Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[CurtC]

So what does that have to do with the building falling like a house of cards? No it didn't need to break or melt it...but it needed to essentially knock out all of the steel on a floor for the pancake theory to work. Are you saying that a entire floor was incinerated in a hour, to the point where the whole building could fall down? What about the reinforced unaffected lower floors?

I'm having trouble figuring out what part of this picture you don't understand. Each floor is designed to safely hold desks, file cabinets, a couple hundred meatbags, etc. A floor is *not* designed to withstand a 25-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 26-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 27-story building slamming down on top of *it*.

Your complaint that the buildings *looked* like they were demolished is just saying that they looked like they FELL DOWN. It's impossible for a building like any of the WTC towers to topple over sideways like a kid's toy, because long before it would get to a severe angle, parts would be stressed to their breaking point and then gravity would pull it straight down. In fact, with the WTC2 collapse, you can see it starting to go sideways a little when it suddenly drops. WTC1 dropped starting at the middle, so it pretty much came straight down, which is consistent with its airplane strike that was more centered, so the center columns would have sustained much more damage.

You keep saying that you're not making any specific claims, but you also keep bringing up these stupid assertions that the buildings could have been demolished. And you point to a huge collections of insane ideas, such as the Wikipedia laundry list of conspiracy theories, and the Loose Change video, wanting us to address all of those. No one wants to do that because it's such a long list and most of it is obviously insane, that's why we are asking you to present a few of the ones that pose the biggest problem to the standard model.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A floor is *not* designed to withstand a 25-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 26-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 27-story building slamming down on top of *it*.

Your complaint that the buildings *looked* like they were demolished is just saying that they looked like they FELL DOWN. It's impossible for a building like any of the WTC towers to topple over sideways like a kid's toy, because long before it would get to a severe angle, parts would be stressed to their breaking point and then gravity would pull it straight down. In fact, with the WTC2 collapse, you can see it starting to go sideways a little when it suddenly drops. WTC1 dropped starting at the middle, so it pretty much came straight down, which is consistent with its airplane strike that was more centered, so the center columns would have sustained much more damage.

Excellently put!

The CTs seem to think that a collapsing building should topple sideways like a brick chimney (which are usually demolished anyway)! (I think we've all seen those on film.)

You keep saying that you're not making any specific claims, but you also keep bringing up these stupid assertions that the buildings could have been demolished. And you point to a huge collections of insane ideas, such as the Wikipedia laundry list of conspiracy theories, and the Loose Change video, wanting us to address all of those. No one wants to do that because it's such a long list and most of it is obviously insane, that's why we are asking you to present a few of the ones that pose the biggest problem to the standard model.

Yes, for someone who makes excuses that they are not on any particular side of the argument, he totally ignores the rational side and retains all the claims from the conspiracy side. Has 'sitting on the fence' so long cut his reasoning in half? Is it too late for him to concede on some points, or has his pride taken him too far?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, for someone who makes excuses that they are not on any particular side of the argument, he totally ignores the rational side and retains all the claims from the conspiracy side. Has 'sitting on the fence' so long cut his reasoning in half? Is it too late for him to concede on some points, or has his pride taken him too far?

Ditto.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Thesyntaxera? How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

I asked this on the previous page, but I don't blame you if you missed it. Lots of people have been replying to you.

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

I think that would give us a good basis for a reasonable discussion. Just the one or two things that you think best show a conspiracy or a flaw in the official story.

I will...in order for me to properly answer you I will need more than a few minutes to type...bear with me

 

[thesyntaxera]

Excellently put!

"Come on ladies grease your lips.."

The CTs seem to think that a collapsing building should topple sideways like a brick chimney (which are usually demolished anyway)! (I think we've all seen those on film.)

Do I? You all should take the Randi Challenge and prove how psychic you are. Or you could use a bit of rationality yourself. A building doesn't just crumble to pieces at nearly free fall speeds just because a plane hit it, burning, and allegedly weakening the steel, it would take days not an hour. The way the three buildings came down is not congruent with any known application of building science. It took government appointed scientists who based all of their work on guesses made from watching the same video's, and the exclusion of demolition as a cause in order to "prove" that the buildings came down like they said. There was no real investigation, so there was no proof to base anything on.

Yes, for someone who makes excuses that they are not on any particular side of the argument, he totally ignores the rational side and retains all the claims from the conspiracy side. Has 'sitting on the fence' so long cut his reasoning in half? Is it too late for him to concede on some points, or has his pride taken him too far?

