Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes I agree I do find the demolitions theory far fetched-I mean theres no way a demolitions team could pull this off un noticed, but the film explored steel and its melting point, jet fuel and how long it can burn, pictures and video, etc... I can see why people ask questions though, I mean the fact that both buildings collapsed is unreal.

Its not unreal, its been explained is quite logical.

The steel just needed to weaken, soften, and then the immense weight of the building above would fall straight down under the pressure.

The documentary we linked earlier actually demonstrated that jet fuel can reach over 2000 and they tested a steel beam which took less than 3 mins laying horizontal to curve and fail under weights put on top of it to mimic the pressure in the twin towers.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Really? Each one being slammed into by a 300,000+ lb airplane and common sense tell me the fact that both buildings collapsing is what I'd expect.

Sure. Relative to the size of the WTC. Your telling me the day you watched the buildings collapsed you werent shocked? I know I was. I wasn't shocked like I didnt believe they COULD collapse I know its possible. I wasn't expecting it however. Gahh I wish I could talk about this in person I am terrible at explaining myself on a message board.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes I agree I do find the demolitions theory far fetched-I mean theres no way a demolitions team could pull this off un noticed, but the film explored steel and its melting point, jet fuel and how long it can burn, pictures and video, etc... I can see why people ask questions though, I mean the fact that both buildings collapsed is unreal.

Google the popular mechanics report on 9/11 which explains what happened during the building fire and collapse.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Sure. Relative to the size of the WTC. Your telling me the day you watched the buildings collapsed you werent shocked? I know I was. I wasn't shocked like I didnt believe they COULD collapse I know its possible. I wasn't expecting it however. Gahh I wish I could talk about this in person I am terrible at explaining myself on a message board.

I think everyone was shocked..

However you cannot trust your intuition to decide what is and is not physically possible.

And that's what a lot of this boils down to, is personal incredulity on the part of the truthers. Personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, and basically says "I cannot understand/believe how this could have happened therefore something else happened."

Our intuitions are formed by our interactions with the world around us.. things the size of a pin to things the size of a car, things the weight of a bug to the weight of a train.. get outside those ranges and our intuition rapidly fails; most things in physics are far beyond our intuition.

[mikey_the_redneck]

To expand on Canuck-Haters post....

I watched the first 10 minutes of that film, and there were some interesting points made. The structural design team for the twin towers designed them to take multiple impacts at any location on the building from a fully loaded Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time. A boeing 767 surprisingly does not severly outweigh the older 707 model.

Also, the towers were designed to withstand 140mph winds......

707 operating empty - 146,400lb
707 maximum take-off weight - 333,600lb

767 operating empty - 180,450lb
767 maximum take-off weight - 300,000lb (surprisingly lighter)

It then goes on to give countless examples of much more severe high rise fires that have happened in the past all over the world, with no collapse as a result.
In 1975, the north tower actually experienced a fire that consumed 6 floors and burned for 3 hours...with no collapse as a result...It also talked about how much smoke was produced from the fires after the plane impact, indicating a "cool" fire. Smoke is the result of an oxygen starved, unsuccessful fire etc.

[CaptainCrunch]

the 1975 fire was not accelerated by jet fuel, it was a different type of fire. Remember that those planes were carrying pretty much full loads of fuel.

A standard building fire doesn't burn as hot as this fire was burning nor as rapidly.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

To expand on Canuck-Haters post....

I watched the first 10 minutes of that film, and there were some interesting points made. The structural design team for the twin towers designed them to take multiple impacts at any location on the building from a fully loaded Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time. A boeing 767 surprisingly does not severly outweigh the older 707 model.

Also, the towers were designed to withstand 140mph winds......

707 operating empty - 146,400lb
707 maximum take-off weight - 333,600lb

767 operating empty - 180,450lb
767 maximum take-off weight - 300,000lb (surprisingly lighter)

It then goes on to give countless examples of much more severe high rise fires that have happened in the past all over the world, with no collapse as a result.
In 1975, the north tower actually experienced a fire that consumed 6 floors and burned for 3 hours...with no collapse as a result...It also talked about how much smoke was produced from the fires after the plane impact, indicating a "cool" fire. Smoke is the result of an oxygen starved, unsuccessful fire etc.

From Popular Mechanics:

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

The link to the whole article debunking the claims, I'm sure that won't penetrate your beliefs but its a good read.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

To expand on Canuck-Haters post....

I watched the first 10 minutes of that film, and there were some interesting points made. The structural design team for the twin towers designed them to take multiple impacts at any location on the building from a fully loaded Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time. A boeing 767 surprisingly does not severly outweigh the older 707 model.

What's more likely? That the design was actually not able to withstand an airplane crashing into it, or there was a plot carried out by thousands of people to make the buildings fall down?

It then goes on to give countless examples of much more severe high rise fires that have happened in the past all over the world, with no collapse as a result.
In 1975, the north tower actually experienced a fire that consumed 6 floors and burned for 3 hours...with no collapse as a result...It also talked about how much smoke was produced from the fires after the plane impact, indicating a "cool" fire. Smoke is the result of an oxygen starved, unsuccessful fire etc.

I haven't seen the film. Does it give countless examples of fires that were the result of an airliner crashing into a building with no collapse as a result? That'd be the real comparison.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Thor

From Popular Mechanics:



The link to the whole article debunking the claims, I'm sure that won't penetrate your beliefs but its a good read.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

I have gone through some of that article already, but anyways I really like this quote:

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Yeah, the vast majority of the jet fuel blew up in the fireball on impact, and was a source of ignition for the building fire. Sure. But an office fire has never taken a tower down. All other office buildings have things like "paper, carpet, curtains" etc...........and they burn for several hours and not bring a tower down like that.


"the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper."..

I love that......it seems like a silly, kind of obvious sentence to me. What else normally fuels an office fire? Concrete?

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I watched the first 10 minutes of that film, and there were some interesting points made. The structural design team for the twin towers designed them to take multiple impacts at any location on the building from a fully loaded Boeing 707, which was the largest plane at the time. A boeing 767 surprisingly does not severly outweigh the older 707 model.

Evidence please. Please provide evidence that the design team specifically designed the towers to take multiple impacts from fully loaded 707's at full velocity?

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

It then goes on to give countless examples of much more severe high rise fires that have happened in the past all over the world, with no collapse as a result.
In 1975, the north tower actually experienced a fire that consumed 6 floors and burned for 3 hours...with no collapse as a result...It also talked about how much smoke was produced from the fires after the plane impact, indicating a "cool" fire. Smoke is the result of an oxygen starved, unsuccessful fire etc.

Even 600 degrees is enough to compromise the steel involved. You can clearly see on many, many photos pictures of the sides of the building sagging in as a result of the sagging of the compromised trusses and the bowing of the perimeter columns. These happen slowly over an extended period of time. On multiple floors. Hardly the result of demolition with magic nano-thermite.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yeah, the vast majority of the jet fuel blew up in the fireball on impact, and was a source of ignition for the building fire. Sure. But an office fire has never taken a tower down. All other office buildings have things like "paper, carpet, curtains" etc...........and they burn for several hours and not bring a tower down like that.

Did those other buildings with fires have an airplane hit them? Did those other buildings have a complete steel structure, or did they have concrete as well? How tall were the other buildings? (How much mass was there above the fire)?

And you are wrong, there's at least one other building that I know of that had a fire burn for a long time and the steel portion of the building suffered a complete collapse.

But since you know, I'll let you provide the list of comparable buildings.

[Canuck-Hater]

So if Popular Mechanics asked its readers to jump off a bridge would ya? I kid, that website has some great insight.

[Caged Great]

Playing devil's advocate here, what about the building that didn't get hit with a plane?

[photon]

It had a big chunk ripped out of it by debris from the other Towers, plus it too was burning, and for a long time and the fires were unchecked.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Playing devil's advocate here, what about the building that didn't get hit with a plane?

The one that had 110 story steel and concrete building fall on it?

[arsenal]

So it seems to be a really really big thing that the towers fell down because a plane hit them. And no other building ever collapsed due to a plane hitting or a fire.
One major factor that you have to take into consideration (that I don't see any Truthers take into consideration) is the actual construction of the building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constru...d_Trade_Center

Basically, the summary is, the outer shell along with core of the building were the major vertical load bearing parts of the building.
With the crash, those where compromised. The floor trusses, designed to take their own and any live loads connected to both the outer skin as well as the core of the building.

Due to the fires, these floor trusses connections weakened. Once one floor fell onto the other floor, the bottom floor could not sustain the weight. You then get the pancake effect. Which could very easily explain the "squibs". The air pressure of one floor falling onto the other would blow the windows.

And because of the hallow construction of the towers, it would essentially fall in on its self, much like it would in a controlled demolition.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm watching a passionate eye special on CBC news that splices together a ton of amateur video of that horrible day. There's some horrifying footage of the planes hitting the tower and people falling out of the building.

It also follows the firemen and cops.

There was some interesting footage of the smaller building that collapsed from the side that showed a ton of damage to the building. Looking at that there was no way that the building would have stood up.

Watching the people talking on the streets, there was a lot of shock and anger that day.

Its a great special, but very sobering.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by arsenal

The one that had 110 story steel and concrete building fall on it?

Or maybe even the 6.8 richter scale earthquake size rumble that happened twice right next to it.

I thought I trusted the human brain for rationalization but seeing how some people actually believe this crap I've lost all hope.

[jammies]

I think the only theory that covers all the possibilities is that the *planes* were full of super thermite. That's what the hijackers were actually doing - they were up front complaining to the flight attendants that all the overhead bins were full of these odd-looking handbags labelled "Property of US Government", and there was nowhere to stow their duty-free.

This answers the big questions on all sides - it explains how all that thermite got into the building, and it explains how a few thousand tons of aircraft moving at high speed with enormous kinetic energy could do anything more than bounce off the side of the WTC towers like sparrows hitting a window.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by T@T

Or maybe even the 6.8 richter scale earthquake size rumble that happened twice right next to it.

I thought I trusted the human brain for rationalization but seeing how some people actually believe this crap I've lost all hope.

I was thinking about how much of a destabilizing factor the first tower coming down was. Maybe in a vacuum the second tower doesn't collapse, but there were too many event happening at the same time for the collapses not to happen.

When you calculate to prevent a catastrophic failure you might only take one or two events into consideration, and you hope they don't happen at the same time.

Building design + jet airplane impact + thousands of pounds of flaming jet fluid + seismic activity from collapsing building = mass destruction.