Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking

[XT]

I disagree, except with your conclusion. I don’t think the US would have inevitably invaded Iraq, and I don’t think Bush intended to do so prior to 9/11. My take is that Bush was planning to be a rather isolationist domestic policy president…and probably a pretty weak one. He barely scraped by in 2000 with the win, and I doubt he had the political capital to launch a Cub Scout convention, let alone an invasion of a foreign nation.

YMMV of course.

-XT

[palindromemordnilap]

The idea that members of the Bush Admin conspired to assist the attacks is unbelievable. The only thing more unbelievable would have to involve a complete suspension of the rules of physics.

But you have to suspend the rules of physcis entirely to get buildings to fall in on themselves that way with the help of explosives strategically embedded throughout the building. Given a choice between the highly improbable and the physically impossible, I have to go with the theory that is merely ridiculous.

The voluminous film evidence and numerous eyewitness accounts do not help the offical story. You can see the squibs go off 30 floors below the near-freefall-speed falling debris. Interviews with firemen, building workers and a well-known reporter who happened to be on the scene reinforce that there were major explosions at ground level prior to the buildings falling. Photos of the columns show they were severed at an angle consistent with demolition. And so on. All of this could be dismissed if the buildings had tipped over, or if the “pancake effect” had left the vertical columns standing. But the way they fell could ONLY be a controlled demolition.

The Bush Admin and others had motive, means and opportunity to bring off the attacks. They later demonstrated (with the use of blatantly false information to justify the invasion of Iraq) that they had the balls and the skills to pull a large-scale con on the American people with the help of a compliant media. The media was inexplicably uncurious about the question of what could make buildings fall like that, not to mention other oddities of that day.

As with all alternative (“conspiracy”) theories, the 9/11 Truth movement includes a lot of bogus claims and many that can be easily, or not so easily, explained away. Despite some strange elements to the Pentagon attack, I’m willing to accept the official version of that absent any smoking gun evidence otherwise. The one thing I can not accept is that a building (let alone THREE) could fall into its own footprint.

[Cisco]

@xtisme

I disagree, except with your conclusion. I don’t think the US would have inevitably invaded Iraq, and I don’t think Bush intended to do so prior to 9/11. My take is that Bush was planning to be a rather isolationist domestic policy president…and probably a pretty weak one. He barely scraped by in 2000 with the win, and I doubt he had the political capital to launch a Cub Scout convention, let alone an invasion of a foreign nation.

YMMV of course.

What tomndebb said here, combined with the legal authority of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, strongly suggests to me that we were going to war in Iraq with or without 9/11.

[Cisco]

@palindromemordnilap

The idea that members of the Bush Admin conspired to assist the attacks is unbelievable. The only thing more unbelievable would have to involve a complete suspension of the rules of physics.

But you have to suspend the rules of physcis entirely to get buildings to fall in on themselves that way with the help of explosives strategically embedded throughout the building. Given a choice between the highly improbable and the physically impossible, I have to go with the theory that is merely ridiculous.

The voluminous film evidence and numerous eyewitness accounts do not help the offical story. You can see the squibs go off 30 floors below the near-freefall-speed falling debris. Interviews with firemen, building workers and a well-known reporter who happened to be on the scene reinforce that there were major explosions at ground level prior to the buildings falling. Photos of the columns show they were severed at an angle consistent with demolition. And so on. All of this could be dismissed if the buildings had tipped over, or if the “pancake effect” had left the vertical columns standing. But the way they fell could ONLY be a controlled demolition.

The Bush Admin and others had motive, means and opportunity to bring off the attacks. They later demonstrated (with the use of blatantly false information to justify the invasion of Iraq) that they had the balls and the skills to pull a large-scale con on the American people with the help of a compliant media. The media was inexplicably uncurious about the question of what could make buildings fall like that, not to mention other oddities of that day.

As with all alternative (“conspiracy”) theories, the 9/11 Truth movement includes a lot of bogus claims and many that can be easily, or not so easily, explained away. Despite some strange elements to the Pentagon attack, I’m willing to accept the official version of that absent any smoking gun evidence otherwise. The one thing I can not accept is that a building (let alone THREE) could fall into its own footprint.