I haven't ignored the rational side, I think your version of what is the rational side is a bit biased by your brass balls claims to be able to debunk all of this....which no one here has done yet. I bring up the conspiracy claims because you can't debunk them with fact or evidence yourself....realize this...your life will be better as a result.

You have conceded nothing, so why should I? You don't entertain any notions other than proving your rightness.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I never recall the term "Pull it" used in describing a controlled demolition, but would be interested in finding that professional demolitions folks use that term--if you can find said references.

In the martial law video.

A demolitions team at ground zero bringing down the last of the buildings is featured saying pull it.

Just watch

 

[thesyntaxera]

What I'm not clear on is how you see the potential for a revolution here. Anybody with the ability to plan and carry out the attacks could have easily foreseen the galvanizing effect it had on the American public. Could you explain how this could have lead to a revolution?

I took the idea from a recent history channel feature on the history of bin Laden. It was speculated that he might have been trying to inspire the muslims in Saudi Arabia to overthrow the monarchy, I suggested that one of the fallouts could have been the ousting of our executive branch by the airing of the complete past history of involvment between us and terrorist regimes as well as the economic oil related issues between the US and the Middle East.

So there was a cover up of the POTENTIAL blow bin Laden COULD HAVE struck with the attacks?

no, a cover up of what could have been revealed about the executive members of government.

 

[Belz...]

Syntax, man. Please include the NAME of the quoted person. You're confusing the HELL out of me.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Syntax, man. Please include the NAME of the quoted person. You're confusing the HELL out of me.

Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show.

 

[CurtC]

A building doesn't just crumble to pieces at nearly free fall speeds just because a plane hit it, burning, and allegedly weakening the steel, it would take days not an hour.

I'm trying to come with an explanation that would make a 100-story building fall at slower than "nearly free fall speeds." It just doesn't make sense - once it loses structural integrity and the top part of the building gets headed down, what's there to slow it down?

And why would it take days? Weakening is a function of temperature, not time. A steel beam at 800 degrees will be just as weak the moment it hits that temp as it would be the next day at that temp.

Still waiting on that short list of problems with the standard model...

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm trying to come with an explanation that would make a 100-story building fall at slower than "nearly free fall speeds." It just doesn't make sense - once it loses structural integrity and the top part of the building gets headed down, what's there to slow it down?

And why would it take days? Weakening is a function of temperature, not time. A steel beam at 800 degrees will be just as weak the moment it hits that temp as it would be the next day at that temp.

Still waiting on that short list of problems with the standard model...

Well for starters there is 80 or so stories below that aren't weak, and that only gain in strength as it gets closer to the ground. It's not that the upper floor couldn't have collapsed, it's that the lower 80 wouldn't.

Why would it take days? Because logic would suggest that it would require high heat for an extended period of time to weaken enough of the steel for the collapse to have occured in the manner described....that isn't possible in an hour...

as far as waiting...YOU are going to be waiting forever....the person who asked will be waiting until I have time.

Besides, you asked for sources to debunk, I gave them, then you copped out. Do what you claim you can do, or quit making thoughtless contributions in a vain attempt to argue a point that you are just as unqualified as me to assess.

 

[Year Zero]

First of all, numerous engineers including those that investigated the building itself and those familiar with its construction are quoted as saying that the expected the building to collapse. We have already posted links to these reports days ago, and you promptly ignored them. What you obviously don't get is:

1. Buildings may be strong but they are designed to support a STATIC load, not a DYNAMIC load as in a large portion of the building suddenly falling on top of it.

2. The fire did not have to weaken a large portion of the building, only the key places that started the collapse.

 

[CurtC]

Well for starters there is 80 or so stories below that aren't weak, and that only gain in strength as it gets closer to the ground. It's not that the upper floor couldn't have collapsed, it's that the lower 80 wouldn't.

But consider for example floor 50. It has 50 stories of the upper floors, crashing down on top of it going something like 50 mph. What do you expect the 50th floor to do at that point? Hold it off for a couple of minutes before breaking? I would expect it to get crushed immediately with thousands of times its design load crashing down on top of it.

Why would it take days? Because logic would suggest that it would require high heat for an extended period of time to weaken enough of the steel for the collapse to have occured in the manner described....that isn't possible in an hour...

If a steel beam is encased in flames for an hour, it's going to be as hot as it's going to get, and soaking it for a day or two is not going to make it any hotter or any weaker.

Besides, you asked for sources to debunk, I gave them, then you copped out.

We didn't ask for sources to debunk (at least I didn't) - we asked for evidence and alternate explanations that we can have a discussion around. "Go look at Wikipedia" is not specific enough.

