9/11

sharkman · April 30, 2007

Don't look now river, but poly is sucking you into another 9/11 conspiracy thread. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

kuzadd · April 30, 2007

"Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another. "
completely false! I said to you......
The term 'a lot of redundancy' is a relative term that means nothing unless you understand the reference point. When I made my statement I was comparing skyscrapers to smaller structures. IWO - my statement is correct.
You can make the case that the WTC1 & 2 towers had a fair amount of redundancy, when compared to other skyscrapers, however, that redundancy means nothing once the building starts to collapse. At that point the domino effect can lead to the near simultaneous collapse of the supports.

You have no scientific evidence to back up your claim that buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically from asymmetric damage. You are simply assuming it is true because it supports your fantasies.

again you speak of yourself, LOL!

"to back up your claim that buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically from asymmetric damage. "

Your hilarious, i never made that claim!!

That's actually the opposite of your claim, which you have assumed, I am making, whatever?

Please quote me verbatim and direct me to the post in which I made the alleged claim.

BUT, you will be unable to.

The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't.

I have spent hours and hours of my own time researching the construction of WTC buildings, they were built in a superior manner, the steel far exceeded minimum standards , the welding far exceeded, the bolts, etc, all far exceeded necessary standards of construction.

The quote from MIT verifies the buildings were very redundant and resilient.

Check Eagers report for further verification as exemplified by the towers sway after plane impact.

You are simply assuming, your bogus, false claim requiring redundancy is true , because it supports your fantasies.(delusions).

You're claim is totally non-credible!

Riverwind · April 30, 2007

The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't.

The onus is on you to show that the buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically without a controlled demolition. You have not and cannot show that which means your arguments regarding the symmetric collapses are irrelevant.

You are simply assuming, your bogus, false claim requiring redundancy is true

The towers had enough redundacy to withstand the impact, however, that does not mean they had enough redundancy to allow them to tip over. There is a huge difference between the two scenarios. Producing quotes describing how the buildings could withstand a plane impact does NOT tell us whether these buildings could have tipped over.

kuzadd · April 30, 2007

The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't.
Wrong. The onus is on you to show that the buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically without a controlled demolition. You have not and cannot show that which means your arguments regarding the symmetric collapses are irrelevant.

That's your arguement!

please show me where I made that arguement?

You are only discreditting yourself, more with more bogus claims!

kuzadd · April 30, 2007

That's all beside the point. Damage to Fiterman hall regardless of whether it is going to be demolished or not is evidence that building seven did not fall straight down in a controlled demolition.
As this is going in the same manner as the other threads (in circles). I will remove myself from this discussion unless someone can bring something new into it.

damage to Fiterman hall could equally demonstrate that explosives blowing outward at crticial points damaged the facade of Fiterman hall!

Still fitting the controlled demolition scenario.

kuzadd · April 30, 2007

riverwind:

The term 'a lot of redundancy' is a relative term that means nothing unless you understand the reference point. When I made my statement I was comparing skyscrapers to smaller structures. IWO - my statement is correct.

clarify this statement, and if you mean what I think you mean, be prepared......

but, i ask you to clarify, first.

Riverwind · May 1, 2007

The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't.
Wrong. The onus is on you to show that the buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically without a controlled demolition. You have not and cannot show that which means your arguments regarding the symmetric collapses are irrelevant.
That's your arguement!
please show me where I made that arguement?

You have claimed that the buildings 'should have' tipped over but you have provided nothing to support your claim. Instead you try to reverse the onus of proof and claim that others must prove that the buildings could not have tipped over. The overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence supports the hypothesis that the buildings came down as a result of structural damage and fires. If you wish to dismiss this circumstantial evidence then the onus is on you to prove your claims.

I have demonstrated that it is possible for a building to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage. Showing that the buildings had a lot of redundancy when compared to other skyscrapers does not prove that the buildings had enough redundancy to tip over.

stignasty · May 1, 2007

damage to Fiterman hall could equally demonstrate that explosives blowing outward at crticial points damaged the facade of Fiterman hall!
Still fitting the controlled demolition scenario.

Occam's razor

One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the least complicated of two or more possible explanations for an observation. Needless to say, most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule.

In practice, Occam's Razor is used to cut away elements of theories which cannot be observed. For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot be observed even though his equations produce the same results as Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be correct given the current set of observations.

Conspiracy theories generally entail the opposite of Occam's Razor. That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon.

http://www.clavius.org/occam.html

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

Stignasty:Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the least complicated of two or more possible explanations for an observation. Needless to say, most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule.

It just is not possible for a building to collapse at very near free fall speed in a manner that looks identical to a perfectly executed controlled demolition as a result of asymmetrical damage and small fires . The building internal supports are mush stronger than air and would offer resistance that would slow the collapse down greatly.(wtc7)

It is not possible for tall buildings to collapse straight down through themselves when the building collapses are unstable and the path of least resistance is for the building top to roll over and fall through the air. (wtc1 & wtc2)

Therefore the official version of the events of 9/11 does not satisfy the requirements of Occams Razor - which is really junk logic in the first place anyways. Its not a proven law.

Stating that "most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule" is stupid because whether or not an explanation is a conspiracy has no bearing on whether or not its true.

Riverwind:I have demonstrated that it is possible for a building to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage.

You haven't demostrated anything scientific besides your own ignorance which can be proven. Your "analysis" is just a set of connected errors and I have been through most of your scientific explanations twice. I have explained why the building would tip. I don't want to get into any more scientific discussions with you.

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

Riverwind:clarify this statement, and if you mean what I think you mean, be prepared......

The towers wtc1 & wtc2 were built to 20 times gravitational load around the perimeter and six times graviataional load in the center core. The damage removed 30 % of the support. The heat cut the strength of a few of the supports in half.

The building natural frequency did not change after the impact or during the fires. Then it just started to blow up from top to bottom very suddenly.

Riverwind · May 1, 2007

It is not possible for tall buildings to collapse straight down through themselves when the building collapses are unstable and the path of least resistance is for the building top to roll over and fall through the air.

Wrong. The path of least resistance is straight down. Tipping requires the building to extert a force on the top of the building

The towers wtc1 & wtc2 were built to 20 times gravitational load around the perimeter and six times graviataional load in the center core. The damage removed 30 % of the support. The heat cut the strength of a few of the supports in half.

The fire caused the floors of the WTC towers to buckle. This bent the outer perimeter columns which reduced their strength. The 20x over build factor only has meaning if the supports are intact. Their strength will be much less if they are damaged in any way.

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

Riverwind:Wrong. The path of least resistance is straight down. Tipping requires the building to extert a force on the top of the building

The path of least resistance is through the air not the building

Tipping does not require any kind of force on the top of the building. It requires that some supports fail before others.

Stop it. Your scientific explanations and analysis are shown time over to be idiotic. You don't need a science degree to see how idiotic they are.

I think you are doing this on purpose as some kind of psychological warfare method. No one can be this stupid.

Riverwind · May 1, 2007

Tipping does not require any kind of force on the top of the building. It requires that some supports fail before others.

Wrong. Any kind of rotation requires a net torque acting on the top of the building. Where would this torque come from? Gravity alone cannot produce a torque - there must be another force. Where would this force come from?

If you think about it you would realize that the normal force from the remaining columns would have to provide that other force. However, these columns might not be able to extert that force without collapsing themselves. In this case the building must fall straight down because the only force acting on it is gravity.

Stop it. Your scientific explanations and analysis are shown time over to be idiotic. You don't need a science degree to see how idiotic they are.

Answer the question: how can an object at rest start to rotate without a net torque? If you agree that a net torque is required then explain what forces produce the torque?

stignasty · May 1, 2007

The overpass collapse was an inside job!

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

Riverwind:Wrong. Any kind of rotation requires a net torque acting on the top of the building. Where would this torque come from? Gravity alone cannot produce a torque - there must be another force. Where would this force come from?
If you think about it you would realize that the normal force from the remaining columns would have to provide that other force. However, these columns might not be able to extert that force without collapsing themselves. In this case the building must fall straight down because the only force acting on it is gravity.

Any unbalanced force about the center of mass will cause a rotation. It does not have to be comming from the top of the building. If all the supports do not collapse at the same instant then you have an unbalanced force.

Exactly what kind of engineer are you ?

Riverwind · May 1, 2007

Any unbalanced force about the center of mass will cause a rotation. It does not have to be comming from the top of the building. If all the supports do not collapse at the same instant then you have an unbalanced force.

Why don't you take the time to think about what an unbalanced force is? If you draw some diagrams you would see that there must be two forces: gravity pulling down on the center of mass and the normal forces of the remaining supports pushing up on the edge.

The top of the building CANNOT rotate without those normal forces. The remaining supports CANNOT extert those normal forces unless they are able to support the entire weight of the top. If the remaining supports collapse then only force acting on the top is gravity which will pull the top straight down.

You cannot claim that a building should tip unless you can show that the remaining supports are capable of supporting the weight of the building.

kimmy · May 1, 2007

The remaining supports needn't be strong enough to support the weight of the building to cause rotation.

There needs to be a sufficient differential in the normal forces from one side to the others to result in a rotation.

There certainly should be a differential in the forces from the damaged side to the non-damaged sides. However: it's not at all clear, despite Truthie claims to the contrary, that this difference would be sufficient to cause the top 25 or so floors to rotate with any appreciable speed.

Consider the following:

-the main load-bearing columns are in the center of the tower, not the perimeter. The perimeter columns weren't designed to provide primary load-bearing capacity, therefore the differential in load-bearing capacity resulting from the damage to perimeter columns on one side would not be as significant as Truthies wish to claim.

-the twin towers were designed with load-distributing trusses that share the load from the damaged columns to undamaged columns. This would act to reduce any differential between the sides of the twin towers, and therefore reduce the force available to cause tipping or rotation.

-the perimeter columns were designed to resist torsion and flexion, particularly that resulting from wind. The remaining perimeter columns, particularly on the sides that were not struck by the jetliners, would act to *resist* the tipping that the Truthies think should occur.

These 3 factors are significant reasons why Truthie appeals to peoples' everyday experiences with Jungo Stix, Lego blocks, or busted tables are inapplicable to a structure as complex as the Twin Towers.

-k

cybercoma · May 1, 2007

Oh yeah. Once again the "fake" Osama tape... based on screen-captures taken from a video that's been badly distorted and artifacted during conversion to digital.
I've asked this before, and never had a satisfactory answer, so here it is again: there are higher-quality screen captures of the "fake" video around, so why is it that the "Truthies" insist on using the digitally distorted and smeared snapshots to advance their argument?

But if you don't trust that tape, then what about Osama's 2004 video, authenticated and transcribed by our friends at Al Jazeera? http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archi...?ArchiveId=7403

Where he once again boasts that 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's confession doesn't actually contradict anything Osama has claimed. However, since he confessed to basically every notable terror act since the first WTC bombing, it's not very credible either.

"Pull it" refers to pulling the firefighting crew out of the building. Only people with the a-priori assumption that he ordered WTC7 to be demolished would interpret this to be a reference to a planned demolition. (is "pull it" supposed to be New Yawk Jew slang for blowing shit up?)

-k

Your logic and reason is wasted on those to whom it's directed.

bush_cheney2004 · May 1, 2007

The overpass collapse was an inside job!

Excellent...thank you for posting this link about steel that can't be weakened by fire.

kimmy · May 1, 2007

ScottSA:Whatever happened to the magic ray gun that the truthies were talking about? Is that old boring hat by now?

There is nothing new or magic about an energy beams. Microwave ovens, flashlights & loudspeakers all emit energy beams. One must assume that there are other types of energy beams that are weaponized that you have not seen mentioned in Popular Mechanics or on the Discovery Channel.

No electrical storage technology known is capable of storing enough energy to bring down the Twin Towers in a size small enough to put in a satellite.

And, physical principles regarding diffraction and dispersion known since Newton's time make it impossible for a beam weapon to have been fired from space to have delivered enough power to the twin towers without also incinerating surrounding buildings, cars, people, etc.

For these (and other) reasons, it is clear that the Truthies advancing "death star" satellites as the explanation are out to lunch.

-k

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

kimmy: No electrical storage technology known is capable of storing enough energy to bring down the Twin Towers in a size small enough to put in a satellite.

Not as of 40 or so years ago. Of course we don't know what they have today.

kimmy:And, physical principles regarding diffraction and dispersion known since Newton's time make it impossible for a beam weapon to have been fired from space to have delivered enough power to the twin towers without also incinerating surrounding buildings, cars, people, etc.

What about lasers ?

Besides the beam weapon advocates don't think it was in space anyways.

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

kimmy:the main load-bearing columns are in the center of the tower, not the perimeter. The perimeter columns weren't designed to provide primary load-bearing capacity, therefore the differential in load-bearing capacity resulting from the damage to perimeter columns on one side would not be as significant as Truthies wish to claim.

The perimeter was overbuilt by a factor of 20 the core was overbuilt by a factor of 6, so much more strength was there than was needed.

kimmy:-the twin towers were designed with load-distributing trusses that share the load from the damaged columns to undamaged columns. This would act to reduce any differential between the sides of the twin towers, and therefore reduce the force available to cause tipping or rotation.

It would, but you would still have to have some magic to make the tower collapse straight down. These stabilizing structures were all in failure as well.

kimmy:-the perimeter columns were designed to resist torsion and flexion, particularly that resulting from wind. The remaining perimeter columns, particularly on the sides that were not struck by the jetliners, would act to *resist* the tipping that the Truthies think should occur.

You would expect the tipping to occur in the most damaged side. The perimeter supports were failing during the collapse.

The building does not behave how it was designed during a collapse. It was designed that way to resist a collapse but once a collapse actually starts to occur evrything the building was designed for becomes irrelevant.

This is moot anyways, we know the buildings were blown apart from the videos and the fact that huge support beams were found very far away from the towers, some sticking out of other buildings like arrows. This and the fact that the concrete was turned to dust shows the buildings were blown apart.

See Photo in second post

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

BC:Excellent...thank you for posting this link about steel that can't be weakened by fire.

The NIST report shows the temperature distributions. The temps shown are not high enough to even appreciably weaken the structure.

PolyNewbie · May 1, 2007

cybercoma:But if you don't trust that tape, then what about Osama's 2004 video, authenticated and transcribed by our friends at Al Jazeera? http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archi...?ArchiveId=7403
Where he once again boasts that 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's confession doesn't actually contradict anything Osama has claimed. However, since he confessed to basically every notable terror act since the first WTC bombing, it's not very credible either.

bin Ladens interests coincide with Bushes and he would go along with the idea of them doing 911. See The Power Of Nightmares to understand why.

cybercoma:"Pull it" refers to pulling the firefighting crew out of the building. Only people with the a-priori assumption that he ordered WTC7 to be demolished would interpret this to be a reference to a planned demolition. (is "pull it" supposed to be New Yawk Jew slang for blowing shit up?)

"Pull it" is demolition crew slang for setting the explosives off to demolish buildings. "it" has never been slang for "firefighters"

kuzadd · May 1, 2007

damage to Fiterman hall could equally demonstrate that explosives blowing outward at crticial points damaged the facade of Fiterman hall!
Still fitting the controlled demolition scenario.

Occam's razor

One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the lea

your response is fluff and irrelevant to the discussion we are having, which is why you put it here.

The facade damage could have equally been caused by demolition charges, as Fiterman hall was very close to wtc 7 building. in a hypothetical discussion, which is all we are having.

because you cannot accept that as a possibility does not mean it is not a possibility.