patrick.net

truth will find you says

Heraclitusstudent says

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.

there are still elements connecting the building sides together. Once again, this is just fucking stupid.

What do you mean? That one side pulled down the other through an horizontal beam? Now THIS is fucking stupid.
Too many people here are ignorant of basic laws of mechanics to even understand what they are talking about.

Heraclitusstudent says

What do you mean? That one side pulled down the other through an horizontal beam? Now THIS is fucking stupid.

Too many people here are ignorant of basic laws of mechanics to even understand what they are talking about.

Yes, and the ignorant asshat is you.

Once again, as a terrorrist, the LAST THING, literally LAST THING you would invest time/money/planning into, would be a controlled demolition. Especially hours after another incident.

How fucking stupid are you? not a rhetorical question, your posts are indicating very very stupid!

truth will find you says

Once again, as a terrorrist, the LAST THING, literally LAST THING you would invest time/money/planning into, would be a controlled demolition. Especially hours after another incident.

Inside job, not terrorists. Duh.

truth will find you says

Once again, as a terrorrist, the LAST THING, literally LAST THING you would invest time/money/planning into, would be a controlled demolition. Especially hours after another incident.

Who said terrorists did it?
You make a judgement about what people would or would not do.
I make a judgement about what steel columns would or would not do.
Plenty of people do and say stupid things. That includes you. So...

Heraclitusstudent says

Who said terrorists did it?

You make a judgement about what people would or would not do.

I make a judgement about what steel columns would or would not do.

Plenty of people do and say stupid things. That includes you. So...

I'd say blowing up a building with people inside is terrorrists. you have another word?

IF you give any belief to this conspiracy stuff, then you are very fucking stupid. I am not. AND I actually do know my engineering, your posts indicate that yo don't.

truth will find you says

I actually do know my engineering, your posts indicate that yo don't.

Thank you for this brilliant engineering argument. You convinced me that 20 or so outer columns were all equally weakened by fire and simultaneously gave way and fell like stones.

Moron.

Heraclitusstudent says

You convinced me that 20 or so outer columns were all equally weakened by fire and simultaneously gave way and fell like stones.

It wasn't the outer columns that failed, it was the drooping floor beams separating from the columns that caused the collapse. Did you even read the official report?

astronut97 says

It wasn't the outer columns that failed, it was the drooping floor beams separating from the columns that caused the collapse. Did you even read the official report?

Thank you for that pearl. I now understand floor beams can all fall suddenly independently by separating from columns supporting them.
And the columns, well... they all suddenly and simultaneously turned to ether and fell vertically like rocks.
That clinches it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thank you for that pearl. I now understand floor beams can all fall suddenly independently by separating from columns supporting them.

There aren't any floor beams genius. There were floor trusses. Floor trusses with many tons of concrete on them. Once a couple twist enough, something easily accomplished with the heat of an uncontrolled fire, to fail the rest can't support the additional weight. Once the trusses are gone nothing holds up the outer walls. Look at the video at comment 132. You can clearly see the floor trusses inside the building on the left side give away and go down internally before the outer walls collapse.

Why don't you go look up how the buildings were built so you can have some basic understanding of what you are talking about.

bob2356 says

There were floor trusses.

Whoops, that's what I meant to say, trusses not beams.

Heraclitusstudent says

And the columns, well... they all suddenly and simultaneously turned to ether and fell vertically like rocks.

No, some of them didn't initially fall at all. There is a video out there showing some outer columns still standing (about 20-30 stories of them) for a few minutes.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thank you for this brilliant engineering argument. You convinced me that 20 or so outer columns were all equally weakened by fire and simultaneously gave way and fell like stones.

Moron.

Funny, YOU judging my intelligence with the reams of stupid shit you've written here.

I've decided to steal an old ladie's purse tonight. I have two choices:

1. go out dressed in a hoodie hiding my face, park somewhere discreet, look for an old lady a few blocks away, grab her purse and run.

