That’s interesting. My take on it is exactly the opposite. I do not have a problem believing that the government is capable of killing its own citizens to achieve some end; I just don’t see any evidence that it happened in this case. I don’t believe the conspiracy nuts because their theories are nonsense. The conspiracy-theory version of events is so convoluted and unlikely that Occam’s Razor demands that we accept the commonly-known explanation.
It’s not like I reject the fucking conspiracy theories because I believe in the benevolence of Dick Cheney, that there are things even he won’t do. I have no window into Dick Cheney’s soul, he’s probably no more evil than lots of people, but I’m prepared to stipulate that he’s a sociopath who is capable of anything.
Even given that Cheney’s a sociopath, and has surrounded himself with like-minded sociopaths, that wouldn’t make my analysis of the 9/11 attacks any different.
Honesty, are you actually saying you want to build TWO new world trade center complexes, exactly the same as the first one, and fly planes into one exact duplicate and blow up the other exact duplicate? As I explained previously, you can’t just build a scale model of the WTC and hit it with a scale model of a 757, because structures don’t scale that way. A 1/10th scale model of the WTC would be 10 times stronger than the real WTC.
Sort of. In my experiment, there would be multiple WTC buildings to investigate the impact of the plane at accelerations less and greater than recorded velocity than the one recorded at 9/11. Then compare those results with buildings armed with explosives. I understand that rigorous testing like this is just not only infeasible in this day and age but outrageously expensive
And I’d like to say again that I do not believe the government orchestrated these attacks.
- Honesty
What day and age would it be feasible in?
And if you don’t think the government orchestrated the attacks, what’s the point of these tests? What do you want them to prove to you?
But the government rigging the buildings with explosives and not orchestrating a terrorist attack makes even less sense than the government orchestrating a terrorist attack. Do you think the government has lots of tall buildings rigged with explosives, so they can bring them down if a terrorist flies a plane into them? Why would the government want to make recovering from a terrorist attack much harder and more expensive by demolishing some buildings? Why would the government want to kill more people in a terrorist attack- 2,603 of the nearly 3000 people who died in the September 11 attacks died in the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?
Well, consider how much the original WTC complex cost. Then consider how much it would cost to duplicate it…except you don’t even get to keep the duplicates! For crying out loud! Exactly how much money do you want to piss down a rathole just to satisfy your curiosity, which apparently could never be satisfied anyway, because there’s no way you can duplicate the EXACT crash.
Thing is, what if you crashed planes into a duplicate WTC and it DIDN’T collapse? What would that prove? Only that this one didn’t collapse, that there was a chance that the towers might have stood if initial conditions were a little bit different. Seriously, the towers MIGHT have survived if things had gone differently, of course, they would have had to be demolished later anyway. But what exactly would it mean? If the WTC duplicate survived a similar plane crash, what would that tell you?
Nothing.
Also, any sort of test gives the CT’s too much credit. It makes it seem like there is an actual argument that needs to be refuted, an actual controversy that needs to be resolved. We know why the towers collapsed, and we shouldn’t spend time or money refuting paranoid nonsensical gibberish.
I’ve seen exact re-creations of the JFK assassination to dispell the loony CT’s various ‘points’…and yet, those same bullshit CT’s are STILL floating about. Even if the idea of creating an exact replica of the WTC complex AND crashing an unmanned air craft of roughly the same dimensions into it wasn’t completely nuts (which it IS), I have serious doubts it would make any difference anyway. The fact free crowd would STILL believe the BS CT, and the rest of us would simply nod and then roll our eyes at the cost for no benifit.
-XT
I can’t believe anyone would think that, to be honest. We’ve all seen pictures of buildings collapsing. Big, tall skyscrapers NEVER topple over, at least not more than a few degrees, before the immesnse weight pulls them down. They always collapse before they can lean too far.
I don’t think you really appreciate the size of the World Trade Center, for one thing. You don’t get an appreciation for its immensity when you see it on screen; you had to see it to believe it. There’s no way in hell a building that large could have “toppled over.” It would have fallen apart under its own weight long before it toppled over much.
And you say you’ve worked with steel, but if you ask anyone who designs steel buildings, they’ll tell you buildings like that can’t topple over. They collapse. Just this week I visited a steel and engineering company that’s designing several 50+ story towers and I mentioned this whole WTC thing. They found it extremely amusing. None of them had heard of this story before (I was doing an ISO 9001 audit, btw) and found the idea that heat can’t weaken steel enough to collapse it highly laughable.
Why not? That’s the way they get the load limits for bridges.
I have spent this entire thread not making this comment.
sigh Wasted effort. 
Of course, to really make the recreation applicable, we’ll need to put a few thousand people in them too.
I’ve got a list! I’ve got a list!
That’s why I’ll never be a moderator: I don’t have the restraint and willpower that you do!
The funniest thing about it is, let’s imagine that it is extremely difficult to make a skyscraper come straight down, and requires precision timing of explosives. Why would the conspirators have gone to so much trouble to make it look like a controlled demolition if they didn’t want anyone to know? We’re supposed to believe that they went to great pains to produce these neat collapses for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn’t the evil Bush Administration conspirators have wanted the buildings to topple over? It would have been even more dramatic.
On the ‘toppling over’ issue - it’s quite possible for smaller buildings to ‘drift’ as they collapse, especially if they experience damage/destruction on one side at the base - indeed the classic clips of smokestacks being demolished shows the effect quite nicely, but they still don’t ‘topple’ - they collapse and drift, but that’s for much smaller buildings.
For bigger things like the WTC, consider the dynamics of the whole thing:
It’s a massive vertical hunk of mass; if you persuade the bottom floor to collapse on one side before the other, that will make the section of building above it tend to drift in the direction of the side that was destroyed first, but there’s still a great big column of vertical mass above it - accelerating this in a lateral direction isn’t easy, so even if the first few floors drift to one side, the top section of the building is now going to be lagging severely behind them, causing the system to drift back in the opposite direction - along with general breakup of the components once the thing gets underway, the overall effect is going to be that all of the lateral drifts and oscillations net out to more or less nothing and the whole structure collapses onto and around its footprint.
Anyone who thinks a structure like WTC would be rigid enough to topple over in one piece is just living in cuckoo land.
What’s funny is that if the WTC had toppled over instead of collapsing, all of these conspiriorati would use this as “proof” that this was evidence of the conspiracy, because “buildings don’t fall that way naturally.”
I like to look on the bright side in respect of WTC conspiraloonery - the Moon Landing Hoax evangalists has quietened down a lot in the past few years.
There were no “World Trade Centers”, and the supposed collapse was filmed at a secret Hollywood studio.
I assume you are aware that some people do claim that [. For example, [url=http://crashphysics.blogspot.com/]here](]no planes struck the WTC[/url)There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outer wall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.This paragraph is accompanied by the photograph of a single engine plane smashed against the side of a brick building - which would great evidence if 1) the WTC was made of bricks and 2) had been struck by a single engine plane.