* Login   * Register
It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:29 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:42 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:09 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Burlington, Iowa
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
Junius wrote:
Thanks for that, Strangelove! Entertaining, but hardly follows -- now why don't you use that big brain to take a crack at my three (slightly revised) claims:

1. WTC 7 collapsed floor by floor along a vertical axis into it's own 'footprint'.

2. WTC 7 collapsed in just over 6 seconds, approaching free-fall speed.

3. WTC 7's roof bears a 'crimp' just prior to collapse.

I hope you do reply, I'd like to know what you think.


I am not a structural engineer but everything I remember from physics for scientists and engineers, thermodynamics, and strength of materials would point exactly towards that structure falling the way it did. You have to consider the enormous potential energy represented by these structures. Their core frames are designed to align that potential energy along vertical axes rather than vector out in all directions. It certainly would be possible to build structures like that. Like Bucky ball buildings or something. But humans seem to have chosen this vertical structure for a lot of reasons -- the fact that everything that goes up at some point must come down being chief among them.


And don't get me wrong. I will listen to your conspiracy theories. Just don't be mad if I point out the problems.

Your chief problem here is that the potential energy turned kinetic and you have no external force to change that vector to anywhere but towards the center of the Earth. It is just physics. For the building to collapse in another way, you would need either an external force vector of approximately the same magnitude as gravity OR you would need a structure designed to fall sideways by purposely building it with a stronger superstructure to one side. Even in that latter case, the part of the structure that falls would slump. To make the whole thing topple, you would need a particular dynamic that is HIGHLY improbable.

In fact, you have this backwards. It would be suspect had the buildings not fallen the way they did.


Okay, I guess maybe I'm assuming you know more about the alleged reasons for the building's collapse. Do you see any problems with that explanation?

Maybe I'm just not understanding your points in the form that you've put them. Are you claiming that WTC 7 came straight down because it was built vertically?

Wouldn't we need to also take into consideration the alleged reasons for the collapse? I mean the same building would collapse in a different ways if it were leveled in an earthquake as opposed to being leveled by a tsunami, let's say.

_________________
"Fear is the mind killer." -- Frank Herbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:46 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:09 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Burlington, Iowa
Tyrius wrote:
Junius wrote:
And you're one of the experts, right! You can check out previous links in prior posts.

Thanks for your reply, lets keep this going!


I'm not an expert and never claimed that I was one, but then I'm not the one trying to discredit the experts.


No, no, I actually agree with the experts!

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

_________________
"Fear is the mind killer." -- Frank Herbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:06 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:22 pm
Posts: 1591
Location: Portland, OR
Junius wrote:
1. WTC 7 collapsed floor by floor along a vertical axis into it's own 'footprint'.

Tell me,
why would you expect the building to fall any other direction then strait down?

_________________
1.Prior attitude effect. Subjects who feel strongly about an issue—even when encouraged to be objective—will evaluate supportive arguments more favorably than contrary arguments.
2.Disconfirmation bias. Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments.
3.Confirmation bias. Subjects free to choose their information sources will seek out supportive rather than contrary sources.
4.Attitude polarization. Exposing subjects to an apparently balanced set of pro and con arguments will exaggerate their initial polarization.
5.Attitude strength effect. Subjects voicing stronger attitudes will be more prone to the above biases.
6.Sophistication effect. Politically knowledgeable subjects, because they possess greater ammunition with which to counter-argue incongruent facts and arguments, will be more prone to the above biases.

- Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge - Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:15 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:09 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Burlington, Iowa
Vox Contra wrote:
Junius wrote:
1. WTC 7 collapsed floor by floor along a vertical axis into it's own 'footprint'.

Tell me,
why would you expect the building to fall any other direction then strait down?


Yes. If we have a skyscraper wherein the steel infrastructure had been weakened or removed on the east side, then I'd expect that building to teeter and list to the east while coming down in the event of a collapse. It would collapse to the side rather than straight down on top of itself into its own 'footprint'.

_________________
"Fear is the mind killer." -- Frank Herbert


Last edited by Junius on Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:15 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:58 am
Posts: 248
Location: Spring, TX, USA
Dan wrote:
For what it is worth, the book "102 Minutes" has a great deal of info (more than I cared for actually) on the unique design of the WTC buildings. If they did not behave normally for some reason, it could easily be explained by the fact they were not designed and constructed anything like , say, the Empire State building was (as others here have also said).

In fact, given their size, there's probably very few examples of any other buildings of comparable height built in that fashion in the world. So, it is possible they would have acted somewhat differently (especially in extreme situations) than other large buildings constructed in a more orthodox fashion. In fact, it would likely be impossible to know how they would have behaved since I would guess there's never been even a very hot fire in one constructed that way (it is easy to say that it could withstand a 707...but until one actually hits it, who knows?).

It is worth your time if you haven't read it. The first hand accounts of people in the buildings (really the purpose of the book) are fascinating (and heartbreaking).


I thought I would mention that in Tulsa, OK there is an almost exact replica of the towers. The only difference being that it's not quite so tall. Also a few blocks from that building is a tower with a similar design. Both buildings were designed by the same Minoru Yamasaki that designed the WTC, just before the WTC.

As I read Dan's comment I had an interesting thought that maybe in years to come, when these buildings become decrepit and it's time for a controlled demo, we can finally put a lot of these issues to bed.

Image

_________________
“It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

-Abbot Bernard of Arbroath Abbey
6 April 1320


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:19 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 34625
Quote:
Okay, I guess maybe I'm assuming you know more about the alleged reasons for the building's collapse. Do you see any problems with that explanation?

Maybe I'm just not understanding your points in the form that you've put them. Are you claiming that WTC 7 came straight down because it was built vertically?

Wouldn't we need to also take into consideration the alleged reasons for the collapse? I mean the same building would collapse in a different ways if it were leveled in an earthquake as opposed to being leveled by a tsunami, let's say.




The buildings collapsing and the cause of the disequilibrium that led to those collapses are not so tied together as the conspiracy theorists like to imagine. Regardless of how or why the buildings collapsed, they collapsed exactly as one would expect for them to collapse.

Essentially, it comes down to a strength of materials problem where the energy is so vastly disproportional to the strength of materials that it doesn't matter a damn. It's like a metallic waterfall.

To show that something else caused it, you have to give up this nonsensical attempt to find little details in the actual collapse. There are few other outcomes of any cause for them to collapse so it is pointless in a way. I have footage of an airplane crashing into one tower. I have eyewitness, radio, and 911 calls describing the impact of another plane. Those same 911 calls confirm the fuel air explosion in the floors impacted. Those same calls confirmed the floors were impassable because of the jet fuel fire which also burns at a temperature those structures were not designed to withstand. The fire and police departments confirm this happening from the bottom side of the impacts. The fire just burned straight through the superstructure and, once the equilibrium was broken, all the potential energy of those buildings turned kinetic and nothing made by human hands could have halted the collapses.

Another aspect to this picture is what we DID see. The heat was incredible. You could see the the terror and desperation in those peoples' faces. Falling was a far favorable end for them. Think about that. Most of us would say fuck it, I am riding this thing down. At least we would think so. But look at those videos and try to account for why so many decided to die jumping.

The heat was so incredibly hot it burned straight through the structure. Once you get a few floors falling on the others, the entire superstructure fails and the energy of all that matter is far to great for any support.

To be honest, this is why I don't support the building of these kinds of structures. It is hubris beyond reason. When the equilibrium fails on any of these structures, you will have a metal waterfall and nothing you can do will stop it once it starts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:27 pm 
Offline
Master of Ceremonies
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 11264
To add to what Doc said, I read in one of those books something to the effect that the ground floors of both those buildings had generators (or something similar) that exploded when the buildings collapsed on them. Maybe that would account for the explosion sounds some claim to have heard?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:28 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:09 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Burlington, Iowa
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
Quote:
Okay, I guess maybe I'm assuming you know more about the alleged reasons for the building's collapse. Do you see any problems with that explanation?

Maybe I'm just not understanding your points in the form that you've put them. Are you claiming that WTC 7 came straight down because it was built vertically?

