So... What if 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

reply to post by -PLB-

It was more like halve of free fall speed. The study I linked shows it is possible. Why is that scientific study wrong, and your opinion correct, of which you still did not say what you based it on?

The collapse times themselves are largely irrelevant: free-fall is better judged by analyzing acceleration of the collapse at every point in time, as opposed to just two points of "start" and "end" which themselves cannot be accurately designated, due to the smoke and unpredictability of the seismic data. I would suggest picking more reliable points of data than the two-point measurement that is total collapse time, such as acceleration of the still visible parts of the structure, possibly compared to actual free-falling debris nearby. The first method is largely meaningless and inaccurate - especially due to the obscuring canopy of smoke - but can also be altered beyond meaning to either improve or negate free-fall descent.

I think the collapses can most realistically be estimated at 11-14 seconds, but that actual velocity study is much more relevant. Ironically, even the most egregious claims of 20 seconds or more do not exceed average estimations for known explosive demolitions (i.e. 200% free-fall). The official investigations have gone on record as estimating the collapse times at 10-12 seconds. For a non-hypocritical proponent of the official investigations that would be the end of that. I think I'll also take this opportunity to quote NIST: "since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in freefall, as seen in videos".

You obviously also do not understand it well enough to refute it. So unless another study or scientist refutes it by showing why it is wrong, I will stand by it, and not by your gut feeling. Show me the study that proves it is wrong, and we have something to discuss. Until then, I have no reason to believe its wrong. Intuitively it makes sense to me. What we currently have is several studies that show that the progressive collapse is inevitable, and none it is inconceivable. Why should I go by your gut feeling, and not by the science?

I understand the conservation of angular momentum and equilibrium forces. If the top-section was seen pivoting away from its centre of gravity then one would expect this to continue, not straighten up and proceed to collapse symmetrically straight-down through the tower. This makes sense to me intuitively. I would link you to papers by Gordon Ross but I seriously can't be bothered.

Thank God a few people know what they are talking about.

For those of you who don't, try this experiment.

Take a 24 oz styrofoam cup and a brick. Lay the cup on it's side and then gently place the brick on top of it. The brick will crush the cup. Now, take another cup and place it upside down and then gently place the brick on top of it. The cup will support the weight of the brick. The walls of the cup transmit the load from the brick to the ground. Now pick up the brick and hold it 1 inch above the cup and then drop the brick. You will crush the cup. If you have another cup, put it upside down and place the brick on top of it. Now shoot the cup with a BB gun. The hole in the cup will weaken the sides of the cup enough that the brick will collapse it.

The towers were designed like two square shaped cups, one inside the other. The outside structure of the towers and the inner core were designed to transmit the loads to the ground. The floors were suspended between the outer structure and the inner core. Each floor was only meant to support it's own load and to transmit that load to the outer structure and the inner core. The purpose of this was to allow each floor to have large open areas without the building's structure getting in the way. Frankly I'm suprised that the towers stayed up as long as they did.

Originally posted by Nathan-DThe collapse times themselves are largely irrelevant: free-fall is better judged by analyzing acceleration of the collapse at every point in time, as opposed to just two points of "start" and "end" which themselves cannot be accurately designated, due to the smoke and unpredictability of the seismic data. I would suggest picking more reliable points of data than the two-point measurement that is total collapse time, such as acceleration of the still visible parts of the structure, possibly compared to actual free-falling debris nearby. The first method is largely meaningless and inaccurate - especially due to the obscuring canopy of smoke - but can also be altered beyond meaning to either improve or negate free-fall descent.

I think the collapses can most realistically be estimated at 11-14 seconds, but that actual velocity study is much more relevant. Ironically, even the most egregious claims of 20 seconds or more do not exceed average estimations for known explosive demolitions (i.e. 200% free-fall). The official investigations have gone on record as estimating the collapse times at 10-12 seconds. For a non-hypocritical proponent of the official investigations that would be the end of that. I think I'll also take this opportunity to quote NIST: "since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in freefall, as seen in videos".