2. Convince arab terrorists to hijack a plane, crash it in a public place, with a resulting firebomb startling birds from a tree that will fly into an old ladies face, in the confusion, she will drop her purse, and I will pick it up and run away.

SIMPLE logic dictates which one is believable above, and on 911. Simple logic that eludes a seeming neverending list of dumbfucks on here.

bob2356 says

Once a couple twist enough, something easily accomplished with the heat of an uncontrolled fire, to fail the rest can't support the additional weight. Once the trusses are gone nothing holds up the outer walls. Look at the video at comment 132.

Yep, and there is a chain reaction of dominos falling, pushing and pulling other parts. At the end of that hidden progression inside the building, the dozens of outer shell columns - so far intact and still supporting the shell - are all suddenly destroyed at the same instant and start to free fall.
Got it. Thanks!

Once the trusses are gone nothing holds up the outer walls.

Oops sorry... did you say trusses held the outer walls? Then all trusses around the building must have failed at the same instant. Very bizarre.
But it must be true because we are told so.

truth will find you says

I've decided to steal an old ladie's purse tonight. I have two choices:

1. go out dressed in a hoodie hiding my face, park somewhere discreet, look for an old lady a few blocks away, grab her purse and run.

2. Convince arab terrorists to hijack a plane, crash it in a public place, with a resulting firebomb startling birds from a tree that will fly into an old ladies face, in the confusion, she will drop her purse, and I will pick it up and run away.

SIMPLE logic dictates which one is believable above, and on 911.

You are trying to judge human actions while knowing very little about who they were, what they were trying to accomplish, directly and indirectly.
Do people do bizarre things? Do government do stupid things? Do government lie and try to manipulate people? We know they do.
How hard would it be for example for a few people to look the other way just enough to let Al Qaeda's plot succeed?

Not knowing anything outside the absolute surface of facts, you judge based on your "simple logic" - rather than the available physical evidence. I say you're more like Fox Mulder: You want to believe. Except of course in the docile sheep kind of way.
And of course you assume anyone who disagree with you must be stupid.
Every idiot thinks that way.

Heraclitusstudent says

Oops sorry... did you say trusses held the outer walls? Then all trusses around the building must have failed at the same instant. Very bizarre.

Again, have you actually read the official report ... and understood it?

astronut97 says

Again, have you actually read the official report ... and understood it?

He didn't look at the official report at all or otherwise he would have known only WTC1&2 used truss construction. WTC7 was tube construction, but used floor beams instead of trusses. I just threw that out to see if he knew anything about what he was talking about. Obviously not. Thermal expansion of the floor beams is what the official report says caused the structural failure.

I would say WTC7 actually did pretty damn well. It was designed to withstand 3 hours of uncontrolled fire (see NYC building codes revision 1968 paragraph 2b) with no sprinklers (the water mains were destroyed by the collapse of 1&2 so there was no water to fight the fire) and managed to stand for over 7.

Of course we all know that those 7 hours were spent with a team of crack military people running in and out of the building ripping out the walls to pack thermite (it takes 100lbs of thermite to destroy a beam the size used in WTC7) around the beams without any one of the thousands of people on the scene seeing them at all. Running through active blazing fires with explosives, planting the explosives, while somehow keeping the fire from damaging the explosives and detonators for as long as it took to get them all in place. Obviously the military has a secret soldier cloaking device to go along with their secret thermite explosives. Plus everyone involved has managed to keep it a total secret for 15 years now. Pretty amazing, considering the president can't get a blowjob and keep it a secret.

I love conspiracy nuts. Na,Na,Na you can't prove it didn't happen so it must be true no matter how stupid it sounds.

truth will find you says

Oh nuttboxer, the fucking retard who thinks not buying in 2010 san diego, was smart, has an opinion! What a surprise that, as usual, and per your history on here, it is dumb as fuck!

No idea who you are, but you have nothing to contribute, are apparently leveraged up the ass with mortgage ownership, and very bitter about it, so you troll other non-relevant posts, ranting at anyone who opposes your self made prison of debt, stress, and lower quality of life.

Ohh, wait, you're a bitter troll!

Tampajoe says

Do you have an example of such a story?

Are you just here to insert random non-sequiturs, or do you actually read posts once in a while?

NuttBoxer says

Are you just here to insert random non-sequiturs, or do you actually read posts once in a while?

I've read them all and there are all sorts of different conspiracies on this thread. Just trying to understand what story you think is backed by "no facts". Only the government saying so.

Tampajoe says

I've read them all and there are all sorts of different conspiracies on this thread. Just trying to understand what story you think is backed by "no facts". Only the government saying so.

I still think your question is rhetorical, because seriously, no one is that dense. Their might be sub-theories described here, but they all boil down to, government terrorists did it, or foreign terrorists did it. One side has lots of facts, eye witness accounts, science and math rules supporting it. One is backed purely by the reputation of the story teller(singular).

But someone who critical thinking skills, unhindered by the slough of popular opinion, would already have figured that out. So my guess is you're desperately trying to hold onto your warm comfortable world view, until something comes along that wretches from you forever. This doesn't have to be the thing, but it will happen, and sooner, rather than later.

NuttBoxer says

government terrorists did it, or foreign terrorists did it. One side has lots of facts, eye witness accounts, science and math rules supporting it. One is backed purely by the reputation of the story teller(singular).

I think you are living in a bubble world. What facts, eye witness accounts and math are supporting the "government terrorists" side?

And how do you explain the airplanes that hit the towers? I've asked this several time with no answers from any of the conspiracists. Was that part of the government plan? Was Al Qaeda working with our government?

NuttBoxer says

But someone who critical thinking skills, unhindered by the slough of popular opinion, would already have figured that out. So my guess is you're desperately trying to hold onto your warm comfortable world view, until something comes along that wretches from you forever. This doesn't have to be the thing, but it will happen, and sooner, rather than later.

That seems to be a common theme among the posters here. That people who believe the 9/11 commission report are sheep who lack critical thinking.

The funny thing is the exact opposite is the truth. The conspiracy nuts refuse to look at the facts objectively. Their reflex is to assume conspiracy and attribute any unusual occurrence to be part of a conspiracy, and that any person of power must be lying. Like I said earlier, common sense doesn't trump science. An event like 9/11 will always have some things happen that are extremely unusual. That's how life is.

Hater says

But the NIST 911 report defies science and common sense!

Well, forget common sense. There is no common sense when you're talking about a once in a lifetime event.

So, let's get to the crux of the matter. Please post the relevant sections of NIST 9/11 report and show exactly what scientific errors were made.

bob2356 says

Thermal expansion of the floor beams is what the official report says caused the structural failure.

Which is neatly explained in NIST FAQ: "Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed. "

And this is exactly what I said:

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep, and there is a chain reaction of dominos falling, pushing and pulling other parts. At the end of that hidden progression inside the building, the dozens of outer shell columns - so far intact and still supporting the shell - are all suddenly destroyed at the same instant and start to free fall.

Got it. Thanks!

Tampajoe says

And how do you explain the airplanes that hit the towers?

Come on now. We all know the airplanes are to blame. We all know terrorists couldn't setup a complete demolition of buildings.

Heraclitusstudent says

Come on now. We all know the airplanes are to blame. We all know terrorists couldn't setup a complete demolition of buildings.

Hahaha. So, now the terrorists set up the explosives beforehand and then flew the planes into the building anyway? And waited hours after the planes hit before setting off the explosives? Is this your theory?

Are we trying to determine what "could" have happened? Or what DID happen? I can come up with all sorts of things that "could" have happened.

Tampajoe says

Hahaha. So, now the terrorists set up the explosives beforehand and then flew the planes into the building anyway? And waited hours after the planes hit before setting off the explosives? Is this your theory?

Do I think Al Qaeda setup explosive in the towers? Probably not.
Do I think Al Qaeda was happy to fly planes into the buildings? Apparently they were.
In fact I certainly don't have a theory. I don't need a theory in the absence of more information.

Tampajoe says

I can come up with all sorts of things that "could" have happened.

Exactly. If you want to discuss what people could do and what they could want to do, there is just an infinite number of variations that are at least plausible.
And since you know basically nothing outside the mere surface of facts that actually transpired to you, just asserting "Nah.... they would never do that..." is empty... It's void of meaning as an argument.
Basically you have ZERO argument on the side of conspiracy are just silly.

Heraclitusstudent says

And since you know basically nothing outside the mere surface of facts that actually transpired to you, just asserting "Nah.... they would never do that..." is empty... It's void of meaning as an argument.

Basically you have ZERO argument on the side of conspiracy are just silly.

huh? I know that two planes hit the buildings. I know that there were uncontrolled raging fires in many buildings for up to 7-8 hours. I know there were Al Qaeda terrorists on the planes. Those facts are undisputed, yes?

Then we have several reports that detail the best explanation for what happened that fits the facts. Obviously there was nobody in the building that saw the mechanical failure and can give eye witness testimony as to exactly how the various buildings collapsed. All you can do is analyze the event and find the best theory that fits the evidence and data.

That theory has been presented. You are saying it's wrong, but you have, as yet, failed to detail exactly which parts of the reports you find flawed and offered your scientific analyses to show where the report's authors are incorrect. You've just done a bunch of hand waving.

To help, here would be an example of what you should be doing. On page xx of the NIST report, they claim a force of x would be sufficient to cause failure of y. Then provide calculations showing either their force was wrong or why that force wouldn't be sufficient.

Heraclitusstudent says

Do I think Al Qaeda setup explosive in the towers? Probably not.

And fyi--if you think the answer to that question is "probably not" then you're not fit to be questioning anything concerning this topic. The probability that Al Qaeda was able to install explosives in the precise manner to create a controlled demolition of both building is basically zero. Not to mention that the explosives somehow survived the initial plane crash and subsequent raging fire for several hours. The correct answer is to that question is a definitive no.

Hater says

The NIST report was not science, it was fabricated on the assumption that the towers (all 3) were brought down by fire caused by impacting airplanes.

Good-it should be easy to show their errors then. Please enlighten me.

(but don't forget that there was a wee bit of structural damage too.)

Hater says

bob2356 says

a team of crack military people running in and out of the building ripping out the walls to pack thermite (it takes 100lbs of thermite to destroy a beam the size used in WTC7) around the beams without any one of the thousands of people on the scene seeing them at all. Running through active blazing fires with explosives, planting the explosives, while somehow keeping the fire from damaging the explosives and detonators for as long as it took to get them all in place.

Bob, Bob, Bob...

How much do you get paid to perpetuate this BS?

You are not familiar with the concept of sarcasm I see.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

Thermal expansion of the floor beams is what the official report says caused the structural failure.

Which is neatly explained in NIST FAQ: "Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed. "

And this is exactly what I said:

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep, and there is a chain reaction of dominos falling, pushing and pulling other parts. At the end of that hidden progression inside the building, the dozens of outer shell columns - so far intact and still supporting the shell - are all suddenly destroyed at the same instant and start to free fall.


Got it. Thanks!

What you said is ridiculous. You can see in the video things progressively collapse inside the building. So what do you think happened to the outer shell when hundreds of tons of debris fell inside of it and hit the bottom? Feel free to explain how the relatively light outer shell will contain all this debris landing at high speed. I'd love to hear it.

Not to mention, if you had all those explosives in the building....

A. why bother with the planes? Hijacking planes, crashing them adds a hell of a lot of needless complexity to the plan
B. Fires would have seriously screwed up the wiring/timing/controls for the explosions.
C. why wait so long, and let all the people on the 90 lower floors escape?
D. why bother with control at all? cut a few beams on one side, and let it go sidedays... take out several NYC blocks.

