I’m serious about that. Just saying “I’m not convinced” is a STARTING point, not an ENDING point.
Show the actual math and why it is wrong. Don’t just give a half-assed gut feeling assessment. Show, with numbers, why it doesn’t make sense.
Also, as I pointed out (yet again), even if there were explosives involved, the rubble would NOT fall at free fall speeds. Even in controlled demolitions, this does not occur. The explanation of free fall speeds doesn’t even work for controlled demolitions, so it’s an explanation that isn’t even internally consistent. :smack:
It’s been 12.75 years now. I get it. The math isn’t straightforward as you might like. But since it’s been over a decade, I would imagine somebody else has run the numbers and you can present them. Oh wait, chirping? Yeah, that’s right, conspiracy theorists have been relying on bad analogy, bad models, and obfuscation. Do the actual math and show why the reasonable explanation is not truly reasonable. Otherwise, it’s simply a more advanced version of a toddler repeatedly asking “Why?”
To add to previous comments, saying “this explanation doesn’t make sense” is only a STARTING point.
Once you get to that point, even if other people accept it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t automatically lead to your conclusion being correct.
This is something we run into commonly with fundamentalists around here. They use faulty logic. They believe that if atheism were not true, then their brand of Christianity MUST be the reasonable alternate solution. Why? Why not Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Pastafarianism? Or something else.
Likewise, you don’t like the NIST explanation. Why then does your explanation make sense (you don’t really provide much in the way of evidence or numbers)? Why not some other explanation? It’s the same fundamentalist mindset that assumes that their version is the only alternative. It’s shockingly poor logic and reveals more about the person’s not-so-hidden assumptions and not so much about other people’s faulty reasoning.
Well, as Galileo’s dropped ball experiment clearly shows, the smaller ball falls faster than the bigger ones and…
…
…Oh, wait!
This tower in free fall horseshit has always been one of the more ridiculous assertions of the 9/11 Truther CT faction. Clearly, even a tower wired for explosives (magical explosives that don’t leave any trace or evidence behind, planted by magical fairy ninjas who don’t either) doesn’t fall at ‘free fall speeds’. Thinking it does shows a fundamental mis-understanding of how building demolition actually works, as well as an inability to actually look at the fucking film footage of the buildings collapsing with something like, oh, say a freaking stop watch.
To be even fairer, Stringbean did correctly identify the path of least resistance; the error being that it was necessary that he/she multiplied entities to arrive at the same conclusion.
If one seeks to disprove the official story with folk physics then one is in error from the tee off.
The controlled demolitions crowd always amuses me. They look at the video and because to them it looks similar to videos of demolitions they then shoehorn explanations to fit their wrong assumptions.
They don’t realize that explosives are a lot less impressive than what Hollywood makes you believe. A couple blocks of C4 do not make a very big explosion. They have no idea how much would be needed to bring down a building the way they believe. But they think we live in a world in which a hand grenade makes a fiery explosion that can bring down a house.
They don’t realize how much demolition must be done to buildings prior to a controlled demolition. Weeks of internal demolition to get the charges on the proper parts of the structure.
In 1993 explosives were used to attempt to bring down a tower. No one suspected anything other than explosives in a van. Why plant explosives and fly a plane into it? Why not just use the explosives and say it was like 1993? It makes no sense.
It makes no sense on so many logical levels. And that’s not even getting into the physics. I’ll leave that to others. I just know a bit about blowing shit up.
Its also as Piper indicated a problem with the fact that people have no experience with how large structure fall. Most of our experience with falling things, involve relatively light things with a high degree of structural integrity, trees or towers made of children’s blocks, or models of buildings being knocked down in Godzilla movies. In comparison the collapse of a building looks very different since the structural forces are outside of our normal experience. Outside of 9/11 the only experience that people have with collapsing sky scrapers is controlled demolitions. So it is natural to assume that the reason their collapse in a way that doesn’t match their previous experience is because it was a controlled demolition. Rather than the fact that it is primarily due to it being a big building, and down being the only way it can collapse.
The logical fails with regards to explosives just multiply exponentially.
If explosives were used:
a) Where are the massive amounts of cabling, detcord & boxing materials needed? And don’t tell me you are going use radio control in a city with the highest level of radio traffic in the United States if not the world. Even if you did avoid using detcord where is the charge boxing materials.
b) Where is the sound? Explosive cutting charges make a lot of noise. Last I check a rumbling sound of the tower’s fall is not anything close to the booms of demolition charges.
c) Where is the post-explosive evidence? You cut a piece of metal with explosive charges and it shows it in color changes on the metal and is quite different than a welding cut or blown explosive cut, etc.
These, and dozens of other issues lead to some truthers saying 'Thermite done it!" which leads to:
a) How does this thermite cut horizontally? It took years for anyone to come up with a horizontal cutting method and that method would have been more intrusive to the people in the towers than cutting things for explosive charges.
b) How much thermite? Geez you gotta use a lot of this stuff to cut holes. Where did these tons of thermite sit around when they were waiting for the planes to hit?
And how come, if it was an explosive demolition, can the cores of both towers be seen standing in the dust, before they finally fall? The cores were the largest support of the towers - wouldn’t an intentional demolition take them out first? And if the perpetrators for some reason decided that they wouldn’t take out the cores first, that would imply there must have been explosives on the perimeter columns, which we can see there weren’t.
Sorry, The Antichrist, you seem to be capable of putting ideas together, and I appreciate that. But this controlled demolition idea is just wrong on every front that you approach it from. It doesn’t look like a controlled demolition, there were no explosive bangs, it would be completely impractical to wire up an in-use tower to start collapsing at the 80th floor, there would be no way to assure a plane hit exactly there anyway, a plane impact and fireball would likely destroy any explosive prep work that was done at that location, etc. etc. etc.
Have the controlled demolitions people ever explained why the collapse starts with the floors where the planes hit?
I mean, it seems to me that even if the building WAS wired with explosives, the planners had no way of knowing in advance exactly where the planes would hit. And how were the charges on those floors still functional after the impact and fire?
This is the critical part that the demolitionists never seem to understand. When we use explosives to demolish a building, where do we put the explosives?
At the bottom of the structural members. The point is to break the supports that hold up the building, and then the building falls down. It falls into it’s own footprint because of gravity. The material above crushes the material below as it falls. It makes the building look as if it were falling into a whole, since the upper parts are mostly intact as they fall.
But that’s not how the WTC towers collapsed. They didn’t start collapsing at the bottom. That started collapsing at the top. Where the, you know, airplanes hit. It wasn’t anything like a demolition. The upper parts collapsed onto the lower parts, floor by floor.
But the WTC towers fell mostly into their own footprints. And this is because what pulled down the towers was gravity, and gravity acts to pull things down, not sideways. The towers didn’t collapse when the planes hit, there was no sideways vectors acting on the towers when they collapsed. And so they collapse downwards, as anyone with any familiarity with how things work should realize.
A tree can fall over while intact because the tree is really strong relative to it’s size. A skyscraper can’t, it’s mostly empty space. It breaks apart first.
Here’s a simple way to understand, for anyone who ever built things out of lego. Make a short tower out of lego. Push it over. A short tower will mostly stay together, because the forces that hold the bricks together are pretty strong relative to the size of the tower. Now make the tower taller and push it over. It breaks apart much sooner, because the weight of the tower is much greater, but the forces holding the bricks together are still exactly the same.
This is why a skinny 10 foot steel pole topples over intact when it falls. But a 1000 foot steel pole will break apart, because the steel is exactly the same strength, but the forces acting to break apart the steel are 100 times greater.
This is the same reason large animals have thick legs and small animals have tiny legs. Make a deer the size of an elephant and its legs will be too thin to support its weight. Make an elephant the size of a housecat and its legs will look ridiculously thick. The strength of a structural member increases with the cross sectional area, but the weight increases with the volume. So a 1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter cube has a volume of 1 cubic meter, but a 2x2x2 cube has a volume of 8 cubic meters. It seems only twice as big at first glance, but it’s really 8 times as big.
Frankly, I’m getting bored with how these wacky conspiracy nuts always blame the CIA, FEMA, the Trilateral Commission, or whatever mysterious shadowy organization is currently in vogue. Why are THEY always the ones involved? Why can’t these CT-theorists use some creativity, for criminy’s sake?
Once, just once, I want to hear about a vast, monolithic conspiracy where the mastermind is Jerry’s Kids.
WAIT- who said anything about Space Jews? Shit, man, you’re just better off not knowing about certain things, and if you do know, ferchrissakes don’t mention it!
Well, I am sure they have found you by now. Too bad. I always liked your posts
There are a few things that leave me open to conspiracy theories. 1. Bush spoke of needing a pretext for his agenda before it happened. 2. they lied about WMDs so they could lie about other things including 911. 3. Bin Laden had ties to the CIA, so maybe it was just his latest, and last, for-hire project.
I’m not up on the science, and I don’t have any insider scoops, so I just leave it at maybe.
Nixon lied as well…and broke the law and stuff. Doesn’t mean the moon landings were a hoax.
Just because Bush lied about some stuff, doesn’t mean that this CT is any more plausible considering the mountain of evidence against it. And, let’s be honest here…do you REALLY think freaking Bush was some sort of mastermind that COULD have really pulled this off and had the leadership and strength to keep it going, long after he was in office?? :dubious:
