Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS - WTC7: perpetual motion scam and the easy physics

reply to post by groingrinder


Last time I checked the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. I believe that it had a little bit to do with Sadam violating the UN sanctions against Iraq. Funny how the Democrats were right there in supporting the war in Iraq, when it was popular with the voters, and then changed their minds when they found that they could beat the Republicans over the head with it. As far as I'm concerned if we would have done the job right in 1991, we wouldn't have this problem now. Hell we should have flattened Iran in 1979.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Only those who believe the OS are advocating that the laws of Physics were violated. What is the matter? Can't you read and comprehend this thread? Why do you keep trying to twist what is being said? The OP is clearly saying that the laws of Physics are only violated by the OS.

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Only those who believe the OS are advocating that the laws of Physics were violated. What is the matter? Can't you read and comprehend this thread? Why do you keep trying to twist what is being said? The OP is clearly saying that the laws of Physics are only violated by the OS.

I have not twisted anything. The laws of physics were not violated no matter which story you believe. Anyone proposing otherwise is employing seriously faulty thinking, and resting an argument on such a proposition is beyond absurd.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The impact of 2 large jet aircraft moving at a relativly high speed might have had a little something to do with it.

Nope, because the buildings were designed to withstand impacts at those speeds with those size of planes. Not to mention by NIST's own calculations, there was only damage to 15% of the columns in the impact zones, leaving 85% of the structure undamaged and intact. Ergo, the impacts did insignificant damage.

By my own calculations, I figure 13%-14% damaged columns, but 13%-15% is not significant.



Try again?




[edit on 5-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ergo, the impacts did insignificant damage.

My god. That is absolutely hilarious.

The truthers seem to be willing to convince themselves of absolutely anything to get the wiggle room they need to make a conspiracy work.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Hay after it has passed through the digestive tract of a male cow.

Isn't it funny how NIST's information about the damage done by the aircraft is accepted by some, but they won't accept the rest of NIST's information. Personally I think NIST is wrong. A steel structure isn't totally solid, it has quite a bit of flex in it. I have been to the observation deck of the WTC on a windy day. From there you can both see and feel the building sway. I believe that in moderate winds it sways about 4 to 6 feet.

When the aircraft struck the towers, I'll guarentee you that they flexed. I'll also guarentee you that the structures transmitted vibrations through out their entirety. I have to wonder how many welds were broke and how many of the bolted sections had their fasteners over stressed. Some of the noises that people claim were explosions, could have been the structural failure of welds and fasteners. NIST's information is based on what can be seen from the pictures and videos taken from the exterior of the building. I am more inclined to accept Purdue University's account from their 3-D modeling of the impacts. The WTC towers were designed in the late 1960's. At the time of their design, much was made of their supposed ability to take the impact of a Boeing 707. Material science was in it's infantcy at that time. I believe that according to the information availible at that time the designers honestly believed that they could with stand the hit of a 707. I believe that if those same towers were being built now, that claim would not be made.

Purdue University CGVLAB

If the collapse of the towers had started any place else besides at the impact points, I would be inclined to agree with the Truther's, but, it didn't and I don't.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by JIMC5499]

reply to post by JIMC5499


911 was used as the catalyst for invading Iraq. Without 911, the country would not have gotten behind it. After 911 people wanted to kill "ragheads". It was also used to ram the Patriot Act through Congress. Do not try to pretend that 911 was not valuable to those trying to take away freedoms in America and conquer foreign countries to make money for Bush supporters.

Don't forget that Osama Bin Laden's family was whisked out of the country before they could be questioned. It is also important to remember that OBL was a CIA employee.

People make tons of money by waging war. Nobody makes money by waging peace.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by groingrinder]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, BoneZ, BoneZ...good to see you, been a while...

However----

Nope, because the buildings were designed to withstand impacts at those speeds with those size of planes.

You must have written that in haste???

"at those speeds"?

You know better than that.

