911 'debunker' breaks ranks, admits smear campaign

Dude, he was being facetious...

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Smack
I'm getting the feeling you're fixated on me, whiterabbit. Please refrain from wetting yourself over every post I make here. Mk. Get back on topic.

Yeah, I have this weird tendency to call B.S. on people who claim they want to debate the facts but never put up. Call me crazy.

I just think it's funny that you'd come post in this thread criticizing people for not debating the facts when, from what I've seen, you NEVER do that. It's very hypocritical.

There's something called the "search" function

Originally posted by morphonius821
That may be true but its not like the 911 senario is analogious to holding a jet fuel blowtorch on the steel beams of the tower for 20 minutes.... think about it....
that huge fire storm that ensued at impact was all that aviation fuel going up....

IN a few seconds!!!!!! not 20 minutes like your quote hints at indirectly....
That is a bad assumption......
with-in seconds of the impact there would be vertually no jet fuel (to speak of left)....... that what fueled the huge explosion on impact......

The sustained fire that ensued would have then been attributable to the combustion of the contents of the building and what was left of the plane.....
And after all the aviation fuel went up... there would not be anywhere near enough energy there to melt those massive steel beams.....

As hot as the sun....... ?????
You want to believe.......but so far this point for one does not stand up.

Ok, I think he was exaggerating a little bit of course.

However, jet fuel does not burn. The fumes from the jet fuel is what ignites. I'm a student pilot, so of course the safety on fuel handling has been brought up during some of my instruction. It is extremely hazardous to have an open flame near a fuel source not because the liquid itself ignites, but the fumes ignite. As a matter of fact some jet fuels are even used to put out fire.

Now the steel at the WTC was not melted as so many people seem to think, it was weakened. Steel loses 90 percent of its integrity at a certain temperature (1,500 degrees Fahrenheit I believe, may be wrong on that figure) and so of course if steel loses its strength, then all that weight on top of the weakened beams will force the beams to collapse.

Shattered OUT...

Why is it that most people don't understand the theory of resistance!! Even if the steel got hot enough to melt in WTC 1 2 and 7, the building should have collapsed in a much slower matter!!! The beams below that were holding up the other floors were not nearly as hot, and that would have provided enough resistance to make the collapse rate happen at a much slower pace!!! All 3 of those buildings fall down like butter!!! How could that happen??

Easily. Pressure and force multiplies , not adds.

Shattered OUT...

Easily. Pressure and force multiplies , not adds.

Care to supply the equation that proves this conjecture?

The undamaged support structures below the falling portion continue to support the same load. The mass of the upper building does not increase when falling. If anything, the upper collapsing portions should meet with resistance at the undamaged supporting structure, and follow the path of LEAST resistance.

OK!

Force=(mass)(acceleration), F=MA.

That's the formula they taught me in physics. It's universal and can be used in almost any application in physics.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by piacenza
bible to debunk the undebunkable:

Man that was funny. Way above funny.

piacenza, can you please write an article titled "Why 9/11 was not a conspiracy", use the points you´ve mentioned and post it somewhere?

I will print it out, frame it, and put it in my office, no B.S.

Excellent...

Oh and I forgot to mention, mass did not change in the upper portion, acceleration did thus causing the force exerted on the undamage portion to go up rapidly.

Shattered OUT...

The page seems to be no longer available from infowars??

From Pat´s blog:

I'm still not ready to go into details, but broadly, we were approached by a Mr. Jordan who had learned about us from our political commentary. He allegedly shared our concern that the twoof movement showed so signs of abating, especially with the growing popularity of Loose Change. Mr. Jordan worried this would become a divisive media issue and invited us to join his collective of blogs that would network and coordinate to expose Loose Change, as well as offering easy access to resources of fellow allied blogs.

Mr. Jordan eh? Well well. Who do you suppose Mr. Jordan works for?

What I don't understand is how you conveniently leave the fundamental parts out of your equation - i.e. Inertia. There is resistance involved and the conservation of momentum must be considered. My reading of your theory is that, the entire falling mass followed the path of MOST resistance by falling nearly straight down, thru the remaining supporting structure. Your model also seems to suppose a symmetrical, closed, inelastic collision, without any consideration for the kinetic properties of the structural steel or the buildings construction.

How does your conclusion support a logical progression, from a physics standpoint?

My two cents: SLC guys did it, getting desparate to keep themselves afloat and did this ala the fake Nico Haupt blog whatever exactly that was. A CTer would have no motivation to do so. Unless knowing they had nothing to gain they did it to frame the SLC dudes. Reverse psychology can just spin like a revolving door, huh? Oh well. It's kinda an odd episode is all I can say.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
OK!

