Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 9/11 Debate (Read 56101 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from CV and mad panic beha...
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #77 –
Quote from: LP – on
Perhaps, I'm not sure how many tall buildings have had an even far taller building right next door collapse next to them, then had pretty much nobody there of any consequence left to fight the fire.

If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Again, I don't offer any explanation other than the official versions do not stack up... and that leads folks, as Wing Man Mav might say, heading down all kinds of 'rabbit holes' and emerging with some 'tantalizing' theories to feed the vulnerable.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #78 –
Baggers, all good then. Nothing wrong with being curious. I tend to go with the “truth is stranger than fiction” approach. Trying to analyse individual parts of a problem and then synthesising the likely results in order to reach the conclusion an event is impossible is problematic.

One example is the problem of “fat tails” in financial maths. How do you account for extremely unlikely events which nevertheless happen from time to time such as the mortgage crisis? A lot of work is put into analysing convergence and divergence of improper integrals describing financial markets. Financial analysts whinge about fat tails after such crises rather than resorting to claims of nefarious shadowy plots.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #79 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.
Have you checked that?

I'm not being facetious, but if you search all you'll get is the conspiracies at the top of the results if you spent the last few hours reading about that stuff from earlier searches. The search engines preferentially give you what they think you'll read and click through.

You can try searching while the browser is in private mode, that can often that will give you very different search results.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #80 –
I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #81 –
Quote from: Mav – on
I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?
The Aricebo Radio Telescope was destroyed by the Chinese who want the world to rent and help pay for the 500m FAST they have already built.  :o ;D ::)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #82 –
Listen to Beatles albums. They've left heaps of  clues in their music and album covers. ;D

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #83 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Again, I don't offer any explanation other than the official versions do not stack up... and that leads folks, as Wing Man Mav might say, heading down all kinds of 'rabbit holes' and emerging with some 'tantalizing' theories to feed the vulnerable.

Check out the FAQs on the National Institute of Standards and Technology website:

Quote
4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #84 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Check out the FAQs on the National Institute of Standards and Technology website:
Even basic analysis of undoctored footage shows the collapse didn't happen in free fall at all, the base claim of the conspiracists is dead and buried before it even remains standing!

You have to be careful which video you choose, there are plenty out there in circulation where the frame rate has been doctored to show the building collapsing in free fall, but they are brought undone by sequences and small debris which then appear in doctored videos to fall faster than gravity despite being on ballistic trajectories.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #85 –
Quote from: Mav – on
I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?

There were a few.  24 flights in all before 51L.  ALL had some level of "blow by" on the Solid Rocket Boosters before the O rings were redesigned to cover for any shrinkage in the seals if a "go" was given in cold weather.  Morton Thiokol (SRB manufacturers told NASA to scrub the flight on the 51L launch morning)  That warning was ignored, and  disaster followed.

It was freezing on the 26th January and major ice on the gantry.

The exhaust from the right hand SRB section just burnt thru and collapsed the bottom struts holding the booster to the external tank.  G forces, after the strut gave way, swung the solid rocket booster straight into the full loaded external tank. 

And once ignited, the SRBs cannot be controlled or shut down

All 110 missions that followed 51L worked to perfection. 

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #86 –
So humans aren't perfect, and it's not always disaster by negligence or deliberate design. :(

What will the lawyers do, who will they sue! :o
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #87 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?
I'm not sure of the answer, but i know there are at least 3 other buildings that have been crashed into by planes and survived....easily.

Technically, you could add the 2 WTC's into that too, because planes didn't bring them down either. ;)

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #88 –
Quote from: LP – on
I doubt I'll get anything about physics, materials or engineering from it.

Just another example of how you are wrong.

THis is the thing that people don't get.....not all conspiracies are equal. I said it from the beginning, physics calls BS on this one.
Not flat earth, fake moon landings....whatever.

They are not linked in any way apart from the mind of person disrespecting them.

Yes, the whole thing is unlikely. Doesn't mean its not true.
Some random pattern clerk was probably a billion to one to change the world, but here we are.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #89 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
I'm not sure of the answer, but i know there are at least 3 other buildings that have been crashed into by planes and survived....easily.

Technically, you could add the 2 WTC's into that too, because planes didn't bring them down either. ;)
The next biggest equivalent crash was a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

B-25 = 15m wide x 15,000kg flying at 230mph.

767 = 40m wide x 150,000 to 200,000kg MTOW flying at +550mph. 10x the weight and at least 2x the speed,

We need a physicist to tell us all about kinetic and potential energy! ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"