• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

My original question was why were there no pieces of concrete.

Actually, I can readily see that it mostly, if not completely turned to "dust". I am wondering what the explanation for that is? What properties of concrete cause it to do that?
 
love said:
Oh, I understand, I'm just a little skeptical.
Click to expand...

So you are skeptical of failure analyistsm, civil engineers, structural engineers, and similar experts around the world who come to the same conclusion about the building's fall?

I used to do a little demo when I was working at the museum. I'd have a kid stand on a peice of plexiglass supported by 9 papers cups. It held the kid up pretty well. He could even march in place.

Then I would remove five of the paper cups. Still, the kid would be supported.

But then the kid would try marching in place again.

The paper cup failure was blindingly fast, and comlpete over all remaining four cups, despite the placement of his or her feet.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans
Click to expand...

Because the remote controlled planes were guided to the right spot! Come on....
 
love said:
My original question was why were there no pieces of concrete.

Actually, I can readily see that it mostly, if not completely turned to "dust". I am wondering what the explanation for that is? What properties of concrete cause it to do that?
Click to expand...

Again, where was the concrete used in the construction? If it was mostly used for the base of the structure, you aren't going to see much of it at all.
 
love said:
That's right. The theory I was referring to was the pancake theory.
Click to expand...

Referring to the work as 'ad hoc' shows your closed mindedness. Again: Structural engineers in countries not necessarily friendly to the US have agreed with the assesment of NIST.

Are they in on the conspiracy too?
 
kookbreaker said:
So you are skeptical of failure analyistsm, civil engineers, structural engineers, and similar experts around the world who come to the same conclusion about the building's fall?
Click to expand...

Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.

I used to do a little demo when I was working at the museum. I'd have a kid stand on a peice of plexiglass supported by 9 papers cups. It held the kid up pretty well. He could even march in place.

Then I would remove five of the paper cups. Still, the kid would be supported.

But then the kid would try marching in place again.

The paper cup failure was blindingly fast, and comlpete over all remaining four cups, despite the placement of his or her feet.
Click to expand...

Are you taking the p***?
 
the 9/11 theories to me are perticularly disturbing. Some people want to think that someone out there is against them. The system, the government, secret organisation, corporations (well....).

I would ask this. Like the moon landing, just how many people would be needed to fake or cover up such a huge event like this? all the different department people 'hiding' all the different evidence, communicating with each other, and trusting that one of the hundreds if not thousands involved dont say a word.

A lot of evidence I found for 9/11 theories were based on initial media reports and eye witness accounts (when the facts are ALWAYS muddled). Then after they get the real story based on proper scientific analysis, because it dont sound so james bond, they wont believe it. Well, I guess the cool thing for me there is science is true, whether you believe it or not.

It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.
 
Last edited:
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
Click to expand...


Are you a new yorker? No. Didn't think so.

The WTC was built on landfill. Why don't you figure out how much of that concrete went down rather than up.
 
love said:
OK, let's inject some facts into this discussion.

There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in construction.

Each tower was about 64 meters square, giving us 40 meters, or 11 stories of concrete alone for each tower. That is without the steel and without any air spaces and without the other building materials and contents.

I didn't see that much debris in total!

In the photos posted on this thread it doesn't look to be more than 10 meters of rubble. Now there were some

The concrete appears to be missing.


As to the other point about the "failure" of the steel, I refer back to my original question as to how the buildings fell in free fall. If any of the building had provided any significant resistance when it collapsed, then it could not have done so in free fall. Yet it did.

The pancaking theory would suggest that each floor collapsed one at a time. This would mean each floor would have slowed down the fall of the building above due to its own inertia. Yet the buildings fell in free-fall.
Click to expand...

First off... I fail to see what conclusions your "missing concrete" and "free fall" theories are trying to draw. Were the towers made from paper mache back in the 70's and the crooked illuminati cabal who built them orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to cover-up their shoddy construction scam?

Anyhoo... an exercise in futility though it may be, I'll bite.

-The "missing concrete"...

You suggest that there is only "10 meters of rubble". Measured from where? From street level up? Well, guess what? The towers weren't built from street level. They were built over a... what? Here's a hint, and a suggestion for you regarding your continuing attempt to support silly conspiracy theories:

:dig:

"When in a hole, stop digging."

So... how far below street level did the basement of the WTC complex extend? Follow the link to see the pretty picture:

http://michaelminn.net/newyork/wtc/2004-07-17_18-11-50.jpg

Get the picture?

-The "free falling building"...

No, the pancaking theory does not suggest that the building collapsed one floor at a time... as in the collapse did not start on the top floor and continue in sequence to the bottom.

The collapse started at around the three quarters point up the building. Which means that there was a MASSIVE weight above the initially collapsing floors section. A weight so massive that the subsequent floors below the collapsing section offered scant resistence to such an irresistably massive force. It wasn't like a steady procession of floors flopping down one at a time like dominos. It was more like a bowling ball being dropped on house of cards. The house of cards doesn't stand a chance.

Again... this process is clearly seen in the recorded video footage of the events.
 
Last edited:
hellaeon said:
the 9/11 theories to me are perticularly disturbing. Some people want to think that someone out there is against them. The system, the government, secret organisation, corporations (well....).

I would ask this. Like the moon landing, just how many people would be needed to fake or cover up such a huge event like this? all the different department people 'hiding' all the different evidence, communicating with each other, and trusting that one of the hundreds if not thousands involved dont say a word.

A lot of evidence I found for 9/11 theories were based on initial media reports and eye witness accounts (when the facts are ALWAYS muddled). Then after they get the real story based on proper scientific analysis, because it dont sound so james bond, they wont believe it. Well, I guess the cool thing for me there is science is true, whether you believe it or not.

It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathmaticians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.
Click to expand...

The presidential blow job question was, naturally, unanswered. I am afraid to ask why "they" would do this in the first place.
 
love said:
Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.
Click to expand...

hellaeon said:
It dont matter what factual data you put in front of someone, most people think I cant work it out therefore it cant be true!
Thankfully, I put my trust in mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like to do there chosen skill properly without having to feel scared that they just might know more of what they are doing then me in those areas.
Click to expand...

:D
 
love said:
I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.
Click to expand...


Right, like a massive self-destruct sequence. When the towers were built, during the Cold War, when most of America's time was spent watching the Soviet Union and China, they decided to rig a building for self-destruct so that they could fake a terrorist attack by an organization that didn't even exist until 1986.
 
love said:
Yes. Simply because someone proclaims themselves to be an expert doesn't mean I can ignore my own calculations and the evidence before me. I prefer to use science as a basis for understanding, not authority.
Click to expand...


These engineers are not "self-proclaimed" experts. The universities that issued their degrees say these men are experts in their field. I also notice that you, like nearly every other conspiracy proponent, claims to have done your own "calculations". If anyone is a self-proclaimed expert....

Also, how can you trust in science when you don't trust people that have what are essentially scientific degrees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom