9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I prefer corrections to stories rather than the original stories. What you link to were the original sources that suggested they were "still alive" (dating back to 2001), later research showed they were just cases of mistaken identity.

So answer my question. What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw?
 
so you choose 911myths.com over....

  1. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stmCached - Similar
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    23 Sep 2001 – Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. ...
  2. Many 9-11 "Hijackers" are Still Alive.

    guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htmCached - Similar
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE. The world's media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. ...
  3. 9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theoriesCached - Similar
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    Jump to Hijackers‎: Some of the people named were later discovered to be alive, ... by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as proof that the hijackings were faked. ...

    The BBC, The Guardian and.....drum roll.....your favourite 'reliable' source.......wikipedia. Do you choose 911myths.com over these?
 
lee, one of your links, guardian, did you check that website out?
Does "The Guardian" really say that "The Arabs Are Not to Blame for the WTC attacks?"
I think you got hoaxed by that website's name, maybe?
The article that website took their information from is some mujahedeen site.
Is this the sort of stuff you believe, lee?

I followed up and read the superior documentation available at 911myths and found that yours lacks any substance.

Why have you and the others always been so vague?
What are you hiding?
Why hide your honest beliefs?
What do you feel you have to lose if you come right out and say things?


You know, lee, if you start questioning other people's qualifications you have to reciprocate.
So, what are your qualifications, and proof of same, then we can start vetting qualifications.

I've built things of concrete, steel, stone, wood.
I have a degree in Engineering, 1977, Texas A&M University, Marine Engineering.
I see little problem with a total failure of the WTC building once the upper floors began a downward momentum, you've ot the mass moving, what would stop it?.

What WOULD STOP IT, lee?

Sure, there will be dust, the walls contained sheet rock, right?.

As a Marine Engineer, I have a fair sense of the scale of a massive object, such as a ship, moving.
I assume that the construction of the WTC was adequate for static loading, but we are talking about dynamic loading and ever-increasing momentum.

What are your qualifications, lee, since you brought it up?

I'll be happy to email you my resume if you like.
 
Lee perhaps you could look up some other wikipedia & BBC articles to clarify things for yourself - eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_hijackers#Cases_of_mistaken_identity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

I hope they help you come to terms with things :)

....it's just you three and me again. Yeah, the BBC, you think I ain't read it? Reith's successor bragged of making the BBC 'a fully-functioning weapon of war' - he'd be delighted. Funny how things get cleared up four years later at the beeb. And everywhere else. Every story that created a question about the oficial narrative has been systematically (do you understand what that means?) discredited by those really reliable folks at CNN and FOX and the BBC and SKY and NBC and ABC and and .... to you that's a vindication of your pseudo-religious beliefs, to a critical thinker it's cause for thought
 
So I'm curious how you believe the BBC when they support your beliefs, but consider them a propaganda outlet when they do not.
 
And also, why do you keep dodging my question:

What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw?
 
curiouser and curiouser...

So I'm curious how you believe the BBC when they support your beliefs, but consider them a propaganda outlet when they do not.

I didn't say I believed them, I quoted them - presumably you believe them, on the whole; don't you? Or is it just when they upset your world view that you disagree?. Or are they really just too 'left wing'?

Don't you think it's quite telling that the only (unimpressive) examples you can give of wtc type 'collapses' is pictures of controlled demos? All of the examples. What does that suggest?
 
Still ignoring the question.

What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw?

I think at this point you are ignoring it because you know the answer is yes.
 
Still ignoring the question.

What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw?

I think at this point you are ignoring it because you know the answer is yes.

He also dodged my version, which was, if a floor collapsed, what would stop it?
He also dodged my request for HIS qualifications, after he asked for yours, and I gave mine.
He's whupped.
 
Lee- the BBC had an updated report within a month of the attacks - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm - perhaps it is you sho should try reading? :confused:

As for the rest of your post - yes I understand what systemic means - and latent failure, and human factors too for that matter - they have been my job for many years. But that is not particularly relevant.

The reason why all the questions have been systematicaly discredited is because they are rubbish - and ad hoc discrediting is pointless - if you are going to discredit rubbish properly then you should do it systematically so that it is shown to be rubbish.

What is relevant is evidence - I do not see what the time delay in the BBC clearing it up has to do with anything - it looks like it took that long for them to realise their original report was being used as "evidence" by CT's - they probably thought no-one was reading it after they issued the updated one.

So do you have any actual evidence?
 
Related:


This explains why arguing down a committed conspiracy theorist is impossible. Whenever I’ve tried to debate Truthers on the facts of 9/11, for instance, all of my accumulated knowledge about the subject has proven entirely useless—because in every exchange, the conspiracy theorist inevitably would ignore the most obvious evidence and instead focus the discussion on the handful of obscure, allegedly incriminating oddities that he had memorized. No matter how many of these oddities I manage to bat away (even assuming I have the facts immediately at hand to do so), my debating opponent always has more at hand.

In this game, the conspiracist claims victory merely by scoring a single uncontested point—since, as he imagines it, every card he plays is a trump. To quote 9/11 conspiracy theorist Richard Falk (better known as the UN official who suggested that Israel’s actions in Gaza were akin to the Nazi Holocaust): “It is not necessary to go along with every suspicious inference in order to conclude that the official account of 9/11 is thoroughly unconvincing . . . Any part of this story is enough to vindicate [the] basic contention.” The defender of rationalism, meanwhile, is stuck fighting for a stalemate.

Nor does it hold any water with conspiracists that their theories have been rejected and discredited by mainstream researchers, journalists, and government officials. As noted in the Introduction, the defining feature of a true conspiracy theory is that it has, embedded within its syllogistic circuitry, an explanation for why insiders refuse to go public with their information: Either they are coconspirators themselves, or they have been paid off, or threatened.

This is why so few experts are willing to take conspiracy theorists up on their frequent challenges to hold public debates. And those who do typically are sorry they did. In the 1990s, both Phil Donahue and Montel Williams made the disastrous decision to put Holocaust deniers on television. The Donahue episode, which aired on March 14, 1994, was a particularly bad train wreck, in which the host looked on helplessly as confused Auschwitz survivors bungled basic facts about the death camps (such as promoting the myth that prisoners were turned into soap) in the face of more authoritative-seeming deniers. One would think that someone who actually lived through the Holocaust would be able to out-debate a conspiracy theorist. But that assumption is wrong: As researchers Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman wrote in their 2000 book, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened And Why Do They Say It: “Most survivors know very little about the Holocaust outside of what happened to them half a century ago, and deniers are skilled at tripping them up when they get dates wrong.”

I’ll admit to feeling personally humbled by my failure to get the best of conspiracy theorists: What was the use in going through the official 9/11 report with a highlighter and Post-it notes, much less writing a whole book on the subject of Trutherdom, if I couldn’t win an argument with a single college student? But on a more fundamental level, I also felt disillusioned by what this experience taught me about the limits of intellectual discourse itself. Even the reality of lived experience—the most direct path to truth there is—has been undermined by the conspiracist mindset, which overlooks eyewitness reports—of a plane flying into the Pentagon, or skyscrapers collapsing without any hint of internal demolition—in favour of tortured inferences from scattered esoterica.

- Kay, Jonathan (2011). Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground (pp. 312-313). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition.
 
The point of the above is that arguing with Lee is ultimately futile. Even if you could convince him that it's plausible that a single story failure would initiate progressive collapse, then he'd simply fall silent on that point, then move on to another point from his collection of "scattered esoterica" - the concrete was crushed too much, the ejecta too voluminous, the rate of fall too rapid. Debunk that (and every thing he might bring up has been debunked), and he'll fall silent there too, and move on to building 7, or the lack of plane at the pentagon, or the implausibility of cell-phone calls from a moving plane. There's no end to the debunked points he can move on to, and very little chance of an end to the argument.

People do get out of the truther movement. I wish Lee luck in doing so.
 
The point of the above is that arguing with Lee is ultimately futile. Even if you could convince him that it's plausible that a single story failure would initiate progressive collapse, then he'd simply fall silent on that point, then move on to another point from his collection of "scattered esoterica" - the concrete was crushed too much, the ejecta too voluminous, the rate of fall too rapid. Debunk that (and every thing he might bring up has been debunked), and he'll fall silent there too, and move on to building 7, or the lack of plane at the pentagon, or the implausibility of cell-phone calls from a moving plane. There's no end to the debunked points he can move on to, and very little chance of an end to the argument.

People do get out of the truther movement. I wish Lee luck in doing so.

Oh thats what always happens with any conspiracy. They may hinge it on a single point, but as soon as you disprove that single point, they move right onto something else, without even acknowledging that the linchpin of their conspiracy was busted.