Just for everyone else, though, here's the reason why that statement is wrong:

The largest passenger jet at the time the Towers were designed was the B-707 series. About same dimensions as the B-767, yes. BUT the max landing weight was 207,000. The B-767 max is 270,000.

AND, airplanes are ALWAYS max airspeed of 250 knots below 10,000 feet in the USA. AND, they planned for the airplane to be a LANDING speeds, around 180 knots, or so.

BIG difference, mate!

As I see it, there are two scenarios at work with 911.

1. Terrorists managed to get an attack off on America through an amazing set of circumstances that facilitated their ability to do such a thing. In doing so, exposed the gross incompetence of some of the so called smartest minds that were running our country, which should have, at the very least resulted in the loss of job of many people.

2. The attack was ALLOWED to take place, and even facilitated to allow success.

Either way, America loses

-E-

[edit on 5-3-2010 by MysterE]

reply to post by MysterE


I'll admit that they took advantage of our society. I've always questioned the proceedure of cooperating with criminals, hijackers and hostage takers. In my personal opinion these situations should have been met with immediate force. Look at the current situation. After 9-11 there will probably never be another airline hijacking. Not because of the changes to airport security, but, because the passengers will rise up against the hijackers.

As far as 9-11 being allowed to happen through incompetance, I have to ask one question. If you had a time machine and could go back to 9-10-2001, knowing everything that you know about what is going to happen, could you prevent it from happening? I don't think so. At that time this type of an attack was considered inconcievable, beyond belief.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by MysterE

 

At that time this type of an attack was considered inconcievable, beyond belief.

And it was that mis-conception that equates to gross incompetence from the very prople paid, and trusted to keep this country safe. All of the signs were there, yet insufficient action was taken.

-E-

reply to post by JIMC5499


I'm glad you have your beliefs and opinions on what "could" have happened. However, we know what certain materials do to other materials. We know that the aluminum body of the jetliners did no damage to the massive, thick core columns because soft, thin aluminum against hard, thick steel = no match.

What does that leave us with? Engines and landing gear are the only solid parts of a jetliner that could do any real damage to the massive core columns. The only reason why the perimeter columns gave so easily is because they were broke at the connectors.

Shoot a beer can at a steel column at 600mph and the beer can will be obliterated into pieces with no damage to the steel column. Put large titanium and steel objects inside of that beer can, and although the beer can will be obliterated again, the titanium and steel parts will definitely leave marks on the steel column.

This brings us back to the construction manager of the WTC implying that a plane is just a pencil puncturing the structure and the impacts really do nothing to the structural integrity of the buildings. There was very little damage to the core columns of the towers and therefore, the impacts were insignificant.

The impacts were insignificant, fires don't cause steel-structured highrises to globally collapse, therefore explosives is the only other answer. Explosives are corroborated by video, witnesses and testing of the dust. Any questions?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"at those speeds"?

You know better than that.

The lead engineer built his buildings to withstand the impact of a fully loaded jetliner at 600mph. What do I know better than that?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
they planned for the airplane to be a LANDING speeds, around 180 knots, or so.

As I already stated, the lead engineer, John Skilling, built his towers to withstand the impacts of jetliners at 600mph. Nowhere in the documentation that is publicly available is your claim mentioned.

Unless you want to take the word of the lying and/or incompetent Leslie Robertson who really was a nobody on the WTC project.

If John Skilling were alive today, things would be a little different.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Well, BoneZ (hope you're well, BTW) I'd like to see something you can link for me, about the design planning for a 600 MPH Boeing 707 at 1,000 feet MSL.

Because, the only concern they would have logically had was for airplanes off course in IFR conditions hitting one of the Towers. (Hard to envision, but given a whole host of circumstances, IE, non-radar environment due to ground equipment failure, pilots navigational mistakes, etc...)

It's simply not logical to assume any airplane is going to be that fast at that altitude. The concern, regarding large passenger jets, was accidentally colliding while operating in or out of the local NYC-area airports.

