15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[Alpo]

Among non-engineers and physicists? I don't think so.

If the post-tensioned 4 story Broadway building that I mentioned can pancake solely with the weight of the top floor, how reasonable is it that addition mass falling one story will pancake the floor below and the one below that....all the way down?

 

[ATM]

Kettle, meet pot.

From my comments, an astute observer would note that I am familiar with multiple levels of debunking theory. I'll go so far as to assume far more than you.

I tend to enjoy both sides of debates.

 

[ATM]

Among non-engineers and physicists? I don't think so.

If the post-tensioned 4 story Broadway building that I mentioned can pancake solely with the weight of the top floor, how reasonable is it that addition mass falling one story will pancake the floor below and the one below that....all the way down?

Was this construction similar to any of the three WTC buildings? Did the entire structure demolish itself into dust or did the floors just collapse into a large pile on the ground. Did it approach free-fall speed or did the resistance of the structure beneath slow the collapse considerably? If it met all of the same conditions similarly, they may be comparable, but I doubt it.

 

["Username"]

Have you not heard or seen?

Worthy of trust is state and state has only your best interest at heart.

 

[Alpo]

If you deny physics, or don't have the background to understand the operation of mechanics in building failures, then there is no debate. ANY explanation will appear just as reasonable as any other. Add in confirmation bias and you get: Conspiracy.

Unfortunately, the mechanical universe operates in understandable ways and the buildings fell within expectations. I remember watching the live feed on 9-11 and told my wife that we'd see a collapse within a few hours. It actually took less time.

 

[ATM]

I've seen the videos and what not and see no cover up just a bunch of wild theories. I will put more faith in a magazine that has decades of experience in mechanics and how things work with a great track record than a website that was created around a theory.

The government always counts on appeals to authority. They buy and sell authority and academic types like the rest of us buy toilet paper.

Did you even bother to examine how they actually debunked the arguments presented by PM, or did you just skip it?

 

[ATM]

If you deny physics, or don't have the background to understand the operation of mechanics in building failures, then there is no debate. ANY explanation will appear just as reasonable as any other. Add in confirmation bias and you get: Conspiracy.

Unfortunately, the mechanical universe operates in understandable ways and the buildings fell within expectations. I remember watching the live feed on 9-11 and told my wife that we'd see a collapse within a few hours. It actually took less time.

Oh, I don't deny physics, I rather trust that physics is always on the side of truth. NIST tried desperately to get around the roadblocks of physics rather than deny them.

They actually went to great lengths to try to make their conclusion fit within the constraints of physics, but it made much of their task impossible.

 

[ATM]

Also, just to get it out of the way: If there is a level of physics knowledge one must attain before they can summarily dismiss the FUNDAMENTALS of physics, I have admittedly not reached it.

A fundamental understanding of physics should be quite adequate to support or debunk the American government/media theory.

Any problem doing so at the fundamental level, would only become exaggerated with a cloud of formulas masquerading as authority.

So, please, try not to use this as an excuse to evade fundamental discussion or examples.

 

[ATM]

/THREAD

There is enough true issuesto blame on our government but this is not one. Anyone believing the conspiracies illustrates more about themselves than anything else.

So you don't believe anyone conspired on 9/11? You don't believe any of the truth was covered-up? You obviously trust the government's theory for some reason, how is it better than other plausible theories?

What swayed you to adopt theirs?

 

[ATM]

Well, we all had to go somewhere after the CB radio craze ended.

If anyone is interested, here is an actual engineering approach to explaining what happened although it is admittedly not as interesting as the conspiracy theories. The key to understanding it is that in the design of the WTC all of the loads were supported by the external structure, sort of like how a modern car has a unibody/monocoque instead of a frame. It was designed that way to eliminate the vertical steel beams that are typically inside a structure because they create problems for using the space. Once that external structure began to weaken there was nothing else to support the loads.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Thanks, but that is simply the early pancake theory from 15 years ago proposed immediately after the event. It was debunked and retracted as a plausible explanation soon thereafter.

Although, their premise that the fires generated couldn't have burned hot enough to melt steel still leaves the looming unanswered question: What did burn hot enough in those buildings to cause the melting of steel?

 

[ATM]

Also, if any of you have reservations discussing this topic seriously because you've already casually dismissed me as a loony, feel free to pretend I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

["Username"]

Query:


Whom or what gained from the events of September 11, 2001?


Following the events of September 11, 2001, what was expanded and what was contracted?


I submit state and liberty, respectively.

 

[ATM]

In sum:

1) Ignore what eyewitnesses saw.

Don't ignore the eyewitnesses you were shown on the media, only ignore eyewitnesses who saw or heard anything else, even if they were firefighters, police or rescue workers in and around the buildings.

2) Ignore what you, yourself may have seen on TV.

Specifically if you tend to become immersed in the other fictional things and guided narratives you watch on TV and have a hard time distinguishing reality from infomercials.

3) Ignore the fact that principles of engineering support that the planes caused the building to collapse.

Many engineers disagree, but if you find a few willing to say that, I guarantee they'll refuse to show their work just as NIST did.

4) Remember the government cannot be trusted.

They can be trusted to deceive and start wars, to rob and murder, to amass power among an elite few, but I rarely see them held up as a high pillar of integrity.

Therefore, even if what the witnesses, and we saw makes sense from a physics perspective, IF the government says that is what happened, it could not have happened that way.

Using this logic, I will ignore all future tornado warnings and watches if the National Weather Service is involved in any way.

When they start blaming tornadoes for what were more plausibly drone strikes, I think we'll need to.

 

[ATM]

Query:


Whom or what gained from the events of September 11, 2001?


Following the events of September 11, 2001, what was expanded and what was contracted?


I submit state and liberty, respectively.

Investigative thought. A breath of fresh air, thank you.

You can see how popular thoughts are in this thread. It is an INGO anomaly surrounding any discussion of 9/11.

In most instances, folks here have no problem assuming our central government with its complicit media lies to cover-up the truth.

 

[ATM]

...This “fuel can’t melt steel beams” talk is all nonsense. It’s just not true. It's also smacks of being a bit disingenuous. We're not talking about melting steel. We're talking about softening steel the point it loses it's structural integrity...

You're seriously unaware of the molten metals documented in the WTC buildings and debris? How did you miss that? I assumed it was a commonly known fact.

Why else do you think people would bring it up so frequently?

If you are not being disingenuous here, you are simply ill-informed. Steel and iron were most certainly melted - lots of it.

 

[ATM]

Exactly. Which is born out in what we saw. They did not immediately collapse from the impact, but I dare say the structure in those areas was weakened. Then you get the steel nice and hot. It can only take that for so long.

How long? Literally forever under testing performed by UL among others.

 

[ATM]

And not even that pliable. It just had to compromise the yield strength of a short section or two enough for the columns to start buckling. After that, gravity takes over and you get that classic pancake failure.

I didn't see anything remotely resembling a classic pancake failure, I saw absolute demolition.

 

[ATM]

So... if jet fuel can't weaken steel, how did blacksmith's in the dark ages make blades of steel? Or armor? I mean, we're talking about a ton of heat being applied to a contained area tat was already structurally weakened by a massive blow. So what DOES make steel weak?

I haven't heard anyone suggest that heat can't weaken steel, it can.

We're talking about a brief explosion of jet grade kerosene, then normal office fires applied to what amounts to massive heat sinks dispersing the heat away from any focused spot.

Fairly localized, smoldering black smoke, not a major problem according to firefighters on the scene who thought two hoses would be sufficient to extinguish.

Even if it had raged for long enough to severely weaken the steel, as we've seen in worse fires all over the world, we'd expect something other than the absolute demolition of the entire building including all those massive columns.

 

[Woobie]

How long? Literally forever under testing performed by UL among others.

Have you ever messed with hot steel? Its yield strength plummets above 1200 degrees or so.

I have a lot of respect for you ATM, and you are obviously a very bright guy. But I stand by what I said earlier: I don't trust the official narrative. But regardless of what anyone, including the government, says, it is not a stretch in the least to say that those buildings collapsed as a direct result of the airplanes, and not some pre-planted thermite or whatever the current theory is. It wasn't a question of a couple of floors collapsing the building, either. 20-25% of that building was above the impact. That much weight on hot (not liquid) steel is going to cause a collapse at the weak point. The momentum of a few million pounds falling takes care of the rest. And the molten steel? How much juice was in the electrical circuits going into that building? It wasn't the 200 amp 220v service on your house. You sever a few of those main cables with an airplane, and that much electricity will melt steel.

If anything, this building discussion is taking away from the larger question: who paid for all this, and why did we never find out? But no, anyone willing to question the official party line has decided to become an amateur structural engineer and chase the thermite conspiracy rabbit.

 

[Woobie]

I haven't heard anyone suggest that heat can't weaken steel, it can.

We're talking about a brief explosion of jet grade kerosene, then normal office fires applied to what amounts to massive heat sinks dispersing the heat away from any focused spot.

Fairly localized, smoldering black smoke, not a major problem according to firefighters on the scene who thought two hoses would be sufficient to extinguish.

Even if it had raged for long enough to severely weaken the steel, as we've seen in worse fires all over the world, we'd expect something other than the absolute demolition of the entire building including all those massive columns.

Lol, explosion? Now we're getting out there. If 50-60,000 lbs of jet fuel were to actually explode, we would have seen it. But it didn't. It burned, and for a good long time. It just can't go up that fast. Set 6 lbs of gasoline on fire, and see how long it takes to go out. Jet fuel is like kerosene or diesel. It burns more slowly and hotter. And there wasn't just a little bit of it either.