[Closed] 9/11 documentary

Your theory is "because it did", neal?

Yup.

My theory is that some planes flew into some buildings.
Those buildings, and one other, collapsed due to the damage caused.

I await with baited breath an alternate theory that holds up to even the mildest scrutiny.

Can posting links to you tube videos be disabled on this thread?

If some of the contributors have to articulate their responses they might take more time considering the validity of their argument....

I think a building with several thousand workers in it would require several trucks a day to visit it just for normal operation. Americans aren't exactly shy when it comes to producing trash, there'd be several garbage trucks plus lots of delivery vehicles plus parcel delivery and pickup. Not even got to maintenance yet.

they might take more time considering the validity of their argument....

I remain doubtful

I think a building with several thousand workers in it would require several trucks a day to visit it just for normal operation. Americans aren't exactly shy when it comes to producing trash, there'd be several garbage trucks plus lots of delivery vehicles plus parcel delivery and pickup. Not even got to maintenance yet

And .... ?

keep WT7 in mind.

The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from minor damage and office fires.

If you'd showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.

I'm not convinced many people have seen a tower block collapse without it being a controlled demolition. You'd be showing them a video of a building falling down. "yes, that looks just like a building falling down"

keep WT7 in mind.

How and why?

Can we agree that a controlled demolition takes a LOT of preparation and it would e very difficult to do this without being noticed?

Why would they want to do it? The horror achieved by the planes crashing into the Towers was easily enough. In fact I can't even remember hearing about WT7 on the day. I can remember exactly where I was when I saw the footage of the aircraft.

If you'd showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.

How many videos of buildings falling down from other causes have people seen?

The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from minor damage and office fires.

The 'free-fall' nonsense is just that, nonsense. So that leaves 'straight down' bit, but that's the direction gravity tends to work in so no surprises there, so that leaves 'minor damage', well I think it was actually hit by rather a lot of debris wasn't it? It wasn't just a few pebbles landing on the roof...So, office fires, well they can get pretty bad if left unchecked, which they pretty much were, and other buildings have suffered structural failure due to fire.

But, let's assume it did fall at a bizarre speed, in a funny direction, after minor damage and couple of waste paper baskets caught fire. What's the next step?

How do you leap from "Hmm, that looks a bit unusual, I wonder what happened there" to assuming it was a conspired and secret controlled demolition (for $reasons). Could it not be that there's more info than you have? Or a mechanism at work you don't understand? Could it even have been incompetent construction?

But I realise this is all futile, you've already decided on your opinion and only information that supports it will be relevant.

"If you'd showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition."
...and if you told them that the two biggest buildings in the world had just fallen down and smashed into the ground right next door causing a massive shock and raining debris on the building that also caught fire?

What a great thread for outing the fragility of belief systems... 😆

There's a big contradiction here: on one hand you have an argument that collapsing a building into its own footprint by controlled demolition is an incredibly tricky, lengthy, precise job, but on the other hand the results can be replicated exactly by smacking it on one side with a big heavy thing and setting it on fire. Doesn't matter if it's central strike or not. Or you can just throw rubble at it and set it on fire. Same result. Are these so called "demolition experts" having a laugh - years to set up? Why?

If the structures of these building allowed them all to collapse neatly under such a variety of imprecise impacts, loads and fires, then a deliberate demolition could have been done in a variety of imprecise and localised methods as well.

Either it's easy to do this, or it's hard. Which is it?

The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from [b]minor [/b]damage and office fires.

Not sure it would be minor damage, the other towers were circa 1400ft tall!

and if you told them that the two biggest buildings in the world had just fallen down and smashed into the ground right next door causing a massive shock and raining debris on the building that also caught fire?

 

There's a big contradiction here: on one hand you have an argument that collapsing a building into its own footprint by controlled demolition is an incredibly tricky, lengthy, precise job, but on the other hand the results can be replicated exactly by smacking it on one side with a big heavy thing and setting it on fire.

There is no contradiction, and the only person who has made that ^ comparison is you.

[b] controlled [/b]demolition

I've emboldenated the important word for you.

Either it's easy to do this, or it's hard. Which is it?

It's hard, nobody has said otherwise. The fact that the Towers collapsed in the way they did doesn't mean it would be easy to replicate, and it certainly wasn't 'controlled' in terms of outcome compared to an actual controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition attempts to control the factors that it's possible to control, and leave as little to chance as possible, but chance still plays a part. That doesn't mean that chance can't also produce a similar outcome in certain circumstances. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Crash testing cars for example...

They attempt to replicate real world collisions but with a degree of control, but those same collisions happen in real life by chance, mostly the outcome is the same, sometimes 'weird stuff' happens but that doesn't change the fact that the controlled collisions and chance ones of the same type have broadly similar outcomes.

It's not a perfect analogy by any means but the same principle applies, buildings collapse downwards, there are some bits of the process you can influence, and other bits you can't.

Ned - two identical buildings fell in the same manner. Their design trumped any other concept. They fell that way because of how they were designed and built, and their size. I am not sure anyone was ever tasked to predict how they would fill, and before this, if asked, they may not have been able to predict this method of collapse. Hindisght is wonderful.

Anyway to replicate the towers being hit by planes and not disturb the occupants much whilst setting it up has gotta be difficult.
They would need to set charges to cot a number of beams and break some concrete.
It will take a long time to set up and be hard to predict.

And WTC 7 housed offices for the CIA and the US Secret Service, think it was the only WTC with them in.

And the SEC, to cover up the records of any insider dealing they might have found that might be connected to the event...

Let's go back to this for a moment...

[video]

Frankly, it seems utterly ridiculous~ 'A 30 year conspiracy'

But suspending disbelief for a moment, lets scale it down a bit... rather than 30 years, let's try and work out how long it would take to rig the building by covert means...

Say rather than overt demolition experts, you had covert operatives like removals firms (an orange 5 packed with materials wouldn't hold much... a filing cabinet however), or residential art students, who were in the towers overnight.

Of course, this is conjecture, but for the tower to fall into it's own envelope, when tilting like this is hard to explain

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Out of interest, what would have been an acceptable way for the building to collapse that would signify aircraft impact and out of control fuel enhanced fire?

should it have toppled over like a tree? if so, why?

but for the tower to fall into it's own envelope

when tilting like this is hard to explain

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

And the SEC, to cover up the records of any insider dealing they might have found that might be connected to the event...

Why would they have been so sloppy as to house records there that presumably could have been exposed at any time prior to the event anyway, doubly stupid to just not put the records there if you knew what was going to happen in advance...

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

What exactly do you think the path of least resistance should have been?

massive mass + gravity = downwards

You'd need a stupendously massive force in another direction to deviate that massive mass from anythign other than 'downwards'

500,000,000 kgs is being pulled by the acceleration due to gravity. It would take something equal to the attraction of gravity to make it go sideways.
It tipped because one side failed first, thats where the damage was, the tipping made the other side fail and then gravity took over.

Have you ever played jenga?

jivehoneyjive - Member

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

Ley lines & magnets. Obvz.....

Some people say WTC 7 was 'pulled' but the fire department don't do that :

[video]

chamley - Member

I'm not convinced many people have seen a tower block collapse without it being a controlled demolition. You'd be showing them a video of a building falling down. "yes, that looks just like a building falling down"

I think you've cracked it.
It's a fundamental lack of imagination that "these people" share. Flat Earthers can't see the Earth is round so don't believe it.

jivehoneyjive - Member
So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

keep WT7 in mind.

The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from [b]minor damage and office fires[/b].

Keep in mind yourself that WTC7 had 91,000 litres of diesel in the basement. [b]91,000 litres of diesel.[/b] Probably good stuff for creating more than an office fire. In addition to the diesel tanks in the basement it had pumps and fuel lines throughout the first nine floors.

Under normal circumstances you'd imagine fire fighters might have been able to do something to prevent the building burning for five or six hours but maybe, just maybe they were busy on September 11th.

[img] [/img]

[img] https://media.tenor.co/images/719a7b6d54fe98b9933e4f4ab441c412/raw [/img]

In your first shot the CofG of the upper section is obviously still well within the tower's footprint. Because of the angle of the shot I can't tell from the second shot where the CofG would be.

Looking at video of the south tower falling the upper section does lean and increases to lean as the tower collapses. In the later stages of the collapse it's hard to discern what's happening to the upper section but it looks as if with about 30 floors left to drop it finally falls outside the footprint of the tower.

jhj, substitute the jenga for blocks made of the thinnest glass you can imagine.

Have you ever played jenga?

(Rhetorical question, of course you don't)

Have you ever played jenga?

that's your science? entirely solid bits of wood. how do the people walk about inside your crazy jenga building?

What's a Jenga tower got to do with the WTC towers? Entirely different construction techniques as has been pointed out many times.

[img] [/img]

just to show how the towers did [u]not[/u] collapse neatly within their own footprint.

If you'd showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.

In which case why did the demolition guys rig it to collapse in a way that is obviously demolition? Wouldn't they have rigged it to collapse in a way that is not obviously demolition? (Which I'm assuming you consider to be half a million tons of tower falling sideways like a tree?)

there is also the scaling fallacy.
Look at how mass varies with volume. Its cubed..
That's why trees only get to a certain height, humans can only get so big before our bones can't take our own weight, and 110 story buildings are very hard to build.

Well, being as jenga (and the dominoes used earlier) aren't the most stable of structures, there's probably minimal comparison given the twin towers were designed to withstand aircraft impacts exceeding the forces encountered

Oh well since you provide that evidence jamba you must be right. After all it WTC was built exactly like jenga wasn't it?

I wonder whether Jivehoneyjive believes the earth is round or flat... ❓

I'd hope it had far more structural integrity than a jenga tower...

Earth is round, flat earthers are nucking futz

Have you ever played jenga?

yes, and its entirely nothing like a actual tower block 🙄

Are you suggesting that you think the building should have 'toppled' over?

The only force acting on the building is gravity, so the only direction is down. Toppling is still falling 'down' but with a constrained point of rotation, of which there was none and could not be one in those towers. Any such point would have to have resisted the horizontal component of the reaction force about the pivot, this wouldn't have been possible. And all of that relies on the upper half being a solid coherent/rigid object, which it wasn't.

That building was only ever goign to collapse downwards, tehre was no external force in any other direction to influence it's path, and insufficient lateral strength to have anything but an inconsequential level of resistance.

Toppling could only happen if there were a constrained pivot about which the rigid structure could rotate, There wasn't so it didn't.

That's a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

this just appeared on my feed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

Under normal circumstances you'd imagine fire fighters might have been able to do something to prevent the building burning for five or six hours but maybe, just maybe they were busy on September 11th.

Yet they had enough time to evaluate the structure, to foretell of its collapse.... there is plenty of video prior to collapse of people walking around in there,....this building was not seriously on fire...

curiously a CIA guy was walking around in there, just making sure no one was in there, just before they blew it up.

757 mtow 200,000kg
wtc 450,000,000kg
450,000,000/200,000 = 2250. So one plane is a 2250th of the mass of the towers.

Mans fist 1kg. Them big jenga blocks, maybe 10kg? Totally comparable.

Equivalent is 10/2250 = 4 grams. flick a sugar cube at your big jenga and see what happens.

That's a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

It did, that has been explained many times.

here's another explanation.

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

homework question: which bits do you disagree with and why? show reasoning

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

+1 Jonnyboi

That's a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn't it follow the path of least resistance?

They do explain it, but for you, in fewer words 'It did', because the path it followed was in the direction of the force acting on it and there were no forces significant enough to deviate it.

What path exactly do you think it should have taken?

Why don't you tell us what you think should have happened and we'll discuss it, instead of you just saying "yeah, but" to everything.