Just like with chemtrails, their meme is that contrails can not persist, so thats therefore proof. As soon as you prove that yes, contrails have persisted, they just find something else to go to. Its a never ending series of "what about this. Or then what about this...." Just never ending, unconnected ideas that in their mind, make a conspiracy.

Doesnt matter whether its 9/11, chemtrails, etc..
 
Here's a section from the above article that parallels part of what happened in this thread:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_theory_vs_the_facts.2.html

In 2007 a conspiracist confronted Zelikow [the 9/11 Commission's executive director] in public with the "fact" that many of the hijackers are still alive. Zelikow responded that the 9/11 Commission had looked into the claims and found nothing to them but could not fit every single debunked conspiracy theory into the final version of the report. The questioner's reply was to repeat his accusation. I had a similar experience on the same topic when questioning Griffin, who begins his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortionswith the "hijackers are still alive" theory. I sent him an email pointing out that this theory relied on discredited media reports—the "hijackers" they had found were just people with the same names as the hijackers. In response, he emailed me a chapter on the topic from one of his books and said he was too busy to discuss the issue further.
 
....it's just you three and me again. Yeah, the BBC, you think I ain't read it? Reith's successor bragged of making the BBC 'a fully-functioning weapon of war' - he'd be delighted. Funny how things get cleared up four years later at the beeb. And everywhere else. Every story that created a question about the oficial narrative has been systematically (do you understand what that means?) discredited by those really reliable folks at CNN and FOX and the BBC and SKY and NBC and ABC and and .... to you that's a vindication of your pseudo-religious beliefs, to a critical thinker it's cause for thought
Lee, sometimes it takes years for things to get debunked. First the bunk has to get spread, then somebody has to takethe initiative to look into it, then often times there isn't much to go on, just some nebulous questions like, "Why doesn't the Met office predict days with contrails?". Don't expect the debunking to be perfect at first, because sometimes it's very hard to do a good job satisfying everthing that is bunked. I have been working to debunk a 1&1/2 hour movie for about six months, most of the debunking is complete, only some details need to get worked out. Then here is the write-up, the website, the radio interviews, podcasts, newspaper articles to write. Sometimes this does take years to satisfy everyone. And for my part, it's just a hobby.

Don't be disappointed when bunk gets systematically discredited though.

Would you really prefer that bunk gets promulgated so that others take on your pseudoreligious beliefs that are just bunk?

Because you've just admitted that every one was systematically discredited.

What did you expect?
How else does somehing get debunked?
Non-systematically?
Not very effective, my good man!

Debunking is more fun than promoting bunk, man, get it?
 
But in conspiracy land, any reports that come out at that exact time or shortly thereafter, must be the most accurate (well if it fits into the conspiracy) and anything afterward that corrects the error, its just TPTB trying to use disinfo to hide what really happened.
 
Still ignoring the question.

What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw?

I think at this point you are ignoring it because you know the answer is yes.

Projecting again, tut tut. Have a count up of all the questions I 'fall silent' on and then compare them to you and your minions. Here's another I haven't avoided: What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw? Consider carefully the wording of the wrong questions put together. 'like we saw'? like we saw where? in your controlled demolition videos? What you're implying, as you like to (eg. the 300 thousand pound plane with ten THOUSAND gallons of fuel hitting a 1300 building....that'll be because of your expert knowledge of scale - which you didn't answer a question on. Why not? If the wtc towers had been damaged as severely as your cartoon showing the nose of a Boeing shattering three, four - or was it five, massive box welded steels before breaking up, then still the damage was local and the loads would have been redistributed, there would have been more than enough left to cope. If it collapsed due to local damage then it would not have collapsed as it did - it would have been asymmetrical. The undamaged structure below is exerting an increasing upward force and that would accentuate an asymmetric failure, rather than a split-second universal one....unless, the building was set up for controlled demo so the floor was pulled at the right time - along with other measures, to ensure a vertical demolition. Anyway, another one of Newton's laws was violated that day by the top of the tower tilting at 23 degrees and then arresting its trajectory by turning into dust in mid air.

I think this pretty much says it all about you guys, coming from your quote: Nor does it hold any water with conspiracists that their theories have been rejected and discredited by mainstream researchers, journalists, and government officials.

Haven't you heard? governments, journalists and 'mainstream researchers', whoever they are, have been shown to be pretty unreliable - over and over. I'd recommend some CG Jung to begin, maybe not for Jay though.

Ok - I answered your burning question - my turn:

Let's have another look at the cartoon you showed us as 'evidence' and count how many steel columns were cut by the aircraft, excluding the engines - which are quite heavy you know? If it's more than, say.... None - do you think that's possible?
 
Do I think it's possible that a plane could break a steel column. Yes I do. But I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to. The plane seemed to break though the exterior beams fairly easily. The precise extent of interior damage will never be known.

You still seem to be arguing from a position of personal incredulity. You say the official version of event could not possibly happen, but you don't really explain why. You say a local collapse would have cause an asymmetric failure, but you don't quantify that.

Consider this document:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

It gives a very plausible, mathematically sound explanation of why the towers might have fallen based on the initial impact and fire.

Where is it wrong?
 
On the merry-go-round again...Let's keep it simple so people can understand - look, you presented something in evidence - and I just watched it again, ain't t'internet great? I found it difficult to count how many core columns were broken by the cone/airframe and even wings! of the aircraft. Maybe a dozen! Among those columns, three foot by one foot box welded steel minimum half inch thick tied to quite a lot of other steel. It's a preposterous load of garbage.
 
Do I think it's possible that a plane could break a steel column. Yes I do. But I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to. The plane seemed to break though the exterior beams fairly easily. The precise extent of interior damage will never be known.

You still seem to be arguing from a position of personal incredulity. You say the official version of event could not possibly happen, but you don't really explain why. You say a local collapse would have cause an asymmetric failure, but you don't quantify that.

Consider this document:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

It gives a very plausible, mathematically sound explanation of why the towers might have fallen based on the initial impact and fire.

Where is it wrong?

Fema?

Not very sure about it, it seems
 
I am impressed that Lee can fail to answer the question, resort to diverting his attention to another aspect he requires to be debunked not once, but twice (to floor "turning to dust in mid air", and how many steel beams can an a/c cut through) as predicted he would do, and reject all "mainstream" analysis because of some unquantified "unreliability" which he does not actually link to 9/11 - al in a single post.

Bravo!

Not an actual skerrick of evidence presented for anything of course - but that was predicted too I think.
 
So you think it would slice through the exterior columns like butter (as we aseen in the video, you can't really argue there). But the interior columns would be undamaged?

Or do you just think the animation exaggerate the damage?

Do you think the core would have been damaged at all?
 
It gives a very plausible, mathematically sound explanation of why the towers might have fallen based on the initial impact and fire.

Yes? But you also presented that cartoon as evidence - it shows several steel beams, specifically core columns being cut by an aircraft airframe, it even has a narrator so there is no misinterpretation here - do you think that is correct? What about the other two, or three? Why don't you debunk it? Have you been debunked? How many large steel columns can an aircraft sever?
 
you present a ridiculous video, first up as it happens, and it's shown to be tripe - you seem to be ignoring the fact it's been pointed out...all the other video evidence for collapsing buildings you presented are in the form of controlled demolitions - what do you think that says? You don't have to be Hercules Poirot
 
So you think it would slice through the exterior columns like butter (as we aseen in the video, you can't really argue there). But the interior columns would be undamaged?

Or do you just think the animation exaggerate the damage?

Do you think the core would have been damaged at all?

I wouldn't even go there.

Exaggerate? if you'd ever worked with the relevant materials you'd know the film you presented as evidence is ridiculous - won't you look at it again and tell me what you think? Do you think what they presented is remotely possible taking into account Newton's laws and materials involved? The core would have had superficial damage in the context of the integrity of the structure.
 
I am impressed that Lee can fail to answer the question, resort to diverting his attention to another aspect he requires to be debunked not once, but twice (to floor "turning to dust in mid air", and how many steel beams can an a/c cut through) as predicted he would do, and reject all "mainstream" analysis because of some unquantified "unreliability" which he does not actually link to 9/11 - al in a single post.

Bravo!

Not an actual skerrick of evidence presented for anything of course - but that was predicted too I think.

