Topic: For the conspiracy theorists here

[Uncle Ernie]

I'm not much of an extremist on anything, so I don't make copius notes and document everything -
Seems like 60Minutes or one of those shows recently talked about a conspiracy against a former Democratic governor that put him in jail.  Seems even Republicans are PO'd about it, and are speaking out.

It also mentioned a conspiracy to do some damage and blame it on Cuba years ago.  That president said, "No", but this Admin has never had so many people quit or get accused of things.  Carl Rove looks like such a nice young man...

Follow the money.

[TwoTired]

Thats a great and i dare say accurate technical explanation, but how does it account for the blasts, clearly shown in footage of the towers as they collapsed, the blasts were small but were timed precisely (sp) and traveled down the tower slightly ahead of the collapse.
These blasts have never been explained by anyone in authority, nor for that matter have the blasts in the basement and the elevator shafts as reported by the fireys on the scene as well as dozens of workers from the tower complex.
just a few thoughts
cheers
troppo

If you step on an inverted cup, the air in the cup has to escape. If the rim seal is great enough, the sides of the cup blow out when it can no longer contain the air compressed within.

The WTC building volume was 95% air. As the floors pancaked upon one another in succession, the air on each floor became compressed. Air, being a fluid, will take the least resistance path toward pressure equalization.  Windows blow out from this air pressure as the outer walls buckle and the elevator shafts behave similar to exhaust pipes, exhausting smoke and dust.  The floors all pancaked upon each other in advance of the outer walls collapsing and were timed in sync with the  successive internal floor joist angle clip overload failures.
 A blast of air is not always caused by an explosive device.  Air guns are a fairly representative example of air blasts caused from a pistoning device.  In the WTC shell, the floors became the pistons during the ensuing collapse, compressing the air between floors.  But, the WTC piston's cylinder walls failed to contain the compressed air.

[Rocking-M]

The problem with your analogy TT is it still had to happen simultaneously, all angle clips on one floor would
have to go at once to get the pancake we saw. I might say it could coincidentally happen once, not twice and
sure as hell not three times on a building not even hit by a plane. Your very article described the construction
as seriously redundant to stop just such an occurance. Since the smoke didn't exit the top of the building I would
also assume your explanation of the chimney effect to be seriously flawed. Still no one has offered another example
of it happening in a building fire alone. So the government explanation doesn't fit, nor those offered by government schools.

Also, No one has convinced me that a fellow who couldn't fly a Cessna could fly a massive airplane in a desending spiral
which would require one heck of a pilot to do so and target the buildings. Those planes can't turn on a dime you know,
sort of like you jumping in a tractor trailer and backing between to trucks to a loading dock. 

In short, there are way to many "coincident s" for me to buy the views you hold as plausible.

[sandcastcb750]

Three men are stranded on an island; an engineer, architect and an economist.

All they find to eat is an unopened can of beans.

The engineer says, "let's build a fire and the heat will explode the can, and then we can eat the beans!"

The architect says " Let's build a little building around the can of beans so that when it explodes, the beans will be collected for us to eat!"

The economist says " let's assume we have a can opener"

And so it goes...............

[TwoTired]

The problem with your analogy TT is it still had to happen simultaneously, all angle clips on one floor would
have to go at once to get the pancake we saw.

Not at all.  The plane crash damaged more than one floor, and the heat had ample time and heat to aid in the weakening.  Outward movement of a weakened side wall would  release the joist hangar angle clips in a large area, and on many floors at once, and then introduce side loadings on the remain angle clips, counter to their primary design function.  Lower floor's angle clips would then bear the weight of many floors, and there is a limit to the weight they are able to carry without distortion and failure, even without damage or heat.  When you saw the pancake externally, the failure internal and out of sight had already occurred.  When the central support inner core became damaged enough, the building collapse became visible to the external cameras.  It was never a simultaneous event and to continue to insist that was the case, is simply turning a blind eye to inconvenient laws of physics and mechanical structure.

I might say it could coincidentally happen once, not twice and sure as hell not three times on a building not even hit by a plane.

