9/11

[kuzadd]

rofl!!!!!

i can't be reasoned with!!!!!

you've wasted your time!!!!!

Pretty much.

when did I say all these alleged quotations, you are attributing to me??

I looked through this entire thread and other then the "rofl", all the other's are MIA.

Please direct me to them or retract them.

You can link me to the posts within this thread, right, your capable, right?

I'll be waiting........................

[kuzadd]

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

wow!

is PN ever all powerful, that he can 'suck' riverwind into a 9/11 discussion.

How exactly is he doing that?

Or is riverwind, an unwitting victim of PN's 'powers'?

what a silly thing to say.

Please note the number of posts poly has made. Now compare them to yours. Poly has been around here as long as me, and I have noticed the poly trends. He is a conspiracy theorist nut. He has a theory for every thing. Really. Everything. He just finished a thread on 9/11 that was over 100 pages, all filled with the same old repeated engineer arguments. He could not answer some very valid points, so ignored them. Now he is starting a new thread with the same old subject matter. We are worried about Poly and the people he sucks in. As a matter of fact, some have contacted Maury to see if there is a show in there somewhere and Maury is really excited. Stay tuned.

sharkman:

the simple fact is PN, has no magical power to "suck" Riverwind into another 9/11 thread.

Riverwind participates of his/her own freewill. That's all there is too it.

When you make the claim, that you do, it makes Riverwind seem some sort of weak, witless victim of PN, Which, unless that is what you are inferring, is not the case. I certainly do not think that is what Riverwind is about, nor is that the way Riverwind, would like to see him/herself portrayed as.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:Of course, kooks believe the US military has access to magic technologies. Anybody who cares to look through historical evidence of what happens when the US military tries to develop magic technology should be able to see how likely that is.

Some people would call things like the BlackBird or the nuclear weapon magic technologies. The BlackBird (unlike you say) is not *just another airplane*.

Having only studied electromagnetics at the university level and having a practical knowledge of directional radiation devices as well as modeled phased arrays I perhaps do not know as much as a high school grad who apparently knows everything. I think maybe part of the value of an education is that you learn how little you actually do know after studying. I know that there are still fundamental questions that cannot be answered regarding the seemingly simplest of scientific experiments.

I can certainly answer your concerns about diffraction, etc but I really don't have to to make any kind of a point and unlike ScottSA, I don't like you. You give better arguement than most but your ego is too big.

Kimmy:Battery technology is a huge industry where continuous research and advances have raised the state of the art to over 300 Watt-hours per kilogram. To store enough energy to account for Jim Hoffman's energy deficit would require ... a one billion kilogram battery.

That would appear to be the case, some people think a micro nuke may have been used on the order of 0.01 kiloton. I'm not privy to the science of the US military which in some ways is quite far beyond what Ray Bardbury could imagine IMO. You may think they could not afford a secret science budget but I think they could.

I haven't looked into the science of the various theories because I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I only know that the official version is impossible and that a controlled demolition had to have been done. I'll leave it to others to explain how it was done because I don't have the qualifications to theorize regarding this. I usually only discuss things that are out in the open and can be easily verified to be fact by anyone who cares to try or doubt me.

Its easy to have a huge ego as an annonymous poster on the internet but the perils of having a huge ego is that you may have to back the ego up with some substance - its a bad habit even if you are protected from that reality on a message board because it could spill over to real life and make a bit of a mess.

kimmy:ORLY? I thought Judy Woods was touting "death star satellites" or some such flatulence.

No, she does not and was not. She is theorizing on how the buildings came down, so are others. Most of them will be wrong. I'm sure all of them know more about it than you do.

[PolyNewbie]

As a matter of fact, some have contacted Maury to see if there is a show in there somewhere and Maury is really excited. Stay tuned.

If Maury wants me on his show I would be happy to oblige provided that no rectal searches are experienced at the border (that has to be a guarentee with heavy financial penalty (if broken) ) and that my expenses are paid for. I'm assuming Maury is American.

[kuzadd]

hey, PN, how does it feel being all powerful!!!

pretty darn good, I would think!

[Riverwind]

I haven't looked into the science of the various theories because I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

ROTFL. I guess you don't dream up the theories yourself, however, you are most gullible person I have ever encountered. You will blindly accept any theory that supports your bizarre fantasies - logic and coherence are not required. Most people would call you a conspiracy theorist because of that.

[stignasty]

The overpass collapse was an inside job!

Interesting how our resident conspiracy theorists decided not to comment on this. If a petrol fire was hot enough to make a steel re-enforced overpass collapse, why wouldn't it make a steel building collapse? Or were space based laser weapons used to collapse this too?

[PolyNewbie]

If a petrol fire was hot enough to make a steel re-enforced overpass collapse, why wouldn't it make a steel building collapse

We know what the temperatures of the steel was from NIST (and the damage). The damage and fires were not enough to cause the building collapse. FEMA says its version of the wtc7 collapse has a very low probability of occurance.

From NIST & FEMA and a little arithmetic we can see the official version of the events on 9/11 were not possible.

[kuzadd]

The overpass collapse was an inside job!

Interesting how our resident conspiracy theorists decided not to comment on this. If a petrol fire was hot enough to make a steel re-enforced overpass collapse, why wouldn't it make a steel building collapse? Or were space based laser weapons used to collapse this too?

wasn't it amazing that the partial collapse of the overpass, PANCAKED, on to the overpass below, and lordy oh lordy, the overpass below held!!!

Amazing, eh?

Yet wtc , floors just instantaneously collapsed the floors beneath it!!! In under 10 seconds, no less.

lol.lol, lol,lol,lol verbatim, like wtc floors??

oh yeah and the concrete, stayed in chunks, I guess it forgot to pulverize.

like the wtc concrete?

?????????????

[sharkman]

wasn't it amazing that the partial collapse of the overpass, PANCAKED, on to the overpass below, and lordy oh lordy, the overpass below held!!!

Amazing, eh?

Yet wtc , floors just instantaneously collapsed the floors beneath it!!! In under 10 seconds, no less.

lol.lol, lol,lol,lol verbatim, like wtc floors??

oh yeah and the concrete, stayed in chunks, I guess it forgot to pulverize.

like the wtc concrete?

?????????????

Yeah, uh, I think that just maybe freeway structures are built to handle a different level of pressure than highrises.

[stignasty]

lordy oh lordy

Amazing, eh?

lol.lol, lol,lol,lol

?????????????

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you continually act like a child?

Anyway, the overpass also didn't have 40 stories of a skyscraper for extra weight coming down on the structure beneath it. Do you think the overpass below would have held if 40 stories of a skyscraper fell on it?

The point is that we continually hear that the fuel fire from the jet couldn't soften the steel enough to cause a collapse, yet here's an example of just that.

[kuzadd]

lordy oh lordy

Amazing, eh?

lol.lol, lol,lol,lol

?????????????

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you continually act like a child?

Anyway, the overpass also didn't have 40 stories of a skyscraper for extra weight coming down on the structure beneath it. Do you think the overpass below would have held if 40 stories of a skyscraper fell on it?

The point is that we continually hear that the fuel fire from the jet couldn't soften the steel enough to cause a collapse, yet here's an example of just that.

act like a child?

I find the comparison hilarious, which is why i laugh. sorry :-(

Sorry, the whole premise to the official story is pancaking, as one floor hit the next that floor failed, verbatim. At free fall speed of course.

"Anyway, the overpass also didn't have 40 stories of a skyscraper for extra weight coming down on the structure beneath it. "

nope it had another overpass, probably of similar weight and structure fall on it and it held!!

wonder was the overpass below designed to hold up another overpass, along with it's own weight??

WTC was designed that way as every building is with the lower floor construction , supporting the upper floors.

But then I'll bet you didn't know that?

I wonder if overpasses are designed in that manner?

what about the non-pulverizing concrete, at the overpass, it's just there in big chunks, it didn't turn into dust?

I find it fascinating that you see some similarity to that, an overpass, and the wtc towers, two entirely different structures, BUT, the madrid hotel , with similar construction inc. a central core construction similar to wtc's , and the wtc buildings no connection? Right?

"The point is that we continually hear that the fuel fire from the jet couldn't soften the steel enough to cause a collapse, yet here's an example of just that."

How much steel relative to how much jet fuel?

Was it just a fuel fire alone, asphalt is a petroleum product, wouldn't it burn?

what is it's burn temp?

how long will it burn for?

Which fuel is more volatile?

so many variations?

seriously stignasty, If anything the overpass collapsing doesn't help your cause at all. it dams the pancake theory all to hell, and demonstrates that concrete should not pulverize in a collapse. Two mainstays of the offical conspiracy theory.

[Figleaf]

Riverwind Apr 29 2007, 06:18 PM Post #22:

First, the debris included chunks of steel and concrete that weighed as much as an airplane but hit the building across a much wider area. Therefore, the debris could do more damage to a building than a plane alone.

Second, WTC7 had an unusual design because it was built on top of an existing electrical substation. So you cannot automatically assume that statements made about the WTC towers or the Empire State Building automatically apply to WTC7.

You’re not addressing the point … Skyscrapers are supposedly built with substantial structural redundancy which was only overcome in the cases of WTC1 and WTC2 by the flaming fuel. Absent the flaming fuel, we are told that skysrapers don’t fall from impacts. And they certainly don’t fall symmetrically from assymetrical IMPACT damage, particularly impact damage which, we are told, is insufficient to bring down a building.

Once a collapse is triggered progressive failure of supports can lead to a symmetric collapse.

That makes no sense … PROGRESSIVE failure cannot magically become SYMMETRICAL.

"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it.

I have a lot of trouble accepting that. It seems to me that:

(a) the assumption of the perfect rigidity of the tabletop makes for a questionable analogy – if support in one quadrant is lost, isn’t it possible (likely, even) that a warping force might affect the tabletop, no matter how well it is constructed? Is there any substance or composite that is perfectly rigid over a surface area the size of a building footprint?

( if indeed the tabletop is sufficiently rigid, it seems to me that loss of support on one quadrant will not shift instantaneously and perfectly symmetrically to the other three legs – it seems more likely that the two closest to the failed leg will take more strain while the leg diagonally opposite the failed leg could experience a reduced downward strain.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 08:06 AM Post #36

… once they start to collapse the domino effect can cause a near simulatenous failure of supports which leads to a symmetric collapse.

Your own explanation shows how you cannot be correct. ‘NEAR simultaneity’ is not simultaneous. Deliberate demolitions use precisely timed detonations because merely NEAR precision will not yield an in-footprint collapse.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 10:35 AM Post #43

Wrong. The supports do not need to collapse at the same instant to produce a symmetric collapse. A progressive failure of supports can produce a symmetric collapse ...

How? And how likely is it?

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 11:11 AM Post #47

I explained the reasons for my assumptions and I re-did the analysis assuming a unequal distribution and demonstrated that the DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOAD ACROSS THE LEGS HAS NO EFFECT ON MY ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.

Again, this makes no sense. The idea that the distribution of load cannot affect the outcome is incoherent.

For example: assume that the entire load is balanced on the two legs closest to the collapsed legs. This means they would have to support a load of 5000N. This load would cause those legs to collapse immediately BEFORE any significant rotation could occur. Once those legs collapsed the entire 10000N load would shift to the remaining leg which would collapse immediately as well.

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that the load shifts automatically and uniformly to remaining legs.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 01:50 PM Post #50

Assuming the load was equally distributed was a reasonable assumption to start with because I knew that it would be the worst case scenario (i.e. if the load is distributed equally then the structure is less likely to collapse). I also knew that any other load distribution would make a symmetric collapse EVEN more likely.

Oh, come on. Assymetrical distribution of force is MORE likely to produce symmetrical outcomes??? What on earth makes you say a thing like that?

[Figleaf]

Why don't you try to answer the real questions raised by my example:

The legs cannot support the load so where would the torque required to start rotation come from?

From the resistance of the as-yet uncollapsed legs. Remember, their failure is not simultaneous.

How long would this torque be applied?

For any interval between one leg collapsing and the next.

How much rotational momentum would be acquired while this torque is applied?

It would depend on the duration of the interval(s) mentioned above.

How can you know if this momentum is sufficient to cause significant rotation before the table hits the floor?

ANY interval will cause SOME rotation.

It is impossible to know how quickly/slowly the supports in a skyscraper would collapse once they are overloaded which means it is impossible to make any claims about whether the buildings 'should have' tipped.

Again, ANY interval would impart SOME rotation.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 04:39 PM Post #53

The towers had enough redundacy to withstand the impact, however, that does not mean they had enough redundancy to allow them to tip over.

The don’t need to tip over to fall asymmetrically. A sideways slide is more likely.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 05:10 PM Post #57

The overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence supports the hypothesis that the buildings came down as a result of structural damage and fires.

Quite the contrary! WTC7 was not afflicted by fires. And it was fires specifically which were cited as the cause of the mysterious symmetrical collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Absent the specific conditions cited for 1 and 2, there is no proper explanation tendered for 7.

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

Where?

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 05:57 PM Post #61

Wrong. The path of least resistance is straight down.

The path of least resistance is clearly NOT straight down as your own example specifies – you said the load shifts to the other legs, ergo those legs provide resistance.

The fire caused the floors of the WTC towers to buckle.

Thereby destroying the validity of your presumption of a rigid top.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 06:17 PM Post #63

Any kind of rotation requires a net torque acting on the top of the building. Where would this torque come from?

It comes from the differential force applied from the underside by the remaining supports, obviously.

Riverwind Apr 30 2007, 07:37 PM Post #66

The remaining supports CANNOT extert those normal forces unless they are able to support the entire weight of the top.

No, all they need to do is apply a force (even a structurally insufficient force) prior to giving out.

[Figleaf]

stignasty Apr 30 2007, 05:40 PM Post #58

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.

Ockham’s Razor is not a ‘rule’ and is not a principle of logic. In fact, it is not sustainable in logic. It is a conception of probability, and as such is rebuttable depending on actual facts.

[Figleaf]

kimmy Apr 30 2007, 09:14 PM Post #67

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.

The question is, how much speed would be needed to create an assymetrical effect?

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.

Two problems with that:

1-Indications are that the preponderance of support was in the perimeter, not the core, by a 20:6 ratio.

2-Official story has damage to WTC7 coming from debris from the neighboring building, which would affect the perimeter supports on that side, not the core.

-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.

It seems to me that for these two points to apply they also require the assumption of impossibly rigid roof and floors. Otherwise the trussing and intact columns would also experience differential forces.

[Figleaf]

Sulaco:

Simple experiment. Stick a plate on the point of a stick so that it balances. Mark the point on which it balances. Then tape somrthing to the side of the plate and place it with the same mark on the point of the stick. How does the plate fall? Does it rotate? Does it tip away?

Yup. It tips (rotating vis a vis the horizontal) in the direction of the added load.

kuzadd

As I said, it's like someone saying they witnessed a murder, the dead body lies there, and no one even inquires.

Sort of like when an MP writes in a fax that his resignation was contingent on a negotiation that led to a payment and no official interprets that as receipt of a benefit for resigning.

[stignasty]

kuzadd

As I said, it's like someone saying they witnessed a murder, the dead body lies there, and no one even inquires.

Well, it's more like if there was a shooting broadcast on live television. Afterward, a group of people claimed that the bullets really didn't kill the person. Instead they claimed that he was killed by an unseen government killer who injected him with poison that couldn't be detected after death. They called their version of the event the "truth."

In any event, that's it. I know I've said it before, but I'm finished with this nonsense. The "cult of the 9/11 truth" can have the forum.

[PolyNewbie]

Well, it's more like if there was a shooting broadcast on live television. Afterward, a group of people claimed that the bullets really didn't kill the person. Instead they claimed that he was killed by an unseen government killer who injected him with poison that couldn't be detected after death. They called their version of the event the "truth."

No, its more like everybody saw the shooting take place and exactly what happened and it was on video and the government said the guy was shot by someone from a cave in Afghanistan without even doing an investigation and you believe it.

[PolyNewbie]

Figleaf:The question is, how much speed would be needed to create an assymetrical effect?

Imagine one side failing slightly before the other, the building begins to rotate and the center of mass moves toward the part of the structure that failed first making it fail faster. The rotation accelerates quickly until the top part rolls over the top and falls through the air. Equally appropriate to ask would be how far down the building would this piece have to fall through before this happens - the answer to that is "not far" because the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the top part would seek out the path of least resistance which is through the air, not the building.

As soon as the building begins to tip in any direction it rate of tipping greatly accelerates.

The videos show an exploding building, not a pancaking one but since the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld supporters keep argueing pancaking I suggest that this would be impossible.

[Riverwind]

Equally appropriate to ask would be how far down the building would this piece have to fall through before this happens - the answer to that is "not far" because the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the top part would seek out the path of least resistance which is through the air, not the building.

The path of least resistance is straight down through the building. Once the mass starts to move down the structure below it is like tinfoil and collapses immediately. Tipping requires a pivot point that can exert a huge force on the building - with no pivot point the building must fall straight down.

As soon as the building begins to tip in any direction it rate of tipping greatly accelerates.

Only if the pivot point can support the weight of the building long enough. If the pivot point collapses first the building will hit the ground before

any tipping can occur.

[GostHacked]

Figleaf, I really liked this statement.

You’re not addressing the point … Skyscrapers are supposedly built with substantial structural redundancy which was only overcome in the cases of WTC1 and WTC2 by the flaming fuel. Absent the flaming fuel, we are told that skysrapers don’t fall from impacts. And they certainly don’t fall symmetrically from assymetrical IMPACT damage, particularly impact damage which, we are told, is insufficient to bring down a building.

And

Your own explanation shows how you cannot be correct. ‘NEAR simultaneity’ is not simultaneous. Deliberate demolitions use precisely timed detonations because merely NEAR precision will not yield an in-footprint collapse

In any video of the second tower collapse, the section above the impact zone tips and starts to slide some. If nothing else contributed to it's trajectory, the section should have just 'slid' off into the street below, leaving most of the building below the impact zone intact. But in the videos, soon after some tipping, the floors below just seem to come out of it affecting the movement of the top part. The core of WTC 1 and 2 were made up of 47 box columns. Basicly this 'table' had a main support in the middle, and an exoskeleton surrounding the perimiter of the 'table' If one corner gives out, Stress on two corners would almost be the same. The stress on the opposite corner would have a negative effect (because of the tipping) So a push down on one corner and a pull up on the opposite corner. Aside some other force (after all is said and done, plane, fuel, heat, warp ect) The tipping should still have happened. When I first saw the footage of WTC 1 and 2, I am surprised that the top part of 2 just did not slide off and fall into the adjacent street and or buildings below. Instead it seemed to have been sucked back in and then straight down.

The amount of force needed to push 20 some odd stories of any building to one side, then have it pushed back the other way is way more than my brain is able to conceive. A large outside force is needed to move that chunk back into a straight down trajectory.

[Riverwind]

When I first saw the footage of WTC 1 and 2, I am surprised that the top part of 2 just did not slide off and fall into the adjacent street and or buildings below. Instead it seemed to have been sucked back in and then straight down.

What you saw was an optical illusion - the top of the building was not 'sucked back in' - it started to fall straight down as soon as the pivot point collapsed. What happened after the top collided with the structure below was obscured by smoke. More importantly, the downward momentum soon exceeded any rotational momentum. This means the building hit the ground before the small rotational momentum could cause it to tip over.

[Figleaf]

Riverwind: For example: assume that the entire load is balanced on the two legs closest to the collapsed legs. This means they would have to support a load of 5000N. This load would cause those legs to collapse immediately BEFORE any significant rotation could occur. Once those legs collapsed the entire 10000N load would shift to the remaining leg which would collapse immediately as well.

I have been thinking about this some more. Consider:

Four legs. Heavy, rigid tabletop. Leg one becomes critically compromised. Per your comment above, and my comments further above, the entire load shifts to legs 2 and 3 symmetrically (leg 4 being diagonal from leg 1). The load exceeds the strength of 2 and 3. And they collapse symetrically. But since the load was fully on 2 and 3, there's no reason for 4 to give out until it is pulled by the force of the collapsing tabletop in the directon of leg #1.

[Riverwind]

But since the load was fully on 2 and 3, there's no reason for 4 to give out until it is pulled by the force of the collapsing tabletop in the directon of leg #1.

The entire load shifts to leg #4 as soon as #2 & #3 collapse. This will cause 4 to collapse immediately

You can also look at it another way: the table cannot rotate unless something pushes up on it. If #4 is the only thing that could extert such a force. However, if #4 is not strong enough to extert such a force then the table cannot rotate - falling straight down is the only option.