Here's another I haven't avoided: What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw? Consider carefully the wording of the wrong questions put together. 'like we saw'? like we saw where? in your controlled demolition videos? What you're implying, as you like to (eg. the 300 thousand pound plane with ten THOUSAND gallons of fuel hitting a 1300 building....that'll be because of your expert knowledge of scale - which you didn't answer a question on. Why not? If the wtc towers had been damaged as severely as your cartoon showing the nose of a Boeing shattering three, four - or was it five, massive box welded steels before breaking up, then still the damage was local and the loads would have been redistributed, there would have been more than enough left to cope. If it collapsed due to local damage then it would not have collapsed as it did - it would have been asymmetrical. The undamaged structure below is exerting an increasing upward force and that would accentuate an asymmetric failure, rather than a split-second universal one....unless, the building was set up for controlled demo so the floor was pulled at the right time - along with other measures, to ensure a vertical demolition. Anyway, another one of Newton's laws was violated that day by the top of the tower tilting at 23 degrees and then arresting its trajectory by turning into dust in mid air.

Which bit of 'fail to answer the question' and 'Not an actual skerrick of evidence', is the problem? What evidence do you want? Something from 911myths.com? I'll take Isaac thanks. I invite the question to be refined.
 
You fail to answer the question because all you do is assert something with no corroborative evidene to support your assertion. QED for the lack of evidence.

Evidence is something more than you saying it could or could not have happened. You have said a lot of things - but not provided any justification.

You have been given references to studies which include such things as analysis of the materials and forces concerned that contradict your unsupported assertions - how about starting by showing why they are wrong - and doing so with a bit more than "..it would not have.." or "...it would have been...".

WHY would those be the case - what are the forces involved? How do the materials withstand them? What are the failure modes and why were they present or not present?
 
Well, lets say for the sake of argument that none of the central columns were severed. Now, I've just read the Wikipedia overview, and it seems very reasonable. Is there an error here:

Both buildings collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below. As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction. The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.[SUP][12][/SUP]
While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.[SUP][30]

[/SUP]
Collapse initiation

After the planes hit the buildings, but before they collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[SUP][31]
[/SUP]

Total progressive collapse

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[SUP][32][/SUP] In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.[SUP][32][/SUP]

Does it simply trigger your sense of incredulity? Which bits are wrong?
 
Here's another I haven't avoided: What would happen if one floor of the WTC failed? Would it lead to progressive collapse like we saw? Consider carefully the wording of the wrong questions put together. 'like we saw'? like we saw where? in your controlled demolition videos? ... I invite the question to be refined.

I originally meant "like we saw happen to WTC1 and 2", but I'd like your opinion on if it would look like the videos.

Basically I want to know if you think that a single story failure of the WTC would cause the entire structure to collapse.
 
Lee- the BBC had an updated report within a month of the attacks - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm - perhaps it is you sho should try reading? :confused:

As for the rest of your post - yes I understand what systemic means - and latent failure, and human factors too for that matter - they have been my job for many years. But that is not particularly relevant.

Oh yeah, this bit is quite impressive....I'd just keep quiet if I were you. You can't even quote someone correctly, all you need to do is try reading it and then remembering it - you can even refer back to it and no-one would need to know...here you attempt to lecture me on 'trying to read' in the context of the above? I'm very happy for you that you understand what systemic means, that's something I suppose, but the word I used was systematic - they're quite different words actually. But well done anyway.
 
You fail to answer the question because all you do is assert something with no corroborative evidene to support your assertion. QED for the lack of evidence.

Evidence is something more than you saying it could or could not have happened. You have said a lot of things - but not provided any justification.

You have been given references to studies which include such things as analysis of the materials and forces concerned that contradict your unsupported assertions - how about starting by showing why they are wrong - and doing so with a bit more than "..it would not have.." or "...it would have been...".

WHY would those be the case - what are the forces involved? How do the materials withstand them? What are the failure modes and why were they present or not present?

This is where you fall down every time - you present zero 'evidence' for your position - unless you count videos of controlled demolitions, absurd cartoons supposedly made by 'experts' masquerading as the truth and articles on wiki, which is clearly not a reliable source, ditto, the BBC, CNN, ABC, FOX, SKY et al. Your views are as much based in not wishing to upset the paradigm you imagine is real as they are on any facts. It's too much for you, psychologically, to accept such a premise; it might cause your ultra conservative mind to short circuit.
Unsupported assertions? Ho ho ho - if Newton's Law of inertia is an unsupported assertion, well then, I give in. You really should think before you speak - what is unsupported about that? Just because you sling web addresses of orgs like 911 myths.com around the place it doesn't make them right. Again, on 'evidence': Have a look at the cartoon Mick presented as 'evidence' and tell me what you think about it. Here's something categorical for you: I think, based on my knowledge and experience, that it's a blatant piece of disinformation and should be debunked as such - let's have a look at it and hear what you have to say. If you're so committed to the truth, let's hear what you say. I await your reply.
 