Anyone with rudimentary intelligence knows the conspiracy people are all mentally ill and/or very stupid.

Tampajoe says

huh? I know that two planes hit the buildings. I know that there were uncontrolled raging fires in many buildings for up to 7-8 hours. I know there were Al Qaeda terrorists on the planes. Those facts are undisputed, yes?

Yes, this is the surface of facts. The part of the iceberg that is seen.

Tampajoe says

You've just done a bunch of hand waving.

Like for example the NIST to describe in its FAQ "How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?" the fall of the facade by: "Finally, the entire façade collapsed."
Now that's hand waving.

Or NIST showing a computer model video that is (1) incomplete (doesn't show the collapse of the shell) (2) doesn't fit what is observed (shows some large deformation of the shell that didn't happen)www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc

Or first denying that there was free fall "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural component below it". Then later admit it that free fall happened while still maintaining a model that is hardly compatible with free fall: an object that has no structural component below it.

Pardon my short fact check list.

WTC7 was all but empty after the second tower fell.

Police are actively keeping people away from the danger zone.

Fire fighters and rescue personnel have the run of the place for seven hours.

Not enough water pressure to control the fires.

World Trade Center complex building contains offices of the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and the IRS.

Deepcgi is the only one who thinks we can and would take those seven hours to make a clean levelling of the building and all its contents. And that if we didn't, we should have. Check.

Deepcgi is also the only one who is not surprised that even the staunchest US patriots would want to contain the information that an all but empty 21st century building could be leveled within seven hours - given what just happened only thousands of feet away.

If I were the new Homeland Security Department I wouldn't hire many of today's "intellectuals" who can't think out-of-the-box.

Does deepcgi also think it's possible to wire a building with an out of control fire across several floors with explosives for a controlled demolition?

Tampajoe says

And how do you explain the airplanes that hit the towers? I've asked this several time with no answers from any of the conspiracists. Was that part of the government plan? Was Al Qaeda working with our government?

On the first part, I'm not going to re-iterate what is already in the source material that started this thread. I don't do babying, keep your head in the sand at your own peril. As to this insignificant point, yes, according to government reports, different agencies where aware of the terrorists, and trained them to fly the planes. As to the last, if we funded and founded Al Qaeda during the Russian/Afganistan war, what do you think?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050407hijackersmilitarytraining911.shtml

Why is your question irrelevant? Goes back to you with hands in ears(or over eyes), ignoring root cause of why building collapsed.

Who has more reason to lie here, who has something to gain? And since this is in the past, who did gain, significantly by this act, and who lost? DHS, Patriot Act, NSA, Federal Borders, TSA, endless war on "terror". None of it would have ever existed without 911.

Tampajoe says

Like I said earlier, common sense doesn't trump science. An event like 9/11 will always have some things happen that are extremely unusual. That's how life is.

You advocate science, then say "It's all a mystery, wooo. Who can fathom the unexplainable, ooohhh." What a crock of shit. You don't want to understand why(a stance extremely antagonistic to science). You have SCIENTISTS TELLING YOU planes collapsing a building is BS, and you try to advocate SCIENCE!?!?

We need to print out your comment, put it on a t-shirt, and slap it on every woolly-headed, conformist. You ARE the poster child of everything we're saying.

NuttBoxer says

Goes back to you with hands in ears(or over eyes), ignoring root cause of why building collapsed.

Ignoring? It's been explained several times on here, on popular mechanics website, NIST website, among many, many others. It's well documented. Who's ignoring it?

NuttBoxer says

You advocate science, then say "It's all a mystery, wooo. Who can fathom the unexplainable, ooohhh."

You misunderstood. It's not a mystery at all. Science HAS explained it. The point was that you can't look at it and say--hmm, that just doesn't look quite right. You have no frame of reference to compare it with because it never happens. Common sense doesn't work. But, experts have modeled it and have shown how/why it happened.