9/11

Canadian Blue · January 9, 2007

There are MILLIONS of Americans who cares what Jones and Bowman and many others think who argue against the fairy-tale of 9/11. In fact, there are so many that MSM stopped doing polls on the subject because of the high number of those who disbelieve the fairy-tale.
Surely none here agruing for the fairy-tale are attempting to use .. "gasp" .. PHYSICS to support their childs bedtime story?

No, common sense and rationality. Look at some Polynewbies rant's, they are some of the most irrational rant's I've heard on here, and he obviously suffer's from mean world syndrome. As well the thing is that with this 9/11 conspiracy theory it has been able to unify the extreme left and the extreme right, with about 1/10 really stupid people also believing it.

blackascoal · January 9, 2007

And don't forget the link to a controlled demolition that doesn't look exactly like 9/11.

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Perhap's you should listen to what the experts have to say instead.

I've listened to quite a few experts my friend and I've learned to recognize which experts are addressing the real questions.

For instance, your experts never address the fact that no steel frame or concrete building has ever collapsed by fire or plane impact in the history of fire, buildings, airplanes, or Man. It seems to me that your experts should have addressed that if they were truly searching for truth.

For instance, here is what your experts had to say regarding comparisons to controlled implosions ..

The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.”

That's just dumb .. but also very telling.

To suggest that there were only "vague" similarities to a controlled demolition is an insult to intelligence and it leaves out the most glaring aspect of the comparison .. rate of fall. ONLY a controlled demolition could have allowed the buildings .. not once, but THREE TIMES .. to collapse at free-fall speed. The ommission of this glaring fact gives away the game and should have alerted to ask the question of why they avoided it. .. I can tell you why .. because it cannot be explained according to the fairy-tale.

Additionally, your experts wasted time asking how this will effect the demolition industry .. why should it .. and spent no time asking how this affects the building and engineering industries. The events of 9/11, according to the fairy-tale, would have been the greatest failure of building engineering and structure in the history of Man, and if truly believed, would have awoken the building and engineering industries to the knowledge that relatively small fires can cause their building to melt.

Additionally, your experts failed to cite ANY scientific law or principle that support these physics and scientific anomalies that have never happened before in the history of the solar system, but somehow, magic maybe, they happened THREE TIMES ON THE VERY SAME DAY.

Perhaps you can explain it.

kimmy · January 9, 2007

And don't forget the link to a controlled demolition that doesn't look exactly like 9/11.

I grabbed

one at random. Though it intends to show the resemblance between the tower’s collapse and a controlled demolition, it succeeds in doing the opposite.
Most CDs start with the base of the building. The WTC towers fall starts at the top. In most CDs, the explosives' detonation precedes the collapse. In the WTC, the towers are falling before the "squibs" appear (which is inconsistent with CD, but consistent with the pancake theory). I can see how to the uninitated or the willfully ignorant, the WTC towers' fall would look like CD. But no one who stops for five seconds to think about it would believe that to be the case.

Great video, and one that makes your point superbly.

I think, however, that amongst the "truthies", the notion that a natural collapse would look like a tree that's been chainsawed on one side tipping over is hopelessly ingrained.

-k

Riverwind · January 9, 2007

There is no "pivot point" the cup is moving just as the top part of the building would slider off the bottom remainder.

Wrong, the cup cannot start rotating until its center of mass crosses over the edge of the table. At that point the normal force from the table and the force of gravity no longer balance each other. The means the cup will have a net force on it that will cause it to start rotating. Once the cup leaves the table it will not gain any more rotational momentum because the the only force acting on it is gravity.

The cup can only rotate if the table edge is capable of exterting a force equal to the weight of the cup. That is why the top of the building cannot rotate unless the pivot point can support the entire weight of the building. Tall buildings don't have that kind of redundancy so any pivot point would collapse long before any significant rotation would occur.

You only get a slow as opposed to fast rate of rotation with a shorter time period.

What I said was the cup will not rotate _before_ it hits the ground which is different from saying there is no rotation at all. However, that is the second part of my argument: even if you can show that some rotation occurs that is not sufficient to prove that the building must tip over because the rotation might be too slow to cause the building to tip before it hits the ground.

Canadian Blue · January 9, 2007

I've listened to quite a few experts my friend and I've learned to recognize which experts are addressing the real questions.
For instance, your experts never address the fact that no steel frame or concrete building has ever collapsed by fire or plane impact in the history of fire, buildings, airplanes, or Man. It seems to me that your experts should have addressed that if they were truly searching for truth.

For instance, here is what your experts had to say regarding comparisons to controlled implosions ..

Well, if your already convinced the government, jews, bankers, etc. did it, then it would be hard for you to believe otherwise.

That's just dumb .. but also very telling.

No, not really, I trust what the mainstream science community, and ASCE, and demolition's experts have to say.

To suggest that there were only "vague" similarities to a controlled demolition is an insult to intelligence and it leaves out the most glaring aspect of the comparison .. rate of fall. ONLY a controlled demolition could have allowed the buildings .. not once, but THREE TIMES .. to collapse at free-fall speed. The ommission of this glaring fact gives away the game and should have alerted to ask the question of why they avoided it. .. I can tell you why .. because it cannot be explained according to the fairy-tale.

I always enjoyed the Red Robin Hood fairy tale, usually I only laugh at the people dumb enough to think the government pulled off 9/11.

Additionally, your experts wasted time asking how this will effect the demolition industry .. why should it .. and spent no time asking how this affects the building and engineering industries. The events of 9/11, according to the fairy-tale, would have been the greatest failure of building engineering and structure in the history of Man, and if truly believed, would have awoken the building and engineering industries to the knowledge that relatively small fires can cause their building to melt.

I never knew that 737 loaded with jet fuel crashing into a building was a relatively small fire. Does anybody know if a jet explosion would only result in a small fire.

Look at this video of a jet crashing. You can explain to me why it seem's that when they crash it seem's like they explode.

Riverwind · January 9, 2007

Additionally, your experts failed to cite ANY scientific law or principle that support these physics and scientific anomalies that have never happened before in the history of the solar system, but somehow, magic maybe, they happened THREE TIMES ON THE VERY SAME DAY.

The physics is well known - it is called 'progressive failure'. What happens is the failure of one support causes the building weight to shift to the other supports. This immediately causes the other supports to fail as well leading to a total collapse of the building. The period of time between the failure of the first support and the failure of the other supports is very short (milliseonds). As a result the entire building collapses neatly into its footprint.

blackascoal · January 9, 2007

And don't forget the link to a controlled demolition that doesn't look exactly like 9/11.

I grabbed

one at random. Though it intends to show the resemblance between the tower’s collapse and a controlled demolition, it succeeds in doing the opposite.
Most CDs start with the base of the building. The WTC towers fall starts at the top. In most CDs, the explosives' detonation precedes the collapse. In the WTC, the towers are falling before the "squibs" appear (which is inconsistent with CD, but consistent with the pancake theory). I can see how to the uninitated or the willfully ignorant, the WTC towers' fall would look like CD. But no one who stops for five seconds to think about it would believe that to be the case.

Great video, and one that makes your point superbly.

I think, however, that amongst the "truthies", the notion that a natural collapse would look like a tree that's been chainsawed on one side tipping over is hopelessly ingrained.

-k

I guess you missed the word "controlled" meaning that buildings can be brought down however chosen.

And I guess you missed that in order to bring the building down into it's own footprints, the center is controlled to cave in first, thus the outer walls end up on top of the roof, exactly in the manner that can be clearly seen in the collapse of WTC7. .. and you missed that NO total progressive collapse of a building has never before happened.

Got any science to back up your theory?

I do.

PolyNewbie · January 9, 2007

Riverwind:The physics is well known - it is called 'progressive failure'.

No. Progressive failure has only occured when there is a fault in the building causing a shearing force that causes all the supports to fail at once. This only has occured a few times in reality during a building construction when the absence of planned supports (to be added later) was not considered and it has happened once in Seoul when a 3 storey shopping mall had its plans changed at the last moment. Progressive failure is always associated with a certain type of fault in design or construction.

Its easy to see from video that it wasn't a progressive failure. Its plain to see the building being blown apart from the top down (wtc1 & wtc2) because there are huge chunks that are being blown upward.

This propoganda about 911 is only meant to fool the lower 30 % low grade morons that can be made to believe anything and the upper 5% who figure they will benefit from it in the end from the investments in war and the (supposedly) needed worldwide depopulation.

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. "Fire Engineering 1/4/2002

PolyNewbie · January 9, 2007

Riverwind:Once the cup leaves the table it will not gain any more rotational momentum because the the only force acting on it is gravity.

Not gaining any more rotational momentum is not the same as not rotating anymore.

Stop it. No more physics. Everything you say is stupid when it comes to physics (as well as everything else)

Riverwind:He is a PhD preaching a version of reality that no one else with any knowledge of the field believes. He was even fired from his job at BYU because of his views. Why should anyone care what this guy thinks.

He was fired from his job for speaking out against the establishment not "being wrong".

Riverwind:even if you can show that some rotation occurs that is not sufficient to prove that the building must tip over because the rotation might be too slow to cause the building to tip before it hits the ground.

OK, one more thing: Its easier for the building to rotate further through the air than collapse through the building. Its the path of least resistance in dissipating energy. Its not going through the building when it can rotate out of the way.

Thats it for your stupid physics.

Black Dog · January 9, 2007

For instance, your experts never address the fact that no steel frame or concrete building has ever collapsed by fire or plane impact in the history of fire, buildings, airplanes, or Man. It seems to me that your experts should have addressed that if they were truly searching for truth.

Perhaps they should cite all the other examples of 110-storey tall, steel-cored office buildings struck at high speeds by large jetliners carrying tons of highly flammable aviation fuel. Oh...wait.

There seems to be this underlying assunmption among the truthers that every plane crash and every building collapse is equal and that variations in individual circumstances count for naught. It's very weird.

To suggest that there were only "vague" similarities to a controlled demolition is an insult to intelligence and it leaves out the most glaring aspect of the comparison .. rate of fall.

Is that why you avoided all the other details like the total lack of any evidence indicating explosions, the dramatic difference between the WTC towers' collapse and a CD and of course, the logistical issues involved with wiring three buildings for explosive demolition?

ONLY a controlled demolition could have allowed the buildings .. not once, but THREE TIMES .. to collapse at free-fall speed.

Bullshit. If the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds, how is it that falling debris was able to outpace the collapse?

Riverwind · January 9, 2007

This only has occured a few times in reality during a building construction when the absence of planned supports (to be added later) was not considered and it has happened once in Seoul when a 3 storey shopping mall had its plans changed at the last moment. Progressive failure is always associated with a certain type of fault in design or construction.

And now it has happened after two jetliners rammed into buildings or when another building had its face ripped off by debris falling from other buildings. These circumstances are just as unique as those that you describe so you arguements that it can't be progressive failure are baseless.

blackascoal · January 9, 2007

Riverwind:The physics is well known - it is called 'progressive failure'.

No. Progressive failure has only occured when there is a fault in the building causing a shearing force that causes all the supports to fail at once. This only has occured a few times in reality during a building construction when the absence of planned supports (to be added later) was not considered and it has happened once in Seoul when a 3 storey shopping mall had its plans changed at the last moment. Progressive failure is always associated with a certain type of fault in design or construction.

Its easy to see from video that it wasn't a progressive failure. Its plain to see the building being blown apart from the top down (wtc1 & wtc2) because there are huge chunks that are being blown upward.

This propoganda about 911 is only meant to fool the lower 30 % low grade morons that can be made to believe anything and the upper 5% who figure they will benefit from it in the end from the investments in war and the (supposedly) needed worldwide depopulation.

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. "Fire Engineering 1/4/2002

And completely ignores the fact that there has never been a total "progressive failure" of a building EVER .. but magic caused it to happen 3 times on the same day ..

And completely ignores the fact that even in a "progressive failure" .. mass would be met by mass and the rate of fall would be dramatically different.

PolyNewbie · January 9, 2007

Black Dog:If the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds, how is it that falling debris was able to outpace the collapse?

Parts were blown upward & downward. These downward moving parts moved down faster than freefall.

Canadian Blue · January 9, 2007

Not to mention that two jetliners crashing into a large building would only create a relatively small fire.

Once again more lunacy from the truthies.

blackascoal · January 9, 2007

Black Dog:If the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds, how is it that falling debris was able to outpace the collapse?

Parts were blown upward & downward. These downward moving parts moved down faster than freefall.

Too easy.

PolyNewbie · January 9, 2007

Riverwind:And now it has happened after two jetliners rammed into buildings or when another building had its face ripped off by debris falling from other buildings. These circumstances are just as unique as those that you describe so you arguements that it can't be progressive failure are baseless.

Lots of buildings have collapsed - particularly from earthquakes but never right down into their own footprints.

Riverwind · January 9, 2007

Not gaining any more rotational momentum is not the same as not rotating anymore.

I said it would not rotate before it hit the floor.

In any case, your cup example has been shredded. My original point still stands:

A building cannot tip unless is has a pivot point that exterts a force on it equal to the weight of the building for a period of time. If the pivot does not exist or collapses after a short time them the buiding will fall straght down.

Most buildings do not have that much redundancy built into them so it is extremely unlikely that one half of the building could stay standing while the top tipped.

Canadian Blue · January 9, 2007

I think Polynewbie is going to start going on a irrational rant pretty soon, I can't wait.

Riverwind · January 9, 2007

Lots of buildings have collapsed - particularly from earthquakes but never right down into their own footprints.

Earthquakes extert an external force on a building - and cannot be compared to a building collapsing because of internal damage.

White Doors · January 9, 2007

And completely ignores the fact that even in a "progressive failure" .. mass would be met by mass and the rate of fall would be dramatically different.

Not true - you made that up

Black Dog · January 9, 2007

Its easy to see from video that it wasn't a progressive failure. Its plain to see the building being blown apart from the top down (wtc1 & wtc2) because there are huge chunks that are being blown upward.

More horseshit. Watch the video I posted. At the 1:29 mark there's a close up of WTC1 as it falls. There's no explosion, no debris being blown upwards (it even appears that the smoke and dust is initially sucked downwards).

Black Dog · January 9, 2007

You know what my favorite thing about this thread is? It's watching left wingers and right wingers coming together against the forces of stupid. Nonpartisanship in action. I love it.

White Doors · January 9, 2007

You know what my favorite thing about this thread is? It's watching left wingers and right wingers coming together against the forces of stupid. Nonpartisanship in action. I love it.

I second that!

(although most of these wackos seem to be from your end of the spectrum. Sorry about that. Oh well, we have religious freaks. It's gotta work out somehow.)

_

Canadian Blue · January 9, 2007

You know what my favorite thing about this thread is? It's watching left wingers and right wingers coming together against the forces of stupid. Nonpartisanship in action. I love it.

Motion carried. What I find funny is that they only tend to show the opinion of maybe 1% of the Scientific community at best to support their arguments.

9/11 truthies come from either the extreme left or the extreme right. Polynewbie is a Larouchite, so he is more to the extreme right wing of the spectrum.