Topic: For the conspiracy theorists here

[troppo]

All this crap about melting the beams is irrelevant too.  It isn't necessary to melt beams in order to get them to warp from stress and heat.

but a warped or distorted beam wont make a building collapse, there are so many other beams as a backup........
the planes smashed into one side of each tower, thus creating a weak side, things always lean or fall towards the weak side

[edbikerii]

All this crap about melting the beams is irrelevant too.  It isn't necessary to melt beams in order to get them to warp from stress and heat.

but a warped or distorted beam wont make a building collapse, there are so many other beams as a backup........
the planes smashed into one side of each tower, thus creating a weak side, things always lean or fall towards the weak side

All you have to do to put your doubts to rest is watch one of the numerous videos of the buildings collapsing.

[firecracker]

Not about the WTC, but an example of why you can't trust the government.

[youtube=425,350]PKQEQ7qHvgM[/youtube]

 

[Demon67]

Firecracker I ask you think about it, is there any citizen of the world these days that trusts their government.
Bill.

[eldar]

All you have to do to put your doubts to rest is watch one of the numerous videos of the buildings collapsing.

So how will this put to rest any doubts? We have ALL seen the videos. And it is the videos that make us question. I know you like the official report, you like Mr. 911(which I am devotedly happy he dropped out!), I know you are an expert in every science on the planet but the rest of us do not believe the official story. The govt loves people like you who believe everything you are told.

[JLeather]

The govt loves people like you who believe everything you are told.

Maybe he examined the evidence himself, and the conclusion he came up with was that it wasn't a conspiracy.  Is that possible?  Just because someone agrees with the government on this one does not necessarily mean they were spoon fed information without question.  There are plenty of people on both sides of this issue who have thought about it carefully, done research of their own, and yet came up with entirely different conclusions.

If you want believe it was a conspiracy, that's fine.  There are people on both sides, and there is plenty of evidence that points in both directions.  if there wasn't, there wouldn't even be an argument.  But just because you have taken up the side against the government's explanation doesn't mean that you are "better" than someone on the other side.  Not everyone who agrees with the gov's conclusion on this, or any other issue for that matter, is simply bending over and taking the government's information blindly.  For that matter, there are ignorant people on your side of the issue too.  People who hear someone else tell them this was a conspiracy and automatically, and unquestioningly, follow those other people.  Regardless of your stance on ANY argument, if you haven't looked at it on your own and drawn your own conclusions you are simply another blind follower of someone else.  Be it government, politician, religious leader, conspiracy theorist, or whatever.

I get so #$%*ing sick of people who have non-conventional beliefs shoving them down others throat as though you have to be some kind of genius to oppose the government or religion.

[Klark Kent]

plenty of evidence that points in both directions?  how do you pick a side?  you mentioned earlier that because your class occurred only 3 years after the event that the students tended to not question the official account out of 'patriotism.'  This is more dangerous than people who question the official account out of hand because they do not trust the government.  The notion that it is unpatriotic to question the government is anathema to our constitution.  We are not supposed to trust our government- we are supposed to hold them to the fire until ALL of our questions are answered. 

Nobody is shoving anything down your throat, with the possible exception of the media conglomerates that only tell the official story, but you can always turn that off.  besides the fact that no one here forced you to join the debate- it was your choice.  You are the one who felt compelled to stick up for the official story, which has already been shoved down our throats by every mainstream news source.  They have the power to tell you what ideas are conventional and which are unconventional.  Because of them it is conventional to think that an amature pilot made a 270 degree turn at 500 miles an hour to squarely hit the pentagon without leaving a trace of plane or a hole big enough for plane to make.  it's conventional to accept the officially released five frames of surveillance footage of the 'plane' hitting the pentagon, but unconventional to demand to see more of the hundreds of tapes that were immediately confiscated- and to this day are withheld from the public- or even to question why they are being withheld.  (it may be possible that all we need to do is look at the video to know what really happened that day like troppo suggests.)

