|
Post by truthseeker on Apr 12, 2006 13:51:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Apr 12, 2006 13:59:51 GMT -4
Hogwash. Well, it certainly must have been the most brilliant controlled demolition ever in the history of mankind, one that left no evidence whatsoever, NONE, with the building being rigged with nobody seeing anything, and able to still detonate without a hitch even with the building blasted into by a screaming jet plane loaded with fuel. All the while fooling thousands of competent structural engineers and demolition experts around the world who watched the towers fall live. Well, fool everybody except a few people with an ideological agenda to push but with no experience, training, or education to qualify them to judge what happened. Brilliant is an understatement.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Apr 12, 2006 14:23:21 GMT -4
Why dont you wake up Why dont you actually look and see what the people have been saying. Listen to the eye witnesses who were there. Why was there a massive explosion in the 6th floor sub basement north tower? No evidence? st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htmOh, i suppose the huge amazing traveling fireball that loves to shoot all the way down the interior shaft did it. It just happened to shift the 50 ton hydraulic press, and destroy all the concrete in the lowest parts of the building. But thats all hogwash, a massive structure can perform an amazing pancake trick with no restriction in its energy as it falls. And it does this in about 9 seconds. The hog that needs washing is your brain.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Apr 12, 2006 16:12:16 GMT -4
I have a five-ton jack, myself. I can lift it one-handed. You might need to lean what a 50-ton press actually is.
If all the concrete was destroyed, then how did the building not fall down then? Come to think, I've helped destroy concrete...with water (we nearly broke a building once with a shallow indoor pool). Oh, yeah, and since fuel-air explosion are weak pasty things those Iraqui bunkers must still be intact, right?
What means "no restriction in energy?" The structure did NOT fall at free-fall (so would that be a restriction in energy or not?) A whole mess of concrete was pulverized in the process. Is that restricted energy, or some other kind of energy? What kind of magic trick are you trying to imply, here?
What say you read and study the NIST prelim (at the very least) with the same attention you have given the conspiratorial ramblings on a private website? Are you afraid of learning ideas that might challenge you opinions?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 12, 2006 16:26:48 GMT -4
It wasn’t … planes that caused the collapse. It was beauty that felled the buildings. ;D
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Apr 12, 2006 17:11:06 GMT -4
No evidence?
LOL. Yes. What part of NO EVIDENCE do you not understand? You wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the...
Well, let's just say that you are a tad bit ideologically biased and leave it at that. You appear to believe everything a conspiracy site feeds you without question. Folks here don't work like that, they actually consider facts, and as a fringe benefit actually know what they are talking about.
What a concept
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 12, 2006 18:44:59 GMT -4
A 50 ton press does not weigh 50 tons. It weighs perhaps a few hundred pounds. It is capable of exerting 50 tons of pressure on it worktable for pressing things together.
The collapses did not take 9 seconds, the shortest time for collapse is over 10 seconds and the longer closer to 16 seconds which represent 10% and 75% longer than free fall time from that height.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Apr 12, 2006 19:28:57 GMT -4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4&search=911%20scientistI have to laugh at you "folks here" I really do. You say I'm biased, and then you say in the next phrase - I appear to believe everything a conspiracy site feeds me without question. Yes you obviously know me and the way my brain works. Its clearly evident you are also biased towards a different version of events i.e. The official report of NIST. And are you not just sucking that up in the same way? I take it you believe the NIST report without question then, the report is a fine bit of work . All done and dusted. Of course because its official it must be all fine and dandy, and yes i have read the outline of the NIST report. Have you looked into alternate explanations that you coin conspiracy? Why don't you throw of your idealogical coat, and get some fresh air for a change. It seems you also have an ideological bent on your framework of thought. Where Did i say the 50 ton press weighed 50 tons? I did not. You ASSUMED that I thought it weighed 50 tons, another bias on your part. You might want to learn to actually READ a post and take in what is being said. "Folks here don't work like that, they actually consider facts, and as a fringe benefit actually know what they are talking about." Yes thats right no one else apart from "The folks here" is able to asses the "facts" and everyone outside "The folks here" therefore cant conceptualize information, and piece it together to form an opinion. Well "The folks here" , you have certainly made me laugh. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 12, 2006 21:36:45 GMT -4
Why dont you wake up Why dont you actually look and see what the people have been saying. Listen to the eye witnesses who were there. Why was there a massive explosion in the 6th floor sub basement north tower? No evidence? st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htmOh, i suppose the huge amazing traveling fireball that loves to shoot all the way down the interior shaft did it. It just happened to shift the 50 ton hydraulic press, and destroy all the concrete in the lowest parts of the building. But thats all hogwash, a massive structure can perform an amazing pancake trick with no restriction in its energy as it falls. And it does this in about 9 seconds. The hog that needs washing is your brain. G'day Truthseeker. Out of interest, how much does a 50 ton hydraulic press weigh? How hard would it be for a blast front to move it? Anyway, it's interesting to see the interpretation put on what Mike Pecoraro says. The interpreters say: Why not? I've got to say I'm not sure about this either. If you strike any flexible object, I'm fairly sure you'll feel vibrations all over that object, even close to where it's anchored. Things like this don't react solely by swaying. Why not? Why couldn't fuel from the plane have vaporised and exploded down lift shafts? Is this impossible? If not, why wouldn't the explosion of fuel cause a shockwave? It's perhaps indicative of an explosion, but why must the explosion be of "high explosives"? Wouldn't a fuel-air mixture explode in much the same way? Why would we expect soot or fuel residue? Again, why is it indicative of the explosion of high explosives, as opposed to a fuel-air mixture? And if explosives were detonated, how and when would they have been placed? Again, there's nothing here to specify it had to be an explosion of high explosives.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Apr 13, 2006 5:10:56 GMT -4
Hi Peter, Interesting questions. As you can see from my previous posts, i did not state that the 50 ton press weighed 50 tons. To answer your question specifically A quick google reveals that a common 50 ton press weighs about 612lbs. But its the context of what happend to it that is important. To quote Mike Pecoraros words "There was nothing there but rubble" (in the C level machine shop) To further fit the theory of explosion/explosions -: As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. The aircraft impact was over 90 floors above. If anyone is saying the aircraft impact caused a steel and concrete fire door to "wrinkle up like a piece of aluminium foil" - to quote mike pecoraros, please tell me how. The machine shop was turned to rubble, not a simple displacement of equipment. There more informaton regarding explosions here peter-: By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.htmlMany Thanks
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 13, 2006 7:16:57 GMT -4
The simple answer is that the fuel and explosion created a FAE in the lift shafts, blowing off the door is lobby and dealing serious damge up and down the building. There were reports all over the building of explosions coming out of the lift shafts at the time of impact. If these were bombs then they would seem totally out of place and poorly planned since they didn't do anything to the building structurally. What use were they then? If you are going to make it look like planes took down the buildings, then you don't set off a heap of explosions all over the building a hour before it collapses.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Apr 13, 2006 7:35:06 GMT -4
I respect your opinion phantom, but we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
I also apologize to others if i have got a bit heated and personal in some of the things i have said.
No bad intention was intended, As much as I try its hard to remove emotion from debate at times.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by realeyesrealize on Apr 13, 2006 9:24:42 GMT -4
Truth seeker, I shared your opinion until recently, but a healthy dose of reality has come my way after really investigating the 9/11 conspiriacy theories. I've been engaged in a healthy debate with friends for weeks over this subject and having been convinced something was seriously amiss with the official 9/11 story. I even went as far as writing my own computer program to simulate the collapses to validate the theories about "free fall time" and the energies with in the twin tower collapse to see whether they add up. I was actually thinking of making an open source project out of it, if it hasn't already been done. I then came across a link to some papers by Dr. Frank Greening which provides excellent analysis in terms of physics and chemistry about the WTC collapses. What I found absolutely compelling about his paper is that the methods he applied to calculating free fall times and the energy systems are almost identical to how I started out. In my mind he has satisfied me that a gravitation collapse DOES in fact have a enough energy to fall in the time the twin towers fell, to pulverise the concrete to dust and perhaps even create the dust cloud observed. www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.htmlWhilst proving that many of the observed phenomena of the collapse of the twin towers are possible, he has also written a paper that casts a doubt over elements of the NIST reports and their models as well. This is also of great interest. Basically I think this guy is on the level and it would seem that the 911 truth "men of science" should really look at his work and address the points he has made. These papers hosted on www.911myths.com also does a good job of debunking many other aspects of the 911 truth sites. Basically I've come full circle with regard to 9/11 theories. I would seem that a failure of the building and subsequent collapses are possible from the plane impacts and fires. However, massive questions still remain around the progressive collapse of the towers with regards to the official story and explanations. It would seem that a few things are still very much on the cards IMNSHO: - Pancaking theory could be wrong. NIST/FEMA reports are incorrect in many areas and seems to reverse engineer their results to match what was observed. Basically I don't think they have truly come up with a model that explains the progressive collapse. - There could be serious design flaws in the twin towers that have been covered up/missed as a result. - A satisfactory, public and independent investigation has not been done and should be. - Much of the evidence remains out of the public domain. Why? - Serious questions remain around collapse of WTC7. I don't have much confidence in NIST to come up with a good answer either. - Bush Administration/Government agencies sat on a lot of information before and after 9/11, and are possibly, at the very extreme are even guilty of a LIHOP conspiracy. The problem seems to me that various parties have a lot to hide and in doing so have made such a fertile ground for people to draw so many possible conclusions and scenarios due to the lack of open and publicly available information. There are also many facts that I have come across that are not generally mentioned on the 911 truth sites BUT don't add up. For example, official reports claim that the planes hit the towers around 500mph, however, planes can only reach this sort of speed at high altitude. From what I've read passenger planes could break up at this speed at lower attitudes, like around 1500 feet (each tower is just over 1300 feet). When my girlfriend's father (an ex 747 pilot) gets into town next week I'll be asking him about that. My guess is that certain figures have been bent in places to make official models and explanations work to satify the public need for straight answers. Basically I think at a very minimum it's bad for the government and various agencies to tell the public "you know what, we don't really understand how everything happened yet, we're still working on it even years after the event." However, 911 truth sites are a equally guilty of mis-representation. I know this first hand. One of my friends is a documentary maker for the BBC (He actually spent 3 periods in Iraq following British troops there) and checked out the article that is often linked to on various 9/11 sites about some of the 19 hijackers turning up. He has found that this story was later proved to be incorrect. But of course the 9/11 sites won't have bothered to investigate this, because they have the answer they want. To close, one can only hope that when the current administration is out of office, someone has the guts to start a new investigation to answer many of the very important questions that are outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Apr 13, 2006 10:22:08 GMT -4
Thank you realeyesrealize, Interesting stuff! Ill take a look at the information you have provided. You know whats good about all this stuff, is that it really makes you take a hard look at yourself and how you think about subjects. Its made me realize how little i really know about how the world operates. But i suppose knowing that I know so little, is a good starting point
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Apr 13, 2006 12:48:48 GMT -4
AFAICT, NIST didn't attempt to model the progressive collapse of the towers for two reasons:
1. The computing power needed to model the collapses in sufficient detail to be worthwhile within a reasonable time isn't available.
2. Once the top 20 or so stories of an office tower have unshipped and fallen onto the portion below, the building has failed. Irrespective of how much of it remains standing, as far as its life as a useful artifact is concerned it's game over, man. Understanding how things got to that point is very useful knowledge for the designers of buildings; studying the aftermath in detail is less so.
The conspiracist claims about the NIST investigation reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose. Unlike conspiracy-land, where everything is an exercise in Pin the Blame on the Donkey (or elephant, as the case may be), investigations like NIST's can have a different purpose:
9/11 provided incontrovertible proof that the potential causes of failure which the designers of high-rise buildings have to consider include maniacs crashing airplanes into the building, as well as natural phenomena and plausible accidents. Understanding the damage inflicted by such an event and how it can lead to structural failure helps in finding answers to questions like "If some maniac crashes a jetliner into our building, how can we make it more resistant to global failure as a result?" and "What can we do to ensure that if some maniac crashes a jetliner into this building, all those occupants who survive the impact can safely evacuate?".
Perhaps providing information to aid in answering those questions in the future is more important than explicitly refuting every scenario cooked up by ideologically-motivated witch-hunters.
|
|