Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
"simple pancake collapse which took less time than normally gravity would act upon?"
Let me count the things that fall faster than gravity. Lets see...........................
OK, I got it, the collective IQ of pseudo engineers.
PSS! I have some free energy machines for sale.
-
@unknownuser said:
"simple pancake collapse which took less time than normally gravity would act upon?"
Let me count the things that fall faster than gravity. Lets see...........................
OK, I got it, the collective IQ of pseudo engineers.
PSS! I have some free energy machines for sale.
I think you might be misintrepring.
it took less time than a pancake collapse should take if the only things in play were gravity and the top of the building.
-
@unknownuser said:
Let me count the things that fall faster than gravity. Lets see...........................
OK, I got it, the collective IQ of pseudo engineers.
PSS! I have some free energy machines for sale.
+1. I'm going to have to remember that one for arguing with other 9/11 truthers. Not only did the US government orchestrate the whole event, it was able to defy the known laws of physics in the process of doing so. On top of that, the government is able to keep hundreds or thousands of conspirators from going public.
-
occam's razor anyone? What kind of rube goldberg setup of explosives and timers and etc. would be required to precisely mimic the obvious and largely accepted version of events?
-
There are many puzzling and unexplained matters with 9/11...
However, the "leap from abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty", is with the 9/11 conspiracy supporters, very like the UFO-logists or supporters of other 'fringe' ideas...
You saw a UFO.
It must have been alien visitors in a flying saucer.The second conclusion does not follow from the first statement, at all.
It is one of many possible explanations... but there are very many more possibilities that are more likely - the clue is in the word 'UFO'; it was 'Unidentified', so then there is no certainty it was aliens at all !Humans don't like 'not knowing', so it's easy for any of us to fall into the trap of taking an explanation that fits the observations, when in fact there's little 'proof' that might lead to that conclusion, and of course many less far-fetched explanations that fit equally as well.
Back to 9/11...
I am amazed that the anomalies in many of the observed events and what we might have expected have not be investigated more fully. We don't understand exactly why the buildings collapsed how they did, but of course that doesn't mean they were 'demolished'! What it should mean is that we should still be seeking to understand what really happened during these catastrophes. It seems to me there are many important lessons to be learnt by architects, engineers, firefighters et al, about how such large structures really perform at these extremes for damage, and how we might then design/plan to avoid/mitigate such catastrophic outcomes... -
I don't understand the 'faster than freefall' stuff. Calculations demonstrate that (given the height of the towers) the roof should have reached the ground in approx. 9.7 seconds. It is, after all, only high school maths...standard gravitational acceleration for 10 seconds slightly exceeds the height of the towers. The unfortunate jumpers can be seen to travel the same route in a little less than that.
Given the debris cloud surrounding the collapsing buildings, it's impossible to determine exactly when the roof structure hit ground level, but realistic estimates put one tower at around 15 seconds and the other one nearer 20 seconds. How is this faster than freefall?It seems like the 9/11 truthers only count the time between the start of the collapse and the leading edge of the debris cloud hitting the ground. However, much of this debris can clearly be seen being pneumatically ejected from the structures far below the actual pancacking action...and this differential distance increases with time. It's reasonable to say (and is backed up by brief glimpses of the upper parts of the structure inside the cloud...like the masts) that when the cloud hits the ground there is something like 40 stories if intact tower, hidden inside, still awaiting its turn to get flattened...and quite a few stories of by-now nearly freefalling and still largely integrated upper tower above that.
In short, the top of the buildings hit the ground pretty much on schedule.
-
That's the thing - the 'truthers' argue all these minutiae. There are certainly complex phsyical actions occurring and like TIG says, there is plenty to still understand since this is all happening at the extremes of forces. But the jump to seeing some huge rigged conspiracy beyond a couple airliners speeding and loaded with fuel slicing into very tall skyscrapers just seems far-fetched.
-
.
anyone that doesn't 100% believe the official story is labeled a 'truther' 'looney' 'conspiracy theorist' etc..
…when in fact, many of those tin foil hat wearing mofos simply want a more thorough investigation and/or access to certain informations in order to conduct private investigations..
a humongous crime took place.. the case was solved in 5 hours.. i call bullshit.. that doesn't make me a lunatic does it?
-
Jeff,
Yes, it was a crime. It was perpetrated by whoever was flying those airplanes. To say that somehow the building was demolished internally just on the face of it makes no sense. It would have had to be something unbelievably coordinated and also withstand two airplanes flying into the towers.
I am specifically labeling the conspiracy theorists as the truthers.
-
@andybot said:
Jeff,
Yes, it was a crime. It was perpetrated by whoever was flying those airplanes. To say that somehow the building was demolished internally just on the face of it makes no sense. It would have had to be something unbelievably coordinated and also withstand two airplanes flying into the towers.
I am specifically labeling the conspiracy theorists as the truthers.
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
thing is, half of America thinks saddam Hussein did it. who are the crazies again?
the architects, the ones in the video, are full on legit and well educated people. and there are thousands of them.. to dismiss what they have to say or observations made by them is shortsighted if you ask me..
I also can't recall any of them outright accusing any person or group of people as being the perps.. they're pretty much saying there are holes in the story and would like a new investigation. -
@unknownuser said:
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
no, it was a group of hijackers, what do you mean one person acting alone?
@unknownuser said:
thing is, half of America thinks saddam Hussein did it. who are the crazies again?
Well that was W. and crew conflating Iraq and al-Queda@unknownuser said:
the architects, the ones in the video, are full on legit and well educated people. and there are thousands of them.. to dismiss what they have to say or observations made by them is shortsighted if you ask me..
I also can't recall any of them outright accusing any person or group of people as being the perps.. they're pretty much saying there are holes in the story and would like a new investigation.I'm saying that blaming some Deux ex machina explosions for causing the towers to come down just seems pointless. Finding out more to understand how structures catastrophically fail in extreme conditions is plenty worthwhile.
-
@andybot said:
@unknownuser said:
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
no, it was a group of hijackers, what do you mean one person acting alone?
[wiki]a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. [/wiki]
just saying that it's highly highly (highly) probable that a conspiracy took place.. i'm sure you agree with that.. so are you a conspiracy theorist too? (point is, i think it's a bit of a misnomer)
@unknownuser said:
I'm saying that blaming some Deux ex machina explosions for causing the towers to come down just seems pointless. Finding out more to understand how structures catastrophically fail in extreme conditions is plenty worthwhile.
who's blaming anyone? (re: this thread & the subjects of the thread)
but yeah, regarding your second sentence, i agree and i hope most people can.. If those buildings (all 3) fell due to fire and a big amount of people that actually design/build those types of building think they should of fully withstood the planes/fire then.. well, we have a problem.
-
OK, plenty of semantics to get wrong here. What I mean is that there seems to be some underlying notion of a government (or alien...
) coverup. I think the various loose ends are generally attributable to run-of-the-mill incompetence in the original investigation. By "Conspiracy": I mean specifically the idea that some agents (government or otherwise) rigged the WTC buildings to explode and miraculously timed it to look like hijacked airplanes crashing into the building. I don't buy that. -
i don't believe it either (well, let me rephrase.. i don't know what happened but there is a possibility that it was someone(s) other than 19 egyptians and some rich saudi arabian)
i do think it's possible for the buildings to have been rigged with explosives of some sort prior to the plane hitting..
i mean really.. what would it take? a group of 4 or 5 guys with proper security clearance working for a month or two? it's not that farfetched.
not any more farfetched than 20 guys learning how to fly commercial jets over a period of 3-4 years then hijacking them with box cutters and driving them into a few buildings..
both stories, to me, are just as likely to occur.
-
Well, at least the slick thing about the guys with the box cutters and the flying lessons is that it was out of the realm of the imaginable before 9/11. Explosives in the building - that was already tried in WTC, and I would imagine a lot more attention would be paid to that sort of effort, especially considering the quantities of explosives required. Also, to be able to coordinate the two in a convincing fashion would take some serious engineering. Unless you're saying that there were no aircraft hitting the buildings on 9/11... in that case back to the tinfoil hat
-
@unknownuser said:
(...) 19 egyptians and some rich saudi arabian)
If memory serves, there were no Egyptians among the hijackers. Most were Saudis, I believe.
The Pentagon possibly mistook Iraq for Saudi Arabia.
@unknownuser said:
i do think it's possible for the buildings to have been rigged with explosives of some sort prior to the plane hitting..
Could very well be, but where's the proof? So far, no tangible evidence seems to have surfaced. Which would presuppose a giant cover-up. Did someone mention Occam's razor yet?
-
@unknownuser said:
Could very well be, but where's the proof? So far, no tangible evidence seems to have surfaced. Which would presuppose a giant cover-up. Did someone mention Occam's razor yet?
it seems (again, i'm trying to be careful as to how i word this stuff but i'm sure i'll mess it up soon enough
), that much of the evidence, if there was any to be found, was destroyed prior to proper investigation.. that was by far the biggest crime scene ever in the city and i don't think it was treated as such..
(but hey, we've all received the same info here.. we're all drawing conclusions from the same pool.. for all i know, the beams/rubbble were inspected prior to destroying them.. i just haven't read anything about it.)likewise, i don't think it would be a 'giant' coverup… very few people would need to be involved.. it's not like, if it were a u.s. based attack, the whole government is in on it but keeping their mouths shut..
@andybot said:
Well, at least the slick thing about the guys with the box cutters and the flying lessons is that it was out of the realm of the imaginable before 9/11.
nah.. even those bowling for columbine kids were talking about doing the same thing.. and they died a couple of years prior to 2001..
the japanese have definitely used planes for missiles against the u.s.. the buildings were designed with the possibility of an aircraft crashing into them (granted, probably not with the idea that the plane would be a weapon.. but an accident such as the plane that crashed into the empire state building back in the day (but that thing easily survived fwiw)..i think it was fully imaginable prior to 9/11 and i also think the defense dept has had this on their radar since, well, since a few years after kittyhawk..
@unknownuser said:
Explosives in the building - that was already tried in WTC, and I would imagine a lot more attention would be paid to that sort of effort, especially considering the quantities of explosives required. Also, to be able to coordinate the two in a convincing fashion would take some serious engineering. Unless you're saying that there were no aircraft hitting the buildings on 9/11... in that case back to the tinfoil hat
no.. i saw planes flying into buildings
re: 'some serious engineering'
maybe.. i don't know.. i've never blew up a building.. half of me tends to believe it wouldn't be incredibly hard to do though.. (assuming access to high tech explosives and key parts of the buildings etc.) -
Yep Tom - my first post on this thread!
@andybot said:
occam's razor anyone? What kind of rube goldberg setup of explosives and timers and etc. would be required to precisely mimic the obvious and largely accepted version of events?
Jeff, my main point of contention is that the explosives and the planes crashing would have to be coordinated to some degree. That would point to a broader conspiracy.
-
We can but hope for Machiavellian politicians - always hoping that they are on 'our' side...
BUT my enduring experience is that they are always a bunch of 100% dorks - irrespective of their political leanings !
If we were to assume for a moment that Bubba and co, or anyone who might have ever listened to them, were capable of anything half as effective as this outcome then we are all doomed, and deserve the leaders we get !!
BUT, they have capitalized on the fallout, whilst unbelievable sidestepping any 'real' blame [e.g. where was the air-force?]: no more, no less... -
I'm not a quasi engineer, simply an observer of natural events, plus having worked in the construction industry for well over 40 years.
A Semi-trailer truck might weigh as much as one of these beams. A 150 mph tornado has no problem picking up a Semi-trailer truck and tossing it around like a toy. I cant see those type of forces having being generated by this so called natural collapse, much less the total pulverization of gravel/rock into dust particles. Even a typical demolition using traditional methods, involves the removal of broken pieces of concrete, and reinforcing steel. Also keep in mind that buildings, designated for demolition, do not contain combustible materials, they have all been removed prior to the demolition. So how did all these combustible materials disintegrate into dust for these 2 buildings? The Pile which was left, as described by the NYC firefighters, had a temperature of 3000 degrees for several weeks. Where did that heat come from....jet fuel?I'm not here to destroy anyone's belief system, I have not seen God, Jesus or Fee energy machines.
It all depends on your point of view, or who you believe is telling you the truth, its simply your choice.
However what might keep anyone interested in the subject and occupied for some time is trying to get answers to some of the 100's of unanswered questions pertaining to 911:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911q.html?q=911q.html
Also have look at this video where members of the NYFD describe what they saw and heard on 911.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow&feature=related
Advertisement