911 conspiracy theory

[OGEvilgenius]

Oh you mean like a FUCKING 450 MILLION KG building falling down?

Your link, as was expected, ignores completely potential energy. Meaning the buildings were designed to hold up against the forces of gravity and much more. It's true they weren't designed to withstand a dynamic load being dropped directly on top of them at a reasonable rate of speed, but cars aren't either and they still usually manage to not turn into dust before collision. And the initial impact would have been @ significantly lower speeds than 90m/s as suggested. And there's still the fact that the buildings potential energy was enormous in itself.

Before collision you say ? YEah, because their hypothesis pretty much relies on the existing building providing no resistance at all

A long freight train at speed has unbelievable amounts of potential and kinetic energy too (not near as much as the example above, but more than enough to make the point). Yet if it comes off the rails chances are it's still going to resemble a train or a bullet train, same deal. And the calculations on that page are wrong anyway. The initial impact velocity would not have been 90m/s. That would have been the velocity at the bottom of the fall assuming 0 resistance from the building which is ridiculous. And since they ignore the resisting force of the building completely in their calculations, well... they're just wrong.

There was no reason for the building to suddenly completely fail like it did. You can scream about the planes and fires all you want, the temperatures of the fires - based on the very limited evidence collected, were not high (black sooty smoke, very few visible flames and the NIST report itself tested the limited samples they had and only a handful reached any kind of noteable temperature level) and the damage from the planes obviously wasn't extensive enough to significantly structurally impact the the towers or they wouldn't have stayed standing like they did for hours without a sign of faltering (and people claim otherwise but there is absolutely no video or photographic evidence of such faltering).

The concrete was dust loooong before it ever hit the ground also, indicating force was applied long before the impact you claim to be responsible and while the top halves would still have been in one piece hypothetically, so unless the building offered a lot of resistance that would have been an impossibility and if it offered a lot of resistance it wouldn't have fallen so quickly anyway so it's all contradictory, which is why I bring it up. It was found miles and miles from the site as well (further evidence it was dust long before impact).

It also negates to mention that 9.8m/s2 only applies in a vacuum. Wind resistance must be calculated and can account for some of the time difference, which is not a lot anyway.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Also, having worked in the blasting industry I have some experience with the subject. Main supports are always cut in an organized fashion to control the collapse, because if they aren't it becomes increasingly unpredictable. It is also more difficult to clean up large chunks of steel still welded together and takes a lot more man hours than just doing it right in the first place. Man hours are $$$$. Explosives are cheap.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I will evaluate the evidence on a case by case basis.

Not very effectively it would seem.

 

[haight]

Not just an amateur welder, but a welder by trade. Wow. That is scary.

Probably one of those union bloodsuckers.

 

[guy incognito]

Your link, as was expected, ignores completely potential energy. Meaning the buildings were designed to hold up against the forces of gravity and much more. It's true they weren't designed to withstand a dynamic load being dropped directly on top of them at a reasonable rate of speed, but cars aren't either and they still usually manage to not turn into dust before collision. And the initial impact would have been @ significantly lower speeds than 90m/s as suggested. And there's still the fact that the buildings potential energy was enormous in itself.

Before collision you say ? YEah, because their hypothesis pretty much relies on the existing building providing no resistance at all

A long freight train at speed has unbelievable amounts of potential and kinetic energy too (not near as much as the example above, but more than enough to make the point). Yet if it comes off the rails chances are it's still going to resemble a train or a bullet train, same deal. And the calculations on that page are wrong anyway. The initial impact velocity would not have been 90m/s. That would have been the velocity at the bottom of the fall assuming 0 resistance from the building which is ridiculous. And since they ignore the resisting force of the building completely in their calculations, well... they're just wrong.

There was no reason for the building to suddenly completely fail like it did. You can scream about the planes and fires all you want, the temperatures of the fires - based on the very limited evidence collected, were not high (black sooty smoke, very few visible flames and the NIST report itself tested the limited samples they had and only a handful reached any kind of noteable temperature level) and the damage from the planes obviously wasn't extensive enough to significantly structurally impact the the towers or they wouldn't have stayed standing like they did for hours without a sign of faltering (and people claim otherwise but there is absolutely no video or photographic evidence of such faltering).

