# An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 19, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182 "2010-07-19T01:39:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 21
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/401 "2010-07-25T04:15:40Z")
> [@ignoranceaintbliss](#):
>
> I didn’t read every single post in this thread so I must have skipped over it. So with that, piece of the puzzle, I’m not sure how I can believe all the conspiracy talk…Is there another sources that talks about the pentagon fatalities?
Post #113 has the evidence used at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/402 "2010-07-25T04:17:22Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#):
>
> > [@ignoranceaintbliss](#):
> >
> > Does anyone have a link to footage of the pentagon attacks?
>
> There’s no “smoking gun” in them. The best angle is from a pair of parking gate cameras that shoot about 3 frames per second and AA 77 crossed their lines of sight in about 15 seconds.
So 45 frames? Do you have a link? The only video I was aware of was of far lower quality (5 frames, I thought, but it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it.)
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/403 "2010-07-25T04:25:28Z")
> [@Cisco](#):
>
> > [@Lute Skywatcher](#):
> >
> > > [@ignoranceaintbliss](#):
> > >
> > > Does anyone have a link to footage of the pentagon attacks?
> >
> > There’s no “smoking gun” in them. The best angle is from a pair of parking gate cameras that shoot about 3 frames per second and AA 77 crossed their lines of sight in about 15 seconds.
>
> So 45 frames? Do you have a link? The only video I was aware of was of far lower quality (5 frames, I thought, but it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it.)
Sorry, multiplied instead of divided and still waiting for a Mod to fix.
I found a good site last year that showed the viewing angles for the cameras and used that for a rough calculation of how long it would have taken the plane to cross the field. It was traveling at over 730 feet per second and 5 frames were released from the parking gate camera. The cameras’ field of view at that distance is 450 feet, giving them a maximum of 1.667 seconds to record.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/404 "2010-07-25T04:27:00Z")
> [@ignoranceaintbliss](#):
>
> So, based on evidence, we cannot determine whether the pentagon was hit by a plane or not, correct?
[Here is video of a plane hitting a concrete wall at 500 mph](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dme80ZTs6M&feature=related).
Now, point out the debris that looks like it came off of an airplane. There was literally tons of airplane pieces at the Pentagon. But people unfamiliar with aircraft assume that a crashed plane looks like a crashed plane. They often don’t. Even a small General Aviation aircraft can leave a crash site referred to as ‘Four Winds’; a debris field made of widely-scattered parts that don’t necessarily look like they came off of an airplane. The aircraft in the linked video is a much closer analogy to the crash at the Pentagon. While your typical Bonanza that breaks apart at altitude might be ripped to shreds, a jet hitting a concrete wall at hundreds of miles per hour is going to be atomised.
---
### Author:  [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/405 "2010-07-25T05:02:46Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> They are not even remotely the same, so you are way off beam. My alluding to secret cabals, high-tech destructive devices, and most people’s willingness to believe any bs if it’s told by someone wearing a suit, or a lab technician’s jacket, is far more likely than any theory that involves supernatural agents. Put it this way; in 50 yrs we’ll know things about the events surrounding 9/11 that we don’t know today. I’d place any amount you’d like to wager that there will be no clearing up of the God issue by that time.
I’m afraid you’re missing the point.
Young Earth Creationism isn’t about whether God exists. That’s a separate debate. The issue is whether a literal reading of Genesis can be squared with the evidence from geology, archeology, biology, astronomy, linguistics, etc. To argue that it can be, YECs engage in quibbling, jumping on open questions and asserting half-formed theories (some of them inconsistent) with no attempt to formulate them into a cohesive whole. They’re really quite certain they’ve devastated the standard model. See, e.g., Answers in Genesis. But they haven’t and no amount of reasoned discussion will change their minds because they start with dogma and view everything through that lens.
Having read the entire thread, I notice you’re doing the same thing. It’s just that your starting point is something else. In your own mind, no doubt, you think you’ve devastated the OT. Only you haven’t. And, here’s the thing. If you’re making the same mistake as the YECs, how would you know?
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/406 "2010-07-25T08:13:32Z")
> [@pedescribe](#):
>
> > [@ivan\_astikov](#):
> >
> > > [@Indistinguishable](#):
> > >
> > > Even before WTC 7 collapsed, there were noted concerns that the fires within would cause it to collapse. It wasn’t some great surprise, as a sudden bombing of that inconsequential building would have been.
> >
> > The two tallest buildings in NY had just fallen down; of course there were concerns it might fall down too.
> >
> > What I’d like you to try and imagine tho’ is, if the other 2 towers hadn’t been attacked, and a bomb of some kind had caused the damage and resulting fires, would a reasonable person have expected that building to come down the way it did?
>
> Do you believe that there were explosives detonated in the Twin Towers on 9/11, or not?
It’s certainly less of an impossibility than the book of Genesis being based on scientific fact and that it was dictated to man by a god.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/407 "2010-07-25T08:22:34Z")
> [@PBear42](#):
>
> I’m afraid you’re missing the point.
No, that would be you. You see, YEC’s are starting off their arguments on less than firm ground, because they are taking their “evidence” from a fairy tale. There is no fairy-tale thinking involved in suspecting that there are powerful groups who want to retain - nay, increase! - their power as long as humanly and technologically possible, and are prepared to manipulate world events in order to achieve this.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/408 "2010-07-25T12:37:48Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> What some of you seem to be suggesting is that I could be fed any diet of bullshit and not be able to determine it from a well-cooked meal. There’s a challenge for you lot. Try and give me a bullshit story along any lines, and see if I can’t rip it apart.
Actually, that is not what has been suggested.
What has been suggested is that any wild story that implicates political or military authorities in wild conspiracies will find you to be a willing receiver. None of us are that sort of authority, (or, if we are you will not believe it), so no one here can actually present an idea that you will accept.
Your need is to believe that all powers at all times engage in underhanded manipulation of information and that by joining with the people who are “just asking questions” you are, in some way, challenging those maleficient powers. However, your argumentation is very much the same as that of the YEC believers, picking odd facts that seem to you to not make sense, ignoring physical evidence, and then holding up those purported facts as some sort of “evidence” of a conspiracy by Power. It is very much the same sort of logic employed by YECs, the difference being that they say “God did it, working in mysterious ways” and you say “the government did it, hiding the truth behind lies.”
Governments often have engaged in secret plots to gain different ends, but in your world, it seems that that is their only function.
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> It’s certainly less of an impossibility than the book of Genesis being based on scientific fact and that it was dictated to man by a god.
The fact that your wish for a conspircy is mildly more probable than a religious myth is not really an argument that supports your beliefs. The idea that the Democratic machine in Chicago stole the 1960 election for John Kennedy is mildly more probable than that Diebold election machines were used to steal the election of George W. Bush, but the fact that Kennedy would have still won the election without Illinois means that such a belief is simply wrong, regardless how probable it might have been.
---
### Author:  [@ironbender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ironbender)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/409 "2010-07-25T12:42:17Z")
> [@Grumman](#):
>
> The planes that brought down the WTC didn’t even exist at the time of construction, and are 50% heavier than the 707s that the towers were built to survive. In addition, a plane involved in an accidental collision while landing is going to be moving slower than a plane being deliberately rammed into the building with the intent to cause as much damage as possible.
I think you are a little off on this. [707](http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=87), [757-300](http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=102), and [767-200](http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103).
The numbers here speak for themselves.
---
### Author:  [@Ibanez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibanez)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/410 "2010-07-25T12:52:33Z")
Ivan. Its apparent that no matter what we present to you. You ain’t buying it. You’re set so firm in your belief that the US government are the bad guys here and not some militant radicals from the other side of the world with a history of attacking US forces and installations prior to 911 which is I should add well documented including a previous attack on the towers in 1992, during the Clinton era.
You ask questions people answer, then you go on to another questions. Some times not even addressing their answers. Evidently you even ask the same questions over and over again. People are providing links of documented proof, statements, peer reviewed studies and theirs even some members here who actually have the education regarding the fields that’s being discussed and yet you still aren’t buying it.
This adds up to 1000’s of people involved keeping an real heinous secret, that’s quite the feat. Yet their conscious remains clear and they can still go about their living amongst us with out cracking. Because their Star Wars stormtroopers and not human beings.
Incredulity, a common trait amongst 911 CTs.
