9/11

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

I think that...

...it is possible to burn down 3 steel frame buildings with 2 aeroplanes.
23
68%
...US military patented explosives, such as those evident in the projected dust, were used to demolish the 3 world trade centre buildings.
6
18%
...this isn't something I should be concerned about, no-one I know has been killed, I've never been to Iraq, why should I care? Pass me the joystick let's get back to Desert Strike.
5
15%
 
Total votes: 34

psj3809
Posts: 18880
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:12 pm

Oh i didnt see where you said that was a 'joke' ?!

Weird

User avatar
jimbo_too
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:45 am

Post by jimbo_too » Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:13 pm

R. Prime wrote:
Again let me ask you this. Bin Laden and co say they did 911 and love the fact it caused so many deaths, if the US were behind it and Bin Laden didnt do anything why wouldnt Bin Laden and co go to the media to say how corrupt the US are as they did this to their own people ?
Fair question, but
- I doubt that he is alive.
- Who is going to publish that? Considering the cheery reception you guys have given the idea, do you honestly think that would be given any mainstream media coverage? Gimme a break.
OMG LOOK AT TEH HUGE COVER-UP!!!!!

Yes, it's possible that Al-Qaeda could have taken credit for something that they didn't do. But do you really think that we are utterly blinkered? Your opinion seems to be that if we don't buy your argument we are stupid. The problem is that we aren't stupid. As a result we like evidence. And we like to be presented evidence by someone without an ulterior motive (unlike yourself). I have to say that nothing you have presented me with so far has convinced me, because there is a reasonable explanation for most things, and I get the feeling that like a lot of conspiracy theorists you're reading a bit too much into little discrepancies.

Oh, and how do you know Osama's dead? Did you kill him? (That would make for a good news article - "Retro enthusiast kills Al-Qaeda chief")
Image
Antiriad2097 wrote:Jimbo_too, 11% Troll :lol:

User avatar
Emperor Fossil
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Already rockin the Christmas cap, WOOOOH!

Post by Emperor Fossil » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:12 pm

Oh god, you're still going with this rubbish. You really should have stuck to your 25/12 thread.
R. Prime wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble believing that you studied physics in any formal capacity. Did you study physics at university as part of a course in which you were enrolled? If so, did you actually pass? I don't really mean to be rude. I'm just a bit, well ... puzzled.


Well if you haven't studied it at tertiary level, and the best you can do to refute the law of conservation of momentum is speculate on my level of education, I'd say that isn't much of an argument.
How about you honestly answer my questions instead of dodging them? By the way, you haven't successfully argued that the collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum in any way. In fact, you've barely managed to mount an argument in that respect at all, much less a successful one.


R. Prime wrote:
but all it takes is a look at the videos to see that the towers aren't collapsing in freefall.
I said at "freefall speed". A speed equivalent to that of an object at freefall from the same height.
Yes, and I'm saying the towers WEREN'T collapsing at freefall speed. As I've already pointed out, the video clearly show debris and large pieces of the outer part of the towers falling faster than the main collapse. Way to ignore everything else I wrote just because I left out the word 'speed' when the meaning is essentially the same anyway. (Hint: The very term 'freefall' implies 'freefall speed'.)

R. Prime wrote:Newton's 3rd law applied in this situation dictates that there must be resistance from the structure, equal to the force applied on it.
And your point is what? That the towers shouldn't have collapsed at freefall speed? I've already said that they didn't. That's evident from the videos.

And yes, the structure - or rather, each floor as the weight of the collapsing material impacts on them in turn - will exert a force on the falling load equal to the force that load exerts on it, but that doesn't mean it will halt the motion of that load. As a simple example, if a bowling ball rolls into a stationary billiard ball, Newton's 3rd law dictates that force of the impact between them must be equal and opposite, but that doesn't mean that the bowling ball stops due to the collision. Instead it undergoes only a slight reduction in its velocity along the axis of the collision due to the smaller mass of the billiard ball.

When looking at the resultant motion in any collision, you have to factor in the mass and hence the inertia of the objects in question, and the same applies in the case of the mass of the upper part of the towers falling onto the floors below, hitting each floor in turn and propagating a collapse that is only going to intensify as it proceeds due to the increasing amount (and therefore mass) of the falling material. Remember, you can't treat the body of the tower below the impact zone as a 'solid block', no matter how much you might wish to.

And again I get the impression that you're not making any distinction between a static load compared to one that is in motion, ie: falling.

Here's a little experiment for you to try.

1) Rest your hand on a table, palm down. Now place a brick on the back of your hand.

2) You can feel the pressure on the back of your hand, right? The weight of the brick. It's not painful. It's quite bearable, right?

3) Now lift the brick about a foot above your hand.

4) Now drop the brick.

5) How does your hand feel now?

6) Now think about the kinetic energy of a falling weight, compared to the KE of a stationary weight, and then give some more thought to the argument you made earlier that the towers shouldn't have collapsed the way they did because the floors were supposed to be able to bear the weight of the load above them.

R. Prime wrote:I'm not trying to be condescending here, I think some of you need to dismiss your superstitions about physics.
For my part, I have no 'superstitions' about physics. My scepticism about your so-called physics education, however, remains robust.

User avatar
Emperor Fossil
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Already rockin the Christmas cap, WOOOOH!

Post by Emperor Fossil » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:04 am

And I'm back for more!
R. Prime wrote:Watch this, or don't watch it and sling me another insult. :wink:
You like to link to these videos, but does it not occur to you that some or many of the claims they make might be incorrect or inaccurate at best, and lies at worst?

For example, they include the Windsor Tower in Spain as a steel framed building that survived a twenty hour fire without collapsing. But it seems that the Windsor Tower had a reinforced concrete core. That concrete core remained standing and was still able to support the crane on top, while roughly the half of the outermost steel frame collapsed. Had the core been steel as well I expect the whole thing might well have come down. But of course that video makes no mention of the concrete core. Hell no!

Also, they list the Parque Central tower in Venezuela as an example of steel-framed building that didn't collapse from fire. From the photos I've seen of that fire, it appears to have been limited largely to one side of the building. If that's the case, then it's not really the same situation as the twin towers, is it?

And I love how that use the nine-storey Building 5 in the WTC complex as an example of a steel-frame building that didn't collapse. It still suffered a partial collapse, and if it had totally collapsed, conspiracy theorists would just say "Oh, well must have been demolished by explosives too!" What I'm getting at here is the way they interpret a steel-frame building collapsing (eg: Building 7) as "OMG! Controlled demolition!" while a steel-frame building that doesn't totally collapse is seen as "OMG! Proof that they should never collapse due to fire!"

Furthermore, that video gravely informs us of a prior fire in the WTC North Tower in 1975 that: "burned for 3 hours, spreading vertically from floor to floor. It burned twice as long as the fires of 9/11, without even a hint of a building collapse". Yet Wikipedia claims that "The fires on other floors were extinguished almost immediately." Funny how the videomakers failed to mention that detail, choosing instead to say "it spread vertically from floor to floor", without any further clarification. Is Wikipedia wrong? Did the government edit it? Maybe. Or maaaaybe the people who made that youtube video are deliberately playing loose with the facts.

Those examples are just the ones I bothered to look up or could find some info on. My point is that it wouldn't hurt you to bring some of scepticism you bring to the official reports to all these youtube videos you're devouring.

psj3809
Posts: 18880
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:59 am

Totally agree, i saw some of those videos he posted (and then clicked on some of the other links on the side) and some of their accusations are laughable.

Talk about trying to grab at anything they can.

When theres something 'suspicious' to conspiracy theorists in a video or report they find they totally think its the government trying to cover it up etc, but when they then post a crappy video with tons of holes in it they seem to suddenly 'forget' or 'ignore' all the errors/holes/censored ups in it and instead take that as 100% real. Or some scientist who was thrown out of university or something and who makes his name by posting controversial things. They totally accept that as 100% truth.

Find it very amusing.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8705
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:54 am

At the risk of being obvious about the previous north tower fire too, I'm going to go ahead and guess that a fire in a building damaged by 400 tonnes of aircraft slamming into it, and fuelled by 50,000 gallons of avaiation fuel is going to be just a smidgen hotter than one started up some idiot dropping a cigarette in a perfectly healthy building.

(I didn't check how the 1975 fire started, going to go ahead and assume it
wasn't a 767 though).
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

psj3809
Posts: 18880
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:02 am

Thats the thing, scientists can write down what 'might' happen if a plane went in at xxx speed into a skyscraper but no one knows for sure.

Like you say these conspiracy wackos are going on about other fires in buildings but NONE had a huge plane fly into it at a top speed. It was just a fire which started perhaps by a cigarette or an electrical malfunction.

Cant compare them at all. Its laughable the crap hes coming out with.

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:03 am

I'm no architect , and no expert in any scientific field .

I can understand how a large aircraft packed with aviation fuel would severley damage a building ; I'm just surprised that it didn't topple over rather than collapse straight down.

I always thought that it took demolition experts much time and expertise to position explosive charges so precisely in order to demolish a building in this manner , and avoid it from falling over rather than collapsing in on itself
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
TMR
Posts: 5756
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:56 am
Location: Leeds, U.K.
Contact:

Post by TMR » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:00 am

paranoid marvin wrote:I always thought that it took demolition experts much time and expertise to position explosive charges so precisely in order to demolish a building in this manner , and avoid it from falling over rather than collapsing in on itself
Demolition engineers merely ensure that their explosions produce the right structural damage, there's nothing to stop "natural causes" producing a similar effect in the same way that natural events do unexpected things all the time.

And the cynic in me thinks that if somebody really had decided to demolish the building with explosives then the chances are that they'd be smart enough to set the charges to make the thing topple more randomly to avoid raising suspicion - that's the problem with conspiracy theories, they assume that a person or body of people are smart enough to hide the truth but dumb enough to make mess up details...

Bub&Bob
Posts: 6833
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:24 am

Post by Bub&Bob » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:06 am

I must have missed something, what happened on the 9th November then?
The dry fart for Barry MacDermot and all the cancer patients in the Glamorgan testicle ward

User avatar
DonkeySpank
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:19 am

Post by DonkeySpank » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:18 am

The aliens ate it.... it's true I tells ya! TRUUUUUUE!!

Image

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Post by Opa-Opa » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:25 am

Bub&Bob wrote:I must have missed something, what happened on the 9th November then?
Too much Mock the Week here me thinks ;)

Bub&Bob
Posts: 6833
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:24 am

Post by Bub&Bob » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:49 am

Opa-Opa wrote:
Bub&Bob wrote:I must have missed something, what happened on the 9th November then?
Too much Mock the Week here me thinks ;)
Never seen the show but there is plenty of old censored in this thread!
The dry fart for Barry MacDermot and all the cancer patients in the Glamorgan testicle ward

User avatar
sscott
Posts: 13157
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Sheffield

Post by sscott » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:00 pm

Watched the whole Zeitgeist movie on Google last night, very good if very slanted towards certain beliefs (the common story of the resurrection of gods was particularly interesting), the 9/11 stuff I couldn't buy though, seems to be the rigidity of the outerstructure allowed the building to fall in on itself, in that the softer inner structure couldn't collapse outwards only inwards, oh god have I just started something again!?
Image

User avatar
R. Prime
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:02 am

Post by R. Prime » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:12 am

Ok Emperor Fossil, you have outphysicksed me. I give up. I really can't be ar5ed formulating a response to your well reasoned argument. This is not to say that you have convinced me of anything though. I still maintain that if you kick out a big fat pirate's wooden leg, he's gonna fall sideways, not collapse into a puddle.

I won't even start on this though. (Though I'd be interested to hear your explanation as to how you'd fit a 757 into a hole that small)
Image

Just to come clean, I did receive a national scholarship in Physics in my last year at high school, and did (pass) a stage 1 physics paper in one of my 2 bachelor degrees. I didn't find physics very inspiring TBH.
Your opinion seems to be that if we don't buy your argument we are stupid.
Well this is not true, this is a common misconception about this thread. I said "It baffles me how sometimes smart people don't think very hard about what they're told." And then said most retro enthusiast (myself included) are generally smart guys. I was just trying to phrase it in a way weighted against the status quo. Conspiracy theories are generally considered to be "stupid", I tried to invert it. Backfired though it seems. :)

In all honesty do you deny that when you watch the news you take for granted that it is a fair representation of the truth? I used to. Now I actually think about it. You only have to look at the mainstream coverage of the recent Georgian war, and consider that it was Russia who was attacked to become a bit thoughtful.

(If you'll allow me to use bold typeface here to make my final point)

The Bush administration has shovelled some serious sh!t over the last 8 years, here's a timeline, these guys are just criminals. Even if they didn't do it, then they should be held accountable for the million+ actual human deaths they have caused in Iraq due to their bogus invasion. Tell me we can agree on this then?

Come on...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sega2006 and 6 guests