I originally meant "like we saw happen to WTC1 and 2", but I'd like your opinion on if it would look like the videos.

Basically I want to know if you think that a single story failure of the WTC would cause the entire structure to collapse.

and.. Lee, I just read Morgan Reynolds two main articles on 9/11. I was struck by how similar they were to some things you were saying. I assume you diverge from his ideas to some point (as he suggests there was no plane, and the impact videos were fake). Would you agree with everything in the demolition article though?

http://nomoregames.net/2005/06/09/wh...pers-collapse/

If not, is there a web page that states something close to whet you actually believe happened?

Ok. I think I answered the first question thus: 1) any structural failures would likely have been local - and any subsequent collapse asymmetric. 2) Yes. The collapses would have looked like the videos if the buildings had been set up for controlled demolitions like they were in the videos, ie. split second universal failure by engineered means. As it happens, the wtc collapses aren't just different in scale to the videos, they are different in nature. I won't post, but I'm sure you have seen plenty of the stills, and read plenty of the accounts of distances traversed, of significant quantities of large pieces of steel being ejected laterally, the energy required for this would not be provided in a universal progressive collapse - ref your con demo vids for this, you can see that this does not happen
The short amount of time between the strikes and the collapses makes me a little suspicious, as does the nature of the 1 & 2 collapses being almost exactly the same - one straight down would have been difficult to justify, two the same looks very bad, given that the damage sustained would have been unique to each structure. When you add to that wtc 7, then you have a serious pr problem.

I'm not really familiar with Morgan Reynolds, and I haven't read the link yet, bit busy, but I'll have a look when I get a chance. I don't know of any web page which I would be happy to refer as a guide to my analysis, I do my own and don't trust any source per se, think that's not a bad way to go on such matters.

I know I'm banging on about it, but do think it's very important to this discussion - that video animation; please have another look and remember that they say it's done using the best tech and qualified people etc. I believe that is evidence of someone creating a piece of disinfo claiming scientific method. If I were in your position, I'd want to get to the bottom of that.
 
Well, lets say for the sake of argument that none of the central columns were severed. Now, I've just read the Wikipedia overview, and it seems very reasonable. Is there an error here:



Does it simply trigger your sense of incredulity? Which bits are wrong?

I think the problem with this is that they're trying desperately to fit a narrative to the one which was presented within a couple of hours of the attacks - which was propaganda, no other word for it. It makes far too many assumptions and, as your animated video showed, is relying on the unlikely scenario that the aircraft wings and airframe would be capable of severing significant steel structural elements. It also relies on the 'fire weakening the steel' idea, which really doesn't stand up to proper scrutiny. Most of the fuel exploded at impact, a visible fireball; fires burning only office furniture, carpets, screens etc would not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel to point of failure (definitely not in one hour!) - ref Madrid Windsor building, burning for 19(?) hours over multiple floors - a real inferno, but no total collapse. The black smoke from the towers tells us the fire is starved of oxygen and fuel and is going out. Records of firefighters talking to each other in one building show that those who have experience of fighting fires, and how fire behaves, believed that the situation was under control and that 'two lines' would take care of it. That's not, 'let's get the fuck out of here', it's 'two hoses and we're done here'.
 
some visual detail on the towers' structure

[TD="colspan: 1"]
911research.wtc7.net_wtc_evidence_photos_docs_enr_construction_1.jpg
[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]
911research.wtc7.net_wtc_evidence_photos_docs_enr_knuckles_above_deck.jpg
[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]
911research.wtc7.net_wtc_evidence_photos_docs_enr_tree_column_1.jpg
[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]
911research.wtc7.net_wtc_evidence_photos_docs_enr_tree_column_2.jpg
[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]
911research.wtc7.net_wtc_evidence_photos_docs_enr_col_base.jpg
[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]
911research.wtc7.net_wtc_evidence_photos_docs_enr_hoist_panel.jpg
[/TD]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So there's at least three things you think the official story has a problem with:
  1. You think the impact of the plane would not have significantly damaged the central columns
  2. You think the subsequent fires would not have burned long and hot enough to cause plastic deformation to the central columns.
  3. You think that any collapse would be local, and that a local collapse would not lead to progressive collapse.
Is that correct

You also think that most of the concrete in the building was pulverized to fine dust. Is that correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top