It's not a conspiracy

[s1k3sT]

Airline tickets. Missing planes. Passengers killed. Phone calls from the plane. TSA footage at the airport. Airline logs of said planes. Departure records.

Airline's aren't just made up overnight. Every single repair, flight, takeoff/landing is documented for auditing purposes. You think the government faked all of that?

You linked me one pdf that I already debunked several times over. I already pointed out to you how those substances can be formed in those very same configurations. But instead of finding me more proof you keep linking the same article and saying its not possible. Find me more and then I'll see.

And here we go again. You can't find anything wrong with what I said, so lets resort to personal attacks and one liners.

Suprise Suprise.

Anyways I'm done with this thread and you ****ing retards. Enjoy your conspiracy theories and where they lead you life.

The irony and cognitive dissonance in your post amazes me! You tried debunking my pdf, but you failed miserably. Sorry, but it's true. You can't debunk peer reviewed scientific evidence with a biased website like debunking911. To debunk something you need evidence of equal or greater value, in other words you need peer reviewed scientific evidence to debunk peer reviewed scientific evidence!

[iamawesomewicked]

The irony and cognitive dissonance in your post amazes me! You tried debunking my pdf, but you failed miserably. Sorry, but it's true. You can't debunk peer reviewed scientific evidence with a biased website like debunking911. To debunk something you need evidence of equal or greater value, in other words you need peer reviewed scientific evidence to debunk peer reviewed scientific evidence!

Too bad the only peers who reviewed the article you posted, are 9/11 whack jobs.

[s1k3sT]

Sorry, no. You said you have pointed out my errors. That was a specific claim. Where have you done this? I can't find it. In fact, you have been extremely reluctant to respond to me at all. Go on, point out the errors in the below right now:

The planes hit, dislodged fire-proofing (which was already shoddy), damaged some columns, and then spread jet fuel over several floors which set all the interior on fire (which can actually reach over 1800 degrees). Those fires then gradually weakened the steel floors until they pulled the outside wall columns far enough in to fail. At that point they fell, and the maths shows that the floors below could handle at most six floors falling on them. Since more than that fell, the whole building came crumbling down. [...]

Anyway, the buildings did not free fall. If it was slowed as much as a millisecond, it did not fall at free fall speed. Near free fall would be a more correct term (although much of the core remained standing for 20 seconds after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed). "Free fall" is just an irrelevant conspiracy buzzword here. I don't know why people think the lower part of the building was an issue. It simply wasn't designed to handle the massive dynamic load (the top floors had downward momentum). It was only designed to handle the static load. I already explained how much the floors below could handle:

The average load in the WTC was 80 pounds per square feet (although higher for the mechanical floors). Each floor was 31,000 square feet. 80*31,000=2.5 million. Divide that by the amount the intact floors below could handle, and you get 29m/2.5m=11.6. In other words, they could have supported the static load of about 11 floors. Since the load was dynamic, divide it by the dynamic amplification factor, and you get 11.6/2=5.8. At most six floors.

There were more floors than that in the initial collapse. As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum.

People here claim the rest of the building should have substantially slowed or stopped the collapse, but the math simply does not appear to support this. When it comes to something like this, you can't just go with what you "think" should happen.

I should have said near free fall, I get it! Still the same ****ing thing! You can't have near free fall speed without explosives!

I know I've pointed out your errors before, but I will reluctantly type it out again. You claim the math does not support a substantial slowing of the collapse, prove your point or gtfo. I could say aliens did 911 but it's not up to you to prove me wrong, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim! You claim to know the official conspiracy theory to be true, prove your case.

Too bad the only peers who reviewed the article you posted, are 9/11 whack jobs.

LOL, it's an open access journal, who knows how many people have viewed that article...

BTW what you just tried doing was ad hominem, please try a better argument next time, all you are doing is destroying your own credibility.

[XerXis]

OMFG

It's a game, genius. We're talking about BUILDINGS. QUAKE PROOF STRUCTURES BUILT TO WITHSTAND STRONG WIND.

It's not built of solid brick. There are rooms, hollow points, air pockets. Places with less structual foundation than other's. Places where failure can start and stop.

If kids are learning physics from games... never mind I'm not even going to answer that. That's like comparing the Titanic break up to the collapse of the twin towers.

yeah, except this has nothing to do with quakes or winds. It's fire that brought the buildings down, and the reason they came down is become they were designed in a rather stupid way.

I'm an engineer, you are a 13 year old kid, with all respect, but before you can even begin to grasp the maths involved you still have a long way to go.

[iamawesomewicked]

I should have said near free fall, I get it! Still the same ****ing thing! You can't have near free fall speed without explosives!

I know I've pointed out your errors before, but I will reluctantly type it out again. You claim the math does not support a substantial slowing of the collapse, prove your point or gtfo. I could say aliens did 911 but it's not up to you to prove me wrong, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim! You claim to know the official conspiracy theory to be true, prove your case.

LOL, it's an open access journal, who knows how many people have viewed that article...

BTW what you just did is ad hominem, please try a better argument next time, all you are doing is destroying your own credibility.

Views do not equal "peer-reviewed".

[hdood]

I know I've pointed out your errors before, but I will reluctantly type it out again.

Go on, take your time. I will wait.

You claim the math does not support a substantial slowing of the collapse, prove your point or gtfo.

Er, read the post you just quoted.

[s1k3sT]

Views do not equal "peer-reviewed".

3 peers are better than none. How come there are no peer reviewed papers proving the official conspiracy theory?

[Mr. Gibs]

The irony and cognitive dissonance in your post amazes me! You tried debunking my pdf, but you failed miserably. Sorry, but it's true. You can't debunk peer reviewed scientific evidence with a biased website like debunking911. To debunk something you need evidence of equal or greater value, in other words you need peer reviewed scientific evidence to debunk peer reviewed scientific evidence!

Peer reviewed scientific article? Really want me to post who it was written by again? 2 fired employees (1 a professor of nuclear fusion, 1 a manager of a company) and 1 person nobody has heard off in a Magazine that I've never heard off and I do get access to tons of scientific journals for my papers. National Geographic did such a test and lookie lookie what the results came out with:

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the checmical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.

Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

They did an entire series based on 9/11 myths in which they conducted several tests done by experts in EMRTC, Purdue, NIST, etc. But that isn't enough peer reviewed scientific proof for you. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/30/national-geographic-tv-debunks-9-11-conspiracy-theories-monday <- videos on that site

But a 5 minute youtube video apparently is. Alrite.

And now I'm out.

[hdood]

3 peers are better than none. How come there are no peer reviewed papers proving the official conspiracy theory?

With regards to the WTC, what do you think the NIST reports are then?

[s1k3sT]

Go on, take your time. I will wait.

Er, read the post you just quoted.

What?! You just claimed the math proves your conspiracy theory, please prove it to us. I already pointed out your error, it's that you claim the math supports your claims but never back it up with the actual math. Typical of 911 truth deniers tbh...

With regards to the WTC, what do you think the NIST reports are then?

Conspiracy theory trash. Please link to said reports just so I can take a look at how they fudge the data. I got an idea, lets trust a federal agency, they have no reason to be biased...

Btw thanks to everyone that helped derail the topic, this was supposed to be about how the official story of 911 is a conspiracy theory, not everyone arguing about their theories.

[hdood]

What?! You just claimed the math proves your conspiracy theory, please prove it to us. I already pointed out your error, it's that you claim the math supports your claims but never back it up with the actual math.

I provided the math for the load capacity right in the post you quoted. How is it wrong?

Conspiracy theory trash. Please link to said reports just so I can take a look at how they fudge the data. I got an idea, lets trust a federal agency, they have no reason to be biased...

Er, am I to understand that you've never even taken as much as a superficial look at the official documentation, yet you still think you have the right to criticize it?

NCSTAR 1/1A

[s1k3sT]

I provided the math for the load capacity right in the post you quoted. How is it wrong?

Er, am I to understand that you've never even taken as much as a superficial look at the official documentation, yet you still think you have the right to criticize it?

NCSTAR 1/1A

The math was irrelevant. I could say 1+1=2 but that doesn't change anything. Sure, the building might not have been able to support the collapse, but that doesn't mean it should have fell a near free fall speeds either.

Obviously I've looked at what nist has to say, but you have to admit there will be some bias.

[iamawesomewicked]

The math was irrelevant. I could say 1+1=2 but that doesn't change anything. Sure, the building might not have been able to support the collapse, but that doesn't mean it should have fell a near free fall speeds either.

Obviously I've looked at what nist has to say, but you have to admit there will be some bias.

Why wouldn't 2 million pounds per floor not make something that size fall at NEAR free fall speed?

[hdood]

The math was irrelevant. I could say 1+1=2 but that doesn't change anything. Sure, the building might not have been able to support the collapse, but that doesn't mean it should have fell a near free fall speeds either.

How is the math that shows that the structure could not support the load and thus posed little resistance irrelevant? Are you on something? Also, can you please point out exactly where it is claimed that the whole thing fell at "near free fall speeds?" I mean, everything that seems to indicate that the complete collapse took at least half a minute, with the floors going first for obvious reasons, and the core columns last.