Now, if the guy said "600 MPH" then he was doing a selling/snow job. Seems to me.

Originally posted by Signals
Doesn't the extra energy come from the big planes smashing into the other buildings, causing their collapse, and debris & fire spray onto #7, sort of like trickle-down economics works

I almost laughed my ass off when I read this. I don't know whether or not it was meant as a joke, but thanks for that anyway.

When working free body diagrams and things like that, you're working with instantaneous values for the scope of what you're physically looking at. You can't carry over energy that's already been used from other places and use it again. It's already inherent to the situation is has created that you are now analyzing. Hope that makes sense. It's physics 101 either way.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you can be convinced that somehow the laws of physics were violated that day then presumably you'll believe anything, including weird conspiracy theories. If you're unable to understand physics you probably don't have a solid foundation to respond to any kind of "debunking". Good luck.

What you failed to understand is that the laws of physics would only be broken if the story being peddled by the government is true. Thus any references to laws of physics being broken are obviously rhetorical and the guy posting them does not actually believe laws of physics were broken. He's being rhetorical.

It just goes to show though, by the number of stars you got on that post (lol), the depth to which people are completely oblivious here.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Sorry, but maintaining a position that laws of physics were violated during 911 is a fundamental logical flaw which must be pointed out. If the basis on one's argument rests on impossibilities there is nothing to debunk.

Then you agree that NIST's assertions are automatically impossible because of conservation of energy and that there is nothing about it to debunk.

I have a hard time believing you have never seen a rhetorical argument in your life, and can't comprehend one when you see it. Are you being sarcastic or are you really that out of it?

[edit on 5-3-2010 by bsbray11]

double post

[edit on 5-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'd like to see something you can link for me, about the design planning for a 600 MPH Boeing 707 at 1,000 feet MSL

No problem.

The National Institute of Standards and Techonology (NIST), the U.S. government agency responsible for analyzing the collapse of 1 and 2 World Trade Center, stated in a memo dated February 3, 1964:

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result only in local damage which would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

That's from NIST's own memo from 1964. That memo was included in Appendix A, NISTNCSTAR1-2, April 26, 2006 update. This was the LINK to the memo when it existed, but it seems NIST deleted that memo from it's conclusions because it went against it's findings. However, the memo is mentioned in literature prior to 9/11, so it, in fact, does exist.

**edit to add**

Or they may have moved the memo to a different Appendix. When I look up Appendix A, it is only images now. I don't have the time to go through the whole report to see if the memo is somewhere else or actually deleted altogether.




[edit on 5-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by GhostR1der

After reading the most recent 9/11 physics thread, with a general lack of physics equations

Oh lookie here!

Yet another claim that the "os" violates the laws of physics.

And to top it off, the OP even claims that these threads lack physics equations, and yet avoids providing those very equations that prove that the "os" violates any laws of physics.

IOW, yet another thread where a truther makes a claim and dares others to prove him wrong.

Fine, then I'll match your own level of proof, and provide the same challenge for you.

No laws of physics were violated in the "os" explanation that NIST provided.

To debunk this you will need to do at least one of three things:

A) Show that the energy to destroy each floor one after another during the collapse sequence of the entire structure could not come from the falling mass without violating the law of conservation of energy.

B) Prove that the resistance of the structure could not be essentially zero, given NIST's belief that several columns, over 7-8 floors, were not laterally supported, given known engineering design parameters and the physics of column buckling.

C) Show that the law of conservation of energy was violated.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result only in local damage which would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Read it again.

No where in that does it say that they designed it for a plane strike.

It says that "the design was found to be safe......."

IOW, it's just like Robertson has said all along. They designed them, then looked into whether or not they would survive a plane strike. NOT specifically designed to survive a plane strike.

There ARE differing quotes as to what the velocity of the plane was in those studies. Some say landing speed - as does Robertson today - and the PA architects say 600 mph.