in 10,500 BC - a figure which is such a nonsense as to be truly fantastical. I could go on.

My point is, projections do not equate to accurate information. Projections go wrong all the time. Every day, in fact.

True, probability is against pot luck meaning that the 'planes hit the right spot and burnt the right things, but to say that it is unlikely is not to say that it is either impossible or that other theories are more likely.

By-the-by, does anyone know roughly what temperature range jet fuel burns at?

El Sitherino
06-04-2008, 09:59 AM
By-the-by, does anyone know roughly what temperature range jet fuel burns at?
Maximum burning temperature: 1796 °F

I don't know, granted the Buildings could take a hit, they couldn't take 2 plane strikes. Not only do the planes hit the building, instantly weakening the structure, but they also send off vibrations when they do so. These vibrations do even more damage than has already been done, further weaking the structure.

After some time of both fuel burning, parts of the plane falling, pieces of the building falling. The towers collapsed, when horizontal support beams collapse, the floor falls. When you get at least 10 floors dropped, it's not too hard to imagine that maybe the building will crush under itself.

I believe that is the same concept they use when aligning explosives to demolish a building. Take out about 14% of the building and have the rest drop on it.

jonathan7
06-04-2008, 10:53 AM
Its time for one of those famous J7 common sense posts...

(TA I apologise but I don't have time to read all of your post)

Right I've browsed this thread... too those who seem to think there were explosive in WTC why didn't the building just collapse when the planes hit both towers?

The documentary I watched here hypothesized, that the fuel, got past the steel's fireproofing and slowly melted the super structure and that then the building above then collapsed down causing the chain reaction... That seems to me a far more reasonable hypothesis than, explosives being placed, partly because common sense tells me that the explosion was nowhere near big enough to be fully laden 747 + explosives.

As for conspiracy theories, I think this an entirely unreasonable one as far as explosives being placed in the building. I can't comment on other factors such as intelligence failure etc. However if you want a conspiracy think JFK... That was a conspiracy, however most conspiracy theories are thought up to make the truth more colourful than it needs to be.

My 2 cents...

Achilles
06-04-2008, 12:43 PM
And I'm afraid that projections often are inaccurate. In 1929, Hoover projected that shares had hit a permanently stable plateau. The Orion Correlation Theory projected that the Great Pyramid was built in 10,500 BC - a figure which is such a nonsense as to be truly fantastical. I could go on.I see what you're trying to say, but you're using unrelated examples to support your point. Engineering is a little more of a precise science and models are more easily testable than those of finance and the estimates of archeology. So this is really apples and oranges.

What we need are examples of catastrophic structural failures that occurred as a result of something that was tested for and ended up being wrong (pre Sept. 11). Then we have to show that these examples have some relevance to incident we're discussing.

My point is, projections do not equate to accurate information. Projections go wrong all the time. Every day, in fact.Absolutely true, but I think we're using the word in different contexts. We can't rule out that the tests these engineers conducted were inadequate, but comparing these tests to an educated guess doesn't help to carry the argument either.

True, probability is against pot luck meaning that the 'planes hit the right spot and burnt the right things, but to say that it is unlikely is not to say that it is either impossible or that other theories are more likely. Remember that the planes hit different floors and different angles, etc. The first plane hit almost straight on. The second plane hit off to the side. How many "right spots" are we going to propose existed and who is going to put up the math showing the probability of such a thing not happening once, but twice on the same day?

Maximum burning temperature: 1796 °F And the fire resistance rating of ASTM E119 certified steel?
The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F.

I don't know, granted the Buildings could take a hit, they couldn't take 2 plane strikes. Neither building withstood 2 plane strikes :confused:

Not only do the planes hit the building, instantly weakening the structure, but they also send off vibrations when they do so. These vibrations do even more damage than has already been done, further weaking the structure. Except that multiple sources have argued that it wouldn't have weakened the structure (see the clip provided at the end of post 43).

Of course this guy could have been wrong, but what evidence do we have that he was? You can't argue that the building collapses themselves are evidence without invoking circular reasoning, so you'll need something else.

After some time of both fuel burning, parts of the plane falling, pieces of the building falling. The towers collapsed, when horizontal support beams collapse, the floor falls. When you get at least 10 floors dropped, it's not too hard to imagine that maybe the building will crush under itself.First, the fuel burnt off on impact. Yes, it started many other fires, but it did not "hang around" acting as a fuel source for 90 minutes. If you have an alternative explanation for the fireball billowing up the sides of each building when each of the planes hit, I really would be interested in hearing it.

Second, each floor was made of concrete and was supported by steel trusses that were both bolted and welded to the frame. There were hundreds of these connections per floor. And these hundreds of connections would have had to have all failed instantaneously on each of the floors in order for the collapse that we saw to be possible. The buildings fell at roughly free fall speed which meant that the floor above would have had to encounter no resistance from the floor below as the building came down.

I believe that is the same concept they use when aligning explosives to demolish a building. Take out about 14% of the building and have the rest drop on it.A random 14% or do they have to target specific areas?

Right I've browsed this thread... too those who seem to think there were explosive in WTC why didn't the building just collapse when the planes hit both towers? If you're asking what I think you're asking: why would they have? If there were detonation materials in the building, they would have been in multiple locations set to multiple blasting cords, etc. Why would the plane strike cause them all to go at once?

The documentary I watched here hypothesized, that the fuel, got past the steel's fireproofing and slowly melted the super structure and that then the building above then collapsed down causing the chain reaction... The PBS one, right?
First, the fuel wouldn't have burnt hot enough to weaken the steel.

Second, the dramatization showed the damage occurring in unrealistic ways. Supposing that the steel did weaken in the trusses, it would have sagged in the middle. Heated steel becomes soft, not brittle. Also the dramatization of the floors "pancaking" shows the 49 central support columns being left intact. So either the model is right and reality is wrong (which we know can't be rigth because that part of the structure collapsed too) or reality (whatever that may be) is right and the model is inaccurate.

Third, best case scenario for an actual pancaking would have taken more than a minute and left us with a pyramid-looking debris pile. Instead each building collapsed fairly symmetrically at just a tad slower than free-fall speed.

That seems to me a far more reasonable hypothesis than, explosives being placed, partly because common sense tells me that the explosion was nowhere near big enough to be fully laden 747 + explosives. I'm not sure what this part means. :(

As for conspiracy theories, I think this an entirely unreasonable one as far as explosives being placed in the building. Okay. Why?

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 12:49 PM
Heck of a coincidence that probably has truly astounding odds (assuming that such an explanation is even valid)
The building's not going to move and you've got a plane slicing through it, if you're aiming for the building at a high speed, it doesn't seem hard to miss.

Steel trusses, welded and bolted. Floors constructed of concrete. Otherwise ditto what I said above.
After even a normal fire, concrete left over from a personal home has to be removed because it loses it's structural integrity.

And multiple tests carried out by agencies responsible for certifying the results all missed it. Yes, possible but how likely?
*shrug* I think a lot of these things are difficult to test in labs. Did they fly a plane into the building to test it? I don't think so.

Steel, concrete, glass, and aluminum. Also possible, but I think that's going to be a very hard sell.
The glass, aluminum and concrete(addressed above), would be severely damaged from the heat if not destroyed. Windows explode under normal fire heat and aluminum just melts.

Yep, per the aforementioned testing and certified results (per the sources I've seen, FWIW).
Can I get some links? The article was well...just an article.

We see the fuel being burned off in the fireball on impact. Unless those planes were carrying napalm instead of jet fuel, I'd say that's going to be another tough sell.
I kinda doubt that's ALL the fuel, but that's just me, it's kinda hard to judge the amount of jet fuel going off based on the size of the fireball.


In the end I'm sure they thought long and hard about what would happen, I just don't see how they can test for a plane crashing into a building in a lab.

Ninja edit: And the fire resistance rating of ASTM E119 certified steel?
http://www.csiphoenix.org/CodesArticles/tabid/67/ctl/Details/mid/416/ItemID/5/Default.aspx

Achilles
06-04-2008, 01:16 PM
The building's not going to move and you've got a plane slicing through it, if you're aiming for the building at a high speed, it doesn't seem hard to miss. Please be sure to note which part of the comment I am replying to before offering your rebuttal.

The argument that the planes just happened to fly into "sweet spots" are incredible odds. That pilots intentionally aiming for buildings hit them are not.:dozey:


After even a normal fire, concrete left over from a personal home has to be removed because it loses it's structural integrity.And the steel?

Do normal fires cause concrete to vaporize into dust?

*shrug* I think a lot of these things are difficult to test in labs. Did they fly a plane into the building to test it? I don't think so.Argument from personal incredulity noted.

I like that we're discounting scale models, simulations, and math because you think we should. :)

The glass, aluminum and concrete(addressed above), would be severely damaged from the heat if not destroyed. Windows explode under normal fire heat and aluminum just melts. Your comment was they burned. Please explain how these things burn.

Also, you forgot to address steel in your reply.

Can I get some links? The article was well...just an article. I provided a quote for El Sitherino in post 60, but you can certainly Google "ASTM E119" for more info.

I kinda doubt that's ALL the fuel, but that's just me, it's kinda hard to judge the amount of jet fuel going off based on the size of the fireball. So some of the fuel burned right away but some didn't? Why?

In the end I'm sure they thought long and hard about what would happen, I just don't see how they can test for a plane crashing into a building in a lab. Scale models, simulations, mathematics.

Not to take the conversation off topic, but it really does seem as though you'd argue that human flight and space travel just seem too unrealistic because you don't know how they would be able to figure out how to do that kind of stuff.

Ninja edit:
http://www.csiphoenix.org/CodesArticles/tabid/67/ctl/Details/mid/416/ItemID/5/Default.aspxhehe, ask yourself this: If the conclusions reached in this document are true (normal fire will weaken steel enough to cause a building to collapse), then why aren't all the buildings that were constructed using ASTM E119 certified steel being demolished? Why are people still being permitted to live and work in potential death traps?

Sorry, not buying the NIST-biased study.

Ghost Down
06-04-2008, 01:20 PM
Oh, come on people! We all know the CIA blew up the WTC and that the moon landing was a hoax!

Yeah, sure.. :rolleyes:

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 01:30 PM
Please be sure to note which part of the comment I am replying to before offering your rebuttal.
pretty sure I got the right part...

The argument that the planes just happened to fly into "sweet spots" are incredible odds. That pilots intentionally aiming for buildings hit them are not.:dozey:
just saying it's easier to do damage when that's your intent, as opposed to trying to miss the buildings as a non-terrorist pilot would.

And the steel?
Most homes don't have much steel in them, it's generally scrap though after a fire.

Do normal fires cause concrete to vaporize into dust?
wait...where'd dust come in? Yeah, collapsing buildings destroy the concrete making dust, a lot of the dust likly came from the gypusm wallboard(aka: drywall)

Argument from personal incredulity noted.

I like that we're discounting scale models, simulations, and math because you think we should. :)
of course, but still, those are controlled lab tests.

Your comment was they burned. Please explain how these things burn.
my apologies for choice in words, "burns" in this context means: sufficiently heated to the point of losing structural integrity or catching fire.

Also, you forgot to address steel in your reply.
no I did not, I only addressed the sections I am aware of through experiance.

I provided a quote for El Sitherino in post 60, but you can certainly Google "ASTM E119" for more info.
As noted below, you don't like my source, so, I'd love to see one of yours(the actual page, not a quote)

So some of the fuel burned right away but some didn't? Why?
dunno, go light some jet fuel on fire and tell me how long it takes to burn. I'm not a fire expert.

Scale models, simulations, mathematics.

Not to take the conversation off topic, but it really does seem as though you'd argue that human flight and space travel just seem too unrealistic because you don't know how they would be able to figure out how to do that kind of stuff.
remember, they shot a lot of rockets into the sky before they shot one into space. They didn't fly any planes into the Twin Towers at any point in their construction.

hehe, ask yourself this: If the conclusions reached in this document are true (normal fire will weaken steel enough to cause a building to collapse), then why aren't all the buildings that were constructed using ASTM E119 certified steel being demolished? Why are people still being permitted to live and work in potential death traps?

Sorry, not buying the NIST-biased study.
Because the costs of demolishing them would be astronomical, the money lost from businesses being put out for a while would be equally huge, and the construction costs to rebuild a "safe" building would be doubly so.

Many buildings that do not meet current code(remember the code has become more strict over time), are allowed to remain because the cost of their demolition and reconstruction is less than the cost of letting the thing get destroyed in a fire.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 02:15 PM
pretty sure I got the right part...
<snip>
just saying it's easier to do damage when that's your intent, as opposed to trying to miss the buildings as a non-terrorist pilot would. No, that isn't what you were saying at all. What you were saying is that the planes must have a hit "sweet spots" which would have caused the buildings to collapse (presumably when hitting them in other places wouldn't, else it doesn't stand to reason that they would have been particularly "sweet").

Trying to hit a building when you're trying - pretty good odds
Happening to hit two different "sweet spots" that just happen to bring the building down - not so much.

Please don't try to change the argument after you've already made it.

Most homes don't have much steel in them, it's generally scrap though after a fire. I mentioned steel because it did exist in the WTC buildings. You ignored the point and introduced personal homes, not me. So please offer an explanation for the steel, per post 56.

wait...where'd dust come in? Yeah, collapsing buildings destroy the concrete making dust, a lot of the dust likly came from the gypusm wallboard(aka: drywall) The concrete was turned into dust. Please explain how the fire turned the concrete into dust.

(hint: explosives could probably do it).

of course, but still, those are controlled lab tests. Right which means that the conditions for a certain outcome are more favorable, not less so. So if they wanted to apply heat to the steel in order to determine where it woudl fail, the best possible place to do that would be in a lab. Not sure what your point is.

my apologies for choice in words, "burns" in this context means: sufficiently heated to the point of losing structural integrity or catching fire.Glass, aluminum, steel, and concrete catch fire? That's my point.

no I did not, I only addressed the sections I am aware of through experiance. Okay, well then you didn't address my point.

As noted below, you don't like my source, so, I'd love to see one of yours(the actual page, not a quote)A copy of the letter can be found here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451).

dunno, go light some jet fuel on fire and tell me how long it takes to burn. I'm not a fire expert. I didn't ask how long it took to burn. Please try again.

remember, they shot a lot of rockets into the sky before they shot one into space. They didn't fly any planes into the Twin Towers at any point in their construction. Didn't have to because they did it with models and simulations.

Because the costs of demolishing them would be astronomical, the money lost from businesses being put out for a while would be equally huge, and the construction costs to rebuild a "safe" building would be doubly so.

Many buildings that do not meet current code(remember the code has become more strict over time), are allowed to remain because the cost of their demolition and reconstruction is less than the cost of letting the thing get destroyed in a fire.Is that your final answer?

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 02:18 PM
bah, this isn't worth it anymore. We're not even talking about the subject you're just going after the words I decided to use in my sentence, and not even making much sense at that. I'm done, I don't even know what we're arguing over anymore.

Jae Onasi
06-04-2008, 04:20 PM
You're still missing the point, but that's okay :)Actually, I completely understand the artificial use of language you're making and your distinction. The terrorists conspired to slam planes into buildings, i.e. it was a conspiracy. However, since their actions are fact and not theory, you can't really call it a conspiracy theory now, can you? Just because I don't agree with how you intentionally ignore the connotative use of 'conspiracy theory' to utilize only the denotation artificially to make your point does not mean I didn't understand it.

If you don't have a source, then I can't rule out that you're just making this up.
I haven't seen it so I can't comment. If I find it at some point then maybe I'll be able to then.I already looked at them and discounted them. There wasn't any way to prove on the one video(one of these many variants) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related) that the film hadn't been doctored before being put up on youtube, so I discounted it. The other thing was just too silly to pursue. I'm sure if you google 9/11 conspiracy you'll find more crap than you ever wanted to wade through.

To the best of my knowledge however, only 5 frames of footage have been released and they don't match what you're describing here, so either your source was making it up or you are. *shrugs*Thanks for accusing me of lying yet again just because I won't jump when you say jump. That's so constructive to the conversation. I don't see you berating other people to provide sources to the degree you do me, and I provide you with a lot more sourcing on a regular basis than most here already. I don't accuse you of making stuff up when you don't immediately give a source for every single thing you say. :roleyess:

Keep in mind that the Pentagon and surrounding building have multiple security cameras both indoors and out and if the government really wanted to shut up the "conspiracy theorists" all they would have to do is show about 10 seconds of footage from any of them (and allow an independent expert to confirm that the footage wasn't doctored of course).Sure. I'll agree with that. You're talking about a place that houses some of the most highly classified information in the world--it doesn't surprise me that they won't release footage. It's disappointing, maybe, but hardly surprising.

See, that's how you quiet people with bad information: you provide indisputable evidence to the contrary. Poorly funded, slapped together, biased-sourced "investigations" that take place years after the fact don't necessarily meet that standard.Oh, come on. How fast do you think the experts can move? It took a long time to research the FEMA report, which I'm assuming you're talking about. Do you honestly think that's something that could be done in just a few days or even a couple months? They were still collecting forensic and scientific data for several months after the event. How many experts do you think needed to be consulted? Dozens at least, and likely hundreds of victims and eyewitnesses. They all had to write their reports, review and rewrite as needed, get that sent to FEMA, all those reports synthesized, reviewed, the draft report had to be written, the draft reviewed by the experts for accuracy, rewritten, reviewed yet again, and so forth. I've had to write more than a few after-action reports, and it takes a long time to interview people, wait for their reports, read through all those, contact the people to clarify some statements, write the report, send it for review, get it back for clarifications and/or rewrite, and get a final draft written. That's just for a single incident involving perhaps just 1 person, a few at the most. Magnify that by hundreds and it should be no surprise that it took a few years to get the report done.

Did you attend some course to become an expert in crap spotting? Are you credentialled? Or are you asking me to adopt your opinion for no good reason?Well, I sure don't need a degree to spot it in your comment here. If you believe everything you see/read about the 9/11 tragedy, and that there has been no crap produced, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.... I would have thought that 'there's crap on the internet about 9/11' didn't need to be substantiated by an expert.

then please forgive my obtuseness Forgiven of course. ;P

Not sure what your point is here.You had mentioned people hearing what they thought was an explosion on 9/11. I noted that people in '45 said the same thing when the B-25 hit the Empire state building. It's not a stretch to think that people on 9/11 might have thought something similar when the 767s crashed into the WTC.

Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a government report at face value.Do you? I accept that the report is going to have bias. Bias does not make facts suddenly non-factual, however. You would learn a lot reading that report even if you don't agree with every single conclusion made from those facts.

Which of these credentials make him or her uniquely qualified to makes such an assessment?You tell me--you're the one questioning the credentials. I happen to think extra hazmat training takes precedence over normal FF training when talking about hazardous situations. Your mileage may vary.

As for the 2nd part of your question: I have not, but feel free to assume that they are similarly qualified for the sake of my point. And I should assume they're similarly qualified why? Additional hazmat certification is not part of the typical training, so no, they are not similarly qualified.

Your comment was that they had not been struck by a plane. The evidence is to the contrary. Perhaps you wanted to convey some other point though?Where did I say 'they had not been struck by a plane'? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because the context for this is gone.


Source please?Well, if I can find the primary source from 1960's that shows the engineers considered a 707 crashing into the WTC, I'll provide it. In the meantime, we'll have to rely on a secondary source. The engineers could not possibly have planned for a strike by a Boeing 767, because the first one didn't go into production until 1978, well after the WTC was built, and a good 28 years after the initial plans were drawn up for the buildings. Do you honestly need me to find a source to say that?

Gee, this sounds awfully familiar to what JediMaster12 and I said in posts 22 and 23 respectively. I didn't know I was disallowed from agreeing with either of you and saying so. Please re-send the memo on that to me. Thanks. ;)

Simple yes. The simpler explanation still would be that the buildings wanted to fall down all along and the planes just helped. However, I suspect that we're all aiming just a little bit higher than "simple". I suspect that many of us would perfer an explanation that fits all the evidence. As you pointed out above, there are some things "that don't fit". If some things "don't fit" then it's impossible that the offered explanation fits all the evidence.The FEMA report appears to fit the evidence best at this time, with some obvious flaws. I haven't found a conspiracy theory that fits the evidence better. If a serious one comes out that fits the evidence better than the FEMA explanation, then I could go for it.

Nicely done! :DThanks. It takes some work to be that irreverent at my age.

Seems just as complex as the "official story" though so I'm not sure how that supports your point.It has more steps involved, more people involved, more secrecy involved, more stuff involved, more illegal activities involved, all of which increase the complexity in varying degrees.

Re Skilling's comments: The exploding fuel had a lot more force than a 200 lb car bomb. A 767, as I noted above, had 3.4 times more force behind it than the planned-for 707.

And the fire resistance rating of ASTM E119 certified steel? Why does everyone think the steel has to actually melt? All it has to do is soften enough to _bend_, which happens at a much lower temperature, and the entire structural integrity is screwed. Steel loses 20% of its strength at about 400-500 C (see figure 2 of this link (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/HotRolledCarbonSteel/mechanicalProperties.htm), 50% of its strength between 500 and 600C , and 90% of its strength at 800 C, well below the melting point.

The main gravity load bearing was done by the central core (here's a non-gov't link (http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html)). Damage the gravity load bearing center, and everything above it falls in on itself. The floors were designed to support themselves by connecting to the lateral sides. Once the side walls they were bolted to were gone on the floors where the planes made impact, those supports were also gone. The walls were 208 feet wide, the wingspan of a 767 is 156 feet, so roughly 75% of one side of each of the buildings were destroyed when the planes hit, and that's not even including the exit damage done on the opposite side. Couple that with the heat making steel bend excessively, further compromising the engineering. Once the lateral support was gone, the floors above the damaged ones fell, and the buildings fell. The steel supports on the higher floors were thinner than on the lower floors (since they didn't have as much weight stress from the floors above), which may also have contributed to this. There may be a degree of physics/engineering that most of us don't have the background in to fully grasp about building construction, but it isn't rocket science, either.

First, the fuel burnt off on impact.You quote a source earlier that says some of the fuel would flow down the support columns and burn. Which source should we refer to in this case?

Third, best case scenario for an actual pancaking would have taken more than a minute and left us with a pyramid-looking debris pile.And your source for this is?

The concrete was turned into dust. Please explain how the fire turned the concrete into dust.
(hint: explosives could probably do it).Yes, and so could a plane crashing into the concrete, and the fuel tanks blowing everything to smithereens.

A copy of the letter can be found here. You've got to be kidding. You gripe about the gov't sources being biased and then you trot this site out as if it's unbiased? I never want to hear a complaint about biased sites ever again if you're going to do that. Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a conspiracy theory website at face value.

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length.The planes that struck the WTC were 767s, not 757s. The 767 has twice the fuel capacity, wider wingspan, length, and height, carries 60% more weight and has 50% greater engine thrust than the 757.

Web Rider
06-04-2008, 04:24 PM
The planes that struck the WTC were 767s, not 757s. The 767 has twice the fuel capacity, wider wingspan, length, and height, carries 60% more weight and has 50% greater engine thrust of the 757.

my apologies, I apparently clicked on AA Flight 11 instead of 77. It was late, I was tired, my bad.

Jae Onasi
06-04-2008, 04:43 PM
my apologies, I apparently clicked on AA Flight 11 instead of 77. It was late, I was tired, my bad.

No worries. I just wanted to make the clarification since it had an impact on the discussion.

EnderWiggin
06-04-2008, 04:46 PM
{awesomeness 3 posts up snipped}
Brilliant post, Jae.

That was very engaging to read.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-04-2008, 06:23 PM
hehe, ask yourself this: If the conclusions reached in this document are true (normal fire will weaken steel enough to cause a building to collapse), then why aren't all the buildings that were constructed using ASTM E119 certified steel being demolished? Why are people still being permitted to live and work in potential death traps?If planes were crashing into skyscrapers everyday, no one would care about 9/11, and your argument would have merit. But since jets aren't crashing into buildings everyday around here and no one's burning loads of jet fuel next to the aforementioned buildings' supports, your "argument" is just an unfunny remark made out of desperation and a need to be right. Another reason is that we've also allowed our government to devolve into a self-absorbed mob of power-hungry old men who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about anyone unless it costs them some of their power.

The concrete was turned into dust. Please explain how the fire turned the concrete into dust.I dunno, maybe it was crushed under the remains of a building or something -- with all the buildings in New York there are quite a few suspects, so let's me and you get on the case!

A copy of the letter can be found here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451).So what you're saying is the guy who works for the company that did the certifications for the steel used in the World Trade Center says they would have been a-okay in that situation? I am shocked sir. Furthermore, he ignores the state of disrepair the buildings were in and assumes the steel used in its construction was in the same shape it was at the time of construction. The only time he accounts for time is when he mentions that the steel may have been without fireproofing. In addition, it seems to me that that site's purpose is to find some way that the World Trade Centers didn't collapse because of the planes. Actually, I'm sure of it. Part of their mission statement is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-ups regarding the events of September 11th, 2001 in ways that inspire people to overcome denial, confront disturbing evidence and comprehend its implications for our freedoms and democracy." Ooh I love when people throw around words like "freedoms" and "democracy", it makes me feel like I'm running across a field with just an American flag towards a bunch of British soldiers. Demon British soldiers!

Didn't have to because they did it with models and simulations.Well that certainly sounds science-y. Hey, I have Flight Simulator <some Roman numeral>, how about I pop that in, load up New York and a 747 and see what happens? Better yet, I have 3Ds Max too, I bet I could really up the Bad Boys factor if I use that to simulate the attacks.


I think the truth is just as simple (and horrifying) as InSidious said it was on the first page. Two planes hit two buildings. The initial impacts weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and added quite a bit to the weight to what they were designed to hold. After this, jet fuel burned on and around the materials used to create the buildings. Unfortunately, these materials weren't meant to be doused in jet fuel and set ablaze and were weakened significantly. Finally, because the buildings were designed to require these materials to be at full or close to full strength, the buildings collapsed. Not every great tragedy has a complex plot behind it, and most often these complex plots are concocted so that we can pretend things aren't fragile and maintain our illusion of safety.



I thought the Jesuits used their telekinetic mind powers to bring the towers down...

DISPROVE ME.The Jesuits are just pawns used by the Illuminati. You're also forgetting the psy-nullification field put in place by the large population of Hasidic Jews living in New York. Hurr.

jonathan7
06-04-2008, 07:19 PM
Okay. Why?

Lets start with this...

Motive?

I cannot see any possible motive for placing explosives in the WTC, especially several hundred floors up, if you wanted to collapse a building the logical place to place explosives would be the super structure at the bottom.

The PBS one, right?
First, the fuel wouldn't have burnt hot enough to weaken the steel.

Nope being British, it was a BBC Panorama/Horizon documentary, so British funded. We are talking however about 5 years since I watched the thing. I did loose a friend in the WTC, and whatever caused his death won't bring him back, unpleasant as I find your current government, I don't think they placed explosives.

If you're asking what I think you're asking: why would they have? If there were detonation materials in the building, they would have been in multiple locations set to multiple blasting cords, etc. Why would the plane strike cause them all to go at once?

Because Jet fuel is very hot? Surely it would of caused all nearby explosives to go off, again I'm not an explosives expert, but I would think 1,500 degree heat would set any explosives off.

Second, the dramatization showed the damage occurring in unrealistic ways. Supposing that the steel did weaken in the trusses, it would have sagged in the middle. Heated steel becomes soft, not brittle. Also the dramatization of the floors "pancaking" shows the 49 central support columns being left intact. So either the model is right and reality is wrong (which we know can't be rigth because that part of the structure collapsed too) or reality (whatever that may be) is right and the model is inaccurate.

I think we are talking about different documentaries.

Third, best case scenario for an actual pancaking would have taken more than a minute and left us with a pyramid-looking debris pile. Instead each building collapsed fairly symmetrically at just a tad slower than free-fall speed.

I'm no expert but I would expect the Towers to leave a pretty similar rubble pattern, unless they collapsed sideways.

I'm not sure what this part means. :(

I don't think the explosion on the videos of the 747 (or whatever plane type it was) is nearly big enough for a combination of a fully laden plane and explosives. Again I'm no expert.

Thanks for reading :)

Darth InSidious
06-04-2008, 07:23 PM
I see what you're trying to say, but you're using unrelated examples to support your point. Engineering is a little more of a precise science and models are more easily testable than those of finance and the estimates of archeology. So this is really apples and oranges.
Well, I'll accept that...except that things like the Orion Correlation Theory were supposedly put together at 'scientific' standard, using the positions of stars (I realise this may sound like a contradiction in terms, but that's what the 'supposedly' is for. :p ). Engineering reports may be much better, of course, but I wouldn't know, and since I've disavowed expertise, I reserve the right to speculate fruitlessly. :xp:

What we need are examples of catastrophic structural failures that occurred as a result of something that was tested for and ended up being wrong (pre Sept. 11). Then we have to show that these examples have some relevance to incident we're discussing.
Well, it would be nice to hear from a structural engineer on the subject. I'm afraid I'm only qualified to comment on the structural engineering of carved reliefs. :D

Absolutely true, but I think we're using the word in different contexts. We can't rule out that the tests these engineers conducted were inadequate, but comparing these tests to an educated guess doesn't help to carry the argument either.
This is quite possible, although I did mean the term in a general sense, including the highly mathematical complicated ones involving the less sane end of mathematics, where it's claimed that the whole field is actually a rabbit...

Remember that the planes hit different floors and different angles, etc. The first plane hit almost straight on. The second plane hit off to the side. How many "right spots" are we going to propose existed and who is going to put up the math showing the probability of such a thing not happening once, but twice on the same day?
I could give you a very high number as a guess?


The Jesuits are just pawns used by the Illuminati. You're also forgetting the psy-nullification field put in place by the large population of Hasidic Jews living in New York. Hurr.

That was switched off owing to the new deal between the Vatican and the Learned Elders.

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-04-2008, 07:34 PM
That was switched off owing to the new deal between the Vatican and the Learned Elders.Haha, don't be naive. You think the Hasidic Jews would turn off the device just because of that? They manufactured a faux-nullification field generator years before in preparation for such a deal.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 07:46 PM
The terrorists conspired to slam planes into buildings, i.e. it was a conspiracy.Quite right.

However, since their actions are fact and not theory, you can't really call it a conspiracy theory now, can you?The theory is that the planes and fire caused the building to collapse or that plane and the fire damaged the building but explosives cause the building to collapse, or as you pointed out earlier a myriad of other possible scenarios. They're all theories. So yeah, I guess I can.

Just because I don't agree with how you intentionally ignore the connotative use of 'conspiracy theory' to utilize only the denotation artificially to make your point does not mean I didn't understand it.I guess I just wanted to know what justification you had to use it in that connotative form. The fact that you have one too kinda seems hypocritical. *shrugs*

I already looked at them and discounted them. There wasn't any way to prove on the one video(one of these many variants) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related) that the film hadn't been doctored before being put up on youtube, so I discounted it. The other thing was just too silly to pursue. I'm sure if you google 9/11 conspiracy you'll find more crap than you ever wanted to wade through. So this clip covers the claims you made earlier? Cool.

Unfortunately, I can't access YT from the office so I'll have to watch and comment later.

Thanks for accusing me of lying yet again just because I won't jump when you say jump. That's so constructive to the conversation. I don't see you berating other people to provide sources to the degree you do me, and I provide you with a lot more sourcing on a regular basis than most here already. I don't accuse you of making stuff up when you don't immediately give a source for every single thing you say. :roleyess:I like how this isn't actually a denial.

Sure. I'll agree with that. You're talking about a place that houses some of the most highly classified information in the world--it doesn't surprise me that they won't release footage. It's disappointing, maybe, but hardly surprising. Do they house it in the parking lot, because that's where the 5 frames were filmed? Or one of the seized security tapes from one of the surrounding businesses? They'll allow people drive on the freeway outside the building, take tours, etc, but they can't release a few seconds of footage of the outside? Really?

Oh, come on. How fast do you think the experts can move? It took a long time to research the FEMA report, which I'm assuming you're talking about. Actually I was referencing the 9/11 Commission Report which wasn't started until more than a year after the attacks. Since this is considered "the official investigation" I thought it should take priority.

Well, I sure don't need a degree to spot it in your comment here. If you believe everything you see/read about the 9/11 tragedy, and that there has been no crap produced, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.... I would have thought that 'there's crap on the internet about 9/11' didn't need to be substantiated by an expert. So it is your opinion then? That's what I thought.

Also, I'd like for you to go back and re-read (assuming that you have read it) post 23.

Forgiven of course. ;P That apology did have a qualifier.

You had mentioned people hearing what they thought was an explosion on 9/11. I noted that people in '45 said the same thing when the B-25 hit the Empire state building. It's not a stretch to think that people on 9/11 might have thought something similar when the 767s crashed into the WTC. Indeed it isn't but since I also stated in the very same section that you were responding to that I don't put much weight behind such claims, I'm still at a loss for what relevance this has here.

Do you? I accept that the report is going to have bias. Bias does not make facts suddenly non-factual, however. You would learn a lot reading that report even if you don't agree with every single conclusion made from those facts. It makes me sad when you answer questions with questions. :(

Do you have an unbiased source or not?

You tell me--you're the one questioning the credentials. I happen to think extra hazmat training takes precedence over normal FF training when talking about hazardous situations. Your mileage may vary. And if I knew what reason you had for thinking so I might be inclined to agree with you. If you told me that that your hazmat friend had to have an extra 80 hours of structural-related trainging in order to qualify, I would probably agree with you and then want to know if these other firefighters were similarly trained. However if you hazmat friend only had to take some extra classes on how to deal with the types of chemicals, etc they would be dealing with, then I would have absolutely no reason to think that he or she was more qualified.

So it sounds as though you may have said, "Ooo...hazmat. That sounds important. I'm believeing them!". And while that is certainly your perrogative, that kind of thinking isn't very persuasive to me.

And I should assume they're similarly qualified why? Additional hazmat certification is not part of the typical training, so no, they are not similarly qualified. Because I was going to counter your argument from authority with an argument from popularity in order to demonstrate how silly logical fallacies are. That's why. Since you don't seem to have any basis to refuse, I'm a little bummed that you opted not to play along.

Where did I say 'they had not been struck by a plane'? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because the context for this is gone. Post #31:
Your infernos in other steel buildings example does not apply--those buildings were not first hit with airplanes. I hope that helps.

Well, if I can find the primary source from 1960's that shows the engineers considered a 707 crashing into the WTC, I'll provide it. In the meantime, we'll have to rely on a secondary source. The engineers could not possibly have planned for a strike by a Boeing 767, because the first one didn't go into production until 1978, well after the WTC was built, and a good 28 years after the initial plans were drawn up for the buildings. Do you honestly need me to find a source to say that? I need for you to show me a source that shows that they did not plan for multiple impacts by Boeing 707s (or equivalent planes) which is the claim made by the gentlemen in the clip provided in post #43. He made the claim, you wish to contest it, so now you need to provide your case. Once that's done then we can go back to the discussion where we determine whether or not a partially fuelled, partially loaded, Boeing 767 is comparable to a fully loaded, fully fuelled Boeing 707.

I didn't know I was disallowed from agreeing with either of you and saying so. Please re-send the memo on that to me. Thanks. ;) You're welcome to agree with whomever you'd like whenever you wish, however it is very confusing for some of us when you concede points and argue them at the same time.

The FEMA report appears to fit the evidence best at this time, with some obvious flaws. I haven't found a conspiracy theory that fits the evidence better. If a serious one comes out that fits the evidence better than the FEMA explanation, then I could go for it.
Thanks. It takes some work to be that irreverent at my age. Based on your opinion, correct?

This is where you and I differ Jae. You throw in behind something, even if you admit that it doesn't make sense (i.e. the FEMA report). I don't.

It has more steps involved, more people involved, more secrecy involved, more stuff involved, more illegal activities involved, all of which increase the complexity in varying degrees. Of course it doesn't. :lol:

"Bad guys" which may or may not have been hired and trained by al-Queda were made to look like students, etc visiting America were sent on a mission to plow some planes into some buildings so that they could make sure lots of Americans would die. However two of the buildings just happen to have been constructed with faulty materials that were tested and certified multiple times (but no one caught, which is either a sure sign of either misfeasance or parties conspiring to purposely build an unsafe building) therefore when the planes hit they both happened to cause the buildings to do something that they were not designed to do (fail to withstand the impact of a comparable airplane). That way Osama bin Laden can show the muslim world that America is not untouchable and rally a lot of people "who hate us because we stand for freedom and democracy" and send them to Iraq to participate in terrorist training in Saddam Hussein's secret weapons of mass destruction program which he was able to successfully hide from teams of UN weapons inspectors for nearly 10 years which he intended to unleash on the United States via a means that we're not sure that we know. Once we were able to uncover evidence of Saddam’s secret weapons of mass destruction program as well as his ties to al-Qaeda, we were morally obligated to divert our attention there so that we could help instill peace and democracy by overthrowing and evil and brutal dictator. Oh and by the way, we’re going to deny that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with oil and accuse anyone who questions this version of the story as being “soft on terror” and unpatriotic. That way, we can abduct foreign citizens accused of having links to terrorism and hold them in secret prison without charge or trial, sending a clear message to Osama bin Laden that he will not get away with what he’s done and that democracy will prevail.

Would you care to count the number of steps, people, secrets, "more stuff", and illegal activities involved so that we can have a true comparison or should we just call it a wash?

Re Skilling's comments: The exploding fuel had a lot more force than a 200 lb car bomb. A 767, as I noted above, had 3.4 times more force behind it than the planned-for 707. Yep, and I'm still waiting for your source.

Why does everyone think the steel has to actually melt? All it has to do is soften enough to _bend_, which happens at a much lower temperature, and the entire structural integrity is screwed. Gee, they should probably stop building steel frame buildings then. I guess we're all just incredibly lucky that none of the other fires we've seen in steel frame building haven't been equally fatal.

The main gravity load bearing was done by the central coreI'll just hop in to point out once again that the 2nd plane hit the corner.

The floors were designed to support themselves by connecting to the lateral sides. Once the side walls they were bolted to were gone on the floors where the planes made impact, those supports were also gone. Some of them were anyway. That's why they designed them with "lots". That way if "some" of them were gone, there would still be "more".

The walls were 208 feet wide, the wingspan of a 767 is 156 feet, so roughly 75% of one side of each of the buildings were destroyed when the planes hit, and that's not even including the exit damage done on the opposite side. There was no exit damage. Neither plane cleared the building once it impacted. I suspect that all those steel columns in it's way kinda stopped it (steel being stronger and heavier than aluminum) and all that.

Couple that with the heat making steel bend excessively, further compromising the engineering. The heat coming from all the death-trap office equipment.

Once the lateral support was gone, the floors above the damaged ones fell, and the buildings fell. Arguably. :)

The steel supports on the higher floors were thinner than on the lower floors (since they didn't have as much weight stress from the floors above), which may also have contributed to this. There may be a degree of physics/engineering that most of us don't have the background in to fully grasp about building construction, but it isn't rocket science, either. But we're going to pretend anyway. I like it :)

You quote a source earlier that says some of the fuel would flow down the support columns and burn. Which source should we refer to in this case? I quoted source that said that they were concerned about it, yes. Is there some contradition in that that I should be aware of.

And your source for this is? I'll share it if you watch it, but I'm not going through and ticking of time markers for you :)

Yes, and so could a plane crashing into the concrete, and the fuel tanks blowing everything to smithereens. Not consistent with what we saw though. :(

You've got to be kidding. You gripe about the gov't sources being biased and then you trot this site out as if it's unbiased? I never want to hear a complaint about biased sites ever again if you're going to do that. Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a conspiracy theory website at face value.I was really hoping that you wouldn't try to make this argument Jae, but somehow I knew that you would. :(

Was the letter drafted by the authors of the site or merely provided on the site? We're attacking url's now Jae? See when I attack your sources for bais, it's because I'm attacking your sources...usually for being bias. What you're doing here is completely ignoring the source (i.e. the author of the letter) and attacking the site that it's hosted on. Not quite the same thing there.

So if you really want to put me in my place you can point out how Kevin Ryan is biased.

I'll respond to the rest of the posts in this thread when I get home.

Thanks for reading.

mimartin
06-04-2008, 10:58 PM
Question for you: If we were reading about some similar tragedy in Africa or South America (places known for having corrupt governments), do you think we would be so quick to dismiss reports of conspiratorial acts carried out by the government against their own citizens? Wait the U.S, is not known for it corrupt government?

I get your point about questioning the facts and not following blindly. However, in my mind the collapse of the Twin Towers is still a result of the jetliners ramming the building. That does not however mean I know that as a fact. Is it possible that our egocentric thinking tells us that stuff that only happens to "other countries"?Now I thought you knew me better than that. However, I’ll play along. Yes, I definitely feel this country has that attitude that we are always on the right side. Forgive me. We have the false illusion that God has some how blessed our nation and that we can do no wrong. I will also admit that I once felt this way too; only with me is was probably worst since I am a Texans and we all know how they are. This mentality is what made September 11, 2001 such a shock. How could something like this happen here? I also believe it is a contributing factor to the all sides of the conspiracy theories. Some people take the government’s description of the events without question and others want to prove we could not be that vulnerable, that two symbols of America financial strength could not be removed from the New York skyline by 19 men armed with box-cutters. Still others just want to find the truth. Even though I still believe the government explanation for the most part, I will continue to question the events of September 11, 2001 if for no other reason, but to always remember those 2752 people that perished that day.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 11:07 PM
Separate post for length Understood. Mine pushed the length limits, too. --Jae

If planes were crashing into skyscrapers everyday, no one would care about 9/11, and your argument would have merit.Web Rider's source indicated that temperatures from "normal" fires were sufficient to cause the building to collapse. I think that rules out this particular argument needing to involve planes since "normal" fires can occur without them.

But since jets aren't crashing into buildings everyday around here and no one's burning loads of jet fuel next to the aforementioned buildings' supports, your "argument" is just an unfunny remark made out of desperation and a need to be right. I love it when people accuse me of needing to be right when I hold a position that they don't agree with :lol:
Another reason is that we've also allowed our government to devolve into a self-absorbed mob of power-hungry old men who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about anyone unless it costs them some of their power. So then we should just go back to our victim roles then?

I dunno, maybe it was crushed under the remains of a building or something -- with all the buildings in New York there are quite a few suspects, so let's me and you get on the case!1) Not consistent with fire. Is consistent with explosives.

2)Okay maybe with the bottom floors, but we should have some huge chunks from the top floors right (the ones above the impacts)? What do we see though? Plumes of vaporized concrete.

So what you're saying is the guy who works for the company that did the certifications for the steel used in the World Trade Center says they would have been a-okay in that situation? I am shocked sir.Was it his analysis that was called into question? Was he some high-level executive concerned about the reputation of the organization? Nope on both counts. So assuming that your comments are a call to bias, I guess I don't see how.

Furthermore, he ignores the state of disrepair the buildings were in and assumes the steel used in its construction was in the same shape it was at the time of construction. You'll have to explain what this means. There are steel frame building that are far older than these were. The outside was an aluminum facade, so it's not as though the steel beams had been exposed to the elements, etc.

The only time he accounts for time is when he mentions that the steel may have been without fireproofing. In addition, it seems to me that that site's purpose is to find some way that the World Trade Centers didn't collapse because of the planes. I won't dispute the purpose of the site, but his letter was crafted entirely independently so I'm not sure what relationship you are trying to establish.

Actually, I'm sure of it. Part of their mission statement is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-ups regarding the events of September 11th, 2001 in ways that inspire people to overcome denial, confront disturbing evidence and comprehend its implications for our freedoms and democracy." Ooh I love when people throw around words like "freedoms" and "democracy", it makes me feel like I'm running across a field with just an American flag towards a bunch of British soldiers. Demon British soldiers!:lol: Nice! :)

You'd have a field day with Alex Jones. You think these guys are nutty? :nut:

I think the truth is just as simple (and horrifying) as InSidious said it was on the first page. Two planes hit two buildings. The initial impacts weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and added quite a bit to the weight to what they were designed to hold. Sure. Just as soon as I see a report or a simulation that doesn't have question marks hanging over it, I'll be happy to accept that. I really will.

After this, jet fuel burned on and around the materials used to create the buildings. And if that made sense, I'd accept that too.

Unfortunately, these materials weren't meant to be doused in jet fuel and set ablaze and were weakened significantly.Except that's not true.

Finally, because the buildings were designed to require these materials to be at full or close to full strength, the buildings collapsed.If that helps you sleep better at night, then that's great. :)

Not every great tragedy has a complex plot behind it, and most often these complex plots are concocted so that we can pretend things aren't fragile and maintain our illusion of safety. Right because that's exactly what government killing civilians provides. :eyeraise:

Lets start with this...

Motive? In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, the think tank put forth it's case for how to make sure that America remains the sole world superpower from now on. Key objectives included (but were not limited to) removing strategic obstacles in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

In the document, the following comment was made:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

Members of the PNAC included Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others who had key positions in the Bush administration, but aren't necessarily household names.

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

I cannot see any possible motive for placing explosives in the WTC, especially several hundred floors up, if you wanted to collapse a building the logical place to place explosives would be the super structure at the bottom. These guys argue that there were explosives throughout the building (including the bottom). I'm still skeptical, but I can't rule the evidence they provide either.

Nope being British, it was a BBC Panorama/Horizon documentary, so British funded. We are talking however about 5 years since I watched the thing. I did loose a friend in the WTC, and whatever caused his death won't bring him back, unpleasant as I find your current government, I don't think they placed explosives. Any chance you can find it online? I'd be very interested in taking a look.

Because Jet fuel is very hot? Surely it would of caused all nearby explosives to go off, again I'm not an explosives expert, but I would think 1,500 degree heat would set any explosives off. The nearby ones, sure. But again the argument was that they were everywhere.

I think we are talking about different documentaries. Probably :)

I'm no expert but I would expect the Towers to leave a pretty similar rubble pattern, unless they collapsed sideways.Why is that?

I don't think the explosion on the videos of the 747 (or whatever plane type it was) is nearly big enough for a combination of a fully laden plane and explosives. Again I'm no expert. How many explosives are you envisioning and where are they?

Thanks for reading :)My pleasure. Thanks for your post :)

I reserve the right to speculate fruitlessly. :xp::rofl:
Noted.

Well, it would be nice to hear from a structural engineer on the subject. Unfortunately, we have. The reason I say "unfortunately" is because they don't seem to agree.

I could give you a very high number as a guess? I would be willing to settle for 42. :D

mimartin
06-04-2008, 11:22 PM
In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses...

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

I thought of September 11, 2001 when originally watching this documentary and when watching the documentary on the Twin Towers. I agree that it is a damning piece of circumstantial evidence. I also believe the neo-cons have benefited from September 11, 2001 more than any other group. However, there is a huge difference between wanting events to transpire and actively participating in those events. I believe connecting the two would require some hard evidence that “911 Mysteries” failed to deliver. IMO

Achilles
06-04-2008, 11:30 PM
However, there is a huge difference between wanting events to transpire and actively participating in those events.J7 asked for motive. I provided motive. :)

I believe connecting the two would require some hard evidence that “911 Mysteries” failed to deliver. IMO Establishing motive and establishing proof of guilt are two entirely different things (although I'm sure Darth333 will be happy to correct me if I'm wrong here). I am pretty much convinced that we were never, ever have the latter.

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-04-2008, 11:52 PM
Web Rider's source indicated that temperatures from "normal" fires were sufficient to cause the building to collapse. I think that rules out this particular argument needing to involve planes since "normal" fires can occur without them.Alright then, how's that being a ludicrously cost ineffective idea? Or that pretty much any enclosure engulfed in flames is a death trap? Or like 90% of the houses in the U.S. being even more susceptible to flame?

I love it when people accuse me of needing to be right when I hold a position that they don't agree with :lol:If that sounded like it was specifically directed towards you...

1) Not consistent with fire. Is consistent with explosives.

2)Okay maybe with the bottom floors, but we should have some huge chunks from the top floors right (the ones above the impacts)? What do we see though? Plumes of vaporized concrete.1) I didn't say anything about fire there.

2) Gravity. I hear concrete can break if you drop it from a skyscraper.

Was it his analysis that was called into question? Was he some high-level executive concerned about the reputation of the organization? Nope on both counts. So assuming that your comments are a call to bias, I guess I don't see how.That's a bit naive.

"Hey scientist guy, if you say we screwed up the inspection we're all ****ed and that means you too."

You'll have to explain what this means. There are steel frame building that are far older than these were.That were hit with 767s or whatever and burned with jet fuel?

I won't dispute the purpose of the site, but his letter was crafted entirely independently so I'm not sure what relationship you are trying to establish.I'm saying the site in general isn't very reputable a source.

Sure. Just as soon as I see a report or a simulation that doesn't have question marks hanging over it, I'll be happy to accept that. I really will.I like how you phrased that subjectively, so even if I cared enough to look for one, you could just say "NOPE I DUN TRUST IT."

Except that's not true.Perhaps the steel would have been if it had the fireproofing on it that was applied originally. Other than that, I don't see how all the other **** that comprised the building was meant to be burnt in jet fuel.

If that helps you sleep better at night, then that's great. :)

Right because that's exactly what government killing civilians provides. :eyeraise:I was referring to terrorists who hate anyone who isn't like them having the ability to pull off an attack like 9/11. I mean, ****, at least the government doesn't give a damn about me.

Achilles
06-05-2008, 12:30 AM
Alright then, how's that being a ludicrously cost ineffective idea? What precisely is your argument? I don't want to respond to what I think this is saying without knowing for sure.

Or that pretty much any enclosure engulfed in flames is a death trap? Or like 90% of the houses in the U.S. being even more susceptible to flame? Houses constructed out of certified fire resistant steel? Apple and oranges?

If that sounded like it was specifically directed towards you... My apologies. Who were you referencing then?

1) I didn't say anything about fire there. Sorry, your flippant comment made your point a little vague. However I do stand by my point whether it turns out to be unsolicited or not.

2) Gravity. I hear concrete can break if you drop it from a skyscraper.Sure, in freefall. But remember that under the pancake theory, the floor above collapsed onto the floor below. The process of collapsing would have actually slowed down. And the floors above the impact area should have been mostly intact (since none of the floors above the impact would have no cause to collapse on themselves).

That's a bit naive.

"Hey scientist guy, if you say we screwed up the inspection we're all ****ed and that means you too.""Scientist guy" worked for a completely different organization with a completely different role. NIST still published their report and Kevin Ryan was fired.

So I'm still not understanding how he is biased. He stuck his neck out to call attention to something that did't make sense, got fired for it, and it made absolutely no difference in the end.

That were hit with 767s or whatever and burned with jet fuel? I'm not sure what that has to do with the point you were making. Your argument seemed to be that buildings were in poor shape before the attacks.

I'm saying the site in general isn't very reputable a source. That's fine but the site isn't the source of that letter. Therefore your point is entirely irrelevant.

I like how you phrased that subjectively, so even if I cared enough to look for one, you could just say "NOPE I DUN TRUST IT."I wasn't implying that you needed to. I've done a lot of looking on my own, so I doubt you'd be able to find something I haven't seen. And some of the sources available have valid points and some of them are absolute garbage...on both sides. Hence the whole "we'll probably never know for sure" thing I did way back on the first page of this thread.

Perhaps the steel would have been if it had the fireproofing on it that was applied originally. Other than that, I don't see how all the other **** that comprised the building was meant to be burnt in jet fuel. They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies. :)

I was referring to terrorists who hate anyone who isn't like them having the ability to pull off an attack like 9/11. I mean, ****, at least the government doesn't give a damn about me.Okay.

Thanks for your response.

True_Avery
06-05-2008, 12:37 AM
Let me try again...

National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

----

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1 ( wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf ), a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55
You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.

Or if you would like the original link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Have fun.

EDIT:
December 14, 2007
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-05-2008, 12:54 AM
What precisely is your argument? I don't want to respond to what I think this is saying without knowing for sure.My argument is that your argument sucks.

Houses constructed out of certified fire resistant steel? Apple and oranges?You said all buildings. So, granny smiths and red delicious.

My apologies. Who were you referencing then?Err... live people?

Sorry, your flippant comment made your point a little vague. However I do stand by my point whether it turns out to be unsolicited or not.Pointing out something you imagined into my post is flippant? Also, feel free to stand by that point.

Sure, in freefall. But remember that under the pancake theory, the floor above collapsed onto the floor below. The process of collapsing would have actually slowed down. And the floors above the impact area should have been mostly intact (since none of the floors above the impact would have no cause to collapse on themselves).Hmm... that explains the stack of intact floors on top of the rubble...

"Scientist guy" worked for a completely different organization with a completely different role. NIST still published their report and Kevin Ryan was fired.As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
So you're saying he doesn't have a motive to say the steel passed inspection?

That's fine but the site isn't the source of that letter. Therefore your point is entirely irrelevant.Actually, it isn't seeing as you're using the site for a source.

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies. You're wrong. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (courtesy of Avery <3)

Thanks for your response.I aim to please.

Nedak
06-05-2008, 12:57 AM
(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

I only had to watch this to believe that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand:

Paraphrase the message or find a clip with no language. Thanks.

~9

Whatever.

As much as I am two sided on this topic your evidence lacks.

Also, would a president/ruler actually admit to such war crimes? I mean, seriously.

Achilles
06-05-2008, 01:30 AM
My argument is that your argument sucks. :lol:

You said all buildings. So, granny smiths and red delicious. I'll be sure to be more specific with you in the future.

Pointing out something you imagined into my post is flippant?No, the flippancy in your post made it difficult for me to determine what your point was. I thought you meant one thing but your response indicated that you did not.

Hmm... that explains the stack of intact floors on top of the rubble... Source please?

So you're saying he doesn't have a motive to say the steel passed inspection? Not unless he was the one that had signed off on it or was somehow responsible for the department that did.

Does he feel compelled to come forward and say something? Yeah it appears that he does, but that isn't the same thing as showing bias in what he says.

You might cast aside your cynicism long enough to argue that he was compelled out of some sense of loyalty to the company, but I think that wanting to point out a mistake is just as likely and probably has better evidene. But of course, that's only my opinion.

Actually, it isn't seeing as you're using the site for a source. I could not possibly be using site for the source, as the site didn't write the letter. I am using the letter as the source which happens to be on the site.

If it were available on some other site, such as FoxNews or BBC, the letter would not be any different and you would still have to determine the veracity of the letter on its own merits.

It's like saying a website that you found using Google is better than when you found it using Yahoo!.

You're wrong. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (courtesy of Avery <3) We were just discussing bias, weren't we?

I aim to please.Indeed you do. Take care.

Arcesious
06-05-2008, 02:08 AM
Either way, a lot of people died in the 9/11 attack. Before a debate continues, I'd say it's important that all information known about this is put on the table. Every source, and then a process of elimination, instead of pointless bickering where one provides a source, another refutes it and provides a source and the same person refutes that and provides a source, etc, etc.
However, this may turn out to be a debate of heavy speculation, from conflicting sources if what I suggest is done... the debate could do with less insults like: My argument is that your argument sucks

Now i'm not trying to play moderator here, but the debate would go along much more smoothly without any 'I'm right because I know you're wrong' arguments...

Not to target one person individually with an argument over a person's validity in debate, which is not my intention.

jonathan7
06-05-2008, 03:09 AM
Any chance you can find it online? I'd be very interested in taking a look.

In brief;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml

Full transcript; http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

(Sorry searched high and low but couldn't find a video version)

In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, the think tank put forth it's case for how to make sure that America remains the sole world superpower from now on. Key objectives included (but were not limited to) removing strategic obstacles in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

In the document, the following comment was made:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

Members of the PNAC included Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others who had key positions in the Bush administration, but aren't necessarily household names.

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

They're morons, the above does nothing to counter India and China's growing power, i.e. The above doesn't do anything about those two. The above is a long way from explosives being placed in a building.

These guys argue that there were explosives throughout the building (including the bottom). I'm still skeptical, but I can't rule the evidence they provide either.

Fair enuff, untill any evidence is produced to the contrary, I don't think explosives were in the building.

The nearby ones, sure. But again the argument was that they were everywhere.

From the way the building fell, I don't think there were explosives everywhere.

Probably :)

You can let me know :)

Why is that?

I would clarify similar here; to the casual observer, a pile of rubble... is a pile of rubble

How many explosives are you envisioning and where are they?

To take down a building that size... quite alot! But if you review the planes hitting the towers, I don't think the explosion is big enough; purely conjecture on my part.

My pleasure. Thanks for your post :)

No worries :)

Achilles
06-05-2008, 03:35 AM
In brief;
<snip>
(Sorry searched high and low but couldn't find a video version)
I appreciate you looking.

They're morons, the above does nothing to counter India and China's growing power, i.e. The above doesn't do anything about those two. The above is a long way from explosives being placed in a building. You asked for motive. There's motive. :)

Fair enuff, untill any evidence is produced to the contrary, I don't think explosives were in the building.:lol: And what would that evidence look like, now that the hypothetical bombs would have been exploded and all the steel beams shipped to China? :)

Niiiice and safe. :D

From the way the building fell, I don't think there were explosives everywhere. That's an interesting thing to say. What is it about how the building fell that makes you think that?

I would clarify similar here; to the casual observer, a pile of rubble... is a pile of rubble Fair enough, but (and no offense here) that doesn't mean anything. Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have any significance?

To take down a building that size... quite alot! But if you review the planes hitting the towers, I don't think the explosion is big enough; purely conjecture on my part. So are you assuming that the explosives are in the plane? Because the argument is that they were placed inside the building ala the way a controlled demolitions team would.

jonathan7
06-05-2008, 04:45 AM
I appreciate you looking.

No worries

You asked for motive. There's motive. :)

Thin though :p

:lol: And what would that evidence look like, now that the hypothetical bombs would have been exploded and all the steel beams shipped to China? :)

Well in the pile of rubble, there would be explosive particles over everything, so some tests of the debris/dust would reveal their use.

That's an interesting thing to say. What is it about how the building fell that makes you think that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6N66vPCAs

Fair enough, but (and no offense here) that doesn't mean anything. Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have any significance?

The relevance is that the pile of rubble would be quite similar if the towers collapsed straight downwards regardless of the method used to destroy them, personally I think that pertinent.

So are you assuming that the explosives are in the plane? Because the argument is that they were placed inside the building ala the way a controlled demolitions team would.

Explosives on the plane I think is even more wild a theory than explosives in the WTC; American airline security may have been lax back then, but it was lax enough to allow someone with lots of say C4 on.

Achilles
06-05-2008, 09:58 AM
Thin though :p How so?

Well in the pile of rubble, there would be explosive particles over everything, so some tests of the debris/dust would reveal their use.Depends on what was used.

Very loose example: Suppose someone uses gasoline to blow up your car. Investigators later find evidence of gasoline in the wreckage.

Remember this wasn't like a airplane investigation where they put every piece they could find in hanger somewhere and spent a couple months piecing things back together to see what happened.

A small sample of beams were kept for investigation and everything else was scooped up and shipped elsewhere as part of the clean-up effort ASAP.

And yes, some people claim there there is evidence of explosives on the material, but I don't know how much credence to give the claims (physics I can follow. Chemistry, not so much).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&NR=1 And if another expert had the opposite conclusion?

The relevance is that the pile of rubble would be quite similar if the towers collapsed straight downwards regardless of the method used to destroy them, personally I think that pertinent. We know they collapsed straight down though, so what's your point? :)

Explosives on the plane I think is even more wild a theory than explosives in the WTC; American airline security may have been lax back then, but it was lax enough to allow someone with lots of say C4 on.You didn't answer the 2nd part of my earlier question, so I had to ask again in a different way. In fact you still haven't told us where you think the explosives were (though we've now ruled out that you think they were on the plane) so I'm still not clear how you got to "the explosion wasn't big enough".

Totenkopf
06-07-2008, 02:53 AM
bah, this isn't worth it anymore. We're not even talking about the subject you're just going after the words I decided to use in my sentence, and not even making much sense at that. I'm done, I don't even know what we're arguing over anymore.

I have to wonder if it's not some people's pathological distaste for the Bush Administration. Do they believe that the Clinton Admin helped plan/planned the first WTC attack or the federal bldg in OK? Also, why anyone (in this case Achille's) would attach much credibility to a conspiracy theory that's plagued with holes, but then hold others to exacting standards of proof, boggles the imagination.

Nedak
06-09-2008, 09:33 AM
I have to wonder if it's not some people's pathological distaste for the Bush Administration. Do they believe that the Clinton Admin helped plan/planned the first WTC attack or the federal bldg in OK? Also, why anyone (in this case Achille's) would attach much credibility to a conspiracy theory that's plagued with holes, but then hold others to exacting standards of proof, boggles the imagination.

I personally would still question any administration. The Bush administration is a funny one though... manipulating the American Public for an endless war. So I guess it wouldn't be too far-fetched for them to pull off such a disaster. I mean, many other leaders of various countries have done evil things to gain control.

Every Empire/Country has changed in the past. You can't expect the United States to never have a corrupt government... just look at the Romans. Eventually there will be a call for change.

However, being on both sides of the 911 conspiracy, what would you say these "holes" are? I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that it would be impossible for the towers to collapse, and others saying that it was possible. However, the side that is saying that it was possible has never fully disproved what the conspirators have said.

Achilles
06-09-2008, 11:28 AM
^^^^
Great post.

Totenkopf
06-09-2008, 05:13 PM
I personally would still question any administration. The Bush administration is a funny one though... manipulating the American Public for an endless war. So I guess it wouldn't be too far-fetched for them to pull off such a disaster. I mean, many other leaders of various countries have done evil things to gain control.

