Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.
 
Glite said:
"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.
Click to expand...


Right, it was radically different and from what I here it was actually a bad design; a lot of wallboard was used instead of concrete. According to one engineer who designed the building(I believe his name is Robertson), concrete was not a structural element in the building save for the floor decks. I know this because a fellow debunker actually e-mailed the guy to confirm this several weeks ago.
 
I do hope Love hasn't taken off on us.

He/She has already started another thread after posting here, but she hasn't responded to comments there, either.
 
kookbreaker said:
Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.
Click to expand...

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?
 
love said:
It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?
Click to expand...
What did you not understand about the TV Tower analogy? When structural integrity fails then an entire building can fall in one go.

And what do you think happened to all the concrete?
It's obvious to us what happened to it all (hint, it was lying in huge piles and became huge dust clouds that covered everything in the surrounding area), but you obviously disagree -so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

BTW this is all assuming you aren't just joking.
 
love said:
It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?
Click to expand...

Uhh... it didn't.

Only the steel that was subjected to the intense heat of the jet fuel fire lost it's strength. The inevitable and predictable failure of this steel led to a collapse of the the floor trusses directly involved(see pretty moving picture below), which pancaked down and subjected the floors below to stresses they could not bear, and they collapsed onto the floor below, and they in turn collapsed on the floors below, etc... a chain reaction which brought the entire building(s) down.

This process, from beginning to end, can clearly be seen taking place in the video records of the event, unless of course, you're too preoccupied trying to spot the black helicopters, or your tinfoil hat has slipped down over your eyes.

coll_truss.gif
 
Last edited:
Glite said:
"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.
Click to expand...

It was a B-25 which is a baby. Different construction. Irrelevant.
 
Glite said:
"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.
Click to expand...

It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber which struck The Empire State Building. The max fuel load of the B-25 was 1241 gallons, and the crash DID produce a massive fire.

The planes which struck the World Trade Towers were Boeing 727s. The max fuel load of the 727 is 6707 gallons.

Not a fair comparison anyway. The WTC tower's modern construction made them much more vulnerable to structural failure resulting from fire damage.
 
Without knowing for certain, I would imagine two other relevant things:

1. The fuel tanks were much smaller and probably not nearly full.

2. The fuel itself was not the super-hot burning jet fuel of today.
 
Garrette said:
Without knowing for certain, I would imagine two other relevant things:

1. The fuel tanks were much smaller and probably not nearly full.

2. The fuel itself was not the super-hot burning jet fuel of today.
Click to expand...

Throw into the equation the faster speed, and much larger mass of the 727, and we've got one gigantic sledgehammer with which to squash this mosquito of a comparison.

B-25 Mitchell gross weight- 27,000lbs (approx)
727 gross weight- 191,000lbs (approx)

These are called facts, love. You should look them up sometime. They're fun, and generally free!
 
Last edited:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
 
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you did not notice the smoke clouds, the huge piles of debris, etc? Unless you went and counted the amount of concrete at ground zero, you are dealing with a non-starter.

There was a hell of a lot more than 10 meters of rubble, and it was spread over a large area.

As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.
Click to expand...

As was already pointed out to you, it was not in free fall. Debris can be seen in the videos clearly falling faster (it is in free fall)

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
Click to expand...

So your complant is not so much that it is in free-fall, but falls too fast for your preferences? Very well then:

Each floor that fails actually adds to the kinetic energy of the falling structure. The 'intact' floors below suddenly have to deal with a massive dynamic load that is well beyond what they were designed to with as a static load. Their load bearing capacity is simply overwhelmed and becomes basiclly irrelevant in face of the falling structure.

Understand?
 
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!
Click to expand...

That's from looking at pictures on the internet.

love said:
In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some
Click to expand...

Exactly, the PHOTOS on THIS THREAD. People that were actually there to investigate didn't seem to have a problem.

love said:
As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.
Click to expand...

They weren't falling in free-fall. You can clearly see debris that fell free of the tower falling at a considerably higher rate than the tower. The determination of the "free-fall" speed was made on shaky calculations that vary greatly.

love said:
The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
Click to expand...

Again, they are not in free fall, although the people(qualified engineers) that investigated this and came up with the pancake theory said that this effect would cause the towers to collapse at speeds close to that of free fall.

Here's a report shattering the "free fall" claim. I hope you like math.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

Specific report: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Stuff about the dust cloud:

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
 
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.
Click to expand...

Really? Without any air spaces? We'll have to take all that air into consideration during any future calculations.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.
Click to expand...

You didn't see that much debris in total? How did you measure the amount of debris? Were you there? Surely you're not basing your "10 meters of rubble" nonsense simply on the images posted here? Do you think those images comprise the entire disaster site?
Now what about the basement areas of the towers? How many cubic yards of material do you think they hold? Please be sure to back up any of your "calculations" with facts. Thanks.
 
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!
Click to expand...
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

We all saw the World Trade Centres collapse into huge piles of rubble with colossal dust clouds.

Now people are trying to say "Hmmm... but where is all the debris?"

It is... in huge great piles and, as mentioned previously more than once, in the enormous dust clouds.

Now I ask again - assuming that you chose to ignore the obvious physical evidence, what exactly are you suggesting happened to the "missing" concrete?
 
kookbreaker said:
So your complant is not so much that it is in free-fall, but falls too fast for your preferences? Very well then:

Each floor that fails actually adds to the kinetic energy of the falling structure. The 'intact' floors below suddenly have to deal with a massive dynamic load that is well beyond what they were designed to with as a static load. Their load bearing capacity is simply overwhelmed and becomes basiclly irrelevant in face of the falling structure.

Understand?
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.
 
How much of that concrete was used in the base of the structure? I seriously doubt there was a whole lot of concrete higher up in the structure.
 
My original question was why were there no pieces of concrete.

Actually, I can readily see that it mostly, if not completely turned to "dust". I am wondering what the explanation for that is? What properties of concrete cause it to do that?
 
love said:
Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.
Click to expand...

So you are skeptical of failure analyistsm, civil engineers, structural engineers, and similar experts around the world who come to the same conclusion about the building's fall?

I used to do a little demo when I was working at the museum. I'd have a kid stand on a peice of plexiglass supported by 9 papers cups. It held the kid up pretty well. He could even march in place.

Then I would remove five of the paper cups. Still, the kid would be supported.

But then the kid would try marching in place again.

The paper cup failure was blindingly fast, and comlpete over all remaining four cups, despite the placement of his or her feet.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans
Click to expand...

Because the remote controlled planes were guided to the right spot! Come on....
 
love said:
My original question was why were there no pieces of concrete.

Actually, I can readily see that it mostly, if not completely turned to "dust". I am wondering what the explanation for that is? What properties of concrete cause it to do that?
Click to expand...

Again, where was the concrete used in the construction? If it was mostly used for the base of the structure, you aren't going to see much of it at all.
 
love said:
That's right. The theory I was referring to was the pancake theory.
Click to expand...

Referring to the work as 'ad hoc' shows your closed mindedness. Again: Structural engineers in countries not necessarily friendly to the US have agreed with the assesment of NIST.

Are they in on the conspiracy too?
 
kookbreaker said:
So you are skeptical of failure analyistsm, civil engineers, structural engineers, and similar experts around the world who come to the same conclusion about the building's fall?
Click to expand...

Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.

I used to do a little demo when I was working at the museum. I'd have a kid stand on a peice of plexiglass supported by 9 papers cups. It held the kid up pretty well. He could even march in place.

Then I would remove five of the paper cups. Still, the kid would be supported.

But then the kid would try marching in place again.

The paper cup failure was blindingly fast, and comlpete over all remaining four cups, despite the placement of his or her feet.
Click to expand...

