How many you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?of

Originally posted by Attari
WTC 7 may have in fact fell very chaotically in the other direction.

Well look at where it landed afterwards. It had spewed some onto all 4 of the streets bordering it, but basically just fell straight down onto itself. Also, a NYPD officer named Craig Bartmer that was there when it fell that day has said on video that right before WTC7 started falling, the bottom floors blew outwards as if bombs were detonating over his head. I would consider that evidence as to what happened down there.

As for those that say the building was not sufficiently damaged there are also pictures of it showing that the bottom few floors had been totally gutted by the twin towers collapse.

This is completely false. Produce the images.

There was superficial damage to the SW corner and some kind of gash on the South facade, but you're trying to say that everything that we can't see in any photos so far was completely wiped out. That's pretty ridiculous. But like I said, show the photos.

Although there may have been a controlled demolition, the previous points cannot be scientifically ruled out either. Therefore we can not conclude that there was a conspiracy behind the fall of WTC 7.

Actually, you can't conclude anything from that little amount of data. When an engineer wants to know how that building fell, it's going to come down to a little more than just "fire and damage." You have to give the how's and why's, too (including all the numbers/modeling/lab tests). And the government report that is supposed to explain all of that is something like 3 years overdue and we're not hearing about any progress. They haven't even got it off paper/computer screens yet. It's even beginning to look like they've moved on from trying to explain how it actually fell, to trying to make a case for why it couldn't have been a demolition (why?).

The plane hit below the position of the impact on the north tower. This means that the supports had to hold up a larger portion of the building than the supports of the north tower.

Flight 175 also just graced the core structure of WTC2 while Flight 11 slammed WTC1's core structure head-on. WTC1 also burned longer and its fires appeared more severe, and the steel there overall was thinner because it had to carry less weight. Did you take any of that into account? How could you, really? All you're doing is going over what sounds right to you in your head.

As far as I know the science about exactly what happens when a building is in collapse isn't perfect.

The laws being discussed here are very basic and never violated in nature. The whole reason they are important is because they are never wrong.

However, one possibility that could explain why the beams were launched from the building is that one beam (Beam 1) fell to a level below and lay horizontal on the floor. Another beam (beam 2) then fell off one of it's supports and this end of the beam previously supported fell down to be in line with the beam 1 so that the ends touched. Then as the building collapsed the falling mass fell onto the still supported end of beam 2, causing the supported end to fall vertically and the unsupported end to move horizontally.

It sounds like you're trying to describe a collision. Same problem as I mentioned in my last post on this thread: it falls apart as an explanation when this happens more often than it doesn't happen (most of the steel was thrown outwards as the buildings fell). Go back and read what I posted there if you have any real interest in this.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
You claim that beams were ejected out the side and horizontally. Have you ever seen a similar example where this didn't happen?

So what did it, torsion? A collision?

Well that doesn't answer my question.

Your question can only have two possible answers: yes, or no.

Let's assume "no," because everyone here knows we aren't going to get anywhere comparing to the Twin Towers to anything else in history because of petty disagreements.

Can you tell me what actual mechanism shot those columns out, or no?

I've seen houses collapse in a straight fall and debris thrown clear of the building footprint.

Yes, and it could have had a very simple explanation that you were completely oblivious to at the time. Which is why I don't really care. Talk to me about why exactly the towers did that, besides that you've seen a house do it (or not) before.



And, I hope you realize man, there is a huge difference between shooting out an odd column (or a board) out of hundreds/thousands of them, and shooting out the majority of them with substantial amounts of energy. You haven't seen a house crush itself somehow, while simultaneously moving 4/5 of its total mass outside of the spot it formerly stood on.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
You claim that beams were ejected out the side and horizontally. Have you ever seen a similar example where this didn't happen?

So what did it, torsion? A collision?

Well that doesn't answer my question.

Your question can only have two possible answers: yes, or no.

Let's assume "no," because everyone here knows we aren't going to get anywhere comparing to the Twin Towers to anything else in history because of petty disagreements.

Actually lets assume NO as there is no similar example to compare it to.

Can you tell me what actual mechanism shot those columns out, or no?

a force would have been applied to the columns to create lateral acceleration.

I've seen houses collapse in a straight fall and debris thrown clear of the building footprint.

Yes, and it could have had a very simple explanation that you were completely oblivious to at the time.
You mean the same simple explanation that can be applied to the WTC's?

Which is why I don't really care. Talk to me about why exactly the towers did that, besides that you've seen a house do it (or not) before.

It is considered an example. The houses fell due to complete structural failure and debris was ejected. The towers fell and debris was ejected.

And, I hope you realize man, there is a huge difference between shooting out an odd column (or a board) out of hundreds/thousands of them, and shooting out the majority of them with substantial amounts of energy.

Show me evidence that suggests hundreds of thousands of columns were ejected laterally to the surrounding area with substantial amounts of energy and also please define, "substantial amounts of energy".

You haven't seen a house crush itself somehow, while simultaneously moving 4/5 of its total mass outside of the spot it formerly stood on.

Please show me how 4/5 of the towers moved substantially laterally. If that was the case, the towers would have collapsed over a substantially larger area of the city then they did.



[edit on 3-3-2008 by jfj123]

One of the problems with 9/11 conspiracies is that there are so many of them. All the proponents claim they are correct and all the others are wrong. Well someone has to be wrong, right?
Either a nuclear bomb was used or it wasn't.
Either a fusion bomb was used or it wasn't.
Either an anti-matter bomb was used or it wasn't.
Either demolitions explosives were used or they weren't.
Either there were real planes or holograms.
Either directed energy weapons were used or they weren't.
Either the US government was involved or it wasn't.

There are so many theories and many contradict each other so in the end, we're left with nothing.

Another problem is, when someone presents a legitimate question, it immediately gets swallowed up by comments from people in the hologram or some other fringe camp. Most people don't take the supposed "truthers" seriously because of that.

If you really want to find REAL, answers, I would suggest we stop talking about absurd ideas such as holographic planes and anti-matter bombs and start trying to bring real, physical evidence to discussions.

As an example, would anyone elect a president that claimed he/she wanted to defend us against the Lizard people threat? He/she would be labeled a nut and would never be taken seriously. Same thing here.

Originally posted by jfj123
a force would have been applied to the columns to create lateral acceleration.

Ok, that isn't a physical mechanism, that's stating the obvious.

It is considered an example.

Then it was a bad example because it didn't represent what I am actually talking about.

Show me evidence that suggests hundreds of thousands of columns were ejected laterally to the surrounding area

If by "surrounding area" you just mean "outside of the footprints," then just find photos showing the bases of the towers after they came down. You know, where there were just a few floors worth of perimeter columns still standing on some sides? Where 110 stories used to be standing? Just look at those photographs.

with substantial amounts of energy and also please define, "substantial amounts of energy".

Figure the amount of energy it would take to send a 22 ton section of steel perimeter columns about 650 feet laterally onto the Winter Garden before it hit the ground, and you'd have a number for the upper bounds. Find the amount it would take to send a similar piece only 10 or 20 feet and you have a lower bounds (still a considerable amount of "push"). The sum would be the total of everything that was sent flying outwards to land outside the footprints, all within that range.

FEMA shows the area like this:



The further out you go, the more massive the energy had to be that sent the debris flying laterally. And this happened to so much of the total steel, it's as though more energy was ultimately directed laterally than vertically, since the energy follows mass goes as far as knocking things through the air goes (imagine representing all the ejecting forces in a free body diagram).

Please show me how 4/5 of the towers moved substantially laterally.

Again I refer you to any images showing the bases of the towers after they were destroyed. Saying that 20% of them is still there is being generous.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by bsbray11]

… so let me get this straight… now the popular theory is that too much debris was thrown away from the collapse? A year or two ago people were claiming that all the debris fell in too neat of a pile (or footprint) and that proved something or another. How can it be both? It seems pretty logical to me (and 98% of other experts) that the collapses were what would be expected.

At what point did the theory reverse their position again?

(edited for spelling)


[edit on 3-3-2008 by Jake the Dog Man]

reply to post by jfj123


No. That's not what I said at all. The argument I just tried to make is completely different and aside from the horizontally ejected beams. The top of the South Tower falling over then ceasing progression and falling straight down has nothing to do with it. I guess your misguided post is the result of my own convoluted post previously. I apologize.

The horizontally ejected beams goes straight back to common sense. Nullified. You don't want "opinion", or common sense, or anything of the like. You want fact. Here's a rehash:

I was saying that it IS fact that the South Tower fell straight down, yes? And it is fact that the part above impact commenced falling to the side yes? Right? This is where I diverted. Sorry. But take that into account. That's fact. Newtonian physics presents the need for a tertiary force to stop that top part from continuing its descent, right? I guess what I'm saying is: What is that tertiary force? What stopped that part above the impact zone to force it to fall with the rest of the building? What is it? If not explosives, then what? And don't tell me furniture. I don't know how many of those I've gotten.

Here's a non-opinion argument. There's what you wanted. No opinion, no common sense (well, there is, but actual physics ideas), and no intuition. If I didn't have much reasoning power and was told to study Newton's laws, what would I say should have happened to the top of the tower? What would you say should have happened?

I don't even think you could dismiss the video posted by Nikolat23 as opinion. Seems like pretty hard evidence that columns were laterally ejected to me. Back to common sense again though.

But compressed air from pancaking couldn't have the force to shoot out those columns, could it? It would just crush the columns anyways, right? And the core columns wouldn't have been ejected as they were still intact, so they couldn't have been horizontally ejected (unless broken and unprotected, given the walls and all other support mechanisms failed), especially since they were vertically standing in the first place, right?

reply to post by jfj123


And so what if there are many theories? Stupid ones pollute the validity of serious ones, sure. But aren't scientific theories revised? Aren't there different conclusions as a result of the scientific method? Is a guess differing from the result not considered a hypothesis? Is science not based on thoughts and processes and mechanisms and estimates and instinct? It's better to have many theories that are wrong possibilities than to have agencies purveying the wrong estimate over and over again with different variables (NIST!).

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
… so let me get this straight…

You must be thinking of WTC7. Not that what anyone else ever thought really makes much difference to me, you know?