9/11

[ds dude]

I do not understand how there could be a conspiracy about bombs in the Twin Towers, when you can clearly see in countless videos that the plane hits the building and then explodes.

[Veritas]

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Yet he is not wanted for it. If I make a video tape where I say that I did it, does that PROVE I did it? Seems not, according to FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm

The transnational Al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden has clearly emerged as the most urgent threat to U.S. interests. The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable

herp a derp derp

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

You still did not say why it fell in the manner it did. Which was the point of the discussion right from the start and which you ignore completely.

I did, actually.  Once the weakened steel couldn't support the top part of the tower, it crashed onto the bottom part, and the force kept the process going.

Unusual architectural design?? I hope you meant structural.

"According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. 'What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,' Sunder notes, 'it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.'"

At any rate, I'd say that the architecture of a building and its structure are closely related enough that the semantic difference is negligible.

I have not said that the steel did not weaken. Or that it needed to be melting to become weaker.
Steel is a good condutor of heat. It doesn't just work so that when you have a X degree fire in one spot (Y amount of floors) that the steel in that spot gets also X degrees hot. That heat will transfer along the whole steel core, which is a lot of steel to warm up. And I have not seen calculations that account for this. Its always like this "the fire was X degrees hot, and that is enought to weaken steel enough"

There was a lot of fire to warm up that steel:
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/images/wtc9-11.jpg

And of course, once the fire started, there was probably a LOT of flammable stuff inside that went up as well.  It's not like the jet fuel was doing all the work, just like the maximum temperature of a lit match has nothing to do with the maximum temperature of a building set on fire by that match.

What's the deal with the hundreds (thousands?) of scientists who disagree with you?

What's the deal with the hundreds who disagree with you? I guess they are all delusional teens  .

If nothing else, they're not scientists whose careers are build on studying things like this.  Note that these scientists aren't all government workers, either; many independent organizations (Popular Mechanics being a big one) reached the same conclusions as were presented in the official report.

If you say something looks like a controlled demolition and I say it doesn't, great, it's your word against mine.  But when demolitions experts say this doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and when demolition experts say it would be impossible to set up a demolition of this magnitude, there's a pretty good chance they're right.
 

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Yet he is not wanted for it. If I make a video tape where I say that I did it, does that PROVE I did it? Seems not, according to FBI.

Of course it doesn't prove it.  However, when a known terrorist leader claims responsibility for a terrorist attack, it shouldn't be taken lightly.  At the very least, people should stop saying "oh we have no way of knowing who was behind the attacks".

What do you think of this?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
I haven't yet seen anyone debunking this.

The tower could resist a plane that crashed into it in an emergency, like the Empire State Building resisted the B-25 that hit it in 1945.  In such a situation, the plane would be going much more slowly and would have dumped its fuel (meaning the fuel capacity and cruise speed comparisons on that site are irrelevant).  With the WTC towers, the planes were going full speed with all of their fuel.

[Mittsu]

Yes don't worry, it was just gravity that cut the columns and melted metal.

yeah, because there were obviously no planes that hit the towers and set them on fire

From: September 10, 2010, 05:01:43 am

What do you think of this?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
I haven't yet seen anyone debunking this.

How about NIST?

"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."

you're saying you're just curious what happend, so why won't you read the NIST report?

[Centurion]

There was a lot of fire to warm up that steel:
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/images/wtc9-11.jpg

It's not like it burned all the time with that flame.... Actually you couldn't see the fire that much-
only smoke.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/twin_towers_bombed.html

-----------



www.paragraph11.com

http://www.youtube.com/v/vuBo4E77ZXo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&autoplay=1

This video is 98% offtopic but hell. Yes it talks about 9/11 too! If that's going to happen then may God have mercy upon us.

[Mittsu]

alex jones is just making money on idiots like you, centurion

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

There was a lot of fire to warm up that steel:
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/images/wtc9-11.jpg

It's not like it burned all the time with that flame.... Actually you couldn't see the fire that much-
only smoke.

Right, it didn't; that huge ball of fire was the jet fuel burning up outside of the tower (probably quite harmlessly, actually).  The internal flames are sure to be less spectacular (being hidden by walls and all), but my point was that it's not at all unlikely for the entirety of one or more floors to be completely hit by fire like that.  Even if it's only for a second or two, that's enough time for everything flammable inside to go up in flames as well.

Ugh.  I already commented on this, but for your benefit, I'll do it again:

With the WTC towers, you don't see that weakened lower structure, and you don't see any explosions that would cause such a weakened lower structure.  The closest thing to that are little random puffs of debris being ejected out of windows by the sheer pressure of the tower above.  Sure, they might looks suspiciously similar to the explosions that destroy the lower support of a demolished building.  However, there are two major differences.  The first is that in a controlled demolition, there are more than THREE of these explosion-looking things (especially in a 100-something story building).  The second is that they don't just occur randomly; there's an obvious pattern as the support is systematically destroyed.

