patrick.net

Strategist says

There is no evidence. If there was, our enemies would be all over us. I don't see the Mid East Arabs, Iranians, China, N Korea, or anyone accept anything beyond the official version. What do you know that our enemies don't?

https://newrepublic.com/article/94546/middle-east-radical-conspiracy-theories
"the unpopularity of the United States in the Arab world continues to be fueled by the belief that Islamist terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11, with many claiming the attacks were an American, Israeli, or joint American-Israeli conspiracy. "

In the case of the Saudis, maybe they know more than we do?

Heraclitusstudent says

https://newrepublic.com/article/94546/middle-east-radical-conspiracy-theories

"the unpopularity of the United States in the Arab world continues to be fueled by the belief that Islamist terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11, with many claiming the attacks were an American, Israeli, or joint American-Israeli conspiracy. "

Wow, some Arabs believe in anti-American conspiracist twaddle. Who'd a thunk it?

Heraclitusstudent says

https://newrepublic.com/article/94546/middle-east-radical-conspiracy-theories

"the unpopularity of the United States in the Arab world continues to be fueled by the belief that Islamist terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11, with many claiming the attacks were an American, Israeli, or joint American-Israeli conspiracy. "

So are we back to not believing that 2 planes hijacked by Islamic terrorists were purposely flown into the towers?

Let's start by agreeing on what is undisputed, then we can try to move forward on this.

1. Does anyone think that 2 planes weren't flown into the twin towers by Al Qaeda?
2. Does anyone think that the reason the towers fell wasn't because of the impact of the planes followed by the fire?

Once we have those questions answered, we can talk about WTC7 again, if you'd like.

I just answered Strategist note that "I don't see the Mid East Arabs, Iranians, China, N Korea, or anyone accept anything beyond the official version.". They don't.
For the record, I absolutely believe 4 planes were hijacked by Islamic terrorists and 3 flown into buildings.
This thread started with an article in a small physicists publication that raised doubts about some elements of the official version. I'm not going to add anything to that.

Heraclitusstudent says

This thread started with an article in a small physicists publication that raised doubts about some elements of the official version. I'm not going to add anything to that.

That's a huge cop-out. It's very easy to raise doubts about anything. That's how Gary works. If you can't provide a reasonable explanation for what did happen, then it's rubbish.

Unusual events are, by definition, unusual. There is nothing to compare them with. So, common sense will not work.

And to the publication:

The answers to their questions are freely available in many sources. Some of which have already been provided here.

Tampajoe says

That's a huge cop-out. It's very easy to raise doubts about anything.

Sure. Skepticism is a cop-out.
Suit yourself.

Tampajoe says

The answers to their questions are freely available in many sources. Some of which have already been provided here.

I've not seen any, but anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Sure. Skepticism is a cop-out.

Suit yourself.

Skepticism is healthy. Conspiracy theories are not skepticism.

Heraclitusstudent says

I've not seen any, but anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Why would you leave it at that? You seem like you do not want to actually learn or be challenged. You run away every time.

The so called "truth movement" around 9/11 is about questioning the "official version", which does not adequately explain all issues around 9/11. The "truthers" do not claim to have the answers to exactly what happened on that fateful day.

YesYNot says

Building 7 didn't really change the story at all. So why would anybody risk getting caught intentionally demolishing an extra building that didn't have a plane hit it? The whole thing is ridiculous. There isn't even a lack of motive. There is motive to not demolish WTC 7. The fact that it came down is evidence that the whole thing wasn't a conspiracy.

Here is a paper which goes into a theory of "why" the WTC buildings were brought down. It gives background of possible motivation for an "inside job".

https://www.scribd.com/doc/9442970/Collateral-Damage-U-S-Covert-Operations-and-the-Terrorist-Attacks-on-September-11-2001-28062008

Collateral Damage U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11 2001

On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens. For an entire post war generation, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat. On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that many observers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits.This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day.

Tampajoe says

Why would you leave it at that? You seem like you do not want to actually learn or be challenged. You run away every time.

I just spent 100 posts 'learning' nothing and being challenged by idiots who don't know the bases of physics but would rather wrap themselves with the flag and roll under the table screaming "USA" than actually casting a skeptical eye on an 'official' report.
You can read it again.
Have a good day.

Heraclitusstudent says

I just spent 100 posts 'learning' nothing and being challenged by idiots who don't know the bases of physics but would rather wrap themselves with the flag and roll under the table screaming "USA" than actually casting a skeptical eye on an 'official' report.

Your assumptions regarding other peoples knowledge of physics are at least consistent with your assumptions regarding how a building would fall. The video evidence that you provided with the high school physics teacher showed the following:
1st second: Very slow fall, mostly at constant velocity once moving.
Next 2 seconds: Near free fall
4th second: Continues accelerating, but much slower than free fall
5th second: Constant velocity

There is nothing about this that contradicts physics. The outer shell is composed of vertical steel beams. If these reached a temperature near melting, they could shear, so that suddenly there was no support under the top length of beam. Whatever masonry and glass was in place would offer near zero resistance. So, what about the other beams? If they were near melting point, then the extra weight from the first column shearing could have caused them to shear within a second of the first. If they are composed of sections with mechanical connections, it's possible that those sheared due to torque when the first column went. The fact is that this is all rampant speculation from someone who hasn't explained why it wouldn't happen that way. The only thing that is clear from his analysis, is that all of the beams would have had to shear within a second or so of each other. Based on the 2 second free fall, the shear point would have to be at least 60 feet from the ground and more than 60 feet from the top. The 60 feet comes from 2 seconds of free fall, and the number would be a bit higher, b/c it was already moving when the freefall started. Anyway, 60 feet is pretty small compared to the size of the building, which was 700 feet tall. So, this wasn't a very long period of free fall.

Hater says

Steel framed buildings have burned hotter and longer but never fell.

Do you have data on how hot and long the fires burned? If so, I missed that.

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!"