National Geographic program called Inside 911

A steel-structure building has never collapsed before or after the three buildings that fell on 9/11, so I am not expecting this to happen again anytime soon. If it does, then yes, it probably is a government conspiracy.

Three buildings don't fall with equal precision like they did on 9/11 by chance.

 

Those other buildings were never hit by jumbo jets either. It's a faulty argument.

.

 

Since the budget decifit issue came up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060113/bs_afp/useconomybudget

.

 

What that doesnt tell you is that we still have the debt from last year and the year before that and on and on....

 

Yeah. Debt is accumulated deficit. The last time I looked, the national debt was around $8 trillion. Don't quote me.

.

 

I guess Rat must be working really hard on coming up with some answers to my questions. Either that or he can't answer so he's of doing link spam somewhere.

Anyway, US debt/GDP, the best measure of indebtedness, is far lower than many other developed nations, such as Japan. So we have a very long way to go before the debt would become a problem, and forecasts are for the deficit to fall.

Sorry to disappoint the doom-mongers.

 

Japan's debt is around $7 trillion USD, comparable to the U.S. but their GDP is only about a third of the U.S. That's pretty bad.

Somehow I don't feel all that great that we have to use Japan to look at ourselves as being not all that bad off.

.

 

It's true there were cross-trusses on the floors. However, that doesn't mean pancaking is impossible. The floors were only as strong as their connections to the inner and outer columns. The floors were connected with two one-inch bolts. One of the explanations is that drooping of the floor trusses at high temperature put those bolts in tension, which they were not designed for. The bolts were made to take shear stresses. Trusses and columns found in the rubble showed fractured bolts that once held the floors to the columns. The floor trusses in the WTC towers were long compared with many other types of buildings due to the open floor space design. That made them susceptible to drooping when the steel heated up.

In a way, reinforced floors adds creedence to the pancaking theory, as the floors themselves were able to stay relatively in one piece as they slammed into the next floor below, disconnecting the next lower floor from the columns.

It would have been better if the floors had been welded to the inner and outer columns. Instead, they were bolted in with one-inch bolts. In fact, if you look at the video, you can see large sections of the perimeter core wall falling with no parts of floors attached. That shows that the bolted connections between the floors and perimeter columns failed.

The connections between the floors and the inner and outer columns is what gave overall structural rigidity to the box-in-box design. With the floors disconnected, the structure as a whole lost its rigidity.

Sections of floors failing is also a plausible explanation for the squibs that were seen near the damaged floors.

Also, there's faulty logic involved in saying that the strength of the floors means that collapse couldn't have been natural. No one argues against the fact that the towers collapsed from top to bottom. The floors would have had to pancake in the same manner whether the building had collapsed due to the aircraft impacts and fire or initiated by demolition packs placed near the damaged area (unless people are crazy enough to believe that the floors were too strong and that demolition packs were placed on every floor below the aircraft impacts and exploded in sequence and in sync with the fall rate to assist the building in collapsing. )

.

 

Shaggie, even if those buildings came down in a pancake collapse there is no way the buildings would come down in freefall speed like that, it would take atleast 30 seconds to a minute, but instead they came down in 9-10 seconds each. this is only possible from a controlled demolition or if nuclear explosives were placed in the buildings, but since there was no radioactive material detected in the days aferword, it couldnt have been that.

 

No. A global collapse at near free-fall speeds doesn't mean it had to be controlled demolition. It's unclear why people keep claiming it had to be controlled demolition. They make that claim but don't support it.

The towers didn't come down at freefall speed. It took slightly longer than freefall speed. That doesn't imply controlled demolition.

Gravity is what drives the collapse, even for controlled demolition. All controlled demolition does is make the building unstable so that it starts to collapse. Gravity does the rest. The demolition advocates don't understand how demolition works. If the building becomes unstable due to columns buckling (due to initial damage by the aircraft and subsequent fires), the building can undergo a global collapse similar to a controlled demolition.

.

 

The fall time was on the order of 11 to 13 seconds, which is a longer amount of time compared with free fall. A good estimate on the amount of energy needed to disconnect a floor is about 0.8 giga-Joule. The fall rate for that amount of energy is consistent with the observed fall times. Greening did a good treatment of this in his paper.






.

 

Where are those pictures from? www.fema.com?

 

They are from Greening. He wasn't paid by FEMA or NIST. He's a senior scientist from Canada. Greening's papers are a good treatment of the physics involved in the collapses. His papers are based on basic principles of science and engineering.

There are hundreds of papers published by professional groups from all over the world that give explanations of the collapse of the towers. Most aren't affiliated with NIST or FEMA. None of those groups claim intentional demolition by the U.S. government.

.

 

The complete paper:

http://home.flash.net/~lauras34/wtcreport.pdf


Conclusions:

"An analysis of the energetics of the WTC collapse events has shown that the kinetic energy of the aircraft collisions and the subsequent gravitational energy released by the descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner observed. The use of explosive devices in either of the two towers is not necessary to explain the collapse events and is considered to be highly unlikely.

The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.

The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.

The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100 um in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.

From a consideration of the strength of the WTC columns, and the effective area of support they provided, it is demonstrated that the conditions necessary for the initial floor collapse were initiated by the aircraft impact and made irrevocable by the subsequent eccentric loading of the core columns. It is therefore suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred even without the jet fuel fires."
.

 

As are the reports detailing the implausibility of the official farce, shaggie.

Simply because Greening is from Canada doesn't negate the liklihood of corporate and political interests or pressures "informing" his conclusions. Let's remember that prior to his retirement he was a longtime suit and tie for Canadian energy interests with undoubted ties to US energy interests profitting handsomely from the new Cold-War-styled paradigm long planned by the PNAC in the wake of just such a traumatising and catalysing event (openly admitted in their own ideological manifesto).

 

So you think that merely suggesting he has been pressured, because he used to have a job with an energy company which you speculate may have had ties to US energy companies, and that US energy company may be part of the PNAC conspiracy, is a sound basis for totally rejecting all of his work without even looking at it?

I think this is one of the most pathetic attempts to discredit a post I have ever seen.

 

Obviously dont read your own pathetic "it's all conspiracy theory" posts then.

More blather from the peanut gallery of unread, non-critical thought.

If you bothered to scrutinise the adherents and backers of the PNAC youd discover the answer to your "may have links to".

 

But this is not a debate about PNAC. You are saying that merely by speculating that this guy used to work for an energy company which may have been related to other energy companies, we can totally discredit his argument without looking at it.

Have you really stooped so low? Is this the sort of response that Shaggie's polite, appropriately documented and carefully explained posts deserve?

 

You lecturing on "stooping so low". Rich indeed.

The response to shaggie's choice of employing what is nothing more than another endorsement by an energy industry insider whose own political associations and interests remain dubious, though for anyone who bothers to research the strong political and economic interrelation between the US and Canada quite plausibly in accordance with the ideological policy pursuits of the PNAC cabal presently realising their long awaited agenda.

What possible political pressure/links could have "informed" this latest "official" 911 coverstory endorsement you ask? (but a mere glimpse into the behind the scenes contextualisation)...

We understand that a non-critical, unquestioning establishment shill like yourself cannot fathom the interconnectedness of 911 and the policy prerogatives that have been realised in its wake and therefore seek to compartmentalise every discussion into your preferred sanitised and truncated elements.

The response to this latest mouthpiece's presumptions have already been provided ad nauseam in this and previous threads. Naysayers like yourself can quite happily keep your head in the sand, you've already proven that no amount of evidence will ever penetrate your "its all conspiracy theory" mental filters.

Just as the article on congitive dissociation previously provided adequately explained.

Their are powerful interests profitting from the myth of 911 foreign boogeymen and they have a steady supply of suits and ties to dazzle uncritical minds like yours.

 

It amazes me that you can heap such abuse on people like Shaggie and Matthew. What a waste their diplomacy is.

Yes I am stooping so low as to ask you to respond to the actual post rather than making vague and unsubstantiated allegations against the author and trying to take us down some tangent.

So you're saying that the fact that he is Canadian makes him suspect, because of the "political and economic interrelation between the US and Canada". That's 30 million people discredited because you, as an expert foreign policy analyst, have discovered that the US and Canada have economic ties. And I suppose if you could "discover" economic ties between any other country and the US, you could discredit all their citizens too?

Furthermore, what is it about his "political associations and interests" that remain dubious? This is the very definition of innuendo. The same charge could be levelled against virtually anyone.

No this means that in a discussion of physics, rushing off on an irrelevant tangent and leaving behind a trail of verbiage doesn't win you any points. Either the WTC fell too fast or it didn't, regardless of whether Osama and Bush were pre school classmates at Area 51.

This is from a few pages back. You asserted this without providing any science or evidence to back it up. Nothing at all. You just said it and expected us to believe it. But when Shaggie produces documented arguments and is prepared to back in up right here in theis forum, what do we get? This:

Blind fury. How dare we deny the conspiracy. How dare we argue the science behind the collapse instead of throwing around personal attacks.

What are you afraid of Lick? Shaggie got you with your tail between your legs? Come on back to the topic, show us what a genius you are.