The concrete was dust loooong before it ever hit the ground also, indicating force was applied long before the impact you claim to be responsible and while the top halves would still have been in one piece hypothetically, so unless the building offered a lot of resistance that would have been an impossibility and if it offered a lot of resistance it wouldn't have fallen so quickly anyway so it's all contradictory, which is why I bring it up. It was found miles and miles from the site as well (further evidence it was dust long before impact).

It also negates to mention that 9.8m/s2 only applies in a vacuum. Wind resistance must be calculated and can account for some of the time difference, which is not a lot anyway.

Go back and reread it. It's clear you didn't understand it. It's also clear you don't understand what you are talking about.

A few points though:

1. what do you think happens when the supports fail and part of the building is allowed to fall even partially? The upper section of that building falling the distance of 1 floor would make it nearly unstoppable. Buildings are not designed to withstand such dynamic forces.
2. cars are specifically designed to absorb large dynamic forces because by their very nature need to be able to withstand collision. I cannot believe you are comparing cars to skyscapers as if they are the same thing.

I'm not even going to attempt to rebutt the rest of your nonsense. Since you seem so mathematically inclined check out these:

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm gives detailed analysis and calculation of dynamic forces
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911b.htm gives detailed calculations regarding the freefall theory

 

[guy incognito]

Also, having worked in the blasting industry I have some experience with the subject. Main supports are always cut in an organized fashion to control the collapse, because if they aren't it becomes increasingly unpredictable. It is also more difficult to clean up large chunks of steel still welded together and takes a lot more man hours than just doing it right in the first place. Man hours are $$$$. Explosives are cheap.

I refuse to believe you had anything to do with with the engineering or calculations in the blasting industry. If anything I would believe you were a hired hand or a minion. That retard strength probably made you very useful in moving equipment around.

 

[guy incognito]

Dude, I can fly a plane dumbass. Im saying that it is extremely difficult to maneuver a 757 into a target as small as a building.

So what is your alternative explanation? It's difficult, but I watched it happen.

 

[doc111]

Go back and reread it. It's clear you didn't understand it. It's also clear you don't understand what you are talking about.

A few points though:

1. what do you think happens when the supports fail and part of the building is allowed to fall even partially? The upper section of that building falling the distance of 1 floor would make it nearly unstoppable. Buildings are not designed to withstand such dynamic forces.
2. cars are specifically designed to absorb large dynamic forces because by their very nature need to be able to withstand collision. I cannot believe you are comparing cars to skyscapers as if they are the same thing.

I'm not even going to attempt to rebutt the rest of your nonsense. Since you seem so mathematically inclined check out these:

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm gives detailed analysis and calculation of dynamic forces
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911b.htm gives detailed calculations regarding the freefall theory

lol!

I love it when people compare things that by their very nature cannot be compared! The entire buildings weren't turned into "dust" either. They had thousands of tons of concrete (the floors) that were pulverized. Cars typically contain ZERO concrete, therefore they cannot be pulverized into dust in the manner that concrete is.

 

[doc111]

Your link, as was expected, ignores completely potential energy. Meaning the buildings were designed to hold up against the forces of gravity and much more. It's true they weren't designed to withstand a dynamic load being dropped directly on top of them at a reasonable rate of speed, but cars aren't either and they still usually manage to not turn into dust before collision. And the initial impact would have been @ significantly lower speeds than 90m/s as suggested. And there's still the fact that the buildings potential energy was enormous in itself.

Before collision you say ? YEah, because their hypothesis pretty much relies on the existing building providing no resistance at all

A long freight train at speed has unbelievable amounts of potential and kinetic energy too (not near as much as the example above, but more than enough to make the point). Yet if it comes off the rails chances are it's still going to resemble a train or a bullet train, same deal. And the calculations on that page are wrong anyway. The initial impact velocity would not have been 90m/s. That would have been the velocity at the bottom of the fall assuming 0 resistance from the building which is ridiculous. And since they ignore the resisting force of the building completely in their calculations, well... they're just wrong.

There was no reason for the building to suddenly completely fail like it did. You can scream about the planes and fires all you want, the temperatures of the fires - based on the very limited evidence collected, were not high (black sooty smoke, very few visible flames and the NIST report itself tested the limited samples they had and only a handful reached any kind of noteable temperature level) and the damage from the planes obviously wasn't extensive enough to significantly structurally impact the the towers or they wouldn't have stayed standing like they did for hours without a sign of faltering (and people claim otherwise but there is absolutely no video or photographic evidence of such faltering).

The concrete was dust loooong before it ever hit the ground also, indicating force was applied long before the impact you claim to be responsible and while the top halves would still have been in one piece hypothetically, so unless the building offered a lot of resistance that would have been an impossibility and if it offered a lot of resistance it wouldn't have fallen so quickly anyway so it's all contradictory, which is why I bring it up. It was found miles and miles from the site as well (further evidence it was dust long before impact).

It also negates to mention that 9.8m/s2 only applies in a vacuum. Wind resistance must be calculated and can account for some of the time difference, which is not a lot anyway.

No evidence of what faltering?


http://debunking911.com/sag.htm

I think you need to actually look at some other sites besides conspiracy ones.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

How can we believe the version we are told by the government when they lie about almost everything? I am unaware of any reenactment composed by scientists which has the same or similar results as what actually happened. I don't pretend to know what actually did happen there but it is an awful moment in our history. The loss of so many lives, just terrible. I do find the gov's version highly suspect and if we believe it extremely negligent in so many ways.

 

[guy incognito]

How can we believe the version we are told by the government when they lie about almost everything? I am unaware of any reenactment composed by scientists which has the same or similar results as what actually happened. I don't pretend to know what actually did happen there but it is an awful moment in our history. The loss of so many lives, just terrible. I do find the gov's version highly suspect and if we believe it extremely negligent in so many ways.

Because ALL of the evidence converges to one conclusion. Again I will point out that the governments official view is that gravity is one of the forces of nature. To not believe in gravity simply because "the gubment" also believes in it is ridiculous. The government does lie a lot, but they lie about almost everything?

So you don't know what happened inside, but you find the governments version highly suspect? Can you elaborate on that?

 

[MellowFarmer]

Because ALL of the evidence converges to one conclusion. Again I will point out that the governments official view is that gravity is one of the forces of nature. To not believe in gravity simply because "the gubment" also believes in it is ridiculous. The government does lie a lot, but they lie about almost everything?

So you don't know what happened inside, but you find the governments version highly suspect? Can you elaborate on that?

Why are you so focused on one aspect of the attacks? The free fall?

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Because ALL of the evidence converges to one conclusion. Again I will point out that the governments official view is that gravity is one of the forces of nature. To not believe in gravity simply because "the gubment" also believes in it is ridiculous. The government does lie a lot, but they lie about almost everything?

So you don't know what happened inside, but you find the governments version highly suspect? Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, they lie a lot. When I have to deal with anyone who I know or believe is a liar, I have to scrutinize what they say. Without going into all of what they lied about - wmd's in Iraq and many other things. Okay so to be objective - maybe they don't lie about anything, they are just wrong a lot. I have to still apply the same scrutiny, the object being to arrive at the truth. It would be much more comfortable for me to believe they were truthful about this. I would love to be able to believe as I once did. After years spent working for the government and seeing how they tell very different versions of things I have seen with my own eyes. Again the only object being to arrive at the truth.

 

[guy incognito]

Why are you so focused on one aspect of the attacks? The free fall?

For the last time the gravity argument is not related to 911 at all. I am not making a point about free fall. In fact, lets replace the argument entirely with the fact that the official governments position is that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

Because ALL of the evidence converges to one conclusion. I will point out that the governments official view is that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. To not believe in the chemistry of water simply because "the gubment" also believes in it is ridiculous. The government does lie a lot, but they lie about almost everything?

So you don't know what happened inside, but you find the governments version highly suspect? Can you elaborate on that?

Note that my claim has absolutely NOTHING to do 911 and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it is ridiculous to reject a claim SOLELY on the fact that it has government support.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

It would be ridiculous to form opinions based soley on the gov not telling the truth, this is the basis for only scrutiny. After examining the facts of what happened there are other possible versions than the governments. I do not wish to debate them because I have exhausted myself on this whole scenario from the events that led up to the planes flying into the towers - the whole thing. I can not say either way with any certainty. If you could direct me to just 1 reenactment composed by scientists which arrives at the same conclusion I would appreciate it. I have seen many and none result in the towers falling the same way they did.

 

[Kaendar]

So what is your alternative explanation? It's difficult, but I watched it happen.

You watched something happen, then made sense of it based on what was reported by the news and the government.

 

[Kaendar]

For the last time the gravity argument is not related to 911 at all. I am not making a point about free fall. In fact, lets replace the argument entirely with the fact that the official governments position is that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

Because ALL of the evidence converges to one conclusion. I will point out that the governments official view is that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. To not believe in the chemistry of water simply because "the gubment" also believes in it is ridiculous. The government does lie a lot, but they lie about almost everything?

So you don't know what happened inside, but you find the governments version highly suspect? Can you elaborate on that?

Note that my claim has absolutely NOTHING to do 911 and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it is ridiculous to reject a claim SOLELY on the fact that it has government support.

Wth, you are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the fact that the gov lies, it has to do with the fact that Bush and his family had every motive in the world to want to go to war. The evidence after that of an obvious cover up is just icing on the cake.

 

[guy incognito]

Wth, you are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the fact that the gov lies, it has to do with the fact that Bush and his family had every motive in the world to want to go to war. The evidence after that of an obvious cover up is just icing on the cake.

How am I missing the point? The quote you quoted me on was a direct reply to Moses who said

How can we believe the version we are told by the government when they lie about almost everything?

I even quoted him and bolded the question so you would know what I was directly responding to.

 

[guy incognito]

Wth, you are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the fact that the gov lies, it has to do with the fact that Bush and his family had every motive in the world to want to go to war. The evidence after that of an obvious cover up is just icing on the cake.

I can't get over the fact that you made your mind up because "Bush and his family had every motive in the world to want to go to war". You clearly made your decision before reviewing any of the actual evidence, and cherry picked distorted evidence to fit your perception. 911 conspiracy is your religion.

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

After arguing with a few people in another thread I thought I needed to make a new thread about this. I have been reading a lot about the entire situation. I have been reading web sites on both sides of the camp. I don't want to just reaffirm the opinion I have, I wanted to get opinions from both sides and investigate the facts for myself. Especially since I believed the whole thing was put to rest years and years ago. After doing all this I have come to this conclusion: anyone that believes 911 was an inside job is a full blown retard. It is not a mistake in calculations, or an error in judgement. You have systematically denied every piece of evidence that clearly points to what actually happened. You have ignored relevant evidence, and instead cherry picked what you think is evidence to support your outlandish claim. Every single point of evidence from the truthers that I checked into, without exception, was either a flat out lie, a misperception of the physical evidence caused by a misunderstanding (or total lack of understanding) of the processes/forces/chemistry involved, or was not logical.

There are people that believe the media was complicit in the plan. That they were fed a news script to read. That cnn reported that wtc 7 fell a full hour before it actually fell. This absolutely blows my mind. The notion that the reporters were in on and were fed scripts is preposterous. I can't even fathom the jump in logic for this particular case. The premise doesn't even make sense. Why would you feed cnn a script about what was happening? Couldn't you just blow the tower up and cnn would naturally report it when it actually fell? I don't know how to debunk this one because it doesn't even make sense.

loook up the word conspiracy