A Kinder, more Professional Thread on the WTC

[Prophetable]

So your crystal clear facts are a website by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and then an interview by the same guy?

Alex Jones provides some insightful, factual information in regards to what is happening in the USA and the world today.

I've yet to see one good refutation of his material.

 

[applepowerpc]

Even Alex Jones, it's good to try & collate his material with other facts you know. I follow Tom Flocco, too, but I can't use his material as evidence because I can't find anything to back it up.

That said, we just had a small skyscraper demolished here in town. It looked exactly like the WTC, dust and all. Demolition experts said it took 12 weeks' planning to do that.

 

[Prophetable]

Steve Jones is decent at Physics, but has no real ability to read the structural engineering reports. Wandering down to the section where he talks about the WTC collapse, the arrogance starts to become flat out staggering.

Okay Alarum. So your telling us that we shouldn't believe a Physics Professor has ability in understanding Structural Engineering reports???
This is quite a claim considering that Structural Engineering is a branch of Physics. Even in High School Physics - Forces, Energy, Momentum, Sheer, Stress and Strain in materials, etc is learn't.
With this in mind I don't see how you could call him arrogant.

This is because the velocity of the air being expelled is near the speed of sound, whereas the building is only falling due to gravity. The squibs cannot possibly be outrun by the collapse - his theory is bunk.

Your reasoning is faulty. Theoretically the squibs could be outrun by the collapse if the charges are going off in sequence with the falling floors. ie; The rate of fall may have slightly exceeded that anticipated by the charge setting, resulting in the floor collapse catching up with the timed sequential charges resulting in eventual smothering.

Besides, the whole argument doesn't stand or fall on the squibs. There's heaps of unanswered data in this thread.

Now I have to ask: Why do you people believe this stuff?

The slight angle of the building doesn't detract from all of the strong evidence supporting controlled demolition. Infact it agrees with like instances of many controlled demolitions.

 

[Vylo]

Okay Alarum. So your telling us that we shouldn't believe a Physics Professor has ability in understanding Structural Engineering reports???

Over several dozen other professors who are just as qualified? No.

 

[Alarum]

Okay Alarum. So your telling us that we shouldn't believe a Physics Professor has ability in understanding Structural Engineering reports???
This is quite a claim considering that Structural Engineering is a branch of Physics. Even in High School Physics - Forces, Energy, Momentum, Sheer, Stress and Strain in materials, etc is learn't.
With this in mind I don't see how you could call him arrogant.

Fine. Don't believe me. Believe the photograph I posted that proves he's wrong. He. Was. Wrong.

And yes, I am telling you that physics professors are not the first experts you should be looking at for structural engineering. The discipline is complex and requires many things that are not covered in physics. Engineering is NOT a branch of physics. With many qualified experts in the field with theories on how it collapsed, I don't see why one would trust an unqualified professor, unless they had ulterior motive.

Your reasoning is faulty. Theoretically the squibs could be outrun by the collapse if the charges are going off in sequence with the falling floors. ie; The rate of fall may have slightly exceeded that anticipated by the charge setting, resulting in the floor collapse catching up with the timed sequential charges resulting in eventual smothering.

Besides, the whole argument doesn't stand or fall on the squibs. There's heaps of unanswered data in this thread.

Well ad hoc explaination for horrible conclusion. We can either say that they are miracle squibs, that they used so much explosives that the first charge demolished all the supports (without a squib, natch), and that the rest of the charges did nothing except produce squibs... but doesn't it seem more likely that the bend in the floors during the collapse broke some windows?

The slight angle of the building doesn't detract from all of the strong evidence supporting controlled demolition. Infact it agrees with like instances of many controlled demolitions.

So if the building collapses straight, it's controlled demolition. If the building collapses crooked, it's... controlled demolition.

Evidence is being made to fit the facts here. His claims were wrong, and all the dodging in the world can't tell me otherwise.

 

[Alarum]

Even Alex Jones, it's good to try & collate his material with other facts you know. I follow Tom Flocco, too, but I can't use his material as evidence because I can't find anything to back it up.

That said, we just had a small skyscraper demolished here in town. It looked exactly like the WTC, dust and all. Demolition experts said it took 12 weeks' planning to do that.

Yup. And I bet they did it so well that they didn't cause buildings surrounding the skyscrapers to collapse due to debris! Funny how you don't damage surrounding buildings with falling girders and concrete when its controlled, isn't it?

 

[Marek]

Alex Jones provides some insightful, factual information in regards to what is happening in the USA and the world today.

I've yet to see one good refutation of his material.

This is good factual information???

Referring to immigration protests:

"The scenes you will witness on the streets of America over the next few days do not illustrate a 'new civil rights movement' but an invading army of militant foreigners bankrolled and supported by predominantly white rich Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs who are using the different Mexican race groups as a vice to crush the sleeping American middle class...The Atzlan movement openly states its goal is to create a separatist state that encompasses the entire southern and western states. Their version of Hitler's Mein Kampf is the Plan of San Diego, which outlines the plan to ethnically cleanse the entire region of whites and blacks by mass genocide."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/010506mayday.htm

Now this is only the very first article I looked at on his site...

 

[AmariJah]

You should become a politician Marek- because you clearly have a gift at both slandering those whose views differ from your own and at diverting attention from the topic at hand. In this "world" system you could be very successful in a political career.

 

[Marek]

You should become a politician Marek- because you clearly have a gift at both slandering those whose views differ from your own and at diverting attention from the topic at hand. In this "world" system you could be very successful in a political career.

You didn't respond to this:

This is what you said:
"There is now way in a million years that these buildings collapsed at nearly free- fall speed without offering any resistance simply because of impacts and fires hundreds of feet up. No matter what "theory" you come up with you cannot supercede the laws of physics which would prevent such picture perfect symetrical collapses taking place at nearly free fall speed as if nothing was underneath the upper floors! No way- no how!"

This site says you are wrong: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

I was merely asking you to back up your claims, or admit that you might be wrong.

So are you going to back up your claims, or are you going to admit you might be wrong?

 

[AmariJah]

You didn't respond to this:

This is what you said:
"There is now way in a million years that these buildings collapsed at nearly free- fall speed without offering any resistance simply because of impacts and fires hundreds of feet up. No matter what "theory" you come up with you cannot supercede the laws of physics which would prevent such picture perfect symetrical collapses taking place at nearly free fall speed as if nothing was underneath the upper floors! No way- no how!"

This site says you are wrong: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

I was merely asking you to back up your claims, or admit that you might be wrong.

So are you going to back up your claims, or are you going to admit you might be wrong?

There is little or no possbility that I am wrong. Unless God suspended the laws of physics and gravity on 9/11/01.
Your challenge to try and disprove what is presented at the web site listed is like handing the I.R.S. code book to someone who is in grade school and asking them to simply show the law or laws which make someone legally liable for income tax. (They cannot do it because #1 it is not there & #2 because the code book is so volumous and diffiuclt to decipher- In fact even professional CPA's Government lawyers and tax professionals cannot do it either and they presumably do understand the code.)

 

[Marek]

There is little or no possbility that I am wrong. Unless God suspended the laws of physics and gravity on 9/11/01.
Your challenge to try and disprove what is presented at the web site listed is like handing the I.R.S. code book to someone who is in grade school and asking them to simply show the law or laws which make someone legally liable for income tax. (They cannot do it because #1 it is not there & #2 because the code book is so volumous and diffiuclt to decipher- In fact even professional CPA's Government lawyers and tax professionals cannot do it either and they presumably do understand the code.)

What I understood from this is that you are not going to refute what is in the text because it is too difficult for you to decipher, yet you stand by your claim that you somehow understand the physics and engineering involved well enough to determine how the WTC collapsed. Is this true???

You might want to check out the title of the piece: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"

This clearly implies that it is not a complex, detailed description of the collapse of the WTC. There's a good chance that many of the details are left out. Now you are trying to say that you do not understand a simple analysis, yet you understand the exact version well enough to determine how the buildings collapsed?

I find it funny that you refer to those that believe the official version as something to the tune of "mindless sheep," yet when a few conspiracy sites and a couple rogue scholars claim that the WTC was brought down with explosives you "mindlessly" follow them. This is an example of hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Alarum]

There is little or no possbility that I am wrong. Unless God suspended the laws of physics and gravity on 9/11/01.
Your challenge to try and disprove what is presented at the web site listed is like handing the I.R.S. code book to someone who is in grade school and asking them to simply show the law or laws which make someone legally liable for income tax. (They cannot do it because #1 it is not there & #2 because the code book is so volumous and diffiuclt to decipher- In fact even professional CPA's Government lawyers and tax professionals cannot do it either and they presumably do understand the code.)

There is no shame in not understanding complex engineering concepts like structural collapse. There's no need for the general population to learn the complex mechanics of engineering. But for the love of god, if you don't know them, don't tell those of us that do what can or cannot happen!

 

[AmariJah]

To Marek- Ahh the arrogance and self righteousness of youth- at 21 you feel invincible and supremely intelligent- but believe me in the next 10-30 years God will do some humbling! I guarantee it!
You did misunderstand my statement- because when even a "simple analysis", which was not even presented as fact but as an hypothesis, does not even contain the elements of truth- regardless of how "intelligent" and "advanced" it may appear, one will never find the answer or the truth within it!
& to Alurum- I serously doubt that you undestand "complex engineering concepts" becuase if you did you would know what anyone with a high school education knows about gravity and resistance etc.- i.e. when a solid structure collapses it does not do so without any resistance from the structure beneath it. One does not have to be an engineer to figure this much out!
Once again if you guys or anyone else for that matter does not care for real justice and truth for the victims of 9/11 enough to examine ALL of the pertinant facts related to it- then it is you who are choosing to put the blinders on. You choose to accept the government whitewash and cover-up because it allows you to maintain your false sense of security in a blatantly evil adminstration which has become an instrument of Satan himself. If you were at some point forced to admit that there are just way too many inconsistancies and holes in the governments "official" position on 9/11 and just about every other major issue, then you would also have to admit that you were wron in supporting them. And that is simply too hard for you to do!
- in fact many people will be unable to accept the truth, even when it hits them in the gut,because they are not willing to give up thier rosy little fantasy about the world. And believe me if any of you out there in Christianforums land believe for a second that God is directing the Bush Administration to kill 10s of thousands of people in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" then you are most certainly deceived and living in a deluded fantasy world!

 

[Prophetable]

This is good factual information???

Referring to immigration protests:

"The scenes you will witness on the streets of America over the next few days do not illustrate a 'new civil rights movement' but an invading army of militant foreigners bankrolled and supported by predominantly white rich Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs who are using the different Mexican race groups as a vice to crush the sleeping American middle class...The Atzlan movement openly states its goal is to create a separatist state that encompasses the entire southern and western states. Their version of Hitler's Mein Kampf is the Plan of San Diego, which outlines the plan to ethnically cleanse the entire region of whites and blacks by mass genocide."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/010506mayday.htm

Now this is only the very first article I looked at on his site...

Thanks Marek. Now can you give us some evidence to demonstrate why Alex Jones is wrong about the Atzlan movement. We live in a world full of conspiracies. The root cause of Conspiracy is corruption and deception. To deny Conspiracy exists is naive. Therefore rather than mock people who write articles you would do well to research the subject matter first yourself. Many people in the past have ended up with egg on their face, when people they labelled as 'nuts' turned out to be correct.

 

[Prophetable]

One argument used against the Inside Job argument is the fact that there are many Scientists who support the Official Story. This is in opposition to those who are beginning to show strong doubt that the towers could come down the way the Official Story states. Nevertheless this doesn't weaken the conspiracy. You can be certain that the following factors would contribute:

- Even those who begin to doubt the Official Story may be afraid to speak out due to various factors/fears, whether humiliation, loss of job, reputation or even fear of aggressive reprisal.

- Conspirators would ensure that they would have many "expert" backers to verify their version of events.

- Many Scientists agreeing with the Conspiracy Theory argument do not have access to the media. The Conspirators would ensure that their scientists do.


Also, consider the following:
Many of the initial theories to explain the collapse of the buildings in line with the Official Story have been shown to be impossible. For some reason a lot of these arguments are ignored.




Also, Alarum I must reinforce my position on the charges. The Floor collapse could catch up with the charges as I demonstrated. I must clarify however that though the squibs would be smothered this doesn't mean that the effects of the charges on the steel supports themselves would be.

Secondly, how can you state that a slightly crooked collapse shows that it wasn't a controlled job? Information has been posted to inform of the fact that many demolition jobs can fall in this way. Why did you ignore this?

 

[Marek]

To Marek- Ahh the arrogance and self righteousness of youth- at 21 you feel invincible and supremely intelligent

Well, not really. This is why I don't make claims that the WTC must have fallen this way or that way. I admit that I do not have the understanding to conclude what was possible and what wasn't, so I rely on the experts that dedicate their entire careers to understanding these types of things. If they say that it is possible that the towers fell "naturally," who am I to dispute them? I never said that it was impossible that the towers weren't demolished with explosives, I merely stated that most experts do not believe this to be true.

On the other hand, you claim to understand the engineering and physics involved in the collapse well enough to decide exactly what is possible and what isn't, yet many experts disagree with you. If you are so sure of you hypothesis, why can't you defend it?

- but believe me in the next 10-30 years God will do some humbling! I guarantee it!

Okay...

You did misunderstand my statement- because when even a "simple analysis", which was not even presented as fact but as an hypothesis, does not even contain the elements of truth- regardless of how "intelligent" and "advanced" it may appear, one will never find the answer or the truth within it!

I presented this article, because it explains how it is quite possible that the WTC would fall at near freefall speed without the use of explosives. You claim that this is impossible. Now please back up your claim by showing where the authors of this article went wrong, or admit that you might be wrong.

 

[Alarum]

& to Alurum- I serously doubt that you undestand "complex engineering concepts" becuase if you did you would know what anyone with a high school education knows about gravity and resistance etc.- i.e. when a solid structure collapses it does not do so without any resistance from the structure beneath it. One does not have to be an engineer to figure this much out!

One does not have to be an engineer to figure out that a structure that is 95% empty space, from an engineering perspective, provides little resistance. One would have to move beyond high school, I guess, in order to grasp the fact that a structure that is mostly full of air, paper, computer terminals, desks, and assorted non-structural stuff, collapses virtually in free fall once the supports gave way. One would have to be an engineer, I guess, in order to grasp the fact that 'the supports giving way' means that they are not providing resistance to the collapse.

Also, Alarum I must reinforce my position on the charges. The Floor collapse could catch up with the charges as I demonstrated. I must clarify however that though the squibs would be smothered this doesn't mean that the effects of the charges on the steel supports themselves would be.

Secondly, how can you state that a slightly crooked collapse shows that it wasn't a controlled job? Information has been posted to inform of the fact that many demolition jobs can fall in this way. Why did you ignore this?

I ignored this because what I posted proves the professor was incorrect! Certainly some demolitions collapse the building crooked. It's a tautology to say "either the building collapses straight, or it collapses crooked." That was not the issue. What was at issue was the professor's claims. The professor claimed, and I quote:

9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the “official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise. [Emphasis added]

His claims are clearly false. The collapse was not straight down. His analysis is wrong.

 

[applepowerpc]

One would have to move beyond high school, I guess, in order to grasp the fact that a structure that is mostly full of air, paper, computer terminals, desks, and assorted non-structural stuff, collapses virtually in free fall once the supports gave way.

If all the supports in a structure simultaneously just ceased to exist, I guess you're right.

The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down

His claims are clearly false. The collapse was not straight down. His analysis is wrong.

You bolded only the thing you wanted to bold. The professor said "nearly symmetrical". His claims are clearly true.

 

[Alarum]

If all the supports in a structure simultaneously just ceased to exist, I guess you're right.

Or you could watch the video. Which shows a sudden tilt in the building. That was all the supports in the damaged wall giving way, starting a domino effect that snapped every wall support. About a second or two later, the building collapses. Exactly like the report said. If you start timing from the tilt, which is the first support break, you will get a collapse velocity that is a lot lot lower then free fall. By starting the timer from when the supports had all given way (i.e. when the building started to collapse) the professor guarenteed his results would look like they had all been severed at once.

You bolded only the thing you wanted to bold. The professor said "nearly symmetrical". His claims are clearly true.

Nearly symmetrical? Help me out here:

How? Where is the line of symmetry? Describe it, sketch it in Paint, I honestly don't care. Just show it to me.

 

[applepowerpc]

In your still photo, you have 2 lines of symmetry, intersecting at point of impact. You know where they are. Which is really not surprising--what do you expect to happen when you plan a demolition for 12 weeks and then an airliner crashes into the building?