"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Umm Dowly, did you really watch the 9/11 hardfire vids, and information ?
e.g. that one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYVUUTeZp0

Yeah, I've seen them several times. Why?

[JU_88]

I have one issue with the 'inward bowing theory', as presented here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-n...feature=fvwrel and that is the connections between the trusses and columns.

When the trusses softened and sagged, we are to belive they pulled perimeter columns inwards (also softened) due to the obviouse weight of all the floor concrete and office equipment.

Im no architect, but look at this WTC construction photo, in particular look at the Gussets (G)
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...nstruction.jpg
I find it hard to belive that those flimsy looking trusses attached to even flimsier looking gussets would have been strong enough to pull those mighty columns inwards, even under the conditions of the steel being softened, I would have though the trusses or gussets would be the first to break, (before the far thicker columns), if so that would cause a floor collapes - Then perhaps the columns might start to break with no trusses to connecting them to the core columns, they would no longer be able to cope with the weight from above?
Does that make sense?

Also Im pretty sure the truss/column connections were not even welded either, the towers were light wieght and flexible -able to sway in strong winds.
But hell, what do I know....

[Dowly]

The floor trusses weren't supported just by the gussets, JU88.

Here's a photo of column 231 of WTC2 I copied from the NIST report.


The upper gusset was welded to the truss, the seat plate and the lower gusset
were bolted.

BTW, the video showing the simulation is to my understanding showing the
interior wall connection, which consisted of the upper gusset and the seat
whereas the exterior wall connection also had the lower gusset. Not 100%
sure about this, tho.

[JU_88]

Ah ok, nice one Dowly,

[Dowly]

No problem

Just found this, so gonna leave it here.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by mapuc

What if:

It was roughly known where the planes would hit the twin towers?
What if they used the law of gravity to help.
What if they used the upper part of the 110 floors as a kind of pressure on the lower floors.

How much explosive do you need then?
How much time do a team of these demolitons people need?


Remember it is just pure theory-which may not have basis in reality

Markus

Sorry for the bump, but I'm bored and I missed this earlier. Sue me.

The whole controlled demolition argument can be countered with a few points:

1) No one heard explosions in the manner one would hear them in a CD.
Explosions WERE heard prior and after the collapses, but those could be caused by
anything, plenty of stuff that goes "boom" when exposed to heat in those
buildings. People survived the collapse INSIDE the towers, none reported
hearing explosions.

2) If explosives were near the impact areas (from where both collapses
started), they would have had to be insulated from the heat or they would've
cooked off. And if they were protected from that kind of heat, then surely
the cases would have survived the collapses, yet nothing suspicious was found.

3) WTC2's (South Tower) collapse. The tower was struck to the Southwest
corner, causing huge damage. The collapse starts from that very same corner
(check videos that show the corner as it collapses) which supports structural failure.
The top of the tower also leans as it collapses, which means the start of the
collapse wasnt symmetrical, one side gave up first (the struck corner) creating
a pivot point. If explosives would've been used, it would make sense to blow
all supports at once so to not risk a lean and possible damage in a widespread area.


As for amount & time needed, hard to say. Somekind of shaped charges would
probably be the go-to equipment, but from what I've understood it takes
a lot of preparing to have them blow so that they take out the structure needed.
(pre-cutting the steel, placing the charges properly etc.)

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I take it you did not see the vid then, the beginning deals just with those who died and suffered. Which makes the whole thing even more atrocious.
Close your eyes, nothing to see here.

I followed the CT storys for years at Randi's. The discussions are still going on.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Dowly

The whole controlled demolition argument can be countered with a few points:

1) No one heard explosions in the manner one would hear them in a CD.
Explosions WERE heard prior and after the collapses, but those could be caused by
anything, plenty of stuff that goes "boom" when exposed to heat in those
buildings. People survived the collapse INSIDE the towers, none reported
hearing explosions.

Quoted only for example, and thanks for bringing it up again.

...

In college I had to watch this video about the collapses and write an assessment of procedures followed and show my understanding of the basics of building construction, fire damage, etc. At one point in the film we get this shot of some firefighters staging in a loading dock right across the street from the first tower. Everything appears normal at first, then you hear an awful roar from above. Camera pans up and you see the top of the tower already come apart and falling earthward in the Big F'in Nasty. The roar was terrible. I can't imagine what must have gone through their minds at that moment. One thing I don't remember from that shot is ever hearing any explosions. One sound hits our ears (or mics) faster than the sound coming after it, so we should have been able to hear charges going off before we could hear the sound of the collapse. No such thing in the video. No explosion. To my mind there was no explosion.

The 'controlled demolition theory' was debunked for me long before any of this Truther crap came out.

Truthers are stupid beyond repair. I hate saying that about anyone, but it's true in this case. Stupid beyond repair.

Get over it.

[Tribesman]

The 'controlled demolition theory' was debunked for me long before any of this Truther crap came out.

You mean its realy basic stuff?
but how come they managed to get over a thousand people to sign up? surely there can't be that many dumb people in the world

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

but how come they managed to get over a thousand people to sign up? surely there can't be that many dumb people in the world

I dunno. 'Free Beer' coupons at Hooters?

[Tribesman]

With wings?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

With wings?

No. Just the beer I'm afraid. I'll buy the wings, you supply the beer. How's that sound?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by krashkart

How's that sound?

Like a controlled intoxication.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Like a controlled intoxication.

No!! Not that...

It couldn't possibly be, Steve. I mean, really; nobody knows how to control an intoxication until they hit at least fifty. Or thirty. Or something like that. My math gets all messed up sometimes and I see a numeral 3 melting into a hermaphrodite orca/sea lion/kitten orgy overflown by a bald eagle armed with a telephone pole and a clothesline--where there should only be a cinderblock wall and a couple of inspirational posters.

Probably a good thing my boss didn't melt into that hallucination... I'd have to seek help.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, controlled intoxication would imply that someone had to prepare the booze beforehand and meter it to the point where you could still walk away. Seeing as how the "No Problem" theory[1] is the most viable, one is forced to assume that accidental collapse on the part of the drinker is much the more likely answer.


[1] "I don't have a drinking problem. I drink, I get drunk, I fall down. No problem."