What do you think happened on 9/11?

Originally posted by Zagros OK, say beams on a few floors at the mid sections bent, would that have caused the upper half to have at least fallen to the side rather than down? Even a tiny fraction? When the buildings collapsed it really did look like professional demolition, and I have seen large apt. blocks brought down. It really seems illogical for them to have come down so completely onto themselves...

Originally posted by Northman The steel skeleton, including weldings and rivets in the lower levels was not affected by the fires and had their full strength when this hammer came vertically down and demolished the building, storage by storage from the top.

I still fail to see how this storage by storage "pancake" collapse would progress at the rate of free fall. The inertia of the lower floors should slow the progress of the collapse front. Both towers collapsed in less than 15s, while the "pan-cake" theory, as can be shown by a simple application of the law conservation of momentum, predicts at leat 40s (see paper by Kenneth Kuttler at Birmingham Young University).

I fail to see why anything should "bend over" - it was crushed level by level from the top and the solid skeleton below kept it all in place on its way down.

Actually if you look at the videos and the FEMA reports the top of one of the towers does bend slightly, and then suddenly puverizes in the middle of the air.
http://www.greatdreams.com/south_tower_collapse.jpg
What causes the top floors to pulverize like this? Intuitively, I would just expect it to fall over, rather than dissapear into dust.

You can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEpAkF1ikw

I've never demolished anything but a couple of brick-chimneys when I was in the army. But I have seen what a strong fire can do to steel beams and their joints.

I do not think fire caused the collapse. Many skyscrapers have burned before, including the one in Madrid, none has ever collapsed.

The impact of a boeing 707 is very different then a Boeing 747 or 67 or 77. I did not know that a B25 hit the Empire State Building (which is a structure made of stronger material - concrete and steel - than the twin towers - steel and glass). Inorder for there to be a demolition there would have had to be weeks if not atleast o month of prep. The idea of this is absurd, the problem here is not that the towers came down "symetrically" but rather that people don't want to believe things that the government says. The sheer force of a 1/4 of a structures weight crashing down on that structure will cause the collapse of that sturcture in the direction of that falling wieght. Ergo if you cut down a tree evenly that is you hack away at the base from both sides the tree with first go straight down (on to the stump) the slide off. If a building has 1/4 of it's floors hacked off it will fall in on itself and the force of that fall will come crashing down magnified on each successive floor. This is what happened on 9/11 there was no governmental conspiracy to bring down the towers. Being struck by lightnigh or attacked by a shark is very unlikely but it still happens. Just because the odds are unlikely doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
    

Edited by King John - 31-Dec-2006 at 03:48

I've seen only 1 documentary on this matter but I was told it's the best one.

The other great opium of the masses, outside of the fast food media,  is conspiracy theories. With the latter symptomatic of the former. Your never told the complete story but nevertheless we fill in the gaps ourselves with even less informed ideas or more dubious stories.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Statements like that often comes back and bites its creator in the behind: be careful when you make them (mine own experience here).  ;)

I am very well aware of that. I have published scientific papers in journals myself, and I do not to make unsubstantiated claims unless I am certain in them.  But here I am convinced I am right, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. Do the "pancake" calculation yourself. A pancake collapse requires at least 40 seconds to occur.
 

And no, it's absolutely not physically impossible. There can be many explanations. The pancake theory, as you call it, is not the only explanation. I checked the principal structure of the WTC 1&2 towers, and apparently they had a supporting core of riveted steel beams, on which the floors "hanged". It's highly possible these were weakened by the blast and thus caused the collapse, which also would look like a "controlled" demolition (I don't really like making this comparation though, the human mind is faaar to quick to make stupid conclusions like: "huh, it looks like that, so it must be like that" and then stick with it to the death no matter what).

The official FEMA and NIST say it was  a pancake collapse. And yes a symmetric pancake collapse, however unlikely, would indeed look like controlled demolition, but it would take for it 40 seconds to happen as the structural integrity of the floors below was never compromised, and they slow down the collapse of the upper floor. This is  an inviolable law of physics.

That day, all three WTCs collapsed at the free rate of fall, this is a verifiable FACT, this is evidence that cannot be neglected, it is a key issue that has to be explained by all reports that look at the issue. But NIST cannot explain it, neither do any of the government sponsored papers I have looked at. Most of them ignore it, those that have the integrity to mention it make the hand-waving argument that the kinetic energy of the upper floors was far greater than the ability of the building to resist, but they give absolutely no evidence to verify this assertion. This is what the FEMA entire report, supposedly the most authoritative, says about the collapse dynamics:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity, this sequence is referred to as the �probable collapse sequence,� although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

Source:
http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2005/wjeffreyhousesciencewtc10-26-05.pdf

This report was supposed to explain how the building collapsed but it ignores the very fact that it is supposed to explain. It is just absurd.
 

And I think conspiracy fanatics should let the dead rest in peace. Plots like this you can only find in a Hollywood movie, they wouldn't work in real life. Even if someone would be so totally bonkers as to sacrifice 3,000 of their own citizens it just wouldn't be doable. There's always leaks, such a complex conspiracy like the one suggested is simply too complex to work. And if they would be so bloody scrupolous as people suggest the most loud "conspiracy!"-yellers would have been stopped, silenced or dead in car accidents by now.

You are so in denial. You do not approach this issue independently, you approach it from the perspective of someone who thinks the government could not have done it. I argue in good faith and all I want is answers and explanations which are physically plausible, and not half-baked cover ups.

And what you do? Calling someone a conspiracy fanatic (1/3 of the American people now) is an ad hominem argument. Is this former brittish prime minister a conspiracy fanatic too?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3827383890990988216

It is difficult to bring people like you to look at the issue independently, because you refuse to accept the possibility of this being a demolition, as the consequences of this would completely shatter your world view. You choose instead  the comfortable position of believing in the government story, rather than accepting a possibility that would compel you to take action. It is nice to be in denial when the truth is so uncomfortable.

May the dead rest in peace, and may the truth of why they died finally come out. For it will.

 






Edited by bg_turk - 31-Dec-2006 at 12:24

Bg_Turk it's funny that you keep saying that the NIST said that there was a "pancake collapse" Your source says differently and I quote "NIST�s findings do not support the �pancake theory� of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system�that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns�consisted of a grid of steel �trusses� integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon." (from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm). You seem to be overlooking what your own sources say or if not overlooking then merely mis-interpreting them.

You say that you have published scientific papers in Journals before. What are you qualifications, do you hold an advanced degree in Architecture, Physics, or Engineering? What Journals have you published in?
    

Edited by King John - 31-Dec-2006 at 14:45

Come on now this debate is truly ridiculous. I have to agree with Styrbiorn here that the US government couldn't have planned this out from beginning to end. Think of the implications it would have if any of those facts could have come out and probably very easily if it were so. You would have a full scale revolution instantly even here in the US. What about Bin Laden admitting that he was the mastermind of this attack? How else could they get people to sacrifice their lives for this attack or are you saying that they knew and didn't do anything?'

Please stop trying to justify 9/11 as something that the Bush administration had a hand in. You can say anything about Bush and his neo-cons about the events after but as far as the terrorist attack blame the terrible failing of US intelligence.

I also agree with Styrbiorn and Vulkan02 on this. I cannot conceive the US government creating this terrible act, to risky and i think the conspirators give them way to much credit for thinking they could pull it off. If things are going 'to plan' (the US plan) then maybe they should plan again. US power has suffered since the war as they fumble from one mistake to another. If they were so good at hoodwinking us all with such a sophisticated plan of deception then you could assume they would be able to pull off  the war.

Originally posted by konstantinius Regardless of the incredulity of conspiracy theories (and I certainly don't want to believe that our own goverment killed 3.000  of its own citizens) there are legimitate unanswered questions about the time leading up to 9/11 and the goverment's response to it. These icluded repeated warnings throughout the summer of 2001 that some strike is inevitable. Ascroft and Bush were personally warned about Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden. Even if there is no foul play involved, I charge the goverment with the same criminal ineptitute they showed during Katrina. Couple this with the intelligense fiasco concerning the WMD's in Iraq and we have the picture of a chef who has completely lost control of the operations in his complicated kitchen and the dishes are all coming out yuky!

Intelligence failures can almost always explained by human cognitive lapses or blind spots. Stuff like that happens to every human (and every human organization) as our brains are wired in a certain way. We normally only remember and read what reinforces our own existing assumptions and bias, on a subconscious level. Just like our eyes that can only focus on one thing at a time, our minds do exactly that. So you can have all the evidence at hand but if your assumptions are contrary then such evidence melts into the general 'noise' that dogs all intelligence agencies. Such assumptions are perpetuated and reinforced throughout the total intelligence cycle ; planning (leadership) > gathering > analysis and conclusions.

The leaders are ultimately responsible, from the president down.




Edited by Leonidas - 01-Jan-2007 at 01:13

Bg_Turk where are you getting your statics from? No matter what the historical event is there will always be conspirscy theorists. In this case the only conspiracy is that of the terrorists (Al-qaeda), the Government had nothing to do with it. In previous posts you have noted the implausability of the "pancake effect" and reported what the NIST found. But the NIST actually doesn't support your statements (see my above post). As a matter of curiousity what makes you so adamant about the gov'ts involvement?