Now on Youtube: Full Version "Experts Speak Out on 9/11 Truth"

ManFromUncle · Mar 18, 2014

Please use this thread only to discuss the documentary, state a time-mark for part you are referring to. No personal attacks or posts off-topic. Off-topic posts will be labeled as such.

Broadcast on PBS Colorado. Film sponsored by 9/11 families, produced by 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 90 minutes.

[youtube]6xif0jIT_ZM[/youtube]

Skaloop · Mar 19, 2014

All a bunch of nonsense. Architects are not structural experts. And what kind of engineers? I know lots of engineers (I work with bunches of them) but very few would be able to speak with any authority about a building collapse.

So of your 200, dismiss the architects because they don't do structural work. Then dismiss all the engineers who are not structural or heavy civil engineers. Then where will you be? How many civil structural engineers are on that list? How many civil structural engineers disagree with the ones on that list?

ManFromUncle · Mar 19, 2014

Skaloop said:
All a bunch of nonsense. Architects are not structural experts. And what kind of engineers? I know lots of engineers (I work with bunches of them) but very few would be able to speak with any authority about a building collapse.

So of your 200, dismiss the architects because they don't do structural work. Then dismiss all the engineers who are not structural or heavy civil engineers. Then where will you be? How many civil structural engineers are on that list? How many civil structural engineers disagree with the ones on that list?

Off -topic, please discuss the points made in the documentary which can stand or fall on their own merits. For example, it requires neither an architect nor an engineer (and there are over 2,000 of them who are full members of the organization, not 200) to know that NIST never tested for explosives, although there was extensive evidence of them. Why did NIST not test for explosives? Their answer was "we didn't expect to find any."

That is drawing a conclusion before examining the evidence. 3,000 people dead and they couldn't do simple tests for explosives, just to rule them out?

Bjornke · Mar 19, 2014

Time: 45:25

Building can only fall if material below was already pulverized.

We do know for a fact that floor trusses were already sagging and pulling away from the outer shell long before the collapse where the fires burned.

A single floor of 9/11 was rated for a static load capable of 2 or 3 floors additional. In other words, one floor could hold the static load of 3 floors (this would be the strength of the floor trusses)

A moving load, falling, even 4 feet, would accumulate nearly 3 times it's own weight upon impact.

The dynamic energy in a falling object at the impact moment can be expressed as

E = m g h (4)

where

g = acceleration of gravitation (9.81 m/s2, 32.17405 ft/s2)

h = falling height (m)

The equation can be combined with the equationof work as

F = m g h / s (5)

Example

The energy of the falling body when it hits the ground can be calculated as

E = (200 lbf) (4 ft)

= 800 ft lb

the floors on the WTC were spaced far more than 4 feet apart. The ceilings were around 10-12 feet.

the impact force of a single floor on the floor below it would then be much higher than the capable strength of the trusses. In addition, as one floor pancakes another, you now have the mass of 2 floors, falling. thus as more floors fall, the impact force increases.

The reason the building fell so fast is easily explained: After the first couple of floors began to fall, the impact on each subsequent floor below was so great that it literally blew right through the floor pulverizing everything in it's path.

The difference between the WTC Pancake and other building pancakes is how: WTC Pancaked because of floor sagging which eventually gave way when the core began to weaken. Additionally, WTC floors were not built of concrete, but light weight steel trusses. This means, that the total capable handling force was on the magnitude of many many times lower than a building made of concrete floors.

The core, did have concrete columns, though the floors themselves, had no such thing.

Bjornke · Mar 19, 2014

Time: 45:38

Building would have tipped over.

The second collapse did experience tilt on the upper portion above the impact zone for a brief period of time.

However a building of this size, does not tip well. It's far too weak, and far too heavy to withstand the lateral forces of a tip. Tipping of a building designed and constructed like the WTC, would fracture almost immediately, and begin to pancake.

Bjornke · Mar 19, 2014

Time: 47:11

Secondary Explosions

While it is possible that there may have been explosives, falling floor trusses can also be explained as a reason for the "explosive" sound. Though I myself, even have my doubts on that one.

Though, there is one thing to consider: Thermite does NOT explode. It burns rapidly, and very intensely, but does not explode. Thermite cannot be used as the reason for the "explosions" as it just simply does not burn fast enough or cause a large enough shockwave from it's rapid burn, to explode or cause an exploding sound.

When thermite does burn, it sounds like a fast paced hissing sound, usually lasting just a mere second or two depending on quantity, and reactant mixture chemistry.

ManFromUncle · Mar 19, 2014

Bjornke said:
Time: 45:25
We do know for a fact that floor trusses were already sagging and pulling away from the outer shell long before the collapse where the fires burned....CLIPPED...

Thank you. But all that shows is that, yes, there was damage, and floor trusses were sagging, which the documentary notes at the time you state. That is a long way from the towers disappearing in 14 seconds.