It wasn't coincidence.  Both towers were destroyed with the same stimulus exploiting the unique construction of the towers.  The effect of the towers falling and 500,000 tons of debris impacting the earth would have sent tremors radiating outward, in effect creating a seismic event.  Earthquakes can and do topple buildings not designed to encounter events larger than a certain magnitude.  The buildings shared a common and adjacent foundation did they not? There is a transfer of energy path then, no?  Additionally, there was also damage to consider from the rubble of the other towers.  Stuff bounces when it hits the earth from above.  Can you predict which way a few ton projectile will bounce on an uneven surface?

Your very article described the construction as seriously redundant to stop just such an occurance. 

"Designed to" and "meeting design goals" are two different matters.  Wanna bet no future buildings are made with the same construction techniques?   Design models and tests on such models can overlook factors that exist in full size examples.  The design was NOT tested to withstand the event that took place.  It rather obviously wasn't up this particular task.  Just like it probably couldn't have remained intact had a 9 or 10 scale earthquake occurred.  ALL construction has external force withstand limits.
Further, it was made clear that withstanding 90,000 L of jet fuel wasn't part of the design consideration.  To witt: "No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors."

Since the smoke didn't exit the top of the building I would also assume your explanation of the chimney effect to be seriously flawed.

Smoke exits from the top of a chimney, doesn't it?  Unless you puncture the side of it and then block the top.  I can't believe you missed the all the smoke exiting the building from the damaged floors.  Don't you think the elevator shafts continue from those floors to the bottom of the structure?  Aren't they ventilated to allow the cars to rise and fall in the shafts?  Air enters the shaft and rises to the fire site and exits out the damaged floors,  How is that not a chimney effect? 

Still no one has offered another example of it happening in a building fire alone. So the government explanation doesn't fit, nor those offered by government schools.

I suppose if you overlook that both towers were damaged in the plane crash and provided massively more fuel than the normal contents of the building would provide a fire, then your argument has some merit.  If only I hadn't seen video of a plane crash, jet fueled, fire...

Also, No one has convinced me that a fellow who couldn't fly a Cessna could fly a massive airplane in a desending spiral
which would require one heck of a pilot to do so and target the buildings.

This seems like a rant, without much in the way of fact to back it up.  Who said he couldn't fly a Cessna?  I am a pilot. And have taken people flying in my plane with NO prior experience.  Steering the plane around the sky is fairly easy.  For sure, there are certain skills more difficult than steering the plane around the sky, landing for example.  But, the big planes have GPS and altitude aware autopilot controls.  Punch in the numbers and the plane will fly itself to within 3 meters of target.  You don't have to be a good pilot to steer the plane around the sky, or crash into things.  Even a poor one can do that, provided they have some rudimentary systems training of the airplane in question.

Those planes can't turn on a dime you know,  sort of like you jumping in a tractor trailer and backing between to trucks to a loading dock. 

The planes are far more maneuverable than is practiced in everyday flight.  No, they don't turn on a dime.  And, they didn't need to for building impact.  Explain why is your statement is NOT an unsubstantiated rant, please?

In short, there are way to many "coincident s" for me to buy the views you hold as plausible.

That is your prerogative.  But, it seems to me as a cling to a religious belief, rather than a conclusion based on available facts, science, and physics.  Ever try to convince a Buddhist that Christianity is a better belief system?  Doesn't work with Muslims, either.

But, if you are comfortable with your beliefs, I wish you all happiness deserved.

Cheers,

[Terry in Australia]

Damn, I'm squeezing empty beer cans like there's no tomorrow, and they keep falling over sideways! Hey, who put the carpet on the wall!

[TwoTired]

Damn, I'm squeezing empty beer cans like there's no tomorrow, and they keep falling over sideways! Hey, who put the carpet on the wall!

You can tell you're drunk when you try and brush something off your shoulder and it's the floor. 

