What's your theory about 9/11?

[dafydd]

There's only 2 things about the SOF position needed for my theory:

Is your theory thicker in the middle?

 

[Oystein]

... As observed in the video, the roof remains nearly parallel. This to me is astonishing... and worthy of explanation.

I'm adequately humble to seek counter-arguments. My humility is to qualitative information, and I'm under the impression that the attitude is sufficient.

May I suggest an explanation? Not very engineering-like, just some common sense based on uncontroversial oberservations:

First the observations during the early stages of the collapse:
1. East mechanical penthouse drops
- some moments little more is visible
2. West mechanical penthouse drops
3. Immerdiately following, a kink appears left of center of the wall near the roof

From 1. and. 2. it follows that collapse started in the center (core) of the building
From 3. it follows that, from the core, collapse first spread to the center of the north wall.

I suggest the corners started to decend almost at the same time because collapse propagated from the center outward at about equal rates to both sides.

The "kink" means that the roofline isn't straight any longer, so it cannot be said to be parallel to anything.


One engineering consideration: Load redistribution propagates through steel at the speed of sound in steel - that is very very fast. Laypeople may have difficulties grasping how the overload progresses through a steel lattice while it is still intact. Fractions of a second to traverse a wall isn't really a problem.

 

[Oystein]

I'm loving you. Education is definitely preferred over ridicule...

What I'm now curious of, in reply, is why did the frames (which in viewing the construction, the walls appear as rigid) not fall inwards instead of collapsing downwards - if all the weight of the interior was already collapsed from the PH..?

But they DID fall inwards (as well as down)! The kink develops because the wall is pulled inwards.

 

[TrumanHW]

I assume you mean Richard Dawkins, N.D. Tyson, and L.M. Krauss. Richard Dawkins is a biologist, not a physicist. Tyson is an astrophysicist. Krauss is a theoretical physicist. Any opinions they may have as to 9/11 are of no more value than mine, a chemist.

IANAL, but I seriously doubt that any could pass a Daubert test as an expert witness on structural engineering, unless they've been moonlighting. (I hope that none, including me, could pass a Daubert!)

Why don't you ask the opinion of a qualified structural engineer, such as Les Robertson, the engineer of record for the Twin Towers, and more recently, lead engineer for the World Financial Center of Shanghai? Or, from academia, Professor Zdenek Bazant?

I have seen some critiques of Bazant's.

Is this guy, Steven E. Jones, the BYU physics professor totally wrong on every concern he has? And if a physics PROFESSOR believes the CT... how the hell am I, a total layman supposed to make sense of it?

wtc7 . net / articles / WhyIndeed09 . pdf

And I realize it's easier to approach this ad hominem, however, I took the time to read the ENTIRE thing. Some things I didn't understand... however, many many parts of it coincided impeccably with my common sense understandings of the world.

With regards to Tyson and others, my reason for citing notable, public figures... is that they have general science acumen -- and to my knowledge, have very high integrity. I don't have any reference for the character of the people you reference.

Can really everything be counterintuitive? I can accept that quantum physics demonstrates that particles behave differently when observed. But things that fall under the rule of NEWTONIAN predictions, while imperfect, do an excellent job and CONFER my opinion, nearly flawlessly, throughout my life. If these things are the exceptions, fine. Oswald acted alone. We went to the moon (have you guys seen moon machines?). Elvis is dead. I nearly never wear tin on my head.

But, more spurious claims I've never observed. Of COURSE the OT could be true...It just strains my sense of reality.

What black holes or quantum physics say is not a fair derivation of demonstrating that "common sense" is erroneous; we're not talking about something with 15 x solar-mass, and there is no LHC in Lower Manhattan. We don't have to prove that there are absurd realities at the extremes... unless I'm wrong - the planes were traveling less than 90% the speed of light. "Common sense" should coincide with most of the results.

I don't know anything. My epistemology is hopefully evidenced by my words choices, and I regret when I fail to.

BeachNut: Three collapse, entirely different. The interior of WTC 7 collapsed first. Each tower collapsed began differently.

Yes, this is true.

