9/11 belief, mythology, and the unknowable (OT)


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 601 - 620 of total 954 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

State of Mine
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
there was a guy with dark glasses, positioned with his radio transmitter in hand, waiting watching. he knew when the ragheads werre going to hit the twin towers and he knew that the plan was to hit the switch a bit later. besides, his stock broker was in one of those and he didnt like him.

fortunately he was caught on film but it turned out IT WAS A SHE!

Jul 15, 2010 - 01:09pm PT

"I do deny the idea that the buildings were brought down on purpose, ..."

"When the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi they knew that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americas would perish in the al Qaeda attacks that were just about to take place inside of the US."

You then still deny ......

Jul 15, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
Oh yeah, rrrADAM, I also posted a WA Post article a week or so ago featuring short bios of Pentagon crash victims and interviews with friends and families about their lives...and they still thought it was likely that the victims were all made up by the government.

Because in addition to the wreckage that was found, we also pointed out that there several people who took that flight who are now all dead.

So "What would convince them?" you ask.


They deny even the most fundamental indisputable facts. It's delusional.


State of Mine
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:14pm PT

all of these "truthers" are experts. havent you learned at least that one fact yet?

it is unfortunate but your facts will not be believed.

all the experts in NIST were idiots and or conspiring if you believe the truthers.

RJ, the Ham Radio operator is a self appointed expert at cell phone technology and "conclusively" found (using his great intellect) that he is smarter than an internationally recognized expert.

Welcome to the brick wall brother....


Jul 15, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
I'll post this again...


Now... Think about this... Either way, terrorist conspiracy or inside job, the planning and initiation of this plan started when Clinton was president, not Bush.

So, to keep using GWB as the key to all this is pretty absurd, as do you really believe ALL of that planning, preperation, and execution could have been done in so little time (just 8 months) by this guy?

Is that belief REALLY very 'reasonable or logical'? Nope... Buit it is a CONVENIENT belief.

Point being... Even if Al Gore had won the Presidency, the attack would still have happened. That's 'An Incovenient Truth, huh? (All pun intended)

C'mon now... Apply some reason and logic here, buddy.


Jul 15, 2010 - 01:26pm PT
Yep, that photo sums it up quite nicely hawkeye.

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
Think the Government put this there too?


On Tuesday morning, workers excavating the site of the underground vehicle security center for the future World Trade Center hit a row of sturdy, upright wood timbers, regularly spaced, sticking out of a briny gray muck flecked with oyster shells.

Obviously, these were more than just remnants of the wooden cribbing used in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to extend the shoreline of Manhattan Island ever farther into the Hudson River. (Lower Manhattan real estate was a precious commodity even then.)

“They were so perfectly contoured that they were clearly part of a ship,” said A. Michael Pappalardo, an archaeologist with the firm AKRF, which is working for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to document historical material uncovered during construction.

By Wednesday, the outlines made it plain: a 30-foot length of a wood-hulled vessel had been discovered about 20 to 30 feet below street level on the World Trade Center site, the first such large-scale archaeological find along the Manhattan waterfront since 1982, when an 18th-century cargo ship came to light at 175 Water Street.

Jul 15, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
Hmmmmm... You may be onto something, doc:


State of Mine
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
after that meting ronnie went out and roughed nancy up to get her in line...

Trad climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:07pm PT
Thanx for the info, I will look through it.

However, you must realize this... Despite what you may think, I have not read one report by the government, but several by truthers... And it is easy to see illogical, unreasonable, and just plain falsities when they present themselves.

The majority of my arguments I post, in my own words, are based on my experience and my understanding of physics, so if it happens to agree with the 'official version', perhaps that is because the official version is the most reasonable... This really isn't rocket science -- Nothing extraordinary. Occam's Razor.

As to the can... I'm not sure wht you are suggesting that I haven't already suggested you do.

And I have directly addressed your points... (E.g., the tree, the can, the speed of the fall, why it fell straight down, the rotor, etc) So to say that I haven't is false, and can even be verified as false by simply reviewing this thread. Where are your couter replies to my points?

And you have been given pleanty of "evidence" as to why it fell so fast, and you have not even attempted to dispute this evidence, but have just ignored it, maintaining that "it is impossible unless it had help".

As far as when this was all planned... Which is it:
a) This was ALL planned and executed in less than 8 months.
b) The planning for this started when Clinton was in office.

Those are the only two options, so which is it? Care to answer, or are you just gonna ignore that question, since you don't want to face "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Trad climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:17pm PT
#1. Jet fueled fire hot enough to melt the structure..
Why do you keep saying this? Who said the structure was "melted"?

And you are an engineer? You go from A ---> D when people aren't saying that.

How can one duiscuss anything with you when you keep doing this?

Jul 15, 2010 - 10:20pm PT
The steel did sag due to the heat. If this meets the definition of 'heat of fusion' then some of the beams 'melted.' Is that so wrong?

Trad climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:23pm PT
#2. You claim that the building was pulled inward by the connections at the skin with the trusses. If the truss/floor assembly failed, and pulled inward. You are clearly stating that there was not enough force to shear the connections.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth as I never said that, much less "clearly stated that".

I said that the joists acted like cables and served to pull the wall inward... Do the math, what would require less force, pulling the walls inward when the above floor was gone, or shearing the connections? If you believe shearing the connections, then how do you suppose demo experts can exploit this?

It did shear the connections where they were joined at the core, as the cores even stood for a while after the collapse, up to 60 stories on one building I believe. Hey, that even answers your other stupid quetsion, as you seem to believe that the core came down at the same time.

Again... It is hard to discuss somehting with someone when they keep presenting falsehoods "the steel melted", and putting words into one's mouth that aren't correct.

Read my words... most of the are chosen carefully.


Trad climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:26pm PT
rrrADam "And you have been given pleanty of "evidence" as to why it fell so fast, and you have not even attempted to dispute this evidence, but have just ignored it, maintaining that "it is impossible unless it had help"."

Evidence? What evidence? You mearly state your flawed explanation of structures. No evidence. I have given you a detailed calculation (in link) that proves impossible. You understanding of physics is flawed.

All you have said is it pulled inward, which I have tried to explain to you multiple times that is is impossible for that to happen resulting in the fall speed, and the direction (straight down) You have not given me one thing credible to state otherwise. If the measily connections of the skin, and the trusses was strong enough to hold, and pull the exterior in, then what about the giant vertical columns of the inner core. What brought them down. Sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about. I have tried to enlighten you, and you are just stubborn.
You were given direct evidence by another user, that paraphrased what I had said.

So, you are saying that if I give you detailed calcs that support what I, and most others sday, you will change your mind?

Admit it... You won't, will you. I'd be wasting my time, as I have done for a couple days now in this thread.

I will however look into the info you have given me, and I may even feel compelled to reply on it... I'm stupid like that, and like chasing windmills.


Trad climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:39pm PT

refer me to the post. If it was the silly math that explained the rate of fall, please see the video I posted. That is real math.

Post some, and I will look at it. That's the beauty of it. Math is definite.
It was posted a few pages back, and he even said he had posted it before, but it was ignored then as well. It is from the NIST report, I believe.

So, are you saying that if I provide you with accurate calcs that show that once the fall started, there wasn't sufficient structure to provide significant resistance to slow the fall you will admit that you are wrong? Since "math is definate", right?

And you have yet to answer my simple question regarding when and how long it took to plan this all out. An embarassing questiion tyo answer perhaps?

Lastly... As far as our individual understandings of physics goes, my kung fu appears to be better than yours. What was it, 30 years you said, since you had to use any applied physics? Not understanding the center of mass, inertia, and even the mechanics of how a tree actually falls, as it trying to compare that to the WTC.

You may want to brush the dust off those engineering and physics books my friend... Instead of getting info, and tyour 'real math', from the truthers equivilant of answersingenesis.org.

Jul 15, 2010 - 10:42pm PT
What about the argument of the melting thermite? From what's out there, the weight of the aluminum of each jet was approximately 140,000 lbs. This was the molten metal streaming from the tower that was claimed to be thermite. They sampled the metal landing on the sidewalk and the thermal imagery is that of aluminum metal.

Berkeley, CA
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:11pm PT
And there's lots of metals in a skyrise that melt well before steel does.

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:21pm PT
This is from http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

Static v. Dynamic Loading:
Why the WTC Towers Fell So Fast

Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, "only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?"

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don't understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.

What the conspiracy theorists apparently don't understand is the difference between static and dynamic loading. ("Static" means "while at rest," "dynamic" means "while moving.")

If you don't think it can make a difference, consider the effect of a stationary bullet resting on your chest, compared to the effect of a moving bullet striking your chest. The stationary bullet exerts a static load on your chest. A moving bullet exerts a dynamic load.

As a more pertinent example, consider a 110 story building with a roof 1,368 feet high (like the WTC Twin Towers). Each floor is 1368/110 = 12.44 feet high, or aproximately 3.8 meters.

Now, suppose that the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses. (Note: I'm using as an example 2 WTC, which was the building that collapsed first.)

The collapse of the 80th floor drops all the floors above (which, together, are equivalent to a 30 story building!) onto the 79th floor, from a height of aproximately 12 feet.

Of course, the structure of the lower 79 floors has been holding up the weight of the top 31 floors for many years. (That's the static load.) So should you expect it to be able to hold that same weight, dropped on it from a height of 12 feet (the dynamic load)?
The answer is, absolutely not!

Here's why.

First, let's calculate aproximately how fast the upper 30 floors slammed into the 79th floor. (If you slept through high school physics, you may want to skip ahead to the result.)

d=distance, g=acceleration of gravity, t=time, v=velocity
d = 0.5 g x t˛
Solving for t:
2d = g x t˛
t˛ = 2d / g
t = sqrt(2d/g)
t = sqrt(2d) / sqrt(g)
v = g x t
Substituting for t:
v = g x sqrt(2d) / sqrt(g)
v = g x sqrt(2d) / sqrt(g)
v = (g / sqrt(g)) x sqrt(2) x sqrt(d)
v = sqrt(2g) x sqrt(d)
g = 9.8 m/sec˛
d = 3.8 meters
v = sqrt(19.6 x 3.8) m/sec
v = sqrt( 74.5 ) m/sec
v = 8.6 m/sec
1 meter = 39.37 inches, so
v = 8.6 m/sec x (39.37/12) ft/m = 28 ft/sec.
which is 19 mph.

In other words, if you drop something from a height of 12 feet, it will be moving at about 19 miles per hour by the time it reaches the ground. It doesn't matter whether it is a single brick or a 30 story building. After falling 12 feet it will be moving at about 19 mph.

That's about the speed of a collegiate sprinter. (The world record for running the mile is 3:43.13, which is an average speed of 16.134 mph.) If you could sprint that fast and ran into a brick wall the impact might well kill you.

So if the lower 79 floors are strong enough to support a stationary 31 story building, do you think they will be?

The answer is emphatically no! e strong enough to support a 31 story bulding falling at 19 mph? But if you are not convinced, then ask yourself this roughly equivalent question. Suppose that you can hold up a 50 lb weight with little difficulty. Do you suppose that you could survive a 50 lb weight falling on you from a height of 12 feet - i.e., at 19 mph? (Warning: Do not try this!)

To answer that question without killing someone, I devised the following experiment. First, I found an easily dividable weight: I used my penny jar. Then I made a support for it: I used a piece of notebook paper stretched over a loaf pan, and taped in place. As you can see, the paper was strong enough to support the jar:

(I was going to determine the limit to the amount of weight it would support, by adding pennies to the jar until the paper tore, but that's all the pennies I had in my penny jar.)

Then I removed the jar from the paper, and set it aside. I took five pennies from the jar, and taped them together. I stood on a stepstool, reached as high into the air as I could (about 9 or 10 feet from the floor), and dropped the 5 pennies onto the paper from that height. As you can see, even though I didn't drop it from a full 12 feet, the paper still could not withstand the falling pennies:

(I took the pennies out of the loaf pan for this photo; that's them next to the lower-right corner of the pan.)

Then I weighed both the five taped-together pennies (12 grams), and the penny jar full of pennies (1372 grams):

As you can see, 5 taped-together pennies weigh just 1/114th as much as the penny jar, yet they tore the paper on the first try. (I didn't try an even smaller stack of pennies.)

You can imagine what would happen if I'd dropped the full penny jar on the paper from 10 feet up. If a 12 gram penny stack broke right though the paper, obviously the paper would hardly have slowed the 1372 gram jar full of pennies at all... just as the lower floors of the WTC towers hardly slowed the fall of the upper floors.

That is experimental proof that a stiff (inelastic) structure which can support a given static load may break when less than 1% of that mass is dropped on it from a height of 10 feet. From that fact, it follows that if the full mass which the structure is capable of supporting is dropped on it from a height of 12 feet, the strength of the structure can be expected to slow the fall by less than 1%.

In the case of the WTC towers, there was a second factor which also slowed the collapse, but not by much. When the top 30 floors of a 110 story building fall 12 feet onto the 79th floor, due to the collapse of the 80th floor, the mass of the 79th floor is suddenly added to the mass of the falling structure. The momentum of a 30 story building falling at 19 mph suddenly becomes the momentum of a 31 story building falling at a slightly smaller velocity. The question is, how much smaller?

p = momentum = m x v
m1 = mass of the top 30 stories
m2 = mass of the top 31 stories = aprox. (31/30) x m1
v1 = velocity before the additional mass is added = 19 mph
v2 = velocity after the mass is added
Momentum is conserved, so:
p = m1 x v1 = m2 x v2 = (31/30) x m1 x v2
Solving for v2:
v2 = v1 x (30/31) = 0.968 x 19 mph = 18.4 mph
So you can see that the two factors which slowed the fall of the WTC towers were both very small. The strength of the structure below the point of collapse could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by less than 1%, and the accumulation of additional mass by the falling part of the structure due to the the "pancaking" of the lower floors could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by about 3%.

Of course, the above analysis is just about what happened when the top 31 stories fell onto the 79th floor. To predict the progression of the entire collapse, you have to repeat the calculations for each floor. For the next floor, calculate a 32-story building starting with an initial velocity of about 18.4 mph, and accelerating for another 12.4 feet to about 27 mph, and then slamming into the 78th floor. Since kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, the falling mass hits the 78th floor with about twice the kinetic energy that the top 31 stories had when they hit the 79th floor. Obviously, the 78th floor could be expected to slow the collapse by even less than the 79th floor did, which is why the building collapsed at nearly free-fall speed.

Dave Burton
Cary, NC USA
Feb. 21, 2007

wtc.nist.gov: National Institute of Standards and Technology reports & information
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study (or here)
http://www.9-11commission.gov: 9-11 Commission Report
Scientific American: Preliminary Opinions of M.I.T. Stuctural Engineers (Oct. 2001)
Article: Engineers blame collapses on fires
Article: Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse
BBC: Q&A: What really happened
WGBH/Nova: Building on Ground Zero
Popular Mechanics: Debunking The 9/11 Myths (March 2005), and Editor's Notes
Book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, by The Editors of Popular Mechanics
WGBH/Nova: Demolition Woman, Interview with Stacey Loizeaux (1996)
jod911.com - Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
911myths.com - 9-11 Myths... Reading between the lies
debunking911.com - Debunking 911 conspiracy theories
429truth.com - a campaign to expose the truth of 4-29
Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?

Trad climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:24pm PT

I see you have been busy. Don't you have a job inspecting something.
To be honest... I've been stuck in a hotel, for 2 days now, in Florence, SC, waiting to help do the final walkdowns of the primary and secondary systems of one of our nukes before it goes critical and syncs to the grid. Problem is, we can't do it until the systems reach normal operating temperate and pressure, and the schedule keeps slipping to the right. They haven't even started to "press up" the systems yet. :(

So I am bored to tears, hence my willingness to go in circles in this thread, and partake in all the banality.

Jul 15, 2010 - 11:27pm PT
Sounds like you're releasing security secrets or at least violating the company's ethics policy.
Messages 601 - 620 of total 954 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo Videos

Recent Route Beta