patrick.net

YesYNot says

There is nothing about this that contradicts physics.

I repeat again:
1 - asymmetric damage (fire, debris) cannot result in a symmetric fall.
2 - if any of these columns were "buckling" under the weight, by definition that part of the building could not go into free fall. It would give way more slowly. None of the columns of the outer shell offered *any* resistance at all. They just completely gave way at the same instant.

If you don't find this bizarre, then there is no point discussing this.

Btw, 1 second difference between the fall of 2 sides would mean a 15m difference vertically after 2 seconds of free fall. The entire facade would have been torn into pieces instead of falling almost as 1 block.

Maybe we should begin by proving something more fundamental. Assume for a moment that I'm not joking.

Let's create a NEW conspiracy. Not a false one, something real. Something substantial. It won't even matter if people find this blog with my suggestion of the very thing, because the wise, intelligent, educated, modern agnostic never believes in them. Conspiracies are for nutcases.

The key is that the conspiracy be sufficiently complex as to defy the initial level of scrutiny. It also needs to feed nicely into an initial story that media can run with in a matter of hours - a day or two at the most. That story can give all the appearances of being vast and complex, but has to remain plausible to a modern grounded intellectual.

The beauty of it is that we make it epic in scale. I would say we should create over-complications by simply giving all of the co-conspirators some nonsensical first commandment which must never be broken. Like: during the execution of our conspiracy, all conspirators must, at 4:00 pm, no matter how dire and deadly and vital the circumstances may be, stop and have a spot of tea. With a smile. Mango Tea.

NBC News Opinion: "Ridiculous. You are telling me that right in the middle of this gargantuan crime conspiracy with the world crumbling around them, these conspirators just stopped at Starbucks and ordered Mango Iced Tea? And sat there for ten minutes while every single second counted, talking about real estate prices? Preposterous. They stopped because they were thirsty and not some harried conspirators who were in the middle of some huge operation".

Then, I would create disinformation and false trails. I'm not recommending these things to be flippant. I'm saying it's critical, because few conspiracies ever work. A third requirement would be to plant an intentional nutcase theorist to propose that the very thing we are doing is a conspiracy.

Sound too silly for such serious conspiratorial talk? Exactly.

Just call me Armen.

Heraclitusstudent says

1 - asymmetric damage (fire, debris) cannot result in a symmetric fall.

Not strictly true. But there would have to be a situation where over the 8 hrs or so the building burned, the heat within the building was fairly uniform on the floor(s) where the failures occurred.

Heraclitusstudent says

if any of these columns were "buckling" under the weight, by definition that part of the building could not go into free fall. It would give way more slowly. None of the columns of the outer shell offered *any* resistance at all. They just completely gave way at the same instant.

For the first second, there was no free fall. All of the buckling or shearing would have to have happened during that time. You say it should happen way more slowly, but you haven't explained how much more slowly and why. Again, they gave way within a second of each other, not at the same instant, and with each failure, there was instantly more force on each of the remaining support beams. That force was probably no longer straight down, so it would be more likely to shear the beams, which requires a side force.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you don't find this bizarre, then there is no point discussing this.

I find it odd, but there are a lot of surprising things in science that only seem obvious once you have the mechanism explained to you. One example would be a plane flying with Bernoulli's principle. The same concept can explain why a train speeding through a narrow tunnel can have the windows blow out outward instead of inward.

The huge missing piece of information in WTC7 is how hot it got and why. I didn't read the report, so I don't know if there was any speculation on that. Here's some video though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Heraclitusstudent says

1 - asymmetric damage (fire, debris) cannot result in a symmetric fall.

A couple things wrong with this statement. 1--the fall wasn't perfectly symmetrical. 2. How are you measuring the symmetry of the damage? Do you have some calculations showing the amount of damage sustained at each quadrant of the building? And have you calculated/modeled how that damage should have manifested itself in the fall?

No? Then your opinion is worth less than that of the commission.

Heraclitusstudent says

if any of these columns were "buckling" under the weight, by definition that part of the building could not go into free fall. It would give way more slowly. None of the columns of the outer shell offered *any* resistance at all. They just completely gave way at the same instant.

And the building wasn't in free fall for the entire collapse. As you have been told multiple times.

YesYNot says

the heat within the building was fairly uniform on the floor(s) where the failures occurred.

The reason why fires typically don't destroy steel frame building is that (1) burning office furniture and carpets doesn't provide much heat and that (2) these materials burn relatively fast and then the fire stops/moves before the columns have the time to heat sufficiently to weaken them, (3) the redundancy of the columns means weakening 1 or 2 is not enough.
So to imagine that one column was sufficiently weakened, you would need to have a strong fire raging for a long time at the same place near the column. To weaken all column you would need to have a raging fire burning throughout the building and not stopping or moving for a long time. Even the article you posted shows *local* fires that apparently have moved up to a different floor.
So talking of heat: uniform throughout one floor, long lasting enough, and strong enough to weaken steel (probably 800-1000 deg C) doesn't make a lot of sense.

YesYNot says

For the first second, there was no free fall. All of the buckling or shearing would have to have happened during that time.

Buckling means they started falling. This is not what is seen. They almost didn't move (as we see the center of the building collapsing), then suddenly went into free fall.

YesYNot says

there are a lot of surprising things in science that only seem obvious once you have the mechanism explained to you.

Fair enough. But there are basic behaviors like columns not disappearing on which you can generally count. So very suspect.

I would add for context that the same people that were in charge (i.e. Bush & co) displayed almost constant dishonesty and willingness to manipulate the public.
For example they blatantly lied to use 911 as a pretext to start a war with an unrelated country.
Compared to starting a war, I would say lying about a building doesn't seem very consequential in any case.

Tampajoe says

1--the fall wasn't perfectly symmetrical. 2. How are you measuring the symmetry of the damage?

(1) is a ridiculous statement, (2) a ridiculous question. You can see 3 corners of the building coming down within a fraction of a second, and the entire frame going down as one block.
To contrast with fires, local on all pictures I have seen. Damage from debris would obviously have been local as well.

Tampajoe says

the building wasn't in free fall for the entire collapse.

It was basically in free fall for 3 seconds or a 45m fall. I think a set of steel columns opposing no resistance for 45m is fairly relevant.

Gary's still around. Here's a great piece from Gary about Driverless Cars being a Zionist Conspiracy.
http://www.wickedzionism.com/2015/03/driverless-cars-are-funded-and-promoted.html

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

Gary's still around. Here's a great piece from Gary about Driverless Cars being a Zionist Conspiracy.

http://www.wickedzionism.com/2015/03/driverless-cars-are-funded-and-promoted.html

I wonder if Gary finally started taking his meds.

Heraclitusstudent says

(1) is a ridiculous statement, (2) a ridiculous question. You can see 3 corners of the building coming down within a fraction of a second, and the entire frame going down as one block.

To contrast with fires, local on all pictures I have seen. Damage from debris would obviously have been local as well.

This is what I was talking about earlier. You seem to think common sense is sufficient to analyze this incident. It's not.

Heraclitusstudent says

It was basically in free fall for 3 seconds or a 45m fall. I think a set of steel columns opposing no resistance for 45m is fairly relevant.

It's interesting in that it helps understand what happened. But your problem is in your assumptions.

Heraclitusstudent says

I would add for context that the same people that were in charge (i.e. Bush & co) displayed almost constant dishonesty and willingness to manipulate the public.

For example they blatantly lied to use 911 as a pretext to start a war with an unrelated country.

Compared to starting a war, I would say lying about a building doesn't seem very consequential in any case.

The Bush administration certainly lied on occasion. But that's not really relevant here unless the assumption is that this couldn't be a demolition because Bush said so. Which clearly isn't the case. It's not a demolition because the evidence says it's not.

Tampajoe says

You seem to think common sense is sufficient to analyze this incident. It's not.

The only argument I'm seeing is that it's somehow a fluke: Dozens of columns just happened to all be totally destroyed at the same exact instant. Just a big coincidence.
Sure....

I'll leave it at that.

I was at ground zero in May. I think they did a good job with the memorial BTW (aside).
Not to prove anything but I did walk from the hole where the North Tower was to the block where building 7 once stood.
It's
a
long
way
away.
Just saying

junkmail says

Not to prove anything but I did walk from the hole where the North Tower was to the block where building 7 once stood.

It's

a

long

way

away.

Just saying

The twin towers were very tall buildings.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dozens of columns just happened to all be totally destroyed at the same exact instant.

As we have explained, it was not at the exact same instant. The video evidence proved that. Also, the columns were not independent. They were connected through the building, so their collapses were also not independent events.

Hater says

Collapse? Or explosion?

Obviously it's a collapse.

Hater says

I presume you must be joking now.

Hater says

I presume you get paid to act so obtuse?

I'm sorry. I presumed only someone playing a giant irony card would have felt able to post that image up, but I was a bit thrown by all your previous conspiracy type posts.

Wow... I go away for a few days and you all went nuts.

YesYNot says

As we have explained, it was not at the exact same instant.

Let's focus on the 3 top corners seen on many videos. Based on what would you say they didn't fall at the exact same moment?
Below is a frame from a video of the building after falling by about 10 floors, the shape of the building is still intact, but for a slight sagging in the middle. The corners appear still largely level.
But even 0.5 second difference at the start of the fall would translate in 11m difference in height after 2.5 seconds of free fall. This would be clearly visible. The front of the building would be torn but it isn't: you clearly see the floors, still largely horizontal.
So again based on what would you say they didn't fall at the exact same moment?

That isn't a slight sagging and I see you fail to mention the collapse of the penthouses. Try this on for size (the timing's obviously off as the person spliced two sections of film together):

www.youtube.com/embed/OUkvnfV606w

Rashomon says

That isn't a slight sagging and I see you fail to mention the collapse of the penthouses.

Irrelevant: first because we already established that we are talking of the exterior shell, and second, demolitions typically start from the inside to control the fall toward the inside. So the penthouses prove nothing either way.
The relevant fact remains the synchronicity of the collapse of the exterior shell, in particular for opposite corners.
A progressive collapse cannot explain this. And cannot explain either the sudden free fall. Free fall is what happens in absence of any structures below.
You guys still no explanation other than some kind of fluke.

Heraclitusstudent says

Irrelevant: first because we already established that we are talking of the exterior shell, and second, demolitions typically start from the inside to control the fall toward the inside. So the penthouses prove nothing either way.

The relevant fact remains the synchronicity of the collapse of the exterior shell, in particular for opposite corners.

A progressive collapse cannot explain this. And cannot explain either the sudden free fall. Free fall is what happens in absence of any structures below.

You guys still no explanation other than some kind of fluke.

Utter nonsense. Those internal collapses are integral to the process of the global collapse.

Hater says

Collapse or explosion?

Yep--it's quite fortunate that the planes decided to crash into the floors that were pre-wired for a demolition.

Heraclitusstudent says

Based on what would you say they didn't fall at the exact same moment?

The scale of that image of the building is huge. The scale of a beam getting sheared is small (6 to 12 inches of vertical, maybe). What appears about level is a 15 foot difference, and when things initially start to move, it takes a full second to start a freefall. That is shown by the high school physics teacher you referenced. So, there is plenty of room (time and space) for sequential shearing of beams.

So first off, not every conspiracy is a theory. Second many of these facts have been stated before, by American physicists, first responders, and other eye witnesses. Third, false flag attacks go as far back as Fort Sumter.

I think what we really need to know is what to call people who believe a story backed by no facts, simply because a central government says so. Fanatics? Governmentarians? Or how about brainwashed, uneducated(though highly indoctrinated), illogical, irrational, automatons.

oh seriously, go fuck off all you loser retards!

In the history of the world, there has never been an event that believing a conspiracy theory more clearly proves you are fucking dumb beyond worth of an opinion

This is it.

1. It was a controlled demolition.
Reasons this means you are fucking retarded:
A. Why bother with control? you're terrorists, knock the fucking thing sideways, take out multiple blocks in NY.
B. drilling and wiring controls for a controlled demolition would take thousands of hours, and expertise. That would have been noticed ,by say the 50,000 people working there.
C. If you want to blow it up, one bomb near a structural element downstairs would do it, and take it down near instantaneously, you know like a big truck...
D. If you are going to blow it up, why bother with the not exactly trivial problem of hijacking planes.
E. The plane crash actually allowed everyone on lower floors to escape. Why would you want that as a terrorist, blow it up all at once, and drop it! It would have killed 50,000.

2. Steel doesn't melt in a jet fuel fire.
Reasons this means you are fucking retarded:
A. Steel doesn't need to melt to lose structural strength. FFS, google the yield curve of structural steel. If you don't know what yield curve means, why the fuck are you commenting at all on this? you lack the requisite intelligence/engineering knowledge to have an opinion.
B. The design of the building had it's structural support near the outside. The plane crash alone cut many of the supports, meaning the remaining few were carrying more than their design load, and loads off to the side, which puts twisting/bending moments on a beam. Beams resist force 100 times better pushing down on the beam, then bending it. Take pencil, push it straight into the floor try to break it, then take the ends, and snap it in half, it this isn't intuitive to you.

Going to get coffee, this is just a start. There are few subjects in the world, that prove someone is stupid more than arguing 911 was something else.

Would the Gov ever reveal that strategic buildings have explosives built in for quick detonation and razing in case of attack?

truth will find you says

oh seriously, go fuck off all you loser retards!

In the history of the world, there has never been an event that believing a conspiracy theory more clearly proves you are fucking dumb beyond worth of an opinion

This is it.

Your small mind is apparently so rattled by the truth bitch-slapping you, that your English has become severely impaired, leaving your ranting barely comprehensible. Next time just stick with "Nu'uh, nu'uh!"

Oh nuttboxer, the fucking retard who thinks not buying in 2010 san diego, was smart, has an opinion! What a surprise that, as usual, and per your history on here, it is dumb as fuck!

truth will find you says

B. drilling and wiring controls for a controlled demolition would take thousands of hours, and expertise. That would have been noticed ,by say the 50,000 people working there.

http://yournewswire.com/911-tower-had-power-turned-off-for-36-hours-weekend-before-attack/

"A former data center worker who worked at one of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings before the 9/11 attacks has come forward with bombshell information that suggests explosives were planted in the buildings in the weeks prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Scott Forbes was employed by Fiduciary Trust Company International, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower at the WTC complex. He says there were some very strange events in the weeks leading up to the attacks, including; a complete power down of the building for over 36 hours, and mysterious ‘engineers’ doing work in the building using spools of wire just days before the 9/11 attacks.

“The power down was on the Saturday and Sunday prior to 9/11, so that would have been the 8th and 9th of September,” Forbes said, who has never seen or heard of a similar occasion aside from the original bomb scare in 1993.

Forbes said the building was turned over by the New York Port Authority Saturday morning for the power down and was handed back over to the Port Authority some thirty hours later, leaving a massive security gap.

Forbes also said that he witnessed many people who looked like “engineers,” dressed in coveralls, carrying toolboxes and spools of wire who were coming and going during the blackout period....

...In a 2003 investigative report titled “Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United,” Margie Burns explains:

George W. Bush’s brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family....

...To this day the 9/11 Commission and the New York Port Authority deny the fact that the reported power down took place. The power down is likely one of the key elements being covered up by parties involved along with the actual disappearance of security tapes from the WTC complex."

NuttBoxer says

I think what we really need to know is what to call people who believe a story backed by no facts, simply because a central government says so

Do you have an example of such a story?

Indiana Jones says

"A former data center worker who worked at one of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings before the 9/11 attacks has come forward with bombshell information that suggests explosives were planted in the buildings in the weeks prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Scott Forbes was employed by Fiduciary Trust Company International, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower at the WTC complex. He says there were some very strange events in the weeks leading up to the attacks, including; a complete power down of the building for over 36 hours, and mysterious ‘engineers’ doing work in the building using spools of wire just days before the 9/11 attacks.

“The power down was on the Saturday and Sunday prior to 9/11, so that would have been the 8th and 9th of September,” Forbes said, who has never seen or heard of a similar occasion aside from the original bomb scare in 1993.

Forbes said the building was turned over by the New York Port Authority Saturday mornin...

Awesome. So the theory is that the government was secretly working WITH Al Qaeda to fly the two planes into the WTC so that they could then set off the explosives and demolish the buildings! EUREKA!!!! You solved it.

I'm assuming the Pentagon was also a controlled demolition then too? It would almost have to be, right?

Or was that the cost of getting terrorists to blow up the WTC--allow them to also blow up the Pentagon? Collateral damage I guess. Acceptable losses to our Government.

Heraclitusstudent says

But even 0.5 second difference at the start of the fall would translate in 11m difference in height after 2.5 seconds of free fall. This would be clearly visible. The front of the building would be torn but it isn't: you clearly see the floors, still largely horizontal.

there are still elements connecting the building sides together. Once again, this is just fucking stupid.

Indiana fucktard, 200,000 people visited the world trade center daily, even on a weekend, likely 100,000+ That would have been on cnn, not just a memory from one person....

truth will find you says

Indiana fucktard,

Classy!

truth will find you says

Heraclitusstudent says

But even 0.5 second difference at the start of the fall would translate in 11m difference in height after 2.5 seconds of free fall. This would be clearly visible. The front of the building would be torn but it isn't: you clearly see the floors, still largely horizontal.

there are still elements connecting the building sides together. Once again, this is just fucking stupid.

What do you mean? That one side pulled down the other through an horizontal beam? Now THIS is fucking stupid.
Too many people here are ignorant of basic laws of mechanics to even understand what they are talking about.

Heraclitusstudent says

What do you mean? That one side pulled down the other through an horizontal beam? Now THIS is fucking stupid.

Too many people here are ignorant of basic laws of mechanics to even understand what they are talking about.

Yes, and the ignorant asshat is you.

Once again, as a terrorrist, the LAST THING, literally LAST THING you would invest time/money/planning into, would be a controlled demolition. Especially hours after another incident.

How fucking stupid are you? not a rhetorical question, your posts are indicating very very stupid!

truth will find you says

Once again, as a terrorrist, the LAST THING, literally LAST THING you would invest time/money/planning into, would be a controlled demolition. Especially hours after another incident.

Inside job, not terrorists. Duh.

truth will find you says

Once again, as a terrorrist, the LAST THING, literally LAST THING you would invest time/money/planning into, would be a controlled demolition. Especially hours after another incident.

Who said terrorists did it?
You make a judgement about what people would or would not do.
I make a judgement about what steel columns would or would not do.
Plenty of people do and say stupid things. That includes you. So...

Heraclitusstudent says

Who said terrorists did it?

You make a judgement about what people would or would not do.

I make a judgement about what steel columns would or would not do.

Plenty of people do and say stupid things. That includes you. So...

I'd say blowing up a building with people inside is terrorrists. you have another word?

IF you give any belief to this conspiracy stuff, then you are very fucking stupid. I am not. AND I actually do know my engineering, your posts indicate that yo don't.

truth will find you says

I actually do know my engineering, your posts indicate that yo don't.

Thank you for this brilliant engineering argument. You convinced me that 20 or so outer columns were all equally weakened by fire and simultaneously gave way and fell like stones.

Moron.