|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2006 : 13:03:00
|
I'm new to this site. I have just recently seen Loose Change and other sites that don't believe the government's conspiricy theory of what happened on 9/11/01.
Loose Change, as I'm sure you all know, plays fast and loose with information. But some of the other sites (like scholars for truth.org) show evidence that it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone.
Has this been discussed on the forum? If so, please direct me to that discussion. If not, does anyone have the expertise to comment on how the buildings could fall at near-free-fall speed?
I've seen one analysis by Ross that show the falling upper block of floors would not have enough energy to collapse the first impacted floor. And then there is the problem of Building 7 which had no "upper block" of floors to impact anything.
I'm looking for evidence (not just opinion) that the administration was NOT behind the events of 9/11.
Thanks!
Steve
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 13:20:11 [Permalink]
|
This has been covered over and over, but bring in any evidence you have and many people here would probably like to look at it.
quote:
Your comment:
But some of the other sites (like scholars for truth.org) show evidence that it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone.
What does that mean? Even if a building is brought down by a demolition team it still would only fall at a speed based on the acceleration due to gravity. If the towers fell faster than the effects of gravity there must be a force like rockets attached to the building pushing down on it.
Edited to add: Welcome the SFN ergo123
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 09/29/2006 13:22:00 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 14:23:51 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN, ergo123!
You wrote: quote:
I'm looking for evidence (not just opinion) that the administration was NOT behind the events of 9/11.
You have put the cart before the horse. Since it is an extraordinary claim that an administration conspiracy was behind 9/11, the burden of proof is upon those who make that claim. Thus far, they have produced no evidence.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 22:40:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Welcome to SFN, ergo123!
You wrote: quote:
I'm looking for evidence (not just opinion) that the administration was NOT behind the events of 9/11.
You have put the cart before the horse. Since it is an extraordinary claim that an administration conspiracy was behind 9/11, the burden of proof is upon those who make that claim. Thus far, they have produced no evidence.
Not really. The administration's conspiricy theory doesn't hold up, unless "the terrorists" are able to suspend the laws of physics.
So I would say that the government should provide us with a story that could have actually happened. One that doesn't contradict all the known physical facts of the buildings' collapse. I mean, if I said I can see through walls and my explanation was that I had x-ray vision, it wouldn't be up to you to prove I didn't have that power--you would want me to prove I did. All the reasons the 9/11 Commission has given for why the towers collapsed are impossible. So I shouldn't need to prove the administration did it until they give me a sensible, POSSIBLE reason for why the towers collapsed.
As for my comment about it being impossible for the buildings to have fallen so quickly, I meant that if it was a gravity-only collapse. The sources I've seen conclude that the only way they could have fallen as fast as they did was via controlled demolition.
When I figure out how to post a link, I'll post the links to the papers I've seen.
You know, the government has ways to fake a lot of things and spin a lot of others. But the one thing they can't do is change the laws of physics.
The reason I got so into this was because when the towers fell, I had heard that the entire contents of the towers was crushed beyond recognition--office machines, office furniture and office workers were pulverized. I thought that was amazing and happened to mention it to my dad--a literal rocket scientist (Saturn V, Minuteman as well as working on SDI for years (told me it would never work but it was fun blowing stuff up in testing!))--and he said I must have heard wrong because there wouldn't be enough energy in the system to do that. But then, when I watched Loose Change (to see what the crazy conspiricy theorists were basing their claims on) I saw that same clip of the guy talking about how the biggest thing they found was a piece of a telephone the size of a quarter. That got me looking into the physics of the collapses. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 23:35:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One that doesn't contradict all the known physical facts of the buildings' collapse.
You are confused about physics.
Please list, specifically, what you are talking about when you say "all known physical facts of building collapse".
In the meantime you should read this:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
It provides clear answers to most of the ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. Answers supported by evidence and given by known experts.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 23:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
All the reasons the 9/11 Commission has given for why the towers collapsed are impossible.
That's actually a very bold claim right there.
Why don't you name a single reason provided by the 9/11 Commission for the collapse of the towers, and also explain why that reason is "impossible?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 03:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Welcome ergo123!
From experience in demolitions, I will state catagorically that the towers were not brought down by intentional, explosive implosion.
When and how could they have set the charges -- you don't get those sorts of efffects from a case of dynamite stashed in a closet. Shaped charges have to be set on the main support members, and they have to be very carefully placed. And there would have to be a lot of them. The floors affected would have to have been all but razed to get at those members, and it would take quite a bit of time to do it.
How then, could this have gone unnoticed in the weeks leading up to 9-11?
If there was a government conspiritcy, it was one of neglect -- unless, of course, Usama is on the payrole and following instructions, and we can probably come up with wilder conjectures with about as much evidence in their support.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/01/2006 03:46:08 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 07:49:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
When I figure out how to post a link, I'll post the links to the papers I've seen.
Just copy the link and paste it into the text you're writing. That's the basic approach. The forum software will take care of it.