When the people who control the flow of information are those most likely to lose money if the status quo changes, what do you expect them to tell you?  the truth?  only when it serves them.  The media does what it needs to to make money.  they are not a lliberal media.  they are not a conservative media.  they are a media that does what they are told by whoever is in power, like pilot fish it is their livelihood.  stray too far from the shark and perish. 

So if your throat is being rammed by someone, it is most likely them.  not someone posting on a motorcycle forum.  Threatening your piece of mind is another thing altogether.  the piece of mind that the media sells you is false, and while it may seem like someone is shoving something down your throat when they threaten that piece of mind, that sensation is actually them trying to pull your head out of your arse.  same direction- different intent.  and I am sorry it makes you sick, but I won't stop. 

-KK

[eldar]

jl, if you had read past posts of his, you would understand. As you have not, I will let you off as just not having read them. He believes everything he thinks is absolutely correct even WHEN he is shown that he is wrong. And if the topic is NYC then even other people who live there are wrong if they disagree with him. A 2 sided discussion is pretty much impossible with him in many cases. Not always though.

But the fact still remains that govts love people who always believe what they are told and never question. If you were in power, wouldn't you?

[sandcastcb750]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand this post at first.

The real question is, in general, "do some people, groups or governments lie and cover up the truth?"

Ok, you've got me on that one ; yes they do.

No 'bout a doubt it.

An old man told me 20+ years ago this line; "The last refuge of a rascal is patriotism"

[JLeather]

Klark,
  That post was entirely in reference to Eldar's post about edbiker.  I have no problems with this thread or the exchange of ideas herein.  It seemed that Eldar was being high-handed about his own beliefs irrationally, which is apparently not the case (it was more of a personal attack on edbiker than an attack on his belief).  I get irritated becasue it seems that so often someone will take an unconventional stance, and then boost themselves up by proclaiming that only they are intellgient enough to see "through" something even though they are just parroting what someone else has said and are in fact being led as much as someone who is putting all their trust in the government.

[DammitDan]

Nah JLeather,

You don't know Ed very well...  Eldar is right on this count 

Hard to have a debate with someone who is totally unwilling (or unable) to change their mind. 

If someone could come forward and put forth a reasonable explanation for all of my questions other than, "Sit down and believe the official explanation, or else you're being unpatriotic and dishonoring the memory of those lost and, and, and..." then I would gladly change my mind about it all.  So far no one has done so, and so my mind keeps asking questions that still have not been explained.

[Rocking-M]

Ed, I doubt you get it if it hit you over the head.
Once more, to quote from the engineers,

"The exterior wall were designed for lateral loads,
the inner 47 columns were designed to keep the building up."

So if the lateral strength of the building was compromised it wouldn't
fall straight down, particularly if the inner support columns were intact.
It would have bent over like tree blowing in the wind, not pancaked down.

So something else had to help it to pancake.

I doubt that is even clear enough for you. So bleat some more. 

[edbikerii]

All you have to do to put your doubts to rest is watch one of the numerous videos of the buildings collapsing.

So how will this put to rest any doubts? We have ALL seen the videos. And it is the videos that make us question. I know you like the official report, you like Mr. 911(which I am devotedly happy he dropped out!), I know you are an expert in every science on the planet but the rest of us do not believe the official story. The govt loves people like you who believe everything you are told.

Oh boy, here we go again, huh Eldar?  Believe what you want to believe, Eldar.  I don't care.

[JLeather]

Ed, I doubt you get it if it hit you over the head.
Once more, to quote from the engineers,

"The exterior wall were designed for lateral loads,
the inner 47 columns were designed to keep the building up."

So if the lateral strength of the building was compromised it wouldn't
fall straight down, particularly if the inner support columns were intact.
It would have bent over like tree blowing in the wind, not pancaked down.

So something else had to help it to pancake.