Every Empire/Country has changed in the past. You can't expect the United States to never have a corrupt government... just look at the Romans. Eventually there will be a call for change.

However, being on both sides of the 911 conspiracy, what would you say these "holes" are? I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that it would be impossible for the towers to collapse, and others saying that it was possible. However, the side that is saying that it was possible has never fully disproved what the conspirators have said.

Though the US has been around less than a quarter of a millenium, it's had its share of corrupt administrations, even local and county ones. I've never contended that this administration has been any more or less corrupt than previous ones. However, it's one thing to accuse your govt of a false flag operation and another to prove it. Frankly, given that openness has been both a strength and an achille's heel of the US economy, it's also equally possible for any organized outfit to pull something like that off, especially with outside help.

I would ask you....which claims do you see as still having merit b/c you believe they haven't been disproven? Untill one finds the unequivocal proof that Bush et al rigged the TT to go down to start his "apocolyptic" scenario, it's mere speculation/conspiracy mongering.

Cygnus Q'ol
06-11-2008, 07:43 AM
There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.

Yes, I also wondered why there were explosions heard from quite a few different people coming from underground, after the planes hit, but before they fell?

Another thing I found interesting is the building's fall itself. If you were to run the collapse over in real-time, you'll see the the buildings (all three of them) fell at maximum velocity. One of the documentaries did this for us and slowed and highlighted the regular intervals of floor collapse.

There is visual evidence of small bursts or explosions on regular intervals of floors as the buildings fell. You can see Both towers fell exactly the same and at the same speed. The only time buildings fall like that are when they are done purposely.

The strangest thing is Tower 7. It had absolutely no damage whatsoever, however, it fell, seemingly out of the blue, also at maximum velocity.

BTW, in our atmosphere, jet fuel burns somewhere in the neighhborhood of 1500 or 1600 degrees. There were bent, not shattered, but bent steel foundation girders that could only have been damaged by explosive temps reaching around 2800 degrees. The only thing that burns that hot is stuff like thermite.

You know what that stuff is used for? That's right you got it, DEMOLITION.

I always wondered why NY smoldered for weeks after the collapse.

There are a lot of questions about that day. Some of them can't be answered by science.

Achilles
06-11-2008, 05:28 PM
The strangest thing is Tower 7. It had absolutely no damage whatsoever, however, it fell, seemingly out of the blue, also at maximum velocity. Building 7 did have some damage (although it was not struck by a plane), however the question is did it take enough to rationalize and complete structural failure (I think the answer is "no").

There are a lot of questions about that day. Some of them can't be answered by science.Hehe, I think that all of them can be answered by science. I don't think that science has been applied to many of the answers that we've been furnished. :)

Totenkopf
06-11-2008, 05:48 PM
Speaking of bldg 7, heard a conspiracy mongerer claim that it was taken down b/c of all the Enron related files that were purportedly kept there. :lol:

mimartin
06-11-2008, 08:09 PM
Speaking of bldg 7, heard a conspiracy mongerer claim that it was taken down b/c of all the Enron related files that were purportedly kept there. :lol: Now that is just crazy. Everyone knows that Arthur Andersen took care of those files and if the person is talking about the documents that link Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm to the scandal, then that document is probably kept at his residence. It would be his marriage license to Wendy Gramm, who was formerly on the board of directors of Enron.

Cygnus Q'ol
06-12-2008, 07:41 AM
Hehe, I think that all of them can be answered by science. I don't think that science has been applied to many of the answers that we've been furnished. :)

Better said. that's what I meant. :)

I was also wondering of the validity of statements relating to a gold depository in the lower levels of tower 7 and how some people weren't allowed near certain areas almost immediately after the collapse.
How could there be Feds with guns on the scene so quickly shooing people away after a disaster of this magnitude?
Oh well, probably for looters and such. :xp:

I was also instantly curious when I heard statements about the owning group of the Twin Towers putting up an unusual insurance policy toward them just months before that fateful day. I can understand putting up insurance for planes hitting buildings that big. I surely would.
But it must of taken a massive amount of clairvoyance to put up insurance for both of them getting hit simultaneously.

...which is what they did.

I wonder how much that claim paid out?

...and why aren't there any photographs of a dc-10 splattered all over the Pentagon? How could the same plane do so much damage in NY but hardly a scratch to a much smaller building? Where are the wings and tail and engines after the fires were put out? Can a fuselage be totally disintegrated in an area of damage that small?

pics? Don't bother looking. You won't find any.

ForeverNight
06-12-2008, 10:40 AM
Well, I've actually done some reading on the Pentagon.

Well, its almost the largest building in the world (Square Footage wise) at around 5.4M square feet... (Maybe even more!).

Also, the plane hit it in the area that had just finished being restored up to current-day military spec. We're talking Blast-resistant windows, fire-doors, reinforced walls, cleaned up ceilings, the whole nine yards.

Basically, if they could have chosen a worse spot to drive a plane (Or Cruise Missile) into, they would be very, very, very hard pressed. The rest of the building was the original 1941-2 construction.

One of the reasons for the structural damage being smaller is the way it was built. Like most reinforced concrete buildings of the 40's, it was built in a manner that made the entire floor of the building take the stress of a small area, however, the entire floor than received the strength of the rest of the floor.

And, from what I've picked up, the plane disintegrated upon impact, or something like that, I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Hope that helps.

Corinthian
06-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Cygnus, steel's MELTING point is 2800 degrees. After it reaches certain temperatures (I already posted on this) it starts bleeding out it's strength like nobody's business.

Corinthian, I can't count how many times I've had to edit out bile and vitriol from your posts, but this time you've gone too far. Enjoy your month off.

~9

Ray Jones
06-12-2008, 11:04 AM
you'll see the the buildings (all three of them) fell at maximum velocityMaximum velocity means you have to take everything under the damaged part away. What happened is different, namely that every floor stopped all those falling on it for a short time, until broke under it's weight.

One of the documentaries did this for us and slowed and highlighted the regular intervals of floor collapse. I'm curious how they specified those regular intervals?

There is visual evidence of small bursts or explosions on regular intervals of floors as the buildings fell.Explosions, or more like when you squish a Big Mac?

You can see Both towers fell exactly the same and at the same speed. The only time buildings fall like that are when they are done purposely.Or like when you have two buildings built the same way, having approximately the same mass situated above the floors that took damage and gravitating southwards.

it fell, seemingly out of the blueWhat seems and what is, may be two completely different things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse)

Achilles
06-12-2008, 01:26 PM
Better said. that's what I meant. :) I figured it was. :)

I was also wondering of the validity of statements relating to a gold depository in the lower levels of tower 7 and how some people weren't allowed near certain areas almost immediately after the collapse.
How could there be Feds with guns on the scene so quickly shooing people away after a disaster of this magnitude?
Oh well, probably for looters and such. :xp: Meh, I tend not to put too much behind those stories. They could be true, but there's no way to verify them.

I was also instantly curious when I heard statements about the owning group of the Twin Towers putting up an unusual insurance policy toward them just months before that fateful day. I can understand putting up insurance for planes hitting buildings that big. I surely would.
But it must of taken a massive amount of clairvoyance to put up insurance for both of them getting hit simultaneously. Considering that the WTC had been the focus of a terrorist attack in 1993, I don't think it is the slightest bit suspicious that he sought to insure the buildings against terrorist attacks.

I do agree that the timing of the sale is suspect, but I don't think it's a smoking gun.

I wonder how much that claim paid out? More than $4.5 billion, IIRC (because there were two planes he was able to claim two acts of terrorism).

...and why aren't there any photographs of a dc-10 splattered all over the Pentagon? How could the same plane do so much damage in NY but hardly a scratch to a much smaller building? Where are the wings and tail and engines after the fires were put out? Can a fuselage be totally disintegrated in an area of damage that small?See below

Also, the plane hit it in the area that had just finished being restored up to current-day military spec. We're talking Blast-resistant windows, fire-doors, reinforced walls, cleaned up ceilings, the whole nine yards.Yep, and the pilot had to fly around the target and make a nearly-360 degree turn in order to do so. Why did the pilot go out of his way just to hit the side of the building which would take the least amount of damage? Why didn't he just aim for the courtyard, or better yet, the side of the building that he was facing on approach?

And, from what I've picked up, the plane disintegrated upon impact, or something like that, I'm not qualified to answer that question.If the plane disintegrated on impact, then why was it capable of producing damage to the inner rings? If the impact was significant enough to incinerate an airplane, then how were they able to recover enough DNA to indentify the passengers? Why isn't there impact damage from the plane's engines?

Maximum velocity means you have to take everything under the damaged part away. What happened is different, namely that every floor stopped all those falling on it for a short time, until broke under it's weight. Free fall speed would have been about 9.5 seconds. The 9/11 commission report says that each building fell in about 10 seconds. Therefore, it does not appear that "what happened was different" at all. Regardless of which explanation we use (fire, explosives, something else entirely) the evidence is that the buildings did, in fact, fall at nearly maximum velocity.

Corinthian
06-12-2008, 01:59 PM
Free fall speed would have been about 9.5 seconds.

No Source, so what you say is irrelevant.

EnderWiggin
06-12-2008, 02:20 PM
No Source, so what you say is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous.
It's not irrelevant, it's just unproven.

_EW_

Ray Jones
06-12-2008, 02:22 PM
XD lol, that just made my day, Corinthian.

Yes, we'd need hard core fact figures about the weight of the top parts of the buildings to determine how fast they'd went down.

Now what we can make is calculate an assumption depending on those 10 seconds of fall with the building working against it, but I am afraid quick estimates tell me that thousands of tons of steel and concrete work more against free fall than thin air would do.

I'm waiting for a source before I can be bothered to pull out accordant physical formulas.

Jae Onasi
06-12-2008, 02:36 PM
Tone the flaming and snarkiness down, please--it's reaching infraction level for some of you. Being polite will generally get you a lot farther in the discussion, anyway. I'll be evaluating this thread when I get to my home computer unless one of the other staff addresses it sooner.

ForeverNight
06-12-2008, 02:53 PM
Yep, and the pilot had to fly around the target and make a nearly-360 degree turn in order to do so. Why did the pilot go out of his way just to hit the side of the building which would take the least amount of damage? Why didn't he just aim for the courtyard, or better yet, the side of the building that he was facing on approach?

I don't pretend to know why the heck they do what they do. If I were to have executed something like that, I wouldn't have thrown an airliner against the side of the building unless I was trying to take out somebody such as SecDef or the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Otherwise, I would have crashed into the center.

Call it luck. I have no reason off the top of my head for them to have chosen that spot. So, maybe we just got very lucky in a bad time? :(

If the plane disintegrated on impact, then why was it capable of producing damage to the inner rings? If the impact was significant enough to incinerate an airplane, then how were they able to recover enough DNA to [identify] the passengers? Why isn't there impact damage from the plane's engines?

Like I said, from what I've picked up. I honestly don't know a lot about the attack on the Pentagon, since at that point in time I being a forth grader, was more drawn to the smoldering wreckage of the WTC, and didn't care a lot about the Pentagon.

I'm going to have to do more research into it, but like I said, I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Achilles
06-12-2008, 03:50 PM
That's ridiculous.
It's not irrelevant, it's just unproven.

_EW_What isn't? The rate of free fall?

Pretty sure it's been well established by Newtonian mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall#Free_fall_in_Newtonian_Mechanics).

Yes, we'd need hard core fact figures about the weight of the top parts of the buildings to determine how fast they'd went down. Huh? We already know how fast they went down. The gov't official report is ~10 seconds, however you can watch the video with a stop watch if you'd prefer to verify it yourself.

Now what we can make is calculate an assumption depending on those 10 seconds of fall with the building working against it, but I am afraid quick estimates tell me that thousands of tons of steel and concrete work more against free fall than thin air would do. Agreed. Therefore it should have taken much longer than ~10 seconds. This is one of the key arguments of those that believe that demolition had to have occurred.

I'm waiting for a source before I can be bothered to pull out accordant physical formulas.Source for which?

I don't pretend to know why the heck they do what they do. If I were to have executed something like that, I wouldn't have thrown an airliner against the side of the building unless I was trying to take out somebody such as SecDef or the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Otherwise, I would have crashed into the center.

Call it luck. I have no reason off the top of my head for them to have chosen that spot. So, maybe we just got very lucky in a bad time? :( We're going to attribute the pilot choice to fly out of his way to make a 350-something degree turn to hit a specific side of the building to luck?

I'm sorry, but that's clearly intent. The motivation for the intent is certainly up for discussion, but this didn't "just happen".

Like I said, from what I've picked up. I honestly don't know a lot about the attack on the Pentagon, since at that point in time I being a forth grader, was more drawn to the smoldering wreckage of the WTC, and didn't care a lot about the Pentagon.

I'm going to have to do more research into it, but like I said, I'm not qualified to answer that question.That's all I can ask :D

Ray Jones
06-12-2008, 04:17 PM
What isn't? The rate of free fall?

Pretty sure it's been well established by Newtonian mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall#Free_fall_in_Newtonian_Mechanics).But it's not free fall. Especially not since the buildings tops crashed down upon them and tore them down. Actually it's tightly tied to a chaotic process where you have a stable system (order), change one or two parameters and it then changes into another stable system via an unstable system state (chaos).

Huh? We already know how fast they went down. The gov't official report is ~10 seconds, however you can watch the video with a stop watch if you'd prefer to verify it yourself.Huh? No, no. I do not doubt the buildings went down in ten seconds. The collapse lasted ten seconds. You seem to advocate that the buildings would need the same time when in free fall over that distance. However, I think we must establish what we mean by free fall first, since I'd argue that the collapse (of the WTC in particular) was not free fall.

Agreed. Therefore it should have taken much longer than ~10 seconds. This is one of the key arguments of those that believe that demolition had to have occurred.No, no. Disagreed.

Source for which?--that--
Free fall speed would have been about 9.5 seconds.

Achilles
06-12-2008, 04:44 PM
But it's not free fall. Especially not since the buildings tops crashed down. Source please?

EDIT: Actually, could you please tell me what you mean by "crashed down"? I assumed you meant toppled over and fell intact, but it just occured to me that you may have meant something else instead.

Huh? No, no. I do not doubt the buildings went down in ten seconds. The collapse lasted ten seconds. You seem to advocate that the buildings would need the same time when in free fall over that distance. However, I think we must establish what we mean by free fall first, since I'd argue that the collapse (of the WTC in particular) was not free fall. Free fall as in various parts encountered no discernable reisistance as they fell. As in if you dropped a billard ball from the top it would have landed at the bottom at roughly the same time as the top floor.

And you don't need a source for that (even though I can provide one if you want), all you need to crunch the numbers yourself.

No, no. Disagreed. Okay, now I'm confused. The building should have fallen faster than free fall speed, because there were other floors (acting as resistance) in the way? Please help me understand what your position is.

--that--Will you accept the National Institute of Standards and Technology (See #6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm))? If the answer is yes, then the only remaining question is whether or not you accept their explanation.

Ray Jones
06-12-2008, 05:37 PM
Source please?

EDIT: Actually, could you please tell me what you mean by "crashed down"? I assumed you meant toppled over and fell intact, but it just occured to me that you may have meant something else instead.No, I didn't mean it fell over. I meant the part of the buildings above the levels where the planes dug into them crashed down into the building and "pressed" it towards the ground. Source: * video.

Free fall as in various parts encountered no discernable reisistance as they fell. As in if you dropped a billard ball from the top it would have landed at the bottom at roughly the same time as the top floor.I would doubt that.

And you don't need a source for that (even though I can provide one if you want), all you need to crunch the numbers yourself.Of course I can. However, I'd like to take a look at your source underlining how the building underneath had almost no resistance to offer against the "falling" top.

Will you accept the National Institute of Standards and Technology (See #6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm))? If the answer is yes, then the only remaining question is whether or not you accept their explanation.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.11 seconds? 15, 25? Which number is it. Are the last 40/60 stories of the building not part of the collapsing building? The NIST clearly states "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." At best is took 11 seconds for the stories 90 to 60 (or 40) to collapse under the pressure of the 20 stories above. Quite a difference in distance and speed compared to a free fall from the towers total height.

So, while the facts might be correct, the indication/notion of question #6 ("equals free fall") isn't. I'm afraid your source doesn't support the "down in 10 seconds" idea.

Do you got another one?

Achilles
06-12-2008, 06:13 PM
No, I didn't mean it fell over. I meant the part of the buildings above the levels where the planes dug into them crashed down into the building and "pressed" it towards the ground. Source: * video. So how does this rule out free fall?

I would doubt that. Okay. Do you have something more substantial?

Of course I can. However, I'd like to take a look at your source underlining how the building underneath had almost no resistance to offer against the "falling" top. The NIST source that I provided above (and you quoted below) will confirm it. As would the fact that 110 stories collapsed in ~10 seconds.

11 seconds? 15, 25? Which number is it. From the source you quoted (and emphasized) yourself:
11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)

11+9=20
20/2=10

Approximately 10 seconds is what I have been pretty consistently saying all along correct?

significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds You'll have to take the NIST to task for their use of approximation sir, but I will point out that they are referring to "the cores", not complete floors.

Also, if someone (you perhaps) would like to point out where we can see the cores in the footage, it would go a very long way towards helping me to believe that this is actually true.

Are the last 40/60 stories of the building not part of the collapsing building?As I pointed out above, the source said "cores" not "stories". If you have another source that says otherwise, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.

The NIST clearly states "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." Yet they feel comforable asserting that 40/60 stories of cores stood for another 15-25 seconds. Sounds like they are tying to have it both ways to me.

The footage seems pretty consistent with ~10 seconds and the official 9/11 commission report would appear to agree. Even the NIST report confirms 11 and 9 seconds respectively. It seems to me that there is some degree of concensus on the issue.

At best is took 11 seconds for the stories 90 to 60 (or 40) to collapse under the pressure of the 20 stories above. Quite a difference in distance and speed compared to a free fall from the towers total height. At best for who's case; yours or mine? Are you hanging your argument on ~1.5 seconds?

Let's just go with 11 seconds. That's 10 floors per second. Gone. "One-one-thousand" = 10 floors gone. Where is the resistance? The floors that were not hit by a plane collapsed just as quickly as those that were? Really?

So, while the facts might be correct, the indication/notion of question #6 ("equals free fall") isn't. I'm afraid your source doesn't support the "down in 10 seconds" idea. You're correct. It only supports the "down in 11 seconds" and "down in 9 seconds" ideas. My apologies.

Do you got another one?Well, if you won't even accept the offical report, why even try?

Corinthian
06-12-2008, 07:47 PM
Alright, fair enough. Just wanted to keep you on your toes. At any rate, what does that prove, precisely? Spell it out for me, I'm too lazy to think this through.

Ray Jones
06-14-2008, 03:50 AM
So how does this rule out free fall?How is it free fall when there's constantly something you fall on?

Do you have something more substantial?When you going to provide something more substantial to support the claim I doubt first...

The NIST source that I provided above (and you quoted below) will confirm it. As would the fact that 110 stories collapsed in ~10 seconds.The NIST stated that roughly 40 respectively 60 stories stood longer.

From the source you quoted (and emphasized) yourself:


11+9=20
20/2=10

Approximately 10 seconds is what I have been pretty consistently saying all along correct?Again, you're deliberately putting my words out of context. How can the collapse last 10 seconds, when they state at the same time that the lower 3rd of the building stood longer, just to collapse later? They furthermore state, and I repeat: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

Emphasis on: Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



You'll have to take the NIST to task for their use of approximation sir, but I will point out that they are referring to "the cores", not complete floors."significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds" :dozey:

Call it what you want, the NIST clearly states that at least 1/3rd of both buildings did not collapse within 10 seconds.

Also, if someone (you perhaps) would like to point out where we can see the cores in the footage, it would go a very long way towards helping me to believe that this is actually true.Your own source says that: "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds"

You do trust your own source, don't you?

As I pointed out above, the source said "cores" not "stories". If you have another source that says otherwise, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.As I pointed out above, your source reads significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories.

Yet they feel comforable asserting that 40/60 stories of cores stood for another 15-25 seconds. Sounds like they are tying to have it both ways to me.Hence my question which number it is, and whether you got another source.

The footage seems pretty consistent with ~10 seconds and the official 9/11 commission report would appear to agree. Even the NIST report confirms 11 and 9 seconds respectively. It seems to me that there is some degree of concensus on the issue.How about interpreting it the way the NIST meant it? The building's tops consisting of ca. 20 stories crashed down all all the way from level 90 to 40/60 within approximately 10 seconds where it stopped for another 10/15 seconds until the rest collapsed.

At best for who's case; yours or mine? Are you hanging your argument on ~1.5 seconds?What 1.5 seconds?

Let's just go with 11 seconds. That's 10 floors per second. Gone. "One-one-thousand" = 10 floors gone.The error in your math is obvious. As I repeatedly pointed out (and is supported by your source), it's not 110 floors that did collapse, but 50 at best.

Where is the resistance? The floors that were not hit by a plane collapsed just as quickly as those that were? Really?Source that there was no resistance? Source that the 3 floors that got hit collapsed at the same speed as the others did?

You're correct. It only supports the "down in 11 seconds" and "down in 9 seconds" ideas. My apologies.Stop that poppycock crap already. I think we're beyond discussing average values.

Well, if you won't even accept the offical report, why even try?For the same reason you expect me to provide another source? See, I already said that the facts the NIST presented might very well be true, but I think they're abstracted somewhat "adventurous". For instance, if there was no resistance, how come that the collapse stopped at "significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories" for at least another 10 seconds?

Of course, you don't have to support your claims any further, and we could put this aside as "strange idea of wildly interpreted facts".

Achilles
06-14-2008, 04:51 AM
How is it free fall when there's constantly something you fall on?Unless there isn't something to fall on. Like if the something that was supposed to be there had suddenly been removed, as if by explosives.

But let's remove the building altogether and just assume that you dropped something from the top of one of the intact towers. Free fall for that would be approximately 9.2 seconds (Forgive my earlier 9.5 reference as I was posting from memory). So if free fall for "something" is 9.2 seconds and the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds respectively, then I really don't see how you intent to argue against the assertion that both towers fell at nearly free fall speed.

If the NIST and 9/11 commission accept this and "the loonies" accept this and you can check for yourself with a stop watch, then I cannot understand exactly what your source of contention is.

When you going to provide something more substantial to support the claim I doubt first... I'll take that as "no, I do not have anything other than my personal incredulity".

The NIST stated that roughly 40 respectively 60 stories stood longer. No sir, NIST argued that 40 to 60 stories of the core stood longer. This was just after they got finished saying that there was too much debris to get an accurate timing for the collapse (apparently not too much to support this assertion though). A claim that I have yet to see any evidence for but would be more than happy to review if it were provided.

Again, you're deliberately putting my words out of context. Saying it won't make it true :)

(hint: saying it repeatedly won't work either :()

How can the collapse last 10 seconds, when they state at the same time that the lower 3rd of the building stood longer, just to collapse later? The (heretofore) unsubstantiated claim about the core? I'll address that when there is evidence.

They furthermore state, and I repeat: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."Get a stopwatch and review the video yourself. Feel free to tack on a 20% margin of error if you think it will help your argument.

Emphasis on: Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Bold the whole thing if you like. I still find it a little bit dishonest that they beg "obstruction" when convenient.

"significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds" :dozey:

Call it what you want, the NIST clearly states that at least 1/3rd of both buildings did not collapse within 10 seconds.Thank you, I will continue to call it what I wish, because I am at least familiar enough with the subject that I am arguing to know the difference between complete stories and parts of the core.

Your own source says that: "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds"

You do trust your own source, don't you? Dear sir, I don't trust NIST as far as I can throw them. They, however, are cognizant of the fact that anyone with a copy of the video showing the collapse and a stopwatch can see that the building came down at nearly free fall speed. I figured you had less chance of dismissing the source as "wacko conspiracy theory nonsense" if it came from the body tasked with completely the official report. Apparentely I figured wrong.

As I pointed out above, your source reads significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories.Sir, if you are acknowledging that we are talking about "stories" of the cores and not stories as in "complete floors" (as you seemed to earlier), then we are not in disagreement.

But we're still left without any evidence of this actually happening, so it seems kinda moot to me.

Hence my question which number it is, and whether you got another source. Another source for math?

Sure, Ray.

Download this (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Science-CAD/Free-Fall-Calculator.shtml)
Run the application
Select the English radio button at the bottom (unless you know what 1355 feet is in meters. I do not.)
In the Vacuum Calculations part at the bottom, find Time (enter distance)
Input 1355 (the average hight of the two buildings; 1350 and 1360 respectively)
Click calculate.
1350 feet=311.48m. 1360 feet=414.53. A meter/feet/fathom conversion calculator is here. (http://boatsafe.com/tools/meter.htm) --Jae

If you don't trust the fast way, let me know and I post the math for you.

My apologies. I didn't realize that you were arguing the laws of physics. I thought you just wanted confirmation that the buildings really fell that fast. I would have posted this sooner, had I known.

How about interpreting it the way the NIST meant it? The building's tops consisting of ca. 20 stories crashed down all all the way from level 90 to 40/60 within approximately 10 seconds where it stopped for another 10/15 seconds until the rest collapsed.Except that I know what "cores" are and therefore know that they don't mean complete floors.

What 1.5 seconds? The 1.5 seconds (which should be 1.8) between free fall (9.2 seconds) and the longest duration of the collapse (11 seconds).

In other words, are you arguing that 1.8 seconds slower than free fall does not qualify as "nearly free fall speeds"?

The error in your math is obvious. As I repeatedly pointed out (and is supported by your source), it's not 110 floors that did collapse, but 50 at best.I really would recommend some more research before posting further. At this point, you're creating arguments based on misinterpretation of the source that can be discounted by stock news footage.

Source that there was no resistance? Source that the 3 floors that got hit collapsed at the same speed as the others did? Yes, sir. Where was the resistance?

"nearly the rate of free fall in a vacuum" means "encountered no resistance". You are saying there was resistence. Please help me understand where this resistance (which would have extended the duration of the collapse) was.

Stop that poppycock crap already. I think we're beyond discussing average values. I would have hoped so as well, but your previous post led me to believe that we were not.

For the same reason you expect me to provide another source? See, I already said that the facts the NIST presented might very well be true, but I think they're abstracted somewhat "adventurous". For instance, if there was no resistance, how come that the collapse stopped at "significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories" for at least another 10 seconds?I've already addressed this a few other times, so I won't be doing so again here.

Of course, you don't have to support your claims any further, and we could put this aside as "strange idea of wildly interpreted facts".Right. And either one of us could leave the thread at any time since both of us understand that participation is optional and completely voluntary.

Take care, sir.

Ray Jones
06-14-2008, 08:46 AM
Unless there isn't something to fall on. Like if the something that was supposed to be there had suddenly been removed, as if by explosives.So, they bombed away all floors below the plane so the top would crush down unstopped?


I'll take that as "no, I do not have anything other than my personal incredulity".I'll take that as "no, I'll provide no source supporting my claim, so you understandably have no other choice but to doubt it."


No sir, NIST argued that 40 to 60 stories of the core stood longer. This was just after they got finished saying that there was too much debris to get an accurate timing for the collapse (apparently not too much to support this assertion though). A claim that I have yet to see any evidence for but would be more than happy to review if it were provided.Your source, remember? Either your source is reliable or not. Can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, you might reread what your source said: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

To say that a part of the building (namely 50 stories) broke down in the same time as an object would need for the buildings whole height, and to conclude this means free fall speed, is well, erroneous.


The (heretofore) unsubstantiated claim about the core? I'll address that when there is evidence.Again, this is coming from your source. If, then it is you that has to prove/disprove that, in other words: is your source reliable, or is it not?


Get a stopwatch and review the video yourself. Feel free to tack on a 20% margin of error if you think it will help your argument.hint: saying things repeatedly doesn't work


Bold the whole thing if you like. I still find it a little bit dishonest that they beg "obstruction" when convenient.YOUR source.


Thank you, I will continue to call it what I wish, because I am at least familiar enough with the subject that I am arguing to know the difference between complete stories and parts of the core.Okay then, how about sharing your knowledge. What is a building's core, when is it a "significant portion" of the building's core? Why is the building still fully collapsed when 40 to 60 stories of this "significant portion of the building's core"?

Oh, and, source, of course.


Dear sir, I don't trust NIST as far as I can throw them.So, NOT a reliable source then?


They, however, are cognizant of the fact that anyone with a copy of the video showing the collapse and a stopwatch can see that the building came down at nearly free fall speed.You saw that the whole building went all the way down? Wasn't there talk about debris in your source, making this impossible for video evidence to reliable determine the TOTAL TIME of collapse?


I figured you had less chance of dismissing the source as "wacko conspiracy theory nonsense" if it came from the body tasked with completely the official report. Apparentely I figured wrong.Conspiracy? Where? Did *I* say so?


Sir, if you are acknowledging that we are talking about "stories" of the cores and not stories as in "complete floors" (as you seemed to earlier), then we are not in disagreement.

But we're still left without any evidence of this actually happening, so it seems kinda moot to me.:dozey: Your. Source.


Except that I know what "cores" are and therefore know that they don't mean complete floors.As I said above, enlighten us, and share a source.


I really would recommend some more research before posting further. At this point, you're creating arguments based on misinterpretation of the source that can be discounted by stock news footage.Could you please support that claim with like, evidence?


Yes, sir. Where was the resistance?

"nearly the rate of free fall in a vacuum" means "encountered no resistance". You are saying there was resistence. Please help me understand where this resistance (which would have extended the duration of the collapse) was.I think I have showed many time that the building did not fall at near free fall speed.


But let's remove the building altogether and just assume that you dropped something from the top of one of the intact towers. Free fall for that would be approximately 9.2 seconds (Forgive my earlier 9.5 reference as I was posting from memory). So if free fall for "something" is 9.2 seconds and the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds respectively, then I really don't see how you intent to argue against the assertion that both towers fell at nearly free fall speed.

If the NIST and 9/11 commission accept this and "the loonies" accept this and you can check for yourself with a stop watch, then I cannot understand exactly what your source of contention is.You clearly misinterpret what they say.


To clarify any further uncertainty about my points for you, and to point out the flaws in your argumentation:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/fig1.png

Achilles
06-14-2008, 12:49 PM
So, they bombed away all floors below the plane so the top would crush down unstopped? I'm inclined to clarify what you mean by "they" and "bombed", but I think this is a sufficiently accurate synopsis of the argument.

I'll take that as "no, I'll provide no source supporting my claim, so you understandably have no other choice but to doubt it." That's absolutely correct. Since the discussion is physics, I am left with no choice but to doubt your doubt about how free fall works without knowing why you doubt it.

Your source, remember? Either your source is reliable or not. Can't have it both ways. Not trying to have it both ways :)

As I've already stated, I don't think NIST is reliable. I used the source to show that there is consensus about the amount of time that it took the buildings to fall.

