Sorry Ivan, but there are some things where there shouldn’t be any controversy, where one side really does have all the answers.
The earth is round, not flat.
The earth goes around the Sun, not vice versa.
The Holocaust happened.
9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda.
Taking the point “Some people say X others say Y but I’m keeping an open mind” on any of these issues doesn’t make one look like a lofty free thinking intellectual, it makes one look like a vacuous ninny.
EVERYONE, knock of the insults.
[ /Moderating ]
Put us all out of our misery Tom…ban everyone who participated in this abortion, without prejudice, and then kill the thread. And then go shoot everyone’s dog or something, just to be sure…or nuke us all from orbit, if that works out better.
-XT
Good, but some knowledge can help protect you when CTers try to shift the argument in a direction you’re not prepared for.
Another vote for “You’d be amazed.” :eek:
Greetings, this is my first post in about 8 years. 
I don’t care about any conspiracies. At this point I don’t care who did it or why.
I do not believe normal airliners could destroy the WTC towers that thoroughly in less than 2 hours. That is what I concluded 2 weeks after 9/11 and what research I have done since then just confirms my opinion.
Every skyscraper must support itself and witstand the wind. The designers KNOW THAT. They must figure out how much steel and concrete ot put on every level of the building. So why is it that after SEVEN YEARS we don’t have a table telling us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers? There are about 4 different reasons that we should have that information to analyze these events.
When the planes impacted the towers they had to deflect the buildings off center and the NCSTAR1 report has a graph of the oscillation of the south tower for four minutes after impact. The distributions of steel and concrete had to affect that oscillation. The energy that went into that deflection must be computed to determine how much was available to inflict structural damage. The quantity of steel in the impact zone would affect how much damage the fire could do to the steel how quickly. 2 hours is just too short a time to heat enough steel to weaken in a 20% oxygen environment.
The collapse would involve the conservation of momentum and the distribution of mass would slow the collapse down. Less than 18 seconds for the collapse is just impossible. Some people want to claim the potential energy of the building could account for the dustified concrete. But computing that potential energy would require knowing how much mass was how high of steel and concrete.
I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 2 years ago. It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. They also don’t specify the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels even though they admit they supported 50% of the buildings weight. Those were the first structural members the planes hit.
After this much time all of our engineering schools are effectively accomplices after the fact. People are supposed to pay $100,000+ for four years tuition to engineering schools that won’t even ask about the distribution of steel and concrete in two famous buildings involved in the most horrific event involving engineering in history. 
There is a conspiracy between the steel and concrete to keep us in the dark.
psik
So…you think the towers were demolished by other means because nobody has given you a weight figure on a silver platter?! 
There are several claims in here…they either do not make sense or are simply wrong.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
There are several claims in here…they either do not make sense or are simply wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Most of the non-crazy one’s have already been previously debunked as well…but it’s militantly unsurprising that we have now circled back to this aspect of the subject. It was only a matter of time…
-XT
The collapse of the 3 buildings doesn’t really make sense unless there was a flaw in the design of them. Most people will chalk it up to the planes flying into the building, jet fuel, etc and be done with it but enough people are skeptical which is why this debates garner a huge number of views and responses and why there’s still a discussion about this stuff on the NET and other places.
The NIST had 3 years, $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages.
You don’t think they could have come up with 232 numbers specifying the steel and concrete on every level since the towers had 6 basement levels.
I am not talking about what did it but I want them to prove a normal airliner could do it. How much computing power did they have in the early 60s when the WTC was designed. Today a netbook has more processing power than the mainframes that were available when the towers were completed.
The quantity of concrete is one of the peculiar things about this entire business. If you check around on various websites you will find plenty that say the towers had 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. As far as I can tell that number comes from BEFORE 9/11 and it turns up with the 200,000 tons of steel. That is the quantity of steel the NIST says was in the towers. So why shouldn’t that number for the concrete be correct.
But the NIST says 2 types of concrete were used in the towers, 110 pounds per cubic foot and 150 per cu. ft. So you calculate how many tons that comes to for both buildings. Where was all of that concrete? How much was in the basements? Shouldn’t there be a lot in the foundation of a 110 story skyscraper.
This is a grade school physics problem. The info doesn’t need to be on a silver platter. A cafeteria tray would be fine.
psik
Would you care to be more specific about that?
psik
Case in point: psikeyhackr. :rolleyes:
Okay, here’s what happened in a nutshell, obscenities included:
Great big fucking airliners, loaded with fuel, crashed into both towers at high speed. Neither crashed at the top, but quite a great distance below. As can be seen on MANY photos, the whole fucking lot of fuel on both ignited fires that also included a shitload of other flammables. After an hour or so these fires raised the temperature of some ironwork so much that it could not support the great big pile of mass above it, and it failed. The floor above which this occurred did not merely have to take the mass, accelerated over some 3 or 4 meters of fall, but ALL the mass above it. Naturally, that floor failed. The floor below it was hit by a full floorload MORE than the one above it, so it failed. As the dandruff shampoo goes, “And so on, and so on.”
The concrete was not holding up each floor as much as the steel attached to it was, and as soon as the steel failed so did the concrete.
I gratuitously deny your gratuitous assertion.
Even if you wish to assert that failing to build them with the intention of surviving a full-scale nuclear attack* is a “flaw,” your assertion means nothing. The buildings were designed to withstand a crash from a smaller plane–although the largest commercial plane of that era-- carrying far less fuel. If you wish to consider that situation a “design flaw,” so what? How does one leap from the “design flaw” of not predicting a deliberate attack by much larger aircraft at some future date to a conspiracy–other than the conspiracy of the people who commandeered big planes to use as suicide weapons?
As an analogy: British aircraft carriers in WWIi used armored flight decks. U.S. aircraft carriers did not use armored flight decks. When the Japanese introduced the Kamikaze tactic, the British design proved to be able to withstand such attacks much better than the U.S. design. On the other hand, the U.S. ships, not burdened by that deck armor, were capable of greater speed and range and could carry roughly twenty more aircraft than British carriers of similar size. Following WWII, should the U.S. have engaged in [del]witch hunts[/del] investigations to determine why U.S. builders incorporated a “design flaw” that allowed the U.S. carriers to project a 20% increase in firepower at greater range and speed, (firepower that actually aided in thwarting the Japanese attacks)?
*(Please note that I do recognize that you have not (yet) called for the towers to survive a nuclear weapon.)
How about a tray from Scientific American?
I’m not sure you’re right about that but it doesn’t even matter because . . .
Neither building collapsed in under 18 seconds.
Tell that to Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST.
And of course it is really important that the building was 70% air by volume. ROFL
psik
Yeah right! Physics doesn’t matter when you decide to BELIEVE different.
Here are calculations of 64 ft collapses with different distributions of mass:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg251656#msg251656
These mases are magically supported in this mathematical delusion so no energy is required to break supports. The speed lines in the second code section show the changes in velocity due to impacts and gravitational acceleration.
psik
Unfortunately for the CTs there where cameras close by.
Cite!
Let’s look at the facts!
I haven’t seen the formal demand for Bin Laden. Can anyone provide a link?
I’d especially like a link to the formal response.
And. Please. Name just one ‘high ranking AQ’ member.