9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: Jchristopher5

The government was 5/5 (or was it 6/6?) on moon landings so, I think they could figure out how to demolish three buildings with the right brainpower.

WRONG !!!!

What about Apollo 13 ? - explosion in O2 tank on way to moon...........
6 landings in 7 attempts

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Typical conspiracists.

I gave my theory on what brought down the towers. Answered your questions.

And you cannot even guess how many charges needed per floor to support the conspiracists claim the resistance of each floor had to be totally removed to achieve the free fall speed achieved. After how many hours of research?

By the way, your answer is pretty much a paraphrase of the only answer I ever get.

A few thoughts. A pressure wave with enough force to cut structural steel columns results in a sound of 140 db. Not enough energy to create a 140 db sound wave, not enough energy to cut steel.

Say only 60 floors and 4 charges each? That is 240 charges for one tower.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: neutronflux

The government was 5/5 (or was it 6/6) on moon landings so, I think they could figure out how to blow up three buildings with the right brainpower.

Seriously, your counter argument is weak. Never before had a steel-framed building collapsed into its footprint in such a way. Show another example please. Show me one building then EVER collapsed like building 7 did. Just one.

Have you come across this ever?

Give it five minutes of your time.
Link

Sorry, but it looks like a propaganda piece.

Demolition expert Danny Jowenko saw it MUCH differently.

Danny Jowenko tribute

As I predicted a couple of pages ago, with another poster, we could do this all night long and neither one of us will change our minds. It's pointless at some point.

Yea? The interviewers showed him one short clip of the building collapsing and didn't provide any context for it.
Link

The NSA has a lot of debunkers on the payroll to the tune of multi-multi-millions spent annually. And they get plenty of those for free due to successful propaganda and socially steering public opinions programs.. It's all part of the package we all pay for. If people knew the kinds of debauchery the NSA concocts upon we the people, they would be stormed upon, and drawn and quartered by massive mobs of angry murderous civilians.

I wouldn't put anything past our government, but I've always wondered, if it was indeed our government who perpetrated 9/11, why wouldn't bin Laden/al-quaida/Taliban take that opportunity to say to the world "we didn't do it."

Seems it would support their cause to blame the "evil west" than to take credit for it.

a reply to: Chadwickus

So, why don't we all share our narrative for 9/11? Why don't we say what we think, free from ridicule and shame? Could e actually do that, for once? Stop being snarky and just say:

"Hey, I think that the federal government knew that the planes were coming, but didn't orchestrate the actual attacks. They did let their friends in the WTC and the Pentagon know this attack was coming and would be used as a false flag to push the Iraq War. This prompted the installation of demolition charges in buildings 1, 2 and 7 (to make a little money for some people). The expected attack also prompted certain groups to stay home from work at the WTC and the Pentagon. I'm not sure where Flight 93 would have hit, but since Bush and Cheney were both safe by 9:55am, the White House could have easily been a target. I also believe that the 911 Commission and its attached investigation were nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up prior knowledge and greedy assholes setting up demolition charges to collect insurance money."

Just saying...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Typical conspiracists.

I gave my theory on what brought down the towers. Answered your questions.

And you cannot even guess how many charges needed per floor to support the conspiracists claim the resistance of each floor had to be totally removed to achieve the free fall speed achieved. After how many hours of research?

By the way, your answer is pretty much a paraphrase of the only answer I ever get.

A few thoughts. A pressure wave with enough force to cut structural steel columns results in a sound of 140 db. Not enough energy to create a 140 db sound wave, not enough energy to cut steel.

Say only 60 floors and 4 charges each? That is 240 charges for one tower.

There's no need to rig every floor on a building designed the way the WTC was. If the horizontal supports failed (due to falling rubble, and they were thin) the vertical beams would immediately buckle. A near-free fall collapse was guaranteed the moment any floor failed completely and simultaneously.

The big question is: how did a floor fail all at once like that?

And why were the two collapses virtually identical when the fires that caused them were very different? One building had the fire burn all the way around the whole floor. and burning through it's entire supply of debris. NIST's report actually stated that, if the building had lasted 20 minutes longer it would not have fallen.

The other building's fire was entirely concentrated on just one side. Some people on the floors above actually managed to escape by taking the stairs on the opposite side.

Yet their collapses were virtually identical.

It is also interesting that both planes struck the buildings in the middle of multifloor tenancies.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

(Look for the floors affected in red).

So if you were planning to rig just a few floors to simultaneously fail near the impact site, you would only need to defeat the security of one tenant per building.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The other building's fire was entirely concentrated on just one side. Some people on the floors above actually managed to escape by taking the stairs on the opposite side.

Yet their collapses were virtually identical.

What was so different ...??

Had same type aircraft (Boeing 767) strike building , both with same fuel loads

Both building built to same plan with same materials

Only real difference was aircraft that hit South Tower struck one corner of building instead of dead center as
in North Tower.

Once fires start expect buildings to react in similar fashion

As for smuggling alleged explosives - still have to go through freight elevators in basement of complex

Still have to access core columns - how do that with attracting lot of attention

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The argument put forth by the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracists is the towers fell at free fall speed which could have only been achieved by removing the resistance of each floor.

Am I wrong?

Can you find where AE 9/11 Truth argues more along your line of thought than the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve observed collapse speed.

Thus why it had to be a top down floor by floor implosion. Because of collapse speed.

Put their own foot into it didn't they.....

a reply to: neutronflux

Can you find where AE 9/11 Truth argues more along your line of thought than the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve observed collapse speed.

How interesting, now A&E are credibal.

You claim A&E for 911 truth are money grabbers, charlatans.. Now they are credible.

a reply to: Informer1958

The actual quote with context:
"
Can you find where AE 9/11 Truth argues more along your line of thought than the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve observed collapse speed.
Thus why it had to be a top down floor by floor implosion. Because of collapse speed.

Put their own foot into it didn't they....
"

Sorry I didn't convey my thoughts well. Surely you are not again practicing your intellectual dishonest debate tricks. I know, hard to believe a conspiracist would take a quote out of context.

AE 9/11 Truth claimed from the start the observer collapse speed could not be achieved without the resistance of each floor removed. By their thought process, AE 9/11 Truth argued by proxy you could not implode one floor and achieve the free fall speed witnessed.

Sorry that you were confused when I was speaking in terms of AE 9/11 Truth. Speaking in the AE 9/11 Truth mindset.

I argue what I think is the most applicable theory. The one with the most evidence. Inward bowing and collapse. The floors were stripped away from the steel vertical columns as the falling mass struck each static floor. The impact of the falling mass overloaded the individual weight capacity for each static floor, and caused the floor connections to vertical columns to fail / shear. The vertical columns only tumbled in after losing horizon stability that the floors provided. In the WTC videos, segments of the vertical columns are still standing after the WTC floor system completely collapsed.

Sorry you were confused.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The other building's fire was entirely concentrated on just one side. Some people on the floors above actually managed to escape by taking the stairs on the opposite side.

Yet their collapses were virtually identical.

What was so different ...??

Had same type aircraft (Boeing 767) strike building , both with same fuel loads

Both building built to same plan with same materials

Only real difference was aircraft that hit South Tower struck one corner of building instead of dead center as
in North Tower.

Once fires start expect buildings to react in similar fashion

If the fire is all concentrated on one side of the building, then the supports on that side of the building should be the ones that fail. Not uniform failure all the way around the structure. It's not entirely impossible that the sudden shifting of weight onto the remaining supports was too much and they immediately failed.

Just very odd.

You have to suspend disbelief a little bit for it not to at least bother you a little.

As for smuggling alleged explosives - still have to go through freight elevators in basement of complex

Just pass them off as something else. You pretty much need an inside man. One employee at each firm who can order something like say.... some bulky backup batteries.

Place the order with a shell company, and then the shell company sends someone in technician attire to install them.

And maybe the top couple of boxes in the shipment really do have batteries in them. Why not? Do you think security is going to want to check every box individually?

Still have to access core columns - how do that with attracting lot of attention

It's called a "crawl space". Have you ever worked in a crawl space? Nobody ever comes down into a crawl space to check on you and see what you are doing.

If you say you're here to rewire their networking and electrical cables.......... or whatever you want to say.... the employees on the floor above you will just keep working and pay no attention to you. Naturally they'll expect you want access to the insides of some walls.

The horizontal supports would have been accessible via crawl spaces between the floors. Severing them is really all you have to do. The vertical supports are riveted together with bolts. With nothing to brace them horizontally, those bolts are the sum total of all the strength they have to prevent wobbling.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The argument put forth by the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracists is the towers fell at free fall speed which could have only been achieved by removing the resistance of each floor.

Am I wrong?

Can you find where AE 9/11 Truth argues more along your line of thought than the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve observed collapse speed.

Thus why it had to be a top down floor by floor implosion. Because of collapse speed.

Put their own foot into it didn't they.....

I actually worked out the physics for it once and yeah. It is entirely possible for it to fall at free fall speed without a controlled demolition.

The problem many people don't understand is that very big buildings are different from small buildings in this respect. A small building won't collapse at free fall speed without lots of explosives.


Imagine you have a 1 meter long, 2 cm thick rope. Now imagine you scale it to exactly double length and thickness (both width and height).

So now it is 1 meters long, 4 cm thick. In three dimensions, 2 x 2 x 2 = 8. So now it is 8 times as heavy as before.

However, the rope's strength is only determined by its thickness. A long rope isn't any stronger than a short rope. So thickness is 2 dimensional. 2 x 2 =4. So now the rope is 4 times as strong as it was.

But 8 times as heavy.

Now imagine instead of doubling, we multiply this ropes size by 30 in all dimensions.

The WTC towers had so very much mass, that the energy of the fall would have completely overmatched the "chemical energy of deformation" (A technical term in physics for "energy required to break an object"). It would have fallen only very slightly slower than free fall speed.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Sorry I have to note everything. Again, I am in the camp contracting floor tresses pulled the vertical columns and buckled them. The already strained structure could not safely distribute the load to remaining vertical columns. The columns snapped at the focus of stain, and initiated collapse. The static load became dynamic. Potential energy released as kinetic energy.

But you still would have shrapnel, an over pressure event, and one loud boom for a implosion initiated by charges.

Richard Gage invented the fizzle no flash bombs fantasy to make up for lacking evidence and lacking science for their theories.

And why has AE 9/11 Truth, and the vast majority of the conspiracy movement stuck to each floor must have had its resistance removed to achieve the witnessed collape speed.

If you prove a single point failure could initiate the collapse, then that means the NIST reports are actually valid. That means a single point failure could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. The truth movement will not stand for that.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It's called a "crawl space". Have you ever worked in a crawl space? Nobody ever comes down into a crawl space to check on you and see what you are doing.

You are inventing something that didn't exist.

The horizontal supports would have been accessible via crawl spaces between the floors. Severing them is really all you have to do. The vertical supports are riveted together with bolts. With nothing to brace them horizontally, those bolts are the sum total of all the strength they have to prevent wobbling.

The horizontal support were cheap floor trusses.
The vertical supports were the outside steel and the inner core. Nothing in between.
That's what throws off the logic of the conspiracy crowd.
The building was not constructed like any before nor since.

a reply to: Nothin

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......

What was your question again?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Salander



I cannot fathom the idea that 19 hijackers with plastic box cutters overthrew the United States in an hour and did all this damage, military timely, like a black ops operation. Impossible and unbelievable .

Yep. The, "we are so invincible that no one can hurt us" arrogance. First, they did not "overthrow" the United States and Second, yeah, when someone plans and trains it is possible to hurt the US.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Who are? What proof do you have? Am I one?

I have actually looked for somewhere to apply for that job.....still haven't found it.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Can you give us another example in history of a skyscraper collapsing into another skyscraper? No. I, however, can point out another building where 17 floors of structrual steel collapsed from fire alone.

If it looks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it walks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it has feathers like a duck it's a duck, it's a duck.