I doubt that is even clear enough for you. So bleat some more. 

Do you think the plane disintegrated upon hitting the outside beams and didn't touch any of the middle ones?  The middle ones were concentrated.  It is quite likely the plane took out more than a few of them as well when it entered the building.  In fact, the holes made by the planes were more than one-story high so now you're compromising two floors of the center columns.

[edbikerii]

Is it so hard to believe that there is a terrorist organization out there in the world that hates America enough to hijack some airplanes and crash them into our landmarks and kill our people?

Funny, there are plenty of people on this forum that hate America for no good reason at all.  Why would you doubt that there are middle-eastern terrorists out there that hate America?  After all, our government does generally support Israel, which seems to be the true target of almost every terrorist out there who speaks Arabic.

I'm not saying that our government doesn't conspire, nor that they don't cover up.  I'm just saying that blowing up the WTC would have been an incredibly risky, stupid thing to do.  Moreover, it just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why would the government risk getting caught doing something so stupid, when they could just wait until the real terrorists did it anyway?

Furthermore, do you think the 1993 WTC attack was also a government conspiracy, or do all of you conpiracy theorists think that one was a legitimate terrorist attack?  If so, why?

[firecracker]

       C       F       R[/color]

[DammitDan]

Funny, there are plenty of people on this forum that hate America for no good reason at all.

Dissent is not treason.  It's even written in our Constitution.  Just because someone has another theory besides the one eschewed by our illustrious Government doesn't automatically mean they "hate America."  It only allows those too ignorant to know better a way to argue their case.

I'm not saying that our government doesn't conspire, nor that they don't cover up.  I'm just saying that blowing up the WTC would have been an incredibly risky, stupid thing to do.  Moreover, it just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why would the government risk getting caught doing something so stupid, when they could just wait until the real terrorists did it anyway?

Once again I direct you towards Zeitgeist.  It puts forth some rather credible conclusions that you seem to be refusing to consider.

[TwoTired]

Is anybody here capable or interested in "debunking" this report on a scientific, rather than religious basis?

It looks pretty objective, to me.  And offers some info contrary to what's been presented in this thread.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Cheers,

[Rocking-M]

Is anybody here capable or interested in "debunking" this report on a scientific, rather than religious basis?



Cheers,

"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

I for one do not think it offers anything contrary since the assumption is still that the fire was hot enough
to initiate the collapse. It also would have to happen around the perimeter of the building at the same time.
Highly unlikely I'd say unless some other factor is used to explain it. Explosives being the only possible explanation
that would allow the simultaneous failure of a the complete perimeter of a couple of floors and allow for the pancaking
action as described.

Quick ignition which meant quick burn would not have subjected the steel to the temperature need to weaken the steel for a long enough  period.

Passing a quick hot flame over steel doesn't weaken it. To even get close to weakening the steel would have to had
been exposed to the a flame that is hot enough for a considerable time. A diffused-flame in my experience with heating steel just
wouldn't do it. Unless the steel beams used were the thickness of car sheet metal. I don't think they were but perhaps so one has
the thickness of steel figures in hand and can post. Even then, I don't see the fire being sufficient to heat the entire perimeter of even one floor.

[DammitDan]

Even if there had been enough heat to weaken the structure enough to collapse, the heat was not distributed evenly.  They state this in the report that TT posted.  However, this in effect would cause a weakened structure on one side with a stronger structure on the other, logically causing a buckling on one side that would cause the top 10 floors not to fall straight down, but rather shear away and snap, tipping off like the top of a tiered wedding cake with a broken support. 

Unfortunately this isn't what we saw in EITHER case, even with the planes hitting different quadrants in each tower.  Instead we see two nice, clean, nearly identical implosions as though every superstructure support in both towers were stressed equally.

I admit that I'm not educated in structural engineering or experienced in building collapse, but logic is still logic and there's something that doesn't sit right with me regarding the WTC collapse.  Maybe I'm just missing something (If I only had a brain...  )

[eldar]

Ed it is only a personal attack if it is not true.

