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

[spifflog]

When on a deployment to the Mediterranean, I asked one of my Sailors if he had enjoyed Rome when he took the train there. I remember him saying -

“Sir, Rome wasn’t built in a day, so you can’t see it in a day.”

Even at that time, being the young Officer that I was, I realized what a profound and life changing statement that was.
And it just occurred to me.

The World Trade Center wasn’t built in two hours, so how could it collapse in two hours?

Think about it.

[42fish]

@spifflog

And it just occurred to me.

The World Trade Center wasn’t built in two hours, so how could it collapse in two hours?

Think about it.

The solution is that the WTC actually took the same amount of time to collapse as it took to build and we merely perceived it as two hours. How did that happen? Well, time is actually cubic…

[XT]

It also only weighed ‘400,000 tons’ depending on one’s definition of ‘tons’…

-XT

[tomndebb]

@spifflog

The World Trade Center wasn’t built in two hours, so how could it collapse in two hours?

In the same way that Rome, built over several centuries, could burn in less than a week. (Same agent, even.)

[Dissonance]

JFK took NINE months to make, people. How can you possibly think he was killed so quickly by these alledged ‘bullets?’ Tell me who’s taking things on BELIEF!

[psikeyhackr]

@tomndebb

This is such an absurd non-sequitur as to really call into question how serious you are.

So you expect people to be impressed because you can use the term non-sequitur?

An airliner flies into a building at 540 mph and the building does not even shake visibly from the outside. That is pretty impressive. I have watched two video segments of survivors talking about how the building shook after impact. One said the floor was moving like a wave.

Imagine walking down a hall and the floor suddenly moves 12 inches to the left, then 23 inches to the right, then 22 to the left, and back a forth like that for four minutes with progressively smaller oscillations.

People not talking about the distribution of mass in an object that large undergoing damped oscillation due to a very unusual event is EXTREMELY ABSURD.

psik

[XT]

I was watching an episode of Life After People last night, and they were talking about the sky scrapers in New York. What was interesting is that the episode related so well to the discussion. Basically, through modeling, they predict what would happen to the various structures of man if all the people were suddenly gone. How long would they last? What would cause them to collapse? How would they collapse?

In the episode last night they were talking about what would happen in New York. The interesting thing though was their claim that in a fairly short time (less than 10 years without maintenance) the NEW buildings in New York would be the first to fall. Why? Several reasons. One is that the new buildings apparently leak. Another is the construction methods of the new buildings…a steel core with a facade of light steel and glass. The biggest reason though is that due to the two factors I just mentioned, key supports would fail…and that this would bring the entire structure down due to a progressive collapse. Just like what happened at the WTC when key structural members, deformed by heat, collapsed.

I’m sure that someone who spend all his/her time laughing out loud and rolling on the floor is not going to see the point here…but hopefully others will. If you haven’t seen the show I highly recommend it…they go into some interesting detail about how our modern world is built and how our grand structures would fail without constant maintenance.

[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
So you expect people to be impressed because you can use the term non-sequitur?
[/QUOTE]

I am more impressed by Tom’s use of language than your use of ignorance…well, that and your constant use of LOL, ROFL and various smiley faces. YMMV of course…

-XT

[dropzone]

Big building. WAY FUCKING BIG building. Why do you think that you could see it shake on a video taken from quite a great distance away? OTOH, the strikes did show up on a seismograph, so you can rest assured that they did shake.

[zut]

@psikeyhackr

People not talking about the distribution of mass in an object that large undergoing damped oscillation due to a very unusual event is EXTREMELY ABSURD.

One more time: suppose you had an exact weight distribution for every floor of the World Trade Center. What, exactly, do you think you could do with the data? How would the behavior of a system containing the exact weight distribution differ from one with an over- or under-estimated weight distribution? Why is this relevant to the collapse of the World Trade Center?

[Robot_Arm]

@psikeyhackr

People not talking about the distribution of mass in an object that large undergoing damped oscillation due to a very unusual event is EXTREMELY ABSURD.

It must be jelly, 'cause jam don’t shake like that.

[psikeyhackr]

@dropzone

Big building. WAY FUCKING BIG building. Why do you think that you could see it shake on a video taken from quite a great distance away? OTOH, the strikes did show up on a seismograph, so you can rest assured that they did shake.

There were plenty of cameras zoomed in on the building at impact time.

I already said it only moved 14 inches at impact,

How much mass was in the impact zone? So why don’t we know after SEVEN YEARS?

Would that be related to how much steel had to weaken in LESS THAN AN HOUR for the south tower? Oh right, the experts don’t have to tell us that either. It didn’t take A LOT OF STEEL to hold up a WAY FUCKING BIG building. It is curious how people can distort physics to make it tilt on the side they prefer. Why don’t you demand to know the tons of steel and concrete on every level of that WAY FUCKING BIG building?

psik

[XT]

[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
It is curious how people can distort physics to make it tilt on the side they prefer.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not physics, per se, that really relates to this, but statics. I realize you can’t wrap your head around the fact that if you weaken key structural elements that this will cause a catastrophic collapse, but it’s true none the less. No one is distorting physics to make it happen…you simply don’t have a grasp of the physics and the forces at work and you are unable or unwilling to understand the technical explanations you’ve already been given in this thread. You THINK you have a point, but it’s like someone arguing with a physicist about the effects of objects moving at the speed of light. Their ‘common sense’ understanding of the effect is, simply put, wrong, and they don’t have the background or knowledge to have an intelligent conversation on the subject. Likewise you don’t have the background or the knowledge to have an intelligent conversation on this subject.

Would that be related to how much steel had to weaken in LESS THAN AN HOUR for the south tower?

Because the key concept is that ALL of the steel didn’t have to fail…only key elements in the load bearing members did. All that one has to know is the general mass distribution (which has been shown) and a grasp of how static forces interact. Once a key support is weakened it causes a pancaking effect as the mass above crashes down on the floors below…once this process starts with a single floor catastrophically collapsing then the entire structure begins to catastrophically collapse as the upper structure (and all of that mass) crashes into each succeeding floor, picking up momentum. Buildings aren’t designed to withstand these kinds of loads or forces, so we see exactly what we saw on 9/11.

There is no distortion of physics necessary…only a grasp of structural mechanics that you, unfortunately, do not possess. Equally unfortunately the vast majority of the sources you are probably reading dealing with the CT are ALSO ignorant on this subject. The majority of experts, people who have gone to college to study this subject and then spent years actually doing the work, are pretty much in agreement on how and why the WTC buildings collapsed. That alone SHOULD tell you something, even if you think we 'dopers are a bunch of clueless dupes. Sadly, it doesn’t.

-XT

[CurtC]

@psikeyhackr

An airliner flies into a building at 540 mph and the building does not even shake visibly from the outside. That is pretty impressive. I have watched two video segments of survivors talking about how the building shook after impact. One said the floor was moving like a wave.

psik, can you explain why it matters how much the buildings swayed after they were hit? You keep bringing this up, but I really have no clue as to why you think it matters a whit. Yes, the buildings swayed after they were hit, and yes, the amount of swaying is partly dependent on the distribution of mass in the towers.

SO THE FUCK WHAT?

[LilShieste]

@psikeyhackr

How much mass was in the impact zone? So why don’t we know after SEVEN YEARS?

How many unflushed stools were there in the 10th floor restrooms? Why don’t we know after SEVEN YEARS?

It just doesn’t matter. Even without accounting for these things, physics is perfectly able to explain why the buildings fell.

[ivan_astikov]

@xtisme

Good grief.

I don’t know how many times you’ve been told this (and yet keep circling back to this same stupid point) but let me try in all caps: THAT’S WHERE THE FUCKING TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED US WERE!!

-XT

Are you sure? I thought they all died in the plane crashes?

[XT]

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Are you sure? I thought they all died in the plane crashes?
[/QUOTE]

The one’s who died in the plane crashes were the non-fucking terrorists.

-XT

[GIGObuster]

@ivan_astikov

Are you sure? I thought they all died in the plane crashes?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/

Bin Laden – branded by U.S. authorities as the mastermind behind the attacks – indicates during the recording that he knew for several days that September 11 would be the date of the attacks.

He says he turned on his radio in advance to listen to coverage of the attacks and that he underestimated the damage that would be inflicted on the World Trade Center.

“I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only,” he said, according to a U.S. government translation. “This is all that we had hoped for.”

[XT]

I think his point was to try and be funny…i.e., all the actual terrorists who attacked us (discounting those who helped them out, provided logistics, command, control, etc) were killed in the planes…

-XT

[smurfslappa]

@JohnT

Psi, it is patently obvious that the buildings were not brought down by the planes impact. It is also patently obvious that the buildings were brought down by the fires caused by the planes impact. Why are you asking us to prove something that didn’t happen?

BTW, how you doin’ on that search?

That is not patently obvious. The firefighters tasked to put out the fires said they would have them controlled in about fifteen minutes, hardly the raging infernos they were claimed to be by the official NIST report. Also most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs we saw on TV. Also some photographs taken of the gaping holes showed people standing in them. Once again, not really a raging inferno. The black smoke of the remaining burning jet fuel shows us that it was burning rich, with hardly enough oxygen to reach the max temperatures that it could.

No, it was not obvious that fires took down the towers. There’s many other examples of stupidity surrounding the event but I’m sure they’ve been listed in previous posts in this thread. It’s not obvious that fires took down WTC 7 but that’s the excuse we’re fed so we go with it.

[GIGObuster]

@smurfslappa

That is not patently obvious. The firefighters tasked to put out the fires said they would have them controlled in about fifteen minutes, hardly the raging infernos they were claimed to be by the official NIST report. Also most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs we saw on TV. Also some photographs taken of the gaping holes showed people standing in them. Once again, not really a raging inferno. The black smoke of the remaining burning jet fuel shows us that it was burning rich, with hardly enough oxygen to reach the max temperatures that it could.

No, it was not obvious that fires took down the towers. There’s many other examples of stupidity surrounding the event but I’m sure they’ve been listed in previous posts in this thread. It’s not obvious that fires took down WTC 7 but that’s the excuse we’re fed so we go with it.

I really wonder why is it that some are never fed up with the misleading information coming from conspiracy sites.
http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

Firefighter’s quotes are routinely taken out of context by 9/11 conspiracy sites. The conspiracy theorists use the quote above to suggest the fire was never large enough to cause the steel to melt. Let’s forget that the NIST never said the steel needed to melt for a moment. But the steel did have to have enough fire to expand and weaken the steel. They point to the fireman saying “We should be able to knock it down with two lines” as in two fire hoses. Sounds small, doesn’t it? But let’s examine the quote further…

"Battalion Seven Chief: “Battalion Seven … Ladder 15, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.”

Ladder 15: “What stair are you in, Orio?”

Battalion Seven Aide: “Seven Alpha to lobby command post.”

Ladder Fifteen: “Fifteen to Battalion Seven.”

Battalion Seven Chief: “… Ladder 15.”

Ladder 15: “Chief, what stair you in?”

Battalion Seven Chief: “South stairway Adam, South Tower.”

Recorded audio of the actual event..

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html

Now look at this…

USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/17/stairway.htm

South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

*

  Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.
*

  It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.
*

  The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
*

  If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?
*

  If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?
*

  If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?
*

  Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?
*

  Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”. It would actually confirm the NIST report which says the trusses heated, expanded then cooled and contracted as the fires moved on. It was the contracting trusses which pulled the columns inward causing the collapse. Once again, conspiracy theorists debunk themselves.