ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags loose change , part 1 , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 15th March 2006, 08:41 PM   #161
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek
Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.
Damn! The gig's up guys, he's figured out we're part of the conspiracy...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 08:43 PM   #162
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Damn! The gig's up guys, he's figured out we're part of the conspiracy...
Heh.

Notice that making emotional accusations is all he has left after the pounding his nice shiney conspiracy collection took?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 08:51 PM   #163
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Damn! The gig's up guys, he's figured out we're part of the conspiracy...
Yes! You're the unwitting co-conspirator. It must be pretty fantastic for them to have the government, the mainstream media, and millions of little parrots like you doing the whitewashing for you. However, the shame in all of this is that the joke is really on you.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 08:53 PM   #164
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Yes! You're the unwitting co-conspirator. It must be pretty fantastic for them to have the government, the mainstream media, and millions of little parrots like you doing the whitewashing for you. However, the shame in all of this is that the joke is really on you.
Oh, yeah, you're the open minded one.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 09:00 PM   #165
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Quote:
The total kinetic energy generated by the collapse of one WTC tower was about 10^12J
That means the kinetic energy of the two towers collapsing alone was half a kiloton (1/20-1/40th the energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.) Holy crap!
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 09:11 PM   #166
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change
Wow, so, here I am responding to a post that no longer seems to exist! You open this thread about how you're watching this movie that makes you so angry (see above). Then on page five you post about how you just downloaded some video of the towers, and remark about how it's the first time in 4+ years that you've seen video of the towers falling. And how "beautiful" the physics were. That's interesting, considering how Loose Change is filled with footage of the towers falling, from many different angles! Apparently, you didn't watch it at all!

Did you delete that post because you realized it exposed you as a *liar*? That was pretty nimble. I guess when you're a liar sometimes you lose track of the lies.

For those of you who aren't moral cowards, liars, and who don't suffer from a parochial, narrow-minded worldview, here is a link to the video. You might try ACTUALLY WATCHING IT!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures. Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting. Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.

I leave you to resume your job of debunking ghost stories, UFOs, and the psychic friends network. See you in the Haliburton camps!
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 09:20 PM   #167
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10,109
I got about half of it watched before bedtime last night. The Popular Mechanics article handles most of what I saw and I can very easily handle the free-fall calculation they did.

They forgot air resistance. The equation the used would apply only in a vaccum. I'm pretty sure that's Chapter 2 or so in most Physics books.

(That and what other people had already pointed out.)

Anyway, thus far, not impressed. I'll try and watch a bit more tonight.
LostAngeles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 09:35 PM   #168
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
this is not an arguement about facts. Its about just hating the government and a really boring personal life void of excitement. The realisation of the same sh*t day in day out....

Just cause your paranoid alek, does not mean they aren't out to get you.
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 10:11 PM   #169
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
For those of you who aren't moral cowards, liars, and who don't suffer from a parochial, narrow-minded worldview, here is a link to the video. You might try ACTUALLY WATCHING IT!
Been there, done that. It's nonsense.

Quote:
As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures.
The doors thataway, just follow the guy who thinks Bigfoot is a shape-shifting alien w/ super-powers.

Quote:
Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting.
PT Barnum couldn't make a dime here, he left in a huff too.

Quote:
Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.
Don't worry, Superman will save the day just when all seems lost.

Quote:
I leave you to resume your job of debunking ghost stories, UFOs, and the psychic friends network. See you in the Haliburton camps!
I bet you weave baskets in your "camp"...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 04:31 AM   #170
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Then on page five you post about how you just downloaded some video of the towers, and remark about how it's the first time in 4+ years that you've seen video of the towers falling.
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly.
Apparently physics is not your only deficiency...
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 04:34 AM   #171
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Did you delete that post because you realized it exposed you as a *liar*? That was pretty nimble. I guess when you're a liar sometimes you lose track of the lies.
The post is still there. You had to know it was still there, becuase you quoted it. That means you deliberately said something false when you knew the truth. I think that's probably pretty close to the dictionary definition of "lie."
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 04:38 AM   #172
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Wow, so, here I am responding to a post that no longer seems to exist! You open this thread about how you're watching this movie that makes you so angry (see above). Then on page five you post about how you just downloaded some video of the towers, and remark about how it's the first time in 4+ years that you've seen video of the towers falling. And how "beautiful" the physics were. That's interesting, considering how Loose Change is filled with footage of the towers falling, from many different angles! Apparently, you didn't watch it at all!

Did you delete that post because you realized it exposed you as a *liar*? That was pretty nimble. I guess when you're a liar sometimes you lose track of the lies
I think he meant this "deleted" post.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote
I actually grabbed video of the towers falling. This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly.
(my emphasis)

Sheesh. When the paranoid get paranoid they really get paranoid.

eta: delphi, you're too quick for me.

Last edited by chipmunk stew; 16th March 2006 at 04:40 AM.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 06:15 AM   #173
Curnir
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
For those of you who aren't moral cowards, liars, and who don't suffer from a parochial, narrow-minded worldview, here is a link to the video. You might try ACTUALLY WATCHING IT!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change
Ha ha ha ha ha *wipes eyes* *sighs* oh mercy...
Seen it, wasn't impressed.
Quote:
As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures. Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting. Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.
oh my... Investigate 9/11 sure...
Loose Change was sort of like a person finding 3 spots of white colour on a blue wall and zooming in on the spots take pictures, and then loudly proclaim that the goverment wants people to believe that the wall is BLUE, even when he got the photographic evidence and several painters that testify that the paint on the photograph is indeed white. And since the colour oon the photographs is white... the whole wall must be white.
Quote:
I leave you to resume your job of debunking ghost stories, UFOs, and the psychic friends network.
ha ha ha ha ha

Quote:
See you in the Haliburton camps!
Soo Alek... you support Haliburton do you? *shakes head* for shame...


yeah yeah it was a bit silly of me but posts such as that just cracks me up

Last edited by Curnir; 16th March 2006 at 06:19 AM.
Curnir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 06:33 AM   #174
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures. Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting.
We work with what you gave us. Which wasn't much. And now you are running away like a little coward because you couldn't defend your claims. Truth to be told, you got off light, and in fact if you were to look back, most of what you considered 'arrogant' simply was us not worshipping the lies you told us.

Quote:
Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.
Why is it that 'investigate 9/11' really means 'come to the same wacky, unsupported, more-paranoid-than-thou conclusion that Alek does'?

Another sniveling, whiney conspiracy theorist bites the dust.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 06:40 AM   #175
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,217
What's really fun is that to some 9/11 CT'ers, Alek is a government disinfo agent. These CT'ers go for a minimalist approch, claiming that Bush knew 9/11 would happen at let it happen, or that the CIA manipulated Al Queda into the attack. They take everything else at face value (building collapse, Plane at the Pentagon, etc) and consider those who harp on those issues to be fools following idiotic arguements to make all Ct'ers look bad.

So Alek is just a tool of Bush & Halliburton.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 07:31 AM   #176
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Quote:
Alek
Are you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit?[/quote]
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Yes, mostly. the rest are just idiots who let their politics trump their critical thinking skills.
Googling some of those names reveals that it's probably the opposite. Pretty standard-issue neo-anarchists eager to blame the government for every evil in the world. Poet/professors who allege that Osama has been dead for four years and that the CIA has been making his tapes, perma-students who have run for office on the Marijuana Party, folks like that. In their vehement hatred of America, they have a vested interest in terrorism succeeding -- they want to create enough social discord to usher in their radical politics.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 08:04 AM   #177
JPK
Graduate Poster
 
JPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,749
Good morning Alek.
At the risk of making you look even more paranoid, would you care to tell us why exactly you think was conductced by the US government? I mean they must have had a reason right? How long ago did this plan start to take place? What other buildings are rigged to blow? You would have a great case if you could find one before someone else runs a plane into them.
You do not seem to be doing well by supplying physical evidence to hold up your end of the story so why not let us know your opinion on this.
JPK
__________________
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier... A belief's a dangerous thing. People die for it. People kill for it."
Rufus, the 13th apostle, Dogma
"You can't prove air." Sylvia Browne
John Kardel

Last edited by JPK; 16th March 2006 at 08:06 AM.
JPK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 12:18 PM   #178
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
[Way back in post #93...]
One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of lies
So your premise is that the Commission is full of lies? No wonder you're having trouble here.

