9/11 was an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
The basic problem that causes these "it didn't fall right" conspiracy theories is that people have a wrong intuitive understanding of structural engineering. They think buildings should fall over like tilted broomsticks or masonry chimneys. The reality that engineers learn in Statics 101 is that if a column isn't perfectly vertical, it loses strength very very quickly; something like half of its strength for 1 degree of tilt. So a tall building is just nowhere close to strong enough to topple over instead of collapsing.

The second reality that most lay-people don't understand is fracture energy. Strong steel is more brittle than people realize, which means that while it takes an extremely high force to break, it only absorbs a little bit of energy in doing so, which means that it provides very little resistance to the collapse once the collapse starts.
 
leopold

as a matter of fact it's possible that ALL buildings of this design are inherently unsafe from a catastrophic point of view.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, both buildings greatly exceeded the fire safety standards in their performance. The scenario of aircraft impact that was briefly considered(but never was a design goal and no calculations were done)was an airliner(707 in this case)at approach speed(~250)lost in fog or something and it's fuel load was never given a thought(it was mostly publicity hype). The fire standards were that the building would survive a single floor fire(IE a typical large office fire)for one hour with no structural failue, they designed for two. Those buildings were actually pretty tough and would probably still be standing if the steel had been fireproofed with sturdy materials(I mean, come on. Fireproof foam block and spray on?). Most of the people in those buildings could have survived except for bad luck(the cut stairwells), bad advice(PA announcement sent many in Tower 2 back up after Tower 1 was hit, causing chaos and hundreds more deaths)and a crap load of highly flammable jet fuel starting multi-floor fires. They tried explosives back in 93 and aside from a big hole in the basement the buildings barely wiggled.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Russ_Watters

The basic problem that causes these "it didn't fall right" conspiracy theories is that people have a wrong intuitive understanding of structural engineering. They think buildings should fall over like tilted broomsticks or masonry chimneys. The reality that engineers learn in Statics 101 is that if a column isn't perfectly vertical, it loses strength very very quickly; something like half of its strength for 1 degree of tilt. So a tall building is just nowhere close to strong enough to topple over instead of collapsing.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the core columns in the Towers could take up to 7 degrees of movement from vertical(normally only seeing a degree or so in anything short of a hurricane)before failure. The CORE could probably take less if unsupported, but the wind forces were all absorbed by the outer perimeter and the core saw only vertical forces. The floor trusses didn't support the core columns, but they did stabilize them in the vertical position.

The second reality that most lay-people don't understand is fracture energy. Strong steel is more brittle than people realize, which means that while it takes an extremely high force to break, it only absorbs a little bit of energy in doing so, which means that it provides very little resistance to the collapse once the collapse starts.
Click to expand...

I keep trying to tell everyone that the secret of an accurate model of the Twin Towers that will fit in your basement is angel hair pasta, but they just look at me funny and back away. You could even model heat softening with a spray bottle of water. Of course, training the spiders to put in the floor webs is the tricky part. Card stock would make good equipment floors.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Russ_Watters said:
The basic problem that causes these "it didn't fall right" conspiracy theories is that people have a wrong intuitive understanding of structural engineering. They think buildings should fall over like tilted broomsticks or masonry chimneys.
Click to expand...

Care to locate a 1360 foot chimney?

psik
 
That is truly amazing. I cannot believe it. You are still ranting about a 911 conspiracy? Get a life....
 
There's a ton of proof that it was the US government.This three-part video series is a pretty good summary of all of the proof.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

Here are some experts who think 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg
Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org"

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ve+Evidence+--+Experts+Speak+Out+(Full)&sm=12


Here's some stuff not covered in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX0e_AplhWw

http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(5th picture from top)

This video gives some motives for the government's having done it.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/


Anyone who looks at the above info and still maintains that the government didn't do it should watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac

If the above link goes dead, do a YouTube search on, "Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers".
 
FatFreddy said:
There's a ton of proof that it was the US government.
Click to expand...

A good study on the psychological of "truthers" -
===================
Original Research ARTICLE

Front. Psychol., 08 July 2013 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*

School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
====================
 
billvon said:
Original Research ARTICLE

Front. Psychol., 08 July 2013 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*

School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Click to expand...

But don't psychologists know what experiments are? Haven't they heard of Pavlov's dog?

So why don't they expect physicists to do experiments to try and determine if the top 15% or less of a skyscraper could fall and destroy the rest?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

Can't they think of anything besides psychological BS?

psik
 
billvon said:
They have. Answer - yes.

Well, they leave the physics BS to you.
Click to expand...

In the 1940s they didn't have electronic computers to BS with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB008RAluyg

@2:45

A 1/200 scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built and demonstrated the phenomenon that eventually destroyed the bridge. They never expected the collapse they just regarded the oscillations as dangerous to people crossing the bridge.

So it is curious that a model hasn't been built demonstrating the "collapse" of the north tower. We are supposed to TRUST experts who don't even insist on, and publicise, distribution of mass data.

Of course they didn't have 3-D printers to make the parts in 1940 either. It is too difficult today.

But then it would be such a nuisance if the model would not collapse properly after all of this talk that is should.

Embarrassing even! :D

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
In the 1940s they didn't have electronic computers to BS with.
Click to expand...

And in the 1700's they didn't have ball point pens to BS with.

So it is curious that a model hasn't been built demonstrating the "collapse" of the north tower.
Click to expand...

The collapse was modeled using the simulation system called the Fire Dynamics Simulator.
Of course they didn't have 3-D printers to make the parts in 1940 either. It is too difficult today.
Click to expand...

Not difficult at all - nor necessary since we have software simulations which work much better than physical models.
 
The main thing that I've taken away from Towers' collapse is that the buildings weren't designed as robustly as they probably should have been. It seems poor design to have trusses sitting on their ends. They wanted to make the interior very open, but it's rather weak I'd say.
 
elte said:
The main thing that I've taken away from Towers' collapse is that the buildings weren't designed as robustly as they probably should have been. It seems poor design to have trusses sitting on their ends. They wanted to make the interior very open, but it's rather weak I'd say.
Click to expand...

They were probably not designed to withstand fully fueled passengers jets flying into them at full throttle.
 
origin said:
They were probably not designed to withstand fully fueled passengers jets flying into them at full throttle.
Click to expand...

What does "fully fueled" mean?

How often do airliners take off "fully fueled"?

Wouldn't that be for flights across the Pacific?

The planes that hit the towers had 10,000 gallons. They were capable of holding 24,000 gallons so they were only 42% fueled. I suppose it is easier for idiots to rationalize the so called collapses if they say "fully fueled".

It is certainly curious that the south tower only deflected 15 inches when impacted by an airliner at "full throttle". But we don't hear that from the media. In fact the NIST didn't tell us. Not sufficiently impressive I guess. Some people might think the towers were strong.

psik
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top