What is the point of explosives?

Undesired Walrus · 25th June 2007, 05:53 PM

Jones accepts that it would have been impossible for the towers not to collapse right? He simply believes it would have taken 36 seconds?

You have to ask, what is the point? To make it more dramatic? That's a big *********** risk simply to double the rate of collapse.

Do Avery and pals accept the building would have collapsed anyway? Or do they deny this?

I guess what I ask, is what do theorists accept had to have happened to the towers? If they accept the only thing odd about it was the rate, then what is the point of bombs?

PhantomWolf · 25th June 2007, 05:58 PM

Most Truthers seem to think that the top should have just fallen off, if that.

MIKILLINI · 25th June 2007, 06:04 PM

I made this point to Ace, but he did not respond to the point. In addition to that, I included asking why go to the trouble of faking videos for the same reason? No response. There's to much wasted common sense of some people, provided they had any to begin with.

Brattus · 25th June 2007, 06:12 PM

All those people. Just at work like the rest of us. Tragic!

Totovader · 25th June 2007, 06:42 PM

This sort of ties in with the thread where everyone experimented with ideas about making a conspiracy theory that actually makes sense, instead of leaving all these "obvious clues" for no apparent reason.

I asked a pod-person this yesterday, too- what the crap is the point of sticking this gigantic pod underneath the plane if you have bombs there anyway, or could just fill the cabin with whatever fireworks you want?

It makes no friggen sense.

steve s · 25th June 2007, 06:52 PM

Most of them believed that the lower sections of the towers should have been able to hold up the upper sections. They don't understand the difference between static and dynamic loads. Thus the need for explosives. Even when it is explained to them that a falling object exerts much more force than when it it at rest, many of them still refuse to accept it. And those that do will usually say something like "They just used explosives to be on the safe side."

Steve S.

e^n · 25th June 2007, 07:17 PM

I believe Jones is the one who used the 'law of entropy' to claim that the towers should have toppled.

What? I don't know, why? I have no idea.

CHF · 25th June 2007, 07:25 PM

C'mon people....

Imagine if the tops of the WTC towers had toppled over thanks to some kind of lateral force. Imagine if those top chunks had fallen on the people below.

Imagine if the collapses had taken 36 seconds instead of 12-15.

Imagine if WTC7 hadn't come down.

Had such a scenario taken place, would any of you have agreed to wage war in response? Well of course not!

As the world watched in horror as those towers collapsed I'm sure the only thing going though anyone's mind was "this had better take under 15 seconds or else this isn't worth war." At least that's what I was thinking.

So now you know why the government needed to complicate their plan with explosives.

(That's the closest I can get to making sense of the twoofer mentality).

WildCat · 25th June 2007, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

C'mon people....

Imagine if the tops of the WTC towers had toppled over thanks to some kind of lateral force. Imagine if those top chunks had fallen on the people below.

Imagine if the collapses had taken 36 seconds instead of 12-15.

Imagine if WTC7 hadn't come down.

Had such a scenario taken place, would any of you have agreed to wage war in response? Well of course not!

As the world watched in horror as those towers collapsed I'm sure the only thing going though anyone's mind was "this had better take under 15 seconds or else this isn't worth war." At least that's what I was thinking.

So now you know why the government needed to complicate their plan with explosives.

(That's the closest I can get to making sense of the twoofer mentality).

It was actually the burning cars that convinced me that war was necessary.

gumboot · 25th June 2007, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

It was actually the burning cars that convinced me that war was necessary.

Really? For me it was the undamaged passports. That just settled it for me. I remember seeing all of the coverage and thinking, "Well, this is terrible and all, but well, it's understandable, isn't it? The USA certainly had it coming."

But then when I heard they'd found a passport intact, well, that just did it for me. "The nerve!" I cried. "The cheek of it! As if killing thousands isn't enough, they had to wave their passports in our faces! Disgusting!"

-Gumboot

MIKILLINI · 25th June 2007, 08:03 PM

It was flying the airliner into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon that did it for Me. The nerve of them, not only did they kill other fellow Americans, but they had to fly into that new section. It was the first time I got to see it, and it was destroyed, awful!

firecoins · 25th June 2007, 08:09 PM

It was the ability of Islamic militant to go to a strip club. No muslim would ever do that! WAR!!!!!!!!!!

MikeW · 26th June 2007, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Do Avery and pals accept the building would have collapsed anyway? Or do they deny this?

In my experience, most of the inside job movement say it wouldn't have collapsed without explosives. And that collapse was necessary so as to create the right "shock and awe" effect. Of course even they know that's an astonishingly feeble argument, which is why they moved on to lying about the WTC losing money, being short on tenants etc. They have to, because not having a sensible motive for all this controlled demolition is a major weakness that they have to work hard to obscure.

Undesired Walrus · 26th June 2007, 12:53 AM

Would the huge hole in both towers that ruined them beyond all repair, and most likely, require them to be demolished not be a psychological impact enough?? Or did they hire professors from Harvard to go "Yes, yes, 10-13 second collapse, that will allow you to invade Iraq on the pretext of WMD's".

MikeW · 26th June 2007, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Would the huge hole in both towers that ruined them beyond all repair, and most likely, require them to be demolished not be a psychological impact enough??

The real impact came from seeing the second plane hit. That's what got repeated over and over again, the plane approaching from various directions and the fireball.

Then, less than a month later, we had al Qaeda (Suleiman Abu-Ghaith) telling us:

Quote:

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...arn011009.html

Hmm. An terrorist attack on US soil of unprecedented scale, and a warning that there will be more? Plenty of justification to launch a war on terror there, I'd have thought. And no need to demolish the WTC at all.

The Doc · 26th June 2007, 01:22 AM

The second plane and the jumpers carried the most psychological impact in my opinion.

einsteen · 26th June 2007, 02:14 AM

Due to uncertainty in the E1 values and the mass ejected there is nothing you can say about the collapse time. The collapse model also says, if there is a collapse then it will be fast. For a very slow collapse the values should be very balanced which is very improbable. Of course there are much more questions but that's why I'm a tw

fer ...

gumboot · 26th June 2007, 03:05 AM

A number of times, when contemplating CTer demolition theories, I have ran in my mind a hypothetical scenario where neither tower collapses.

In some ways, I think it would have been worse.

New Yorkers (and the world) experienced 102 minutes of staring helplessly while people jumped to their deaths. Then the towers collapsed, and all of those New Yorkers became directly involved in the event. When you're caught up in it, the psychological stuff is often easier to deal with because you have a motivation and a goal - your own survival. You're no longer totally helpless.

Had the towers not collapsed, those fires would have burned for hours. Possibly days. The FDNY had no hope of putting them out - and they knew that within minutes.

The overwhelming majority of people who died at the WTC were killed by the impact, or were trapped above the impact zone. Collapse or not, those people above the impact zone were doomed. None of them were going to make it out alive. Over the coming hours and possibly days, one by one they would have succumbed. We would have thousands of horrific 9/11 calls to listen to, thousands of horrific stories of phone calls from loved ones. We would have had people jumping to their deaths all day. People all day desperately crying for assistance from a city that was powerless to save them.

The burnt out husk of the towers would have probably been taken down. That would have taken much longer than clearing Ground Zero took, and all the while those burnt husks would be standing there for all to see.

I think, in some ways, New Yorkers, and those trapped in the towers especially, were lucky they collapsed so fast.

-Gumboot

Undesired Walrus · 26th June 2007, 05:28 AM

Imagine the might of American economic power standing there with two massive holes in view of the entire world to see, for weeks and months on end.

The thing I do not get is the 36 second collapse. Is that just bad maths, or do they see it as one floor collapsing onto the other then stopping?

I mean, what the hell would it look like?

CHF · 26th June 2007, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

The thing I do not get is the 36 second collapse. Is that just bad maths, or do they see it as one floor collapsing onto the other then stopping?

Basically yeah.

Judy Wood thinks the same thing, only her model had it taking 96 seconds.

babazaroni · 26th June 2007, 06:51 AM

I asked a hardcore twoofer why it was so important for the buildings to collapse at the expense of dramatically increasing the chances of getting caught. His response was, 'Well if there was no collapse, Bush could only get support to invade Afghanistan and not Iraq'.

It's a tough question for them to answer.

einsteen · 26th June 2007, 07:17 AM

He refers to Kenneth Kuttler's recent paper.

Dave Rogers · 26th June 2007, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

He refers to Kenneth Kuttler's recent paper.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...lculations.pdf

I've just taken a look at that. I can see two big problems with the estimates.

Firstly, the estimates of collapse time considering concrete pulverisation but not resistance of the columns are based on the assumption, as far as I can tell, that all the concrete was pulverised into dust; in fact, one of the scenarios contains the adverse comment that there was insufficient energy to pulverise all the concrete. The assumption that all the concrete was pulverised to sub-millimetre particles has, however, no apparent foundation in reality, to the point that even Steven Jones has disputed it. There is clear photographic evidence of very large pieces of concrete in the rubble from the collapses, including a well known piece of debris which I'm sure someone can post a picture of if I ask nicely. Please, someone?

Secondly, the resistance of the columns is given by assuming that the columns are able to exert an effective upward force during the collapse equal to the weight of the building above, multiplied by some safety factor, multiplied by a further factor to represent the fraction of the strength of the column remaining at a given point of the collapse, if I'm interpreting the expression on page 14 correctly. The first two terms seem reasonable, but the third is not. A value of 0.35, as used in the paper, indicates that the column's strength decreases fairly slowly during the collapse of a single storey, rather than failing catastrophically at an early point in the collapse. I'm not qualified to judge, but I'd be interested in the opinion of some of the engineers here whether this is reasonable; I suspect not. In any case there is no derivation given for this third factor, it is simply described as "some number between 0.35 and 0.5". The whole argument of the second part of the paper rests on the value of this factor, and the complete absence of any justification for the range of values chosen makes it impossible to determine the validity of the calculation.

In summary, then, the conclusions appear to be based on faulty or unverified assumptions.

Dave

Calcas · 26th June 2007, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Really? For me it was the undamaged passports. That just settled it for me. I remember seeing all of the coverage and thinking, "Well, this is terrible and all, but well, it's understandable, isn't it? The USA certainly had it coming."

But then when I heard they'd found a passport intact, well, that just did it for me. "The nerve!" I cried. "The cheek of it! As if killing thousands isn't enough, they had to wave their passports in our faces! Disgusting!"

-Gumboot

Combine that with the red bandanna at Shanksville and it was a slam dunk!

Panoply_Prefect · 26th June 2007, 08:56 AM

Downed lamppoles did it for me. They seriously impaired the US citizens right to traffic safety. I say, invade.

/S

Dave Rogers · 26th June 2007, 09:14 AM

This weakness extends to one or two other conspiracy theories too. Can you imagine Roosevelt's stirring words?

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. And had that attack succeeded in sinking all eight of the battleships at Pearl Harbor, you may be sure we would now be doing rather more than issuing a stiff diplomatic note requesting that you do no such thing ever again, or we will get really cross."

Dave

negativ · 26th June 2007, 09:32 AM

I still don't understand why, from the point of view of a CTist, it makes a bit of difference whether the buildings collapsed or not. Why would conspiracy plotters necessarily NEED the buildings to collapse? Isn't flying a huge farking plane into an office building enough?

BigAl · 26th June 2007, 09:54 AM

What do they expect. for it to fall over like a tree?

Concrete was a *tiny* portion of the mass. It was thin slabs and not reinforced. It got ground up by the 100s of thousands of tons of steel during the collapse.

What survived the collapse got "cooked" in the heat of the pile. Heat dessicates concrete making it lose all strength and become styrafoam-like. (source NY fireman friend who worked the pile and described the concrete to me. )

WTC1 and 2 were "only" 6 times as high as
they were wide. (210ftx210ft). Given that the
part above the impact floors was only ~10 stories high, there was no way the center og gravity of the upper part could move far enough to one side to for it to fall over. For all that, the top of one
of the towers came close, as shown in the videos.

The "hat truss" system kept the upper part intact. Were it not for that, maybe the upper floors would have fallen as individual parts and not caused a cascading failure all the way down.

The "in it's own footprint" claims make me laugh. the 210x210 buildings (about 1 acre each) made
a pile of rubble covering about 24 acres.

bonavada · 26th June 2007, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

You have to ask, what is the point? To make it more dramatic? That's a big *********** risk simply to double the rate of collapse

conversely what was the point of the planes?

BV

Travis · 26th June 2007, 06:02 PM

All joking aside I had actually been calling for an invasion of Iraq since 1997, which was also when I started calling for an invasion of North Korea, when I actually wrote to my congressman (Doolittle) expressing said wish. I had also been calling for an invasion of Afghanistan starting in spring of 2001 when I started reading reports of how they were enforcing Sharia law in a most inhumane and brutal manner.

So, strangely, 9/11 actually changed nothing in my views on those two issues as I had already been championing them for some time.

fezzic · 26th June 2007, 07:16 PM

Explosives were needed because if they were not present -- IOW, the collapse of the towers were an unfortunate result of the impact and fire damage -- there is very little that can be done to "prove" that a conspiracy existed. Once you step away from the recorded events, all you can come up with is speculation and unprovable or unproven allegations. All those speculations and allegations are unlikely, in the extreme, to overcome the mass of information that lends support to the "official story".

Looking at it another way, since the supposed conspiracy is unlikely to put their planning and coordination meetings on YouTube or publish transcripts or minutes, where the heck would the evidence come from if not from the recordings of 9/11. Nowhere. That's why various posters try so darn hard to find anamolies in the 9/11 recordings or choose to interpret what they see in what seems to be "self-serving" manner, for there is pretty much nowhere else to go to for "evidence".

25th June 2007, 05:53 PM	#1
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 11,690	What is the point of explosives? Jones accepts that it would have been impossible for the towers not to collapse right? He simply believes it would have taken 36 seconds? You have to ask, what is the point? To make it more dramatic? That's a big *********** risk simply to double the rate of collapse. Do Avery and pals accept the building would have collapsed anyway? Or do they deny this? I guess what I ask, is what do theorists accept had to have happened to the towers? If they accept the only thing odd about it was the rate, then what is the point of bombs?

25th June 2007, 05:58 PM	#2
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,637	Most Truthers seem to think that the top should have just fallen off, if that.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

25th June 2007, 06:12 PM	#4
Brattus Guest Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,290	All those people. Just at work like the rest of us. Tragic!
Brattus Guest Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,290

25th June 2007, 06:42 PM	#5
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,321	This sort of ties in with the thread where everyone experimented with ideas about making a conspiracy theory that actually makes sense, instead of leaving all these "obvious clues" for no apparent reason. I asked a pod-person this yesterday, too- what the crap is the point of sticking this gigantic pod underneath the plane if you have bombs there anyway, or could just fill the cabin with whatever fireworks you want? It makes no friggen sense.
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,321	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

25th June 2007, 06:52 PM	#6
steve s Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,865	Most of them believed that the lower sections of the towers should have been able to hold up the upper sections. They don't understand the difference between static and dynamic loads. Thus the need for explosives. Even when it is explained to them that a falling object exerts much more force than when it it at rest, many of them still refuse to accept it. And those that do will usually say something like "They just used explosives to be on the safe side." Steve S.
steve s Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,865	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

25th June 2007, 06:04 PM	#3
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,979	I made this point to Ace, but he did not respond to the point. In addition to that, I included asking why go to the trouble of faking videos for the same reason? No response. There's to much wasted common sense of some people, provided they had any to begin with.

25th June 2007, 07:17 PM	#7
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	I believe Jones is the one who used the 'law of entropy' to claim that the towers should have toppled. What? I don't know, why? I have no idea.
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810

25th June 2007, 07:25 PM	#8
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	C'mon people.... Imagine if the tops of the WTC towers had toppled over thanks to some kind of lateral force. Imagine if those top chunks had fallen on the people below. Imagine if the collapses had taken 36 seconds instead of 12-15. Imagine if WTC7 hadn't come down. Had such a scenario taken place, would any of you have agreed to wage war in response? Well of course not! As the world watched in horror as those towers collapsed I'm sure the only thing going though anyone's mind was "this had better take under 15 seconds or else this isn't worth war." At least that's what I was thinking. So now you know why the government needed to complicate their plan with explosives. (That's the closest I can get to making sense of the twoofer mentality).
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

25th June 2007, 07:36 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by CHF C'mon people.... Imagine if the tops of the WTC towers had toppled over thanks to some kind of lateral force. Imagine if those top chunks had fallen on the people below. Imagine if the collapses had taken 36 seconds instead of 12-15. Imagine if WTC7 hadn't come down. Had such a scenario taken place, would any of you have agreed to wage war in response? Well of course not! As the world watched in horror as those towers collapsed I'm sure the only thing going though anyone's mind was "this had better take under 15 seconds or else this isn't worth war." At least that's what I was thinking. So now you know why the government needed to complicate their plan with explosives. (That's the closest I can get to making sense of the twoofer mentality). It was actually the burning cars that convinced me that war was necessary.
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

25th June 2007, 07:44 PM	#10
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by WildCat It was actually the burning cars that convinced me that war was necessary. Really? For me it was the undamaged passports. That just settled it for me. I remember seeing all of the coverage and thinking, "Well, this is terrible and all, but well, it's understandable, isn't it? The USA certainly had it coming." But then when I heard they'd found a passport intact, well, that just did it for me. "The nerve!" I cried. "The cheek of it! As if killing thousands isn't enough, they had to wave their passports in our faces! Disgusting!" -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

25th June 2007, 08:03 PM	#11
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,979	It was flying the airliner into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon that did it for Me. The nerve of them, not only did they kill other fellow Americans, but they had to fly into that new section. It was the first time I got to see it, and it was destroyed, awful!

25th June 2007, 08:09 PM	#12
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New York Posts: 3,206	It was the ability of Islamic militant to go to a strip club. No muslim would ever do that! WAR!!!!!!!!!!

26th June 2007, 12:23 AM	#13
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Do Avery and pals accept the building would have collapsed anyway? Or do they deny this? In my experience, most of the inside job movement say it wouldn't have collapsed without explosives. And that collapse was necessary so as to create the right "shock and awe" effect. Of course even they know that's an astonishingly feeble argument, which is why they moved on to lying about the WTC losing money, being short on tenants etc. They have to, because not having a sensible motive for all this controlled demolition is a major weakness that they have to work hard to obscure.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910

26th June 2007, 12:53 AM	#14
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 11,690	Would the huge hole in both towers that ruined them beyond all repair, and most likely, require them to be demolished not be a psychological impact enough?? Or did they hire professors from Harvard to go "Yes, yes, 10-13 second collapse, that will allow you to invade Iraq on the pretext of WMD's".

26th June 2007, 01:20 AM	#15
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Would the huge hole in both towers that ruined them beyond all repair, and most likely, require them to be demolished not be a psychological impact enough?? The real impact came from seeing the second plane hit. That's what got repeated over and over again, the plane approaching from various directions and the fireball. Then, less than a month later, we had al Qaeda (Suleiman Abu-Ghaith) telling us: Quote: "The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living." http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...arn011009.html Hmm. An terrorist attack on US soil of unprecedented scale, and a warning that there will be more? Plenty of justification to launch a war on terror there, I'd have thought. And no need to demolish the WTC at all.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910

26th June 2007, 01:22 AM	#16
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,158	The second plane and the jumpers carried the most psychological impact in my opinion.

26th June 2007, 02:14 AM	#17
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917	Due to uncertainty in the E1 values and the mass ejected there is nothing you can say about the collapse time. The collapse model also says, if there is a collapse then it will be fast. For a very slow collapse the values should be very balanced which is very improbable. Of course there are much more questions but that's why I'm a tw fer ...
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917

26th June 2007, 03:05 AM	#18
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	A number of times, when contemplating CTer demolition theories, I have ran in my mind a hypothetical scenario where neither tower collapses. In some ways, I think it would have been worse. New Yorkers (and the world) experienced 102 minutes of staring helplessly while people jumped to their deaths. Then the towers collapsed, and all of those New Yorkers became directly involved in the event. When you're caught up in it, the psychological stuff is often easier to deal with because you have a motivation and a goal - your own survival. You're no longer totally helpless. Had the towers not collapsed, those fires would have burned for hours. Possibly days. The FDNY had no hope of putting them out - and they knew that within minutes. The overwhelming majority of people who died at the WTC were killed by the impact, or were trapped above the impact zone. Collapse or not, those people above the impact zone were doomed. None of them were going to make it out alive. Over the coming hours and possibly days, one by one they would have succumbed. We would have thousands of horrific 9/11 calls to listen to, thousands of horrific stories of phone calls from loved ones. We would have had people jumping to their deaths all day. People all day desperately crying for assistance from a city that was powerless to save them. The burnt out husk of the towers would have probably been taken down. That would have taken much longer than clearing Ground Zero took, and all the while those burnt husks would be standing there for all to see. I think, in some ways, New Yorkers, and those trapped in the towers especially, were lucky they collapsed so fast. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

26th June 2007, 05:28 AM	#19
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 11,690	Imagine the might of American economic power standing there with two massive holes in view of the entire world to see, for weeks and months on end. The thing I do not get is the 36 second collapse. Is that just bad maths, or do they see it as one floor collapsing onto the other then stopping? I mean, what the hell would it look like?

26th June 2007, 06:24 AM	#20
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus The thing I do not get is the 36 second collapse. Is that just bad maths, or do they see it as one floor collapsing onto the other then stopping? Basically yeah. Judy Wood thinks the same thing, only her model had it taking 96 seconds.
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

26th June 2007, 06:51 AM	#21
babazaroni Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 787	I asked a hardcore twoofer why it was so important for the buildings to collapse at the expense of dramatically increasing the chances of getting caught. His response was, 'Well if there was no collapse, Bush could only get support to invade Afghanistan and not Iraq'. It's a tough question for them to answer.
babazaroni Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 787

26th June 2007, 07:17 AM	#22
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917	He refers to Kenneth Kuttler's recent paper.
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917

26th June 2007, 07:53 AM	#23
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles June Pither Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 29,455	Originally Posted by einsteen He refers to Kenneth Kuttler's recent paper. http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...lculations.pdf I've just taken a look at that. I can see two big problems with the estimates. Firstly, the estimates of collapse time considering concrete pulverisation but not resistance of the columns are based on the assumption, as far as I can tell, that all the concrete was pulverised into dust; in fact, one of the scenarios contains the adverse comment that there was insufficient energy to pulverise all the concrete. The assumption that all the concrete was pulverised to sub-millimetre particles has, however, no apparent foundation in reality, to the point that even Steven Jones has disputed it. There is clear photographic evidence of very large pieces of concrete in the rubble from the collapses, including a well known piece of debris which I'm sure someone can post a picture of if I ask nicely. Please, someone? Secondly, the resistance of the columns is given by assuming that the columns are able to exert an effective upward force during the collapse equal to the weight of the building above, multiplied by some safety factor, multiplied by a further factor to represent the fraction of the strength of the column remaining at a given point of the collapse, if I'm interpreting the expression on page 14 correctly. The first two terms seem reasonable, but the third is not. A value of 0.35, as used in the paper, indicates that the column's strength decreases fairly slowly during the collapse of a single storey, rather than failing catastrophically at an early point in the collapse. I'm not qualified to judge, but I'd be interested in the opinion of some of the engineers here whether this is reasonable; I suspect not. In any case there is no derivation given for this third factor, it is simply described as "some number between 0.35 and 0.5". The whole argument of the second part of the paper rests on the value of this factor, and the complete absence of any justification for the range of values chosen makes it impossible to determine the validity of the calculation. In summary, then, the conclusions appear to be based on faulty or unverified assumptions. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

26th June 2007, 08:32 AM	#24
Calcas Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,466	Originally Posted by gumboot Really? For me it was the undamaged passports. That just settled it for me. I remember seeing all of the coverage and thinking, "Well, this is terrible and all, but well, it's understandable, isn't it? The USA certainly had it coming." But then when I heard they'd found a passport intact, well, that just did it for me. "The nerve!" I cried. "The cheek of it! As if killing thousands isn't enough, they had to wave their passports in our faces! Disgusting!" -Gumboot Combine that with the red bandanna at Shanksville and it was a slam dunk!
Calcas Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,466

26th June 2007, 08:56 AM	#25
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Downed lamppoles did it for me. They seriously impaired the US citizens right to traffic safety. I say, invade. /S

26th June 2007, 09:14 AM	#26
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles June Pither Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 29,455	This weakness extends to one or two other conspiracy theories too. Can you imagine Roosevelt's stirring words? "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. And had that attack succeeded in sinking all eight of the battleships at Pearl Harbor, you may be sure we would now be doing rather more than issuing a stiff diplomatic note requesting that you do no such thing ever again, or we will get really cross." Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

26th June 2007, 09:32 AM	#27
negativ Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,904	I still don't understand why, from the point of view of a CTist, it makes a bit of difference whether the buildings collapsed or not. Why would conspiracy plotters necessarily NEED the buildings to collapse? Isn't flying a huge farking plane into an office building enough?
negativ Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,904	__________________ A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals. Eternal salvation or TRIPLE your money back!

26th June 2007, 09:54 AM	#28
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	What do they expect. for it to fall over like a tree? Concrete was a tiny portion of the mass. It was thin slabs and not reinforced. It got ground up by the 100s of thousands of tons of steel during the collapse. What survived the collapse got "cooked" in the heat of the pile. Heat dessicates concrete making it lose all strength and become styrafoam-like. (source NY fireman friend who worked the pile and described the concrete to me. ) WTC1 and 2 were "only" 6 times as high as they were wide. (210ftx210ft). Given that the part above the impact floors was only ~10 stories high, there was no way the center og gravity of the upper part could move far enough to one side to for it to fall over. For all that, the top of one of the towers came close, as shown in the videos. The "hat truss" system kept the upper part intact. Were it not for that, maybe the upper floors would have fallen as individual parts and not caused a cascading failure all the way down. The "in it's own footprint" claims make me laugh. the 210x210 buildings (about 1 acre each) made a pile of rubble covering about 24 acres.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397

26th June 2007, 11:01 AM	#29
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,073	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus You have to ask, what is the point? To make it more dramatic? That's a big *********** risk simply to double the rate of collapse conversely what was the point of the planes? BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,073

26th June 2007, 06:02 PM	#30
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 23,999	All joking aside I had actually been calling for an invasion of Iraq since 1997, which was also when I started calling for an invasion of North Korea, when I actually wrote to my congressman (Doolittle) expressing said wish. I had also been calling for an invasion of Afghanistan starting in spring of 2001 when I started reading reports of how they were enforcing Sharia law in a most inhumane and brutal manner. So, strangely, 9/11 actually changed nothing in my views on those two issues as I had already been championing them for some time.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

26th June 2007, 07:16 PM	#31
fezzic Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 499	Explosives were needed because if they were not present -- IOW, the collapse of the towers were an unfortunate result of the impact and fire damage -- there is very little that can be done to "prove" that a conspiracy existed. Once you step away from the recorded events, all you can come up with is speculation and unprovable or unproven allegations. All those speculations and allegations are unlikely, in the extreme, to overcome the mass of information that lends support to the "official story". Looking at it another way, since the supposed conspiracy is unlikely to put their planning and coordination meetings on YouTube or publish transcripts or minutes, where the heck would the evidence come from if not from the recordings of 9/11. Nowhere. That's why various posters try so darn hard to find anamolies in the 9/11 recordings or choose to interpret what they see in what seems to be "self-serving" manner, for there is pretty much nowhere else to go to for "evidence".
fezzic Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 499