I do have one technical point to add - you can't seem to see how WTC7's collapse could look like a demolition. It's too sudden and too fast-falling for you. There's a reason that they look alike. In a controlled demolition, they don't plant so many explosives that building is obliterated by them. They use just enough explosives to make it so that the building supports can't hold its weight, then they let the law of gravity finish the job. Ideally, they start in the middle so that the interior walls fall first, and the exterior walls fall inwards towards the rubble. But the key is that they use just enough explosives that it can't support itself, then it falls down all at once.

With WTC7, it stood until it reached a point that it couldn't support itself anymore. Once that point is reached, the whole thing collapses. There's no way that a 50-story building could partially crumble, or go in stages. Once part fails, the whole thing can't hold up all that weight anymore and it suddenly all falls down. The failure in this case started in the middle, apparently because that's where the damage was heaviest.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 02:14 PM   #179
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
/raises hand/

Hey Alek? I have a question for you. I asked this to a different CT in a previous 9/11 thread but never got an answer.

According to you, the "controlled demolition" of WTC7 is what convinced you of a conspiracy, right? According to your conspiracy, WHY was WTC7 destroyed?
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 02:35 PM   #180
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Perhaps you could answer this question posed by someone on another forum, I think it's a reasonable question:

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "
I find it telling that the original poster of this question doesn't even know what a floor TRUSS is (it's not a "trust"). Why should I believe that he/she did any research into his own question if he couldn't even take the time to find out what the hell was talking about? Pure ignorance.

I was a truss designer for 6 years. The truss/trust thing always bugged me.
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 02:56 PM   #181
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by VespaGuy View Post
I find it telling that the original poster of this question doesn't even know what a floor TRUSS is (it's not a "trust"). Why should I believe that he/she did any research into his own question if he couldn't even take the time to find out what the hell was talking about? Pure ignorance.

I was a truss designer for 6 years. The truss/trust thing always bugged me.
I read a couple research papers recently about using machine learning techniques to design building trusses. From that small introduction to the field, I have to say I'll always admire those in your profession. It was a startlingly complex topic!

I'm sure you have a very good understanding of how some of the stresses on the trusses in the WTC would behave. Care to share some of your professional experience with us?
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 03:38 PM   #182
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
Well, I haven't touched a truss in a while and I am by no means a structural engineer, but the premise is simple - acheiving strength through mechanical triangulation using lightweight material.

For instance, I designed wood trusses (both floor and roof). A normal conventional framed roof would use 2x10's or even 2x12's at a 12" or possibly 16" spacing (depending on the size of the roof). The same roof could be framed using a truss made solely out of 2x4 lumber (using triangulation)... and the spacing could be adjusted to 24" o.c. . The main advantage of trusses is the ease of installation, and the longer unsupported spans.

One thing that trusses are notorious for, though, is the way that they fail. I'll do my best to explain in layman's terms. For a 2x12 roof to fail, a fire has to burn through a substancial portion of the lumber to get just one member to fail. But with a truss, you basically have less material, with a greater surface area. Although it's stronger, it can fail much, much quicker. Ask any fire fighter - they hate trusses because they fail so quickly (and without warning).

In the case of the WTC, I found the PBS special very informative. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly the trusses are what were holding the buildings together after the impact. Of course when you start changing reactions around (members that should be in compression become in tension and vice-versa), and add high temperatures, I'm surprised the towers stood as long as they did.
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 05:39 PM   #183
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by VespaGuy View Post
Well, I haven't touched a truss in a while and I am by no means a structural engineer, but the premise is simple - acheiving strength through mechanical triangulation using lightweight material.

For instance, I designed wood trusses (both floor and roof). A normal conventional framed roof would use 2x10's or even 2x12's at a 12" or possibly 16" spacing (depending on the size of the roof). The same roof could be framed using a truss made solely out of 2x4 lumber (using triangulation)... and the spacing could be adjusted to 24" o.c. . The main advantage of trusses is the ease of installation, and the longer unsupported spans.

One thing that trusses are notorious for, though, is the way that they fail. I'll do my best to explain in layman's terms. For a 2x12 roof to fail, a fire has to burn through a substancial portion of the lumber to get just one member to fail. But with a truss, you basically have less material, with a greater surface area. Although it's stronger, it can fail much, much quicker. Ask any fire fighter - they hate trusses because they fail so quickly (and without warning).

In the case of the WTC, I found the PBS special very informative. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly the trusses are what were holding the buildings together after the impact. Of course when you start changing reactions around (members that should be in compression become in tension and vice-versa), and add high temperatures, I'm surprised the towers stood as long as they did.
Thanks, Vespa. That was actually really cool. The changing stresses is the aspect of this that interests me most. The truss structural optimization problems I was looking at in these machine learning papers considered only the load of the building. I imagine the machine learning algorithms would not make good practical trusses because they were so simplistic.

There seem to be so many things to consider, especially when building something like the WTC. The weight of the building would be hard enough to account for, but throwing in the varying wind resistance, pressure, and varying properties of the building materials... I'm a amazed they can even start to account for things like the building being ripped half apart by an airplane.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2006, 11:44 PM   #184
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
In case Alek ever comes back, or at least until the next CT believer sees great significance in the "near free fall speed" collapse of the towers, I've just thought of a new question to ask:

What is it that causes intentionally demolished buildings to collapse at near free-fall speeds, and how would that same reasoning not apply to the WTC buildings (in the standard model explanation)? I can't imagine any coherent answer to this question.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 04:06 AM   #185
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
In case Alek ever comes back, or at least until the next CT believer sees great significance in the "near free fall speed" collapse of the towers, I've just thought of a new question to ask:

What is it that causes intentionally demolished buildings to collapse at near free-fall speeds, and how would that same reasoning not apply to the WTC buildings (in the standard model explanation)? I can't imagine any coherent answer to this question.
The usual argument is that explosives were planted in the building and detonated in a way that caused the building to collapse at free fall.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 06:29 AM   #186
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
The usual argument is that explosives were planted in the building and detonated in a way that caused the building to collapse at free fall.
The explosives, of course, were soundless and invisible. Which means the CIA has perfected hushaboom.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 06:35 AM   #187
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Thanks, Vespa. That was actually really cool. The changing stresses is the aspect of this that interests me most. The truss structural optimization problems I was looking at in these machine learning papers considered only the load of the building. I imagine the machine learning algorithms would not make good practical trusses because they were so simplistic.

There seem to be so many things to consider, especially when building something like the WTC. The weight of the building would be hard enough to account for, but throwing in the varying wind resistance, pressure, and varying properties of the building materials... I'm a amazed they can even start to account for things like the building being ripped half apart by an airplane.
That's exactly the problem with the WTC scenerio. In most cases, trusses are designed to handle the maximum vertical live and dead loads for each floor. Each member (called "chords" or "webs") and joint within the truss is designed for the maximum stress under compression or tension.

But the WTC trusses picked up addditional lateral loads once the plane hit the tower. Although there are redundancies built into most engineered systems, I highly doubt that these trusses were designed to accomodate that load.

I also agree that the WTC was a wonder of engineering. The fact that both towers withstood the impact of a plane and continued to stand at all is just amazing.

Delphi - you should pick up a copy of "Why Buildings Fall Down". It pre-dates the WTC disaster, but it's a great read and it mentions many of the things that we have discussed (unplanned variables, etc).
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 07:15 AM   #188
drfrank
Critical Thinker
 
drfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by VespaGuy View Post
....
In the case of the WTC, I found the PBS special very informative. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly the trusses are what were holding the buildings together after the impact. Of course when you start changing reactions around (members that should be in compression become in tension and vice-versa), and add high temperatures, I'm surprised the towers stood as long as they did.
Oh my God, there must have been a counter conspiracy at work that specifically strengthened the trusses to try and stop the government implementing their evil plan

Get to work on it, Alek!
__________________
There is no statement, no matter how monumentally stupid, that someone, somewhere, won't accept as Holy Truth

On homeopathy:
"I 100% agree with you [that a smaller and smaller physiological effect will be observed in increasing dilution until 24X is reached, at which point there is absolutely no effect.]" Dr A. Sheikh.
drfrank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 09:30 AM   #189
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
It seems like this is the second time I've come to a 9/11 CT thread just in time to see the thread die.

I guess I'll never find out why the government destroyed WTC7...
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 09:43 AM   #190
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
VespaGuy:

I know. They were trying to make sure they got rid of Jimmy Hoffa's body.

Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 11:14 AM   #191
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barrett's Privateers
 
Hutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: About 7 Miles from the Saturn 5B
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by VespaGuy View Post
I guess I'll never find out why the government destroyed WTC7...
Well, IIRC from reading these threads here and at the BAUT and ApolloHoax Forums among others, there was some type of "Secret" Government office in WTC7 and the powers-that-be did not want that activity exposed so they "arranged" for the destruction of WTC7.

too bad alex didn't have any staying power, I've seen these run into the mutiple pages elsewhere--heck, we never even got to the WTC fellow saying "pull it" argument...
__________________
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. What? Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here! Boom. Sooner or later. BOOM! -LT. Cmdr. Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5
Hutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 11:52 AM   #192
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
 
VespaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,034
Originally Posted by Hutch View Post
Well, IIRC from reading these threads here and at the BAUT and ApolloHoax Forums among others, there was some type of "Secret" Government office in WTC7 and the powers-that-be did not want that activity exposed so they "arranged" for the destruction of WTC7.

too bad alex didn't have any staying power, I've seen these run into the mutiple pages elsewhere--heck, we never even got to the WTC fellow saying "pull it" argument...
I haven't heard the "Secret Government Office" conspracy. Very convienient.

But how did they plan on "covering it up"? They "covered up" the destruction of the two towers with planes. They "covered up" the "missle" in the pentagon with another plane. But what had they planned on covering up the WTC7 collapse with? Did they plan on the debris to fall specifically on that building alone to explain the collapse? It really seems like bad planning considering the level of creativity, intelligence, and resources the conspiracy nuts seem to give to the powers-that-be.

Alek likes to pretend that he's a critical thinker, but there are so many holes in the conspiracy theory he can't possibly be thinking about anything that doesn't support his little theory.

Here's just a few head-scratchers that I have. There are hundreds more. None of which make any sense.

If explosives were used, why was there a delay between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the building? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just collapse the building at the moment of impact, thus hiding the detonation and eliminating so much fodder for the conspiracy theorists?

If theorists claim that it was a controlled demolition, then I'm assuming that a "normal" collapse would have been messier somehow (buidling collapsing sideways, etc). If a messier collapse was somehow a possibility, again why would their be a wait between the impact and the detonation? Why risk it?
VespaGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 12:24 PM   #193
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by VespaGuy View Post
I haven't heard the "Secret Government Office" conspracy. Very convienient.

But how did they plan on "covering it up"? They "covered up" the destruction of the two towers with planes. They "covered up" the "missle" in the pentagon with another plane. But what had they planned on covering up the WTC7 collapse with? Did they plan on the debris to fall specifically on that building alone to explain the collapse? It really seems like bad planning considering the level of creativity, intelligence, and resources the conspiracy nuts seem to give to the powers-that-be.

Alek likes to pretend that he's a critical thinker, but there are so many holes in the conspiracy theory he can't possibly be thinking about anything that doesn't support his little theory.

Here's just a few head-scratchers that I have. There are hundreds more. None of which make any sense.

If explosives were used, why was there a delay between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the building? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just collapse the building at the moment of impact, thus hiding the detonation and eliminating so much fodder for the conspiracy theorists?

If theorists claim that it was a controlled demolition, then I'm assuming that a "normal" collapse would have been messier somehow (buidling collapsing sideways, etc). If a messier collapse was somehow a possibility, again why would their be a wait between the impact and the detonation? Why risk it?
Not to mention, why would they even make it a controlled demolition? If mass destruction, not safety, was the goal, why not just wire it kind of pseudo-randomly so it looked more uncontrolled?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 12:58 PM   #194
Blackwell
Graduate Poster
 
Blackwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Not to mention, why would they even make it a controlled demolition? If mass destruction, not safety, was the goal, why not just wire it kind of pseudo-randomly so it looked more uncontrolled?
Bingo! If you look at some of the "squib" claims, and some of the video segments and stills that the "planned explosion" CTers show as evidence, they show random "squib" blow-outs - but how do they reconcile that with an apparently symmetrical, controlled fall? If what they point to are squibs, why didn't the buildings fall to the side? On the other hand, if it was a controlled demo, why don't we see an orderly, timed squib sequence?