To say that a part of the building (namely 50 stories) broke down in the same time as an object would need for the buildings whole height, and to conclude this means free fall speed, is well, erroneous.No doubt that it would be in the model you've envisioned.

Again, this is coming from your source. If, then it is you that has to prove/disprove that, in other words: is your source reliable, or is it not? It's reliable so far at it confirms what everyone with a copy of the video tape and stop watch can confirm on their own :)

hint: saying things repeatedly doesn't work Come back to me with that after you've done it. :)

Okay then, how about sharing your knowledge. What is a building's core, when is it a "significant portion" of the building's core? Why is the building still fully collapsed when 40 to 60 stories of this "significant portion of the building's core"?

Oh, and, source, of course. Here (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/floor.jpg) Is a picture of one of the WTC towers as is being contstructed.

The black, slightly rectangular section in the middle is the core. It is not solid. This is where the elevators and emergency stairwells are located.

The parts around that are the floors themselves.

If the NIST claim is correct, then some of the black part was still up after the white part had collapsed.

That is why it is important to distinguish that we are not talking about entire floors.
You saw that the whole building went all the way down? Wasn't there talk about debris in your source, making this impossible for video evidence to reliable determine the TOTAL TIME of collapse?Why don't you watch a clip with a stopwatch and then we can chat :)

I think I have showed many time that the building did not fall at near free fall speed.Please direct me to that post sir, as I do not recall seeing it once.

You clearly misinterpret what they say. Feel free to educate me at any time.


To clarify any further uncertainty about my points for you, and to point out the flaws in your argumentation:
<snip>1) The buildings were 110 stories each. All 110 stories collapsed, not 50 as you reference in the photo.

2) the core would've been a long tubular structure going up the center of the building rather than an amorphous blob settled at the base.

So since your picture fails to match what really happened, I'm not sure how it points out the flaws in my argumentation.

Thanks for your response.

P.S. What did you think of the freeware program? I'm curious to know what number it generated for you. Each time I try it, it comes back with approximately 9.2 so I'm hoping that it did the same for you. Take care.

Ray Jones
06-14-2008, 03:55 PM
I'm inclined to clarify what you mean by "they" and "bombed", but I think this is a sufficiently accurate synopsis of the argument.Ui.


That's absolutely correct. Since the discussion is physics, I am left with no choice but to doubt your doubt about how free fall works without knowing why you doubt it.See, I'm very educated in the field of physics, and good grief, I sure as hell do know free fall.


As I've already stated, I don't think NIST is reliable. I used the source to show that there is consensus about the amount of time that it took the buildings to fall.Using a non-reliable source to support your point here?

I have to wonder.


It's reliable so far at it confirms what everyone with a copy of the video tape and stop watch can confirm on their ownNope. It says "total collapse time is not determinable through video evidence".


Here (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/floor.jpg) Is a picture of one of the WTC towers as is being contstructed.

The black, slightly rectangular section in the middle is the core. It is not solid. This is where the elevators and emergency stairwells are located.OK, and despite 40 or 60 stories still standing the building is totally down?


If the NIST claim is correct, then some of the black part was still up after the white part had collapsed.Is the core not part of the building?


That is why it is important to distinguish that we are not talking about entire floors.
Why don't you watch a clip with a stopwatch and then we can chatThe source you brought up clearly says I could *not* use video evidence to stop the total collapse time, yet you insist on being able to do so.

Once for all, is your source reliable and true or not? Note that I'm afraid cherry picking parts of it to be true and others not, possibly in favour of supporting your argumentation is not an acceptable thing to do here.


1) The buildings were 110 stories each. All 110 stories collapsed, not 50 as you reference in the photo.Not within those first 10 seconds you are talking about, and which are shown in my graphic.


2) the core would've been a long tubular structure going up the center of the building rather than an amorphous blob settled at the base.OK. I put more focus on the height rather than on a correct display of the core, so I think I'll keep that in mind for the next time.


P.S. What did you think of the freeware program?Well, I became all curious whether it will on Linux using WINE, and it does.


I'm curious to know what number it generated for you. Each time I try it, it comes back with approximately 9.2Time of free fall of a constant mass in a vacuum from a height of 1355 feet (413 metres) accelerated by Earth's gravitational force? 9.18s, yes.


Although I'm not sure how exactly the collapse of the tower involves a vacuum or constant mass?

Achilles
06-14-2008, 04:31 PM
Ui. ?

See, I'm very educated in the field of physics, and good grief, I sure as hell do know free fall. Yet the physics is precisely what you are arguing :confused:

Using a non-reliable source to support your point here?

I have to wonder. I've already explained why I used the source. You have no cause to wonder.

Nope. It says "total collapse time is not determinable through video evidence".Yet they quote 9 seconds and 11 seconds respectively. You seem to be more inclined to quibble over their caveats than address the point.

OK, and despite 40 or 60 stories still standing the building is totally down? 40 or 60 stories of the core (i.e. steel beams) allegedly standing, sir. Not complete floors. Everything else around the cores (i.e. the actual floors) had collapsed.

Is the core not part of the building?Not the way you seem to think it is. You seem to think that since some small portion of the internal support structure may not have fallen right away means that the rest of the building didn't do what everyone except for you (well, and maybe others who haven't been heard from yet) acknowledges did happen.

The source you brought up clearly says I could *not* use video evidence to stop the total collapse time, yet you insist on being able to do so.

Once for all, is your source reliable and true or not? I have already addressed this. Repeatedly.

Note that I'm afraid cherry picking parts of it to be true and others not, possibly in favour of supporting your argumentation is not an acceptable thing to do here.:lol: Nice try :)

Not within those first 10 seconds you are talking about, and which are shown in my graphic. Says you :)
I'll need something more substantiative than your sketch pad as a source.

OK. I put more focus on the height rather than on a correct display of the core, so I think I'll keep that in mind for the next time. Ok. Let me know when I can look foward to seeing version 2.

Time of free fall of a constant mass in a vacuum from a height of 1355 feet (413 metres) accelerated by Earth's gravitational force? 9.18s, yes.


Although I'm not sure how exactly the collapse of the tower involves a vacuum or constant mass?Well if a constant mass dropped from the top of the tower falls as a certain rate which we call "free fall" and the tower itself falls at slightly slower rate, then I think the argument is that we can say that the tower fell at nearly free fall speed.

Let's try this. Assume that each floor encountered 1/2 a second of resistance before it collaped onto the floor below. 1/2 a second for all the kinetic energy to be transferred, all those welds and bolts to simultaneously fail, etc before adding it's mass to the mess and continuing into the floor below.

110 * 0.5 = 55 seconds. 55 seconds to collapse compared to the ~10 second consensus.

So please, as I've been asking for several posts now, please tell me what happened to the resistance. Where did it go?

Thanks in advance for your post.

Nedak
06-14-2008, 05:54 PM
For some reason I can't find my last post. Oh well.

Here are some interesting videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjEycLali9Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P72v8zryZAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGN9jWBnXA

Ray Jones
06-14-2008, 06:11 PM
So please, as I've been asking for several posts now, please tell me what happened to the resistance. Where did it go?OK, since you ask so eager for it: It disappeared in your false interpretation of facts and erroneous calculation.

Why? How? Here we go:


Mistake 1: drop height

The drop height is defined as the shortest distance between the dropped object and the ground.

Your height of 110 stories (1355 feet) demands that the roof only started dropping down. Was it really so?

Let's have a look at:

the north tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/nothtower/collaps_north_tower.htm)
the south tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/southtower/collaps_south_tower.htm)

As we can see clearly in both sequences, the whole upper parts of both towers started to drop, giving an object to ground distance of less than 110 stories (1355 feet).

A second, closer look indicates that these parts were everything above where the planes hit.

Supportive source - NIST:

"At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns."


What heights are we really talking about?

The planes hit the towers between floors 93 and 99 respectively 75 and 83. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Impacts_of_airl iners)

That means the maximum that can be taken as drop height is story 99 for the north tower and story 83 for the south tower.


I adapted the drop heights relatively to 1355 feet as follows:

north tower: 1220 feet
south tower: 1022 feet


Then I used your program to calculate the time an object of constant mass would need in a vacuum to drop from those heights to zero.

1220 feet: 8.7 seconds
1022 feet: 8.0 seconds




Shall I proceed?

Achilles
06-14-2008, 06:32 PM
OK, since you ask so eager for it: It disappeared in your false interpretation of facts and erroneous calculation. Sorry, Ray, I didn't see anything here that helped me understand how the building did not fall in greater time than the times I've provided (~10 seconds)

If there was resistance, the building would have taken more time (not less time) to collapse. In the "0.5 seconds of resistance" model that I offered earlier, the collapse would have taken 5 times as long. Even your "it isn't officially collapsed until the last phantom steel beam is on the ground" model is roughly half that.

Nothing you've posted here tells me where the resistance went.

P.S. Tell me sir, if I have a 110 story building, and someone magically removes any one floor from the structure, would the roof of that 110 story building suddenly be about one floor closer to the ground? Suppose that we wanted to magically remove all the floors and track the amount of time it takes the top of the 110 floor to make it to the ground, would it matter where we started removing the floors? I don't think that it does, but if you disagree, I'd very much like to hear your rationale.

Shall I proceed?Yes, sir, please do.

Ray Jones
06-14-2008, 06:49 PM
Sorry, Ray, I didn't see anything here that helped me understand how the building did not fall in less than the times I've provided (~10 seconds)Huh? The point is that the height you are using for your free ware tool is simply false. You assume that the fall started at the tower's height, which it did not, which I try to explain now since ages.


Nothing you've posted here tells me where the resistance went.You don't listen. :/


P.S. Tell me sir, if I have a 110 story building, and someone magically removes any one floor from the structure, would the roof of that 110 story building suddenly be about one floor closer to the ground? Suppose that we wanted to magically remove all the floors and track the amount of time it takes the top of the 110 floor to make it to the ground, would it matter where we started removing the floors?Wrong way. You stand on the roof of said 110 story building, and are holding a 1 and a 100 metres long stick each at their upper ends. When you let them go which one hits the ground first, thus has the shorter free fall period?


I don't think that it does, but if you disagree, I'd very much like to hear your rationale.

Yes, sir, please do.The height you use for your time-of-free-fall prediction is false. It is significantly shorter, thus the vacuum-free-fall-comparison-time value is to high, which means the difference to the ~10 seconds is greater.

Achilles
06-14-2008, 06:56 PM
Huh? The point is that the height you are using for your free ware tool is simply false. You assume that the fall started at the tower's height, which it did not, which I try to explain now since ages. Actually, did. The buildings did not magically lose a floor (or several) when the planes struck. Therefore the buildings were still 1350 and 1360 feet when they started collapsing.

You don't listen. :/Okay, well maybe you should just add me to your ignore list then.

Wrong way. You stand on the roof of said 110 story building, and are holding a 1 and a 100 metres long stick each at their upper ends. When you let them go which one hits the ground first, thus has the shorter free fall period? Quite irrelevant.

[i]The height you use for your time-of-free-fall prediction is false. It is significantly shorter, Really? why?

Ray Jones
06-14-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm tired.

So long then, and -- enjoy your read (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf).

Jae Onasi
06-15-2008, 02:39 AM
Achilles, Ray--tone it down. Leave the snarkiness at the door. It doesn't belong here. The rest of the staff and I will evaluate the latest round of posts--it's too late for me to do that right now.

Ray Jones
06-16-2008, 09:31 AM
have you everluretortured the thread Jae?

Actually, did. The buildings did not magically lose a floor (or several) when the planes struck. Therefore the buildings were still 1350 and 1360 feet when they started collapsing.That is correct.

Quite irrelevant.Nope. Both sticks had the same total height, yet one has a 99 metres shorter way down. An analogy applicable to the towers' collapse.

Really? why?1. my stick analogy, 2. did you read the document I linked to in #126?

Jae Onasi
06-16-2008, 10:58 AM
@Ray--I'm going to look it over with a couple other staffers before deciding on what actions, if any will be taken. It was Father's Day yesterday and so a lot of us were with family instead of looking over heated threads. :) If it gets any hotter here, though, I have no problem taking an immediate action. So, let's just all take it easy on each other....

Here's a report from Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) for those of us not wanting to wade through multivariate calculus. I was going to point out, Ray, that calculating building fall was a. not exact due to the dust obscuring the last couple seconds of video and b. involved much more complex equations than a simple free-fall calculation when both you and the engineering report did it for me.

Regarding the source for the ratio of a 767 vs. 707 hitting the WTC--I just did a simple F=ma calculation with the weights and speeds listed from the reports, and 'a' being the deceleration (or negative acceleration) to zero, then taking the ratio of the 2. However, after having the car wreck, I found the more appropriate formula to use was F=-1/2mv^2/d and here's a site calculator (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/carcr.html#cc1). Input the data in whatever units it specifies. Comparing the ratio (distance drops out in this case if you assume they're the same for both planes), the 767 hit the WTC with over 11 times the force of a proposed 707. Just for fun, input the max takeoff weight of a 767 (395,000 lbs), speed of the 767 on 9/11 (545 mph), and be generous in giving it 100 feet to come to a full stop (I'll have to look that up later--there's probably data on that somewhere). The plane hit the building with 19,623.7 tons of force. I'm sure that exceeded design specifications.

Achilles--you mentioned not having the conversion feet/meter conversion in one of your previous posts. Here's a converter (http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/meters-to-feet.htm) for that and a number of other units such as temperature and volume.

Achilles
06-16-2008, 12:13 PM
Nope. Both sticks had the same total height, yet one has a 99 metres shorter way down. An analogy applicable to the towers' collapse. Considering that the upper floors collapsed too, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why you think this analogy is applicable. Even the time-lapse frames from the site you provided a few posts ago show this.

1. my stick analogy, 2. did you read the document I linked to in #126?This doesn't answer my question.

Yes, I read the document. Did you?

Here's a report from Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) for those of us not wanting to wade through multivariate calculus. Yep, I've seen that before too, however it doesn't address my question(s) either. :(

I'm sure that exceeded design specifications.Even assuming that all the assumptions that you made above are applicable, surely you can recognize that without knowing what the design specifications were this is simply a guess.

Achilles--you mentioned not having the conversion feet/meter conversion in one of your previous posts. Here's a converter (http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/meters-to-feet.htm) for that and a number of other units such as temperature and volume.Thank you for the link.

Jae Onasi
06-16-2008, 12:49 PM
Yep, I've seen that before too, however it doesn't address my question(s) either. :( I thought it addressed some of the questions--sorry for any confusion on that. I think it addressed some of the points others brought up, though.

Even assuming that all the assumptions that you made above are applicable, surely you can recognize that without knowing what the design specifications were this is simply a guess. Well, do you know of any buildings designed to withstand about 20,000 tons of force hitting it? Is it reasonable to assume that buildings are ever designed to take that kind of force, with maybe the exception of some uber-bomb shelter? Sure, it might be a guess that a skyscraper isn't designed to take 20,000 tons of damage, but I think it's a pretty darned good guess just the same.

Achilles
06-16-2008, 01:01 PM
I thought it addressed some of the questions--sorry for any confusion on that. I think it addressed some of the points others brought up, though. They seemed to spend a lot of effort debunking (what I think we'd all agree are) rumors. What effort they do extend toward actual engineering/science type stuff is perfunctory at best :(

Hence why I'm so terribly disappointed with sources such as Popular Mechanics, etc. I would have thought that if anyone would have been able to address these points and truly debunk the alternative hypothesis, it would have been groups such as these. It really was kind of a let-down.
Well, do you know of any buildings designed to withstand about 20,000 tons of force hitting it? Is it reasonable to assume that buildings are ever designed to take that kind of force, with maybe the exception of some uber-bomb shelter? Sure, it might be a guess that a skyscraper isn't designed to take 20,000 tons of damage, but I think it's a pretty darned good guess just the same.Considering that the buildings designers claim (and I understand that it's a claim) to have over-designed the buildings to withstand multiple hits from comparable craft, I would say that we have at least two contenders. :)

Totenkopf
06-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Considering that the buildings designers claim (and I understand that it's a claim) to have over-designed the buildings to withstand multiple hits from comparable craft, I would say that we have at least two contenders. :)

Despite your disclaimer, it's pretty interesting that you seem so willing to accept their claims. Since no one actually flew a 707 into the towers in 1972 (or thereabouts) to test their claims, I suspose it's be easy to claim such. Afterall, they had to fill the building with tenants to make the investment pay off.

Darth Xander
06-16-2008, 04:29 PM
Theres a lot of opposing info on this subject but I believe it was an terrorist attack.

JediMaster12
06-16-2008, 06:09 PM
I suppose it would do no good to mention the Loose Change The Final Cut. In that he cites an example where I think a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building. Damage yes but still standing. He also cites that when the towers collapsed the seismic station picked it up but when the car with bomb was driven into basement, not as much. I think also he highlights where possible explosions occurred.

I may be spinning my wheels here but I watched the towers collapse, well the second one on live tv and it is suspicious in nature. Looking at it, it looked more like a controlled demolition.

I should point out that before the 'attacks' on Sept. 11th, a neo conservaative group published a manifesto entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. Listed in it were acts that we have already taken. It also said that it would have to take a grave atrocity for it to begin hence we get Sept. 11th. Conspiracy? I don't know. Do I care? Not really since I have read enough of different conspiracy theories to make me laugh til New Years. However there are things out there that are pointing out things that don't make sense. It's the same evidence but it is up to the interpreter.

Ray Jones
06-16-2008, 06:13 PM
Considering that the upper floors collapsed too, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why you think this analogy is applicable. Even the time-lapse frames from the site you provided a few posts ago show this.Regarding the physical model of the collapse, the upper floors collapsed separately. You can also see that in the sequences.
The model of the collapse as introduced in the document from #126 underlines this pretty clear as well. (Figs. 1 and 2)

To take the towers' total height as drop distance gives inaccurate results regarding the vacuum-free-fall comparison, approximations at best.

Achilles
06-16-2008, 06:17 PM
Regarding the physical model of the collapse, the upper floors collapsed separately. You can also see that in the sequences.
The model of the collapse as introduced in the document from #126 underlines this pretty clear as well. (Figs. 1 and 2) What do you mean "separately"? There was one continuous collapse. The collapse started, continued, then ended. The commonly accepted time span for this is approximately 10 seconds. A billiard ball dropped from the roof at the same time the building started to collapse would have hit the ground in 9.2 second in a vacuum.

To take the towers' total height as drop distance gives inaccurate results regarding the vacuum-free-fall comparison, approximations at best.Based on what?

Jae Onasi
06-16-2008, 07:19 PM
.8 seconds doesn't seem like much, but at that distance, it's a lot. I haven't made it through the entire engineering report yet, but there is the question of whether the WTC fell like one single building or as essentially 2 separate pieces from an engineering standpoint (which may be different from what we can see visibly). Regardless of that, as the architect's site noted, the floors were self-supporting via attachments to the core and the side walls. If the planes and resultant damage and fires destroyed large parts of the walls and part or all of the core in one section, those floors failed, everything above it failed because there was no underlying support for those side walls anymore, either. Everything below was crushed by everything above. If the floors were individually self-supporting and were not designed to be weight-bearing for any of the floors above them, it should be no surprise that they collapsed at the rate they did. It was like taking a bowling ball and dropping it on a house of cards.

I think we should be surprised not at the fact that the towers fell, but at the fact that they stood as long as they did after that kind of massive damage.

Achilles
06-16-2008, 08:46 PM
.8 seconds doesn't seem like much, but at that distance, it's a lot. .8 seconds assuming that it fell in a vacuum (which we know it did not). As I pointed out earlier, a half second of resistance per floor would have produced a collapse that took 55 seconds; 5 times longer than it actually did. So I wouldn't recommend hinging a counter argument on .8 seconds.

I haven't made it through the entire engineering report yet, but there is the question of whether the WTC fell like one single building or as essentially 2 separate pieces from an engineering standpoint (which may be different from what we can see visibly). I could have fallen in 110 separate pieces, but that still won't help explain why both building fell at nearly free fall speed, meaning that they encountered no resistance while they came down.

Regardless of that, as the architect's site noted, the floors were self-supporting via attachments to the core and the side walls. If the planes and resultant damage and fires destroyed large parts of the walls and part or all of the core in one section, those floors failed, everything above it failed because there was no underlying support for those side walls anymore, either. Then the portion above the impact should have fallen intact. As Ray's earlier photos show, they collapsed first.

Everything below was crushed by everything above. If the floors were individually self-supporting and were not designed to be weight-bearing for any of the floors above them, it should be no surprise that they collapsed at the rate they did. Thousands of welds, bolts, etc instantly failing, simultaneously, at a rate of 10 floors per second. Not buying it.

If the building had taken a minute or more to collapse or if we had stacks of compressed floors, I would be right beside you on this.

It was like taking a bowling ball and dropping it on a house of cards.Not even close.

I think we should be surprised not at the fact that the towers fell, but at the fact that they stood as long as they did after that kind of massive damage.Would you care to explain why?

Nedak
06-17-2008, 12:01 AM
I suppose it would do no good to mention the Loose Change The Final Cut.

On Loose Change I found it strange however that they couldn't get their facts straight after two installments.

Achilles
06-17-2008, 12:39 AM
What do you do when you find new evidence?

Totenkopf
06-17-2008, 01:02 AM
Try not to massage it as transparently as the old "evidence". :xp:

Nedak
06-17-2008, 09:34 AM
What do you do when you find new evidence?

So if that evidence was flawed in the beginning, what could the new evidence be?

Achilles
06-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Please do not answer the question with another one. I'll be more than happy to answer anything that you would like to present after you've shown me that same respect. Thanks.

Totenkopf
06-17-2008, 01:08 PM
So if that evidence was flawed in the beginning, what could the new evidence be?

He either doesn't know or would likely suggest you watch all the versions and figure it out for yourself. :lol: Seriously, if the "old" evidence is handled so badly in analysis, why would anyone trust their spin on the so-called "new" evidence? This is also a problem with the whole "global warming" argument. If the biggest proponents don't demonstrate through their actions that they take the theory seriously, why should they expect anyone else would either. If the source of the info is suspect, then it's probably just as likely that their slant is too.

Nedak
06-17-2008, 09:31 PM
Please do not answer the question with another one. I'll be more than happy to answer anything that you would like to present after you've shown me that same respect. Thanks.

It was more-or-less a rhetorical question... Have you actually even seen Loose Change? If you truly want to debate on a topic (in this case Loose Change) you should probably watch the videos.

But if you must insist on me answering your question I guess I will.

What do you do when you find new evidence?

When I personally find new evidence I include that evidence. However, I personally wouldn't even release a film before I have all the correct evidence. Why? So I do not look like I didn't have my crap together in the first place.

Now that I have gotten that taken care of, I'll ask you my question again:

If the creators of Loose Change were still flawed after two movies, isn't there a pretty large possibility that they could still be wrong about some things?

They made very drastic changes in the films that just left me confused. First they claim that a missile hit the Pentagon... and then they just change their claim to that it was a military plane.

Achilles
06-17-2008, 10:03 PM
Have you actually even seen Loose Change? I have, however that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. :)

When I personally find new evidence I include that evidence. However, I personally wouldn't even release a film before I have all the correct evidence. Why? So I do not look like I didn't have my crap together in the first place.We shouldn't ask questions until we have the answers first?

If the creators of Loose Change were still flawed after two movies, isn't there a pretty large possibility that they could still be wrong about some things?That would depend a great deal on what changes were made and why. Your argument seems to be that that the flat out got everything wrong and kept taking blind stabs in the dark. I don't agree that this was the case at all. For instance, the changes between the 2nd edition and the final cut were largely stylistic as the Final Cut was intended for theater audiences.

They made very drastic changes in the films that just left me confused. First they claim that a missile hit the Pentagon... and then they just change their claim to that it was a military plane.Perhaps you should ask them why they decided to throw their support behind one hypothesis over another. They may even have an explanation on their website.

Nedak
06-19-2008, 10:19 PM
I have, however that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. :)

No, but it does however help me understand you, and helps make it so I don't have to ask the question later on. However, if you would like me to do so, just let me know. ;)



We shouldn't ask questions until we have the answers first?

Never in my post did I suggest that. However, I did suggest that we do need our answers correct before we continue asking more questions and giving bad answers.

That would depend a great deal on what changes were made and why. Your argument seems to be that that the flat out got everything wrong and kept taking blind stabs in the dark. I don't agree that this was the case at all. For instance, the changes between the 2nd edition and the final cut were largely stylistic as the Final Cut was intended for theater audiences.

Never was that my intent. A few things I found were a little off in the film and was just stating that maybe the film might not be very trustworthy.

You have to understand, that when analyzing a conspiracy you have to look at it from both angles. Who's trying to screw me over? The conspirators who can make money from these films and merchandise. Or is it the government with a secret agenda. I personally lean on both sides.

Perhaps you should ask them why they decided to throw their support behind one hypothesis over another. They may even have an explanation on their website.

An explanation could easy be scewed to appease me. However if you want me to, I will send them an email.

Achilles
06-20-2008, 02:43 AM
No, but it does however help me understand you, and helps make it so I don't have to ask the question later on. However, if you would like me to do so, just let me know. ;) Ah, ok.
In that case, I've seen each of the Loose Change films, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 Mysteries, and perhaps a handful of others who's titles escape me right now.

Some of them are better than others.

Never in my post did I suggest that. However, I did suggest that we do need our answers correct before we continue asking more questions and giving bad answers. I'm not seeing how this refutes the observation I made earlier. This still sounds as though you're suggesting that we should not ask questions until we already have the answers.

Unlike many of the others that created movies regarding September 11th, these guys continued to do research and as such released new films as information was discovered and/or specific arguments were sufficiently refuted.

To me, this sounds a lot like how things are supposed to work.

Never was that my intent. A few things I found were a little off in the film and was just stating that maybe the film might not be very trustworthy. I have absolutely no problem with that. In each of the films I've seen there have been multiple arguments that I thought were a little on the "too much" side. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume that everything they've said is garbage.

You have to understand, that when analyzing a conspiracy you have to look at it from both angles. Who's trying to screw me over? The conspirators who can make money from these films and merchandise. Or is it the government with a secret agenda. I personally lean on both sides.I would agree with this as well. However, at the same time all of the films I've seen have been made available for free. Hard for me to infer a profit motive if these people are giving their work away (which leaves the fame motive, I suppose).

An explanation could easy be scewed to appease me. However if you want me to, I will send them an email.It's not up to me, it's up to you. I personally don't agree with the drone hypothesis, however I also acknowledge that I don't have access to all the information either, so my opinion is slightly more rigorous than arbitrary.

Nedak
06-20-2008, 03:37 AM
Ah, ok.
In that case, I've seen each of the Loose Change films, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 Mysteries, and perhaps a handful of others who's titles escape me right now.

I would also like to recommend Zeitgeist. You can watch it for free at Zeitgeistmovie.com


I'm not seeing how this refutes the observation I made earlier. This still sounds as though you're suggesting that we should not ask questions until we already have the answers.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that LooseChange (I believe you're asking about LooseChange) are not only asking questions (questions are fine) but they are supplying answers to their own questions. The problem is with that is that SOME of their answers have been wrong... And therefore they should get their answers RIGHT before answering their questions..


Unlike many of the others that created movies regarding September 11th, these guys continued to do research and as such released new films as information was discovered and/or specific arguments were sufficiently refuted.

and I can accept that.

To me, this sounds a lot like how things are supposed to work.

I have absolutely no problem with that. In each of the films I've seen there have been multiple arguments that I thought were a little on the "too much" side. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume that everything they've said is garbage.

I never meant for it to sound like I thought it was all garbage. I just thought that people should keep it in-mind so they are not as confused/upset as I was after watching the third installment.

I would agree with this as well. However, at the same time all of the films I've seen have been made available for free. Hard for me to infer a profit motive if these people are giving their work away (which leaves the fame motive, I suppose).

I don't really have a problem for the movies to cost money.since it takes money to make the film in the first place.However, the money they may make from merchandising may be different in its-self.

Achilles
06-20-2008, 03:49 AM
I would also like to recommend Zeitgeist. You can watch it for free at Zeitgeistmovie.com I've seen parts of it. I don't care for very much for the style in which is was done. If that sounds snobbish, let me expand by saying that I found it incredibly distracting to the point that it was difficult to watch.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm sure it's not your intent, however that is how it is coming across.

What I am saying is that LooseChange (I believe you're asking about LooseChange) are not only asking questions (questions are fine) but they are supplying answers to their own questions. The problem is with that is that SOME of their answers have been wrong... And therefore they should get their answers RIGHT before answering their questions.. Which comes back to my point about what to do when you find new evidence. Kinda hard to know what you don't know. Which still sounds like "don't ask the question until you know the answer" (or more specific to what you've added here "don't put forth something as a possible explanation until you've already refuted it" :)).

I think what you're proposing makes sense in an ideal situation, however the larger problem here is that not all the information is available.

I never meant for it to sound like I thought it was all garbage. I just thought that people should keep it in-mind so they are not as confused/upset as I was after watching the third installment. I agree that healthy skepticism is required for all sides of the story especially because not everything is known.

I don't really have a problem for the movies to cost money.since it takes money to make the film in the first place.However, the money they may make from merchandising may be different in its-self. Agreed, however as I stated, none of the films I've seen have required money. I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

Totenkopf
06-20-2008, 04:36 AM
I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...


And that makes a difference how? All merchandising is entirely optional when it comes to the consumer.

Ray Jones
06-20-2008, 09:09 AM
What do you mean "separately"? There was one continuous collapse. The collapse started, continued, then ended.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/collapse.png

collapse A

The part below the crashed plane collapses top-to-bottom (destruction happens at the top) due to its mass bearing on itself, gravitating down and creating pressure from above. This part of the building is not moving itself, it's height decreases by the time from the height of where the plane crashed into the building to the final height of the pile of debris. All that happens within approximately 10 seconds with a velocity v(4).


collapse B

The part above the plane collapses bottom-to-top (destruction happens at the bottom) due to the mass of itself and the thrusts working against the structure every time the whole thing is crushing upon the top of the lower part of the building. This upper part, as it is located on the lower part of the tower with decreasing height, is moving down as a result. That movement's velocity v(2) is equal to the downward velocity v(4) of collapse A's "roof".

If we'd place that upper part of the tower on the ground the whole thing would go down (collapse) with a velocity of v(3). The height of that second collapse is the distance from where the plane crashed into the building up to the roof. All that happens within 10 seconds as well.

The total velocity v(1) of the upper block relative to the ground is a result of the velocities of both, the moving vector and the crushing vector. However, that does not change the height where it's coming down from, namely where the plane crashed into the building.



So, what *really* was going on were two separate collapses happening simultaneously within the same 10 seconds. Neither collapse is happening at free fall speed, because we have two lesser heights (both with far lesser free fall times) but still a 10 seconds time frame. That one collapse happens to a structure which is also moving at a (starting from 0 and increasing) velocity v(2) as a whole is irrelevant in this case.