Ok well, I kinda miss your point here. Studies show that the observed fall speed is consistent with calculations. Its up to you to show why those studies are wrong,

I understand the conservation of angular momentum and equilibrium forces. If the top-section was seen pivoting away from its centre of gravity then one would expect this to continue, not straighten up and proceed to collapse symmetrically straight-down through the tower. This makes sense to me intuitively. I would link you to papers by Gordon Ross but I seriously can't be bothered.

Lets assume that your are correct, and the pivoting should have continued. Why would that not be true if demolition charges or thermite was used? Shouldn't the pivoting just as well continue in that case? If not, why?

If you have any study that supports your case, please don't hesitate to post it.

I believe that the people who were complicit and responsible for the attacks on 9/11 have done such a complete job of covering their collective asses we will probably never know the truth of what really happened.

These are the same people who have literally flooded the newscape with false theories, absurd claims of laser beams and no plane theories, holograms and all sorts of other absurd nonsense, in hopes of creating a gigantic quagmire of lies, fables and half truths.

You have to wade through 100 miles of muck and purposefully planted B.S. in order to get anywhere near the truth, and once you start closing in on who was really responsible, they just question your patriotism and loyalty, paint you as a wing nut, and then introduce a newer and crappier version of the official story.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Thank God a few people know what they are talking about.

For those of you who don't, try this experiment.

Take a 24 oz styrofoam cup and a brick. Lay the cup on it's side and then gently place the brick on top of it. The brick will crush the cup. Now, take another cup and place it upside down and then gently place the brick on top of it. The cup will support the weight of the brick. The walls of the cup transmit the load from the brick to the ground. Now pick up the brick and hold it 1 inch above the cup and then drop the brick. You will crush the cup. If you have another cup, put it upside down and place the brick on top of it. Now shoot the cup with a BB gun. The hole in the cup will weaken the sides of the cup enough that the brick will collapse it.

The towers were designed like two square shaped cups, one inside the other. The outside structure of the towers and the inner core were designed to transmit the loads to the ground. The floors were suspended between the outer structure and the inner core. Each floor was only meant to support it's own load and to transmit that load to the outer structure and the inner core. The purpose of this was to allow each floor to have large open areas without the building's structure getting in the way. Frankly I'm suprised that the towers stayed up as long as they did.

The towers were called a tube-in-tube structure but the core was not a tube. The core was a grid even more dense than a normal skyscraper. You can see it in the simulation created by Purdue.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The Purdue study was excellant. The main reason for the core to be as you described it was to support the elevators, stairways and utility systems. In 1982 I did a paper on the construction methods use in the towers for a Drafting class I had. Our class trip that year was to the World Trade Center and we were taken on an behind the scenes tour. I wish I still had the paper and the pictures that I took to use in the paper. They showed a lot of what is being discussed on these forums.

reply to post by -PLB-

Lets assume that your are correct, and the pivoting should have continued. Why would that not be true if demolition charges or thermite was used? Shouldn't the pivoting just as well continue in that case? If not, why?

It did, until it was engulfed in cloud of smoke.

Ok well, I kinda miss your point here. Studies show that the observed fall speed is consistent with calculations.

What calculations may these be?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
It did, until it was engulfed in cloud of smoke.

So your claim is that it did pivot further? Even though that seems not to be supported by video evidence, how exactly does that disproof a progressive collapse? By the time the top section was no longer visible, the amount of collapsed floors that became part of the crushing mass would be about equal to the mass of the top section. So even if the top section would disappear completely at that point, the collapse would still continue, driven by the mass of the floors already collapsed.

What calculations may these be?

The ones that are used in the models in the paper and its references I linked.

reply to post by -PLB-

So your claim is that it did pivot further? Even though that seems not to be supported by video evidence, how exactly does that disproof a progressive collapse?