I see Alek is still lurking here; what a coward.
__________________
One can't break the laws of physics, but you can be civilly disobedient towards them. - Dr. Tiki

And yea, the Lord did text unto the Philistines...
U guys have to stop s1nnig. I totaly <3 U guys 4ever but I will pwn U when I CUL8ER and U will be all OMG! and WTF! and I be LOL!!! - Psiload
Blackwell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 02:26 PM   #195
Shadowhawk
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I find it hard to intuit how the structure at the point of impact would go from bearing the entire load, to none of it, unilaterally, symmetrically, and instantaneously, without any signs of buckling or weakening beforehand. The steel would have to go from say, 60% to 0% instantly. I find this infeasible. It's not as if modern buildings just disintegrate and collapse into a free fall when their structures fail. They buckle, then they topple, slowly (absent a thermite induced controlled demolition).
Please go to here and watch the "Big Blue" crane collapse video.
As the base of the crane fails (the operators were not using it in windy conditions properly), it begins to fall sideways. When the main boom of the crane encounters some of the steel roof structure that's already been installed, there is so much momentum involved that the steel folds like paper.
The structure of The Twin Towers, while certainly stronger, had orders of magnitude more mass involved in their collapse. With the sheer momentum involved here, it hardly matters if the Towers' support structure was magically changed to titanium, balsa wood, or tissue paper when the impact from the floor above arrived. The changes in the speed of collapse would've been within observational error (after all, we didn't have any high-speed cameras pointed at the towers, and things were getting occluded by dust anyway) at the scales involved.

As for 'slowly' buckling and toppling buildings, that's because controlled demolition teams WANT them done that way. It spreads out the energy of the collapse and reduces vibration.
Most 'natural' building collapses are on a much smaller scale. Loads gradually change as a piece of the structure fails, so they slowly buckle until they reach a complete failure point.
The loads in the Towers changed instantaneously, beyond their failure point, so they failed instantaneously.
__________________
Shadowhawk
"Sufficiently advanced technology is often indistinguishable from magic." -- Clarke's Third Law
Shadowhawk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 02:37 PM   #196
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Blackwell View Post
Bingo! If you look at some of the "squib" claims, and some of the video segments and stills that the "planned explosion" CTers show as evidence, they show random "squib" blow-outs - but how do they reconcile that with an apparently symmetrical, controlled fall? If what they point to are squibs, why didn't the buildings fall to the side? On the other hand, if it was a controlled demo, why don't we see an orderly, timed squib sequence?

I see Alek is still lurking here; what a coward.
I'm not lurking, I'm waiting for an earnest, objective post to respond to. Since everyone here already knows what happend and what didn't on 9/11, that isn't likely to happen.

The bautforum that was linked to earlier contains a much more civil discussion, and isn't quite so provincial.

I've come to the conclusion that self-designated skeptics are vain, condescending, and intellectually insecure, much like Mensans. They'd like to think they're endowed with large amounts of reason and objectivity when they aren't.

Don't cast your pearls before swine.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 02:56 PM   #197
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I'm not lurking, I'm waiting for an earnest, objective post to respond to.
I'm waiting for someone who agrees with me.
Quote:
Since everyone here already knows what happend and what didn't on 9/11, that isn't likely to happen.
Since you all insist on evidence and don't simply accept my word as the absolute truth, I'm taking my toys and going home.
Quote:
The bautforum that was linked to earlier contains a much more civil discussion, and isn't quite so provincial.
These people agree with me, so they aren't close-minded.
Quote:
I've come to the conclusion that self-designated skeptics are vain, condescending, and intellectually insecure, much like Mensans.
I'm pissed because you showed me up for a fool. Not that I can admit that.
Quote:
They'd like to think they're endowed with large amounts of reason and objectivity when they aren't.
Since I can't offer any evidence to prove my arguments, or disprove yours, I'll attack your character. That'll show ya!
Quote:
Don't cast your pearls before swine.
You might as well give up, because I'm a pig, and I'm just going to wallow in the mud.

Translation Services courtesy of Huntsman Idiolinguistics, Inc.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 04:53 PM   #198
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Shadowhawk View Post
Please go to here and watch the "Big Blue" crane collapse video.
As the base of the crane fails (the operators were not using it in windy conditions properly), it begins to fall sideways. When the main boom of the crane encounters some of the steel roof structure that's already been installed, there is so much momentum involved that the steel folds like paper.
The structure of The Twin Towers, while certainly stronger, had orders of magnitude more mass involved in their collapse. With the sheer momentum involved here, it hardly matters if the Towers' support structure was magically changed to titanium, balsa wood, or tissue paper when the impact from the floor above arrived. The changes in the speed of collapse would've been within observational error (after all, we didn't have any high-speed cameras pointed at the towers, and things were getting occluded by dust anyway) at the scales involved.
I completely agree. It's unreasonable to assume the towers would, or could topple past a certain point. As another poster on BAUT forum correctly pointed out, physical models don't always scale well. For instance, you couldn't take an 11' steel model of the towers and expect it to behave similarly to the 110 story real thing. The blue crane video you linked is evidence of this.

I would also point out that there is video evidence which tends to corroborate the OCT (official conspiracy theory). There are video angles of the south tower in which it appears to topple, collapsing asymmetrically before failing to do so and then falling straight down. After some searching, I found a link to the video:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...20collapse.mpg

I do not think this negates the likelyhood of a controlled demolition (in light of the multitude of other evidence), but it certainly strengthens the idea that the towers fell asymmetrically as would be expected from asymmetric damage (kinetic energy of jets + hydrocarbon fires).

I think because of this, it's also somewhat more difficult to ascertain whether a collapsing skyscraper on the order of the twin towers is collapsing symmetrically, or asymmetrically, based on video evidence.

Another interesting video I found is this:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...20collapse.mpg

Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is?

Quote:

As for 'slowly' buckling and toppling buildings, that's because controlled demolition teams WANT them done that way. It spreads out the energy of the collapse and reduces vibration.
Most 'natural' building collapses are on a much smaller scale. Loads gradually change as a piece of the structure fails, so they slowly buckle until they reach a complete failure point.
The loads in the Towers changed instantaneously, beyond their failure point, so they failed instantaneously.
I've learned more about controlled demolition recently. An interesting site to visit is Implosion World. They offer lots of video plus the history of controlled demolition. Some of their demolition videos feature buildings that are much closer in scale to the WTC 7 building. These buildings can be seen crumbling, toppling, and imploding in various fashion. The collapse of the WTC 7 building strikes me as a prime example of an A+ controlled demolition. In fact, if asymmetric fire damage can cause such a breathtakingly symmetrical near free-fall collapse and implosion as witnessed of that building, then perhaps I should consider a career in demolition. After all, if random fires can cause such a tidy rubble pile, how hard can it be?

Some will cite eyewitness testimony that the south face of WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris from the collapse of the north tower, and the testimony is credible (it's from a fire captain as i recall). There is little to no video or photographic evidence of this. However, if you accept this, then you should also accept other firefighters video testimony that they heard what they thought were bombs going off in the towers, and you should accept this without interpretation. If one firefighter is capable of making the reasonable observation that the building was severely damaged, then certainly other firefighters can make the reasonable observation that they heard what they thought were bombs going off. Structural engineers are more qualified in ascertaining severe damage, and demolitions experts are more qualified in identifying explosive detonations aurally, but this doesn't mean firefighters can't do a decent job of either.

The Bankers Trust building deserves attention. Here is a satellite photo of the World Trade Center complex pre-9/11:



The WTC 7 building appears just southeast of 12 o'clock, to the northeast of the WTC 6 building. The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:



So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building? Well, Banker's Trust was closer to the south tower than the WTC 7 building was to the north tower. Banker's Trust also didn't have the WT6 building in between it and the north tower. WTC 6 is a miraculous story by itself. After receiving the full brunt of the north tower's collapse, plus fire damage, it failed to collapse! It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds". Note that WTC 6 is visible as the small structure in the northwest corner of the WTC complex. Finally, Banker's Trust wasn't leased by Larry Silverstein.

So, what indeed is the difference between these buildings that caused the spectacular, unprecedented (well, unless you count the twin towers) collapse of WTC 7, but left Banker's Trust standing tall?

One shouldn't select evidence at all, let alone in a crime the scope of 9/11. While there is an overriding emotional, and by the mainstream media's account, evidential reason to accept the government's OCT, that doesn't justify the selection of evidence as many so-called "skeptics" on this thread have done. Consider all the evidence, with an open mind. There is much, much more.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 05:03 PM   #199
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Woooow!

I actually got a response to this!

Quote:
Ryan,

Thank you. I will ask our dean to look at your concerns and respond.

Jim Barker
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th March 2006, 05:08 PM   #200
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by VespaGuy View Post
Delphi - you should pick up a copy of "Why Buildings Fall Down". It pre-dates the WTC disaster, but it's a great read and it mentions many of the things that we have discussed (unplanned variables, etc).
Sir, I will most definitely do so. It sounds very interesting, and I appreciate the recommendation!
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.