Force=(mass)(acceleration), F=MA.

Rofl, that does add, not multiply.

1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = 9.8 N
2 kg (doubled mass) + 9.8 m/s^2 = 19.6 N = 9.8N + 9.8N

Similarly, if another 1 kg mass was added, it would be 9.8N + 9.8N + 9.8N.

That formula isn't that useful to begin with, because it's only the force of gravity, not the entire system that you would have to isolate, including the static forces of the steel building, which would have a significant force upwards the whole way down, AND most of the mass of each tower was actually ejected all the way down, so the mass was not really increasing much floor-by-floor. Only fractions of each floor, on average (approx. 10-20%), fell directly down and contributed mass to crushing the next floor.

And still yet, that is only for the trusses, not the support columns, which were not below the trusses, but on either side of them perpendicularly.

Steel loses 90 percent of its integrity at a certain temperature (1,500 degrees Fahrenheit I believe, may be wrong on that figure) and so of course if steel loses its strength, then all that weight on top of the weakened beams will force the beams to collapse.

Okay, you're talking out your # here... First, understand the difference between columns and beams, its important.

Steel looses about 55% of its strength at 600C. Uncontrolled jet fuel fires burn at around 550C-600C. NISTS own report says they only found three samples that got above 250C. They found two columns that got to 450C. All exposure to these temperatures lasted only minutes, and was well well well over by the time the building collapsed.

Even if we say ALL of the steel got to 600C;

If the steel looses 55% of its strength, this is still way less the the factor of safety for that building. The building still was not loaded up to, let alone past, its maximum load bearing capacity.

F=MA is the SUM OF THE FORCES is equal to MASS times ACCELERATION.

So considering mass was falling into stationary floors, the falling mass would loose energy first breaking the floors, then it would loose more energy accelerating against the inertial responses.

Originally posted by Smack
What I don't understand is how you conveniently leave the fundamental parts out of your equation - i.e. Inertia. There is resistance involved and the conservation of momentum must be considered. My reading of your theory is that, the entire falling mass followed the path of MOST resistance by falling nearly straight down, thru the remaining supporting structure. Your model also seems to suppose a symmetrical, closed, inelastic collision, without any consideration for the kinetic properties of the structural steel or the buildings construction.

How does your conclusion support a logical progression, from a physics standpoint?

What consideration is there to make?

The steel structure was extremely weakened by heat and pressure and the eventually under weight the weakened construction gave way. That mass gained acceleration and it considerably lost inertia when it started falling apart.

Lets put it this way, most buildings when they collapse fall straight down. Now, the world trade center fell down and most likely had much of the force focused on a few points. Kind of how a pencil point hurts more than the eraser.

I seriously doubt the remaining structure had enough inertia to stop the falling structure.

But who knows, maybe you or someone already has come up with the numbers.

Shattered OUT...

When I did physics the only thing we added was kinetic energy and potential energy to calculate total energy, but I guess that's what we were doing the entire time in this case. :/

Oh well, and I was talking in Fahrenheit not celsius. Even if it's not 90 percent and 55 percent, 55 percent is still most of it's structural integrity.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the WTC wasn't built that well to begin with. Maybe it's just me, but I could have swore that under the right conditions this would have happened to any other skyscraper in a similar construction. But I'm not a certified architect or engineer.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Oh well, and I was talking in Fahrenheit not celsius. Even if it's not 90 percent and 55 percent, 55 percent is still most of it's structural integrity.

And it's still not breaching the safety factor designed into the building. Buildings aren't only designed to hold 100% of their expected loads and no more; that would be insane. The minute someone brings something unusually heavy onto a floor it would immediately collapse. They're designed to hold several times more load than they'll ever be expected to while in actual use by offices. You'd have to actually sever what would equate to upwards of 2/3rds of the core and 4/5ths of the perimeter columns if the only available figures are any accurate. (I highly suspect the core was much more redundant.)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the WTC wasn't built that well to begin with.

Probably not the best source to be reading. Griff could tell you of all the inspectors standing around during a building's construction, not to mention the plans themselves have to be up-to-code. NIST states the WTC were built under stricter codes than NYC building code, and NYC building code requires skyscrapers take 200-250% of their expected loads for 1 or 2 weeks without sustaining any damage.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by bsbray11]

The fact is that the entire structure was in freefall. Buildings 1 and 2 fell in under 10 seconds. If the upper portions caused the subsequent floors to collapse (i.e. the 'pancake theory), how is that possible? ...in 10 seconds.

Perhaps some kind of Al-Qaeda kung fu was involved.