Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
Below is a list of people who question what our (US) Government has said about 9/11.
The list proves – once and for all – that people who question 9/11 are *dangerous*.
Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases!
Senior intelligence officers:
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about ?serious shortcomings,? ?omissions,? and ?major flaws? in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”
Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attach? in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.
Congressmen:
According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)
Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11
Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation
Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
9/11 Commissioners:
The Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
Other government officials:
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt”
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission
Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot?”I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they?ve changed them to?”if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!”
Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government’s version of 9/11.
What is the source of that article dreoilin?
In a similar vein, a useful assessment of various 911 whistleblowers can be found here: http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
Oops! Sorry, it’s Information Clearing House, here:
http://tinyurl.com/ykt6otm
and originally from “Washington’s Blog” apparently, where there are lots of hot links included in the above list.
1. How completely out of context most of those quotes are.
2. Why would you believe American military people and politicians in this case, when you don’t believe them in other cases?
3. To the extent that they believe 911 was an inside job (and very few of them do), where is their evidence?
4. People like Wesley Clark and the Commissioners do not believe that the U.S. gov’t did 911. At best, they might believe that the prior administrations screwed up the intelligence gathering and response. Your source lumps those people in with genuinely crazy people like Bob Bowman and Stubblebine.
5. I believe that we should have had a better investigation of what the FBI and CIA knew prior to the attack. I think heads should have rolled. That doesn’t mean that I believe that a missile hit the Pentagon or there were explosives pre-planted at the WTC. That’s a vast gulf.
So above when you wrote “I may not be a fence-sitter much longer” in response to my harsh language, you were lying, weren’t you?
Just to reassure larry with a somewhat pro-American post. I received today a digitally remastered CD of the Canadian pianist Van Cliburn playing Chopin. I first discovered this on a visit to family in southern California, hearing him play ‘Winter Wind’ on KOGO FM – then serendipitously happening across the LP the next day. Always a wonderful memory of being sixteen, and in sunny San Diego. Did some surfing too.
http://tinyurl.com/yhdx4s4
Recommended.
Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11
By David Chandler
When Building 7 “collapsed” on 9/11 we know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall.
It didn’t just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall. If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section,
the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force.
But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero… in both directions.
How can this be?
There were explosions in Building 7 heard by many witnesses throughout the day. One such explosion is recorded in a video clip,
available on YouTube (search You Tube for “Explosions on 911”),
where several fire fighters are gathered around a pay phone calling home to assure their families they are alright.
Suddenly they are startled by a very loud, unmistakable explosion. This is one of the Building 7 explosions that occurred long before it fell.
Shortly before the ultimate collapse of the building the east penthouse and the columns beneath it suddenly gave way. NIST (the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses)
attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column.
But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were “taken out” simultaneously. Three columns supported the east penthouse.
One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building at close to freefall, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell.
Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity.
NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell.
The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the “facade,”
the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it.
After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time.
Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST,
it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls,
by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST’s computer simulation of the collapse.)
But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period.
At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost.
The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity.
Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building.
If what we saw was only the collapse of the facade, why was the pyroclastic flow not triggered earlier when NIST claims the collapse of the much more voluminous interior occurred?
And why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was “taken out”
along with the rest of the building support all at once. NIST is scrambling to find a plausible scenario that will allow it to escape the consequences of what is plainly visible.
(If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid.
Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7
you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.)
After the east penthouse collapsed,
several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline
of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the
west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.
I am not using the term “freefall” loosely here. I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall.
A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth.
I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good.
My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall.
This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate,
but at a rate less than freefall. Only beyond those 16 stories of drop did the falling section of the building interact significantly with the underlying structure and decelerate.
Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building.
This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section.
I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.
Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report,
the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than “freefall time.”
They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds.
They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall.
They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving.
They claimed they saw a change in a “single pixel” triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse,
but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artefacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard. Furthermore,
even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse.
The fact of a cover up in NIST’s measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of “freefall time” is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration.
They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall,
then slowed to a lesser acceleration. Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up. The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent,
so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up. (It is important to stand back occasionally and recognize the context of these events.
This was not just a cover-up of an embarrassing fact. It was a cover-up of facts in the murder of nearly 3000 people and part of a justification for a war in which well over a million people have since been killed.)
I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008.
I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official “requests for correction”
in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall.
However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed “three phase collapse sequence” that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds. The recurrence of 5.4 seconds,
even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26,
2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall.
From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction.
Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement.
They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no…their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second.
Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed.
According to NIST’s records, none of the steel from Building 7 remains. (Pause and ponder that fact for a moment.
Anyone who has watched CSI knows the importance Of preserving the physical evidence in a crime scene.
Destroying a crime scene is in itself a crime, yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, and it happened over the loud protests of the fire-fighters and others who had a stake in really finding out the truth.) Back to our story. NIST’s computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.
So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don’t. They simply state, without elaboration,
that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis.
The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall.
They just walked away from it without further comment.
The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling,
or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall.
Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall,
how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building,
evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse,
and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen.
Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the
supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.
The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many “smoking guns” that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.
David Chandler received a BS degree in a hybrid physics and engineering program at Harvey Mudd College,
Claremont CA and a MS degree in mathematics from Cal Poly University, Pomona CA. He has taught physics, mathematics, and astronomy since 1972 at both the high school and college levels.
He is active with the video and writing teams of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
His 9/11- related videos are featured on AE911Truth.org and YouTube.com/user/ae911truth.
His own 9/11- related web site is 911SpeakOut.org.
Well there you go – British truthers, who are normally anti-American, getting their so-called “evidence” from an American high school teacher.
All debunked.
“All debunked”
So Newton’s laws of motion are untrue? The differential calculus is a load of codswollop? The rules of arithmetic are not what we thought? Gosh – who knew.
Hee hee
dreoillin: Look at all my quotes!
Mark Golding: Rubbish paper!
Vronsky: Why can’t I misapply Newton’s laws?
Angrysoba: Debunked!
Oh, and dreilouin. Don’t forget:
“The September 11 attack on the US and collapse of twin towers were parts of complicated intelligence move to give enough excuses for them to prepare the ground for invasion of Afghanistan under pretext of fighting terrorism”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
and…
“There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything”
Mahathir Mohamad
dreiloon, why did you sign a comment on my blog under the name “jews”?
“Well there you go – British truthers, who are normally anti-American, getting their so-called “evidence” from an American high school teacher.
All debunked”.
It is of course impossible to debunk your evidence Larry because you refuse to provide any. You may consider this a brilliant and flawless strategy but as a lawyer you shouldn’t need reminding that if one party fails to produce evidence their case is thrown out.
Jeffrey Archer; Ronnie Biggs; Jonathan Aitken; Neil Hamilton; Jim Davidson; they all believe the official account!!
QED!!!
“Jeffrey Archer; Ronnie Biggs; Jonathan Aitken; Neil Hamilton; Jim Davidson; they all believe the official account!!”
How do you know? Have you asked them? Have they made any statements about the “official account”? Did they bury their family members when they died or are their deceased family members actually still alive in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Morocco?
Just asking questions.
An interesting aspect of the Chandler analysis is that if the fall of the building is accelerating, then controlled demolition must have been used. In other words, it is not necessary to have the building collapse at or near freefall speed (accelerating at the rate due to gravity) – *any* acceleration results in the force on the collapsing structure being less than the weight of the floors above. Since the lower floors were designed to support several times the weight of the floors above, clearly they could not be crushed by some lesser load. QED.
Two best pieces of evidence that the official account is wrong?
(1) Larry from St Louis
(2) angrysoba
“An interesting aspect of the Chandler analysis is that if the fall of the building is accelerating, then controlled demolition must have been used. In other words, it is not necessary to have the building collapse at or near freefall speed (accelerating at the rate due to gravity) – *any* acceleration results in the force on the collapsing structure being less than the weight of the floors above. Since the lower floors were designed to support several times the weight of the floors above, clearly they could not be crushed by some lesser load. QED.”
WRONG!
The Towers weren’t unvariegated blocks of mass despite Richard Gage’s cardboard box demonstrations suggesting that they were.
Imagine you live in a high rise apartment. Detach the whole building from the tenth floor and move the top part six inches to the side. Do you not see that the walls from the bottom ?block? no longer line up with the walls above it?
Now drop the structure above the tenth floor to the bottom floor. None of the vertical supports line up so it will drop straight through the floor. This is quite obvious surely. Buildings are designed so that just any old arrangement of the stuff at the top of the building can be rested on any old arrangement below it. That?s why they get specially trained structural engineers to design skyscrapers and not high school teachers.
“Detach the whole building from the tenth floor and move the top part six inches to the side.”
Ok. So now you want to ignore the Principle of Moments and the Conservation of Angular Momentum. Why don’t you just say it was magic?
“Ok. So now you want to ignore the Principle of Moments and the Conservation of Angular Momentum”
No, I’m pointing out that you are not describing the structure as it was, not describing the collapse.
You are talking about it as if the top and bottom were solid blocks.
I’m not going to pretend to know how skyscrapers fall apart, you, David Chandler and Richard Gage can do that.
Be sure to submit your results to a reputable engineering faculty too.
“I’m not going to pretend to know how skyscrapers fall apart”
Finally.
dreoilin, excellent quote-mine. You’re a true trooofer.
“You are talking about it as if the top and bottom were solid blocks.”
You do realise that what you are attacking now is the official explanation for the collapse – the so-called ‘pile-driver’ theory, whereby the top dozen or so floors remain intact and plunge downwards crushing the 90 stories below, before being themselves destroyed when they reach ground level. Absurd, isn’t it?
You know angry, from your last couple of posts I really don’t feel your heart is in this.
“You do realise that what you are attacking now is the official explanation for the collapse – the so-called ‘pile-driver’ theory, whereby the top dozen or so floors remain intact and plunge downwards crushing the 90 stories below, before being themselves destroyed when they reach ground level.”
NIST didn’t say that at all.
I don?t know whether the top block was intact until it reached the ground or whether the experts believe it was. But I don?t see the problem in believing the building wasn?t designed for such a structural failure. Given that it fell apart from the impact points and that the columns were no longer aligned we don?t have to think of it as one small block of X crushing another larger block of X. That?s far too simplistic.
Presumably you believe the top block was destroyed by explosives or something else. Pixie dust, perhaps.
?You know angry, from your last couple of posts I really don’t feel your heart is in this.?
That?s because I can?t really be bothered much anymore. Believe whatever you want just as long as you don?t go on any shooting sprees.
😛
“That?s because I can?t really be bothered much anymore.”
And you got a whole thread to say that.
Dearie me.
“just as long as you don?t go on any shooting sprees.”
You’re the barbarians who go on shooting sprees. That is what this is all about, you cheap little clerk – we need to find some way to stop your handlers destroying the planet.
“You’re the barbarians who go on shooting sprees. That is what this is all about, you cheap little clerk – we need to find some way to stop your handlers destroying the planet.”
Did you really write that?
You could always wear a sandwich board which reads, ?The End of the World Is Nigh!?
“And you got a whole thread to say that.”
Dreiloon, there are probably about 2000+ comments here by now. If you?re not convinced by now then I don?t see much point in me continuing.
The End of the Thread is Nigh!
“I don?t see much point in me continuing.”
There isn’t. But you will. As the kamikaze pilot said: ‘It’s a livin’ innit?’