But have you seen this?

youtu . be / rP9Qp5QWRMQ

 

[TrumanHW]

May I suggest an explanation? Not very engineering-like, just some common sense based on uncontroversial oberservations:

First the observations during the early stages of the collapse:
1. East mechanical penthouse drops
- some moments little more is visible
2. West mechanical penthouse drops
3. Immerdiately following, a kink appears left of center of the wall near the roof

From 1. and. 2. it follows that collapse started in the center (core) of the building
From 3. it follows that, from the core, collapse first spread to the center of the north wall.

I suggest the corners started to decend almost at the same time because collapse propagated from the center outward at about equal rates to both sides.

The "kink" means that the roofline isn't straight any longer, so it cannot be said to be parallel to anything.


One engineering consideration: Load redistribution propagates through steel at the speed of sound in steel - that is very very fast. Laypeople may have difficulties grasping how the overload progresses through a steel lattice while it is still intact. Fractions of a second to traverse a wall isn't really a problem.

Awesome info. Thanks!! I didn't know it was speed of sound... do you know why?

With regards to the collapse in center precipitating inward, global collapse; let's say it's true -- does that negate 'intention'..?

 

[TrumanHW]

Hi TrumanHW

Interesting comment. Have you seen a video where you can see the point of collapse ?

If so where can I see it

Aside from youtube? Maybe you're rhetorically implying that the youtube videos don't provide the necessary evidence? Be clear -- there's no tone for me to go on.

PS... half of you? I have NO idea whether support CT or OT.

 

[TrumanHW]

Excellent suggestion !
But first Truman, do yourself a favor and carefully examine how an elevator
"penthouse" behaves during a controlled demolition for a benchmark.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/36381506cf0bf32a9d.gif[/qimg]

Call me retarded but I don't actually see a difference. I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at as contrast between the CD and 7WTC...? How are they actually different in appearance?

 

[Oystein]

...
Is this guy, Steven E. Jones, the BYU physics professor totally wrong on every concern he has?

I can answer this unequivocally: Yes, Steven E. Jones is totally wrong on every concern he has.

You need to realize that his being a BYU physics professor doesn't mean he is sufficiently qualified or even an authority about the things he discusses on 9/11 - his field of expertise is neither structural engineering nor fire science nor forensic chemistry nor environmental studies. His field of expertise is condensed matter physics and nucear physics. These fields have no relevance to the talking points about 9/11.

Jones is best known for his claims about thermite, and still pretends the 2009 paper at Bentham publishers, which he basically wrote (with the collaboration of Jeff Farrer, even though Niels Harrit is falsely listed at lead author), is proof for unreacted nanothermite in WTC dust. This claim is wrong to the extreme. I am not a scientist myself, but I have researched that topic intensively the past one and a half years, and what I see is either serious delusions, or outright lies: Their data proves the opposite of what they claim.

Jones has held the strangest "scientific" opinions: I opined that HAARP may have caused the Haiti earthquake (he is of course no geologist, so that clearly was speaking out of his dirty rear), and has written a paper that he thinks proves that Jesus visited America. So that's the sort of scholar we are dealing with here.

And if a physics PROFESSOR believes the CT... how the hell am I, a total layman supposed to make sense of it?
...

Ask experts in the relevant fields of expertise.

For example, if you want to understand the arguments on the structural engineerin aspects of 9/11 - collapses, NIST report, Bazant... - pick up your local Yellow Pages and call the structural engineer nearest to you.

 

[Oystein]

Awesome info. Thanks!! I didn't know it was speed of sound... do you know why?

Sound is a pressure wave. A sound wave is created by a change in pressure.
In a static structural steel assembly at rest, all members are under constant pressure from the weight of the structure they carry (and the lateral deflections etc. imherent in the design). Failure of one member means it can't carry it's load any longer; that load now "tries" to fall, but since we have an interconnected assembly, the load-bearing is shifted to other members, which chamnges the pressure they are under.
Remember: A sound wave is created by a change in pressure.
So this pressure change propagates at the speed of sound throough the steel, because that's what pressure change is: sound.

With regards to the collapse in center precipitating inward, global collapse; let's say it's true -- does that negate 'intention'..?

No, it doesn't negate intention. It merely removes a reason to think it might be intention.

 

[TrumanHW]

I think it's damaging to the process of inquiry to offer a counter explanation. A counter explanation isn't required -- and when busted, subconsciously provides a straw-man like leap that concludes all your arguments are false.

911 truth claims are all false, and they are only making claims to make money. The truth movement is not real, it is a fake movement made up to make money by the few. This is standard capitalism, fake claims, an audience too lazy to think for themselves, buying DVDs, Books and making donations to Gage. Gage has made over 1,000,000 bucks, and he offers nothing but ideas - a religion of nuts who think they are changing the world by signing Gage's petition of woo. The best money maker, sells nothing tangible. I doubt DRG has sold as many books as Gage has sold fake claims to the not about to think for themselves gullible people who like conspiracy theories over reality.

Gage is selling lies. You think you can show obstruction of justice? 19 terrorists did 911. What was obstructed?



?


Unlikely? Please solve E=mgh and tell me why there was not enough energy to crush the black boxes, made by man.
All missing? What about 77? Found. What about 93? Found. Easier to find 77, the Pentagon is not 110 stories high, and E=mgh is not a big factor. 93, an impact with the ground, not two of the tallest office building in the world. E=mgh, why does 911 truth never use physics to do more than mislead those who refuse to think for themselves.
Three collapse, entirely different. The interior of WTC 7 collapsed first. Each tower collapsed began differently.
Explosions? Have you listed them and then asked what caused the loud noises? Any witness to explosives would be dead. Did they hear explosives?

? 19 terrorists

and small knives. I have not clue why people don't know the quickest way to kill, to make someone useless is cutting their throat. I think UBL and company figured out the responsible to the pilot is to protect the passengers. The pilots had to be killed to make the mission successful. Pilots are leaders for their task, the number one person. If you leave a pilot alive, he can render the aircraft un-flyable in seconds. Small knives or box cutters are the only way to kill pilots before 911, besides using the crash axe other objects on board. You don't want to fight someone when you have to do what the terrorists needed to do, you need to eliminate them. The terrorists cut and killed people, this is a fact told with last words on phone calls. Unlikely, the words of someone who failed to do any research, and they are proud of it.

How long can you function with your throat cut. Have you tried to imagine how the pilots felt as they died, strapped in with shoulder harnesses and seat belts with their backs to those murderers. No, you make up lies about 911 and like them, not thinking of others, you know you are right because you studied 911, flying, physics, structural engineering, math, ATC procedures, killing methods, jet fuel, gravity, black boxes, FDR, and more so you knew what is, and what is not truth. You did extensive research before making up your mind, you are a skeptic. sure

Here's a question: How much energy doesn't it require to pulverize concrete?

E = MGH

Undeniably.

converting steel reinforced concrete to powder and ejecting tons of steel hundreds of feet in some cases uses a great deal of that potential energy.

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.

If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."

Is that just a bunch of truther nonsense?

"Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)"

Was NIST lying? Or is that misleading information?

 

[twinstead]

Why is it that truthers mention the fires only, or the impact only, but never the impact AND fires?

Are they lying? Or is that misleading information?

 

[TrumanHW]

I can answer this unequivocally: Yes, Steven E. Jones is totally wrong on every concern he has.

You need to realize that his being a BYU physics professor doesn't mean he is sufficiently qualified or even an authority about the things he discusses on 9/11 - his field of expertise is neither structural engineering nor fire science nor forensic chemistry nor environmental studies. His field of expertise is condensed matter physics and nucear physics. These fields have no relevance to the talking points about 9/11.

Jones is best known for his claims about thermite, and still pretends the 2009 paper at Bentham publishers, which he basically wrote (with the collaboration of Jeff Farrer, even though Niels Harrit is falsely listed at lead author), is proof for unreacted nanothermite in WTC dust. This claim is wrong to the extreme. I am not a scientist myself, but I have researched that topic intensively the past one and a half years, and what I see is either serious delusions, or outright lies: Their data proves the opposite of what they claim.

Jones has held the strangest "scientific" opinions: I opined that HAARP may have caused the Haiti earthquake (he is of course no geologist, so that clearly was speaking out of his dirty rear), and has written a paper that he thinks proves that Jesus visited America. So that's the sort of scholar we are dealing with here.


Ask experts in the relevant fields of expertise.

For example, if you want to understand the arguments on the structural engineerin aspects of 9/11 - collapses, NIST report, Bazant... - pick up your local Yellow Pages and call the structural engineer nearest to you.

I appreciate you! Thanks! That was awesome.

"dirty rear" ... lol.

out loud I tell you.

Okay, so our messages were posted simul. I wasn't replying to yours. It was just what was in motion.

LCEM... how does the concrete do its thing with WTC1 and 2... and still fall as fast as it did? It just looks insanely fast to me.

Ironically, my family happens to own the largest concrete company in New Orleans. They built the superdome, 2 miss bridges and are part of the new levee construction. I can't wait to discuss this with my uncle - he's one of the engineers there. Here in los angeles, I own a small, mac-centric SMT repair and data recovery business. I'm genuinely grateful for each character anyone types that educates me on this.

Believe me - I'd PREFER that heaven and after life existed, there was punishment for the wicked, and that the OT were true. I'm an agnostic-atheist and a strident anti-theist. But regardless of Jone's erroneous beliefs, I disbelieve that he is ALWAYS wrong. Always? How could he be ALWAYS wrong.

 

[DGM]

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.

It's in the fact the buildings did not actually fall at "free-fall", it was considerably slower. The fact it was not "slow enough for truthers" is not a concern.

"Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)"

Was NIST lying? Or is that misleading information?

I don't see anything wrong with that statement. Could you explain?

 

[Spanx]

Aside from youtube? Maybe you're rhetorically implying that the youtube videos don't provide the necessary evidence? Be clear -- there's no tone for me to go on.

PS... half of you? I have NO idea whether support CT or OT.

As far as I am aware, the collapse footage was taken of the north side and you can only see the top half of the building.

There are a few pics of the south side showing a huge hole down the middle of the building, I think we can assume this is path that the penthouses took ?

Now if you go to YouTube and look up verinage and while watching put a piece of paper over the bottom half of the building to simulate the buildings in front of wtc7 and watch the top half fall. If I told you there were explosives at the bottom of the verinage building, would you believe me ?

 

[Mark F]

Maybe because the information about Flight 93 (all the others too) wasn't coming from the FAA. I'm quite,sure NORAD's own system is far far superior to the FAA's and covers US airspace (interior included) far better than the FAA's. Just like I'm sure they have real time access to the FAA's system,know everything the FAA knows & more too. The fact that this isn't public knowledge or admitted to means nothing. That's simply par for the course,"will neither confirm nor deny". It's like Israel and nuclear weapons 'officially' they don't have any,but everyone knows they do (wink,wink,nod,nod).
So, tell me,if a Backfire bomber had slipped through NORAD's doughnut (under the radar) and entered US airspace,NORAD would have NO ability to track it? NORAD would have been at the mercy of the FAA? Do you honestly believe they never thought of that? Or maybe it's a word game. Maybe the military tracking system far better than the FAA's that covers the interior of the continent 'officially' belongs to some other alphabet agency and it's truthful but deceptive to say "NORAD" doesn't have such a system..Wink,wink,nod,nod.

You are "sure NORAD's own system is far superior", but you don't know that, do ou? I suppose it would surprise you then to find out NORAD's tracking systems were decades behind those of the FAA hten, right? Well, they were. There were 4,500 aircraft in the skies over CONUS that morning. Tracking them is the FAA's job. NORAD and in this case NEADS was looking for what it aways looked for - external threats.

So far your entire case seems to rest on the testimony of a man who admits his testimony was wrong and whose testimony was shown to be wrong by the physical evidence. The only reason you still cling to this "tracking 93 at 9:16am) business is it is the only way to keep your theory alive, not because the evidence says that is what happened.

Your consistent inability to modify your hypothesis when presented with new evidence makes you a believer, not a truth seeker. You are far more interested in defending your theory than in actually finding out what happened.

So why are you even here?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I appreciate you! Thanks! That was awesome.

"dirty rear" ... lol.

out loud I tell you.

Okay, so our messages were posted simul. I wasn't replying to yours. It was just what was in motion.

LCEM... how does the concrete do its thing with WTC1 and 2... and still fall as fast as it did? It just looks insanely fast to me.

Ironically, my family happens to own the largest concrete company in New Orleans. They built the superdome, 2 miss bridges and are part of the new levee construction. I can't wait to discuss this with my uncle - he's one of the engineers there. Here in los angeles, I own a small, mac-centric SMT repair and data recovery business. I'm genuinely grateful for each character anyone types that educates me on this.

Believe me - I'd PREFER that heaven and after life existed, there was punishment for the wicked, and that the OT were true. I'm an agnostic-atheist and a strident anti-theist. But regardless of Jone's erroneous beliefs, I disbelieve that he is ALWAYS wrong. Always? How could he be ALWAYS wrong.

Well, I'd like to add that Steven Jones is definitely not always wrong, e.g. when refuting other 9/11 conspiracy theories, like those super-idiotic theories about mini-nukes.
Look e.g. at his fresh article Mini-nukes in the WTC? one more time... on 911Blogger.
There is also a link to the Jones' older article Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers, which was quite good, If I remember correctly. Jones has probably published more such useful articles (on similar topics), I don't know/remember.

 

[000063]

The only thing we as truth seekers can really do on this forum is to post our beliefs. These JREF shills appear to be twice as well researched as me, they were probably trained at the Shill Academy. They know all our talking points to the iota.

It's kind of sad that you're trying to turn being familiar with Truther horseapples and knowing more about the subjects than Truthers into some kind of a negative.

Point is, the 9/11 debates with debunkers lead us nowhere.

I disagree. We lead you to water constantly. You lot just refuse to drink.

Its really best to just state what we believe. I believe the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, nanothermite was used to cut plane shapes into the facade (fake CGI planes were used), thousands of witnesses were paid off.

Including the witnesses who were talking to people immediately after the impact? Did They have a few dozen people on every street or window in Lower Manhattan with a line of sight to the towers? What if they missed one? Were the false witnesses paid in cash or check? Do you have any idea how ridiculous your theory is?

That last one's rhetorical.

You already tried stating what you believe, and it was quickly shown to be bunk. I personally asked you several questions and made several points in 409 and 410, which you ignored.

 

[000063]

9/11 truth is my religion, my faith, my lifestyle. My belief does NOT require facts, you government shill!

No-plane truth 2012

If every single one of the debunkers is a shill, why are you here? Wouldn't your mission be better served on truther forums?

No. I believe that he is a government shill.

For the billionth time, as a truthseeker, my beliefs don't require evidence.

Then you're not actually seeking the truth.

Mark 9:23 "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."

My beliefs:
No-plane truth
nanothermite truth
WTC demolition truth

Duh-bunkers

This is quite possibly one of the worst places on the Internet to try and use the Bible to lend credence to your argument.

"None is so deaf as those that will not hear." -Matthew Henry, on Psalm 58

 

[000063]

We should sue all debunkers for promoting the myth that airplanes impacted the WTC on 9/11. It is part of a huge a PsyOp against genuine truth seekers! Maybe court proceedings will set an end to debunkers' reign.

In fact, I have all the printed forms laying in front of me, ready to bring this case to court. Debunkers need to be held accountable, then we can finally expose the no-plane/nanothermite truth, the truth needs to come out!

I can send you the forms, just give me your e-mail adress or something. You will just have to sign, solidarity in truth.

No more lies from debunkers.

Up until this point, I honestly believed you were sincere. Good job. 8/10.

 

[Oystein]

Well, I'd like to add that Steven Jones is definitely not always wrong, e.g. when refuting other 9/11 conspiracy theories, like those super-idiotic theories about mini-nukes.
...

When Truman asked "Is ... Steven E. Jones... totally wrong on every concern he has?", I assumed he was talking about concerns regarding the commonly accepted narrative of what happened on 9/11. Of course he Jones can be right when refuting wrong theories that rival his own. Jim Fetzer is another Truther with theories that are as wrong as sin, and Fetzer, too, can be very reasonable and right - for example when he refutes Jones's thermite theory.

I certainly did not mean to imply that Jones is always wrong about everything. If he'd tell me his dog has flatulence, I'd certainly take him by his word and not go near his dog.

But all his significant assertive claims about 9/11 are fundamentally wrong.