:rolleyes: Around and around and around we go. These are the circles I was referring to earlier in the thread. This nonsense has already been debunked right here in this very thread but here it comes again. Coming out to play again. Pathetic. Predictable, though. Very predictable.

[XT]

@Cisco

What tomndebb said here, combined with the legal authority of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, strongly suggests to me that we were going to war in Iraq with or without 9/11.

I don’t think that was what tomndebb was getting at (he is, of course, free to elucidate his position if he wishes). Especially I’ll focus on the last sentence in the post you quoted:

Conspiracy? Nah. Just delusional nutjobs with too much power carrying out pipe dreams.

I think that pretty much nails it. Oh, I have no doubt that Wolfie et al would have LOVED to be able to launch an attack on Iraq. I think they hoped and prayed for an excuse to do so. But, simply put, Bush wouldn’t have had the political capital or ability to get Congress OR the American people on board for more than a Clintonesque tossing of a few tomahawks (at most) at Iraq. The reality is that it took something like 9/11 in order to piss off America enough to do anything of the sort…nothing short of a major attack like that would have allowed Bush to send significant troops anywhere.

Again, YMMV, but I don’t see it. I don’t think a really popular and charismatic president could have unilaterally sent significant troops abroad, to be perfectly honest…let alone someone with the low levels of popularity and political capital as Bush had.

-XT

[XT]

@palindromemordnilap

But you have to suspend the rules of physcis entirely to get buildings to fall in on themselves that way with the help of explosives strategically embedded throughout the building. Given a choice between the highly improbable and the physically impossible, I have to go with the theory that is merely ridiculous.

Sadly, you obviously don’t understand physics, materials science or structural mechanics. Even more sadly you haven’t been following along, as there have been several responses to the physics of why and how the buildings collapsed, and why not only are no explosives necessary, but that it’s the explosives themselves that are, as you put it, ‘physically impossible’.

-XT

[palindromemordnilap]

@xtisme

I don’t think the US would have inevitably invaded Iraq, and I don’t think Bush intended to do so prior to 9/11.

His Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil, said Bush talked about invading Iraq from the start of his presidency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books

And Bush’s biographer said “it was on his mind” in 1999.

http://gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

[XT]

@palindromemordnilap

His Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil, said Bush talked about invading Iraq from the start of his presidency.

Not exactly convincing evidence there. But, ok…let’s say it’s true. So what? Explain to me some realistic mechanism by which Bush could have gotten us to war with Iraq without some 9/11 type catastrophe.

And Bush’s biographer said “it was on his mind” in 1999.

Again, so what? I’m sure Bush dreamed of a lot of things…but then reality rears it’s ugly head. The president, contrary to popular belief, is not a king, and can’t simply take the country to war on a whim. He is going to need support from the Congress…and for something like that he’s going to need a solid majority of bipartisan support. He’s also going to need at least the tacit support of the citizens.

Bush barely scraped by in 2000…so, where would this miraculous bipartisan support in Congress come from? He just barely squeaked through the election…so, where would the support of the people come from?

Bush could wish to invade Iraq in one hand and shit in the other. You tell me…which hand would fill up first?

-XT

[Telemark]

@Cisco

:rolleyes: Around and around and around we go. These are the circles I was referring to earlier in the thread. This nonsense has already been debunked right here in this very thread but here it comes again. Coming out to play again. Pathetic. Predictable, though. Very predictable.

It is fairly scary how debunking these outlandish stories (they don’t rise to the level of theory) has absolutely no affect on the ones constantly repeating them. I get that they don’t really understand physics or engineering but to buy, hook, line and sinker, someone’s fairy tale on the net without any supporting evidence makes me weep for the future of our education system.