 

[Rocking-M]

Not at all.  The plane crash damaged more than one floor, and the heat had ample time and heat to aid in the weakening.  Outward movement of a weakened side wall would  release the joist hangar angle clips in a large area, and on many floors at once, and then introduce side loadings on the remain angle clips, counter to their primary design function.  Lower floor's angle clips would then bear the weight of many floors, and there is a limit to the weight they are able to carry without distortion and failure, even without damage or heat.  When you saw the pancake externally, the failure internal and out of sight had already occurred.  When the central support inner core became damaged enough, the building collapse became visible to the external cameras.  It was never a simultaneous event and to continue to insist that was the case, is simply turning a blind eye to inconvenient laws of physics and mechanical structure.

**Still not a convincing argument, we would have seen one side of the floor fall then the other.
Didn't see it.


It wasn't coincidence.  Both towers were destroyed with the same stimulus exploiting the unique construction of the towers.  The effect of the towers falling and 500,000 tons of debris impacting the earth would have sent tremors radiating outward, in effect creating a seismic event.  Earthquakes can and do topple buildings not designed to encounter events larger than a certain magnitude.  The buildings shared a common and adjacent foundation did they not? There is a transfer of energy path then, no?  Additionally, there was also damage to consider from the rubble of the other towers.  Stuff bounces when it hits the earth from above.  Can you predict which way a few ton projectile will bounce on an uneven surface?



**Now your making it up as you go, seismic bull #$%* is what I'd call it.

Your very article described the construction as seriously redundant to stop just such an occurance. 

"Designed to" and "meeting design goals" are two different matters.  Wanna bet no future buildings are made with the same construction techniques?   Design models and tests on such models can overlook factors that exist in full size examples.  The design was NOT tested to withstand the event that took place.  It rather obviously wasn't up this particular task.  Just like it probably couldn't have remained intact had a 9 or 10 scale earthquake occurred.  ALL construction has external force withstand limits.
Further, it was made clear that withstanding 90,000 L of jet fuel wasn't part of the design consideration.  To witt: "No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors."

**Hum, I thought they did design it for a plane strike.

Smoke exits from the top of a chimney, doesn't it?  Unless you puncture the side of it and then block the top.  I can't believe you missed the all the smoke exiting the building from the damaged floors.  Don't you think the elevator shafts continue from those floors to the bottom of the structure?  Aren't they ventilated to allow the cars to rise and fall in the shafts?  Air enters the shaft and rises to the fire site and exits out the damaged floors,  How is that not a chimney effect? 

**To get a hot burn out of any fire you need a good chimney draft, it wasn't present by your very admission, smoke billowing out of the side means
not a very good burn, not a good burn means not very hot. You get it.

Still no one has offered another example of it happening in a building fire alone. So the government explanation doesn't fit, nor those offered by government schools.

I suppose if you overlook that both towers were damaged in the plane crash and provided massively more fuel than the normal contents of the building would provide a fire, then your argument has some merit.  If only I hadn't seen video of a plane crash, jet fueled, fire...

**Wonder how much of your jet fuel simply burned on the outside of the building?

This seems like a rant, without much in the way of fact to back it up.  Who said he couldn't fly a Cessna?  I am a pilot. And have taken people flying in my plane with NO prior experience.  Steering the plane around the sky is fairly easy.  For sure, there are certain skills more difficult than steering the plane around the sky, landing for example.  But, the big planes have GPS and altitude aware autopilot controls.  Punch in the numbers and the plane will fly itself to within 3 meters of target.  You don't have to be a good pilot to steer the plane around the sky, or crash into things.  Even a poor one can do that, provided they have some rudimentary systems training of the airplane in question.

**A rant eh? Your really hot on yerself aint ya. The fellow tried to sign off on a small plane and wasn't passed.

Those planes can't turn on a dime you know,  sort of like you jumping in a tractor trailer and backing between to trucks to a loading dock. 

The planes are far more maneuverable than is practiced in everyday flight.  No, they don't turn on a dime.  And, they didn't need to for building impact.  Explain why is your statement is NOT an unsubstantiated rant, please?

