This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
From my cancer thread I see we have a few people interested in WTC 911 events.
Suprised to see there is no mention of the celebrated no.1 googleVideo film on this site.
Warning: It has a very long superfluous introductory art sequence. I recommend starting watching at 5 minutes in.
Richard Gage lecture on 911.
Before anyone can accept that things like 911 can happen, it's a requirement to know how the world really works. The hidden hand that shapes our world.
Why does awful stuff like this happen? Why do our politicians lie? There is a crucial aspect to world history is kept from public viewing.
Without watching this vid, or having read along the lines of oil geopolitics, I can see how 911 as an inside job seems impossible.
*For anyone wanting to do this properly, I recommend Watching this link 1st!
I'd also highly recommend reading William Engdahl's A Century of war. Anglo american oil geopolitics and the new world order.
These are serious projects to work on. No-one with only 5 minutes is going to understand or accept these cases. They'll require a lot of time just to view the sources, and a serious investigation requires you cross reference these sources.
Having maybe made it sound like hard work, know that I find this stuff incredibly interesting, work is not work when it's fun. I've researched it all alot.
It's no wonder that there's disagreement between people on 911. I consider all the above material vital to being convinced about the 'inside job' belief on 911. Most people will never have the knowledge from these sources. It simply takes to much work. It's a big part of the world view that needs to be rewritten in your mind. So the 5 minutes brigade on this forum headed by JamesV needn't bother with this thread.
Having said, good historians who know the ruthless bloody historys of the british and american empires, and who know nothing has changed with the way things are run in terms of ruthlessness, will have no difficulty accepting the 911 inside job thesis.
It's just business as usual.
Once you've completed the material, for further, complementary vids, I recommend Webster Tarpley lectures.
Your first video is nonsense. The second video is nonsense. I assume the rest are nonsense too.
Jim, I would not even consider responding in such a flatly dismissive way, regardless I what I think about the belief held by others. Let's have a look at what you say...
> That flame retardant blew off where the planes struck. The bare steel beams lost their fire protection and failed earlier than they would have if the older, proven fire retardant had been used.
Then why did the core columns, and the outer columns fail effectively simultaniously all the way around the building?
Since when does steel and concrete fail so completely when exposed to less than 2 hours of fire? There are no other cases in history.
>The two towers fell for different reasons.
And yet all 3 towers fell into their footprint.
> When the floors started to pancake, the tower doesn't immediately start to fall.
No evidence. All I see is the building failing at all points at the same height simultaioniously.
> You can see that the core was trying to resist the collapse.
No I can't. Once the collapse started, there was no resistance at all.
> Too much weight from pancaking floors forced the core to follow.
The core did not follow any part of the building. It collapsed at free fall speed in unison with it all. Otherwise it would have been visibly poking out at the top, even if it free fell collapsed only a second later after the rest of the builings.
Would you like to comment on the symetrical into footprint free fall of WTC7 collapse allegedly caused by small fires?
"Jim, I would not even consider responding in such a flatly dismissive way, regardless I what I think about the belief held by others."
This is not a matter of belief, neither is anything else in the real, tangible world. Things either happen, or they don't, regardless of belief systems. The mere fact that you refer to these conspiracies as beliefs simply demonstrates the vaguely religious nature of these theories. Your posts offer no compelling reason to watch the >8 hours of footage you have linked, and so we have not done so, for much the same reason that we have no reason to give heed to a documentary 'proving' that Ayers Rock is actually an alien spacecraft. Or something.
Hence, our dismissal.
"Since when does steel and concrete fail so completely when exposed to less than 2 hours of fire? There are no other cases in history."
There are also no other cases in history of an EIGHTY TONNE (or more) AIRCRAFT flying directly into a building. The World Trade buildings were the target of highly exceptional circumstances. Why is it so surprising that such an event might result in their collapse? Why is there a need to explain it with such an elaborate and unlikely conspiracy scenario? Think of Occam's Razor.
"And yet all 3 towers fell into their footprint."
- A cursory look at the facts of the event reveal that neighbouring buildings were heavily damaged by the collapse of the towers, indicating that the collapse was not perfectly within the footprint.
Moving on from this strict interpretation of 'within their footprint', this is still more or less as one would expect: after resisting the lateral force of the impact and remaining standing for two hours, why would either tower collapse lengthways? Once the structure failed, in the absence of any continued lateral force, it is entirely ordinary for the structure to fall on itself.
"There is plenty of numbers and science in those links."
Conspiracy theories, by their acceptance of extremely convoluted explanations in the face of much simpler reasoning, are not science at all.
>There are also no other cases in history of an EIGHTY TONNE (or more) AIRCRAFT flying directly into a building.
There was that bomber that flew into the empire state building. But still that's not the point. Just because a situation doesn't occur much, doesn't mean it is difficult to model and test. It is easy to recreate and compare many simular situations to the 911. Simply allow a large mass to drop onto a structure. This simulates the top part of the WTC falling onto the bottom part.
>Why is it so surprising that such an event might result in their collapse?
They were designed to cope with the impact of boeing 707. i.e. not shatter out into a pile of dust and mangled metal.
** Falling into their foot print **
Brad had a go at this aswell.
1st of all, WTC7 did fall into it's foot print. Both of you avoided the case of WTC7. Why? I think what brad said about avoiding what you can't explain is why.
Next, yes it's true, evidently WTC1&2 didn't fall into there footprint completely. But this leads to the complex of contradictions in the offical theory. It's fair to assume WTC1&2 did fall into their foot print! Why? Because they came down at free fall speed. There is only one way to go at freefall - straight down. How could something collapse at free fall? A piledriver mass falling down must be so great, that the structure underneath cannot percievably slow it. Like an anvil falling through cobwebs. So it should make sense to say a large portion of the WTC constituted a piledriver, cutting down through the rest of the building, and should have ended up in the footprint. Of course, the WTC piledriver wasn't there when the dust cloud settled. It too had seemingly been shattered and pulverised. When? when it hit ground zero? Why should something that is capable of effectively free falling through 80 storys of sound structure designed to resist gravity loads with 20:1 redundancy suddenly shatter to dust on contact with ground zero?
A problem with WTC1&2 is all that dust obscuring the event. WTC7 is much easier to analyse, and it wasn't hit by a plane. Which stops you lot ducking between fire, impact damage, and dust. I think we should concentrate on WTC7 first.
"There was that bomber that flew into the empire state building."
The bomber that struck the Empire State Building was a B-25 Mitchell, with an unloaded mass of 9.6t, up to 15.2t fully loaded. The Boeing 767 on the other hand weighs in at 80.1t when empty, up to a maximum of 142.9t. The Boeing therefore has 5-15 times the mass of the bomber (depending on the load of each craft).
The speeds are also quite different; the bomber cruises at 370km/h with a maximum of 442km/h. To contrast, the south tower collision was at 877km/h, while the north tower collision was at 750km/h.
Bearing in mind both the mass and speed difference, and the additional fact that the Boeings carry significantly more fuel, the modern impacts are clearly more devastating than the former.
"They were designed to cope with the impact of boeing 707. i.e. not shatter out into a pile of dust and mangled metal."
The Boeing 707 has an unloaded mass of 46.8t. Compare this with the 767 masses above. It is entirely conceivable for a building designed to withstand a 707 to be toppled by a 767.
"Brad had a go at this aswell.
1st of all, WTC7 did fall into it's foot print. Both of you avoided the case of WTC7. Why?"
I for one have no idea what point you are trying to make with the collapse of 7WTC.
"WTC1&2 didn't fall into there footprint completely. But this leads to the complex of contradictions in the offical theory. It's fair to assume WTC1&2 did fall into their foot print! Why? Because they came down at free fall speed. There is only one way to go at freefall - straight down."
1. You correctly note that the towers did not fall entirely within their footprints.
2. You note that something falling at free fall is travelling directly downward.
3. Putting these together, you have come to a contradiction: something has collapsed at free fall speed, yet has spilled out beyond its footprint.
The resolution to this seeming contradiction was pointed out by Brad: the building did not free fall. In fact, the rest of your musings on the issue can also be solved by this.
"WTC7 is much easier to analyse, and it wasn't hit by a plane. Which stops you lot ducking between fire, impact damage, and dust. I think we should concentrate on WTC7 first."
Alternatively, we should drop the issue. You have not provided strong reasoning for your conspiracy hypothesis, it has generally been fairly convincingly taken apart by various people. You have consistently failed to recognise alternative explanations.
Naturally, you will scoff at this dismissal, and resort to calling me 'close minded' again at some point, with your belief in the conspiracy undiminished.
>The speeds are also quite different; the bomber cruises at 370km/h with a maximum of 442km/h.
It puzzles me that you mention the speed here. So you know speeds are important when measuring impact damage.
So why do you then neglect to compare the speeds of the boeing 707 with the 767?
>It is entirely conceivable for a building designed to withstand a 707 to be toppled by a 767.
Nope. They have near the same KE.
Do the maths.
South tower 767 : max possible mass=143t top speed= 253m/s
Max energy 707 : mass=151t top speed= 270m/s
Any building designed to take an impact from a 707 is more than capable of taking a 767.
Can you show your maths as to how you deduce otherwise please.
>the building did not free fall.
Ah yes. It all comes down to this doesn't it. I say it did. You say it didn't. Clear cut, unobstructed video of all the structure collapse doesn't exist, since the dust cloud obscures it, also the surrounding building obscure it near the end of the fall. All sorts of conveniences can happen to fit our theorys once the dust cloud and buildings obscure the events.
To make things simpler lets just 1st consider the case where the fall less obscured. And where there was less complication in the damage. WTC7.
>You have not provided strong reasoning for your conspiracy hypothesis
Where as you can't do even do 143*254^2 < 151*270^2. If this the limit of your ability, I don't think you're qualifed to pass junior school maths, never mind the high school maths that is acel due to grav that is the key feature of WTC7. No wonder you don't want do it.
I don't scoff at your dismissal. But it is getting predictible. Your the 3rd person to run before WTC7 analysis in this thread.
This is odd since WTC7 is so much more clear cut than WTC1&2. I would expect you concentrate on this since there is less scope for a incorrect theory to hide behind obscuritys, such as a large dust cloud.
Instead, it's me trying to drag 3 of you to the most clear cut case, while you lot have been making lame excuses.
If your determined to run from WTC7, at least present your max KE maths of the boeing 707 and 767.
"Any building designed to take an impact from a 707 is more than capable of taking a 767.
Can you show your maths as to how you deduce otherwise please."
For one thing, I notice that you have opted to use the heaviest model of the 707, when that was not specified; at least not in the texts that I have been able to find, all of which say no more that '707'. Note that the original 707 weighs 56t, up to 117t. Having 77% (or less) of the mass clearly equates to 77% (or less) energy; but in fact the model mass chosen by the planners is moot. Their calculations took into account only the impact, they did not include the damage potential of burning fuel.
"I say it did. You say it didn't."
The video footage also says it didn't. Have a look at the videos again, and you can clearly see rubble falling faster than the vast dust plume. Granted, dust does not fall very fast, tending rather to hang in the air, but the fact that the rubble is outpacing the plume to the extent that it is clearly falling past as yet intact floors below the dust shows that it is falling faster than the collapse itself.
Hence, the collapse is not at free fall.
"All sorts of conveniences can happen to fit our theorys once the dust cloud and buildings obscure the events."
But especially when alternative explanations, and the numerous evidence supporting them, are ignored.
"Where as you can't do even do 143*254^2 < 151*270^2. If this the limit of your ability, I don't think you're qualifed to pass junior school maths, never mind the high school maths that is acel due to grav that is the key feature of WTC7. No wonder you don't want do it."
Not only do I know how to calculate kinetic energy, but I also know how to be civil in a discussion.
"Instead, it's me trying to drag 3 of you to the most clear cut case, while you lot have been making lame excuses."
You have not yet made any clear point regarding 7WTC. You seem to regard it as compelling proof of your pet theory, but how so?
The free fall claim is bizarre anyway. If you were planning to destroy the World Trade Center towers and for argument's sake aeroplanes crashing into them was not a sufficient cause for collapse--but you wanted it to appear that it was in fact the planes that brought them down--then you would use enough explosives as to trigger a collapse in each tower AND NO MORE. An elaborate arrangement of explosives on each floor set to detonate sequentially downwards from the point of impact would take many weeks or months to setup, would expose your plot to a far greater risk of discovery, would arouse greater suspicion after the fact, and would be surplus to the requirements of the task. Therefore, you would not do it that way.
The 9/11 Myths website has an article on the free fall claim that may be worth a look. In particular, look at the photograph displayed. This proves that the free fall claim is false because there are large chunks of building debris falling much faster than the remaining collapsing structure.
Another interesting article on the same website is about the Windsor Tower in Madrid. This is a smaller skyscraper that partially collapsed in a fire in 2005. According to the page and links, it is cited by conspiracy theorists as a point against the WTC towers falling as a result of impact damage and fire. However, it seems if anything to be a point in favour. A large steel portion of the tower collapsed in the fire, but the building did not completely collapse because of the considerably greater proportion of concrete elements as opposed to the WTC towers. Again, look at the pictures of the collapse (caused by fire alone).
Another point about the apparent lack of similar cases: How many buildings in the world could actually be characterized as skyscrapers? And of these, how many have actually been the victim of a significant fire? And of these, how many have a similar steel construction to the World Trade Center towers? And fire almost certainly is sufficient to damage structural steel to the point of collapse. The Windsor Tower photograph is one example proving this.
And one more article on the 9/11 Myths website about the WTC7 building: Photographs of the building reveal it to have been more extensively damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers than conspiracy theorists seem willing to admit:
>> Jim, I would not even consider responding in such a flatly dismissive way, regardless I what I think about the belief held by others. <<
Really? I appreciate the warning on the first video. The idiot light show actually went on for longer than five minutes. As for the second video, I had two Architect Major friends in college. As an Electrical Engineer, I had more classes on structures than they had--one to be exact.
>> Then why did the core columns, and the outer columns fail effectively simultaniously all the way around the building? <<
I'm not sure which building you're talking about. When the core fails, the building goes. On the south tower, the northeastern side (away from the impact) begins to fail and the upper one-third of the building tilts in that direction.
>> Since when does steel and concrete fail so completely when exposed to less than 2 hours of fire? There are no other cases in history. <<
The fire protective foam blew off at impact. Unprotected steel doesn't keep its strength in a fire.
>> And yet all 3 towers fell into their footprint. <<
(Three towers?) You've been playing with Lego buildings too much. Real buildings can't tip over without falling into their footprints.
>> South tower
No evidence. All I see is the building failing at all points at the same height simultaioniously. <<
You can see the outer members failing in sequence, like a zipper. The upper one-third of the building then falls toward the northeast. The impact was in the southeast corner.
>> No I can't. Once the collapse started, there was no resistance at all. <<
You need to look closer.
>> The core did not follow any part of the building. It collapsed at free fall speed in unison with it all. Otherwise it would have been visibly poking out at the top, even if it free fell collapsed only a second later after the rest of the builings. <<
What would slow it down? The lower structures didn't have the strentgh to resist the collapse.
>> Would you like to comment on the symetrical into footprint free fall of WTC7 collapse allegedly caused by small fires? <<
No. I don't see any reason to comment.
Now for some links of my own:
I recomend the NIST site fact sheet.
And don't miss the Popular Mechanics site debunking all of these myths.
I'm sorry, but I think you have gone too far with this topic. Whilst I'm sure that there are many sinister and hidden aspects to human history, it is not the concern of this website forum to air such theories; but to discuss the misapplications of science and number, with some occasional domestic politics thrown in.
I recommend that you take your 'investigations' elsewhere to some other blog.
There is plenty of numbers and science in those links.
It's remarkable that not one of the many hundreds of people who would have had to be involved with the 9/11 conspiracy to make it work has had a pang of conscience, or got religion, or made a ****ing deathbed statement. It's truly the best kept secret ever.
Of course the most likely explanation for that is that they are all immortal reptilians on laetrile.
This is hardly the angle of argument expected from a number and science forum.
I don't agree with what you say.
If you were remotely interested in numbers you would concentrate on them.
Having said that you don't deserve to post here, since you are a follower of the 'never look at the sources' brigade, which is absolutely the opposite of scientific method.
Look at the sources before posting.
Look at the numbers. I saw a video the other day showing "free fall". They used video from the event to find out how long free fall was.
Let's see, free fall from 1400 ft would mean a free fall time of < 10 second. Both "Free falls" lasted longer that 15 seconds.
They didn't fall into their "foot print", they just didn't topple, debris was blowing out the sides. The collapse was anything but controlled.
Grist is right. There are a lot of numbers involved. The conspiracists though fail to ever look at any that don't support their cause. They suffer from the same failure that many scientists (epidemiologists in specific) like to demonstrate. Focussing on that which is interesting and ignoring all the data that defies it.
To often science is presented as proving the hypothesis. The reality is that science is the failure to disprove the hypothesis.
Forgive me for restating the obvious. I have found, though, that the obvious is rarely as obvious as it seems and we should all be ready to restate it regulary, no matter how silly.
wow, someones actually discussing the numbers.
Where did you get 15sec from?
In the past, I often found non-collapse theorys use the bottom of the explosion cloud as their start, and the top of the cloud as their end point for collapse.
The cloud cannot be used this way for timing the collapse because it is significantly suspended in the air.
The destruction height, the height where the clouds shoot out from the building, moves down WTC1,2 at free fall speed.
>They didn't fall into their "foot print", they just didn't topple, debris was blowing out the sides. The collapse was anything but controlled
For WTC1,2 Your right. But if they didn't topple and they didn't go into their foot print, what did they do? Blow out? What was blowing them out?
I assume you think the building below the destruction height acted to convert the vertical motion of the top of the building into horizontal motion. This is as well as shattering all the steel structure and pulverizing the concrete, and creating a pyroclastic flow. All this when it was falling itself at free fall speed. How can any mass falling at gravity act so greatly on a surface which is itself falling at gravity? And all of this in a stucture which was designed to resist all of these so-blamed gravity effects with a redundancy of 20:1
Can you point to any real models, i.e. not computer simulated, that do the same?
What about WTC7?
>Focussing on that which is interesting and ignoring all the data that defies it.
Don't be so forward with your judgement. I'll try to focus on anything involving numbers or physics.
>For one thing, I notice that you have opted to use the heaviest model of the 707,
a.) Of course. There was no 'opt' about it. Engineers have to design for the worst case scenario. In fact they always design for much more than worst case scenario. For example they were designed 20:1 the maximum gravity load. You don't know this?
b.) Largest 707 was the Intercontinental 320B began flying in 1958. WTCs design in the early '60s.
>rubble falling faster than the vast dust plume.
Your the 2nd person here to go for the rubble falling faster than the destruction level is evidence against WTC free fall. So this response is for Andrew aswell.
The said rubble didn't start it's trajectory at zero velocity. A more obvious co-example is the debris which gained high horizontal velocity at their moment of separation. It is no leap of fantasy to say it's not just possible, but very likely that other debris at the destruction level recieved an impulse which set them off with downward velocity before they were in free fall. Therefore it's erroneous to use these debris as a reference for free fall. Using simple measurements such as frame by frame time and position is correct.
Now, you all seem to be resisting me on the freefall assertion.
Drop an object from the top of the WTC. How long does it take?
Height of WTC = 417m, grav = 9.81, free fall equation s = 0.5at^2
t = 9.2sec
Look at Jim Masterson's link to the official NIST report, the response to question 6, they say the collapse of WTC2 was approximately 9sec. i.e 9.5sec max.
Near enough free fall for you? Or are you saying, with the assumption of 9.5sec, the tiny fraction of gravitational potential that didn't go into the downward KE collapse, was able to totally destroy the structure at the destruction level, was great enough that the underlining structure could barely resist free fall motion through itself, and also throw debris out?
>You have not yet made any clear point regarding 7WTC. You seem to regard it as compelling proof of your pet theory, but how so?
A few key reasons...
a) Because the building isn't obscured by dust, it's very easy to do a frame by frame analysis of the motion.
b.) It looks precisely like a conventional demolition in every way.
c.) It wasn't hit by an aircraft. The fires were smaller.
It's not _my_ pet theory by the way.
Here's a frame by frame analysis
Here's a spectacular failed demolition jobs. Total symmetrical demolition at the base. But the result is little damage to rest of building structure. Why's there such a contrast between this and the WTCs?
>> Then why did the core columns, and the outer columns fail effectively simultaniously all the way around the building? <<
>I'm not sure which building you're talking about.
All 3 of them. And I don't think you see why symmetrical total collapse is significant. This behaviour is never observered except in controled demolitions.
Can you give 1 other case where a structure has undergone total symmetrical collapse at >95% free fall speed, and high degree destruction of all in components by only it's gravitational potential?
I agree with Steve Jones. Paraphrase:
Most people's analysis the controled demolition assertion of 911 goes...
Controled demolition would mean the Bush admin planned it, therefore can't be true.
For them, physics is just a irrelevent side show to be hammered or ignored into place to fit this belief.