Bjornke said:
Time: 45:25

In addition, as one floor pancakes another, you now have the mass of 2 floors, falling. thus as more floors fall, the impact force increases.

The reason the building fell so fast is easily explained: After the first couple of floors began to fall, the impact on each subsequent floor below was so great that it literally blew right through the floor pulverizing everything in it's path.

Now here is the crux of the fallacy. The buildings "fell" (they didn't quite, more accurate to say the pieces were blown out laterally at explosive speeds) at the same acceleration toward the ground that a free-falling object would fall through air, which is the same regardless of the weight of the object (for streamlined objects, Galileo.) Any falling floors would have encountered much greater resistance than the resistance of air. Therefore any collapse would have been much, much slower. In fact there have been many partial collapses, but as they meet resistance they slow and stop.

Your collapse mechanism depends on the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, and that "each subsequent floor" as you said would go faster as the whole mass got heavier. You said it would literally "[blow] right through the floor pulverizing everything in it's path."

But things that are heavier do not go faster than things that are lighter, if they are both smooth, streamlined objects. They fall at the same speed. Anything falling through steel and concrete could only fall MUCH MUCH slower than it would fall through thin air. That is the giveaway that it was a demolition. In a demolition the frames are cut to pieces at once, so they are literally pieces falling through air.

In a vacuum even a ball and a feather will reach the ground at the same time.

[youtube]Z789eth4lFU[/youtube]

[youtube]ndFXXasM6ZE[/youtube]

9/11 story problem: Which 15 story block will hit the ground first?

Answer:
On 9/11 they both hit the ground at virtually the same time!

-If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

-All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

-It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

-It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.

Bjornke · Mar 19, 2014

ManFromUncle said:
Thank you. But all that shows is that, yes, there was damage, and floor trusses were sagging, which the documentary notes at the time you state. That is a long way from the towers disappearing in 14 seconds.

[snip]
Answer:
On 9/11 they both hit the ground at virtually the same time!

-If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

-All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

-It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

-It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.

I did not mean that it would get faster endlessly.

What I meant was that it would continue to accelerate until it reaches maximum acceleration potential in atmospheric conditions (known as "free fall") which, would occur rapidly in a situation like this one. Though, it would never reach true free fall speeds as there is the additional force of floors it's crushing below the impact zones, however, it is possible for such a heavy mass to reach near free fall speeds, given enough time, weight, and force.

Bjornke · Mar 19, 2014

Additionally, the WTC did NOT fall at free fall speeds. they fell near free fall speeds, however, which is to be expected with such a massive amount of material.

Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence that the WTC fell much slower than free fall.

Psalm 91 · Mar 19, 2014

I already know that there were explosives, Man from Uncle. If you look at the video of the buildings falling in slow motion you can see the explosions. There was also the issue of Building 7 and the owner saying they "pulled it". Explosives can't be put in a building in one day. Also, there was no investigation done. The debris was removed and...now...it's where?

Btodd · Mar 19, 2014

0:18-1:40 - The video presents a list of things about the war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, various government organizations that are deemed nefarious, mentions a loss of civil liberties, and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with how the Towers collapsed, which is supposed to be the point of the video. All while a spooky soundtrack plays in the background, so the easily-led can already get in the conspiratorial mood before the supposed evidence even begins to be mentioned. This is why they don’t write scientific papers and introduce them to peer-reviewed journals, because it isn’t about science at all…it’s a worldview. Scientific papers don’t include spooky soundtracks and points aimed at politics in order set up a scientific explanation…that type of approach has nothing to do with the scientific method, and everything to do with propaganda.

3:32 - Gage says “About an hour later, millions watched in shock, as both towers were suddenly and rapidly destroyed”.

The South Tower did indeed collapse about an hour later (56 minutes), but the North Tower collapsed 102 minutes later (almost an hour and 45 minutes).

4:33 - Gage says that “Critical questions have been raised by more than 1500 architects and engineers about the official explanations about the destruction of all three of these buildings”.   Misleading on at least two levels. Number one, not everyone who signed the petition raised a question…many of the people who signed simply put their name on there, and did not elaborate as to what their questions were. Number two, this is a blatant appeal-to-authority fallacy, in which they use the term ‘architects and engineers’ in a manner that is supposed to mean ‘architects and engineers who have relevant expertise in building structures, their collapses, and demolitions’. But we already know that there are a multitude of architects and engineers on that petition who have no relevant expertise whatsoever (indeed, the majority of them do not), with such titles as ‘Landscape Architect’ and ‘Software Engineer’. This charade could not be any more transparent.  

5:34-5:40 - The text on the screen says, ‘How do 2 planes bring down 3 skyscrapers?’ This is merely a cheap rhetorical farce, akin to saying, ‘How does a single falling domino bring down 100 other dominos?” Apparently, video of a vast number of falling dominos that were initiated by the first falling domino are also an Inside Job, and completely bogus.  

I’ll get back to this tomorrow, but I will again drive home the point that after more than 12 years, this is still being touted as a scientific explanation…and MFU contends that it is so basic that it violates Galileo…yet, the Truth Movement can’t produce a single scientific paper on the matter and introduce it to a respected peer-reviewed journal. On one hand, it’s so obvious, but on the other hand, nobody can be bothered beyond a YouTube video with spooky music.

BALONEY. You can’t have it both ways. At some point, the Truth Movement will have to put their money where their mouth is. If it’s scientifically accurate and so obvious, then it can be introduced to a legitimate scientific journal…NOT YouTube.

Btodd

ManFromUncle · Mar 19, 2014

Psalm 91 said:
I already know that there were explosives, Man from Uncle. If you look at the video of the buildings falling in slow motion you can see the explosions. There was also the issue of Building 7 and the owner saying they "pulled it". Explosives can't be put in a building in one day. Also, there was no investigation done. The debris was removed and...now...it's where?

Right, watch all this "concrete rubbing together" produce fireballs, blowing out symmetrically across the floors of the building and looking just like, well, EXPLOSIONS! Funny how much "rubbing concrete" can look like that! At :16 seconds.

At :16 seconds:
[youtube]zoAD8HlrLZg[/youtube]

Still frame:

B-b-but, there was no SOUND! Explosions make sound!

Yes they do. Oh right, popping rivets. Ain't it amazing Martha how much thy sound like explosions? In an accelerating sequence downward just like a..a..DEMOLITION!

[youtube]uxB7R-z6E1I[/youtube]

Psalm 91 · Mar 20, 2014

Btodd said:
0:18-1:40 - The video presents a list of things about the war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, various government organizations that are deemed nefarious, mentions a loss of civil liberties, and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with how the Towers collapsed, which is supposed to be the point of the video. All while a spooky soundtrack plays in the background, so the easily-led can already get in the conspiratorial mood before the supposed evidence even begins to be mentioned. This is why they don’t write scientific papers and introduce them to peer-reviewed journals, because it isn’t about science at all…it’s a worldview. Scientific papers don’t include spooky soundtracks and points aimed at politics in order set up a scientific explanation…that type of approach has nothing to do with the scientific method, and everything to do with propaganda.

3:32 - Gage says “About an hour later, millions watched in shock, as both towers were suddenly and rapidly destroyed”.

The South Tower did indeed collapse about an hour later (56 minutes), but the North Tower collapsed 102 minutes later (almost an hour and 45 minutes).

4:33 - Gage says that “Critical questions have been raised by more than 1500 architects and engineers about the official explanations about the destruction of all three of these buildings”.  Misleading on at least two levels. Number one, not everyone who signed the petition raised a question…many of the people who signed simply put their name on there, and did not elaborate as to what their questions were. Number two, this is a blatant appeal-to-authority fallacy, in which they use the term ‘architects and engineers’ in a manner that is supposed to mean ‘architects and engineers who have relevant expertise in building structures, their collapses, and demolitions’. But we already know that there are a multitude of architects and engineers on that petition who have no relevant expertise whatsoever (indeed, the majority of them do not), with such titles as ‘Landscape Architect’ and ‘Software Engineer’. This charade could not be any more transparent.  5:34-5:40 - The text on the screen says, ‘How do 2 planes bring down 3 skyscrapers?’ This is merely a cheap rhetorical farce, akin to saying, ‘How does a single falling domino bring down 100 other dominos?” Apparently, video of a vast number of falling dominos that were initiated by the first falling domino are also an Inside Job, and completely bogus.  I’ll get back to this tomorrow, but I will again drive home the point that after more than 12 years, this is still being touted as a scientific explanation…and MFU contends that it is so basic that it violates Galileo…yet, the Truth Movement can’t produce a single scientific paper on the matter and introduce it to a respected peer-reviewed journal. On one hand, it’s so obvious, but on the other hand, nobody can be bothered beyond a YouTube video with spooky music, to introduce a formal scientific paper, explaining how it’s so obvious.

BALONEY. You can’t have it both ways. At some point, the Truth Movement will have to put the money where their mouth is. If it’s scientifically accurate and so obvious, then it can be introduced to a legitimate scientific journal…NOT YouTube.

So are you saying that we should trust scientific journals more than our own eyes? No. They and you are not going to tell me what I saw. That is kind of like the rhesus monkeys we studied in Psychology 101. Many people question 9/11 but somehow the gov't keeps thinking if they repeat their version enough times and those who don't believe are punished by outrage and criticism, they'll learn to stop asking questions. I'm not a monkey.

