911 conspiracy theory

[halfloaf]

Has any one played jenga if you take a stick out and the tower falls it falls to the side whare it has the least support when the planes hit the towers why did they not fall to the side with the least support they fell pretty much strate down yes one did fall to the side but at first it fell strate down?

 

[cannabineer]

Has any one played jenga if you take a stick out and the tower falls it falls to the side whare it has the least support when the planes hit the towers why did they not fall to the side with the least support they fell pretty much strate down yes one did fall to the side but at first it fell strate down?

I don't think a Jenga tower is a good model for a skyscraper. For one thing, there are no entirely internal blocks. cn

 

[halfloaf]

I don't think a Jenga tower is a good model for a skyscraper. For one thing, there are no entirely internal blocks. cn

I think my point is lost in my words but if a structure is weakend at one side would it not fall in that direction?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I was there! I crawled around on that pile for a couple of weeks! How can anybody say that it wasn't "messy"? It was square blocks of near total destruction! Those buildings didn't just fall straight down into their own footprint either, as is so often suggested by the conspiracy theorists. A LOT of energy was expended when fuel laden jumbo jets slammed into them at 500mph. Even more energy expended in the ensuing explosions/fireballs, and even MORE energy was expended during the actual collapses. I don't think that most people trully appreciate how much energy was expended. It's difficult to quantify, and near impossible to simulate due to the myriad variables.

Yes, every explosive charge did release a lot of energy. Otherwise it wouldn't have fallen down like it did. When I say messy, I mean toppling over into another building (or 2 or 3) messy which would have caused significantly more damage than was caused otherwise. If that had happened, it would have been infinitely more believable. Instead almost every single ounce of potential energy in those buildings failed at near the exact same time, something previously believed utter impossibility without set charges - until 9/11 when science got tossed out the window along with all the evidence.

Your opinion on this is much like a lot of NYers I've met. Huge personal investment. People you know well lost. The last thing you want to believe is the government could do it. They hit you hard with the pavlovian conditioning that day... 3 hours after the event it was known OBL was responsible and who all the hijackers were (except of course those who turned out to be actually alive in foreign countries, oh,no wait, they are still a part of the official story somehow), but we were told they couldn't have possibly known this was going to happen?

Immediately after the event they hit you hard with the second order conditioning causing known responses. By the way the media aspect of this wouldn't have required very many people to be involved, just people in positions of power. Wolf Blitzer mostly just reads a teleprompter. He isn't in on it. Immediately after, as in hours, it was known and reported with certainty. They would talk about OBL being responsible and then repeat the planes flying into the tower repeatedly. This is classic Pavlovian conditioning. Tell a big enough lie, as Goebbels liked to say...

 

[cannabineer]

I think my point is lost in my words but if a structure is weakend at one side would it not fall in that direction?

It depends so very much on the structure. Iirc the WTCs were built on a tube-frame principle, which means that they were essentially hollow. Such a structure (unlike our accessible metaphors, like a human body or a tree or an avalanche or even the usual house) can sag internally and fold in upon itself.
A better model perhaps is a house of cards, and those tend to collapse straight in/down, unless they follow the less usual tipping-over mode.

A hollow composite structure such as a WTC could sag internally and fall primarily in/down as the videos sure seemed to suggest. But that would also suggest (but not require) that the core burned at a lower level than only the impact-damaged floors. Keep in mind that most of the WTC's load was carried by the inner columns of the shell construction. These aren't visible in the external photos, and we can only follow what happened to them by how the outside responded, with inward bowing of the stressed faces indicating creep and incipient collapse of the inbternal support structure.

But keep in mind that i am not a structural engineer, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express. cn

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I think my point is lost in my words but if a structure is weakend at one side would it not fall in that direction?

Depends on the stability of the entire structure. In the WTC's case, yes. Jenga is a poor example. Use construx (sp?) instead. EIther way, you will never be able to repeat what happened to the wtc without a very planned effort. Flying a radio controlled plane into a large mechano or construx tower built similarly to the WTC (as much as reasonably possible) will never result in it collapsing in on itself.

 

[halfloaf]

Right i am a welder by trade to cut steel you need to produce alot of heat continuously.The fuel that came from the plains would not produced enuf heat for long enuf to have caused the steel to bend and buckle nor the material that was in the building would not have been able to burn long enuf to melt steel

 

[doc111]

Doc, a question ... please indulge my curiosity.

The plane strikes were in the tops of the towers. For them to collapse the way they did, simple theory of buckling columns suggests that some of the weakening had to occur near the middle. This suggests that the heat had to be provided by fire there. Did the cores burn out at a level considerably lower than the façades showed? I could totally see the jet fuel running in a torrent down the cores and not showing on the exterior, like a badly-besyruped snow cone. But in your experience/opinion, did such a thing happen? cn

Due to the construction of the towers, I don't believe this was necessary to initiate global collpase. It quite possibly happened, I don't know and haven't really heard anyone espousing this theory. The interior (core) columns were connected to the exterior (perimeter) columns by trusses. The perimeter columns were connected in threes known as column trees. Without this connection, neither one could stand alone.