Dan, RM, I would have to agree. The heating certainly did not look even to me on all those tapes the media crammed on us. I would certainly say only 1 side got heated and thus only one side would be weak. That side should have fell first and then sheared and then MAYBE the rest may have gone down some. I also do not think the steel got hot enough, long enough to lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse on its own.

[TwoTired]

I for one do not think it offers anything contrary since the assumption is still that the fire was hot enough
to initiate the collapse. It also would have to happen around the perimeter of the building at the same time.

The contradictions of previous posts, is that the many vertical supports per floor, only served to transfer loads of the floor above to the angle clips of the floor hangars at the central core and the out wall support structure.  These multiple supports were only stabilizing in nature, to minimize floor flex and bounce for the occupants.  They were NOT major structural supports.  The major structural support for the building was the inner core and the outer shell, and NOT, just the outer shell and  vertical floor supports/stabilizers.

As the floor joist angle clips were weakened by the prolonged heat, they deformed under the load of the floor weight increasing their angle and allowing the floor to slide down the angle.  The floor movement down the angle clips (now turned into ramps) allowing the floor weight to push the outer walls outward.  This put even more weight load at the edge of the angle clip instead of its root, increasing the steel deflection until the outer wall movement of the floor angle clip no longer supported the floor weight.  This occurred on several floors at the same time due to the outer wall movement.  The combined weight and velocity momentum of the floor weight, began over stressing angle clips on the successive lower floors.  It's also not hard to expect that those vertical floor stabilizing supports, having no triangulation, for stability, rather than simply collapsing, would now introduce lateral forces as they fell over and guided the floor structure either below or above it, into the central core.  The resultant progressive damage, making it unable the support the many tons of load it normally withstood, now without aid of the outer walls support structure.  Once the momentum builds, counter force needed to stop it rose exponentially, and went far above design limits.

Heat is concentrated near the center of a flame.  In this case, the center of the building/central core support structure.  This was also where the elevator shafts were.  While I don't know, couldn't the plane crash have compromised the elevator doors, allowing the fuel to be fed oxygen from the elevator shaft?  This would certainly intensify the heat.  Again the floor joist angle clips would be the likely weak points subject to deformation from the heat of the fire.  Without floor support transferred to the central core, the floor stabilizing supports then transmit the weight of one, two, or three floors to the angle clips of a floor designed to withstand far less weight.  Then with the outer wall moving outward, the pancake/crumbling process continues downward.

"at the same time", implies instantaneous.  The building did not collapse instantaneously.  There was a progression of events.  And, the internal failure(s) leading up to and during the collapse was hidden from view by the outer walls.  I don't understand your use of "at the same time". And there was no reference to "at the same time" in the link I posted.

Quick ignition which meant quick burn would not have subjected the steel to the temperature need to weaken the steel for a long enough  period.

A one to two hour heat cycle with temperature spiking to "750–800°C range", is quick?  "It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"

I'm sorry, I don't think I can accept your assertion in this regard.

Even then, I don't see the fire being sufficient to heat the entire perimeter of even one floor.

I don't think it has to all begin at once.  Certainly the outer shell/support was weakened significantly from the plane crash.  Why is it so hard to believe the the joist clips for the floors in this area gave way, or were distorted from the impact?  Add a bit heat  for an hour or so and failure does not seem unlikely to me.  Then the angle clips around the perimeter would fail like a can opener rips the lid off a can.  None of this action would be visible on the outside of the structure, apart from some outward motion of the exterior wall as the floor joists slipped off the angle clip.