If the fire from the jet fuel was so hot it melted the beams, why was there a person standing in the gaping hole? Yeah, at first I thought it was photo-shopped but then I saw the video with her standing there. And how do they know these things when there was no real investigation?

3,000 people died that day and I think, for their sakes we should stick to our common sense and seek the truth instead of believing some fairy tale that terrorist passports just flew out of their pockets and landed on the street in the dust. They knew who they were before it even happened. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize and write Bush a letter of apology, but I'm sure I'm not.

I heard while watching the coverage of the missing Maylaysian plane that flight attendants can't communicate with the ground. I thought Betty, the flight attendant spoke to someone at the airline before they hit the WTC. So which is it? If they can't communicate with the ground, did that really happen? Or was that story fabricated? I mean, the pilots were dead, and they've said several times that the flight attendants can communicate with the cockpit but not with the people on the ground.

I'm sorry if I am getting off topic. It's just that so much of the 9/11 story is such hogwash...

Lollerskates · Mar 20, 2014

How many people that swear by the "official" story are scientists? How many are engineers? Civil enginners? Applied physicists? Stochastic modelers? Operations research scientists? Seriously, how many people know how to interpret the "data" put out by "scientists"?

When you can do your own laboratory analysis, "expert" analysis is trite. An aluminum tube filled with air (mostly) crashes into a steel-reinforced concrete skycraper. Aluminum wins? The density of aluminum vs steel reinforced concrete says the concrete should have won. Look at the stress, strain, and normals of steel-reinforced concrete vs. aluminum. Even aluminum going at 500 mph; do the math. It is no match for steel-reinforced concrete.

SMA12 · Mar 20, 2014

Psalm 91 said:
So are you saying that we should trust scientific journals more than our own eyes? No. ...

Yes. Your own eyes cannot, see nor do they understand, the complexity of everything happening. All of this has been debunked time and time again.

For example, the "explosions" you see with your own eyes are the result weight of the building crashing down above forcing the air out of the building below. Kind of like an accordion.

Paul01 · Mar 20, 2014

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Btodd · Mar 20, 2014

Psalm 91 said:
So are you saying that we should trust scientific journals more than our own eyes? No.

It depends. When you're talking about the explanation for how a building collapsed with the vast number of factors that require expertise and education in multiple subjects like structural engineering, physics (and if you wish, demolitions)...your eyes don't know anything other than the fact that you saw a building fall and it didn't look like you expected it to.

This is a scientific question, and those aren't answered by your intuition.

Psalm 91 said:
They and you are not going to tell me what I saw.

Nobody is trying to tell you what you saw, but we can certainly question (and refute) your explanation of what you saw.

Psalm 91 said:
Many people question 9/11 but somehow the gov't keeps thinking if they repeat their version enough times and those who don't believe are punished by outrage and criticism, they'll learn to stop asking questions. I'm not a monkey.

It is quite ironic that you make this statement about people merely believing claims if they're repeated enough, and then went on to make this repeated claim that has never, ever been verified and has a much simpler explanation:

Psalm 91 said:
If the fire from the jet fuel was so hot it melted the beams...

It was neither verified to be 'beams' OR 'steel' (and the plausible answer is that it was aluminum, which made up the facade of the Twin Towers, and much of the planes that struck them). EVER. Please practice what you preach. Repeating that claim will not make it true, either.

Btodd

High Fidelity · Mar 20, 2014

People still obsess over this?

I suppose people still believe in the 'New World Order' and illuminati as well.

Bjornke · Mar 20, 2014

PyGame said:
People still obsess over this?

I suppose people still believe in the 'New World Order' and illuminati as well.

There will always be people who are like this.

The issue I have with conspiracy theorists and 9/11 is that they have no true facts, no scientific proof, and they take these families of the victims on a joyride.

The 9/11 commission and NIST reports may not have been 100%, but they were very thorough, and independent individuals and companies have verified the Commission and the NIST reports dozens of times.

I have yet to see one conspiracy theorist put one their theories through scientific journal for verification. It's basically a group of internet peckers who don't have anything better to do than just sit and stare at pictures till they think a speck means something.

Psalm 91 · Mar 20, 2014

SMA12 said:
Yes. Your own eyes cannot, see nor do they understand, the complexity of everything happening. All of this has been debunked time and time again.

For example, the "explosions" you see with your own eyes are the result weight of the building crashing down above forcing the air out of the building below. Kind of like an accordion.

Forcing air out of the building below??? Kind of like an accordion???? Perhaps this will help:

9/11 - Something "fishy" about the South Tower collapse - YouTube

Now on Youtube: Full Version "Experts Speak Out on 9/11 Truth"

ManFromUncle

Guest

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

ManFromUncle

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

ManFromUncle

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

ManFromUncle

Guest

Newbie

Junior Member

Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom

Sinner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency