Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: Salander

LOL, you guys are funny. If some government spokesperson doesn't explain things to you, you're lost. Rather reminds me of what the old cynic H.L. Mencken said: The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Or Herbert Agar: The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear.

WTF are you on about?

I am trying to understand what you are claiming? its a simple couple of questions.

1, 2, 3 or how many nuclear blasts went of in New York that day?

The NIST report has been demonstrated to be scientifically, intellectually and morally bankrupt, but many americans still defend it today.

This answers how many nuclear explosions happened that day how exactly?

Faith, you know, if when you believe in something that you know ain't true. The only possible theory to explain the damage observed at WTC is the nuclear theory.

I don't care what you think about faith and possible explanations.

Can you answer the easy questions?

Thank you Mr. Occam, the reason Ground Zero looked like a nuclear bomb had gone off was because, indeed, a nuclear bomb HAD gone off.

Was the blast (how ever many there were, you seem to not want answer this) at ground level?

was it below the ground?


Or was it where the supposed planes struck?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

Bottom line is that burning office fires could not have caused the damage observed.

Well you're once again telling a false narrative.

Plane impacts and fires started the collapse.

Gravity/PE did the rest.

I believe that the PE for each tower was equivalent to around 280 tons of dynamite. More than enough energy to rational thinkers.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Let's start with the towers and free fall speed. The truth movement is based on a lie. The towers fell nowhere near free fall speed.

Nutty 9-11 Physics

www.uwgb.edu...

So according to the seismic record, the first impacts are about ten seconds after the onset of collapse. That's the free-falling debris. Seismic signals continued for 15 more seconds. So it took at least about 25 seconds for the buildings to collapse. The seismic records are probably the best information because the last stages of collapse were obscured by dust, but a time indexed series of video frames on the 9-11 Research site shows the collapse of one tower still in progress after 19 seconds. So the collapse speed was less than half of free-fall speed. Also:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
And the people who like to take "ten seconds" and "essentially in free fall" literally don't seem to care much about paragraphs like this:

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
9-11 troofers are a lot like some Biblical fundamentalists. Anything that they want to believe is to be taken with absolute literalness, and anything that contradicts what they want to believe, they just ignore.

First, you claim the towers fell "nowhere near free fall speed", same as your source claims.

But, your source also claims the towers never even slowed down the falling mass.

You have two contradictory claims, here.

A collapse having no resistance is a free fall collapse.

Simply absurd.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

Bottom line is that burning office fires could not have caused the damage observed.

Well you're once again telling a false narrative.

Plane impacts and fires started the collapse.

Gravity/PE did the rest.

I believe that the PE for each tower was equivalent to around 280 tons of dynamite. More than enough energy to rational thinkers.

That is true. But what lit the fuse of that dynamite?

How did the upper part of the "hammer" get 3 floors of uninterrupted free fall collapse, so there would be enough momentum to carry the chain reaction all the way to the ground?

The fires? The floors that were on fire should have given out in a gradual way, not all at once.

One moment they're offering enough resistance to prevent any falling at all, the next they are offering so little resistance that the floors move through each other at full gravity speed? Nothing in between? Not a moment when they are offering just barely too little resistance to prevent falling? (If they were offering just barely too little resistance, the floors above would fall like dripping molasses, not like a falling hammer.)

a reply to: turbonium1

Quote from the article where the initiation of collapse and the early start of floors breaking and falling instantly achieved an acceleration equal to 9.8m/s^2

Over simple analogy. The collapse of the towers was more like the start of an avalanche. The upper part of the building started to sink into the static lower part. The collapse initiated, the columns buckeled, and then completely gave during the sinking. As the falling mass grew, acceleration grew closer to 9.8m/s^2.

So, the original cry of the truth movement the towers fell at the rate of free fall is based on a lie. The towers never collapsed at free fall speed.

Is it false to say rubble separated from the towers, solely accelerated by gravity, fell at a rate faster than the towers collapsed. Thus proving the towers did not collapse at the rate of free fall?

9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!
m.youtube.com...

ae911truth.info...

As far as the towers are concerned, pictures of both clearly show debris falling separately from the main tower. Separate from the main structure, the only forces operating on those pieces are air resistance (minimal) and gravity. The debris descends at a rate of acceleration much greater than that of the main portion of the collapse.

Perimeter columns from the South Tower are on the left. Perimeter columns from the North are on the right. You can see that these pieces are falling faster than the actual collapse, because they’ve fallen below where they broke off. You can see the undamaged face of the South Tower to the extreme left and the undamaged face of the North Tower to the extreme right.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Quote from the article where the initiation of collapse and the early start of floors breaking and falling instantly achieved an acceleration equal to 9.8m/s^2

Over simple analogy. The collapse of the towers was more like the start of an avalanche. The upper part of the building started to sink into the static lower part. The collapse initiated, the columns buckeled, and then completely gave during the sinking. As the falling mass grew, acceleration grew closer to 9.8m/s^2.

Yes. The initial collapse was very near 9.8 m/s^2

The question is: what caused that? The fires aren't a plausible cause for such a sudden failure. A gradual failure would be plausible. But not a sudden one.

Even Osama Bin Laden didn't think the whole building would collapse, which tells me Al Qaeda's engineers were expecting gradual collapse.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Using outstretched hands, bin Laden says he expected only the top floors of the World Trade Centre to topple. "He does in fact display significant knowledge of what happened and there is no doubt about his responsibility for the attack on September 11," said vice-president Dick Cheney on NBC television. "This is one more piece of evidence confirming his responsibility."

(To be clear, I subscribe to the conspiracy theory. However I don't doubt that Al qaeda had planned a plane attack.. I just think they planned it as a pipe dream and gave up on it when their operatives started to flake out.)

So, the original cry of the truth movement the towers fell at free fall speed is based on a lie. The towers never fell at free fall speed.

You're just cherry picking.

The majority of the truth movement never said it fell at exactly free fall speed. Just near free fall. And that is entirely accurate. It was near.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

For the towers, you are very wrong. Just going to ignore the linked articles with pictures, and the linked video that clearly shows material separated from the towers falling at a peace notably faster than the building collapse?

Again.....
9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

Bottom line is that burning office fires could not have caused the damage observed.

Well you're once again telling a false narrative.

Plane impacts and fires started the collapse.

Gravity/PE did the rest.

I believe that the PE for each tower was equivalent to around 280 tons of dynamite. More than enough energy to rational thinkers.

Why do all of the experts use explosives for each and every collapse?

Because without explosives, it cannot work. Simple as that.


You invent a collapse which is absolutely impossible. It's pure nonsense.

Nobody can prove that such a collapse is even possible, in the first place.

a reply to: turbonium1

So far you have;

You think there was too much dust.

And the misconception the towers fell at the rate of free fall.

What other proof do you have?

Did you answer if it is a false statement to say material separated from the towers fell at a rate faster the the towers collapsed, and hit the ground while the towers were still collapsing.

Then supposedly the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance? Another truth movement lie. Outer vertical and core columns were left standing seconds on end after the floors of the towers completely collapsed?

a reply to: turbonium1

Let's sum up again.

The true conspiracy is the towers were build with exceptions to code.

May have had bad material, and not the best workmanship.

It was documented before 9/11, the WTC had deficient fire insulation.

The towers were built with as little concrete as possible to keep costs down, beyond what is normal practice.

The WTC buildings had extremely long floor trusses with no additional supports along their length. Another item beyond normal building practices.

The jet impacts cut fire mains.

The fuel spread and started fires at rates not incorporated in the tower designs.

WTC 7 also had no fire water.

The floor connections in WTC 7 were at angles abnormal for the industry. Not well tested.

The area of collapse was initiated in isolated areas relative to the jet impact damage.

The long floor trusses heated up and bowed down.

The floor tresses cooled, contracted, and pulled in on the remaining columns in areas relative to the impact damage.

The vertical columns buckeled inward in silence. No audible detonation. No flash. No visible pressure shock wave in the smoke. No evidence of a blast or shrapnel. No sparking, or visible burning thermite at the isolated areas of inward bowing.

As seen in the video clip in this thread to support the last paragraph.
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: Schmoe1223
I posted recently in another 9/11 thread, but I think I caught the tail end of it and didn't get any possible explanations, so I'll try again here.

I basically said I wouldn't put anything past our government, but if they indeed perpetrated 9/11, why wouldn't Osama bin Laden/al-quaida/Taliban have taken that opportunity to really drive home their idea of how evil the west is by simply saying "we didn't do it."

Seems to me their agenda would have been better served denying it than taking credit for it, at the very least they could've sown some discord.

I'm not looking for debates about how buildings should fall when crashed into by planes, I'm simply looking for discussion on what I said above.

............In about 40 minutes, the SEAL team accomplished what the whole world has been trying to achieve for over a decade - kill Osama bin Laden.
The identities of the about two dozen men who carried out the covert operation will never be known to the public
Insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan, killing 30 Americans, most of them belonging to the same elite unit as the Navy SEALs who killed Bin Laden
The Obama administration violated a judge’s order to turn over documents in the Aug. 6, 2011, over the shoot down of a U.S. helicopter — called sign Extortion 17 — that killed members of SEAL Team 6
how many of the men on that helicopter really know what happened that night with the Bin laden operation ? every body that knows anything about this war on Afghanistan are just part of the past...
A debate that will rage on forever with hardly any change happening.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

Bottom line is that burning office fires could not have caused the damage observed.

Well you're once again telling a false narrative.

Plane impacts and fires started the collapse.

Gravity/PE did the rest.

I believe that the PE for each tower was equivalent to around 280 tons of dynamite. More than enough energy to rational thinkers.

That is true. But what lit the fuse of that dynamite?

Uhhhhh, like I said. Plane impacts and fire.

Or do you need more detail?

How did the upper part of the "hammer" get 3 floors of uninterrupted free fall collapse

That is false.

It didn't get 3 floors of free fall.

The floors that were on fire should have given out in a gradual way, not all at once.

They did fail gradually

One moment they're offering enough resistance to prevent any falling at all, the next they are offering so little resistance that the floors move through each other

Yes. That's how it works.

Nothing in between? Not a moment when they are offering just barely too little resistance to prevent falling?

No

(If they were offering just barely too little resistance, the floors above would fall like dripping molasses, not like a falling hammer.)

No

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS?

The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating

So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

Bottom line is that burning office fires could not have caused the damage observed.

Well you're once again telling a false narrative.

Plane impacts and fires started the collapse.

Gravity/PE did the rest.

I believe that the PE for each tower was equivalent to around 280 tons of dynamite. More than enough energy to rational thinkers.

Why do all of the experts use explosives for each and every collapse?

Cuz it's cheap and effective

Because without explosives, it cannot work. Simple as that.

There was a collapse of a building in Iran that proves you wrong

Nobody can prove that such a collapse is even possible, in the first place.

Again, the Iran collapse proves you wrong

originally posted by: Schmoe1223


I basically said I wouldn't put anything past our government, but if they indeed perpetrated 9/11, why wouldn't Osama bin Laden/al-quaida/Taliban have taken that opportunity to really drive home their idea of how evil the west is by simply saying "we didn't do it."

Seems to me their agenda would have been better served denying it than taking credit for it, at the very least they could've sown some discord.

I'm not looking for debates about how buildings should fall when crashed into by planes, I'm simply looking for discussion on what I said above.

......unanswered question of 9/11 is: did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?
So who was the most likely entity to have provided them that support? I think all the evidence points to Saudi Arabia.
The two men were set up in an apartment in San Diego by Omar al-Bayoumi, a fellow Saudi, who also helped them with social security paperwork and information about flying courses.

originally posted by: Schmoe1223

I'm not looking for debates about how buildings should fall when crashed into by planes, I'm simply looking for discussion on what I said above.

Osama Basnan, another Saudi living in San Diego at the time, also spent time with the hijackers

Totally absurd.


These buildings were specifically designed to hold intact throughout such events, first of all.


Dynamic loads were known, obviously, and the structures were designed to withstand these loads....if needed.


If greater loads than normal cannot be supported, it could lead to a structural failure, in that region.

Extreme weight, in a massive structure, so what?

An enormous weight is normal in an enormous structure, or lesser weights normal in lighter structures.


Such a desperate excuse, no doubt.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Totally absurd.


These buildings were specifically designed to hold intact throughout such events, first of all.


Dynamic loads were known, obviously, and the structures were designed to withstand these loads....if needed.


If greater loads than normal cannot be supported, it could lead to a structural failure, in that region.

Extreme weight, in a massive structure, so what?

An enormous weight is normal in an enormous structure, or lesser weights normal in lighter structures.


Such a desperate excuse, no doubt.

The towers did survive the jet impacts

The towers did survive the fires.

One of the items you are wrong in is the fact the towers were designed for aggressive office fires. Not fires that spread instantly from the areas of jet impacts, through elevator shafts, to multiple floors. The towers were not designed for the rate at which the fires spread.

It was not until long drooping floor tresses, with no support along there length, with inadequate fire insulation, and the towers with no fire water contracted to start the collapse in regions relative to missing columns.

Is it false to say the decks, floors, and floor connections had very limited and specific load capacity. The towers did not collapse through vertical columns. The collapse was imitated by a region of buckeled vertical columns resulting in a falling mass, through the floors, breaking floor connections, resulting in vertical columns tumbling down once stripped of large areas of side to side bracing.

a reply to: turbonium1

Are you going to ignore the question, do pictures and video showing rubble separated from the towers falling faster and hitting the ground while the towers are still collapsing? Thus the cry the towers fell at the rate of free fall is a lie.

Are you going to ignore the question, were vertical columns left standing after the complete collapse of the towers floor systems. Thus proving the cry the towers fell through the path a greatest resistance is a lie.

How does the video clip in this thread support your arguments in anyway?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Funny debunkers can point to direct video evidence while conspiracists turn to Richard Gage for filtered data and terms like fizzle no flash explosives?

originally posted by: turbonium1

These buildings were specifically designed to hold intact throughout such events, first of all.

No, they weren't, although that's a common misconception.

There are indeed press releases during the building that say the buildings were designed to survive plane impacts, and after the '93 bombing DeMartini also says this. the truth is that chief engineer Leslie Robertson has stated that it would of been next to impossible to do that using a slide rule, and common sense says that it would of been unnecessarily expensive, to the point that they never would of been built.

The truth is, that they were designed without plane strikes in mind. But during the early construction phase, there was public concern raised about this issue and so the designers did a study, limited to see if the buildings would topple or not as a result of the plane strikes, and it was found that they wouldn't.

So to boil it all down, they were most definitely not specifically designed to survive plane impacts. The press releases of the time were nothing but a lie.

Dynamic loads were known, obviously, and the structures were designed to withstand these loads....if needed.

Which dynamic loads?

The dynamic load imparted by the plane impacts? Yes, this study was done.

Or the dynamic loads of a collapse? No, there is no reason to do this. Design concentrates on preventing collapse by building load transfer pathways and using active and passive fire protection on the steel.