**Most pilots I have heard comment on this feat also state it like I did, particularly given this was a supposed first timer. You must be a special pilot.

In short, there are way to many "coincident s" for me to buy the views you hold as plausible.

That is your prerogative.  But, it seems to me as a cling to a religious belief, rather than a conclusion based on available facts, science, and physics.  Ever try to convince a Buddhist that Christianity is a better belief system?  Doesn't work with Muslims, either.

But, if you are comfortable with your beliefs, I wish you all happiness deserved.

Cheers,

Hey you can rant to I see.

Take it easy.

[Terry in Australia]

So to take a break from the WTC for a mo, what about the Pentagon? I mean, we've all seen pics of the remains of big airliners that have struck buildings and mostly bounced off, (apart from the papier mache twin towers, of course, where the planes virtually just flew in) so why was it that there weren't wings, tails, landing gear etc in evidence, not to mention the bulk of the fusillage, which of course somehow made itself smaller and penetrated several layers of reinforced concrete walls designed to withstand a missile strike?

And yeah, I have seen the pics of the trash can sized chunk of aircraft fusillage with no identifying marks, and the engine from another aircraft found on site, but I'm still not convinced. Cheers, Terry.  

[Rocking-M]

It's another one of those magical mystical coincidental occurrences. It seems that once every 20 years or
so when the moon aligns with Mars or something, there is no actual wreckage from the plane that crashes to be found.
Instead, the time/space sometin or tuther cause bits floating in that void from other plane crashes to be deposited
at the scene of the crash in question whilst the bits from that crash are sucked into the great void to be deposited
at a later date.



By the way Terry, I haven't heard back on the sporty yet.

[Terry in Australia]

By the way Terry, I haven't heard back on the sporty yet.

No worries RM, I'm definitely interested still, but no hurry either, I'm paying bills this month like there's no tomorrow, but I've sold 2 of my "project" bikes this month (both to fellers called "Patrick", hows that for a co-incidence?) and I've got 4 more to get rid of this year to make some space for a Sporty, and hopefully pay for it too! Cheers, Terry.

[TwoTired]

**Still not a convincing argument, we would have seen one side of the floor fall then the other.
Didn't see it.

You should get a refund from the superman school you went to, then.  Because they cheated you out of the xray vision so you could see through the WTC walls.

But, one wonders how you manage to breathe air that you can't see?  I mean, it can't exist if you don't see it, right?

**Now your making it up as you go, seismic bull #$%* is what I'd call it.

Based on what knowledge, science, or evidence?  Or, did you mean to say "Gee, I never thought of that, since it doesn't fit with my conspiracy theory?"

**Hum, I thought they did design it for a plane strike.

Impact, yes.  90,000L of burning jet fuel as well? no.
Have you stopped reading?  "No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors."
And, gee, if you were wrong about that, what if you got the whole conspiracy theory wrong, too?

**To get a hot burn out of any fire you need a good chimney draft, it wasn't present by your very admission, smoke billowing out of the side means
not a very good burn, not a good burn means not very hot. You get it.

The purpose of the draft is to provide more oxygen than is available at the fire site.  The velocity of air or any fluid reduces when the orifice diameter increases.  Think about how a water nozzle functions.  Large diameter hose feeds a small diameter nozzle and the velocity of the fluid increases.  The reverse is also, true.  Fluid will slow when it flows from a small diameter orifice to a large one.  In this case, the elevator shafts are the small diameter orifice and all the windows blown out of the damaged floor where the smoke exited was the exit orifice, a much much larger orifice.  Of course the velocity was lower at the building exit!
Another factor is that of scale.  I recall seeing the Mt St Helens eruption on TV years ago and the smoke plume it produced.  Huge cloud above it, but the smoke did not appear to be rising very fast.  Later I learned that the smoke plume was moving at 400 miles an hour!
Could it be that your view of the smoke exiting from the WTC was moving faster than you think because of the enormous mass of the building it was coming from?  It's a scale factor you don't get from TV.  Those buildings were huge!  And, that smoke was coming out much faster than you think, I'd reckon.