If the link is too long or otherwise mess up, I'm sure the moderator will step in and fix it. Once you've become more accustomed to posting, you can start formatting your links using the  -icon. When you have time, you can read up on forum-code in the FAQ (right menu on top of all pages) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
wombatwal
New Member
Australia
20 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 08:07:23 [Permalink]
|
What is it with you Americans.
Every "big" event always has a conspiracy behind it.
President Kennedy's death.
Marilyn Monroe's death.
9/11.
Elvis Presley's death.
It goes on and on.
Why??? |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 08:42:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wombatwal
What is it with you Americans.
Every "big" event always has a conspiracy behind it.
President Kennedy's death.
Marilyn Monroe's death.
9/11.
Elvis Presley's death.
It goes on and on.
Why???
Gee, I didn't realize that people who believed in conspiracy theories had to be Americans. Thanks for pointing it out. 
At this very moment I'm in a debate with a Brit who thinks that the WTC, Flight 93, and Pentagon attacks occured just as ergo123 is suggesting.
I don't believe any of the above were government or other types of conspiracies. Except Elvis. And Marilyn Monroe. Maybe Kennedy. But that's all!
And Abraham Lincoln (oh wait, that sort of was a conspiracy). |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/01/2006 : 11:44:24 [Permalink]
|
Ah, Bigbrain and HYBRID... Those guys were fun. Nothing like a little vicious hysteria to liven up the conversation....
Sadly, neither of these guys ever actually thought things through before they began to shout. And from what I've seen, while they are extreme cases, all too many of the conspiritcy theorists fail to do the same.
I, for one, put no villiany past the Bush administration, but I am not going to buy into this nonsense until some solid, emperical evidence is presented in it's support. I'd rather hang them for their real crimes, of which there are many. Bush hit the terifcia (whatever that is) and I want to see him choke on it like a venomous fishbone that won't cough loose.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 14:02:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hi, ergo123. The 9/11-conspiracy question has been addressed in various threads before:
911 Pentagon attack -- Flight 77 or not? Help!
US governement behind 9/11
skyscrapers can't collapse that way
Anyone for 9/11?
The information presented and discussed in these threads may or may not pertain to what you're asking. Note also that the discussion varies in terms of civility and quality. Some of the posters seen have long histories with the SFN and their obnoxious, trollish behavior sometimes dominates the tone of the conversation. Still, there is good information to be found, if you're interested.
Just spent the last half hour reading those threads. Man, were you guys patient! Kudos! Beautiful stuff. I wish I had been around to watch it unfold. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 15:01:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123 said:
As for my comment about it being impossible for the buildings to have fallen so quickly, I meant that if it was a gravity-only collapse. The sources I've seen conclude that the only way they could have fallen as fast as they did was via controlled demolition.
Is there some sort of gravity booster involved in controlled demolition? Or is it just strategically weakening the structure and letting gravity do the rest? Think about this for a few minutes, ergo. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2006 : 19:33:54 [Permalink]
|
Okay, here is a document that reviews an analysis of momentum transfer conducted by a Dr. Greening. The author of the review--Ross--is a mechanical and Materials Engineer, while Greening is a Physical Chemist. Here's the link: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf#search=%22greening%20ross%209%2F11%22
Ross' paper basically shows that the mass of the falling block of upper floors--even if they could magically free-fall into the floor below the crash zone (which is in and of itself impossible)--is not great enough to cause that first-impacted floor's total collapse. This is done even WITHOUT accounting for the energy required to pulverize the concrete or shatter the 200+ steel support beams in the building or deforming the steel reinforcenent in the floor itself.
Without a total collapse of the first impacted floor, the collapse of the building would not continue.
But the building DID completely collapse--ergo, the energy system had help.
So, Yes, R.Wreck--controlled demolition explosives aid the collapse process by getting those pesky and very strong floor supports out of the way. Think abut that.
"Dude," did you even read the pop mech article? It doesn't discuss momentum transfer or any laws of physics. It just parrots the administration's explanation. It basically says that what the 9/11 Commission Report says is true because they read it in the 9/11 Commission Report! Where else have I heard that kind of "logic" before...
Dave W.: Pancaking. A) there was not enough energy in the upper block of floors to collapse the first impacted floor thus there was not enough energy to start the pancaking process; B) even if the upper block of floors did have enough kinetic energy, the time it would take to pancake 90 floors is much greater than 10 seconds; C) a "pancaked" building does not exhibit pulverized building materials--pancaking occurs when floor supports fail--if energy went into pulverizing building materials, there would not be enough left to knock the floors off their supports and pancake the floors; D) pancaked building leave a characteristic in-tact support structure of the buildings supports off of which each floor is knocked yet this was not the case at the WTC.
filthy: I don't claim to know how they did it--but having GWB's brother running the security company at the WTC wouldn't hamper them...--I'm just questioning how the collapse managed to defy the laws of physics as the "official conspiricy theory" requires if it is to be considered true. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