Obviously I've looked at what nist has to say, but you have to admit there will be some bias.

I don't think you have looked at it.

[Phenom II]

Was that a response to me? Are you saying the planes never existed? Why would the airline lie? Were the passengers fictitious? Are the thousands of friends and family of the supposedly deceased in on it, then? How did they manage that?

Passenger Jet or Military Jet, either way I see far too many people who WERE there saying it was not just a case of Jet hits building, building collapses.

How did building 7 perfectly fall in on itself too?

This is my last comment in this thread because its getting pointless, while it is a very interesting discussion, it is not, nor ever will conclude.

[iamawesomewicked]

Passenger Jet or Military Jet, either way I see far too many people who WERE there saying it was not just a case of Jet hits building, building collapses.

How did building 7 perfectly fall in on itself too?

This is my last comment in this thread because its getting pointless, while it is a very interesting discussion, it is not, nor ever will conclude.

When you have 2 planes flying at 500+km/h do you really think eyewitnesses are really going to be the most credible sources? We do have videos of 2 Airplanes.. 1 757 and 1 767 hitting the twin towers. Can't really fake those videos.

[sundayx Veteran]

Honestly there are more facts and figures to debunk theories other than the official one. There is also no reason to prove or disprove all theories as they stand. I just don't see a reason to turn a person to understand the situation another way.

I personally lean towards the official story, you know there might be some facts that might be dodgy but they will remain that way, leave the undisputable theories and move on.

Honestly there are more facts and figures to debunk theories other than the official one. There is also no reason to prove or disprove all theories as they stand. I just don't see a reason to turn a person to understand the situation another way.

I personally lean towards the official story, you know there might be some facts that might be dodgy but they will remain that way, leave the undisputable theories and move on.

[Pas]

see? i told you it's impossible to debate with idiots.

[Stetson]

There have been a ton of posts since yesterday, but I wanted to respond to everyone who still argues that WTC-1 and WTC-2 looked like controlled demolitions. I literally spent just a few minutes looking and videos and contradictions were already jumping out at me:

In that video, you can see that the top part of the south tower folds over toward the damaged corner. This top piece is actually leaning at a pretty significant angle as it falls.

Through the dust cloud, you can see jagged parts of the building that remained standing for several seconds while other parts collapsed.

That does not look like a clean, controlled demolition.

Here's a still frame from the north tower's collapse showing something similar:

Now, regarding WTC-7. I definitely think that this one is not very clear cut. Something important to note about a lot of the videos claiming to show that it was demolished are that they are taken from the north side, the side facing away from the two towers that had just collapsed. The southern side which was facing the debris as the two towers fell, sustained quite a bit of damage that these videos do not show. I have not read any of the detailed reports from either side yet about WTC-7 and probably won't have time to for a while, so I can't really argue definitively either way.

There is however no doubt in my mind that WTC-1 and 2 collapsed as a result of the structural damage of the plane impacts and the resulting fires.

[s1k3sT]

I would like to state that is was never my intention to prove the official conspiracy theory wrong, I wanted to have a discussion on why the term conspiracy theory means almost the exact opposite of it's independent words' definitions.

I'm tempted to start a new thread so I can discuss what I actually wanted to discuss. I don't want to get in trouble for starting a new thread for the same topic, but my original topic isn't being discussed at all in this thread, so what am I to do?!

BTW I'm actually kind of ****ed my topic was "merged with a different thread" and title changed to the opposite of what I originally made the title, but that's a whole separate matter.

[sundayx Veteran]

I'm not calling a halt to the discussion but seeing there's already been a couple pages going back and forth about 9/11 in particular.

So what's this argument with the definition of the words individually mean?

[Phenom II]

Thought this relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkT5yAlmDoA&feature=related

[Joe User]

But the eye witnesses say it sounded like firecrackers, bang bang bang bang bang bang - perfect example of how a controlled demolition explosion sounds

Why would the buildings collapse from the bottom, when the fire was at the top, and what are the chances of them collapsing perfectly down on themselves, that take demolition experts months of planning, not just blow the top off and hope for the best

If they collapsed of their own free will, they would have weakened / failed on 1 side and fallen sideways

So, where did you study engineering? I mentioned this yesterday but, I know a few people with masters in the field, they really want to know about your novel new version of physics and engineering.

[Phenom II]

I dont need to study engineering to know what a demolition sounds like, I stood and watched power stations being demolished

And its not a novel new version of physics etc... the buildings were damaged on one side, its the same rule that applies when chopping down a tree, you take a chunk out from the side pointing the direction you want it too fall

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Thought this relevant

and all have since been debunked. Sort of makes that video irrelevant now...does it not?