Now what you do with your free fall comparison is that you take all those separate processes and throw them into one pit, and take *only* the total height and time making it statistically look like a free fall process, which it is not.



Which leads us to Mistake 2: believing in statistics

Jae Onasi
06-20-2008, 09:23 AM
I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...And that makes a difference how? All merchandising is entirely optional when it comes to the consumer.

Ooooh, look!!! I can get a t-shirt, a hoodie, a baseball cap, and even an 'Investigate 9/11!' rubber stamp!! And if I order in the US, I'll even get a free bumper sticker!! What a deal from a company with no other motive than to let innocent, uninformed people like me know Teh Truth!!!

Edit: Ray--here's an academic paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) describing what you're trying to describe above. And before anyone screams, yes, it's hosted on a conspiracy debunking site which has a section devoted to just the demolition theories and myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html). However, there are links to a lot of academic papers that you can then confirm via other sources.

Achilles
06-20-2008, 03:34 PM
collapse A

The part below the crashed plane collapses top-to-bottom (destruction happens at the top) due to its mass bearing on itself, gravitating down and creating pressure from above. This part of the building is not moving itself, it's height decreases by the time from the height of where the plane crashed into the building to the final height of the pile of debris. All that happens within approximately 10 seconds with a velocity v(4). Except that even the photos you sourced yourself in post #122 don't reflect this. "Collapse B" happened first.

And the total time for both "Collapse A" and "Collapse B" (i.e. from the time the structures started falling to the time they stopped) is approximately 10 seconds.


collapse B
<snip>
The total velocity v(1) of the upper block relative to the ground is a result of the velocities of both, the moving vector and the crushing vector. However, that does not change the height where it's coming down from, namely where the plane crashed into the building.So we just ignore the fact that the buildings were 1350/1360 feet tall why?

So, what *really* was going on were two separate collapses happening simultaneously within the same 10 seconds. Neither collapse is happening at free fall speed, because we have two lesser heights (both with far lesser free fall times) but still a 10 seconds time frame.:lol:

The building came down in approximately 10 seconds. Free fall would have been approximately 9.2 seconds. So again, you can call it one collapse, two collapses, 110 collapses or whatever number of collapses that you would like to, the building came down at nearly free fall speed.

Now what you do with your free fall comparison is that you take all those separate processes and throw them into one pit, and take *only* the total height and time making it statistically look like a free fall process, which it is not.Think of it like trying to break a world relay record. You may try to argue that some legs of the race were faster than others (source please) or slower than others (also, source please) however if the total time is not less (or in this case more) than the record (i.e. the rate of free fall) then you don't win.

And before anyone screams, yes, it's hosted on a conspiracy debunking site which has a section devoted to just the demolition theories and myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html). However, there are links to a lot of academic papers that you can then confirm via other sources.*Reads this*
*Reads post #67*
*Reads this again*
:thumbsup:

Ray Jones
06-20-2008, 04:50 PM
Except that even the photos you sourced yourself in post #122 don't reflect this. "Collapse B" happened first.No, they happen simultaneously.

So we just ignore the fact that the buildings were 1350/1360 feet tall why?Physics.


The building came down in approximately 10 seconds. Free fall would have been approximately 9.2 seconds. So again, you can call it one collapse, two collapses, 110 collapses or whatever number of collapses that you would like to, the building came down at nearly free fall speed.I do not argue that most of the towers came down in 10 seconds. The point is that the story by story collapse took place at a lower rate/speed than free fall, what actually results in some time/place for resistance coming from the stories, which you were asking for. I just tried to give you some explanation regarding the physics behind it.

You are of course entitled to your belief that someone managed to bomb every single story away with the correct timing so it won't look like someone did actually use explosives. No way that thousands of tons of steel and concrete are able to cause what happened, especially after a plane did some good job in weakening the structures. No way physical models are correct. The planes were just part of some strategy to obfuscate what's really going on - a plan to cause the WTC to free fall collapse and make everyone pull out models and formulas which will prove it happened on its own because of the planes. How evil.


Think of it like trying to break a world relay record. You may try to argue that some legs of the race were faster than others (source please) or slower than others (also, source please) however if the total time is not less than the record (i.e. the rate of free fall) then you don't win.Bad example. A better one: walking up an escalator. If you're walking as if you would walk up the stairs, you still need less time for the same way.

Achilles
06-20-2008, 05:12 PM
No, they happen simultaneously. Again, this is where your refusal to familiarize yourself with the subject does you a disservice.

Physics.If the upper portions of the building remained intact, I might think that you had a point. However since they did not, I'm still left to wonder how you are getting your conclusions.

I do not argue that most of the towers came down in 10 seconds. Oh? Ok.

The point is that the story by story collapse took place at a lower rate/speed than free fall, what actually results in some time/place for resistance coming from the stories, which you were asking for. Well of course Ray. The buildings didn't fall in a vacuum. I think this is why everyone refers to it as "nearly free fall". However you've yet to address the matter of resistance, even though you claim here that you have.

I just tried to give you some explanation regarding the physics behind it.I must have missed it. All I saw was a bunch of guessing based on...I'm not sure what.

You are of course entitled to your belief that someone managed to bomb every single story away with the correct timing so it won't look like someone did actually use explosives. Thank you. It means a lot to have your permission :)

P.S. Explosives wouldn't have been necessary on every floor. I believe professional demolition crews only use explosives on every other floor. Not being a demolitions expert, I don't know what kind of set up would have been required here.

No way that thousands of tons of steel and concrete are able to cause what happened, especially after a plane did some good job in weakening the structures. I'm sure there's a way. I just haven't seen an explanation that doesn't violate some law of physics or insults my intelligence. Perhaps if one were made available I would be inspired to set some portion of my skepticism aside.

No way physical models are correct. Which physical models, Ray? Source please.

The planes were just part of some strategy to obfuscate what's really going on - a plan to cause the WTC to free fall collapse and make everyone pull out models and formulas which will prove it happened on its own because of the planes. How evil.Interesting.

Bad example. A better one: walking up an escalator. If you're walking as if you would walk up the stairs, you still need less time for the same way.Oh. So something was actually propelling the debris down? Like little rockets affixed to the beams to make them fall faster than free fall? Well who snuck in and attached the rockets to the beams, Ray? Who ever it was, I'm sure it will make for one great conspiracy theory.

P.S. Just so we're clear, it's not a bad example. If I drop two object from a specific height and they both hit the ground at about the same time, then they are falling at rough the same rate. If one of those objects (the one that hits the ground first) encounters nothing but air as it falls and the other encounters 110 stories of welded steel frame,concrete floors, etc, then I would expect that second object to take significantly longer.

Ray Jones
06-20-2008, 05:29 PM
If the upper portions of the building remained intact, I might think that you had a point. However since they did not, I'm still left to wonder how you are getting your conclusions.Huh? They don't have to stay intact.


Well of course Ray. The buildings didn't fall in a vacuum. I think this is why everyone refers to it as "nearly free fall". However you've yet to address the matter of resistance, even though you claim here that you have.The fact that you don accept my explanation doesn't mean I didn't gave some explanation regarding the resistance, nor that I'm wrong.


Which physical models, Ray? Source please.#126


Oh. So something was actually propelling the debris down? Like little rockets affixed to the beams to make them fall faster than free fall?Faster?


Well who snuck in and attached the rockets to the beams, Ray?Maybe the same person that snuck in and placed the explosives on every other story.

Alternatively, since we're talking about 10 seconds for 1350 feet, gravity should be a sufficient explanation for the go down of the upper section.

KinchyB
06-20-2008, 05:42 PM
Opinions...

found this video clip on the second site Ray had posted for some pictures...

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/videos/wtc1-collaps.MPE

Now, is it just me or does the bottom of the WTC actually appear to give out without the top of the tower actually collapsing? (keep an eye on the movement of the antennae at the top in the smoke).

I don't have the best eyes (eye) in the world and the picture is granny but would appreciate some thoughts on the video.


Thanks!!

Edit: And if you watch the right side of the building closely you can actually tell when it hits the ground.

Achilles
06-20-2008, 05:44 PM
Huh? They don't have to stay intact. Of course they do if your "we only calculate free fall based on the height of the impact" argument is to carry any weight. Like I said, otherwise I'm not sure how you're getting that.

The fact that you don accept my explanation doesn't mean I didn't gave some explanation regarding the resistance, nor that I'm wrong.But you haven't Ray.

You can say that you have all you want, but that isn't going to help.

#126 The post where you said you were leaving and then didn't? Oh, the paper! The paper isn't a physical model, Ray. And they didn't use a physical model either (which is why I asked you way back in post #130 if you had read it). Also, the author's seem to think that the top fell intact (Fig. 1), so either your source is wrong or you are.

Faster? Indeed, as the person on the escalator would be moving through space faster than the person using the traditional stairs. Or did you not consider that/mean to demonstrate something else with your "better" example?

Maybe the same person that snuck in and placed the explosives on every other story. Maybe. :)

Alternatively, since we're talking about 10 for 1350 feet, gravity should be a sufficient explanation for the go down of the upper section.I'm assuming that was supposed to be "10 seconds"? Yes I agree...if it had nothing underneath it offering resistance. I certainly hope that you'll agree that this has been my point all along.

Ray Jones
06-20-2008, 06:13 PM
Now, is it just me or does the bottom of the WTC actually appear to give out without the top of the tower actually collapsing? (keep an eye on the movement of the antennae at the top in the smoke).What I say.




Achilles, I'm done laying out my points. You asked where there's place for resistance, I offered a possible explanation, you reject it, fine.

Have fun there with your little invisible pink unicorn.

Nedak
06-20-2008, 06:43 PM
Agreed, however as I stated, none of the films I've seen have required money. I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

My concluding point is that as long as a conspiracy movie doesn't require for people to pay, I would say it makes it more credible.

I guess all my questions have been answered relating to Loose Change. However, if they ever try to make any other documentary I will keep my eye open, as I would any other documentary.

Achilles
06-20-2008, 06:55 PM
What I say. Even though you yourself posted pics showing the opposite. :)

My concluding point is that as long as a conspiracy movie doesn't require for people to pay, I would say it makes it more credible. I agree. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any (but that doesn't mean that they don't exist).

I guess all my questions have been answered relating to Loose Change. However, if they ever try to make any other documentary I will keep my eye open, as I would any other documentary.As would I. They called their last film "Final Cut" so I would be very suspicious of another film.

Nedak
06-20-2008, 07:03 PM
As would I. They called their last film "Final Cut" so I would be very suspicious of another film.

Who knows. As you've said, there is always new evidence.


Also Ray,

I didn't see the collapse point bellow the top of the tower like Kinchy hinted to. However, if you agree with Kinchy on the collapse point then you would have proven yourself wrong on your own opinion of the collapse point.

Jae Onasi
06-21-2008, 12:07 PM
Here's the bottom line--there's a ton of solid evidence supporting the theory that the WTC collapsed without explosives. There's no evidence of explosive residue found in the debris that I know of to the degree required for building demolition--and there would have to be a lot of explosives for that. Yes, there are things that the reports don't explain adequately. There are things we may never know because we didn't have the engineering knowledge to predict such a unique event, and the science and advanced math is still being worked on for that. However, there's far less evidence and far less engineering science to back up the conspiracy claims.

You'd have to have a perfectly trained pilot who, while flying through a city at 590 mph, could fly into exactly the right floor of the WTC required so that everything would work right for demolition. On top of that, for the top sections of the buildings, you'd have to have the explosives wired just right so that they'd still explode correctly even when the electricity/wiring to them got severed by the planes crashing into floors below them. If the planes sever the connections, no explosions happen in the affected section(s). You're telling me that the conspiracy folks managed to cross wire redundant detonation systems in to account for the possibility that the planes might not hit the planned floor?

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?

Achilles
06-21-2008, 01:18 PM
Here's the bottom line--there's a ton of solid evidence supporting the theory that the WTC collapsed without explosives. No there isn't and that's the point.

None of the sources that you or Ray have put up as evidence can answer this very simple question: How did the buildings come down at nearly free-fall speed?

No one has put forth a computer simulation that can reproduce the conditions that "the experts" tell us "must have" occurred. No one has put forth a physical model that behaves this way. No one can even point to examples of similar phenomenon, even though we do have examples of plane hitting buildings, steel frame buildings on fire, and buildings that have experienced a pancake collapse.

What we have is a bunch of people starting with a conclusion and trying to shoe-horn the facts to fit. Science doesn't work that way.

There's no evidence of explosive residue found in the debris that I know of to the degree required for building demolition--and there would have to be a lot of explosives for that. That you know of. Does that mean you'd be willing to take a look at some sources or does that mean that you're inclined to try to prove a negative.

Yes, there are things that the reports don't explain adequately. There are things we may never know because we didn't have the engineering knowledge to predict such a unique event, and the science and advanced math is still being worked on for that. However, there's far less evidence and far less engineering science to back up the conspiracy claims. And you feel comfortable saying this because you've exhaustively researched the other claims and found them to be lacking? If you say you have, then we can certainly have a discussion about that, however everything you've said here leads me to suspect that you haven't seen any of the video that are available or visited any of the websites. If my suspicions are correct, then I'm not clear how it is that you hope to counter an argument that you don't understand.

You'd have to have a perfectly trained pilot who, while flying through a city at 590 mph, could fly into exactly the right floor of the WTC required so that everything would work right for demolition. How does that work? If the building was already rigged with explosives, then the pilot could have struck the building anywhere.

Please help me understand how you came to this conclusion.

On top of that, for the top sections of the buildings, you'd have to have the explosives wired just right so that they'd still explode correctly even when the electricity/wiring to them got severed by the planes crashing into floors below them. Computer-controlled timers? Redundant wires? Or simply run the wires through a part of the building that wouldn't have taken much damage from the impact (i.e. the cores)? Radio controlled demolitions on a timer?

How do you rule these out?

If the planes sever the connections, no explosions happen in the affected section(s). You're telling me that the conspiracy folks managed to cross wire redundant detonation systems in to account for the possibility that the planes might not hit the planned floor? I'm saying it makes a lot of sense to cross-wire (or some equivalent alternative) if there is no "planned floor".

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Really? Why?

Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it? You go first (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html).

Ray Jones
06-22-2008, 06:07 AM
None of the sources that you or Ray have put up as evidence can answer this very simple question: How did the buildings come down at nearly free-fall speed?You haven't either. Even less, all you have done is proposing some idea, without delivering at least some kind of document that supports your claim that only explosives can bring a building down at free fall speed.

No one has put forth a computer simulation that can reproduce the conditions that "the experts" tell us "must have" occurred. No one has put forth a physical model that behaves this way. No one can even point to examples of similar phenomenon, even though we do have examples of plane hitting buildings, steel frame buildings on fire, and buildings that have experienced a pancake collapse.You neither came up with a computer simulation to underline your claim or to prove ours wrong.

Science doesn't work that way.It doesn't work your way either. Deliver proof/evidence/sources that eliminate doubt that we need explosives to have a WTC event. Everything else is alike to waving the bible to proof god exists.

Does that mean you'd be willing to take a look at some sources or does that mean that you're inclined to try to prove a negative.If we only had seen some source...all we have is the fact that two towers crashed within 10 seconds.

You asked how that can be possible when there should be resistance coming from each floor. I delivered you a whole document about the physics behind such type of collapses, it dealt with the timings, the forces, the whole mechanics behind it. It shows very well that the whole process doesn't need explosives.

So far you came up with nothing but "you're wrong", which carries not much substance for any argument. You have not even tried to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

So, I'd say you should give us some hard core evidence that make your claim not only useful but also possible. I'm afraid your video evidence is not enough here. We need studies about how buildings (construction type a la WTC) behave when they are demolished using explosive on every floor. We need studies on how these buildings behave when you fly a plane into them.
Give me a reliable source that supports (even mentions?) your claim, and that shows me that the WTC (or a similar building) had not come down at free fall speed without explosives.

If you don't then I am afraid all that's coming from you is basically "it only can be this way, every other explanation is wrong/unlikely, don't you see this?"

And seriously that does sound like some freaking religious nut.

The Source
06-22-2008, 02:06 PM
Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?
:lol::lol::lol:
How big do you want the model?

I know for a fact that Santa Claus exists. I have pictures. :D
:lol::lol::lol:

Achilles
06-22-2008, 02:49 PM
You haven't either. Even less, all you have done is proposing some idea, without delivering at least some kind of document that supports your claim that only explosives can bring a building down at free fall speed.I need to provide evidence for skepticism?

You neither came up with a computer simulation to underline your claim or to prove ours wrong. Burden of proof, Ray. The official story is that the planes and subsequent fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It's not on me to disprove this story. I have lots of reasons to be skeptical. Thus far I've only focused on the one and no one here has been able to satisfy that.

It doesn't work your way either. Deliver proof/evidence/sources that eliminate doubt that we need explosives to have a WTC event. Everything else is alike to waving the bible to proof god exists. Burden of proof, Ray (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). :disaprove

If we only had seen some source...all we have is the fact that two towers crashed within 10 seconds.:lol: Yes, we certainly have observed an event. I think the point here is that we're trying to determine what caused it.

Arguing that the observation is evidence for your explanation kinda sorta skips over the part where you have to the actual explaining :)

You asked how that can be possible when there should be resistance coming from each floor. I delivered you a whole document about the physics behind such type of collapses, it dealt with the timings, the forces, the whole mechanics behind it. It shows very well that the whole process doesn't need explosives. No it did not. I'll ask you one more time: did you actually read the document, Ray?

P.S. As I already point out above, they authors didn't even accurately represent the collapse :(

So far you came up with nothing but "you're wrong", which carries not much substance for any argument. You have not even tried to point out WHY you think I'm wrong. :lol: You've spent the last several pages trying to argue against the "why" and now you're saying it was never presented. Nicely done. ;)

So, I'd say you should give us some hard core evidence that make your claim not only useful but also possible. I'm afraid your video evidence is not enough here. We need studies about how buildings (construction type a la WTC) behave when they are demolished using explosive on every floor. We need studies on how these buildings behave when you fly a plane into them.Just cause I like saying it: Burden of proof, Ray.

Give me a reliable source that supports (even mentions?) your claim, and that shows me that the WTC (or a similar building) had not come down at free fall speed without explosives. :lol: Prove a negative, eh?

If you don't then I am afraid all that's coming from you is basically "it only can be this way, every other explanation is wrong/unlikely, don't you see this?" Please don't hold it against me that I recognize that your sources don't answer the question even if you do not.

And seriously that does sound like some freaking religious nut.Ooo, please don't turn this into a theism/atheism thread, Ray. Jae doesn't like it when people do that.

Take care.

Ray Jones
06-22-2008, 06:20 PM
I need to provide evidence for skepticism?And yet you do so eagerly pull out evidence supporting your scepticism in any religious debate I have seen you take part in. Are you trying to have it both ways?


Burden of proof, Ray. The official story is that the planes and subsequent fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It's not on me to disprove this story. I have lots of reasons to be skeptical. Thus far I've only focused on the one and no one here has been able to satisfy that.Reasons, Achilles, reasons.

Reasons. :dozey:

You say the official story is wrong because you have reasons?

OK then that's great -- because all I have to say then is *you* are wrong because *I* have reasons. What now?


No it did not. I'll ask you one more time: did you actually read the document, Ray?Of course I did. What's your point?


P.S. As I already point out above, they authors didn't even accurately represent the collapseIt's an article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/) and presents a scientifically correct established model about the physics behind WTC like collapses. It cites a ton of sources, and deals with a great of questions regarding this process and is made by people (read: engineers) who know much about this entire matter in particular.

So as long as you don't specify what about it is wrong, and, more important, why, ideally supported with some sources, your personal denial of it alone means nothing, nada, rien.


Please don't hold it against me that I recognize that your sources don't answer the question even if you do not.Quick to say for someone who has not delivered but one source.


Ooo, please don't turn this into a theism/atheism thread, Ray. Jae doesn't like it when people do that.I'm sure the LF staff is able to take care of my actions pretty well, thank you.



Admit it, Achilles, you have nothing to support your claim. You have delivered no single source about the physics of collapses of building controlled or uncontrolled, or about how the model I presented is wrong, or about how to make a "cross wiring" plane proof. Instead you now go and say the burden of proof is on me. It is not, because at least it is on you to prove that a you can demolish a building at free fall speed using explosives, which you did not until now. And until you can make at least this plausible, your argumentation has the consistence of wet toast at best and you know this, otherwise you would not weasel around providing sources or evidence like you do.

Achilles
06-22-2008, 08:28 PM
If nothing else, we've been able to establish that when you say you're finished, you don't really mean it. :D
And yet you do so eagerly pull out evidence supporting your scepticism in any religious debate I have seen you take part in. Are you trying to have it both ways? Not at all, Ray. As I've pointed out repeatedly, no source has been able to explain how the buildings were able to collapse at nearly free fall speed. I am skeptical of the "official story" because it has yet to put forth a working hypothesis for how this could happen.

At this point, sir, it seems that you're arguing in circles.

Reasons, Achilles, reasons.

Reasons. :dozey:

You say the official story is wrong because you have reasons? Indeed. I think the "official story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened a pretty good reason for doubting it.

OK then that's great -- because all I have to say then is *you* are wrong because *I* have reasons. What now? I suppose we could evaluate each others reasons. I suppose we could look at the evidence and have a discussion about the basis for each others reasons.

Is there some cause for impasse that I am not aware of?

Of course I did. What's your point? Because you seem rather unfamiliar with what it says as evidenced by the fact that it's models don't match yours. So as I stated several posts ago, either you are mistaken or your source is. Which is it?

(hint: this question is not rhetorical).

It's an article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/) and presents a scientifically correct established model about the physics behind WTC like collapses. It cites a ton of sources, and deals with a great of questions regarding this process and is made by people (read: engineers) who know much about this entire matter in particular. Yet it doesn't match the video (and the pictures you sourced). I guess the video (and the pictures) must be wrong then :dozey:

So as long as you don't specify what about it is wrong, and, more important, why, ideally supported with some sources, your personal denial of it alone means nothing, nada, rien. Ray, I've repeatedly invited you to watch the footage. Why do you insist on refusing to do so?

Quick to say for someone who has not delivered but one source. One source for what? That the buildings came down at nearly free fall speed? I've repeatedly invited you to watch the videos with a stop watch. I've provided you with freeware tool to help you calculate the rate of free fall. You stated yourself a few posts ago that you didn't argue that the buildings came down in approximately 10 seconds (even though anyone following this thread can clearly see that you spent several days doing precisely that).

You'll have to do better, sir.

I'm sure the LF staff is able to take care of my actions pretty well, thank you. Just pointing out that Mama Jae no likey.

Admit it, Achilles, you have nothing to support your claim. You have delivered no single source about the physics of collapses of building controlled or uncontrolled, or about how the model I presented is wrong, or about how to make a "cross wiring" plane proof. Instead you now go and say the burden of proof is on me. It is not, because at least it is on you to prove that a you can demolish a building at free fall speed using explosives, which you did not until now. And until you can make at least this plausible, your argumentation has the consistence of wet toast at best and you know this, otherwise you would not weasel around providing sources or evidence like you do.The rules regarding burden of proof haven't changed since my last post, Ray. So long as you continue to support the official story, the burden of proof is on you to support it. I've already provided my reasons for doubting it (which is not the same thing as making a claim). You're free to present as many sources to support your argument as you would like, however until one of them provides a plausible explanation for how the buildings could have come down at nearly free fall speed (and matches the evidence that we do have) I am under no obligation to roll over and accept any of them as gospel.

Ray Jones
06-23-2008, 06:02 AM
If nothing else, we've been able to establish that when you say you're finished, you don't really mean it. I said I am done laying out my points, which is true, since I can't remember extending my argumentation in any way. I can't remember saying I'll stay out of this thread as well. As you might notice this is not so much about the thread's topic but about the way you put your "arguments" regarding it.

Be assured, I say it, I mean it. :dozey:


Not at all, Ray. As I've pointed out repeatedly, no source has been able to explain how the buildings were able to collapse at nearly free fall speed. I am skeptical of the "official story" because it has yet to put forth a working hypothesis for how this could happen.Poppycock. You're sceptical of both (religion & WTC) official stories, and while you provide tons of evidence to support one scepticism with no end, you refuse to provide something useful supporting the other. Thus you are trying to have it both ways.


Indeed. I think the "official story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened a pretty good reason for doubting it.I'd on the other hand say that your "unofficial story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened is a good reason to doubt it.


I suppose we could evaluate each others reasons. I suppose we could look at the evidence and have a discussion about the basis for each others reasons.

Is there some cause for impasse that I am not aware of?Your source/evidence please? To say "just look at the video it takes 10 seconds" is only evidence it took those 10 seconds, a fact we are both clear about already.

I already delivered a qualified document giving a plausible, physically correct model that shows involvement of explosives is not necessary for the event as it took place.

Yes, yes, we all know, 10 seconds, free fall equivalent, rana, rana, rana. I think we have established that.

Maybe you want to provide something that makes it plausible how those 10 seconds and the whole scenery of the incident, and even the free fall analogy inevitably point us towards the use of explosives. And by "providing" I do not mean that you now cant another "if you drop a ball..." or "the video shows..."

I want something that stands against the document I linked to, ideally it should once for all render it's content utter nonsense.


Because you seem rather unfamiliar with what it says as evidenced by the fact that it's models don't match yours. So as I stated several posts ago, either you are mistaken or your source is. Which is it?What doesn't match? The fact that I put a simplified version of it? Saying they don't match is not enough I'm afraid. Point out what you're having difficulties with to abstract, and I'm more than willing to clarify. However since you continuously refuse to specify what your concerns are I have reasons to doubt there are any incompatibilities/uncertainties and assume you're just trying to cover the fact that you are unable to rebut using foul tactics once more.


Yet it doesn't match the video (and the pictures you sourced). I guess the video (and the pictures) must be wrong thenAgain, what doesn't match? The pictures show clearly that the top part crashed down the way the document describes. Please, don't let this get so silly that I have to gpaint the obvious into those pictures.


One source for what? That the buildings came down at nearly free fall speed? I've repeatedly invited you to watch the videos with a stop watch. I've provided you with freeware tool to help you calculate the rate of free fall. You stated yourself a few posts ago that you didn't argue that the buildings came down in approximately 10 seconds (even though anyone following this thread can clearly see that you spent several days doing precisely that). I said more than once and pretty clear what kind of source you'll have to provide. I'm *not* going to repeat this but once more.


The rules regarding burden of proof haven't changed since my last post, Ray. So long as you continue to support the official story, the burden of proof is on you to support it.So far, I've have yet to state something like that.

If I remember correctly I merely tried to give you some clue about how the WTC could come down in 10 seconds without the use of explosives, nothing else.


You're free to present as many sources to support your argument as you would like, however until one of them provides a plausible explanation for how the buildings could have come down at nearly free fall speed (and matches the evidence that we do have)Have you provided a plausible explanation how the only possible explanation is the use of explosives?
No.





Achilles, due to the fact that you refuse to underline your argumentation with some evidence/source/material so inherently, I reckon you either have no source or are not willing to provide one, burden of proof or any of your silly attempts to weasel out put aside.

I mean, that kind of proof coming from your side could have ended this discussion pages ago, and it would be only in your interest, so why bother us with burden of proof crap? That's right - again - you either have no source or are not willing to provide one.

Whatever it is, it does not support your argumentation that the only possible explanation for the WTC to collapse in this time frame is the use of explosives, thus all you have offered is your opinion and personal interpretation of facts, which is not enough, as you have stated so often in the countless threads (here and in the Chambers) you participated in.

You continuously refuse to give substance to your arguments, and are rather repeating yourself, and, even worse, make me repeat myself over and over again. Furthermore you chose to deny the credibility of my sources, but cannot or are not willing to underline in a constructive manner how you came to that conclusion. Simply saying so is something you would not accept as well (as you have also stated that in the threads you participated in).

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.

Finally, should you continue to babble about burden of proof, sandbagging others to repeat themselves in every other post or use any other of your questionable strategies (which we all know so well now) with the more than obvious goal *not* to add the necessary substance to your argumentation within the next post, I'll more than happily file a closure request for this thread to Mama Jae as it currently gets more silly every time you post.

Jae Onasi
06-23-2008, 09:17 AM
Mama Jae's standard comment on religion: Religious discussions belong in the relevant religion threads. Thanks.

Achilles, if you're only arguing that the official report does not answer all the questions, then the burden of proof is on the gov't officials who wrote the report. However, you're also making the allegation that only explosives could bring down the WTC. In that case, you/the conspiracy people do have a burden of proof. Any criminal investigation would require proof of explosives to support that claim. The pile of rubble is still out in whatever dump NYC took it to--finding 40-odd floors' worth of explosive residue (assuming every other floor was wired) shouldn't be too hard if it's true. Speculation and analysis of the video is all well and good, but without the physical forensic evidence, it's still just speculation. If conspiracy folks want the explosive theory taken seriously, finding significant amounts of that residue would be the best and most damning evidence. They haven't been able to do that in almost 7 years.

KinchyB
06-23-2008, 11:39 AM
Achilles, Ray...and everyone else I suppose

Ummm...isn't this whole thread kind of the point? No stories really have enough evidence to support what took place. You have the "explosions" theory which more accurately would account for the way the buildings fell. Then there is the fire weakening the building theory, however, science seems to contradict this explanation as the fire shouldn't have technically made the buildings fall the way they did.

Personally, I think a giant penguin organized the whole thing to try and stop global warming. You can't prove me wrong as maybe the Giant Penguin was working with the terrorists...or maybe...Bin Laden is a Giant Penguin!! Bet no one thought of that now did you?! And, best of, this is a valid theory as no one can prove a giant penguin wasn't involved. :xp:

Quite honestly...I really don't care how the buildings fell. The simple fact of the matter is that they did, whether it's by plane or maybe a deeper plot by terrorists than anyone is willing to admit...Who knows...but the end result is the same. Over 3000 people lost their lives and in some strange way this got wrapped up into thousands more people losing their lives in Iraq. It's an unfortunate tragedy and that's how it will be remembered.

P.S. - My last post was more of a question than a statement, so if anyone has a link to a better video of the event, it would be appreciated. Thx!

Achilles
06-23-2008, 02:03 PM
Poppycock. You're sceptical of both (religion & WTC) official stories, Correction: I'm skeptical of all the hypothesis, as none of them have the complete story. There are some aspects of the various explanations that deserve more skepticism than others.

and while you provide tons of evidence to support one scepticism with no end, you refuse to provide something useful supporting the other. Thus you are trying to have it both ways. Huh? Is the former comment a reference to religion? I've provided "evidence"? Or do you mean to say I've presented arguments?

Because I will contend that I've been pretty consistent with the latter.

I'd on the other hand say that your "unofficial story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened is a good reason to doubt it. Burden of proof, Ray.

Your source/evidence please? To say "just look at the video it takes 10 seconds" is only evidence it took those 10 seconds, a fact we are both clear about already. Okay, so we both agree that the building came down at nearly free fall speed. Now let's have a discussion as to why/how this happened.

I'm assuming that you're going to want to go with the progressive collapse story, however I'm going to point out that progressive collapse should have taken significantly longer than ~10 seconds because progressive collapse would imply that parts of the building would have encountered resistance from the floors below as they fell. The fact that they fell at nearly free fall speed means that there was no resistance (the alternate theory, which you're welcome to present evience for, is that resistance was present and that the various building parts were therefore propelled downwards, thereby making up the "lost time").

I already delivered a qualified document giving a plausible, physically correct model that shows involvement of explosives is not necessary for the event as it took place. No you didn't, Ray. The document you provided explained a collapse scenario that doesn't match any of the video evidence or the pictures you yourself posted. You've already asserted that you read the document (after I asked twice), so now I'm left to wonder if you understood what it said.

Yes, yes, we all know, 10 seconds, free fall equivalent, rana, rana, rana. I think we have established that. Thank goodness for that.

Maybe you want to provide something that makes it plausible how those 10 seconds and the whole scenery of the incident, and even the free fall analogy inevitably point us towards the use of explosives. And by "providing" I do not mean that you now cant another "if you drop a ball..." or "the video shows..." Ray, it's physics man. I thought we were past the point that you wanted to debate physics.

Nearly free fall is nearly free fall.

I want something that stands against the document I linked to, ideally it should once for all render it's content utter nonsense.How about the fact that the collapse hypothesis it suggests doesn't match the video or photographic evidence.

Going back to your MS Paint scenario, it suggests that "Collapse B" happened last. You suggest that "Collapse B" happen simultaneously (which made me ask if you read the document). The video evidence show that "Collapse B" happened first (which made me ask why you're arguing something you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about).

Therefore the document that you provided is garbage because it tries to explain a collapse that didn't happen. That means it's not useful.

What doesn't match? The fact that I put a simplified version of it? Saying they don't match is not enough I'm afraid. Point out what you're having difficulties with to abstract, and I'm more than willing to clarify. However since you continuously refuse to specify what your concerns are I have reasons to doubt there are any incompatibilities/uncertainties and assume you're just trying to cover the fact that you are unable to rebut using foul tactics once more. The fact that you and your source provide differing collapse scenarios. Generally, when things aren't the same, we consider them to be different or we say that they "don't match". I hope that helps.

Again, what doesn't match? The pictures show clearly that the top part crashed down the way the document describes. Please, don't let this get so silly that I have to gpaint the obvious into those pictures. No, it doesn't. I now have no choice other than to believe that your previous assertion that you read the document is not true.

I said more than once and pretty clear what kind of source you'll have to provide. I'm *not* going to repeat this but once more. Good news is that you don't have to repeat it at all :)

So far, I've have yet to state something like that. :dozey:

All those links and posts weren't yours, huh? Someone else posting from your account? You should have someone look into that for you.

If I remember correctly I merely tried to give you some clue about how the WTC could come down in 10 seconds without the use of explosives, nothing else.Let me know when you get around to doing so.

Have you provided a plausible explanation how the only possible explanation is the use of explosives?
No. Burden of proof, Ray.


Achilles, due to the fact that you refuse to underline your argumentation with some evidence/source/material so inherently, I reckon you either have no source or are not willing to provide one, burden of proof or any of your silly attempts to weasel out put aside. Burden of proof requires a claim, Ray. Skepticism isn't a claim (as I've pointed out about three times now).

I mean, that kind of proof coming from your side could have ended this discussion pages ago, and it would be only in your interest, so why bother us with burden of proof crap? That's right - again - you either have no source or are not willing to provide one. Proof/source for what? That the buildings came down a nearly free fall speed? You keep saying that you aren't contesting this, but then you turn around and bring it up again.

Whatever it is, it does not support your argumentation that the only possible explanation for the WTC to collapse in this time frame is the use of explosives, thus all you have offered is your opinion and personal interpretation of facts, which is not enough, as you have stated so often in the countless threads (here and in the Chambers) you participated in.What I've offered, Ray, is my skepticism of the "offical story" on the basis that it doesn't match reality. This is the same "argumentation" that I've used here and in the Chambers. Perhaps it isn't me that's being inconsistent in their reasoning.

You continuously refuse to give substance to your arguments, and are rather repeating yourself, and, even worse, make me repeat myself over and over again. Furthermore you chose to deny the credibility of my sources, but cannot or are not willing to underline in a constructive manner how you came to that conclusion. Simply saying so is something you would not accept as well (as you have also stated that in the threads you participated in). My apologies for assuming that you actually read the source you provided. I attempted several times to verify this with you, however you ignored my first few tries. Now that it is obvious that you did not, I understand your confusion. I've offered my explanation above. I hope that you find it helpful.

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue. Please direct me to the post where I asserted this.
(anyone offering odds that this part of my post is ignored in subsequent responses?)

Finally, should you continue to babble about burden of proof, sandbagging others to repeat themselves in every other post or use any other of your questionable strategies (which we all know so well now) with the more than obvious goal *not* to add the necessary substance to your argumentation within the next post, I'll more than happily file a closure request for this thread to Mama Jae as it currently gets more silly every time you post.I'm sorry you feel as though you're being sandbagged, Ray. Having participated in many debates in which you actually took the time to understand the subject matter first, I'm sure that you're aware that people that get "sandbagged" generally do it to themselves a vast majority of the time.

As far as the rest goes, feel free to do whatever you feel you have to.

"If you can't beat 'em, get the thread closed" :D

Achilles, if you're only arguing that the official report does not answer all the questions, then the burden of proof is on the gov't officials who wrote the report. Correct, or anyone offering that claim as an explanation.

However, you're also making the allegation that only explosives could bring down the WTC. Really? Where?

I certainly do think that the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction, however without the complete story, a better understanding of chemistry, and/or a certification in demolitions, I certainly wouldn't try to argue that position as my own.

In that case, you/the conspiracy people do have a burden of proof. Indeed, the people putting forth specific claims certainly do have the burden of proof. "Official story" skeptics are under no such obligation though.

Any criminal investigation would require proof of explosives to support that claim. Indeed. And once evidence that supports that claim was provided, then party defending the official story would be responsible for counter-arguing the claim or accepting it (assuming that the evidence was reasonably persuasive).

I'd be more than happy to discuss what evidence is available, however it seems as though the discussion is still stuck on this first point. There is nothing to be gained by introducing other parts of the argument until this one has been resolved.

The pile of rubble is still out in whatever dump NYC took it to-- You mean "China"? That's where we shipped the steel to...for recycling. FEMA hung on to about 200 beams for their examination, and it just so happens that some people argue that they have explosive residue on them.

finding 40-odd floors' worth of explosive residue (assuming every other floor was wired) shouldn't be too hard if it's true. Indeed and are you quite certain that none was found?

Speculation and analysis of the video is all well and good, but without the physical forensic evidence, it's still just speculation. :)

If conspiracy folks want the explosive theory taken seriously, finding significant amounts of that residue would be the best and most damning evidence. They haven't been able to do that in almost 7 years.Again, are you quite certain of this?

Thanks for reading.

Quite honestly...I really don't care how the buildings fell. I disagree. I think how (why?) they fell is incredibly important.

If it was the result of a fire, then we have a major public safety issue on our hands that has been known about and ignored for the past (almost) 7 years.

If it was the result of explosives then we need to investigate how they got there and bring the people responsible to justice. If those people are from within our own government, then I think that's indicative of a much bigger problem.

KinchyB
06-23-2008, 02:25 PM
FEMA hung on to about 200 beams for their examination, and it just so happens that some people argue that they have explosive residue on them.

Explosive Residue on Beam (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml)

FWIW...google...Dr. Jones Explosive Residue... several articles and pieces of info will come up.

NIST report advising that they did not test for what Dr. Jones found in the steel. NIST Report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) (do a search for "Residue" in the document.)

Nedak
06-23-2008, 05:02 PM
Achilles, Ray...and everyone else I suppose
Personally, I think a giant penguin organized the whole thing to try and stop global warming.


Thank god! I thought I was the only one...

CIA intelligence leaked this to the media...

Here you can clearly see what looks like a terrorist penguin. This is what we believe to be Osama Binladin.

No wonder we can't find him!

http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/happyfeet_terrorist.jpg

Achilles
06-23-2008, 05:14 PM
Ah...UBL was a covert eco-terrorist secretly trained by Greenpeace?! It all makes sense now.

Thanks you two. :)

Ray Jones
06-23-2008, 06:16 PM
Links for 9/11 Research (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

"In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST
investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be
unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further
analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This
paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were
of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive
collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the
“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence." (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)

Collapse versus Demolition: Burden of Proof

Mr. Hoffman next addresses the burden of proof, responding to the author’s charge (on
page 4 of this whitepaper, and again on page 136) that Dr. Griffin has failed to provide
any coherent hypothesis of his “controlled demolition” ideas. He begins by indulging in
red herring:
Griffin has no more failed to identify a controlled demolition theory than NIST has failed to
identify a collapse theory. In their most general forms, the collapse hypothesis and the demolition
hypothesis encompass two mutually-exclusive accounts of the destruction of the Twin Towers,
where each has many possible detailed scenarios.
This reasoning is invalid – NIST’s performance, or lack thereof, does not absolve Dr.
Griffin of his own burden of proof. Whoever advances a theory must support it,
regardless of what other teams may produce. Additionally, the premise of this reasoning
is not accurate. While it is true that NIST largely assumed that structural collapse after
initiation would be total, NIST provided an extremely detailed and quantified pair of
hypotheses (one for each Tower, with subtle but important differences) for the causes and
early stages of the collapses, in accordance with NIST’s mandate.
Furthermore, NIST’s assumption about the likelihood of progressive collapse was based
on the published work of others, such as Dr. Bazant [21] (N.B.: Mr. Hoffman rejects Dr.
Bazant’s calculations without just cause, as we will examine again below). Taken in
total, NIST and the scientific community have indeed provided a complete collapse
theory – several, in fact, if we compare differences between such models as Dr. Bazant’s
[21] and Dr. Seffen’s [285]. In like fashion Dr. Griffin would be perfectly within his
rights to cite published theories of a WTC controlled demolition, rather than producing an
entire theory on his own. However, he has not provided this, nor are there any such
theories to be found anywhere in published literature. We are left to guess about the
details of Dr. Griffin’s hypothesis, whereas NIST’s hypothesis is detailed enough to
permit independent analysis, such as those from Arup and Purdue. The two situations are
therefore not comparable, and Mr. Hoffman’s excuse is insufficient.



the free fall fallacy (http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm)
the collapse (http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm)

http://debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg

Achilles
06-23-2008, 07:01 PM
Links for 9/11 Research (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home) Yes, I'm familiar with it. Which part did you feel was particularly helpful to your argument (assuming that you read this one this time)?

"In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST
investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be
unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further
analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This
paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were
of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive
collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the
“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence." (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf) Is this as far as you made it?

the free fall fallacy (http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm) The first line: "The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…"

Oh, so they fell faster than free fall? :lol:

"Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground."

Well which is it? Faster or not faster?

I'm glad the site was able to thoroughly discipline the straw man of "free fall speed", but nothing here seems to address the actual argument of "near free fall speed".

(hint: we already knew that free fall wasn't possible because the building didn't collapse in a vaccum, but maybe the intended audience wouldn't know the difference)

This is my favorite part:

"Below are calculations from a physics blogger..." :D

Hey Ray, does this mean we're debating the ~10 seconds thing again? I can't keep track and I don't want to post a bunch of counter-sources just to find out that you "aren't" debating it again.

Thanks in advance.


the collapse (http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm)

*photo of "sagging trusses"*

Interesting that the trusses don't actually align that way. ;) (they would be running perpendicular to the direction suggested in the picture).

*other picutures*

"Here's what it looked like when it started to fall. Here's what it looked like afterwards. What happened in between? Oh, don't worry about that. It complicated.".


*pictures and reference to Nova's simulation*

Anyone wanna play "Guess What's Missing"?

(Hint: the entire outside of the building)

That one was too easy. Let's play "Guess What's Still Standing After the Simulation".

(Hint: the intact core columns)

It's too bad that's just a pic and not an actual video of the simulation. Then we could all see that it took nearly 9 seconds just to get a few of the floors to collapse (with no external columns and the core columns intact). I wonder if the authors of your source considered that when they posted the pic rather than the vid. Hmmm...

*skip over a bunch of pics that aren't loaded*

"Below is another interesting photo. It shows the perimeter columns laid out as if they simply tilted over. The only explanation is that the floors went straight down and the unsupported perimeter columns pivoted over in large sections."

<snip>

"The last piece of evidence is the standing perimeter columns. You can see what's left of the steel plates which hold the floors up. The tremendous weight stripped them off as the floors were on their way down."

Love this. Both laying and standing columns support their claim. That's awesome.

Do you have any more sources, Ray?

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.Please direct me to the post where I asserted this.
(anyone offering odds that this part of my post is ignored in subsequent responses?) No takers, Ray. Apparently the betting community didn't think you were going to come through either :(

Jae Onasi
06-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Explosive Residue on Beam (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml)

FWIW...google...Dr. Jones Explosive Residue... several articles and pieces of info will come up.


Anyone can post to this site without going through an editor first (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml). You can tell by Hamblin's misspelling, too. I did a search on Hamblin himself, and as far as I can tell in a relatively short search, this is the only piece he's written, i.e. he's not a journalist. His story quotes an article written by Dr. Jones in the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies', which says it's peer-reviewed. However, it is not 'peer-reviewed' in the typical sense of other academic journals. It's 'peer-reviewed' by people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad, but it's certainly biased since it's not peer-reviewed by a decent cross-section of scientists in that field. They're pretty much publishing whatever they want and calling it 'peer-reviewed' since they pretty much agree with each other. I could put together an eye journal with a few of my colleagues and call it peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean it would be taken seriously in the rest of the academic community.

@Achilles--and this is not meant to be snarky in the least, I'm asking seriously--if you have no intention of defending the explosives conspiracy, then why do you keep bringing it up?

As for the idea of explosives--if there were 40+ floors' worth of explosives, I'm sure the residue would be all over the place, not just the steel beams. If there was significant proof of that much residue, why hasn't it been brought to light? I will not completely rule out materials that could create explosions being present, because it would not surprise me in the least if the maintenance guys had stuff in their department like blowtorches and other flammable materials. However, there's been nothing brought to light describing the amount of residue required to explain building demolition.

Achilles
06-23-2008, 08:00 PM
@Achilles--and this is not meant to be snarky in the least, I'm asking seriously--if you have no intention of defending the explosives conspiracy, then why do you keep bringing it up?I guess we'd have to clarify what you mean by "keep bringing it up". My last reference to them was in post #157, which I posted 3 days ago.

As for the idea of explosives--if there were 40+ floors' worth of explosives, I'm sure the residue would be all over the place, not just the steel beams. This is why I didn't want to bring it up. Now we're going to spend the next week arguing this and ignore the physics (which no one can adequately explain). It would have been nice to resolve one part of the debate before moving on to the next :(

Dust analysis (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html)
Thermite residues (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html)

If there was significant proof of that much residue, why hasn't it been brought to light? By whom? The EPA? Perhaps you'll recall that they just got raked over the coals for the last several weeks over accusations of cronyism.

The people that are trying to bring it to light are being arbitrarily dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" by people that refuse to listen to what they have to say. You can't have it both ways Jae. You can't kill the messenger and then complain that no one is trying to tell you.

I will not completely rule out materials that could create explosions being present, because it would not surprise me in the least if the maintenance guys had stuff in their department like blowtorches and other flammable materials. Indeed. An argument that I agreed with way back on the first or second page. As I've stated repeatedly, I am skeptical of all claims because no one has the whole story. Likewise, you should be skeptical of the "official story" because you can't rule out that explosives weren't used.

However, there's been nothing brought to light describing the amount of residue required to explain building demolition.I'm not sure I follow this part of your post. Could you please clarify what you meant? Thank you.

KinchyB
06-23-2008, 08:55 PM
Anyone can post to this site without going through an editor first (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml). You can tell by Hamblin's misspelling, too. I did a search on Hamblin himself, and as far as I can tell in a relatively short search, this is the only piece he's written, i.e. he's not a journalist.

This is pretty much irrelevant since I was referring to the work of Dr. Jones, hence the information about what to look for. This was just one example of many...

His story quotes an article written by Dr. Jones in the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies', which says it's peer-reviewed. However, it is not 'peer-reviewed' in the typical sense of other academic journals. It's 'peer-reviewed' by people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad, but it's certainly biased since it's not peer-reviewed by a decent cross-section of scientists in that field.

Gotta love the irony...someone with bias trying to discount other people using bias as an argument. :) If you truly want to discount the peer review status how about some resumes and background on those who peer reviewed the work instead. If you have some additional information that led you to this conclusion maybe it could actually sway the argument...

Also, if we are looking at peer reviews we have to completely discount the NIST report as it is not peer reviewed...

Achilles
06-23-2008, 10:34 PM
Apparently these guys (and gals) feel confident enough in their process to encourage submission to mainstream journals.

Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/)

While I'm certainly not going to roll over for some letters after their names, I do think this shows that we're not just dealing with some bored kids with a lap top and too much free time.

Jae Onasi
06-24-2008, 01:50 AM
Mainlining journal, maybe, but hardly mainstream. :lol:

Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community, as I mentioned just 3 posts up. It certainly is not a mainstream journal. It was started by a group of conspiracy theorists only 2 years ago, and they're 'peer-reviewing' their own stuff--that's hardly unbiased and certainly does not meet the same academic rigors that articles in real mainstream journals receive. Just because it says 'Journal of X' doesn't make it reliable if the rest of the academic community for that particular field is not also reviewing the material. My bias is irrelevant in this case--that particular journal would be biased even if I agreed 100% with them. We have that sort of thing going on in medicine, too--there are some 'journals' out there that are doing 'science' on really fringy stuff, and the people who started them are reviewing the work of like-minded colleagues and calling it 'peer-reviewed' to give it the appearance of greater credibility. If the Journal of 9/11 Studies had articles peer-reviewed from a variety of scientists in the relevant fields, not just their own hand-picked conspiracy-theory buddies, I'd take it more seriously. As it is, it really should be called "Journal of Conspiracy Theory" rather than "Journal of 9/11 Studies", because that's exactly what it is.

Kinchy--The NIST and FEMA reports are not scientific articles, they're gov't reports. They do need to meet certain criteria, yes, but reports on something of this magnitude can't go through the exact same process because of the sheer scope of the project. There is no "Journal of What Happens to Skyscrapers After Planes Crash Into Them". Engineers and physicists handled the engineering parts, crash experts had to handle the effects of the plane crash itself, chemists and chemical engineers had to handle the discussions about combustible materials and the behavior of steel at given temperatures, etc. There were no scientists prior to 9/11 who had devoted their lives entirely to studying the behaviors of skyscrapers after planes crash into them. Scientists did contribute in their particular area of expertise and reviewed those sections later, and the reports themselves have certainly received a great deal of scrutiny since their publication.

Achilles--I don't discount the conspiracy theory 100%, because as windu6 would say, "Anything is possible!!!"
However, the evidence seems to fit the standard theory better at this point.

This is why I didn't want to bring it up. Now we're going to spend the next week arguing this and ignore the physics (which no one can adequately explain). It would have been nice to resolve one part of the debate before moving on to the next.We could probably argue that point until cows crap ice cream and get nowhere close to any resolution of the physics, which you've noted already no one can adequately explain. It's going to take years for scientists to work through all the multiple variables and none of us here has the physics or engineering expertise to address that. The evidence and what I know about physics, having studied 3 years of general physics to go along with the 2 years of grad-level optics and physics of light, tell me that while the current model leaves a number of issues unresolved, it still works better at this time than the conspiracy of planted explosives. If someone comes up with a better model or comes up with new evidence that substantially changes the current working theories, great, we'll move on to that. I'm fine with saying 'there's no agreement on this point' and bifurcating on to another aspect of this case.

The page on the dust analysis doesn't get my panties in knots. If there were any kind of medical or dental offices on site, particularly any x-ray equipment or other radiological equipment, or any other scientific/engineering offices that handled radioactive materials, that could easily explain the radioactive particles. This page also notes that there's no way to distinguish whether this was different from the normal background radiation present all the time. The nice list of organic chemicals can all come as byproducts of burning plastics and other chemical reactions that happen at high heat. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and the related dibenzofurans can come from burning PVC and other plastics (like computer cases, among many other things). Many of these chemicals can be created by burning furniture, especially the foam inside sofas and stuffed chairs (or airplane seats). Cleaning solvents can react at high temperatures and pressures to produce toxic chemicals like those listed on that page, as well. I would expect to see dust contaminated with combustible materials--a plane loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings and burned, after all. I'd be very concerned if we didn't find evidence of combustibles.

Thermite and explosives can explain the dust components, however, everyday items could also explain those components, too. The presence of those chemicals does not automatically mean thermite was present.

Regarding the thermite page--barium is used very often in radiology, and there was at least 1 medical office in the WTC 1. There was a Kodak imaging center in WTC 2 where a variety of chemicals undoubtedly were housed. Aluminum? The planes had a lot of aluminum in them, and anyone with Reynolds foil wrap has aluminum sitting around. Iron is used in making steel and a lot of pipes, so no surprise to see that in the dust. Sulfur is easily found in great quantities in calcium sulfate (i.e. gypsum) which is used to make drywall. Normal burning temperatures might not be able to create some of the compounds or spheres, however, dramatically increasing the pressure (as would happen with the weight of a skyscraper collapsing on itself) would also drive the temperature up (physics formula p1V1/T1=p2V2/T2), and given the enormous pressure could theoretically melt a number of metals that wouldn't normally melt at normal pressures. The iron-rich and aluminosilicate spheres can also be found in [url=http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/979#FIG4]the flyash from burning coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins). Zinc is extremely common--it's in all our coins, diecasting, galvanized steel, parts of batteries, and is a white pigment in paint (and likely on many of the walls in the WTC).

All these chemicals are found in thermite? Absolutely. All these chemicals can be found in normal everyday life, like painted drywall, galvanized steel and steel alloys, too? Absolutely.

Achilles
06-24-2008, 04:06 AM
Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community, as I mentioned just 3 posts up.Finger on the pulse, eh?

It certainly is not a mainstream journal. Indeed it is not, however as I mentioned 1 post up, they do appear to be confident enough in their process to encourage contributors to submit to mainstream journals as well.

It was started by a group of conspiracy theorists only 2 years ago, and they're 'peer-reviewing' their own stuff--that's hardly unbiased and certainly does not meet the same academic rigors that articles in real mainstream journals receive. Considering that all of these people were "lettered" prior to 9/11, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are plenty familiar with "the academic rigors of mainstream journals". Hence why I find it significant that they feel that as though their articles are up to the test.

Just because it says 'Journal of X' doesn't make it reliable if the rest of the academic community for that particular field is not also reviewing the material. Right, hence the part about submitting to mainstream journals.

If the Journal of 9/11 Studies had articles peer-reviewed from a variety of scientists in the relevant fields, not just their own hand-picked conspiracy-theory buddies, I'd take it more seriously. *debates trying to make the point one more time*

You're right, Jae. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. Maybe they should consider it.

As it is, it really should be called "Journal of Conspiracy Theory" rather than "Journal of 9/11 Studies", because that's exactly what it is.Yes, and you're clearly in a position to judge being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. :)

Achilles--I don't discount the conspiracy theory 100%, because as windu6 would say, "Anything is possible!!!"
However, the evidence seems to fit the standard theory better at this point. Really, Jae. Both you and Ray have been sing-songing that point for several pages now but have yet to produce a single source that matches the evidence that we do have and in some cases, have presented materials that contradict your own arguments.

Repeating something doesn't make it true, Jae.

We could probably argue that point until cows crap ice cream and get nowhere close to any resolution of the physics, which you've noted already no one can adequately explain. Yet you'll argue the evidence fits your notions better. This is not intellectual rigor.

It's going to take years for scientists to work through all the multiple variables and none of us here has the physics or engineering expertise to address that. That's fine. I'm more than happy to accept a source that does, even if the arguments are not your own. Can you produce one or not? If not, then I think it's pretty obvious that you've accepted a conclusion without any evidence. Now where have we heard that before?

The evidence and what I know about physics, having studied 3 years of general physics to go along with the 2 years of grad-level optics and physics of light, tell me that while the current model leaves a number of issues unresolved, it still works better at this time than the conspiracy of planted explosives.This isn't an argument. This is your endorsement of your own opinion.

If someone comes up with a better model or comes up with new evidence that substantially changes the current working theories, great, we'll move on to that. First, there is no "current model" that a "better model" can replace. Second, the hypothesis we do have don't match the evidence, therefore they are worthless. Third, therefore you've arbitrarily decided to accept one opinion over another with absolutely no evidence to support your choice.

You're, of course, free to do whatever you'd like, but I think it would help the "honesty factor" of the thread if we could stop pretending that what we have is more than it really is.

I'm fine with saying 'there's no agreement on this point' and bifurcating on to another aspect of this case. This, too, sounds familiar.


deleted off-topic comment on panties due to member complaint --Jae

If there were any kind of medical or dental offices on site, particularly any x-ray equipment or other radiological equipment, or any other scientific/engineering offices that handled radioactive materials, that could easily explain the radioactive particles. Yes, in the World Trade Center. I'm sure that you could find a listing of tenets somewhere on the web. Would you care to do a little research and perhaps replace your speculation with some actual data? It sure would go a long way toward strengthening your argument.

This page also notes that there's no way to distinguish whether this was different from the normal background radiation present all the time. Hmmm, that little bit of intellectual integrity must have somehow slipped past the obviously-defunct peer-review process. I'm sure it was a mistake.

The nice list of organic chemicals can all come as byproducts of burning plastics and other chemical reactions that happen at high heat. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and the related dibenzofurans can come from burning PVC and other plastics (like computer cases, among many other things). Many of these chemicals can be created by burning furniture, especially the foam inside sofas and stuffed chairs (or airplane seats). Cleaning solvents can react at high temperatures and pressures to produce toxic chemicals like those listed on that page, as well. I would expect to see dust contaminated with combustible materials--a plane loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings and burned, after all. I'd be very concerned if we didn't find evidence of combustibles. I'm waiting for the part where you rule out explosives based on the evidence.

Thermite and explosives can explain the dust components, however, everyday items could also explain those components, too. The presence of those chemicals does not automatically mean thermite was present. I'll take this to mean that you won't be ruling out explosives in this post?

Regarding the thermite page--barium is used very often in radiology, and there was at least 1 medical office in the WTC 1. The source indicates that there was a high amount of barium. Please address that.

Aluminum? The planes had a lot of aluminum in them, and anyone with Reynolds foil wrap has aluminum sitting around. Indeed.

Iron is used in making steel and a lot of pipes, so no surprise to see that in the dust. Iron and steel are not the same thing. Extra carbon is added to iron to make steel, so finding high amounts of iron isn't a given.

Sulfur is easily found in great quantities in calcium sulfate (i.e. gypsum) which is used to make drywall. Normal burning temperatures might not be able to create some of the compounds or spheres, however, dramatically increasing the pressure (as would happen with the weight of a skyscraper collapsing on itself) would also drive the temperature up (physics formula p1V1/T1=p2V2/T2), and given the enormous pressure could theoretically melt a number of metals that wouldn't normally melt at normal pressures. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't anything the weight of this building can't do. It can pulverize concrete (which take quite a bit of energy to do, so there's some of that right there). It can snap throught thousands of bolts and welds, causing the floors to collapse at a rate that makes it seems as though they aren't even there (which would also take up quite a bit of that energy). It can create such tremendous pressure that it can cause large amounts of steel to become so pressurized that it undergoes a chemical change (I imagine that also takes some energy). It can project steel beams hundreds of feet outward, lodging them in surrounding buildings. And it does all this simultaneously. At some point you'd think the law of conservation of energy would kick in, but it doesn't. It almost seems too much to believe.

The iron-rich and aluminosilicate spheres can also be found in [url=http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/979#FIG4]the flyash from burning coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins).Was a lot of coal stored in either of the WTC towers?

Zinc is extremely common--it's in all our coins, diecasting, galvanized steel, parts of batteries, and is a white pigment in paint (and likely on many of the walls in the WTC). You know, part of me wonders if they thought of all this when they said "high amounts". :)

All these chemicals are found in thermite? Absolutely. All these chemicals can be found in normal everyday life, like painted drywall, galvanized steel and steel alloys, too? Absolutely.So again, no ruling out in this post then?

Thanks for your response.

Jae Onasi
06-24-2008, 11:02 AM
Finger on the pulse, eh?Recognize a flake journal when I see it.

Indeed it is not, however as I mentioned 1 post up, they do appear to be confident enough in their process to encourage contributors to submit to mainstream journals as well.Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then.

Considering that all of these people were "lettered" prior to 9/11, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are plenty familiar with "the academic rigors of mainstream journals". Hence why I find it significant that they feel that as though their articles are up to the test. I'm sure they know how to write a scientific article. I'd like to see them submit it through the mainstream peer-review process now.


You're right, Jae. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. Maybe they should consider it.You're right, Achilles. It certainly would be fantastic if other journals had a chance to review their stuff. But since they know the likelihood of getting published in those mainstream journals is low, they just decided to make up their own journal instead.

Yes, and you're clearly in a position to judge being completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. :) Oh, my mistake then. The subject matter isn't about 9/11 or their conspiracy theories. Of course.

Really, Jae. Both you and Ray have been sing-songing that point for several pages now but have yet to produce a single source that matches the evidence that we do have and in some cases, have presented materials that contradict your own arguments.There are plenty of sources, links, sites, and papers that have been presented that support the prevailing theory. Bazant's paper is very compelling in showing WTC collapse does not require explosives. You have not explained what you find objectionable in that paper, yet you label it as 'not matching the evidence'. Do you always do that when a source doesn't agree with your theory?

Repeating something doesn't make it true, Jae.Repeating something in different ways is what I often do with patients to make sure they fully understand what I'm trying to get across to them. Sometimes it looks like you're not on the same track as I am so I feel the need to clarify. Sometimes it's just me being repetitive.

Yet you'll argue the evidence fits your notions better. This is not intellectual rigor. Show me how Bazant's paper is wrong, then. Show me that it's impossible for multiple floors to separate from the columns at the same time when the columns bowed or broke off in large sections, and that it's impossible for several floors to be falling at the same time before landing on ones below. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen show large, irregularly shaped chunks of the outer columns failing right before floor collapse.

That's fine. I'm more than happy to accept a source that does, even if the arguments are not your own. Can you produce one or not? If not, then I think it's pretty obvious that you've accepted a conclusion without any evidence.What part of Bazant's paper or the other papers make them unacceptable as sources? You have done nothing to disprove these sources. Nor do I think you can, given your chosen field of expertise is business and not engineering.

Now where have we heard that before?As usual, an off-topic barb designed to shut down the argument when you don't like the direction it's going.

This isn't an argument. This is your endorsement of your own opinion.No, it's just part of the discussion.

First, there is no "current model" that a "better model" can replace.The prevailing model, and what most scientists agree on, is the one that says the planes crashing into the buildings were what ultimately caused the collapse. I didn't think that needed to be stated outright, but now it is.
Second, the hypothesis we do have don't match the evidence, therefore they are worthlessNo, some of the evidence is incomplete. There is a lot of evidence for the current model in the many links Ray's provided and the few I've added. The hypothesis is not worthless just because we don't have all the answers. If that were the case, all of science would be worthless.

We saw the planes hit the buildings, we saw massive damage done to the buildings, we saw the buildings collapse, we saw, tragically, thousands die as a result. The current model doesn't require super-spy secrecy to accomplish that, either.

Third, therefore you've arbitrarily decided to accept one opinion over another with absolutely no evidence to support your choice. There's a mountain of evidence in this thread. I don't know how you can continue to say I've chosen a theory based on no evidence.

You're, of course, free to do whatever you'd like, but I think it would help the "honesty factor" of the thread if we could stop pretending that what we have is more than it really is.Good. Start with accepting that Bazant's paper provides one possible explanation for how the buildings fell without explosives.

This, too, sounds familiar.This, too, sounds like yet another off-topic barb.

Yes, in the World Trade Center. I'm sure that you could find a listing of tenets somewhere on the web. Would you care to do a little research and perhaps replace your speculation with some actual data? It sure would go a long way toward strengthening your argument.I did. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=189270&page=4)I figured you'd be looking it up anyway since you don't trust any other sources here. In addition, buildings around the WTC were also heavily damaged, and those places also contributed to the materials found in the dust.

I'm waiting for the part where you rule out explosives based on the evidence.Never said I did rule it out, and won't, though on the continuum of believability it ranks really low for me.

I'll take this to mean that you won't be ruling out explosives in this post?If you can find me high levels of explosive residue all over everything and remains of explosive devices, I'll give it more credence.

The source indicates that there was a high amount of barium. Please address that.Medical office for one. Barium is used in a lot in GI tests. Define 'high amount' for me, please.


Iron and steel are not the same thing. Extra carbon is added to iron to make steel, so finding high amounts of iron isn't a given. Yeah, it's an alloy, but it doesn't become a new chemical--it's still iron. Iron is the element, steel is not.

I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't anything the weight of this building can't do.... It almost seems too much to believe.[/quote]The papers quoted above deal with the energy aspect that you bring up here.

Was a lot of coal stored in either of the WTC towers?I don't know. I brought it up to show you that the little spheres can be created in ways other than thermite explosions.

You know, part of me wonders if they thought of all this when they said "high amounts". :)They don't specify, so I don't know.


So again, no ruling out in this post then?Why do I need to rule out explosives entirely? Is it possible they were used? Sure. Is it probability high that they were used? I don't think so. The chemicals found in the dust can be explained more easily with mundane materials than with the extra layer of an explosive conspiracy.

Thanks for your response.You're welcome. I appreciate the time and energy you spent on looking at much of this.

Darth InSidious
06-24-2008, 11:10 AM
I don't mean to be rude, Achilles, but I could found a Journal of Pyramidology - that doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene married Tacitus atop Khufu's purely because I put it in my wonderful new JoP... ;)

Of course, that said, I do know a thing or two about the structure in question... although I'll admit I'm no expert on pyramids...

Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor?

mimartin
06-24-2008, 01:07 PM
Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor? :lol: That sounds familiar like something that may have been brought up in this thread before. I knew I liked Darth InSidious for some reason.

Achilles
06-24-2008, 01:35 PM
Recognize crap when I see it. Based on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I am unable to accept this claim as true.

Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then. Indeed. As appears to be their intent.

But since they know the likelihood of getting published in those mainstream journals is low, they just decided to make up their own journal instead. Just curious, is there some central authority that hands out "bona fide" journals that I'm not aware of? My understanding of the process is that any group of scientists can create whatever journal they would like and then build a reputation from there.

Oh, my mistake then. The subject matter isn't about 9/11 or their conspiracy theories. Of course.I'm afraid that I don't understand how this comment addresses your lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

There are plenty of sources, links, sites, and papers that have been presented that support the prevailing theory. Bazant's paper is very compelling in showing WTC collapse does not require explosives. You have not explained what you find objectionable in that paper, yet you label it as 'not matching the evidence'. Err...it not matching the evidence is the explanation, Jae. It describes one process. The video evidence shows another. Therefore, this source is useless (because it tries to explain something that didn't happen).

Do you always do that when a source doesn't agree with your theory? Point out that the source is faulty? Yes, I'd like to think that I do.

Repeating something in different ways is what I often do with patients to make sure they fully understand what I'm trying to get across to them. Sometimes it looks like you're not on the same track as I am so I feel the need to clarify. Sometimes it's just me being repetitive. We've been over this before, Jae. Ignoring a counter-argument and repeating your first argument as though it hasn't been addressed/refuted is not the same thing. One of these things is good communication. The other is a dishonest debate technique (ala William Craig, etc).

Show me how Bazant's paper is wrong, then.Jae, at this point I'm considering the possiblity that you don't even read my posts before responding.

Bazant's paper argues that the upper floors remained (mostly) intact, drove the collapse, then "crushed up" in the final stages of the process. The problem is that these sections were the first to collapse. Therefore the claim and the evidence do not match.

Show me that it's impossible for multiple floors to separate from the columns at the same time when the columns bowed or broke off in large sections, and that it's impossible for several floors to be falling at the same time before landing on ones below. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen show large, irregularly shaped chunks of the outer columns failing right before floor collapse. Relevance to the discussion?

What part of Bazant's paper or the other papers make them unacceptable as sources? How about the fact that the process they descibe didn't happen?

You have done nothing to disprove these sources. Except point out (repeatedly) that they don't match what actually happened. That is something of a show-stopper, Jae.

Nor do I think you can, given your chosen field of expertise is business and not engineering. Amazingly enough, a little common sense (and years of studying various fields of science, both academically and as a hobby) goes a long way. I don't think one needs a engineering degree in order to read a paper and recognize that the process it describes doesn't match what the videos and the pictures show. Especially when the discrepancy is something large and fairly noticable...like 20+ floors of a building.

As usual, an off-topic barb designed to shut down the argument when you don't like the direction it's going. Not at all. Simply pointing out that you have a history of accepting things without evidence. I think it's rather relevant, considering that it's happening here as well.

The prevailing model, and what most scientists agree on, is the one that says the planes crashing into the buildings were what ultimately caused the collapse. I didn't think that needed to be stated outright, but now it is.Which one is that? The papers that don't flat out admit that they don't know each have their own guess.

So if you mean the claim that "the planes hit the buildings and then the fell down", then yes, I think we all agree that happened. What we're fuzzy on (and what would actually constitute a "hypothesis" rather than an "observation") is if we had some sort of explanation for what happened in between that caused the collapse. Preferrably something based on science that is also consistent with the evidence.

No, some of the evidence is incomplete. There is a lot of evidence for the current model in the many links Ray's provided and the few I've added. The hypothesis is not worthless just because we don't have all the answers. If that were the case, all of science would be worthless. The hypothesis is worthless because it doesn't match the evidence. That's precisely how science works.

If it match all the evidence but still had holes, that would be ok because that's still workable. That's not what we have here (so far as Ray's paper goes).

There's a mountain of evidence in this thread. I don't know how you can continue to say I've chosen a theory based on no evidence. Repeating it won't make it true, Jae. Not one single source provided matches the envidence.

Good. Start with accepting that Bazant's paper provides one possible explanation for how the buildings fell without explosives. I'd love to but I keep getting stuck at the part where Bazant's paper doesn't actually match the footage.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that that man right there-"
"It's a woman."
"What?"
"It's a woman."
"Whatever do you mean?"
"You said 'that man'. That 'man' is a woman."
*Looks*
*Dainty woman in pretty dress smiles and waves kindly*
"No matter. I shall proceed with my arguments anyway."

This, too, sounds like yet another off-topic barb. Just pointing out that when you encounter an argument that you can't address that you like to bifurcate on to something else. Generally in another thread.

I did. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=189270&page=4)I figured you'd be looking it up anyway since you don't trust any other sources here.Link takes us to the fourth page of this thread. :(

In addition, buildings around the WTC were also heavily damaged, and those places also contributed to the materials found in the dust. Indeed, but I plan on bringing that up another time.

Never said I did rule it out, and won't, though on the continuum of believability it ranks really low for me. Because of the lack of evidence? That can't be it, as you just got finished acknowledging that this isn't the case.

If you can find me high levels of explosive residue all over everything and remains of explosive devices, I'll give it more credence. Hooray for moving goal posts :D

Yeah, it's an alloy, but it doesn't become a new chemical--it's still iron. Iron is the element, steel is not. Then clearly it would have had to have undergone some process to lose the carbon and revert to iron. I think that's their point.

The papers quoted above deal with the energy aspect that you bring up here.Which one? Which page? Does it address all of the points that I raised, or just one?

I don't know. I brought it up to show you that the little spheres can be created in ways other than thermite explosions. I'm sure that's true. However if the evidence is consistent with thermite, then I'm wondering on what basis you're willing to toss it aside and happily go along with whatever 30 second news segment you accepted 7 years ago.

They don't specify, so I don't know.I appreciate the honest answer. (<=snark-free zone, just to be clear)

Why do I need to rule out explosives entirely? Is it possible they were used? Sure. Is it probability high that they were used? I don't think so. The chemicals found in the dust can be explained more easily with mundane materials than with the extra layer of an explosive conspiracy.Your earlier argument seems to be that you would have an easier time accepting understanding the hypothesis that explosives were used if there was some evidence for them. Now with some evidence for them, the question becomes: "what next?"

You're welcome. I appreciate the time and energy you spent on looking at much of this.Thank you for the kind words :)
I hope that this conversation will continue to be educational for the both us.

I don't mean to be rude, Achilles, but I could found a Journal of Pyramidology - that doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene married Tacitus atop Khufu's purely because I put it in my wonderful new JoP... ;) :lol: That's awesome! :)

I think you'll agree though that science tends to be a little more...exact...than history. A lot of the principles and processes are the same. However being able to go into a lab and produce a detailed report on the chemical composition of Apparatus XYZ is a little bit different than trying to comb through texts, archalogical finds, etc and trying to piece together a story.

Of course, that said, I do know a thing or two about the structure in question... although I'll admit I'm no expert on pyramids... Just as I know a thing or two about science, even though I am not a scientist :)

Further, doesn't your explosives argument get into trouble with Ockham's Razor?Not at all. Ockham's Razor simply seeks to remove unnecessary steps from an explanation.

For instance, you probably would agree that 2+2+x=4 has an unneccessary step. You could easily say that 2+2=4. This is Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is not simply declaring "4".

That's the very-brief-I'm-trying-to-post-this-before-a-meeting explanation. I can go into deeper detail if you would like.

Take care! :)

KinchyB
06-24-2008, 01:46 PM
Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a 'peer-reviewed journal' that's taken seriously in the rest of the academic community

Sources? I would like to know who you talked to and what information you found that supports this statement. Ideally you should site individuals with at least a PHD in Physics...ideally...as the person refuting the argument should at least be on the same playing field as the person who proposed the argument.

My bias is irrelevant in this case--that particular journal would be biased even if I agreed 100% with them.

This same exact argument can be made for every single journal and peer reviewed article in existence. How is this relevant?

there are some 'journals' out there that are doing 'science' on really fringy stuff, and the people who started them are reviewing the work of like-minded colleagues and calling it 'peer-reviewed' to give it the appearance of greater credibility.

So would this also include the first articles claiming that the world is actually round and not flat?...Just because they do not agree with what you think doesn't make them any less credible.

See post 173--snipped off-topic comment

The NIST and FEMA reports are not scientific articles, they're gov't reports.

Oh that's right! I forgot the government is flawless and has never lied to anyone...ever. *cough*

Good, let's see them publish in mainstream journals then.

Open Civil Engineering Journal....http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

This article was published and peer-reviewed. It details 14 points where they agree with the NIST, however, they do note that in the end they disagree with how the towers eventually came down.

They do need to meet certain criteria, yes, but reports on something of this magnitude can't go through the exact same process because of the sheer scope of the project.

~snipped flame-bait~ See Kavar's corners rules on what constitutes a flame-bait here--Jae Saying that the scope of the project is too large for it to be peer reviewed is complete fallacy. One does not automatically exclude the other.

There were no scientists prior to 9/11 who had devoted their lives entirely to studying the behaviors of skyscrapers after planes crash into them

Conveniently this completely avoids the topic of researching the evidence (or lack of researching if you're the NIST) that there was more than just a plane crash that brought down the buildings.

Ray Jones
06-24-2008, 04:18 PM
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html --

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.



http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html --

Video Records Show 15-Second+ Durations

Unlike seismic records, video recordings of the Towers' destruction allow the conclusive determination of lower bounds for the durations of each event, and those are much greater than ten seconds. Several live television broadcasts showed these events from their precipitous onsets to their explosive dust-shrouded conclusions. In each case, portions of the Tower below the exploding rubble clouds are visible up to at least the 12 second mark.
Figure 2: The North Tower at about 10 seconds into its destruction. About two-thirds of the Tower is still standing.

Lacking access to the uncut original broadcasts, I assembled timelines for each Tower using multiple video clips. These timelines clearly show that, in the case of each Tower, the process of destruction lasted a minimum of 15 seconds, not counting the persistence of fragments of core structures. This is true even accounting for uncertainties in precise times of onsets, greater uncertainties in the times of completions, and margins of error in the compositing of the timelines.

The onsets of the events are different in the two Towers. The South Tower's top leans for about two seconds before the roof starts to plunge downwards, whereas the North Tower's roof begins its plunge about a half second after its radio antenna begins to drop. In both cases I used the first evident motion -- the rotation of the South Tower's top, and the drop of the North Tower's antenna -- to set the timeline origin. Using these timelines, it is clear that large portions of each Tower below the descending debris clouds remained intact at the 10-second mark. Reasonable estimates for the duration of these events are around 17 seconds.

Nedak
06-24-2008, 05:44 PM
Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15.


Also, you haven't explained why they found sulfur and traces of Thermate in the debris...

EDIT: I would also like to point this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CuBNB4dB1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&feature=related

Achilles
06-24-2008, 06:32 PM
I take it this means that you are contesting it again?

(I also take it that you're not finished laying out your points?)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html -- It's short enough, Ray. Let's go ahead and post the whole thing:
Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself. So according to this source, nearly free fall should have been closer to 15 seconds than 10? Okay. 11 floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second as compared to 7.3 floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second.

At what point does the "floors of resistance instantly disintegrated per second" begin to register for you?

Assuming that enough energy was present (and we could explain where it came from) to cause the building to collapse at a rate of one floor per second, we're talking about nearly two minutes. Compared to 15 (or 10 or 11) seconds.

I'll fully concede the 15 seconds collapse time if it will help you perhaps maybe start to kinda sorta address the physics.

But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15. Clearly, Ray has changed his mind about accepting that, and that's fine. The quicker we can agree on a time that he's happy with, the quicker we can get the part where he actually gets to start how a collapse in that time-frame is possible within the laws of physics (as we know them).

Ray Jones
06-24-2008, 08:11 PM
Both quotes/excerpts in #192 are from Achilles' source he linked to in #182.

So is also the second one (the one he left out while quoting from #192 so happily in #194) which states that 17 seconds is a reasonable estimate for the time frame of both collapses.

Nedak
06-24-2008, 08:25 PM
Like the one that he left away so happily which states that 17 seconds are reasonable estimates for the collapses.

Huh??

Achilles
06-24-2008, 08:32 PM
Huh??IIRC, Ray is German, therefore I tend to assume that English is not his primary language. I'm not entirely sure what he hoped to convey there either, but hopefully that helps to explain why we're both confused by his post.

EDIT: Also, now that I'm home and can view YT clips...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CuBNB4dB1o The radio tower starts to collapse first either because:
a) the core started to collapse first (consistent with controlled demolition) or
b) it was rigged with explosives to collapse first (also consistent with controlled demolition).

I suppose "a" could arguably be explained by core damage, however it doesn't stand to reason that the core would have sustained more damage than the outside of the building, as the part of the plane that struck the core would have been slowed by their impact with the outer beams (thereby reducing the force of their impact).

What's also interesting is this progression (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html) (use the right arrow buttons to advanced through the first 6 or 7 frames).

You'll notice that just as the radio tower starts to go before the top of the roof, so does the roof start to go before the lowest floor with fire. Of course, since both Ray and his source both claim that this portion of the building fell mostly intact, we can easily conclude that the photographs are obviously wrong and/or our eyes are deceiving us. Positing that the footage is accurate and that neither Ray nor the authors of Ray's source bothered to review any footage of the actual collapse before offering their hypothesis will be frowned upon with great earnestness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&feature=relatedCredentials mean nothing. Clearly he's nutters. ;)

Totenkopf
06-24-2008, 11:34 PM
Credentials mean nothing.... ;)


Well......I guess that explains why Achilles is so quick to dismiss the professionals that argue against his position. :lol:

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-25-2008, 12:12 AM
Maybe the school should replace one of those 3 years of basic physics with a critical thinking course...? Saying that the scope of the project is too large for it to be peer reviewed is complete fallacy. One does not automatically exclude the other.http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=611

Darth InSidious
06-25-2008, 06:30 AM
:lol: That's awesome! :)

I think you'll agree though that science tends to be a little more...exact...than history. A lot of the principles and processes are the same. However being able to go into a lab and produce a detailed report on the chemical composition of Apparatus XYZ is a little bit different than trying to comb through texts, archalogical finds, etc and trying to piece together a story.
Given that there's next-to-no writing from the fourth dynasty, no. In fact, this is a useful example, since the pyramids are as much an engineering puzzle as they are archaeology.

Just as I know a thing or two about science, even though I am not a scientist :)
Really? And which area is your doctorate in?

Not at all. Ockham's Razor simply seeks to remove unnecessary steps from an explanation.

For instance, you probably would agree that 2+2+x=4 has an unneccessary step. You could easily say that 2+2=4. This is Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is not simply declaring "4".

That's the very-brief-I'm-trying-to-post-this-before-a-meeting explanation. I can go into deeper detail if you would like.

Take care! :)
OK. Thanks for the info. If I have further questions, I'll PM you. :)


Credentials mean nothing.
You know that this comment isn't going to be taken lightly... :p

Achilles
06-25-2008, 10:07 AM
You know that this comment isn't going to be taken lightly... :pThat's fine. Whatever arguments are directed at my sarcasm can be used against those that make similar comments in all seriousness. :D

So is also the second one (the one he left out while quoting from #192 so happily in #194) which states that 17 seconds is a reasonable estimate for the time frame of both collapses.Oh is that what you meant?

Ray, do you really think it's wise to try to play the "he isn't responding to my arguments" card, considering that you've conveniently ignored about 50% of this thread? I'd be happy to go through and make a "greatest hits" collection of all the stuff that you've failed to respond to if you'd like. I don't think it would look good for you though :(

I thought my point was sufficiently clear, however if it was not, feel free to redo my math with 17 seconds rather than 15 and just superimpose that number on my previous response. I hope that helps.

Ray Jones
06-25-2008, 11:27 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/wtc.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/wtc-1.png

This shows how the building's top part above the crashed plane "telescopes" into the lower part. It is only logical that the first sections which are crunched are the 10 stories where the tower got hit, as the animation (seconds 0 to 3) points out. Note that these 10 stories neither belong to the upper nor the lower part.

Please keep in mind that this animation is made of the first, third, fifth and seventh picture of the sequence provided in #197, where it (read: the sequence) was used to prove that the radio tower came down first. Poppycock, as I think this animation shows clearly that the radio tower on the roof and the top start moving down as one unit, and not as suggested in #197. They start moving together.



PS: please note that I put the word telescopes in quotation marks, and used it simply to describe the way it looks in above animation when the damaged stories give way for the top to follow gravitation.

Of course it only looks like this, and it should be more than obvious what I meant.

Achilles
06-25-2008, 11:42 AM
Thank you for helping to make my point. The illustration is much clearer with the lines that you've added.

Now compare this with your previous sketches which suggest that the upper floors are being crushed at the same time as the lower floors, or your source from #126 that suggests that the upper floors collapse last (or "crush up") after they have helped to crush all the floors below.

Clearly you can see that we have three scenarios and only one of them has video evidence.

Thanks for reading.

This shows how the building's top part above the crashed plane "telescopes" into the lower part. "Telescoped"? Tell me Ray, what was pushing down on the lightest part of the building (i.e. the part of the building with no mass above it), that caused it to "telescope" down as you're suggesting (as opposed to "collapse" as the video suggests)?

Also, please address how this "telescoping" matches neither your earlier drawings or the much lauded source you provided in post #126.

It is only logical that the first sections which are crunched are the 10 stories where the tower got hit, as the animation (seconds 0 to 3) clearly shows. Note that these 10 stories neither belong to the upper nor the lower part. Your "only logical" explanations keep changing, Ray.

What's pulverizing the floors above the impact? How about the vast majority of the building on the impact floors that wasn't damaged by the planes? What's pulverizing those? The "mass" of the pulverized concrete and broken steel beams from above?

Jae mentioned earlier that it was like "dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards". I said "Not quite" because the closer analogy is that it was like someone dropped half a deck of cards on a bowling ball...and the bowling ball collapsed.

So, as I said earlier, any time you'd like to get around to those physics...

However, I think this animation also clearly shows that the radio tower on the roof and the top start moving down as one unit.Another claim directly in conflict with the video evidence. Han sala's link clearly shows that the tower goes first. We can discuss why, but we can't change the facts.

Ray Jones
06-26-2008, 10:58 AM
Hey kids, what to do something crazy? Let's see..why don't we try something that you even can do at home right now?

OK. Take two eggs, put one on the ground and hold the other one above it at, what do I know, half a meter distance.

Now let the one you hold go at watch closely. -- Whoa there, that was cool wasn't it?

That's all for today, kids!!



And the next time uncle Achilles will come here to tell us why both eggs broke, and not just one.

Achilles
06-26-2008, 11:38 AM
The WTC buildings were constructed from free falling eggs? :eyeraise:

Do you intend on actually addressing any of the points raised in the last two pages or are you really hoping that these attempts at distraction are going to make us forget that the video evidence doesn't match your sketches or your source from post #126?

Nedak
06-26-2008, 02:24 PM
And the next time uncle Achilles will come here to tell us why both eggs broke, and not just one.

That was possibly... the weirdest... analogy I have ever heard you TRY to explain. What the hell did that have to do with anything?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but.....:confused:


Also, the "concrete evidence" you displayed with the frames of the tower falling: Was that displayed in frame-by-frame or was it just random frames of the moment? It looked like it skipped a lot of frames.

Ray Jones
06-26-2008, 03:28 PM
That was possibly... the weirdest... analogy I have ever heard you TRY to explain. What the hell did that have to do with anything?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but.....:confused:In post #203 the questions "What's pulverizing the floors above the impact? How about the vast majority of the building on the impact floors that wasn't damaged by the planes? What's pulverizing those? The "mass" of the pulverized concrete and broken steel beams from above?" are asked.

The egg analogy points out the physical principle behind that process. You have intact floors or building structure above and below the impact zone (the eggs). Then you got damaged and rather not intact structure in between which barely can hold the mass of the upper part (the egg you hold). Once a critical limit in structural degeneration is crossed the damaged section gives way and allows the top part to follow gravitation. Note that it will not give way slowly, it's more like when you break a thick stick. At first it's pretty withstanding but the more you manage to bend it the easier it gets, and once the structure's integrity is seriously damaged, it will lose stability at exponential rate, and it will completely break trough in no time.

That point is equivalent to when you let the egg go. Then, when the egg hits down onto the other, the kinetic energy it has gained through the fall exceeds the limit which the fully intact structures of the eggs' shells could withstand -- they break.

It's the same forces at work.


Also, the "concrete evidence" you displayed with the frames of the tower falling: Was that displayed in frame-by-frame or was it just random frames of the moment? It looked like it skipped a lot of frames.I took the pictures from here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html) and was linked to this source here (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2483771&postcount=197).

I used the pictures from seconds 00:00, 01:00, 02:00 and 03:00.

Nedak
06-26-2008, 04:13 PM
That point is equivalent to when you let the egg go. Then, when the egg hits down onto the other, the kinetic energy it has gained through the fall exceeds the limit which the fully intact structures of the eggs' shells could withstand -- they break.

It's the same forces at work.

Alright, I understand what you're saying now. You should probably quote what people wrote instead of just randomly putting out an analogy of two eggs.

Alright, that all makes sense. Of course when you drop an egg onto another egg, due to the force, it will break. However, your analogy requires there to be no floors inbetween the top and bottom floor. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting from it.



http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9390/analogyyf8.jpg



There are a few things wrong with your analogy, from what I can see. 1) Where are the other floors? Do they not matter? 2) Why is it that in any 9/11 video, the top does not appear to be intact the entire time until it reaches the first level, like how you hinted. 3) Also, the egg analogy references that the tower would have been in free fall. Are you suggesting that the tower fell in free fall time as the egg did?






Also on a side note, The 911 commission report states "At 9:58:59, The South Tower Collapsed In Ten Seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside"-9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9, page 305. They admit what so many deny they do admit. There is no way a gravitational collapse could happen within that time frame.


I took the pictures from here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html) and was linked to this source here (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2483771&postcount=197).

I used the pictures from seconds 00:00, 01:00, 02:00 and 03:00.

Is there any way for you to get them in faster time? Since the building fell fairly quick, those seconds skip a lot of key frames.

Achilles
06-26-2008, 04:20 PM
The egg analogy points out the physical principle behind that process. No it doesn't. Eggs are fragile objects. Steel beams welded and bolted to one another, supporing concrete flooring are not. Please try again.

Perhaps you'd like to try the analogy with something like bowling balls, or bricks, et cetera.

You have intact floors or building structure above and below the impact zone (the eggs). Okay.

Then you got damaged and rather not intact structure in between which barely can hold the mass of the upper part (the egg you hold). Source please? This is your speculation and nothing more.

Once a critical limit in structural degeneration is crossed the damaged section gives way and allows the top part to follow gravitation. Okay.

Note that it will not give way slowly, it's more like when you break a thick stick. Why not? Because you say so?

We're not dealing with "sticks", Ray. We're dealing with a couple hundred 1/2 inch-thick steel beams. The last time I checked, metal and wood had different properties and therefore behaved differently. I think this might be part of the reason that architects used steel instead of wood when building these really tall buildings.

At first it's pretty withstanding but the more you manage to bend it the easier it gets, and once the structure's integrity is seriously damaged, it will lose stability at exponential rate, and it will completely break trough in no time. Source please?

That point is equivalent to when you let the egg go. Then, when the egg hits down onto the other, the kinetic energy it has gained through the fall exceeds the limit which the fully intact structures of the eggs' shells could withstand -- they break. Except that in your analogy the second eggs falls intact. As we saw from the video, this isn't what happened.

So here's my counter-experiment. Take four eggs. Stack three of them on top of each other. Hold one about a 1/2 inch above the others. Then crush the one in your hand and let the contents fall on the eggs below. Take note of the damage done to the lower eggs.

According to Ray, we should see all the eggs smash and hit the ground in about as much time as if you had dropped the 1st egg without any other eggs below it.

It's the same forces at work. :lol:

Nedak
06-26-2008, 04:24 PM
BTW, did anything I just wrote make any sense at all?

Barely any sleep does wonders to the brain.

Achilles
06-26-2008, 04:27 PM
BTW, did anything I just wrote make any sense at all?

Barely any sleep does wonders to the brain.Yes, your point that Ray is conveniently failing to address the parts of the impact floors that were not damaged by the planes is absolutely relevant. At least that's what I took away from your post.

I hope that helps.

Nedak
06-26-2008, 04:31 PM
^

Well that's good then. hahaha

Ray Jones
06-26-2008, 06:59 PM
However, your analogy requires there to be no floors inbetween the top and bottom floor. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting from it.The 'no floors between them' part is played by the weakened structure (damaged stories) between the intact floors. As other video evidence shows at least parts of the plane managed to worm through the whole building, that means through the outer steel beams on two sides and trough the building's supportive core over a couple of stories. And when it went through it means it left nothing but a hole. And nothing but a hole means in this case air. Only a question of time for rest of the structure until it will give way like a stick that finally breaks. Note: structure, not steel or wood.


Where are the other floors? Do they not matter?Imagine two eggs placed over another falling on two eggs over another, and so on. It still works. Replace the light weight and fragile eggs with stories of a skyscraper, much much heavier and larger, and the principle still applies. Keep in mind that the egg is also a construction designed over hundreds of millions of years, made to offer a maximum on stability while consuming a minimum of material. It is made to be most stable (and evidently very successful in doing so), but not to withstand greater shocks.

Naturally, especially the stories of high buildings are just like eggs, maximum stability, least weight, least material, optimum shape to work against the usually working forces.


Why is it that in any 9/11 video, the top does not appear to be intact the entire time until it reaches the first level, like how you hinted.Hm, there is so much debris coming from the crunch zone, hard to tell what's top and what not in many videos for the whole collapse.

However, in those stills I linked to earlier you can see the shapes of the top parts quite for some time.

Links provided in #122:
the north tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/nothtower/collaps_north_tower.htm)
the south tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/southtower/collaps_south_tower.htm)

When you take another look at the north tower sequence you also may notice how the radio tower is standing there upright on the roof for quite some time as well...it's just staggering a little.


Also, the egg analogy references that the tower would have been in free fall. Are you suggesting that the tower fell in free fall time as the egg did?Oh, the egg analogy doesn't refer to free fall in air in particular. It works under water as well, and water is offering a higher resistance for an egg to fall. And as I said before, when it broke away eventually, the damaged section had almost nothing to give against the tops weight. Maybe barely more than pure air.


On a second thought, it wouldn't work under water any more. Replace water with wind blowing from below or something then. :)



Also on a side note, The 911 commission report states "At 9:58:59, The South Tower Collapsed In Ten Seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside"-9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9, page 305. They admit what so many deny they do admit. There is no way a gravitational collapse could happen within that time frame.So it took longer than ten seconds?


Is there any way for you to get them in faster time? Since the building fell fairly quick, those seconds skip a lot of key frames.No. I only used Achilles' source to disprove the point he was trying to prove with it.

Achilles
06-26-2008, 08:58 PM
The 'no floors between them' part is played by the weakened structure (damaged stories) between the intact floors. And what percentage of those floors actually sustained damage?

As other video evidence shows at least parts of the plane managed to worm through the whole building, that means through the outer steel beams on two sides and trough the building's supportive core over a couple of stories. And your source for determining how much damage was done?

Also, please address the south tower where the plane hit the corner, thereby missing most of the supportive core.

And when it went through it means it left nothing but a hole.And what percentage of the plane "went through"? How many pieces (and thereby, how many holes)?

A small number means more localized damage.

And nothing but a hole means in this case air. Only a question of time for rest of the structure until it will give way like a stick that finally breaks. Note: structure, not steel or wood. You ever play Jenga? :lol:

Imagine two eggs placed over another falling on two eggs over another, and so on. It still works. Apparently Ray is still insisting that the WTC towers were constructed out of eggs :)

Replace the light weight and fragile eggs with stories of a skyscraper, much much heavier and larger, and the principle still applies. Because everyone knows that the materials used to construct skyscrapers share the same physical properties as eggs :rolleyes:

Keep in mind that the egg is also a construction designed over hundreds of millions of years, made to offer a maximum on stability while consuming a minimum of material. It is made to be most stable (and evidently very successful in doing so), but not to withstand greater shocks. Ray is now going to turn the thread into an intelligent design debate. Poor show, old man. :disaprove

Naturally, especially the stories of high buildings are just like eggs, maximum stability, least weight, least material, optimum shape to work against the usually working forces. Except that the buildings were overdesigned for purposes much more complicated than housing a chicken fetus.

Hm, there is so much debris coming from the crunch zone, hard to tell what's top and what not in many videos for the whole collapse.

However, in those stills I linked to earlier you can see the shapes of the top parts quite for some time.

<snipped links> Quite some time, eh? The frames aren't time stampped so how much time are we taking about, Ray?

When you take another look at the north tower sequence you also may notice how the radio tower is standing there upright on the roof for quite some time as well...it's just staggering a little."quite some time" :dozey:

Oh, the egg analogy doesn't refer to free fall in air in particular. It works under water as well, and water is offering a higher resistance for an egg to fall. And as I said before, when it broke away eventually, the damaged section had almost nothing to give against the tops weight. Maybe barely more than pure air.


On a second thought, it wouldn't work under water any more. Replace water with wind blowing from below or something then. :)
Notice how the question isn't actually answered here.

No. I only used Achilles' source to disprove the point he was trying to prove with it.No you haven't. Respond to my points in #203 and #209 and then maybe you can say that you tried.

Nedak
06-26-2008, 09:27 PM
The 'no floors between them' part is played by the weakened structure (damaged stories) between the intact floors. As other video evidence shows at least parts of the plane managed to worm through the whole building, that means through the outer steel beams on two caused the other floors to fall

If floors fell the way the "pancake theory" says they fell wouldn't there have been columns left? There is no doubt to me that the floors fell in the manner that is shown, but how is the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related





Hm, there is so much debris coming from the crunch zone, hard to tell what's top and what not in many videos for the whole collapse.

Not according to the commission report.



Links provided in #122:
the north tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/nothtower/collaps_north_tower.htm)
the south tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/southtower/collaps_south_tower.htm)
I can't really make out anything for the south tower, but the top for the north tower could be seen for most of the frames until the last frame, but who knows where the last frame is at on the tower. I guess where the top went is sort of irrelevant.




Oh, the egg analogy doesn't refer to free fall in air in particular. It works under water as well, and water is offering a higher resistance for an egg to fall. And as I said before, when it broke away eventually, the damaged section had almost nothing to give against the tops weight. Maybe barely more than pure air.

Ah alright,I get it now. Was kinda mixed up between what you and Achillies were saying.


So it took longer than ten seconds?

No, it took 10 seconds. A little less actually, if you put a stopwatch to the video.

Ray Jones
06-27-2008, 06:36 AM
If floors fell the way the "pancake theory" says they fell wouldn't there have been columns left? I think regarding the masses and heights and energies we are talking about it's rather expectable that there's not really much left of the building's original structure after the collapse.


There is no doubt to me that the floors fell in the manner that is shown, but how is the problem.What do you mean by how?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=relatedI'll have to wait until I actually have sound to listen to what that guy has to say.


Not according to the commission report.What are you referring to?


I can't really make out anything for the south tower, but the top for the north tower could be seen for most of the frames until the last frame, but who knows where the last frame is at on the tower. I guess where the top went is sort of irrelevant.Down and *poof* is pretty much a sure shot I say. :)


Ah alright,I get it now. Was kinda mixed up between what you and Achillies were saying."Ter messi comz hided somewun maed u Archnollis a iknorited uers ya kno."

Seems he's posting this all over LF, so no problem for me with getting mixed up. ^^


No, it took 10 seconds. A little less actually, if you put a stopwatch to the video.Actually, I find most videos don't allow to take the collapses' times exactly. Also, sources differ in what they say, it goes from that it took 10 seconds for the collapse, while others state it lasted 10 seconds until the first chunks of debris hit the ground, or even, as in one of Achilles' source, that it took 17 seconds for the towers to collapse.


I personally think it is safe to go with what we can read on Wikipedia:

"Analysis of video footage capturing the initial collapse and analysis of seismic data from Palisades, New York shows that the first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed north tower struck the ground 9 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the south tower after 11 seconds."

Nedak
06-27-2008, 01:31 PM
I think regarding the masses and heights and energies we are talking about it's rather expectable that there's not really much left of the building's original structure after the collapse.
Of course



What do you mean by how?

The cause of the collapse.


I'll have to wait until I actually have sound to listen to what that guy has to say.

Fair enough


What are you referring to?
Stupid computer. I've had a lot of spyware and malware all over my computer lately and I THOUGHT I deleted that. hahah damn viruses. Lesson, don't download internet explorer.


Down and *poof* is pretty much a sure shot I say. :)

Haha, I don't even know why I was debating over that in the first place. Probably because I had no sleep from trying to fix my computer and the egg analogy at the time screwed with me. lmao





Actually, I find most videos don't allow to take the collapses' times exactly. Also, sources differ in what they say, it goes from that it took 10 seconds for the collapse, while others state it lasted 10 seconds until the first chunks of debris hit the ground, or even, as in one of Achilles' source, that it took 17 seconds for the towers to collapse.

I think it would be safe to credit the 9/11 Commission Report over every other source... I also believe that some conspiracy websites and non-conspiracy websites are scewed in some way. Achillies' source (if this is true) would probably not be very credible if they ARE wrong. Which I believe that they are.


I personally think it is safe to go with what we can read on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia?! That has to be a joke.


I also I want to know about the central core columns. Why aren't they there?

Achilles
06-27-2008, 01:41 PM
I think it would be safe to credit the 9/11 Commission Report over every other source...I disagree. If the collapse of the three WTC complex structures (one of which wasn't even included in the Commission Report) was the work of the U.S. government, then why on Earth are we going to trust the U.S. government report over all the others?

It's like questioning a suspect in a crime and then determining that he's telling the truth because when you asked him if he was lying, he told you "no". He may be telling you the truth, but does he have a really good reason to lie? You bet he does.

I also believe that some conspiracy websites and non-conspiracy websites are scewed in some way. I believe that every source (offical gov't reports and independent scholars and "conspiracy whack-jobs") is skewed in some way. This is a function of not having all the information.

Achillies' source (if this is true) would probably not be very credible if they ARE wrong. Which I believe that they are. My source for what? Wrong regarding which arguments?

I also I want to know about the central core columns. Why aren't they there? Because they fell down (not over) :)

Ray Jones
06-27-2008, 05:30 PM
The cause of the collapse.The collapses were caused mainly due to structural damage coming from the plane crashes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Ill.jpg

Note how the paths of the planes lead basically directly through the cores' structures, causing at least two faces to be cut through from the plane's bodies, just like they simply went through the outer steel columns as well.

As a result we have effectively lost like 40% of the core structure (at least) and 20% of the hull structure. It is known that the core took the main stress of the stories above, but let's assume both, core and hull provided the same level of stability to the buildings structure, and we have like 30% of the supportive structure removed. That means the mass of all the stories above the crash zone is now carried by only 70% of the structure in a best case scenario.

And we're not even talking about the explosions yet.


I think it would be safe to credit the 9/11 Commission Report over every other source... I also believe that some conspiracy websites and non-conspiracy websites are scewed in some way. Achillies' source (if this is true) would probably not be very credible if they ARE wrong. Which I believe that they are.I'm fine with a ten seconds time frame, however, I'd not doubt that at least some lower parts of the buildings managed to remain a couple of seconds longer.


Wikipedia?! That has to be a joke.Wiki hee wiki ho, I don't care. Everybody cooks with water after all. ^^


I also I want to know about the central core columns. Why aren't they there?Where are they not? In the core? After the plane flew into/through it?


PS: As for the YT video guy talking, I think he's merely parroting all this "conspiracy" stuff, there's basically nothing new coming from him. :)

True_Avery
06-27-2008, 07:35 PM
Ok, seeing as my first two posts were completely ignored, let me try again seeing as I have one of the few legitimate links in this entire thread.

National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

----

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1 ( wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf ), a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55
You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.

Or if you would like the original link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Have fun.

EDIT:
December 14, 2007
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

I disagree. If the collapse of the three WTC complex structures (one of which wasn't even included in the Commission Report) was the work of the U.S. government, then why on Earth are we going to trust the U.S. government report over all the others?
Wow. Just Wow Achilles. You've had some amazing arguments before, but please read what you just posted again and explain the reasoning to me.

So, you wont trust any evidence coming from a US funded organization? And you seem to be dismissing all other evidence to the contrary to hold onto your singular documentary.

I dunno about you, but you are starting to sound like a bible lover here Achilles. Dismissing all logic and reason to follow a fairy tale.

Now if that doesn't get your attention, I'll just assume I've been blocked by you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu...eature=related
Jeff King? I guess he knows everything.

Here are my scientists:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

And here are my fact sheets:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/


But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15.


Also, you haven't explained why they found sulfur and traces of Thermate in the debris...
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

gypsum wallboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

gyp·sum
–noun
a very common mineral, hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSO4·2H2O, occurring in crystals and in masses, soft enough to be scratched by the fingernail: used to make plaster of Paris, as an ornamental material, as a fertilizer, etc.

Your turn.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1777/n5223062441972903718sv8.jpg

Nedak
06-27-2008, 09:54 PM
I disagree. If the collapse of the three WTC complex structures (one of which wasn't even included in the Commission Report) was the work of the U.S. government, then why on Earth are we going to trust the U.S. government report over all the others?

It was in the case that we assume that it is not trying to deceive the American public.


My source for what? Wrong regarding which arguments?

Please read what Ray posted before responding to mine.

Ray stated that a source you provided included the details that the building fell in 17 seconds. I was also saying that I believed that that would be wrong and that it did not fall in 17 seconds. Lots of video (including conspiracy theorist video) have supported that it did in fact fall in 10 seconds.

Because they fell down (not over) :)

According to the 9/11 Commission Report the floor "Pancaked" each other. They also explained this on The History Channel a while back, which I got a glimpse of. The problem is, if this pancake theory was true there should be a portion of the core column left. Which is displayed in the follow videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-mq9SvjhQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU


And we're not even talking about the explosions yet.

What explosions?


I'm fine with a ten seconds time frame, however, I'd not doubt that at least some lower parts of the buildings managed to remain a couple of seconds longer.

Wouldn't that support the theory that it would be impossible for the building to fall that fast without the help of explosives? Also, wouldn't the fact that you think the buildings lasted a little bit longer mean that you disagree with the 9/11 Commission Report and would practically contradict everything you have been saying? Are you a conspiracy theorist or are you agreeing with the official report? It's kind of hard to tell.

Where are they not? In the core? After the plane flew into/through it?

Shouldn't a portion of the core still remain? According to the pancake theory the floors were designed to fall that way... but there should still be part (or a lot of) the core remaining.. Since we obviously didn't see the towers fall over. The only explanation I can come up with is that the core was dealt with by explosives (which is seen in most landmark implosions).

. Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

The evidence you have presented is very interesting and could explain a lot of my questions. However, as you might have guessed I still have more.

Besides the fact that the trade centers were shut down a weekend before for "routine maintenance" which could have been a good time to place such bombs I have another questions that has been gnawing at me.

Why did WTC 7 collapse? The official report were that a few small fires (not even in the lower infrastructure of the building) made the 40-story building fall. Seems kind of unlikely... WTC 7 is shown bellow. As you can tell not very close to the other buildings.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8990/tradecenter7fm7.png

Ray Jones
07-01-2008, 10:03 AM
What explosions?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg


Wouldn't that support the theory that it would be impossible for the building to fall that fast without the help of explosives?Actually, no.


Also, wouldn't the fact that you think the buildings lasted a little bit longer mean that you disagree with the 9/11 Commission Report and would practically contradict everything you have been saying?I said "I'd not doubt that at least some lower parts of the buildings managed to remain a couple of seconds longer." That means parts of the core or the shell etc.

This is also supported by the NIST report (as I already quoted in #112):

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

and supported by photo evidence (although rather shell than core):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/WTC1.jpg/800px-WTC1.jpg
Photo of World Trade Center 3 with remains of WTC1 (left background) and WTC2 (right foreground) visible.

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010917-N-7479T-509.jpg


Are you a conspiracy theorist or are you agreeing with the official report? It's kind of hard to tell. I don't think someone would make the effort to bomb the WTC after he managed to fly two planes into it, what practically rendered them useless already.

On the other hand, I also doubt that someone would make the effort to fly two planes into it after he successfully managed to bomb wire the WTC to let it collapse.


Shouldn't a portion of the core still remain? According to the pancake theory the floors were designed to fall that way... but there should still be part (or a lot of) the core remaining.. Since we obviously didn't see the towers fall over.Well, according to the aforementioned NIST statement, parts of the cores remained longer than the floors.


The only explanation I can come up with is that the core was dealt with by explosives (which is seen in most landmark implosions).Another explanation would be that you had basically the whole building including a huge chunk made of the buildings' upper 20 or so stories, rubbing and crushing their way down along the core's structure, and that the core just was not made to take this kind of process free of damage.


Why did WTC 7 collapse? The official report were that a few small fires (not even in the lower infrastructure of the building) made the 40-story building fall. Seems kind of unlikely... WTC 7 is shown bellow. As you can tell not very close to the other buildings.

An official NIST report is not yet available:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf

Jae Onasi
07-01-2008, 11:39 AM
Ok, seeing as my first two posts were completely ignored, let me try again seeing as I have one of the few legitimate links in this entire thread.

National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55
You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.

Or if you would like the original link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Have fun.

EDIT:
December 14, 2007
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm


Wow. Just Wow Achilles. You've had some amazing arguments before, but please read what you just posted again and explain the reasoning to me.

So, you wont trust any evidence coming from a US funded organization? And you seem to be dismissing all other evidence to the contrary to hold onto your singular documentary.

Now if that doesn't get your attention, I'll just assume I've been blocked by you.
I can't imagine why someone would want to block you.
Jeff King? I guess he knows everything.
Here are my scientists:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

And here are my fact sheets:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

gyp·sum
–noun
a very common mineral, hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSO4·2H2O, occurring in crystals and in masses, soft enough to be scratched by the fingernail: used to make plaster of Paris, as an ornamental material, as a fertilizer, etc.

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1777/n5223062441972903718sv8.jpg
:lol: All the guy needs is some antennae now.


I have yet to see solid scientific reasons refuting Bazant, btw. A non-engineer saying 'It doesn't follow the model' doesn't tell me where or why and does not hold the same credibility.

TheExile
07-01-2008, 11:45 AM
Hm... If you like conspiracies you should see "Zeitgeist, the Movie". It's made in 2007.
It says about termite used in 9/11 at several stores to create the "cake" collapse effect and many more, it also says about Jesus being created from other sun gods from other religions, including ancient egyptian Horus, the sun god from ancient India- Krishna and many more. It's and interesting movie...

Darth InSidious
07-01-2008, 12:47 PM
It's a pile of crap.

Nedak
07-01-2008, 01:17 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg

ah alright, didn't know what you were talking about there.


Actually, no.
How so? Scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for them to fall at that rate.




This is also supported by the NIST report (as I already quoted in #112):

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

Well I guess that answered that question for me.





An official NIST report is not yet available:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf

Though the WTC7 collapse is still kind of strange to me, you have provided, in my eyes, enough sufficient evidence to support the official claim. Now, I can only assume that two planes hit the world trade centers and caused their collapse.

There are of course other questions about the Pentagon and the possibility that they were government planes that hit the towers, but for now I believe that terrorists did in fact hit the twin towers with planes.

Achilles
07-01-2008, 01:37 PM
The collapses were caused mainly due to structural damage coming from the plane crashes. I'm still waiting for a reputable source that supports this.

<snip>
Note how the paths of the planes lead basically directly through the cores' structures, causing at least two faces to be cut through from the plane's bodies, just like they simply went through the outer steel columns as well.
I think it helps a great deal to recall that these incidents took place in 3 dimensions.

Top-down is great for showing where the plane hit on the x and y axis, but I think it tends to make people forget that there's a z axis as well (meaning that engines impacted on different floors, wings tore through parts of multiple floors rather than snapping through all the columns of just one, etc). For example:
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5489/wtc2impacttg0.th.jpg (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc2impacttg0.jpg)

Notice how there's only damage on one of the building's four sides?

Where things get tricky is the internal damage.

I suspect that Ray wants us to believe (possibly because he believes himself) that the damage from the impacts were spread throughout the entirety of the impact floors. The planes hit, wiped out all the external columns on that side, snapped all the core columns, huge chunks o' plane passing through the opposite side, etc.

However, even NIST (again, using them as source to give "you guys" the benefit of the doubt) concedes that this isn't the case:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8161/wtc2impact21ky6.th.jpg (http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc2impact21ky6.jpg)
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/2354/wtc2impact22ds7.th.jpg (http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc2impact22ds7.jpg)

Keep in mind that only the parts of the plane that are intact in the first image are going to be able to take out any core columns (unless you want to argue that steel and almunium shards are capable of taking out steel beams), so please don't interpret the "cloud" in the 2nd image as "the area where all the beams have been destroyed".

If this is NIST's best guess (and it is a guess), then I have a difficult time accepting that your best guess is going to be better informed.

As a result we have effectively lost like 40% of the core structure (at least) 40% of the core on which floors and what is your source?

and 20% of the hull structure.20% of the shell on which floors and what is your source?

It is known that the core took the main stress of the stories above, but let's assume both, core and hull provided the same level of stability to the buildings structure, and we have like 30% of the supportive structure removed. That means the mass of all the stories above the crash zone is now carried by only 70% of the structure in a best case scenario. What is your source please? This sounds very much like numbers that you have made up.

It was in the case that we assume that it is not trying to deceive the American public. That's fine, however I'm not sure why I (or we) should assume this. Bush dragged his feet for how long before he would approve an investigation? Not inspiring a lot of confidence there.

Please read what Ray posted before responding to mine. I always do.

Ray stated that a source you provided included the details that the building fell in 17 seconds. I was also saying that I believed that that would be wrong and that it did not fall in 17 seconds. Lots of video (including conspiracy theorist video) have supported that it did in fact fall in 10 seconds. I think you're misinterpreting what Ray said. I haven't presented a source that argues for 17 seconds. I presented a source for a different argument which Ray then read and noticed that they argued for 17 seconds, but that doesn't mean that I ever presented that source for that purpose.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report the floor "Pancaked" each other. They also explained this on The History Channel a while back, which I got a glimpse of. The problem is, if this pancake theory was true there should be a portion of the core column left.I am very much aware of that. I'm also very much aware that this hypothesis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I don't think someone would make the effort to bomb the WTC after he managed to fly two planes into it, what practically rendered them useless already.

On the other hand, I also doubt that someone would make the effort to fly two planes into it after he successfully managed to bomb wire the WTC to let it collapse. Gee, unless someone wanted to blow up the building and then blame it on something like a terrorist attack. Maybe said someone would be relying on the scientific illiteracy and all-around apathy of the general public as a means to avoid scrutiny.

I have yet to see solid scientific reasons refuting Bazant, btw. You need "scientific evidence" to see that two things don't match.

Okay.

The first step in the scientific method is obseravation. Have a look at the document and see how it illustrates the upper floors remaining intact and collapsing last. Then look at the video and noting how the upper floors collapse first. If the paper argues that the upper floors remaining intact is what drives the collapse, but the video evidence shows that this isn't possible because the upper floors collapse first, then the "hypothesis" (which isn't actually a hypothesis because it's not based on observation) fails. Is that scientific enough?

A non-engineer saying 'It doesn't follow the model' doesn't tell me where or why and does not hold the same credibility.Further testing of my hypothesis is indeed indicating that Jae does not actually read my posts before responding to them. Fascinating.

Well I guess that answered that question for me. Core struture, not actual complete floors. Ray and I went round and round about this a few pages ago.

but for now I believe that terrorists did in fact hit the twin towers with planes.This was in question?

Nedak
07-01-2008, 02:10 PM
That's fine, however I'm not sure why I (or we) should assume this. Bush dragged his feet for how long before he would approve an investigation? Not inspiring a lot of confidence there.

Interesting point.



I think you're misinterpreting what Ray said. I haven't presented a source that argues for 17 seconds. I presented a source for a different argument which Ray then read and noticed that they argued for 17 seconds, but that doesn't mean that I ever presented that source for that purpose.

Ah, I see.

I am very much aware of that. I'm also very much aware that this hypothesis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The hypothesis that there should be a core column left standing?


This was in question?
I mean as in controlled demolition. And yes it could have been in question. Loose Change questioned it.

My conclusion for my belief is that I simply don't know. It's the same for me and global warming. I can't tell which side is telling the truth and which side has an agenda. If it turns out that the government is responsible for September 11th then I will help rise against the people responsible. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions here and there and continue to examine the arguments.

Achilles
07-01-2008, 03:48 PM
The hypothesis that there should be a core column left standing?The hypothesis that localized damage will initiate a synchronous pancake collapse in not one, but two steel frame tube structures that were overdesigned to withstand multiple impacts from comparable planes.

I mean as in controlled demolition. And yes it could have been in question. Loose Change questioned it. Loose Change questioned that airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? I'm not aware of anyone questioning that.

My conclusion for my belief is that I simply don't know. It's the same for me and global warming. I can't tell which side is telling the truth and which side has an agenda. If it turns out that the government is responsible for September 11th then I will help rise against the people responsible. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions here and there and continue to examine the arguments.Seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.

Nedak
07-01-2008, 03:53 PM
Loose Change questioned that airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? I'm not aware of anyone questioning that.

No I mean, that they were flown into my terrorists. I think at one point the suggested a military plane.

jonathan7
07-01-2008, 07:32 PM
I do not think I will change anyone's mind however another BBC documentary was done on 9/11 this time by the Conspiracy Files team; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm I think you can watch the whole episode there.

Basic conclusions;

There was a Conspiracy to cover up evidence AFTER 9/11 not before, the programme pointed to a systemic failure of leadership, poor acting on intelligence and a cover up going all the way to the White House, in trying to suppress evidence the at the government could have done more to stop the attacks.

However continually all the conspiracy theories were debunked. The programme, as far as is possible represents my opinion on events.

I do not think that 9/11 was preplanned by the American government, however I do believe that JFK's assassination was; so those looking for a conspiracy theory I would advise going there ;)

My 2 cents.

Achilles
07-02-2008, 12:23 AM
There was a Conspiracy to cover up evidence AFTER 9/11 not before, the programme pointed to a systemic failure of leadership, poor acting on intelligence and a cover up going all the way to the White House, in trying to suppress evidence the at the government could have done more to stop the attacks. How would they cover up evidence beforehand? Does one rule out the other?

However continually all the conspiracy theories were debunked. The programme, as far as is possible represents my opinion on events.Because they said they were debunked or...?

I do not think that 9/11 was preplanned by the American government, however I do believe that JFK's assassination was; so those looking for a conspiracy theory I would advise going there ;)Nice. So basically no one is questioning this because it doesn't add up? They're only doing it because they lack something better to do?

My 2 cents.Indeed.

Totenkopf
07-02-2008, 01:57 AM
My 2 cents.

Indeed

Why so snarky, ach? That kind of attitude cuts both ways, as you've taken pains to point out elsewhere. :tsk:

TheExile
07-02-2008, 03:52 AM
Nah... I don't know to much bout this subject, were they using termite? Cauze they found molten steel...

Darth InSidious
07-02-2008, 05:55 AM
I see you're going for the succinct answer today. :D

Plenty of words have been wasted debunking this rubbish - I'm just going to abuse my doctorate. :p

Seriously, though, at the moment I don't have the time - or, in fact, the inclination - to go through and knock out each of the film's claims...

jonathan7
07-02-2008, 06:10 AM
How would they cover up evidence beforehand? Does one rule out the other?

Let me rephrase, there was no evidence of a plot beforehand.

That said, given the US military has spend more than a million a day since the birth of Christ (or 0AD if your Achilles ;)) and failed to intercept any of the planes is rather shocking. There are reasons for that; confusion etc, but it's still something jobs should be lost over.

Because they said they were debunked or...

No, the film debunked them, but I think those who want to believe the conspiracy theories will.

Nice. So basically no one is questioning this because it doesn't add up? They're only doing it because they lack something better to do?

Certain aspects don't add up; but nothing in this thread - I am surprised your on the conspiracy side of the thread here.

Indeed.

I do not think I will change anyone's mind

The BBC, has no reason to get it's facts wrong - infact, all the independent, non-American qualified to comment individual's I've ever heard don't think the twin towers were destroyed by anything but two planes flying into them. The one strange event is building 7.

You can take it or leave it, I'm out of this topic, people are free to believe what they want to believe :)

Astor
07-02-2008, 06:15 AM
people are free to believe what they want to believe :)

Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?

jonathan7
07-02-2008, 06:19 AM
Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?

What ever is the truth is the truth, and people will continue to try and establish what is the truth, or to bring others round to their way of thinking. It is entirely ones own decision, to participate or not...

Ray Jones
07-02-2008, 10:49 AM
How so? Scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for them to fall at that rate. No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.

As of now we (A) do know that the total collapse time (including the inner core) probably was some seconds longer and also that debris and parts came down along the buildings' fronts (logically at free fall speed), (B) thus have proof that at least big portions of a building of that type can come down in those approximately ten seconds, (C) have proof of two planes flying into the buildings causing massive damage to their structure.

But (D) we have an apparent lack of proof that we *have* to use explosives to bring a building down like the WTC.

Nedak
07-02-2008, 01:39 PM
No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.

That's not what I have heard.

I have heard that it would have been impossible for the building to fall that fast. That it would have needed to be "controlled" if it were to fall that fast.

Achilles
07-02-2008, 01:40 PM
Well, yes. But that's delving into things like physics, of which my grasp is rudimentary at best. :pSeriously, though, at the moment I don't have the time - or, in fact, the inclination - to go through and knock out each of the film's claims...:confused:

Let me rephrase, there was no evidence of a plot beforehand.Says who based on what evidence?

As I like to point out, it is impossible to prove a negative, yet this source of yours claims to have done precisely that. This alone makes me question the degree of critical thinking that your source applied to their "investigation".

That said, given the US military has spend more than a million a day since the birth of Christ (or 0AD if your Achilles ;)) and failed to intercept any of the planes is rather shocking. There are reasons for that; confusion etc, but it's still something jobs should be lost over.Not once, but 4 times. For something that is considered routine. :dozey:

No, the film debunked them, but I think those who want to believe the conspiracy theories will. Debunked them how? Without actually seeing the video I can't comment, but I will say that I will be very disappointed if it's another "expert" saying that the such and such hypothesis is debunked just because they say so. Also keep in mind, that if there is a valid counter-argument, then it actually hasn't been "debunked"

Certain aspects don't add up; but nothing in this thread - I am surprised your on the conspiracy side of the thread here. Because I have a reputation of not being skeptical of claims that don't make sense and critical of bad arguments that are used to support them? :)

The BBC, has no reason to get it's facts wrong - infact, all the independent, non-American qualified to comment individual's I've ever heard don't think the twin towers were destroyed by anything but two planes flying into them. The one strange event is building 7.That's fine, but I'd like to know what they're basing their arguments on.

I also think that it's important to point out that there's a whole lot of room for bias in your selection process, my friend ;)

No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock. Why?

As of now we (A) do know that the total collapse time (including the inner core) probably was some seconds longer and also that debris and parts came down along the buildings' fronts (logically at free fall speed), That's fine.

(B) thus have proof that at least big portions of a building of that type can come down in those approximately ten seconds, Glad that's settled. The question of why/how still hasn't been touched though.

(C) have proof of two planes flying into the buildings causing massive damage to their structure. You've yet to produce any evidence for this.

But (D) we have an apparent lack of proof that we *have* to use explosives to bring a building down like the WTC.Non-issue because that's a separate discussion. Not A does not equal B. The claim is that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. This claim is either valid or it is not.

Totenkopf
07-02-2008, 04:03 PM
Even if in the end someone can prove that demolitions were used to bring down the towers, it won't prove that any US administration was involved. America has been an open book for awhile and has many enemies in this world. If there is a coverup, it might be one to hide incompetence/being caught off gaurd and not malevolence.

EnderWiggin
07-02-2008, 10:01 PM
Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?

If we all agree to disagree there's no reason for debate at all.

Uber cop out, my friend.

_EW_

Achilles
07-02-2008, 11:12 PM
^^^^

Best EW post ever.

Totenkopf
07-03-2008, 03:33 AM
If we all agree to disagree there's no reason for debate at all.

Uber cop out, my friend.

_EW_

Sure, why not continue to bang your head against the wall. Feels good, don't it. :xp: Seriously, though, at some point a debate becomes pointless if neither side is willing to move from their own position due to lack of sufficient evidence on the other side. I think telling someone to agree to disagree is just a more polite way of saying you've got your head up you *** pal and I'm sick of talking to you about this (fill in the blank) topic. ;)

Astor
07-03-2008, 03:58 AM
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a debate, I love a good debate as much as anyone, but when we go round and round in circles, it begins to look like an excercise in futility.

Just my two cents, anyway.

Achilles
07-03-2008, 04:22 AM
Hmmm, well since I've made a point to address each of everyone else's arguments...

Darth InSidious
07-03-2008, 05:39 AM
:confused:

Sorry - that was about "Zeitgeist".

Achilles
07-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Ray Jones
07-03-2008, 05:51 PM
I have heard that it would have been impossible for the building to fall that fast. That it would have needed to be "controlled" if it were to fall that fast.Well, that is what it is: you heard it. But we hear a lot of things, don't we?

I think we all agree that you can bring down a building at "near free fall speed" using explosives. It is also pretty sure that the buildings came down in 10, 11, or maybe 15 seconds. It doesn't really matter, since every time frame means almost free fall.

From there on we can only guess. The physical aspect makes both scenarios possible (for me at least :P).

While demolition is almost impossible to be disproven, the ultimate evidence that the WTC was demolished would be to prove that the towers could not come down that fast on their own.

But until then it's up to you. :)