Wouldn't we need to also take into consideration the alleged reasons for the collapse? I mean the same building would collapse in a different ways if it were leveled in an earthquake as opposed to being leveled by a tsunami, let's say.




The buildings collapsing and the cause of the disequilibrium that led to those collapses are not so tied together as the conspiracy theorists like to imagine. Regardless of how or why the buildings collapsed, they collapsed exactly as one would expect for them to collapse.

Essentially, it comes down to a strength of materials problem where the energy is so vastly disproportional to the strength of materials that it doesn't matter a damn. It's like a metallic waterfall.

To show that something else caused it, you have to give up this nonsensical attempt to find little details in the actual collapse. There are few other outcomes of any cause for them to collapse so it is pointless in a way. I have footage of an airplane crashing into one tower. I have eyewitness, radio, and 911 calls describing the impact of another plane. Those same 911 calls confirm the fuel air explosion in the floors impacted. Those same calls confirmed the floors were impassable because of the jet fuel fire which also burns at a temperature those structures were not designed to withstand. The fire and police departments confirm this happening from the bottom side of the impacts. The fire just burned straight through the superstructure and, once the equilibrium was broken, all the potential energy of those buildings turned kinetic and nothing made by human hands could have halted the collapses.

Another aspect to this picture is what we DID see. The heat was incredible. You could see the the terror and desperation in those peoples' faces. Falling was a far favorable end for them. Think about that. Most of us would say fuck it, I am riding this thing down. At least we would think so. But look at those videos and try to account for why so many decided to die jumping.

The heat was so incredibly hot it burned straight through the structure. Once you get a few floors falling on the others, the entire superstructure fails and the energy of all that matter is far to great for any support.

To be honest, this is why I don't support the building of these kinds of structures. It is hubris beyond reason. When the equilibrium fails on any of these structures, you will have a metal waterfall and nothing you can do will stop it once it starts.


Okay, but you're describing the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. No planes hit WTC 7...

No, I think that the cause of collapse actually does matter here. Sure, the design of the building might determine some aspects of the collapse, I'm not denying that. But it doesn't tell you how it collapsed, though, eventhough it might help to describe the manner in which it collapsed. But there sure wasn't any jet fuel in WTC 7...

So you beg the question...How do you think WTC 7 collapsed?

_________________
"Fear is the mind killer." -- Frank Herbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:37 pm 
Offline
Master of Ceremonies
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 11264
Junius wrote:
Dan wrote:
To add to what Doc said, I read in one of those books something to the effect that the ground floors of both those buildings had generators (or something similar) that exploded when the buildings collapsed on them. Maybe that would account for the explosion sounds some claim to have heard?


They may explain the sounds, but do you think exploding generators led to an utter collapse of WTC 7? Pretty fragile, don't you think, Dan?

Take a look at this video and please let me know what you think about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I


No,no, no...you misunderstand. They had nothing to do with any damage, Some have argued that explosions that some claim to have heard represented the demolition charges that conspiracy believers think were there. I was proposing an alternative reasons explosions might have been heard, not a reason that actual damage was done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 34625
Junius wrote:
Okay, but you're describing the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. No planes hit WTC 7...

No, I think that the cause of collapse actually does matter here. Sure, the design of the building might determine some aspects of the collapse, I'm not denying that. But it doesn't tell you how it collapsed, though, eventhough it might help to describe the manner in which it collapsed. But there sure wasn't any jet fuel in WTC 7...

So you beg the question...How do you think WTC 7 collapsed?



WTC 7 was right next to those collapses. It was not unlikely that WTC 7 was structurally damaged from the concussion wave and the wave of debris. Then you have the heat and fire falling on it.

In any case, let's say WTC 7 was dropped on purpose. What does that prove about the 9-11 attacks themselves? Nothing. I can construct any number of scenarios to account for that and the 9-11 attacks to still be exactly what the government claims.

That is the problem with all these conspiracy theories. They are nothing but a collection of anomalies (some bogus) and people creating their own narrative to to explain them. They wonder why people can't just "see" the obvious "truth" of their narrative. Except I can assume those same anomalies for the sake of argument and construct an alternate narrative that has just as much support as your narrative -- that is to say: not much but a good story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:50 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:09 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Burlington, Iowa
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
Junius wrote:
Okay, but you're describing the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. No planes hit WTC 7...

No, I think that the cause of collapse actually does matter here. Sure, the design of the building might determine some aspects of the collapse, I'm not denying that. But it doesn't tell you how it collapsed, though, eventhough it might help to describe the manner in which it collapsed. But there sure wasn't any jet fuel in WTC 7...

So you beg the question...How do you think WTC 7 collapsed?



WTC 7 was right next to those collapses. It was not unlikely that WTC 7 was structurally damaged from the concussion wave and the wave of debris. Then you have the heat and fire falling on it.

And this let to its utter collapse. I could see it leading to a partial collapse, but this sort of fragile stack of pancakes theory I just don't buy; like the building couldn't do anything else but collapse, given what had happened to WTC 1 and 2.

In any case, let's say WTC 7 was dropped on purpose. What does that prove about the 9-11 attacks themselves? Nothing. I can construct any number of scenarios to account for that and the 9-11 attacks to still be exactly what the government claims.

Well considering the government never actually addressed WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, you would be right...nothing!

That is the problem with all these conspiracy theories. They are nothing but a collection of anomalies (some bogus) and people creating their own narrative to to explain them. They wonder why people can't just "see" the obvious "truth" of their narrative. Except I can assume those same anomalies for the sake of argument and construct an alternate narrative that has just as much support as your narrative -- that is to say: not much but a good story.


Okay, but I haven't really shared any theories or narratives, here, so how would you know what they are or might be. I've just been asking and answering questions, for the most part. I don't know how or why this happened the way it did, and I don't really presume to right now. I just have a lot of questions about WTC 7.

Can you provide an example of a "bogus" anomaly regarding WTC 7?

_________________
"Fear is the mind killer." -- Frank Herbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:10 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 34625
Junius wrote:

Okay, but I haven't really shared any theories or narratives, here, so how would you know what they are or might be. I've just been asking and answering questions, for the most part. I don't know how or why this happened the way it did, and I don't really presume to right now. I just have a lot of questions about WTC 7.

Can you provide an example of a "bogus" anomaly regarding WTC 7?


You can start here:


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842

If you *really* want to get into actual conspiracy material, then look into the classified portions of the 9-11 report and which foreign power allegedly had intelligence officers operating inside our nation who might have known what they were up to but never bothered to inform the U.S. government lest they reveal their existence on US soil. That is an area I find interesting and is rife with speculation but difficult to discount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:22 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:09 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Burlington, Iowa
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... enter#wtc7

Interesting, they don't even mention the fire-retardant foam on the steel columns...

_________________
"Fear is the mind killer." -- Frank Herbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:07 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 34625
Junius wrote:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

Interesting, they don't even mention the fire-retardant foam on the steel columns...



The fire retardant foam that is put in a fighter jet's fuel tank doesn't survive jet fuel fire from lightning strikes. Trust me. I have seen it. JP8 doesn't catch fire as easily as gasoline but it burns extremely hot. It's about 550F if burned outside a fuel tank or engine. Polystyrene burns at about 540F. There was no foam in those buildings designed to survive a massive JP8 fire. You might make a case for WT7 but we don't really know what caused it to collapse. It was evacuated and nobody was paying attention to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Ultimate 9/11 Truth/Conspiracy/debunking thread
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:32 am 
Offline
Satrap

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:44 am
Posts: 3165
Junius wrote:



That silly site again? You do realize how INCREDIBLY small that number of "experts" is in comparison to the total population don't you? I looked it up in a different thread (when StCapps trotted that number out) and there are something like 94,000 architects (only architects, not engineers) in just the US. And you're number references worldwide. It's an incredibly TINY percentage of the whole.

As for experts, here's an actual article published in a recognized industry trade magazine explaining the likely manner in which WTC 7 collapsed.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdf

You can even email the authors of the article if you want. Their emails are included.

Quote:
STRUCTURE® magazine is a registered trademark of the National Council of Engineers Associations (NCSEA). All materials contained in this website fall under U.S. copyright laws.


Last edited by Tyrius on Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us