One of the debunking websites I reference had the following quote that I think is pretty relevant here:

Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?

And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?

Because in order to be surprised by what did happen, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I'd like you to stop and think about that.

Let me just say that when I was 14 years old the world was much simpler and safer in my eyes too, so I dont completely not understand you.

I let this go before, but I feel like I have to comment on it now.  It's pretty darn elitist to think that just because you're in a minority, everyone else is a bunch of idiot sheep who blindly accept whatever they're told.  Actually, I once was like you, briefly.  During my freshman year in college, I was first introduced to all this 9/11 conspiracy stuff, and I ate it up.  I told my friends and I even did a presentation about how everything we were told was wrong.

However, I didn't stop there.  I kept searching and I kept digging, and you know what I eventually realized? The official explanation made a lot more logical sense than the conspiracy theory, and it was actually backed by people who knew what they were talking about, rather than speculators and hypothesizers.  The vast amount of real evidence for the official explanation, combined with the marginal amount of fake evidence the CTs used, was what brought me back to where I am now.

So don't think that just because I don't believe what you do means I blindly accept everything thrown my way.  I've been to where you are now, and I was there for some time.  I just realized there was no reason to stay.

[Slashnoob]

LOL @ Loose change and Alex Jones.. Whoever choses to believe these buffoons, while yelling at people about how gullible they are by "believing" the official statements, is a complete idiot.

The BBC already made an article and a program that took apart the pathetic Loose change conspiracy theory and simply demolished it. Go and look for it yourselves, it's out there on youtube aswell.

[ds dude]

The only person that is any good at this conspiracy stuff is Jesse Ventura.

[Veritas]

The BBC already made an article and a program that took apart the pathetic Loose change conspiracy theory and simply demolished it. Go and look for it yourselves, it's out there on youtube aswell.

There's one on the History Channel right now tearing apart the various theories

It's p hilarious

[ValiS]

At any rate, I'd say that the architecture of a building and its structure are closely related enough that the semantic difference is negligible.

LOL, try to say that to an architect or an engineer. I happen to study architecture but work in an engineering bureau, the difference is not just semantics.. although of course they are usually closely related, but not always, it's not a rule. There has been all kinds of relations and ideals during the history of architecture.


From: September 13, 2010, 01:27:27 pm

.... 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.

Well, this is negative evidence really. And also, the lack of modern day simulation capabilities resulted rather in over-estimation of the forces, "just to be on the safe side". There is no reason to conclude they would have underestimated them just because they didn't have computer simulations.
It also raises the quiestion why is there no simulations of the collapses (official), only an animation of the plane hitting the tower, with useless details like the blades of the jet engines.

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 plane being 20 % bigger is irrelevant, and repeating this kind of facts is misleading. Momentum is the thing that counts, and 707's higher top speed actually gives it more momentum than the 767.
"relatively light steel" << yep, that's real science right there

you're saying you're just curious what happend, so why won't you read the NIST report?

OMFG How many times do I have to say this (or quote the NIST report): NIST did not analyse the collapse! Only the sequence of events that initiated the "total collapse initiation". If you have a NIST report on the actual collapse itself I would read it ofc. But sadly it just does not exist. And NIST supports this statement. Read it yourself if you still don't understand what this discussion is about.

From: September 13, 2010, 01:37:51 pm

Let me just say that when I was 14 years old the world was much simpler and safer in my eyes too, so I dont completely not understand you.

I let this go before, but I feel like I have to comment on it now.  It's pretty darn elitist to think that just because you're in a minority, everyone else is a bunch of idiot sheep who blindly accept whatever they're told.  Actually, I once was like you, briefly.  During my freshman year in college, I was first introduced to all this 9/11 conspiracy stuff, and I ate it up.  I told my friends and I even did a presentation about how everything we were told was wrong.

However, I didn't stop there.  I kept searching and I kept digging, and you know what I eventually realized? The official explanation made a lot more logical sense than the conspiracy theory, and it was actually backed by people who knew what they were talking about, rather than speculators and hypothesizers.  The vast amount of real evidence for the official explanation, combined with the marginal amount of fake evidence the CTs used, was what brought me back to where I am now.

So don't think that just because I don't believe what you do means I blindly accept everything thrown my way.  I've been to where you are now, and I was there for some time.  I just realized there was no reason to stay.

Hehehe .. good for you. But you have not "been to where I am now". I do not tell my friends and make presentations about how everything we were told was wrong. I am not that into it.

And I repeat: I have not said anywhere that the official report must be wrong.
I have not even said I believe the unofficial theories.
Only thing I have said is that there are still things to consider, and things that can make one doubt.