I just don't see the evidence for a conspiracy.  Both towers suffered from the same impact damage and heat distortion.  They both failed in the same way.  No building is able to withstand any and all possible disasters.  Most are built to withstand conceivable disasters within a build budget.  I expect future building designs will differ in construction from the WTC towers, for a while.  Eventually, building budgets will change construction design again.  OR, we will have progressively fewer buildings created as time goes on.  For example, should buildings be able to withstand meteor strikes?  Of what size?  What about earthquake damage of 9.0?
After these are experienced, people will come out of the woodwork to blame someone else's lack of foresight.

Cheers,

[troppo]

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

[Terry in Australia]

I'm not saying that our government doesn't conspire, nor that they don't cover up.  I'm just saying that blowing up the WTC would have been an incredibly risky, stupid thing to do.  Moreover, it just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why would the government risk getting caught doing something so stupid, when they could just wait until the real terrorists did it anyway?

G'Day Ed, well the precedent has already been set many times in history of course, the most memorable for me was Adolf Hitler burning down the Reichstag to give the Nazi's an excuse to pass laws banning Communism, increasing their version of "Homeland Security" and interring other "undesirables" in concentration camps. Sound familiar? Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Furthermore, do you think the 1993 WTC attack was also a government conspiracy, or do all of you conpiracy theorists think that one was a legitimate terrorist attack?  If so, why?

I reckon the earlier attack was probably a legitimate terrorist attack, as a car bomb is a common method for most terrorist organisations, but it created a precedent, and planted the seed of an idea into the minds of those who really pulled off 9/11 in the much more spectacular "shock and awe" method that incidentally, has never since been attempted by these terrorists again, I wonder why? Cheers, Terry.

[edbikerii]

I'm not saying that our government doesn't conspire, nor that they don't cover up.  I'm just saying that blowing up the WTC would have been an incredibly risky, stupid thing to do.  Moreover, it just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why would the government risk getting caught doing something so stupid, when they could just wait until the real terrorists did it anyway?

G'Day Ed, well the precedent has already been set many times in history of course, the most memorable for me was Adolf Hitler burning down the Reichstag to give the Nazi's an excuse to pass laws banning Communism, increasing their version of "Homeland Security" and interring other "undesirables" in concentration camps. Sound familiar? Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Furthermore, do you think the 1993 WTC attack was also a government conspiracy, or do all of you conpiracy theorists think that one was a legitimate terrorist attack?  If so, why?

I reckon the earlier attack was probably a legitimate terrorist attack, as a car bomb is a common method for most terrorist organisations, but it created a precedent, and planted the seed of an idea into the minds of those who really pulled off 9/11 in the much more spectacular "shock and awe" method that incidentally, has never since been attempted by these terrorists again, I wonder why? Cheers, Terry.

OK, I've read the Reichstag wiki page, and yes, in familiar fashion, the conclusion that Hitler burned down the Reichstag building is nothing more than speculation, conspiracy theories, and finger-pointing by the accused conspirators.

There WAS, in fact, a communist conspiracy afoot in Germany in 1933.  As we all know, communism was a serious global threat in 1933.  In fact, according to the wiki page, 17% of the seats in the German Parliament were occupied by communists (KPD).  Marinus Van Der Lubbe had, in fact, been a member of the communist party, and he was caught red-handed inside the building while it was burning.  Of course, the Nazi implication in the fire was mere accusation by the communist suspects.

Note also the key phrase from the wiki page:  The rest of the alleged communist conspirators (who were acquitted in German court) "were expelled to the Soviet Union, where they received a hero's welcome".

As we all know by now, the only thing necessary for a conspiracy theory is the "possibility that it MIGHT have happened".  There is no requirement for real evidence.

As for the lack of successful terrorist attacks in the US since 2001, there is no mystery.  Heightened security, more thorough, careful investigation of intelligence, and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have curbed quite a bit of terrorist activity.  Several terrorist plots have, in fact, been intercepted globally since 9/11/2001.  Funny how the news of a "foiled terrorist plot" doesn't make such good headlines as a successful terrorist plot.  Perhaps you hadn't heard of the recent foiled plot involving Fort Dix in NJ?