I remember way back I saw the Loose Change video, embarrassingly I was a believer for about two weeks. But then I looked into it and I discovered a lot of what’s being discussed here. It change my mind.
And infact there’s some harm being done there by truthers. I saw a 60 minutes special and young people in the middle east who are buying what your propagating. This can be dangerous because for some of them their version of activism can be a little different than handing out fliers and cd’s on a street.
Well I’m done here, I’m going to walk my dog.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/411 "2010-07-25T12:55:42Z")
Nowhere have I stated specifically that the US. Govt. in its entirety is involved. That is just a big, fat strawman.
Appeals to authority, a common trait amongst 9/11 proponents of the official truth.
See, anyone can play that game.
ps. I’ve already walked mine.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/412 "2010-07-25T13:03:55Z")
> [@Ibanez](#):
>
> And infact there’s some harm being done there by truthers. I saw a 60 minutes special and young people in the middle east who are buying what your propagating. This can be dangerous because for some of them their version of activism can be a little different than handing out fliers and cd’s on a street.
You think that is more of a factor in their hatred of the US, than American soldiers being on their land and killing civilians if it means getting a few bad guys?
---
### Author:  [@ironbender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ironbender)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/413 "2010-07-25T13:35:11Z")
So Lute and others, if we are basically back to fire being the cause of all three WTC collaspes, I will stop debating this here.
Fire has never caused a total collaspe in a steel skyscraper until the WTC. I have done my reasearch, and going by what is known today, fire cannot cause such a building to collaspe the way the WTC buildings did. Through itself as if all the supporting steel had been removed or weakend at the same time.
You are trying to debate semantics. You link to a small picture of WTC 7, even though the building was huge and then question my use of the word corner. You talk about 17 floors of a 32 story building partially collasping, and the keyword here is partial, due to fire but the building was still standing. The WTC buildings were, for all intents, total collapes. Madrid acted the way one would expect according to known physics.
Fire would cause a collaspe that is bound by gravity. There is no way the buildings them selves would have enough energy to cause the damage we saw. Just like Madrid did not, and earthquakes cause buildings to tip over in chunks.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/414 "2010-07-25T13:47:50Z")
Something else to ponder. Ever since things were investigated with scientific rigour, the general scenario will be that there is at least one dissenting voice amongst the group. And this is good. The world would be a much duller place if everyone agreed.
So, bearing this in mind, where are the dissenting voices from this lot?
> [@](#):
>
> During the September 11 attacks, a large number of buildings were extensively damaged by impact and fire events. To study the response of the affected buildings, a diverse group of experts in tall building design, steel structure behavior, fire protection engineering, blast effects, and structural investigations was empaneled into a Building Performance Study (BPS) Team. The study was sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE). In conducting the study, the BPS Team received tremendous cooperation from the State of New York, the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). In addition, the BPS Team was supported by a coalition of organizations that included the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), the International Code Council (ICC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), and the Masonry Society (TMS).
If there are none at all, that is suspicious in itself.
---
### Author:  [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/415 "2010-07-25T13:59:57Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Something else to ponder. Ever since things were investigated with scientific rigour, the general scenario will be that there is at least one dissenting voice amongst the group. And this is good. The world would be a much duller place if everyone agreed.
>
> So, bearing this in mind, where are the dissenting voices from this lot?
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > During the September 11 attacks, a large number of buildings were extensively damaged by impact and fire events. To study the response of the affected buildings, a diverse group of experts in tall building design, steel structure behavior, fire protection engineering, blast effects, and structural investigations was empaneled into a Building Performance Study (BPS) Team. The study was sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE). In conducting the study, the BPS Team received tremendous cooperation from the State of New York, the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). In addition, the BPS Team was supported by a coalition of organizations that included the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), the International Code Council (ICC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), and the Masonry Society (TMS).
>
> If there are none at all, that is suspicious in itself.
Wait… what?! This is really your position? This is your argument?
---
### Author:  [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/416 "2010-07-25T14:04:14Z")
> [@ironbender](#):
>
> So Lute and others, if we are basically back to fire being the cause of all three WTC collaspes, I will stop debating this here.
>
> Fire has never caused a total collaspe in a steel skyscraper until the WTC. I have done my reasearch, and going by what is known today, fire cannot cause such a building to collaspe the way the WTC buildings did. Through itself as if all the supporting steel had been removed or weakend at the same time.
>
> You are trying to debate semantics. You link to a small picture of WTC 7, even though the building was huge and then question my use of the word corner. You talk about 17 floors of a 32 story building partially collasping, and the keyword here is partial, due to fire but the building was still standing. The WTC buildings were, for all intents, total collapes. Madrid acted the way one would expect according to known physics.
>
> Fire would cause a collaspe that is bound by gravity. There is no way the buildings them selves would have enough energy to cause the damage we saw. Just like Madrid did not, and earthquakes cause buildings to tip over in chunks.
You are disregarding facts that have repeatedly been brought up in this thread. You are also asking questions that have already been asked numerous times in this thread.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/417 "2010-07-25T14:06:58Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Genesis … was dictated to man by a god.
cite?
---
### Author:  [@ironbender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ironbender)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/418 "2010-07-25T14:07:35Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Something else to ponder. Ever since things were investigated with scientific rigour, the general scenario will be that there is at least one dissenting voice amongst the group. And this is good. The world would be a much duller place if everyone agreed.
>
> So, bearing this in mind, where are the dissenting voices from this lot?
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > During the September 11 attacks, a large number of buildings were extensively damaged by impact and fire events. To study the response of the affected buildings, a diverse group of experts in tall building design, steel structure behavior, fire protection engineering, blast effects, and structural investigations was empaneled into a Building Performance Study (BPS) Team. The study was sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE). In conducting the study, the BPS Team received tremendous cooperation from the State of New York, the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). In addition, the BPS Team was supported by a coalition of organizations that included the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), the International Code Council (ICC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), and the Masonry Society (TMS).
>
> If there are none at all, that is suspicious in itself.
Agreed, and most likely some are being subtly coerced to not really question anything. And I don’t mean by saying “support the OT or we’ll break your legs”.
It would be more like the kind of thing that is going on in this debate right now.
---
### Author:  [@ironbender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ironbender)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/419 "2010-07-25T14:12:38Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#):
>
> > [@ironbender](#):
> >
> > So Lute and others, if we are basically back to fire being the cause of all three WTC collaspes, I will stop debating this here.
> >
> > Fire has never caused a total collaspe in a steel skyscraper until the WTC. I have done my reasearch, and going by what is known today, fire cannot cause such a building to collaspe the way the WTC buildings did. Through itself as if all the supporting steel had been removed or weakend at the same time.
> >
> > You are trying to debate semantics. You link to a small picture of WTC 7, even though the building was huge and then question my use of the word corner. You talk about 17 floors of a 32 story building partially collasping, and the keyword here is partial, due to fire but the building was still standing. The WTC buildings were, for all intents, total collapes. Madrid acted the way one would expect according to known physics.
> >
> > Fire would cause a collaspe that is bound by gravity. There is no way the buildings them selves would have enough energy to cause the damage we saw. Just like Madrid did not, and earthquakes cause buildings to tip over in chunks.
>
> You are disregarding facts that have repeatedly been brought up in this thread. You are also asking questions that have already been asked numerous times in this thread.
If you are refering to facts that claim the WTC buildings were so different that physics did not apply to them, then yes, I am disregarding that.
---
### Author:  [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)
#### Post date: [July 25, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/420 "2010-07-25T14:23:28Z")
> [@ironbender](#):
>
> > [@Grumman](#):
> >
> > The planes that brought down the WTC didn’t even exist at the time of construction, and are 50% heavier than the 707s that the towers were built to survive. In addition, a plane involved in an accidental collision while landing is going to be moving slower than a plane being deliberately rammed into the building with the intent to cause as much damage as possible.
>
> I think you are a little off on this. [707](http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=87), [757-300](http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=102), and [767-200](http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103).
>
> The numbers here speak for themselves.
Go back and take the link in post 392 and you can hear for yourself what the designer of the building said about the weight of the plane. The extra weight of the plane wasn’t the problem even though the building was designed to withstand a 707 hitting while on approach not a 767 while traveling at cruise speed.
It was the fuel load which fed the fire was the problem.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=20)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=22)