Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”
This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all ...
Their's is a small world indeed. Whether it's 33 or 300 versus more than one-thousand architects and engineers for truth, PM's experts are outnumbered by the experts for 9/11 truth either way.
Here's a great article from thetyee.
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere. And they aren't necessary to prove the venality of the Bush administration. There's plenty of that proof lying around. We don't need to make it up.
Oh, of course I know they've been bought and paid for by the grand conspiracy. Just like Noam Chomsky. :D
Here's the afterward to the "Popular Mechanics" expanded investigation, published in the book "Debunking the 911 Myths:"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html
<snip>
Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization.
<snip>
I shouldn’t have been surprised. In researching the article we’d spent enough time studying the conspiracy movement to get a feel for its style: the tone of outraged patriotism, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the casual use of invective. A common refrain in conspiracy circles is the claim that “We’re just asking questions.” One would think that at least some quarters of the conspiracy movement might welcome a mainstream publication’s serious, nonideological attempt to answer those questions. One would be wrong.
It was only a matter of time before the Nazis got dragged in. Christopher Bollyn, a prominent conspiracy theorist affiliated with the far-right American Free Press, weighed in a few weeks later with a piece titled “The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911 And Popular Mechanics.” The article begins with a brief history of Hitler’s consolidation of power following the Reichstag fire in 1933. “Like Nazi Germany of 1933,” Bollyn wrote, “American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government’s truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.”
The article goes on to describe the tactics used by conspiracy theorists in their ongoing obfuscation:
How many of these have we seen on babble?
The heuristics of the conspiracy theorists is far more fascinating than their theories.
"Don't you want to know the truth? What do you have against innocent curiousity" they then bleat. Inevitably.
I'm waiting for Rocker. I will only go down the truther road once per truther and I've been there and done that with FnJ.
Rocker says they've seen evidence which refutes the offical story (not a theory mind you but real evidence). I would love to see it. My suggestion to you Snert is to do the same.
I'll wait with bated breath.
The Washington Post on 'Lunatic' 911 Conspiracy Theorists
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/03/09/the-washington-post-on-lu...
conspiracy = persons aligned in interest
Could 9/11 be the Trail run for the Trembler Seismic Bomb that devastated haiti?
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
Okay so they conspired to lie constantly to the bipartisan hand-picked panelists ie. they were U.S. Government inter-departmental lies. So what?
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura claims gov’t involved in 9/11 Los Angeles City deputy inspector says NORAD was told to stand down on 9/11.
These aren't young hippies protesting a phony-baloney pretext for waging immoral war in South-East Asia. These are all US Government employees, state and municipal employees and a former state governor(and former US Navy SEAL) saying there is an ongoing coverup.
So they lied to cover up their bungled response? To the what? To the hijackings.
Hehe. Go tell the "truthers" that it was all just a bungled response to OBL hijacking the planes. They want to know the truth, Fidel.
Are you always this clever, or does it take practice?
clever-clever
...
Pretty much everyone I talk to about this thinks that 911 was an inside job. They don't buy the official conspiracy theory.
http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/campaigns/278-demand-the-truth-about-9-11
Oh boy. The CAP !
Ya, there's at least 25 Canadians who don't believe. Maybe more like 40 if you include their kids and pets.
The resulting investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) took over four years and cost CAD 57 million (at that time approximately USD 38 million).[2]
Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million
Their's is a small world indeed. Whether it's 33 or 300 versus more than one-thousand architects and engineers for truth, PM's experts are outnumbered by the experts for 9/11 truth either way.
But Fidel, those 33 experts are the real experts whereas the 1000+ others are just quacks. And we know this because...well, never mind how we knows it. We just do, so shut up already!
Heee.
Number of known, admitted terrorists claiming responsibility for the 1986 Challenger disaster: 0
Number of known, admitted terrorists claiming responsibility for the 2004 Columbia disaster: 0
Number of known, admitted terrorists claiming responsibility for the stains on the blue dress: 0
Number of known, admitted terrorists claiming responsibility for 9/11: 1
You don't usually have to spend so much time and energy investigating crimes for which you have a plausible confession.
But oh, let's just totally ignore that -- and everything else -- and spend a few more million trying to find the elusive clues that will prove that Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush put on black catsuits and crawled from floor to floor planting thermite charges. That would be excellent! And when such an investigation fails to find that, let's denounce the investigators as co-opted quislings in the pocket of the old administration and do it all over again, as many times as is necessary.
"Al-Qaeda" hijacking specialist not wanted by the FBI. Why not? Because he works for the US government and Al-CIA'duh
THE MASKING OF A MILITANT: A special report.; A Soldier's Shadowy Trail In U.S. and in the Mideast NY Times 1998
While serving in the Army as a supply sergeant assigned to Special Forces, his aggressive support for Islamic causes and open curiosity about intelligence matters raised eyebrows among colleagues.
In the most notable of those incidents, Mr. Mohamed took a few weeks' leave from the Army base at Fort Bragg, N. C., and told friends that he planned to join the mujahedeen rebel forces in Afghanistan and "kill Russians."...
The CIA and US Military creates an Islamic Gladio who flits across US and Canadian borders more easily than Canadian oil and gas siphoned off to the states through Canadian taxpayer-funded pipelines.
Al Qaeda -- the Database
French officer Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel, who knew the truth about "Al Qaeda" -- Another target of the neo-cons
Number of known, admitted terrorists claiming responsibility for 9/11: 1
Number of these known, admitted terrorists arrested and charged for the 9/11 attacks after almost 9 years of searching: 0
Plausible confession? Ha. Hee. Haw.
Number of known, admitted terrorists claiming responsibility for 9/11: 1
Heee did it? Really? And where is heee now?
Some interesting facts to consider:
• Osama bin Laden is no longer suspected of, nor have the FBI found any evidence linking
him to the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and recently disbanded the FBI team responsible
for tracking him down.
• There was no official investigation of the ruble at ground zero, instead the steel was taken away and sold to China
I wonder if you might be able to back up your assertion that OBL is no longer suspected of orchestrating 9/11? Or, if you just made that up, use your "edit" button?
I wonder if you might be able to back up your assertion that OBL is no longer suspected of orchestrating 9/11?
Sure:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf
World Trade Center (WTC, implicitly just the South and North Towers) collapses. He
claims the "factors responsible for the onset of collapse are now well established", that:
(1) intense fires created by the aircraft compromised the remaining intact columns
near the impact [those undamaged by the plane collision] to sustain the weight of the
building above them.
(2) The subsequent "near free fall" of these upper parts over just 1 story resulted in
dynamical overloading of the undamaged columns below by a "factor of over 30".
Seffen then goes on to develop a propagating instability model for how the fire brought
the Towers down. But these claimed factors are factually inaccurate. Furthermore,
in analyzing the model built on these factors, ideal assumptions are made that are in
disagreement with physical principles inherent in the collapses of the Towers, and yield
solutions that cannot provide answers or much insight into how the Towers fell.
Taliban offered to give up OBL to their former sponsors in Warshington at least twice. Gladio gangsters weren't interested. OBL was murdered years ago along with any credibility neocons might have had. It's hard to fit-up a dead person for something he had nothing to do with.
9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrorism, A briefing for Congressional staff
by Dr. Peter Dale Scott
The truth is that for at least two decades the United States has engaged in energetic covert programs to secure U.S. control over the Persian Gulf, and also to open up Central Asia for development by U.S. oil companies. Americans were eager to gain access to the petroleum reserves of the Caspian Basin, which at that time were still estimated to be “the largest known reserves of unexploited fuel in the planet.”[1]
To this end, time after time, U.S. covert operations in the region have used so-called “Arab Afghan” warriors as assets, the jihadis whom we loosely link with the name and leadership of al Qaeda.[2] In country after country these “Arab Afghans” have been involved in trafficking Afghan heroin.[...]
The lying continues. The 9/11 Commission Report assures Americans that “Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.”[6] This misleading statement fails to consider that:
1) Al Qaeda elements received considerable indirect U.S. Government assistance, first in Afghanistan until 1992, and thereafter in other countries such as Azerbaijan (1992-95). Before 1992, for example, the Afghan leader Jallaladin Haqqani organized and hosted the Arab Afghan volunteers known later as al Qaeda; and Haqqani “received bags of money each month from the [CIA] station in Islamabad.”[7] The Arab Afghans were also trained in urban terrorism, including car bombings, by Pakistani ISI operatives who were in turn trained by the CIA.[8]
2) Key members of the network which became al Qaeda, such as Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, Ali Mohamed, Mohamed Jamal Khalifa, and lead hijacker Mohammed Atta, were granted visas to enter the United States, despite being suspected of terrorism.[9] Al Qaeda foot soldiers were also admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program.[10]
3) At Fort Belvoir, Virginia, an al Qaeda operative was given a list of Muslim candidates for al Qaeda’s jihad.[11]
4) When al Qaeda personnel were trained in the United States by a key al Qaeda operative, Sergeant Ali Mohamed of the U.S. Army Special Forces, Mohamed was still on the U.S. Army payroll.[12]
5) Repeatedly al Qaeda terrorists were protected by FBI officials from investigation and prosecution.[13]
Cold warrior Bill Christison: Official 9/11 story is a pack of monstrous lies
"Powerful forces both in the United States and in some allied nations undoubtedly want a clash of civilizations with Islam. Some of these forces may have acted secretly before and during 9/11 -- and may still be working -- to create situations real or false to bring more warfare to the world while the United States retains its overwhelming global military superiority. After considerable study, I am quite certain that significant parts of the “official 9/11 story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. It seems very possible to me that some unnamed persons or groups with ties to the U.S. government succeeded in creating a “Pearl Harbor” event to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed -- policies intended to “transform” the entire Middle East, strengthen the already close U.S. - Israeli partnership, and broaden the power of the American global empire. This is why we need an entirely new investigation, one perhaps under the auspices of the World Court (or at least one not dominated by the United States), to determine what actually happened on September 11, 2001."
It is an underlying glaring truth that becomes very obviously apparent to anyone with a functioning intellect and a high-school level ediucation as soon as each person takes the time to look under the covers of 'officialdom' and give even just the technical findings of inconsistency some genuinely impartial thought!
The good news today is that the numbers of individual people doing so is now breaking out into the millions which means that those responsible for the 9/11 false flag operation and ensuing cover up operations are essentially doomed by their own interests & even their pleading guilty now is unlikely to received well by society.
Oh, thanks. I had been confused as to whether my intellect was functional. Now I know that it is not. Also, thanks for clearing up that high school thing for me - I had been wondering for the past few years whether or not my graduation was pushed forward by a shadowy board of conspirators trying to hold me back from the Truth. But thanks to you, I know that that certificate is as false as all of those screwy 'science theories' that people have used to 'explain' (cover up) that 9/11 deal. Gravity being used to explain why things fall? PISH POSH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFWk8CTXWsQ
This video will even show you that if you fold american money a special way you can see the twin towers on fire and pentagon.
See? Even the US Mint knew about it. It must be true.
can we drag this thread back to the theme of the title: the activist community and activist media and its relationship (both ways) to the 9/11 truth movement? please....
If you fold that high school certificate just right you will see Dubya, Cheney and Nixon (who isn't really dead) laughing as they plan the whole thing.
AAARGH! I watched most of that video. OMG are people that F*(KING DUMB! Really? That's a good example of the truther movement?
FAKE PLANES AND SQUIBS? STILL?
My only opinion on this is that if the left, the activist community and/or the activist media embraces delusional MIHOP fantasies then they deserve to become irrelevant. I have no way of knowing whether or not they would become irrelevant in such a scenario. Many years ago the rightwing in the US deserved to become irrelevant when a growing portion completely discarded reality and evidence in favor of a rightwing fantasy of christianity and it worked well enough for them that they could cause massive damage.
But thanks to you, I know that that certificate is as false as all of those screwy 'science theories' that people have used to 'explain' (cover up) that 9/11 deal. Gravity being used to explain why things fall? PISH POSH!
It's definitely not any known science that is explaining how a building collapses top down in 13 seconds or under from upper floor fires. Please don't even attempt to use that word.
Teach us, o learned one!
Sure:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
When I asked for some kind of support for the idea that OBL was off the hook, I guess I thought you meant that there was some sort of official opinion that he was not a suspect, or some kind of general consensus that he's no longer a suspect. Instead you've given me another link to nutters.
If I proclaim that "The earth is no longer suspected of being round", and then to back that up, I posted a link to the Flat Earth Society, wouldn't you think I was being just the tiniest bit disingenuous? Or even dishonest? I mean, I guess I come to expect this kind of crap from truthers, but still.
My only opinion on this is that if the left, the activist community and/or the activist media embraces delusional MIHOP fantasies then they deserve to become irrelevant. I have no way of knowing whether or not they would become irrelevant in such a scenario. Many years ago the rightwing in the US deserved to become irrelevant when a growing portion completely discarded reality and evidence in favor of a rightwing fantasy of christianity and it worked well enough for them that they could cause massive damage.
But the truth movement consists of people from both the left and the right accusing both Lib Dem and Republican governments of being complicit in the creation of "Al-Qaeda" More than just crazy George and his regime were involved in holy old anticommunist jihad in Central Asia in the years during and after the cold war ended. Both of the bipartisan warmongering parties are using 9/11 as the pretext for waging a phony global war on terror. Both political wings of the same US plutocracy are responsible for waging these immoral wars today as they were in VietNam and all of the dirty wars waged around the world against poor people since. The US ruling class and ruling elite themselves are divided on the issue of 9/11. The truth movement needs to exploit this rift in very many truthers opinions.
Did you check under your bed? I'll bet he's there beside that crash helmet you've been looking for.
This is for babblers with nagging bin Laden phobias or paranoid delusions concerning Al-CIA'duh in general.
Who was Osama bin Laden?
Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism". The entire national security agenda would collapse "like a deck of cards". The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on. ...
when I first thought of the internet and how the technology would change the world. I thought it would spread knowledge and create a better world. Now I realize it's actually 1000 times worse than television and it is certain to bring about a great devolution among humankind.
I always think of left wingers quietly enduring the "truthers" while the right wing has to suffer the "birthers". A lot of similarities between "truthers" and "birthers" when you think about it.
Absolutely right!
We want PROOF that Osama bin Laden is the bogeyman absolutely and not just your run of the mill Cornish pixie.
And we wanna derisive laughter smiley.
And I want proof that Obama wasn't born in Kenya!!!!
Once upon a time serious writers who actually investigated a story with ethics, they travelled the world to investigate and collect evidence,you know, went to the actual places, talked to the actual people involved and fact checked before publishing their findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looming_Tower
knowadays anybody with a website and an opinion is supposed to be of equal value. it's the downfall of mankind I tell you
But it nicely shatters the hegemony of the credible.
Why should a former star of "90210" have to "go to medical school" or "establish research credentials" before lecturing about the REAL cause of autism?
Why should a Doctor of Philosophy have to play second fiddle to FEMA in describing how buildings collapse?
Why should someone living in his parents basement have to know anything whatsoever about jets, combustion or the high atmosphere as some rigid precondition of telling us all about how chemtrails have sapped his life essence?
It all just levels the playing field.
Me, I'm just sitting here on my guaranteed, 100% reliable proof that climate change is a myth. I don't want to give away the ending, but I'd advise journalists to learn to spell "Bilderberger" correctly! *wink*
when I first thought of the internet and how the technology would change the world. I thought it would spread knowledge and create a better world. Now I realize it's actually 1000 times worse than television and it is certain to bring about a great devolution among humankind.
Oh the corporatocracy loved television in the beginning. Joe Goebbels never dreamed of the propaganda potential for a marriage of broadcast TV, radio and newz print. Studies have shown that people's brainwaves pretty much flatline while watching the boob tube. Doing Google searches is a different story and is now believed to stimulate people's grey matter. The internet is interactive and partly why people are so drawn to it, intimidated by it and sometimes obssessed with it to unhealthy extents. People have been fed a steady diet of corporate sponsored bullshit for decades, and now there are alternative information sources. A transformation of a different sort has taken place since the 1990's.
Bilderberger my aunt fanny. All is revealed at level 33.
Osama's dust bin bunnies, the unseen enemy in your head and under your bed.
Well you are in good company. More than 31000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition saying that there was no convincing scientific evidence that human emissions were causing climate change. That makes the evidence that climate change is a hoax 31 times greater than the 1000 architects and engineers that the trooooofers have. So thats at least 3000% certainty.
I am not sure why anyone would be impressed that this "movement" also has a large number of (and indeed was started by) complete nutcases from the far right like Alex Jones. Nor do I find the movement's ridiculous claims more appealing when the few troofers I know in real life also start to deny things like climate change, and believe in things like chemtrails, and every other brain dead belief of Jones and friends.
I am not sure why anyone would be impressed that this "movement" also has a large number of (and indeed was started by) complete nutcases from the far right like Alex Jones. Nor do I find the movement's ridiculous claims more appealing when the few troofers I know in real life also start to deny things like climate change, and believe in things like chemtrails, and every other brain dead belief of Jones and friends.
But the counter-movement for non-truth and obfuscation was founded by crazy-crazy George II and his brain-dead neocons. How do you feel about that? Are there chem trails and Al-CIA'duh bogeys under your bed, too? Is your crash helmet approved by CSA or American Standard?
Interesting how quickly their arguments run out (i.e., when the Popular Mechanics article ceases to impress) and they are left solely to ridicule. It has happened in every other 9/11 thread.
It makes one wonder: if you can't really defend your position, why try? What difference does it make to you if it's shown that the towers came down via demolition? Why would you try so hard to discredit such an argument, which, unfortunately for you, has more currency scientifically than the top-down fires approach? If "it doesn't really matter how" to you, why argue so vehemently about it?
Not a single one of you will engage the argument that physics cannot explain how a 110-storey building could collapse top down in 13 seconds or under from a few upper floor fires. How is it that the other 90-something floors don't act as resistance to this near-free-fall descent? If one of you would deign to answer this, in your own words, I might deign to listen to your argument. If you can explain it.
For those of you who claim to defend science in so many other thread topics, it would behoove you to answer this question. Until then, I would have to question your credibility as defenders of science.
you say the demolition of a building or buildings on 9/11 makes more sense than the way it happened? Only in the ignorant world you and others live in. Do you know what it takes to professionally demolish a building, how long it takes to set up, what it looks like inside a building set for demolition? I highly doubt it and that's why you can say such ridiculous things and sincerely believe them.
I know that demolition contractors have compared the footage of the buildings collapsing to controlled demolitions.
Van Gogh, care to answer the resistance in free fall question? Or is that really all you have to contribute?
What's the question? Specifically?
Since you need your hand held: 4 posts above, 3rd paragraph, Heywood.
Well, there's always scenario 404
Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.Sorry Jas. Ask the question in one sentence please. No editorializing. No framing the answer you want in the question. Just a question.
Such a demanding non-truther...
Spelling it out, in crayon, now: In your own words, how does a 110-storey building collapse top down in 13 seconds or under from a few upper floor fires? How is it that the other 90-something floors don't act as resistance to this near-free-fall descent?
Ask the question in one sentence please. No editorializing. No framing the answer you want in the question. Just a question.
Alright-alright. Here goes...
1) Who cut your hair? And,
1.a) do they serve soup at that salon?
Fidel! Don't antagonize him! He's going to answer the question!
I mainly just check out these threads to see if the arguments of troofers are still as dumb as they were in the past. I am never dissapointed to see that people still claim for instance that the fires in WTC2 were almost out just before it fell based on the remarks of a single firefighter that the fires on floor 78 were small and could be extinguished. That was several floors below the main fires (floors 81 and 82), but maybe he had x-ray vision.
As for your science can't explain a building falling in 13 seconds, "near free-fall speed." You are absolutely right. But I do dream the day will come when the most extremely basic classical mechanics knowledge that you would think that we would have known for several centuries will be known to science.
You claim that a tower fell in 13 seconds. I will take your word for it.
It was 416 meters tall (I believe WTC1 was 417 and WTC2 was 415 meters or vice versa). If it were fall at the speed of gravity it would have fallen in 9.2 seconds.
H = 1/2 x g x t2
416 = (0.5)(9.8)(t2)
If we assume that the top of the towers fell less than 416 meter because they were landing on an elevated pile of rubble then we can probably say that they would have fallen about 380 meters:
380 = (0.5)(9.8)(t2) would mean the freefall would have been in 8.8 seconds.
Both of those times are much faster than 13 seconds so the troofer claims that they towers fell at "almost the speed of gravity" are embarrassingly ridiculous.
For instance if we take the 13 seconds that you provided and say that the tops fell the 416 meters we have:
416 = (0.5)(g)(13x13) and g = 4.9 meters/second/second. That is half the speed of gravity (9.8 m/s/s). In fact if we were look at how far the tower would have fallen in the 9.2 seconds that it would have taken something to fall 416 meters by gravity we would find:
H= (0.5)(4.9)(9.2x9.2) that the top of the tower would have fallen only 207 meters in the first 9.2 seconds. The time in which it would have taken for it to fall to ground by gravity alone. Half the distance. What could explain something like that? It is a mystery to science.
If we assume that the top of tower only fell about 380 meters (because of the pile of debris) in those 13 seconds then we find:
380 = (0.5)(g)(13x13) g to be only 4.5 m/s/s. Again much, much slower than 9.8 m/s/s.
That wasn't hard. Anyone who has taken a highschool physics class should be able to do those calculations.
You asked two questions. To which do you wish an answer? And need I point out that your first question has framed in it the answer that I believe that you wish it to have?
Trevor, there were 90-something intact floors between what was falling and the ground. What are you saying the time difference is for the resistance they produced? 4 seconds? Am I understanding you correctly? 90 intact floors produced 4 seconds of resistance?
To which do you wish an answer?
Second question, please.
Here's an explanation in the form of an audio slideshow outlining a convergence of factors.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
Actually, I really would like to see if Babblers understand the basic science of what they're arguing, so if people don't mind explaining it in their own words for us layfolk, I'd appreciate it.
How is it that the other 90-something floors don't act as resistance to this near-free-fall descent?
They do act as resistance. They slowed the descent of the upper floors of the buildings by approximately 30%. Had they not acted as resistance, the collapse of the building would have taken 9.22 seconds.
Are you still claiming that at best half the speed of gravity is nearly the speed of gravity? That is based on your time. That means that at least half of the potential energy from the wtc went into something other than the freefall (which you would have to explain in the case of demo, not me). That is a lot of mass and energy hitting each floor. K = 1/2(m)(v)^2.
So you're saying that 80 or 90 intact floors of a concrete and steel construction building offer 4 seconds of resistance to the weight pressing down from above.
Alright-alright. Did you ask for your money back?
An addendum to my answer to Jas: The numbers I am working with are yours. However, according to the NIST analysis, :
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Based on that, there was significant resistance to the collapse.
So you're saying that 80 or 90 intact floors of a concrete and steel construction building offer 4 seconds of resistance to the weight pressing down from above.
No, and I apologize for posting an addendum to my answer rather than including it in the answer.
For clarity sake I will repost it here, and I apologize in advance for the repetition of it.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Okay. 15 to 25 seconds after the collapse initiation, which means 2 - 9 seconds after the rest of the building was on the ground.
So what is your new base number? Still 13 seconds, 15 seconds, 25 seconds, or some other number?
Would an extra 10 seconds make a difference? 20 seconds? I will look it up.
I don't know Jas. I believe that is a question that you need to answer for yourself. If portions of the building remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the fall, would that be enough evidence that the "90-something floors" did in fact act as resistance to the collapse.
Also, would you be willing to consider that the fall was not a "near-free-fall descent"?
How is it that the other 90-something floors don't act as resistance to this near-free-fall descent?
They do act as resistance. They slowed the descent of the upper floors of the buildings by approximately 30%. Had they not acted as resistance, the collapse of the building would have taken 9.22 seconds.
That's freefall in a vacuum with absolutely no resistance. Gravity works in a vaccuum and every other situation for the most part. The 9/11 Commission report said the South tower, WTC2 I think, fell within 10 seconds. Other independent reports say it took as long as 14 seconds.
Here's what NIST says:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
then they say:
Note that they only discuss the "exterior panels" and then the core. Not sure why the exterior panels are of significance, unless by that they mean everything that isn't the core.
The footage shows the buildings coming down in hundreds of thousands of pieces, not as a whole.
I await though your answer to my question posted in #78. If you prefer, you can ignore the free fall question I posed subsequently. It isn't fair of me to ask two questions yet only answer one of yours.
Regardless, the footage shows the buildings coming down as a whole, and eyewitnesses confirm this. Whether there were chunks that hesitated before also dropping doesn't hurt my argument, I don't think.
Let's give it whole minute. Let's say the cores of 60 floors remain after the exterior has dropped away. How can 60 floors collapse in a minute or under from floor fires that occurred 30 floors above, and what's now causing the collapse if the weight of the mass above has already dispersed?
Yes, Heywood, I don't literally mean as a whole. I was trying not to use the phrase "as they would in controlled demolition". I should have said symmetrically.
One step at a time please Jas. You are asking follow-up questions without the courtesy of answering mine. I will re-post them here for clarity's sake, and I apologize for the repeition
If portions of the building remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the fall, would that be enough evidence that the "90-something floors" did in fact act as resistance to the collapse.
Also, would you be willing to consider that the fall was not a "near-free-fall descent"?
As for your question, NIST confirms 11 seconds. That's near free fall, considering there is the bulk of an intact building between what is falling and the ground.
David Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, commenting on 9/11 pancake theory:
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
15.5 seconds! Sounds like they used cutter charges.
Jas, it seems like you are deliberately trying to avoid answering my questions. I will ask, one more time.
If portions of the building remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the fall, would that be enough evidence that the "90-something floors" did in fact act as resistance to the collapse.
Also, would you be willing to consider that the fall was not a "near-free-fall descent"?
and
If portions of the building remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the fall, would that be enough evidence that the "90-something floors" did in fact act as resistance to the collapse.
not really. 90 floors of a modern tower... 25 seconds after at floor - 60? That's 30 intact floors in 25 seconds without, supposedly, demolition.
Patience, Heywood. I've been having to look stuff up. See above.
David Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, commenting on 9/11 pancake theory:
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
15.5 seconds! Sounds like they used cutter charges.
Thanks, Fidel. That helps to explain.
Hi again, Just to refresh our memories of what happened on that day let's look at some video
.
http://tinyurl.com/911edge
cheers
bc
No they don't. 11 seconds is not for the top to hit the ground. It is for the first outside panels. Which were falling from about the location of plane impact. Not the very top of the tower.
So what do they confirm?
PS: have to do some other things this evening. Will be back later or tomorrow.
Well then if only NIST thought that the pancake theory was correct then a conspiracy would be proved.
Well then if only NIST thought that the pancake theory was correct then a conspiracy would be proved.
Because their degrees and credentials are worth more than those of a thousand others? I thought that 9/11 truthers were just a bunch of retired hippies with nothing better to do than harass the guvmint?
Jesse Ventura banned from Huffington Post for conspiracy mongering
And I see they still have the Oliver Stone piece on JFK assassination and other conspiracies nailed up on their site. I guess it has to be so old and key players so dead as doornails that it doesn't matter anymore.
Patience, Heywood. I've been having to look stuff up. See above.
Look what stuff up? So far we haven't progressed beyond the resistance the lower floors gave to the collapsing block of upper floors.
firemen on radio last ten minutes before south tower turns to dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT-po-tmJRc&feature=player_embedded
Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence?
What does our own FBI say? Here is a surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media: The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Usama bin Laden" does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which he is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI's chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
"No hard evidence"? Is that like no hard evidence to pin on anyone but themselves for 9/11?
Gander Wants Unique Celebration for 10th Anniversary of 9-11
Well I can't think of a better way to celebrate the tenth anniversary of a mass murder. Can anyone?
Long.