So the real question is; Do you get it?"

**Wonder how much of your jet fuel simply burned on the outside of the building?

Ok fine, then I and many others will wonder about how much of your conspiracy theory is simply your overactive imagination?  Have you ANY data to show that some did?  How much?  Could help to calculate the heat infusion, if we know how much fuel didn't contribute to the structural heating.  Or, is this an adjunct to the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory?
And for the record.  I don't own ANY jet fuel.

**A rant eh? Your really hot on yerself aint ya. The fellow tried to sign off on a small plane and wasn't passed.

Someone can fail a drivers test, too.  Doesn't prove they can't drive.  They just might not be able to do it safely and meet every aspect of requirements.  Do you know on what specific cause for his failed sign off?  Perhaps he misunderstood the regulations about how close to buildings you are allowed to fly? 

Hot on myself?  By that, if you mean am I confident about my education, knowledge, and skill in salient matters, then in your parlance, I AM hot on myself.  Ain't you hot on yourself?

**Most pilots I have heard comment on this feat also state it like I did, particularly given this was a supposed first timer. You must be a special pilot.

Despite the thinly veiled insult... You can learn the in flight skills from a PC simulator.  Yes, even YOU.  Have the pilots you DO listen to have any experience or knowledge of the flight controls of the planes that crashed?  C'mon, lets hear some quotes, data points, or something other than possibly alcohol fueled bravado.

I've tried to expand your knowledge base regarding mechanical structure, physics, and some material science.  It was offered in good faith.  Like watering horses, one can only make it available, not force them to drink it.
(This is either philosophy or a rant, you decide.)

Be well.

[Rocking-M]

TT sez sez he,
"The purpose of the draft is to provide more oxygen than is available at the fire site.  The velocity of air or any fluid reduces when the orifice diameter increases.  Think about how a water nozzle functions.  Large diameter hose feeds a small diameter nozzle and the velocity of the fluid increases.  The reverse is also, true.  Fluid will slow when it flows from a small diameter orifice to a large one.  In this case, the elevator shafts are the small diameter orifice and all the windows blown out of the damaged floor where the smoke exited was the exit orifice, a much much larger orifice.  Of course the velocity was lower at the building exit!
Another factor is that of scale.  I recall seeing the Mt St Helens eruption on TV years ago and the smoke plume it produced.  Huge cloud above it, but the smoke did not appear to be rising very fast.  Later I learned that the smoke plume was moving at 400 miles an hour!
Could it be that your view of the smoke exiting from the WTC was moving faster than you think because of the enormous mass of the building it was coming from?  It's a scale factor you don't get from TV.  Those buildings were huge!  And, that smoke was coming out much faster than you think, I'd reckon. Wink"


The point of the exit would have also been the source of the fire, by your analogy the draft coming from the elevator shafts would not
have been heated, no heat no metal fatigue there. However, I wonder where the elevators where in the shafts? If below the fire,
a big damper factor to figure in there eh? Comparing Mt. St. Helens, an eruption on the scale of an atomic bomb is not relevant. 

Moreover,  TT sez,
"Ok fine, then I and many others will wonder about how much of your conspiracy theory is simply your overactive imagination?  Have you ANY data to show that some did?  How much?  Could help to calculate the heat infusion, if we know how much fuel didn't contribute to the structural heating.  Or, is this an adjunct to the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory?
And for the record.  I don't own ANY jet fuel. "


Most of the videos on the subject answer all of your questions it appears you haven't viewed any. And they were done by competent engineers (if such an animal exist,
most being lacking in the common sense department.) So check them out, you might find something on the flying questions, the Pentagon questions, the collapse questions, etc........ They offer a much better explanation than your sheeptastic fantasies.

Later.

[Terry in Australia]

Anyone else want some popcorn while I'm up? 

[troppo]

yeah, and a bucket of beer.... but make it good aussie beer not that watery yank stuff hehehehehe

[JLeather]

Terry, I'm gonna take a seat in the peanut gallery for this one too.  Hmmm, peanuts, now those go good with beer two 

Seriously, though, TwoTired stresses pretty much the same ideas I do about this, although with a bit more bravado and explanation (I'm typing this at work, though, and don't have that kinda time).  Avast ye, and so forth...

[edbikerii]

yeah, and a bucket of beer.... but make it good aussie beer not that watery yank stuff hehehehehe

I know you're not talkin' 'bout Foster's.  That #$%*e is no better than Bud or even Coors Light.  Come to the USA and try some Pete's Wicked, Sam Adams, Yuengling, or any number of other excellent beers.

[Klark Kent]

JL- your responses include plenty of explanation and bravado, what TT brought to the table is a comprehensive knowledge of engineering and physics.  Bravado is something LLoyd seems to be trying his best to not resort to.  And he has convinced me that the collapse of the north and south towers due to planes was technically possible- if not likely. 

I look forward to his scientific explanations of building seven's collapse, the damage pattern at the pentagon, and the evaporation of flight 93 and its passengers. 

I am sure you are all great pilots, whose passports and other documents could survive any explosion.
-KK

[TwoTired]

I look forward to his scientific explanations of building seven's collapse, the damage pattern at the pentagon, and the evaporation of flight 93 and its passengers. 

I'm not wasting spending any more time on this, Klark.  But, this site has far more research than I'm willing to delve into.  I was disappointed that the perdue crash simulation link was broken, though.  Would have liked to have seen that.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Cheers,

[Klark Kent]

thants ok Lloyd.  frankly i was surprised you wasted spent so much time already.
-KK

[Terry in Australia]

yeah, and a bucket of beer.... but make it good aussie beer not that watery yank stuff hehehehehe

I know you're not talkin' 'bout Foster's.  That #$%*e is no better than Bud or even Coors Light.  Come to the USA and try some Pete's Wicked, Sam Adams, Yuengling, or any number of other excellent beers.

No beer required thanks Trop, my mother and father have just returned from a 3 month vacation in California, and were kind enough to bring me back two litres of "Makers Mark" bourbon.

As much as I chuckle about Ed's limited knowledge of Aussie beer, (Fosters is just for export to the US Ed, where it's better known, and sold in larger quantities than those brands that you mention) I concede quite happily, that America makes THE best bourbon. (with Canada a close second.)

While Jack Daniels and Jim Beam are made here, I'm sure they must lose something in the translation, because compared to Makers, they're drinkable, but rubbish. Makers is like Chivas Regal, it's a pleasure to drink straight, as opposed to most other whiskeys (whiskys) that taste like gasoline, unless drowned in Coke.

You guys keep that beer for yourselves, I'm off to find some ice and a comfy chair.......... 

[Uncle Ernie]

I used to love Stroh's when it was The Only Fire-Brewed Bohemian Style Beer in America. 
Real apfel schnapps from Germany as a floater on top of a shot of Jack with one big ice cube.
Gin martini with French vermouth, 4 olives, and a Sherman brown Queen cigaretello.
Old Overcoat (Old Overholt) with a good steak.
Amaretto coffee with REAL coffee and real whipped cream and 2 Camels.
Anchor Steam's Old Foghorn
Belgian white ales

Cue up Julie Andrews singing These are a few of my favorite things...
Got nostalgic there.
Can't believe you guys are talking about all this, still.

I am now angry at Obama and all those who plan to vote for him.  They are following him like sheep- just as the other sheep followed Bush.  The big O has not answered ONE QUESTION directly during any televised interview I have seen.  He preaches New and Change and yet he sounds EXACTLY like an old school politician.  Nobody knows where the man stands on anything- including Oprah.

[Terry in Australia]

Isn't Oprah, Obama's big fat sister?

[seaweb11]

BEER THREAD Hijack.....I love it!

[Terry in Australia]

Well, not a thread hijack per se Derek, I heard, from a reliable source, that the hijackers were in fact college students on a frat house dare, loaded to the gills on Ed's favorite beer!