 

[thesyntaxera]

First of all, numerous engineers including those that investigated the building itself and those familiar with its construction are quoted as saying that the expected the building to collapse. We have already posted links to these reports days ago, and you promptly ignored them. What you obviously don't get is:

1. Buildings may be strong but they are designed to support a STATIC load, not a DYNAMIC load as in a large portion of the building suddenly falling on top of it.

2. The fire did not have to weaken a large portion of the building, only the key places that started the collapse.

This is from the Fema report...I'm sure you've read it.

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

This is fine, it openly says that the one thing that could have reached a hot enough temperature to weaken the steel couldn't have been the cause, so we are left to assume it was the drywall, concrete, aluminum, and office furniture...something that couldn't possibly do that.

As well I could write in all the points, but maybe you would like to read through this yourself:

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm

It's just a persons logical breakdown of the collapse itself, and I feel it makes some good arguments.

It's elementary logic that any significant heat would have caused a weakening of the steel. However, it's ludicrous to believe that the heat uniquely accumulated, versus ventilated, so as to disastrously diminish the strength of industrial steel - in such a short period of time.

Here is an interesting Nova chat with some CT rebuttals laced throughout in red.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html

NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

And here is the article that guy wrote with the same ct redness.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

Note that in all of the discussion of fire temperatures and steel weakening the authors never point out the difference between flame temperature and steel temperature, implying that they are the same. This ignores the very high thermal conductivity of steel. In actual tests of hydrocarbon-fueled fires in car parks with exposed steel structures, conducted by Corus Construction, the highest recorded temperature of any of the steel in any of the many tests was 360º C.

 

[Year Zero]

Right, read one part of the FEMA report and ignore the overall conclusions. FIRE WAS NOT THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE. Do you understand that concept yet? You are arguing against a strawman there.



Dr Asif Usmani, a structural engineer at the University of Edinburgh's School of Engineering and Electronics, told an engineering conference the twin towers that had dominated the Manhattan skyline seem to have been "unusually vulnerable" to a major fire.

"There was a vulnerability in the design of the structural system. It is not materials. It is not about fire protection. It is about the design of the structure," he told Reuters.

In a computer-based analysis of the buildings, Usmani studied the structure of the towers that collapsed after they were hit by two hijacked planes in attacks blamed on Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

"We are not analysing the event. We are saying let's look at the structure itself and see if it has anything unusual that makes it more vulnerable to fire than other structures," he explained.

Usmani said the towers' exterior and internal columns, which make up the core of the building, were joined by a very long and thin expanse of floor. Supporting the floors were lightweight trusses which, when exposed to fire, expand.

But because of the way the towers were built, the trusses did not have anywhere to expand without buckling.

"This was good for constructing a building very quickly and they were strong enough to carry all the loading that was put on them. But when there is a fire underneath the trusses and the steel gets hot...it expands quite a lot and those expansion forces can be quite high if the restrains to expansion are high," he added.

Even at low temperatures of about 200- 300 C (392-572 F) the steel can begin to expand and because the building itself is keeping them in place pressure builds up to a critical point.

"This caused a buckling of the floors which was providing not only the load carrying capacity for the furniture and the people but was also providing lateral support for the columns," Usmani explained.

"That lateral support vanished as soon they buckled and that is why the building fell in on itself."

 

[thesyntaxera]

Straw man eh?

1.Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

2.Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

3.Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4.Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Sounds like I shouldn't expect less from you...if you can't debate this any other way than as read above whats the point in even talking to you?

Your article says nothing really, except that this guy looked at the video evidence as well. Also, did you notice that the FEMA report appendix A contradicts it?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

 

[Year Zero]

It only "contradicts" when you look at ONE part of the report rather than taking the whole assessment together.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I will...in order for me to properly answer you I will need more than a few minutes to type...bear with me

Bearing with you as we speak, ten hours later...

Oh well, it's past my bedtime.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Bearing with you as we speak, ten hours later...

Oh well, it's past my bedtime.

Sorry, I must have my priorities all screwed up since I didn't do anything in what you would consider a timely manner.

Here's a start.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KAN20040819&articleId=679

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_-_us_complicity__implausi.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_smoking_gun.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fema_911.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html

Want more? Just ask.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

and...

Nevertheless, ten days later Romero had changed his mind. Not only that, but the Albuquerque Journal changed their story too. They altered the original web page about Romero's views. It now shows his revised views first.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2.htm

so if no investigation was done yet, why would he change his views in 10 days?