That isn’t the point. Let me rephrase my post and see if you can get it this time.
“Aha, “the facts”! The people who accept those from “official” sources, are the type of people who believed that painting your windows white or crouching beneath a desk, would help in the event of a nuclear attack.”
For one of the most thorough, easy to access accounts of the building collapse, see the Popular Mechanics series of articles that they wrote on 9/11 and the various ideas that were floating around
My favorite, that several prominent people took seriously, was that “OK, the towers were terrorists, but #7 was demolished on purpose because ti fell too neat and too fast for a normal crumple.”
First - either (a) someone planted explosives ahead of time, in which case nobody noticed all this stuff strategically palced at just the right points on every floor, or (b) someone who knows how to handle explosives calmly went from floor to floor planting this stuff with a burning and falling 100-floor tower across the street. Maybe, logically, it was the big tank of diesel fuel for the emergency generators caught fire from falling debris as the authorities say?
Second - “Steel doesn’t melt until temperatures much much heigher than they could get in the WTC towers / Tower 7”; in 2 recent small building fires in my city, I can point to relaively unlaoded steel beams visibly deforemed as the resul of a normal fire in a small store. Steel turns to taffy well below its melting temperature. Because of the structure of the lobby, there was excesive weight on a few center beams; once they went, damaged by falling debris and weakened by fire, the whole building just folded. (Google the Windsor Tower in Madrid(?)).
Third - “The fall was too neat”. The fires did exactly what the demolition experts always try to do - weaken the structure so it falls straight. In Fact, one of the towers starts to lean as it falls; it straightens out quickly, perhaps because the filure of one corner pulls the support out from the other sides, since they are cross-connected. In a controlled demolition, you see the explosions well before the building starts to go, all the way up and down the tower. Didn’t see or hear that in this case. Is it so hard to believe that hammering a floor of a building with a 15-story to 30-story weight will just make it crumble?
Buildings are either welded or rivetted; rivets are great at holding static loads, but are not designed to withstand being hammered by the weight of 16 floors falling 10 feet or more. Even welded columns are not immune to being hammered like that.
The structure of the main towers was that the exterior columns were connected across each floor, so instead of splitting open like a banana, it folded/snapped at each floor more like an accordian.
Not buying into conspiracy theories =/= trusting everything the government says.
There’s a middle path between the way of the sheeple and the way of the conspiracy theorist. It’s called “using common sense”.
Excuse me, Northern Piper, but is that the link you meant to post?
Cite?
And it certainly would, if you were far enough from the epicenter that your main concern was flying glass.
I personally am wary of criticism of engineering reports when it comes from those who have shown themselves incapable of understanding simple Newtonian physics. I don’t mean that as an ad hominem attack, but one has to determine who is an authority and who isn’t.
My current favorite theory is …
… wait for it …
Srsly … you can’t make up stuff looney enough that someone won’t believe it.
:smack: No, it wasn’t. Thanks for catching it.
Try here: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report.
:smack:
This is my absolute, bar none most favoritiest conspiracy evar! I found it years ago, and lost the link. Thank you sir.
The thing is, Judy Wood was a favorite of the 9/11 conspiracy theory crowd for a good while. She has a PhD in mechanical engineering and did some calculations showing why the towers would not be able to collapse as they did by just a gravity-driven collapse. Those of us on the rational side of the debate pointed out that her calculations were bullshit and specifically why, but to the Truthers who don’t know physics very well, they saw only that she has a PhD and agreed with them.
We could see that she was pretty crazy, but the topper was when she declared that the towers had to have been destroyed by some giant directed energy beam from space. Of course, the Truthers then simply declared her to be “disinfo” and forgot all about how they had been in love with her shortly before that.
My favorite conspiracy theory is still that the US Postal Service did 9/11 using magnetic C4. David-Wynn:Miller lays out his reasoning here:
I think we have a winner.
The part where he explained the punctuation in his name made my head asplode.
My view is that there never was a World Trade Center or Pentagon.
One of my favorite 9-11 conspiracy claims was that the presence of iron oxide in the wreckage proved that thermite had been used. Because iron oxide, aka rust is such an odd thing to find in the wreckage of a steel framed building.
That’s an extreme point of view. This makes much more sense.
Most of the “Questions” about the WTC/Pentagon attacks have been answered in the following–often long, frequently acrimonious–threads in Great Debates.
Is the official 911 story a conspiracy theory?
Loose Change video: 9/11 conspiracy
The REALLY crazy conspiracy theory: WTC buildings downed by controlled demolition
The WTC Twin Towers Were Pulverized on 9/11 (This one opens with a question similar to the one asked in the OP of this thread, although it is posted in very large fonts with lots of color.)
New NIST Report On WTC 7 - Change Anybody’s Mind?
Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking
ivan, this is General Questions. If you have a desperate need to offer up your “all governments are evil and must be doubted even when their explanation includes the most facts and makes the most sense” epistemological theory, then open a new thread in The BBQ Pit or (sigh) Great Debates. Stop interrupting this thread, please.
[ /Modding ]
If you want a wonderful paper demolishing the 9/11 troofer’s arguments, I recommend Ryan Mackey’s paper, On Debunking 9/11 Debunking, a response to Dr David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 nonsense.
I agree most of the conspiracy theories are crazy, but can someone explain to me what is the cause of the explosion these guys hear right in the beginning of this video?