It is supported by evidence. You see in the videos it pivot outwards before it gets engulfed in a cloud of dust. The image below shows how far the top-section pivoted. If the top-section was experiencing any resistance from the tower below it would have continued to pivot around its centre of mass, so the side which is above the building is being pushed up, whereas the side overhanging the building is pushing down. This should create a rotational force (torque) pushing the top-section outwards. Here is a good paper by Gordon Ross if you are interested with calculations (I know how much you like scentifically-impressive looking calculations) which I am sure you will easily be able to refute.

So even if the top section would disappear completely at that point, the collapse would still continue, driven by the mass of the floors already collapsed.

What do you base this assumption on?

The ones that are used in the models in the paper and its references I linked.

Care to post them?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
It is supported by video evidence. You clearly see in the videos it pivot outwards as it becomes displaced from its centre of gravity (and then it suddenly gets engulfed in a cloud of dust). The image below shows how far the top-section pivoted. If the top-section was experiencing any resistance from the tower below it would have continued to pivot around its centre of mass, so the side which is above the building is being pushed up, whereas the side overhanging the building is pushing down. This should create a rotational force (torque) pushing the top-section outwards.

But only if the resistance is even. When the lower side encounters more resistance than the higher side, the pivoting could easily be reduced, stopped or even reversed.

What do you base this assumption on?

Logic. Mass of the top section would be about equal to the mass of the part it crushed, if the part that is crushed is about the same height as the top section.

Care to post them?

I already did. Have you read the paper and its references yet? What exactly do you think is not correct?

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Julian Assange says 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy by the American government.
Maybe it was allowed to happen...

Julian is right. It was a corporate hit job, and the only government involvement was a handful of newly appointed Executive Branch office holders and a selection of Pentagon brass that didn't want to spend the rest of their lives in Levenworth Federal Prison for procurement fraud.

The Cold War economy had died off for ten years, and the war machine needed new and better contracts for all the technology it had been designing and building. It needed the US to be afraid of someone that it couldn't invade and kill off in 100 hours. They had to create the Al Qaeda boogyman, and launch the marketing campaign in a dramatic spectacle.

Then, they needed the newly placed Executive Branch Post-9/11 marketing team to sell the fear so that the defense dollars would fly out of our Treasury without even having to be included in the annual budget (which is what happened until Obama took it back online and put all that debt into the official budget numbers). The last thing they needed was for the munitions and other hardware items that we already had to be used up in a "safe" theater of war, so that they could sell us new munitions and hardware items. That meant that while Afghanistan was a necessary invasion (after all, Al Qaeda was there, so it had to be invanded) the real place to blow off some million dollar bombs was Iraq. We already owned it, and had owned it since 1991, when we shut it down with no-fly zones and blanket containment of virtually every move it could possibly make.

It's been worth trillions in new defense spending, and hundreds of billions for all the other business sectors as well - like fraudulent construction spending, non-existent logistical expendatures, and dozens of brand new "defense intelligence" firms with muli-million dollar government contracts, most that are owned by only a couple umbrella corporations.

So yes, it wasn't a government inside job, but that's because the Bush/Cheney team hadn't really had time to get settled in yet. GW barely even knew where the bathrooms in the WH were. It was all corporate, and Blackwater was the ground team for black ops stuff, like demolition prep, establishing the pre-attack movements of the 19 "hijackers" for the FBI report, loading the auto-pilot software and whatever else was done to make sure it all went off as planned. In exchange, Blackwater is still raking in many millions as the #1 security firm for our Executive Branch. Hell, even our generals on the ground are required to use Blackwater for their personal security, and they have the best military assets in the world at their disposal. Kind of makes you wonder who's guarding whom and for what reason.

I wonder what Julian Assange has up his sleeve. Maybe a Wiki dump - after this next bank-related spectacle - that will expose some 9/11-related skullduggery? I'd love to see that happen.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Thank God a few people know what they are talking about.

For those of you who don't, try this experiment.

Take a 24 oz styrofoam cup and a brick. Lay the cup on it's side and then gently place the brick on top of it. The brick will crush the cup. Now, take another cup and place it upside down and then gently place the brick on top of it. The cup will support the weight of the brick. The walls of the cup transmit the load from the brick to the ground. Now pick up the brick and hold it 1 inch above the cup and then drop the brick. You will crush the cup. If you have another cup, put it upside down and place the brick on top of it. Now shoot the cup with a BB gun. The hole in the cup will weaken the sides of the cup enough that the brick will collapse it.

Man, the analogies have gotten weaker and weaker over the years. This one is ludicrous. The vertical load was primarily handled by the intense matrix of the core - where the elevators were - and the outer perimeter primarily handled the lateral load requirements. These buildings were unique, but they weren't designed by crazy people. The idea that the open floor design allowed an open shot from one side of the building to the opposit side, whithout any support structure in the center is stupid. The floor layout was like a donut slipped over a pole in the middle, and then more donuts piled up from there. However, there was one other part of the design that you people never acknowledge, and that is that each tower consisted of three fully isolated and rigidly constructed segment, that were stack one on top of the next and bolted together, to make a progressive collapse impossible.

The only reason that this fact (and it's a pretty big fact) doesn't get any airplay is because the media was told, a week after the attacks, that no investigation would be allowed concerning the 9/11 attacks. The heads-up came in the form of a series of Anthrax letters, mailed to two media outlets and two offices of DNC US Senators. This is the operation that guys like you are working for when you flood these boards with your tired old Official Conspiracy Theory lies. I don't know how you justify it to yourself. I wouldn't be able to.

The towers were designed like two square shaped cups, one inside the other. The outside structure of the towers and the inner core were designed to transmit the loads to the ground. The floors were suspended between the outer structure and the inner core. Each floor was only meant to support it's own load and to transmit that load to the outer structure and the inner core. The purpose of this was to allow each floor to have large open areas without the building's structure getting in the way. Frankly I'm suprised that the towers stayed up as long as they did.

edit on 30-11-2010 by JIMC5499 because: added more info

When you look at this post (^) after what I just explained to you, about the center matrix, and the three isolated and intact segments, don't you feel even the least bit foolish for suggesting that a professional building design that was approved for the tallest structures in existence at the time, could've been slopped together like you described? Seriously. You guys need to get together and come up with better material, or get different jobs. You're just losing credibility with tis kind of stuff.

It's this kind of stupid junk that made me get bored with this debate.

I like you man, you have formed a solid opinion. I like that, I have struggled to make my mind up for years. I will look through your posts because so far they seem to make a lot of sense.

I always wondered about the intersections too. From what I have read, the intersections were designed so that if a higher section collapsed, the lower sections would stay in tact.

Julian has only one main card going for him - integrity. Without out all the facts he is just pulling himself into a mud fight and is something he cannot afford at this time. Something this big it is more than 1 persons opinion. The evidence and the facts are the only way this mess is going to get sorted.

9/11 Blueprint for truth - the strongest, most reputable source as to just what happened at this time. video.google.com...#

If it wasnt an inside job I would wonder what motivated an American jew with relatives on the anti defamation leauge to convert to Islam to become the number 2 of Alquaeda. I would also wonder why a terrorist organisation would choose the name Alquaed of all names.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The government covered it up pretty good since a lot of people believe it wasn't an inside job."

Actually, they did a piss poor job of covering it up. It doesn't matter though, because most Americans aren't too bright when it comes to these sort of things. They're more interested in lousy TV shows and beer that tastes like urine.

Now that is what buggers me the most, some obvious mistakes they have made that a fifth grader would've thought of. eg Not giving us the video of the Pentagon attack. They took around 60 tapes, they released 4 i think. None of them show a plane. Also how the hell did building 7 collapse? There was no plane for that one, nothing but heat.
There are many stupid mistakes that make it obvious that something else is going on. Are they really that stupid, or is that planned? Wtf?

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Not an inside job?Impossible.The govt said a plane crashed into the Pentagon & in Shanksville when they so obviously didn't.The "Islamic Muslims" aren't the ones hiding the video footage from the Pentagon that would show what hit it.Thats the govt.