Are you taking the p***?
 
the 9/11 theories to me are perticularly disturbing. Some people want to think that someone out there is against them. The system, the government, secret organisation, corporations (well....).

I would ask this. Like the moon landing, just how many people would be needed to fake or cover up such a huge event like this? all the different department people 'hiding' all the different evidence, communicating with each other, and trusting that one of the hundreds if not thousands involved dont say a word.

A lot of evidence I found for 9/11 theories were based on initial media reports and eye witness accounts (when the facts are ALWAYS muddled). Then after they get the real story based on proper scientific analysis, because it dont sound so james bond, they wont believe it. Well, I guess the cool thing for me there is science is true, whether you believe it or not.

It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.
 
Last edited:
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
Click to expand...


Are you a new yorker? No. Didn't think so.

The WTC was built on landfill. Why don't you figure out how much of that concrete went down rather than up.
 
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
Click to expand...

First off... I fail to see what conclusions your "missing concrete" and "free fall" theories are trying to draw. Were the towers made from paper mache back in the 70's and the crooked illuminati cabal who built them orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to cover-up their shoddy construction scam?

Anyhoo... an exercise in futility though it may be, I'll bite.

-The "missing concrete"...

You suggest that there is only "10 meters of rubble". Measured from where? From street level up? Well, guess what? The towers weren't built from street level. They were built over a... what? Here's a hint, and a suggestion for you regarding your continuing attempt to support silly conspiracy theories:

:dig:

"When in a hole, stop digging."

So... how far below street level did the basement of the WTC complex extend? Follow the link to see the pretty picture:

http://michaelminn.net/newyork/wtc/2004-07-17_18-11-50.jpg

Get the picture?

-The "free falling building"...

No, the pancaking theory does not suggest that the building collapsed one floor at a time... as in the collapse did not start on the top floor and continue in sequence to the bottom.

The collapse started at around the three quarters point up the building. Which means that there was a MASSIVE weight above the initially collapsing floors section. A weight so massive that the subsequent floors below the collapsing section offered scant resistence to such an irresistably massive force. It wasn't like a steady procession of floors flopping down one at a time like dominos. It was more like a bowling ball being dropped on house of cards. The house of cards doesn't stand a chance.

Again... this process is clearly seen in the recorded video footage of the events.
 
Last edited:
hellaeon said:
the 9/11 theories to me are perticularly disturbing. Some people want to think that someone out there is against them. The system, the government, secret organisation, corporations (well....).

I would ask this. Like the moon landing, just how many people would be needed to fake or cover up such a huge event like this? all the different department people 'hiding' all the different evidence, communicating with each other, and trusting that one of the hundreds if not thousands involved dont say a word.

A lot of evidence I found for 9/11 theories were based on initial media reports and eye witness accounts (when the facts are ALWAYS muddled). Then after they get the real story based on proper scientific analysis, because it dont sound so james bond, they wont believe it. Well, I guess the cool thing for me there is science is true, whether you believe it or not.

It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathmaticians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.
Click to expand...

The presidential blow job question was, naturally, unanswered. I am afraid to ask why "they" would do this in the first place.
 
love said:
Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.
Click to expand...

hellaeon said:
It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.
Click to expand...

:D
 
love said:
I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.
Click to expand...


Right, like a massive self-destruct sequence. When the towers were built, during the Cold War, when most of America's time was spent watching the Soviet Union and China, they decided to rig a building for self-destruct so that they could fake a terrorist attack by an organization that didn't even exist until 1986.
 
love said:
Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.
Click to expand...


These engineers are not "self-proclaimed" experts. The universities that issued their degrees say these men are experts in their field. I also notice that you, like nearly every other conspiracy proponent, claims to have done your own "calculations". If anyone is a self-proclaimed expert....

Also, how can you trust in science when you don't trust people that have what are essentially scientific degrees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom