Wonder About 9/11

[CC1981]

Quote:Those ridiculous

Those ridiculous theroies have been shot down by experts in this field.

Err..no. So-called 'experts' completely stayed away from the science and queries of science related to the incident. Just fuzzy logic, in other words, popular-mechanics type of psuedo-science that seems authentic to the public but isnt. And anyone who says otherwise loses their job in the US if they are professors. There is a professor at Uvic (University of Victoria in Victoria,BC) that i met last year...was one of the top researchers at Cornell, got the boot when he started saying that the govt. story doesnt add up. And he is as white american as he gets.

[King Tendulkar]

You have lost it here CC. You have lost it here CC. Very sad to see.

[CC1981]

Quote:You have lost it here

You have lost it here CC. Very sad to see.

Lost what ? Not toeing the standard US govt. line is 'losing it' ? Oh and i should add another fact: US government is on record to've CATEGORICALLY LIED to its public before. 1983(or 84) Senatorial committee determined that US had advanced warning about Pearl Harbour but did nothing (except withdraw the ONLY real assets from PH- aircraft carriers) because it gave them an EXCUSE to enter the war. This is no different. And if you think it is, answer the questions i've raised. As i said, there arnt two sides to this madness but three...the yankee neo-con side, the fundie muslim side and the sane side. Pick your side if you must but realize that picking the yankee neo-con side is no different than picking Al Qaeda side. Just more devious and dishonest, thats all.

[King Tendulkar]

Next you will be telling us Next you will be telling us it was the jews. Elvis is still alive, the first landing on the moon was fake etc etc. Cant even be bothered to enter in to a dicussion over this. Thought you were better then this CC

[CC1981]

Quote:Next you will be

Next you will be telling us it was the jews

I am not telling you or anyone who it was because i don't know. All i am saying is that what happened is NOT what the US govt. wants us to think happened. That is all i know for sure, who did it, why, alternate theories, etc. are all speculative because there is not enough info.

Thought you were better then this CC

Then answer my questions and show me how demented this line of thinking is ! As i said, everything i've said, from the nature of the building collapse to letting the binLadens go/sitting around ToraBora for hours, etc. are not conspiracy theorist ideas, those are known, accepted FACTS, especially about ToraBora and letting the BinLadens go.

[CC1981]

Btw, i don't see why it is Btw, i don't see why it is so disbelieving that US govt. took you(and us) for a ride with this cooked up story about 9/11. As i said, they KNEW the Japs were comming for Pearl Harbor, they withdrew the ONLY strategically important thing there ( aircraft carriers) and let people die just so they could have an EXCUSE to enter the war. They TOTALLY LIED and fabricated evidence for VietCong attacking a US ship in Gulf of Tonking ( excuse to start vietnam war). US presidents themselves have admitted so. They DELIBERATELY infected thousands of black people with Syphilis for 30+ years just to use them as human guinea pigs and LIED to them about their illnesses ( docs were ORDERED by the CIA to infect people with syphilis and then give placebo to patients when they came to the docs)- look up Tuskagee experiments. Going by the track record of the US government, its far more ludicrous to believe that they are painting you a true picture than seeing that something is fishy with their story.

[CC1981]

Oh and the above are not Oh and the above are not 'conspiracy theorist' facts- Clinton officially apologised for Tuskagee experiments, Carter officially accepted that gulf of Tonkin engagement was a lie and senetorial committee in the early 80s PROVED that Pearl Harbor was a deliberate 'let it happen' move from the US. So don't get any ideas that i am making it up- these are FACTS about the US govt. Oh and another thing just to demonstrate how the US govt. controlls the western media to potray a totally false picture. Every Tom,Dick and Harry blames the Soviets for the Cuban missile crisis and thinks that the world came close to a nuclear war when Khrushchev arrogantly put nukes in Cuba right at America's doorsteps provoking America. Right ? WRONG! Fact is, America started the cuban missile crisis by putting nukes in Turkey 50 miles from the soviet border. Cuba was nothing more than 'balancing the scales' from the soviets. Again, this is not 'conspiracy theory' but FACT since USSR officially protested the installation of US ICMBs in Turkey in the UN security council. Yes, this is the 'government' who's story you are so keen to buy hook,line & sinker.

[Anakin]

Another weird thing was Another weird thing was GWB's unwillingness to form the commission, he had to be forced to do so and of course they were duly hindered every way possible.

[The Outsider]

Re: Re : OP, the first plane was assumed to be an accident and no one at that time probably thought that the other building would be attacked. Moreover, it probably would have led to immense chaos when the authorities were in all likelihood trying to figure out an escape option for the first tower. BTW, does anyone know which tower was the first one to be attacked ie. the one with the observation deck or the one with the restaurant on the top floor? Am not a structural engineer or anything but found this article which explains the collapse of the towers in a pretty plausible manner : http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html However, I also do think that the Bush government has not come out with the truth either given his reluctance to form commissions as well as aid the investigation of the matter. He always seemed more interested in waging the war rather than get to the bottom of the matter first.

[The Outsider]

CC, what do you have to say about the journal article above?

[CC1981]

CC' date=' what do you have to say about the journal article above?[/quote'] Seems like a honest but simplistic attempt. Author spends a lot of time pondering the thermodynamics of the burning fuel inside and not enough with the dynamics of a free-falling collapse. In a free-falling collapse, the chance of a building tipping over at some point is massive. Let me explain the reason for this - as the author correctly mentioned, almost every huge building (including former WTC) had redundancy columns safeguarding against structural failure. The author is also correct that eventually, if structural failure occurs, the weight of the floors above will cause a 'pancaking effect' on the floors below them. But it fails to factor in a very important aspect. When structural failure happens, it is extremely unlikely that the collapsing floor would have all support-points fail at the same time. Usually it is some part of the floor that 'goes' slightly before the whole floor is destabilized. What this means is that one part of the floor ( say left side/right side/center from our vantage point) is collapsing slightly ahead of the rest of the floor. Sort of like the 'leading edge'. This will eventually cause a mass imbalance as more and more floors are collapsed ( the leading edge remains but the mass difference is increasing exponentially with each subsequent floor added to the 'collapsing pile'), resulting in the building 'breaking off/tipping over'. Remember, during the collapse event, there is still a huge contiguous and structurally intact chunk of the building (ie, the still largely undamaged chunk of the building made up by the top few floors, significantly away from the impact point) that is comming down riding this mass or 'collapsing rubble' while having a clear-cut leading edge somewhere. It has to tip over at one point ! This is precisely the same kind of problem faced by demolishion experts. If the 'leading edge' of the collapse is one of the sides of the floor, the building will usually 'break off and tip over' towards that side. If its the center of the floor that is the 'leading edge' in this collapse pile, eventually the building will explode outwards from within like an over-stuffed tube. This is the likeliest collapse pattern ( ie, 99 out of 100 cases) in an unplanned collapse. The fact that not one but THREE towers came down completely in the mould of a 'controlled demolishion' without any breaking off/outwards explosion of material near the end leads me to believe that the explanation does not fit the phenomenon accurately. Particularly strange is the WTC tower 7 (9?) that came down few hours later, in exact same fashion. Explanation was that the building was structurally weakened from the shockwave/flying debris of the two towers comming down. Thats pure BS- buildings that come down due to structural damage ( ie, not even heat involved) most definitely do not fall that way. They fall outwards, not inwards.

[The Outsider]

Two points : 1. I am sure simulations would have been done to replicate this effect. Can you point me to some? 2. Lets say for the sake of argument that the buildings were brought down by a controlled collapse. My question is why did it have to be controlled? If the intention was to cause a catastrophe surely the catastrophe would have been on a much larger canvass in the case of uncontrolled collapse with neighboring buildings also being brought down. Surely, the morality of killing 10000 people could not have been any more pinching than killing 3000 and it would have laid to rest the speculations about controlled collapse as well?

[CC1981]

My question is why did it have to be controlled?If the intention was to cause a catastrophe surely the catastrophe would have been on a much larger canvass in the case of uncontrolled collapse with neighboring buildings also being brought down.

I have no idea. I cannot speculate, since speculation would be to dilute my views with fiction by adopting a conspiracy-theorist view. As i said, i have no idea what went on/who did what. I am only focussed on the event which occured and whether or not the official explanation matches the spectacle we all witnessed. However, if i am to take a guess, i'd think that controlled demolishion is less damaging than less risky than uncontrolled one. Thus if there is US govt. involvement, it'd make sense that they'd not want the event to go too much out of hand.

1. I am sure simulations would have been done to replicate this effect. Can you point me to some?

Simulations on structural failures, like many simulations in the field of engineering, are notoriously unreliable. I am inclined to trust the reasoning and extrapolations of real events than simulations in this scenario.

[The Outsider]

I cannot speculate, since speculation would be to dilute my views with fiction by adopting a conspiracy-theorist view.

I am just trying to follow the reasoning through and to first sight controlled demolitions require much more work and offer no visible benefit over uncontrolled demolition. Moreover, what are the chances of a controlled demolition succeeding in three such huge buildings AFTER they have already been shaken up. If I understand correctly, controlled demolitions are set up after examining the building in detail. There is no way an accurate controlled demolition could have been set up taking into account the impact the planes would have on the buildings.

Simulations on structural failures, like many simulations in the field of engineering, are notoriously unreliable. I am inclined to trust the reasoning and extrapolations of real events than simulations in this scenario.

Sorry doesn't make sense. If I was planning to have a controlled demolition on a huge building, I wont do it by hit and trial. It would have to be simulated first and when the simulations would be reasonably satisfactory I would plant the explosives according to the results of my simulation.

[CC1981]

It would have to be simulated first and when the simulations would be reasonably satisfactory I would plant the explosives according to the results of my simulation.

I am just letting you know that simulation in this field is very unreliable and therefore, controlled demolishions are planned primarily on what a demolishion expert(or a team of experts) agree on.

There is no way an accurate controlled demolition could have been set up taking into account the impact the planes would have on the buildings.

There could easily be charges placed to act as a 'complementary and containing aid to eventually bring down the building'. Ie, crash for visual effect. Anyways, see you are FORCING me to speculate when i've clearly stated that my intention is not to speculate on what happened but draw to attention that the official explanation doesn't fit the story. That is all i can really claim with any validity and that is what i am going to limit myself to. I cannot offer you an alternate theory on what happened and how it happened because i am not privvy to all the facts. Please try to differentiate between the position i hold and the position of what you are asking me to do.

[The Outsider]

No, I am not asking you to speculate. I am asking a very precise question : If three buildings are set up for controlled demolition what are the chances that the set up will work after all three have been subject to different external collisions of varying force and impact, two violent and one moderate?

[CC1981]

If three buildings are set up for controlled demolition what are the chances that the set up will work after all three have been subject to different external collisions of varying force and impact, two violent and one moderate?

Depends on how it is set-up. But it can be setup so that an impact like you are describing does not mess up the overall demolition plan. In controlled demolitions, charges are placed throughout the whole building. Given that when the scale is looked at , the building didnt lose shape after impact (ie, overall shape) and the fact that the impact zone was very small compared to the overall surface area/volume in question, i do not see any reason why charges set a couple of floors below wouldn't go off according to plan and still go to plan. This isnt like a plane running into a six storey building and completely messing up the shape/structure of it. WTC structure was still mostly unaffected immediately after impact. PS: where are you getting this 'two violent and one moderate impact' angle from ? For all intents and purposes, WTC 1& 2 were seperate buildings. PPS: In anycase, i don't know what factors precisely played into bringing the building down. Whether it was brought down by charges or causing uniform stress failures in the master-suspension. Whatever it is, my point is, the demolition pattern of three buildings that 'randomly collapse' into their footprints completely unplanned and unaided in a single day is just astronomically small odds of playing out.

[The Outsider]

Depends on how it is set-up. But it can be setup so that an impact like you are describing does not mess up the overall demolition plan. In controlled demolitions, charges are placed throughout the whole building. Given that when the scale is looked at , the building didnt lose shape after impact (ie, overall shape) and the fact that the impact zone was very small compared to the overall surface area/volume in question, i do not see any reason why charges set a couple of floors below wouldn't go off according to plan and still go to plan. This isnt like a plane running into a six storey building and completely messing up the shape/structure of it. WTC structure was still mostly unaffected immediately after impact.

Can you point me to some literature, research etc. where what you are claiming has been demonstrated. It could be simulations, could be controlled demolition of smaller buildings with a proportionate impact to that of a jet on the WTCs. If you are making such an authoratative statement, surely there must be some empirical or experimental basis to it.

PS: where are you getting this 'two violent and one moderate impact' angle from ? For all intents and purposes, WTC 1& 2 were seperate buildings.

Two violent ones for the big towers and a moderate one for the smaller tower on which the debris fell.

PPS: In anycase, i don't know what factors precisely played into bringing the building down. Whether it was brought down by charges or causing uniform stress failures in the master-suspension. Whatever it is, my point is, the demolition pattern of three buildings that 'randomly collapse' into their footprints completely unplanned and unaided in a single day is just astronomically small odds of playing out.

It is you who is claiming that the odds are astronomically small. There are also some scientists who support your claim. Equally well, there are scientists who support the other side of the spectrum. And my point is that those claims are based on sound science and probably have more odds of happening than having such precise controlled demolitions that the impact of jets hurling in at a few hundred miles an hour carrying thousands of tons of fuel, setting the buildings ablaze, weakening its structure does not impact the controlled demolition calculations one bit.

[CC1981]

And my point is that those claims are based on sound science and probably have more odds of happening than having such precise controlled demolitions that the impact of jets hurling in at a few hundred miles an hour carrying thousands of tons of fuel, setting the buildings ablaze, weakening its structure does not impact the controlled demolition calculations one bit

As i said before, if the total mass of the building is not altered ( and it wasn't- the weight of the jet is/was miniscule compared to the weight of the building), the shape of the structure remains intact and the overall surface area and volume impacted is miniscule (which again, it was, in relation to the whole tower), i don't see what is it that will throw off your calculations for controlled demolition. If the building shape/mass was altered significantly and if the hole made was seriously big in relation to the whole size of the building, it would matter.

If you are making such an authoratative statement, surely there must be some empirical or experimental basis to it.

I am making my comments purely based on my understanding of sciences. My point is very simple - buildings that've been hit like the WTC towers, by something like a 737 plane doesn't collapse neatly into its own footprints. Especially if there were three of them.

[The Outsider]

As i said before, if the total mass of the building is not altered ( and it wasn't- the weight of the jet is/was miniscule compared to the weight of the building), the shape of the structure remains intact and the overall surface area and volume impacted is miniscule (which again, it was, in relation to the whole tower), i don't see what is it that will throw off your calculations for controlled demolition.

The force that one is going to require for a controlled demolition is going to be based upon the strength of the building, correct? After an impact with a jet moving at hundreds of miles per hour it is plain obvious that the internal columns will be broken, the structure weakened, and with the fire weakened further. The controlled demolition calculations would obviously be taking into account the internal column strength.

My point is very simple - buildings that've been hit like the WTC towers, by something like a 737 plane doesn't collapse neatly into its own footprints. Especially if there were three of them.

Let us see some examples.