[Cisco]

@xtisme

I don’t think that was what tomndebb was getting at (he is, of course, free to elucidate his position if he wishes). Especially I’ll focus on the last sentence in the post you quoted:

I think that pretty much nails it. Oh, I have no doubt that Wolfie et al would have LOVED to be able to launch an attack on Iraq. I think they hoped and prayed for an excuse to do so. But, simply put, Bush wouldn’t have had the political capital or ability to get Congress OR the American people on board for more than a Clintonesque tossing of a few tomahawks (at most) at Iraq. The reality is that it took something like 9/11 in order to piss off America enough to do anything of the sort…nothing short of a major attack like that would have allowed Bush to send significant troops anywhere.

Again, YMMV, but I don’t see it. I don’t think a really popular and charismatic president could have unilaterally sent significant troops abroad, to be perfectly honest…let alone someone with the low levels of popularity and political capital as Bush had.

-XT

It’s clearly up for debate, unlike “controlled demolition” and missile at the pentagon crap. I’m not 100% sure we would’ve gone to war without 9/11.

[XT]

@Cisco

It’s clearly up for debate, unlike “controlled demolition” and missile at the pentagon crap. I’m not 100% sure we would’ve gone to war without 9/11.

Agreed. The point though is that this idea of ‘controlled demolition’ just won’t, seemingly, die. Regardless of the mountains of evidence against it, it seems that seeing it on a YouTube video is more convincing that all those pesky ‘fact’ thingies. That’s…well, fairly sad.

Oh well…look how many folks are convinced that JFK was assassinated by a cabal of Evil Government Molerats™, or that the moon landings were all a hoax (though that guy with the rubber glove trying to ‘prove’ you couldn’t move in a vacuum was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on the History Channel).

-XT

[Cisco]

One of the funny things to me about the 9/11 CTs is that I can totally see myself buying them hook, line, and sinker when I was 15. I was anti-authority enough and credulous enough that they would’ve been very appealing to me. I loved to feel like I knew something that nobody else knew. That meant everybody else were sheeple and I was walking The One True Path. But even my 15 year old self, after seeing factual, scientific, well-researched debunkings would’ve completely abandoned the CTs. The part of these people that hangs on with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALA even after seeing overwhelming evidence that directly contradicts their “theories” is completely alien to me. It baffles my mind, and causes me worry about what else they could accept.

[palindromemordnilap]

@xtisme

Sadly, you obviously don’t understand physics, materials science or structural mechanics. Even more sadly you haven’t been following along, as there have been several responses to the physics of why and how the buildings collapsed, and why not only are no explosives necessary, but that it’s the explosives themselves that are, as you put it, ‘physically impossible’.

-XT

Well, I have been following along and I know quite a bit about buildings. I also know that no bulding has ever fallen this way before and have never seen or heard of a paper by any physics experts who predicted or even theorized that a building might fall this way prior to 9/11. So any response you might point to would be trying to explain it after the fact.

You’re right that there have been several responses, because the first response was so obviously false that a second response became necessary, and then a third. I have seen the PBS special with the animation graphic showing the pancake effect, and that graphic shows the columns still standing after the floors passed through them (because where could they go?). I have read the relevant parts of the Popular Mechanics book on 9/11 and their explanation came down to: We talked to four structural engineers and they said it could happen. That’s not an explanation.

Your assertion that explosives can’t make a building fall into its own footprint is contradicted by every building demolition. I understand that it is logistically far-fetched to say the least that explosives could be planted in these buildings, but that is not your argument.

If you’ve got more recent studies that do a better job of explaining why the buildings would fall straight down instead of toppling over, or better yet, a pre-9/11 paper discussing how this could happen, I would like to hear about them. Otherwise your misguided opinion is worse than useless.

[ivan_astikov]

Hey, there’s far more to suggest that there’s more than meets the eye to what occured during that fateful day, than there is for a god, and look how many believe in that idea!

Do you worry about what they might accept?

[XT]

Ah, the irony…it burns.

@palindromemordnilap

If you’ve got more recent studies that do a better job of explaining why the buildings would fall straight down instead of toppling over, or better yet, a pre-9/11 paper discussing how this could happen, I would like to hear about them.

Buildings don’t topple over. The fact that you even mention that is a pretty clear indication of who’s ‘misguided opinion is worse than useless’, however. We are talking basic physics here, old boy…and you don’t even realize how foolish you sound making such a statement. It’s interesting you want to see a paper discussion this topic pre-9/11…I wonder why that would be, ehe?

At any rate, I dug up a few cites that I’m absolutely sure you won’t bother to read, but that I’ll include anyway for anyone who actually has an open mind about this stuff, or who will at least bother opening up the links and reading.

World Trade Center tower construction

In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall.
Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.
Steel Framing

        The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports.  To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete.  Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.  To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel.  Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

        The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of   structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC.  My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60.  The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC.  Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

Effects of jet crash and fire on a skeleton steel high rise

A plane that only weighted 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers. If the jet liners struck any other skeleton steel high rise, the people on the upper floors and where the jet crashed may not have survived; there might have been local floor and exterior wall collapse. However, I believe a skeleton steel frame high rise would not suffer a cascading total pancake collapse of the lower floors in 8 and 10 seconds. Hopefully some engineer using computer calculations, can reconstruct the effects of a 767 jetliner crashing into another New York City high building. In any other high rise in New York City, I say, the floors below the crash and fire, would not collapse in such a total a cascading pancake cave-in. Most of the occupants and rescuers killed in the WTC tower collapse were on the lower floors.

Here is another site that talks about the free fall fallacy:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to  this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with.  - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

Another (this one has video contrasting an actual controlled demo with what happened at the WTC):

Claim

Steven E. Jones and other so-called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” have purported that the impact of aircraft hitting the World Trade Center and the resulting fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of the World Trade Center. They argue that pre-planted explosives must have been used to cause controlled demoltion and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers.
Fact

* The collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers initiated where the planes hit the buildings. Controlled demolitions always are initiated at the bottom of a building, to take advantage of maximum gravity forces. 

* If the World Trade Center collapsed due to controlled demolition, as the theory goes, the explosive charges would have had to survive the crash of airplanes into the buildings. (at ~500 miles per hour) 

* When a controlled demolition occurs, you hear the very loud and very distinct sound of the charges going off. These will repeatedly go off, in a quick, regular pattern, for 10+ seconds prior to the structure collapsing. While some people heard what "sounded like an explosion" at the World Trade Center, this is not what they heard or described. Nor is any such sound of demolition charges going off heard in any videos of the collapse. 

* The detonations in a controlled demolition go off in a very regular pattern, not at all like the random squibs seen on 9/11. Those squibs are the result of pockets of air (the building is ~70% air in volume) being collapsed, with pulverized gypsum (drywall) and other material being forced out. 

* Blasting caps, detonating cord, and other such evidence were not found in the World Trade Center debris. 

Theory

Conspiracy theorists say that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers occurred in 9 and 11 seconds respectively. They say that this is free fall speed, and indicates controlled demolition.
Fact

A video taken of the collapse shows at 11 seconds that the collapse of the South Tower is still under way. The cameraman began running at that point, but the sound of the building collapsing continues for many more seconds.

The elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated was 11 seconds for 1 WTC (North Tower) and 9 seconds for 2 WTC (South Tower). NIST also points out that significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of 1 WTC and 40 stories of 2 WTC) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

“The buildings are 70 percent just air in volume and all of the columns are not solid steel, they are steel boxes in which the thickness of the steel varies from 1/4 inch (at the top) to 1 1/2 inches (at the bottom). But they were properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, the occupants, the furnishings… those are all things that the structure can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of a 20 floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied, and the building came down in essentially free fall.” – S. Shyam Sunder

Bazant and Zhou explain that once the collapse initiated on the one floor, the kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting on the floor beneath was 8.4 times larger than the plastic energy absorption capability. At that point, the subsequent progressive collapse was inevitable. The amount of resistance or absorption capability that each floor beneath could provide was minuscule in comparison to the amount of kinetic energy from the above structure collapsing. This explains why the collapse happened as quick as it did – not free fall speed, but perhaps twice the amount of time than free fall

And so on. It’s fairly clear that a tenuous grasp of physics, of dynamics, of structural mechanics, building architecture, etc etc, is essential to buy into these silly CT’s concerning 9/11. The facts are overwhelmingly against the buildings being demolished through a controlled series of explosions. And yet, at a guess, the CTer’s will, reluctantly no doubt, still remain militantly unconvinced. After all, they saw it on YouTube…what could be more convincing??

