Have you read the other threads on the subject?
Well, it looks like Mozart is starting from scratch, as it were, parroting ideas that were tossed around and debunked years ago, and I know it must be tempting to try to put him through the kindergarten of 9/11 reality checks in the hope that he may one day graduate, but I understand and share your weariness.
I’m just curious when and if Mozart will address the “pull it” issue. That’s always good for a few laughs.
It is a lot like the types back in 2006 who just saw Loose Change and think they are gonna tell us a thing or two about What Really Happened ™.
No. I know there are tons of them. I figured it would be more efficient to ask for specific points about the specific questions I had rather than sifting through dozens or hundreds of threads at the rate of one search per five minutes.
I’m not sure what the search delay is, but they dropped it significantly below 5 minutes. And you really should search the old threads. There’s some good stuff in there.
The structural steel in buildings is usually coated with a fire retardant material. In the 9/11 attacks the impacts of the planes removed some of the fire retardant material resulting in the structural steel getting hot very fast and losing a lot of its strength.
IMO, that much jet fuel would’ve caused the towers to eventually collapse in any case. If the fire retardant material remained intact, it might have taken several hours.
I’m not an expert btw just my opinion.
I believe the date in question was 9/12/2001.
What I fail to understand is how anyone can watch the videos of the collapse and think that anything except the fire brought those buildings down.
the popping sound would be the outer wall support beams snapping.
The buildings burned long enough for the floor joists to sag. They pulled the outer wall inward until they snapped. They sagged because the thermal insulation was blown off on impact. Unlike the Empire State building, which has a concrete like insulation material, the stuff on the WTC was blown on fluff. In fact, during construction, they switched to a different type of material because of environmental concerns (no idea if that affected adhesion). Had the insulation remained on the joists the buildings would have survived much longer than they did.
Initially they thought the floor joist-to-wall bolts failed and the walls bowed out but after examining the wreckage they found the bolts intact.
Even the experts were wrong about the initial cause. They saw the videos and thought the walls popped outward when actually they were pulled inward.
The walls inward / outward I understand. What I don’t understand is the thermite/mini nukes/wired for demo/ space ships and what ever else they have come up with.
It is obvious from the videos that the point of failure is the floor where the fires started.
Yet we get all of these crack pot stories.
After seeing these buildiings fall STRAIGHT DOWN into their own footprint exactly like controlled demolitions.
It doesn’t take an expert to see that the odds of that happening once with buildings of this size are astronomical. Three times suspends belief.
And building 7 was never hit by a plane, and was not effected by jet fuel.
They didn’t fall straight down into their own footprints. For starters, building 7 - the same building you were just talking about - was hit by debris.
“I don’t understand this event, so instead of listening to rational, logical, physically and mathematically demonstrable explanations, I choose to believe GRAAAAHHHHH GOOOGUL GOOOGUL AGGA AGGA AGGA AGGA AROOOOOGAH OOH OOH OOH %&$@!!!1111”
Pretty much everything I drop falls STRAIGHT DOWN – usually onto my toes, painfully. I’d love to be able to blame that on some terrorists or government plot, instead of my own clumsiness. But I don’t.
I really can’t understand why CTers think things falling STRAIGHT DOWN is unusual.
It’s called “gravity”, son.
To explain, here’s an experiment you can conduct in your own home. Pick up a large red brick and hold it high over your head, then let go. In which direction does it fall? Upwards? Sideways? Down, but at an angle? Repeat the experiment several times and get back to us with the results.
ETA: I’d like to see video of these supposed burning skyscrapers. Keep in mind, the smoke from high-rise fires can engulf the entire building when the actual fire is contained to a very small area.
Here’s a clip of tall building collapsing due to controlled demolitions. Note how neatly it collapses into a pile of rubble. Also note how fucking loud the explosions are. Compare that to WTC Tower 1 collapsing. Shit and debris flying several hundred meters in all directions.
WTC7 didn’t collapse “straight down.” It’s failure severely compromised Fiterman Hall, a community college building across the street to the North (just like WTC7 itself was across the street to the north of WTC1 and suffered from the collapse of the larger building). Fiterman Hall had to be torn down and has since been rebuilt.
Mozart is thinking of Jenga. Because the constituents are solid, when it falls, it topples over and hits the ground on its side (more or less). He’s neglecting that a skyscraper is probably 99% air and is built of materials just baaaaarely strong enough to keep itself upright. It would be like building a 5 foot tall structure, 4 inches in width and depth, out of nothing more than hardened layers of wet ash, and where 99% of it was hollow. You might be able to do it, and even to get it so you could lightly throw a scale Cesna at it and not cause it to fall, but it sure as hell ain’t a tower of Jenga.
You can’t compact a tower made of wood blocks, like Jenga. To make it fall, it has to fall to the side. But a skyscraper can be compacted just fine. The force of 50 stories in free fall is enough to punch through the lower stories. Instead of the lower stories staying steady and forcing the upper-stories to topple and fall sideways, it just goes straight down with only the sliiiiightest, unnoticeable bit of lean in there.
Folks who want to read about some of the science related to skyscraper fires should look at On Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Ryan Mackey. It is a 198-page PDF. It won’t prove anything to a CTer, but for anyone curious about the physics and history of tall-building fires, there is some useful stuff in there.
The “OMG the towers fell STRAIGHT DOWN” argument fails on me for this reason, especially in the case of the second tower. Why would it topple over? If a fire at the 100th floor somehow caused the tower to snap in two at the 20th floor, I would think that THAT would point to something fishy.