Quake3World

Oh and on top of that don't you think if the goverment wanted to make it look like the planes did it they woulda collapsed the towers seconds after the impact to make it credible so as to thwart dweebs like you to begin with? Why leave any doubt!

heres the deal...however it happened it wasn't terrorists...the govt story is bs...

Kracus wrote:You know you dweebs keep talking about explosives in the building blah blah etc etc... but I mean seriously, don't you think a jumbo jet packs enough of an explosion?

Kracus wrote:Oh and on top of that don't you think if the goverment wanted to make it look like the planes did it they woulda collapsed the towers seconds after the impact to make it credible so as to thwart dweebs like you to begin with? Why leave any doubt!

Kracus you're a complete fucking stoned out idiot, especially when it comes to anything even remotely related to science, and everyone already knows this.

There is no reason for you to be anywhere near this discussion because you have nothing useful to add.

I other words, please STFU in this thread because you know it's just going to lead to a verbal curb-kicking just like your own threads do, and no good conversation can possibly come from it.

haha you have no ideas

he's right kracus...u make stoners look bad...

Freakaloin wrote:he's right kracus...u make stoners look bad...

:icon14:

seremtan wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I would like to point out that this combination of impact and fire in a building of this size are pretty much without precedent. It's enormously complex from a mathematical standpoint, and I'd like to see results of detailed simulations.
On the demolition issue, I'd like to point out that there would have to have been a HUGE number of detonations to bring down the towers. And where's the amateur video corroborating these claims?

what i'd like to know NS is why you demand a smoking gun for the demo theory, but not for the official story? you say the impact of the planes is enough to explain things, but how do you know this?

what i saw on the day was one plane hitting full-on (first hit), the other sheering one of the corners (2nd hit), yet both fell the same way and the 2nd hit actually fell first in spite of the plan only hitting the corner. wtf? how likely is that?

lastly the pancake effect doesn't explain the speed of fall because while the falling material is obviously heavy, the floors on to which it was falling are an inert mass and provide greater-than-air resistance. yet both towers fell only 1.5 secs slower than freefall time from that height

btw regards the controlled demo, the vids taken on the day that have been replayed a zillion times show demo-like 'squibs' plus there is the testimony of FDNY guys who heard a series of explosions right before the towers collapsed

there's a long list of FDNY and NYPD quotes/links here:

http://www.911proof.com/

The only thing I take at face value about the government's story about 9/11 is that it's about 9/11. Everything else is suspect.
To address the 'time of free fall' thing, anyone that tries to apply some basic 2D kinematics equations to a situation like this is doing nothing more than taking a wild-ass guess. There's so much going on there during the collapse, so many variables to account for, all I've seen are gross oversimplifications. Here's one suggestion, examine the exponential increase in forces as you take say, 20 3000 ton floor slabs, then add another 3000 tons as the intial mass slams into the floor below. Then another 3000 tons, then another, and another. You get the idea.
One of the key elements in the fire's ability to weaken the steel beams is the idea that the insulating material was knocked off in the intial impact. I don't think that the planes themselves were enough to fell the buildings, if that were true they would have dropped immediately. I think that it was the impact, the fire, and time.
Squibs in the viedo? Bullshit. I don't see that at all. The debris I see being ejected from 2 or 3 windows on ONE floor in the clip I just watched is most likely caused by the pressure wave of the floor slabs coming down, collapsing elevator shafts and blowing debris out elevator doors, or just pushing a massive amount of air out beneath the collapsing mass and pudhing out junk on that particular floor(not necessarily from the elevator shaft itself).
String of explosion? Better be one hell of a lot of them, watch this clip and listen to the number of explosions as this building complex is brought down:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/im ... icanas.mpg
Granted, it's multiple buildings, but the number of explosions is uncountable, and there's NO mistaking what they are.
Here's the source for the link: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/im ... icanas.mpg

R00k wrote:

I'm going to continue reading this, but it is completely obvious from the first paragraph that the paper is framed in such a way that any question of causes that are outside the scope of the official explanation are dismissed before the research has even started.



In other words, this paper in no way invalidates any theories (and they are just theories) of explosives or any other outside elements being introduced to the system -- because the paper states outright from the opening statement that no such possibilities will be considered.

This engineer essentially states that "The very fact that the buildings survived the crash of the planes into the buildings," suggests that nothing could be responsible for the collapse except "a time dependent behavior at the material level."

Where is this logical leap proven?

I haven't finished reading this either, but as a preliminary...is there any positive evidence that demolition charges were involved? That the official story (which I assume you believe the MIT profs take as basic) appears problematic or incomplete doesn't, by itself, constitute strong evidence for an alternative explanation. It is not surprising that an engineering prof wouldn't consider an alternative explanation if a) the official story is reasonable (given a certain sophisticated understanding of engineering, etc.) and b) no positive evidence for the alternative explanation exists (or of it does it is highly contentious).

If it ultimately boils down to a Battle of Engineers, this whole debate will go nowhere in the public sphere--that is, unless positive evidence of demolition shenanigans CAN be found.

I've read a lot on how building 7 was taken down as a precautionary measure after the attacks. Then again I've also read that it fell down on its own.

Then to add even more crap to that, I've read further that the time between the main incident and building 7 coming down was insufficient for a controlled demo...

Seems like a good place to start at. if you establish the facts surrounding that particular building, you might get a better perspective on the rest of it.

Because that building wasn't hit by the planes, was a fair distance from towers 1 and 2, and yet did collapse in its entirity after the main incedent.

Nightshade wrote:

seremtan wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I would like to point out that this combination of impact and fire in a building of this size are pretty much without precedent. It's enormously complex from a mathematical standpoint, and I'd like to see results of detailed simulations.
On the demolition issue, I'd like to point out that there would have to have been a HUGE number of detonations to bring down the towers. And where's the amateur video corroborating these claims?

what i'd like to know NS is why you demand a smoking gun for the demo theory, but not for the official story? you say the impact of the planes is enough to explain things, but how do you know this?

what i saw on the day was one plane hitting full-on (first hit), the other sheering one of the corners (2nd hit), yet both fell the same way and the 2nd hit actually fell first in spite of the plan only hitting the corner. wtf? how likely is that?

lastly the pancake effect doesn't explain the speed of fall because while the falling material is obviously heavy, the floors on to which it was falling are an inert mass and provide greater-than-air resistance. yet both towers fell only 1.5 secs slower than freefall time from that height

btw regards the controlled demo, the vids taken on the day that have been replayed a zillion times show demo-like 'squibs' plus there is the testimony of FDNY guys who heard a series of explosions right before the towers collapsed

there's a long list of FDNY and NYPD quotes/links here:

http://www.911proof.com/

The only thing I take at face value about the government's story about 9/11 is that it's about 9/11. Everything else is suspect.
To address the 'time of free fall' thing, anyone that tries to apply some basic 2D kinematics equations to a situation like this is doing nothing more than taking a wild-ass guess. There's so much going on there during the collapse, so many variables to account for, all I've seen are gross oversimplifications. Here's one suggestion, examine the exponential increase in forces as you take say, 20 3000 ton floor slabs, then add another 3000 tons as the intial mass slams into the floor below. Then another 3000 tons, then another, and another. You get the idea.
One of the key elements in the fire's ability to weaken the steel beams is the idea that the insulating material was knocked off in the intial impact. I don't think that the planes themselves were enough to fell the buildings, if that were true they would have dropped immediately. I think that it was the impact, the fire, and time.
Squibs in the viedo? Bullshit. I don't see that at all. The debris I see being ejected from 2 or 3 windows on ONE floor in the clip I just watched is most likely caused by the pressure wave of the floor slabs coming down, collapsing elevator shafts and blowing debris out elevator doors, or just pushing a massive amount of air out beneath the collapsing mass and pudhing out junk on that particular floor(not necessarily from the elevator shaft itself).
String of explosion? Better be one hell of a lot of them, watch this clip and listen to the number of explosions as this building complex is brought down:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/im ... icanas.mpg
Granted, it's multiple buildings, but the number of explosions is uncountable, and there's NO mistaking what they are.
Here's the source for the link: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/im ... icanas.mpg

the possibility that those 'squibs' might be debris forced out by air pressure occurred to me too, and frankly i'd accept that's what they were, were it not for:

* the FDNY testimony regarding strings of explosions within the towers
* the fact (and it is a fact - silverstein admitted as much) that WTC 7 *was* 'pulled', which makes demo less implausible for the other WTC buildings
* the haste with which giuliani swept up the debris and shipped it off overseasfor recycling
* the fact that the 9/11 commission's mandate was restricted to so-called 'intelligence failures', and that federal government placed obstacles in the way even of that (not to mention the pathetic underfunding of the commission, less than spent investigating monicagate ffs), hence no real investigation was ever carried out into what actually happened and therefore the jet fuel hypothesis has never really been tested properly
* the incredibly short timespan between impact and collapse, and limited nature of the fire (3/4 floors), which the FDNY were convinced they could put out with 2-3 lines (hardly a raging inferno). btw the recordings of FDNY chatter from within one of towers is my evidence for the controllability of the fire in at least that tower

i mean look, i've known about this demo theory for years and discounted it purely out of a general prejudice against conspiracy theories, but i also like explanations to account for the available evidence. having seen the evidence, i just don't see that being the case with the jet fuel theory. the demo theory is just a better 'fit' to the evidence in my view. it may of course be wrong but without the proper investigation that never happened we'll never know for sure either way

yeah wtc7 prooves it...

R00k wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

ToxicBug wrote:Well who else but the government would be behind the controlled demolition?

The fact that you think it was a controlled demolition further cements your position in the Fucking Idiot Hall Of Fame.

TBH, after all the reading I've done, I would have to say that anyone who dismisses the possibility outright is either uninformed of the facts, trying to convince themselves, or just in open denial.

Any reasoning person who has really looked at everything involved with an objective eye would see that what we have been told happened that day was intentionally inaccurate.

i dont have a scientific background so i cant argue point to point on statistical data but the sheer ineptitude of this administration could also lead that same thinking person you describe to the conclusion that there's now way [THEY] could pull of such a diabolical act. you could also say that's part of the plan, to present [THEMSELVES] as incompetent ala the devil convincing everyone he doesn't exist.

i wouldn't put it past this being allowed to happen as an excuse to get into iraq, but even that's delving slightly into freakaloin territory.

oh, and i agree...geoff needs to get an opinion of his own on anything other than video games.


i'll take my answer off the air, thank you...

911 was an inside job and the puppet bush handed over power to a shadowy group of thugs that use "international terrorism" as a means to wage war for profit and hegemony on september 11, 2001.cheney was most likely in on the planning based on the evidence available...but bush the puppet clearly was not, he just bowed down like a bitch so they wouldnt kill him...

on a side note...look at the bullshit misinformation site...this looks govt run...tom flocco is a bs artist...

http://www.stewwebb.com/9-11WTCBushCheneyTreason.html

R00k wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:you need to read this... http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/ ... ctures.pdf

it was written by MIT professors.

the 911 people use a load of bollocks to try and argue the case for demolition

Okay, opening statement:

The very fact that the buildings survived the crash of the planes into the buildings suggests that
a time dependent behavior at the material level affected the structural stability of the structure
to the point of failure. On the other hand, the failure per se reveals the existence of a weakest
link in the structural system, which ultimately failed because of a lack of redundancy.

So straight out of the gate, he has completely dismissed any cause of failure aside from a time dependent material behavior.

that paper is a pretty decent stab at an explanation, though you're right: it assumes time-dependent failure at the start and then simply sets out to explore how that could have happened. it also works with unknown variables: the amount of jet fuel actually burning within the towers, and where exactly that jet fuel was burning (bearing in mind the towers were hit in two different places)

you'd think a proper forensic investigation would have been undertaken to make sure something like this didn't happen again. the fact that one wasn't begs a few questions

Hannibal wrote:

R00k wrote:

I'm going to continue reading this, but it is completely obvious from the first paragraph that the paper is framed in such a way that any question of causes that are outside the scope of the official explanation are dismissed before the research has even started.



In other words, this paper in no way invalidates any theories (and they are just theories) of explosives or any other outside elements being introduced to the system -- because the paper states outright from the opening statement that no such possibilities will be considered.

This engineer essentially states that "The very fact that the buildings survived the crash of the planes into the buildings," suggests that nothing could be responsible for the collapse except "a time dependent behavior at the material level."

Where is this logical leap proven?

I haven't finished reading this either, but as a preliminary...is there any positive evidence that demolition charges were involved? That the official story (which I assume you believe the MIT profs take as basic) appears problematic or incomplete doesn't, by itself, constitute strong evidence for an alternative explanation.

For the record, my reply was in response to Puff's post, where he presented this paper as a rebuttal to the possibility of explosive charges. I was simply stating that this can not be construed in any way as proof that charges were not used, for the simple reason that this charge was excluded from the scope of the paper.

However, I would like to address a couple of your points.

Hannibal wrote:It is not surprising that an engineering prof wouldn't consider an alternative explanation if a) the official story is reasonable (given a certain sophisticated understanding of engineering, etc.) and b) no positive evidence for the alternative explanation exists (or of it does it is highly contentious).

For your first qualifier, I believe "reasonable" is a very vague word to use here. In the broad sense in which it's used, it would be hard to rule out any theories, including demolition. But I recognize your point, and it is any scientist's right (and profession) to formulate and analyze his own theories, and test them against the known/proven elements and behaviors in the system being analyzed.
But I think that it is important to note, that there is absolutely no basis in scientific history or texts to document the behaviors described by the official explanation of events. In other words, in terms of science and history, the official explanation of events is - by any measure - just as practically dubious as its alternative.
In practical terms, the only difference between the widely-accepted version of events and the theory of demolition, is that the former was presented by the US government in power when the attacks occurred. And these are the same people who had evidence destroyed, initially refused to allow an investigation, and then appointed the people who created the official explanation.

Also, the ostensible goal of this paper was to explain the circumstances and events that would have been required for the towers to collapse the way they did. The only reason this is even necessary, is because the explanation itself stands at odds with all accepted material properties and behaviors. So it would stand to reason that any serious attempt to explain the events would include any competing theories that also explain the events, and disprove them.

But as I said, this scientist has the right - possibly even an obligation to science, in his own estimate - to put forth, explain and support his theory. This would then be followed by peer reviews and critiques of his work. The problem with this is that this issue is politicized to the point that no critiques of the official explanation can be taken seriously. The peer review process is not working as it should, because any scientist or other member of academia who publishes such a critique, is nationally vilified, sometimes to the point of risking their reputations and/or careers.
If academia cannot openly and freely debate this issue, without fear of professional reprisal for their opinions, then there is no way I would be able to have faith in the results of the process, the way I normally would. (I know faith is a 4-letter word, but let's face it, with my - and many others' - limited knowledge of scientific fields, faith in the scientific process, and community, is required in order to accept the majority of scientific theories that are widely accepted).


For your second qualifier ["no positive evidence for the alternative explanation exists (or of it does it is highly contentious)"].

As I said, the 'alternative' and 'official' explanations have equal footing in terms of evidence: planes hit two towers, 3 towers fell. The only other evidence has been confiscated or destroyed by the government, which is the same organization that presented the official theory. Now, I realize that this is highly contentious, and the scientific community isn't in a position to make judgement calls on the motives of other people.

But it seems to me that the scientific process itself is under attack in regards to this particular discussion; and for scientists to use the official explanation as a starting point; and to require any other theories to have 'supporting evidence' even though the official theory has no such evidence itself, seems like quite a biased stance in my estimate, and an unsupportable one.

To be perfectly honest, I can't help but wonder if the scientific community at large - not as a conerted effort, but as a collective result of massive governmental attacks on scientific relevance in almost every arena - has decided to choose their battles, and do not want to be minimalized further by supporting a contentious theory on such a dangerous, hot-button topic.

For instance, I guarantee no scientist who is participating the ID vs Evolution debate will touch the 9/11 debate with a 10-foot pole, for fear of being completely marginalized and ridiculed to the point of having no voice at all. This goes the same for scientists in any field who are trying to support contentious theories and would rather not touch the 9/11 lightning rod.

I would very much like to draw a parallel to the current irrelevance of the media and the Democratic party, due to their own actions and inactions, and willingness to participate in debates on the terms of their opponents.

Hannibal wrote:If it ultimately boils down to a Battle of Engineers, this whole debate will go nowhere in the public sphere--that is, unless positive evidence of demolition shenanigans CAN be found.

And that is unfortunate. For lack of open, objective debate, the community will come to accept one scientifically unsupported theory over another.

:icon14:

R00k wrote: For the record, my reply was in response to Puff's post, where he presented this paper as a rebuttal to the possibility of explosive charges. I was simply stating that this can not be construed in any way as proof that charges were not used, for the simple reason that this charge was excluded from the scope of the paper.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply it, but of course I wasn't presenting the paper as a rebuttal to the possibility of explosive charges, rather I was posting a paper which explains how collapse could have happened without charges having been used.

A lot of the other side in this debate won't accept this possibilty even though there is science to suggest it could indeed have happened without bombs.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

lol....such bs...

R00k wrote:
But I think that it is important to note, that there is absolutely no basis in scientific history or texts to document the behaviors described by the official explanation of events. In other words, in terms of science and history, the official explanation of events is - by any measure - just as practically dubious as its alternative.


Also, the ostensible goal of this paper was to explain the circumstances and events that would have been required for the towers to collapse the way they did. The only reason this is even necessary, is because the explanation itself stands at odds with all accepted material properties and behaviors. So it would stand to reason that any serious attempt to explain the events would include any competing theories that also explain the events, and disprove them.

It really depends on how contentious the engineering interpretation given in the paper actually is---I'm not in a position to judge this since this the only paper I've read. The main point I was trying to make is: scientists/engineers don't usually look beyond their existing conceptual armamentarium (CA) (in this case, it represents the 'official story' + relevant scientific/engineering knowledge) UNLESS both of the following obtain:

1). CA cannot account for a significant portion of the data on hand.

2). An alternative explanation (CA2) is available and represents an improvement over CA (i.e., can account for what CA can't, etc.).

So the first question is: how much of the data actually strains the credibility of the official story? I don't mean just any set of details, just the one that is relevant in making strong inferences about the presence or absence of demolition charges. If the MIT prof's exposition represents nothing more than whistling past the graveyard, someone should be able to point out where and how he goes wrong. He's either got the engineering wrong or his story leaves out a set of relevant, established 'facts' (or disconfirming evidence) that should be addressed.

As you say, peer review is essential....but if the academic engineering community has rolled over and stuck its ass in the air on this, all we'll have is a blog-battle ad infinitum.

R00k wrote: As I said, the 'alternative' and 'official' explanations have equal footing in terms of evidence: planes hit two towers, 3 towers fell.

They are not on equal footing IF (a big IF) a story minus the demolition charges IS just as credible. Exactly the reason I've asked if there is any positive evidence for demolition on offer; if there is not, then it just becomes a counting game...how many experts line up on each side of the issue. As I said, I don't have an opinion on this issue yet....I've not read nearly enough. But unless a critical mass of expert opinion develops around the explanatory necessity of DA BOMB, we will be picking gnat shit out of pepper until the stars burn out.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

To cite only one example out of several, molten steel was found on site. Steel cannot be melted due to the heat produced by a jet-fuel fire.

Et cetera, et cetera.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."


--the same, Firefighter Richard Banaciski

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

R00k wrote: For the record, my reply was in response to Puff's post, where he presented this paper as a rebuttal to the possibility of explosive charges. I was simply stating that this can not be construed in any way as proof that charges were not used, for the simple reason that this charge was excluded from the scope of the paper.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply it, but of course I wasn't presenting the paper as a rebuttal to the possibility of explosive charges, rather I was posting a paper which explains how collapse could have happened without charges having been used.

A lot of the other side in this debate won't accept this possibilty even though there is science to suggest it could indeed have happened without bombs.

I still haven't finished the paper, but I haven't seen any scientific explanation for every aspect of the event that does not exclude or ignore scientific evidence that is contradictory.

You're missing the conspiracy inside the conspiracy, Rook. The guy in the deseret news is also stated to be working on cold fusion. He's obviously a government mole set up to make the 9/11 dissenters look like cranks!