-XT

[XT]

Concerning ‘squibs’:

Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The “assumptionists” are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called “Squibs”.

They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It’s often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn’t increase its explosive strength with time.

So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?

It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It’s said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core…

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm
BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.

SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/pitn.00.html  

Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind (“He even says explosions!”) but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.

Another point is the amount of these so called squibs. Some are laughably small wisps of smoke. I won’t even bother with these. These are people who are searching every video, frame by frame in order to find something which they can use. Some are simply glass falling and reflecting sunlight or a piece of aluminum cladding doing the same. Yet, some seem to be heavy jets out of a window on one floor and another jet of debris about 30 to 40 stories below as the collapse progresses. I have to admit, when I first saw this I didn’t know what to make of it. But as I thought of the possibilities, I also thought of what it needed to be if it were a demolition. In all the controlled demolitions I’ve seen, there have been a large amount of explosives on almost all floors. Even some small buildings have many charges. Why would they put charges on what seems like only a couple of floors? And once the collapse progressed, why would they care about the 40th floor? When the top 70 floors are crashing down on the 40th floor; even conspiracy theorists have trouble believing that floor would stop the collapse. And even if it did, the message is sent. The towers were no longer usable after the top 70 stories fell on it. It would be an added and absurd risk to add explosives on the lower floors.

The best explanation which fits the evidence is that there were heavy objects free falling down the elevator shafts and hitting the lowest landings. The explosive force of one of these…

-XT

[XT]

On the subject of this being the first modern skyscraper to fall due to fire:

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor’s central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the “Firsts” but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn’t take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a “tube in a tube” design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren’t hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it’s true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.

    "It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

But it wasn’t the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That’s a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He’s right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn’t the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It’s like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn’t have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g’s. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can’t be separated.

The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this…

Finally, there is the NIST report (warning, .pdf).

Here is a sort of NIST link site where I’ll quote a few things, just for drill:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

* Expanding the discussion of firestopping, the material placed between floors to prevent floor-to-floor fire spread;
* Clarifying the description of thermal expansion as it related to WTC 7’s shear studs and floor beams; and
* Explaining in greater detail the computer modeling approach used to define where and when the fire in WTC 7 started and the extent of window breakage as a result of fire.

With the release of the final WTC 7 report, NIST has completed its federal building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster that began in August 2002. A three-year study of the collapses of the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) was completed in October 2005. More than 20 changes in the U.S. model building and fire codes have already been adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the investigation.

NIST will now work with various public and private groups toward implementing additional changes to the U.S. model building and fire codes including those based on the 13 recommendations from the WTC 7 report (one new and 12 reiterated from the towers investigation).

-XT

[Cisco]

@ivan_astikov

Hey, there’s far more to suggest that there’s more than meets the eye to what occured during that fateful day, than there is for a god, and look how many believe in that idea!

Do you worry about what they might accept?

Yes, sometimes I do. The fideists, at least. Again, stop trying to make your religion analogy. You’re getting it backwards.

[Cisco]

@palindromemordnilap

Well, I have been following along and I know quite a bit about buildings. I also know that no bulding has ever fallen this way before and have never seen or heard of a paper by any physics experts who predicted or even theorized that a building might fall this way prior to 9/11. So any response you might point to would be trying to explain it after the fact.

If you’ve got more recent studies that do a better job of explaining why the buildings would fall straight down instead of toppling over, or better yet, a pre-9/11 paper discussing how this could happen, I would like to hear about them. Otherwise your misguided opinion is worse than useless.

Revise that to “I know virtually nothing about buildings.” The thought of a 110 storey skyscraper toppling over like a 75 foot tree is the height of absurdity.

[XT]

Well, you know, buildings and trees have so much in common. They are both tall. And…well, they are both tall. Um…and, did I mention that they are tall?

-XT