And creationists (demonic 93) this topic is NOT ABOUT CREATIONISM, and I don't care, keep your private messages to yourself.

[Mittsu]

what exactly is so important about how the building fell?

[demoniac93]

what exactly is so important about how the building fell?

Apparently he doesn't realize that cause is more important than result in modern science.
Also, he doesn't know what gravity is.

[Veritas]

Momentum is the thing that counts, and 707's higher top speed actually gives it more momentum than the 767.

Momentum = Mass x Velocity
707's top speed: 1009 km/h
707's max takeoff weight: 257,000 lb
707's max momentum: 259,313,000 lb*km/h
767's top speed: 900 km/h
767's max takeoff weight: 315,000 lb
767'x max momentum: 283,500,000 lb*km/h
herp a derp derp

OMFG How many times do I have to say this (or quote the NIST report): NIST did not analyse the collapse! Only the sequence of events that initiated the "total collapse initiation". If you have a NIST report on the actual collapse itself I would read it ofc. But sadly it just does not exist. And NIST supports this statement. Read it yourself if you still don't understand what this discussion is about.

NIST did analyze the way the tower collapsed. For instance:

•  Collapse initiated 56 minutes after the aircraft impact (9:02:59 a.m. to 9:58:59 a.m.).   
•  From a northeast viewpoint, initial downward motion was observed as columns moved
inward on the north side of the east face, as shown in Fig. E–7. Tilt of the building section
above the impact and fire area appeared to take place near Floor 82.  Column buckling was
then seen to progress across the north face.
•  The building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the east and south as the
structural collapse initiated as shown in Fig. E–8.  There was approximately a 3 to 4 degree
tilt to the south and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east prior to significant downward movement of
the upper building section.   

They used how the building collapsed to understand why the building collapsed. I don't know why you think the lack of a report concerning only the collapse indicates they didn't use the way the collapse occurred in their investigation.

[.Long-Range]

It sucks how this thread turned into a discussion about 9/11 being a conspiracy. I find the idea ridiculous to be honest.

[Centurion]

Ya'll just narrow-minded mutafuckas. Get your own opinion about stuff instead of listening what news tell ya. I'm outta here.

[Mittsu]

Ya'll just narrow-minded mutaf**kas. Get your own opinion about stuff instead of listening what alex jones tells ya. I'm outta here.

[Centurion]

hes rite bout stuff ya know... one dai u'll be sorru

[ValiS]

Momentum is the thing that counts, and 707's higher top speed actually gives it more momentum than the 767.

Momentum = Mass x Velocity
707's top speed: 1009 km/h
707's max takeoff weight: 257,000 lb
707's max momentum: 259,313,000 lb*km/h
767's top speed: 900 km/h
767's max takeoff weight: 315,000 lb
767'x max momentum: 283,500,000 lb*km/h
herp a derp derp

LOL first of all if you use SI use it all the way please, GTFO with your lb's.
Second, you use just the kind of calculations and stats as expected, if you work from the result and want to construct conditions to "prove it".

There are 2 models of Boeing 707, one(707-320B) has a max.takeoff weight of 151 315 kg,
the other  (707-120B) has only 116 575 kg.. you of course chose the one that suited your "proof".

Both have max speed of 1009 km/h (one has 1010 but I neglect it for your advantage here).
So max. momentums are
707-320B  151 315*1009=152 676 835 kg*km/h
707-120B  116 575*1009=117 624 175 kg*km/h  (Veritas used this one)
Quite a difference I would say...

767-200ER -  Max takeoff  175,540kg (387,000lb).  854km/h
Momentum    175,540*854=149 911 160 kg*km/h

So, even at absolute maximum the 7767 has less momentum, but it was only carrying half of the capacity of passengers, and about 40% fuel of the 707s capacity.
Not to mention that the planes would not be travelling at max. speed at such a low altitude (thicker air)

So you may bulls**t many people with your f**ked up calculations, but not the ones who actually check your s**t...

i would say herp a derp derp but i dont know what it means and it sound too gay.

From: September 14, 2010, 08:59:39 am

Apparently he doesn't realize that cause is more important than result in modern science.
Also, he doesn't know what gravity is.

LOOOOL.. Where do you take this kind of shit from "cause is more important than result" in modern science.. seriously WTF, that is the silliest thing I have heard in a while. It's like saying "eating is more important than shitting in modern biology".

A creationist talking about gravity also cracks me up. You should be satisfied with "god struck the towers down". STFU seriously...

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Well then, let's focus on the result itself; specifically, how the towers looked as they fell and how they look nothing like a controlled demolition.  Someone might have already provide his analysis *COUGH* me *COUGH* and who knows, he might still be waiting on your rebuttal.