 

[cannabineer]

Right i am a welder by trade to cut steel you need to produce alot of heat continuously.The fuel that came from the plains would not produced enuf heat for long enuf to have caused the steel to bend and buckle nor the material that was in the building would not have been able to burn long enuf to melt steel

I have cut steel also (torch) and that requires enough heat for full melt.
But steel has a plastic range, and it loses significant strength at only a few hundred degrees. Iirc thermal "creep" (shortening) and unloading of inner columns to the building's face (which could not take the transferred load) had a big part to do with their eventual collapse. Without the fires, the buildings would very probably have survived. cn

 

[doc111]

Right i am a welder by trade to cut steel you need to produce alot of heat continuously.The fuel that came from the plains would not produced enuf heat for long enuf to have caused the steel to bend and buckle nor the material that was in the building would not have been able to burn long enuf to melt steel

It only needed to weaken the steel enough to cause a critical failure.

 

[doc111]

I have cut steel also (torch) and that requires enough heat for full melt.
But steel has a plastic range, and it loses significant strength at only a few hundred degrees. Iirc thermal "creep" (shortening) and unloading of inner columns to the building's face (which could not take the transferred load) had a big part to do with their eventual collapse. Without the fires, the buildings would very probably have survived. cn

Have you seen this:


http://debunking911.com/paper.htm

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis."Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/
​

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 2 since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

 

[halfloaf]

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up
Infowars.com | February 14, 2005

COMMENTARY​ A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing. [ Click Here for A Video Report from the BBC ]​ The media covering this event has been hovering on the edge of its seat, waiting for the building to fall, frequently commenting on the debris falling from the inferno implying that some tumbling sheet rock are an indication of the building's seemingly inevitable downfall. Their headlines reiterate this conclusion: Spanish Skyscraper Fire Subsiding, But Collapse Possible, Fears of collapse as fire ravages huge Madrid office block, Madrid skyscraper collapse feared as inferno rages. Ignoring objectivism, the reports have been clearly skewed to direct the public to belive in the new post-9/11 laws of physics: "It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," Javier Sanz, fire chief for the Madrid region, told state radio. [read article] ​ The connection between this event and the collapse of WTC building 7 is impossible to ignore and the media are doing everything in their power to subvert reality and spin this event: All they have to do is remind us its going to collapse over and over again until the next news cycle and the event is forgotten in the back pages of the newspaper. At that point it won't matter if the building actually collapsed or not and the world will keep spinning according to the new post-9/11 laws of physics.

Massive Blaze Destroys Madrid High-Rise

LA TIMES | February 14, 2005
Firefighters struggled for nearly 24 hours before controlling one of Madrid's worst blazes, which reduced a 32-story office building to a blackened hulk of twisted wreckage.
Thick smoke and temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday.
The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse.

 

[doc111]

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up
Infowars.com | February 14, 2005

COMMENTARY​ A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing. [ Click Here for A Video Report from the BBC ]​ The media covering this event has been hovering on the edge of its seat, waiting for the building to fall, frequently commenting on the debris falling from the inferno implying that some tumbling sheet rock are an indication of the building's seemingly inevitable downfall. Their headlines reiterate this conclusion: Spanish Skyscraper Fire Subsiding, But Collapse Possible, Fears of collapse as fire ravages huge Madrid office block, Madrid skyscraper collapse feared as inferno rages. Ignoring objectivism, the reports have been clearly skewed to direct the public to belive in the new post-9/11 laws of physics: "It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," Javier Sanz, fire chief for the Madrid region, told state radio. [read article] ​ The connection between this event and the collapse of WTC building 7 is impossible to ignore and the media are doing everything in their power to subvert reality and spin this event: All they have to do is remind us its going to collapse over and over again until the next news cycle and the event is forgotten in the back pages of the newspaper. At that point it won't matter if the building actually collapsed or not and the world will keep spinning according to the new post-9/11 laws of physics.

Massive Blaze Destroys Madrid High-Rise

LA TIMES | February 14, 2005
Firefighters struggled for nearly 24 hours before controlling one of Madrid's worst blazes, which reduced a 32-story office building to a blackened hulk of twisted wreckage.
Thick smoke and temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday.
The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse.

Apples and oranges my friend. This building didn't have a jumbo jet slam into it and was constructed differently that the WTC towers were. It was similar, but had a concrete reinforced core...........and it suffered a partial collapse.

http://debunking911.com/madrid.htm

 

[doc111]

I did not write this, but it is very relevant when discussing the twin towers or bldg. 7. I included the link at the bottom.

A challenge to conspiracy theorist:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down.

http://debunking911.com/madrid.htm

 

[cannabineer]

Have you seen this:


http://debunking911.com/paper.htm

I had not seen that. Thanks. It's ... unsettling. cn

 

[haight]

Actually all of the facts I have provided in this thread are just that, facts. Any of it can be confirmed with the smallest amount of research

Both of them?

 

[haight]

Your speaking down on a mans spelling??? Are you serious???
All jokes aside you guys are anti american.your the type to be the first to jump ship at the first sign of trouble..totally spineless

The first sign of a pedantic.

 

[cannabineer]

The first sign of a pedant.

I was compelled ... I tried to resist ... could not ... cn

 

[haight]

Brother, the entire NIST report is basically a big cloud of smoke. They write extensively about potentialities and what had to have been for X to happen, basically starting with a conclusion and trying to make things fit (so it seemed). But they almost never had much in the way of hard data and they certainly never made public their simulations (which I am sure are absurd beyond belief.)

Can you cite a reliable source for any of that bullshit?

 

[doc111]

I had not seen that. Thanks. It's ... unsettling. cn

What is unsettling about it?