@ smokinggun (sorry Kev, I'm slow-typing tonight) You haven't bothered reading this thread, have you?
I just watched the first 10 adjective-packed minutes of the video and I'm able to poke holes directly through Mr Gage's explanations of what happened thus far. I think 10 minutes on that heap of regurgitated, deliberately narrow-minded, inciteful tripe is very generous.
Oh.. and the total number of architects and architectural employees and students WORLDWIDE that subscribe to this stupid moron's theories amount to less than 1% of the total number of architects and architecture-related professionals in the US alone. And if you think it's just because the other 99% haven't considered the causes of the collapses, you would be very, very wrong.
Well, if you believe certain websites, then it's because NASA were told in no and uncertain terms to stay away from the moon by a group of extra terrestrials, who had a large mining complex on it
But if you believe NASA, then they didn't return because there was basically sod all there. And as Stang has said, the costs of getting there and back where insanely high they could no longer justify it, to simply pick up a few rocks for a museum.
Wow, a whole year, i bet you'll know everything about everything now then !. During this year long research did you have a look to see who Richard Gage is, and if any of his claims can or have been debunked ?
And who the hell are you ? I'm guessing you're a regular, using a dummy account.
Sam: Do you buy the whole business about planes and fires knocking the buildings down, or are you just maintaining skepticism because there's no evidence either way?
I'm not an engineer, or even a particularly analytical thinker, but I find this whole business to be too much of a coincidence. Three 50+ storey buildings all falling perfectly onto their own footprints without being professionally pulled? How the hell do demolition experts make a living when buildings just fall like that naturally nearly all the time?
Because it's terribly expensive to crash a fully-fueled 757 into a building every time... not to mention the lack of kamikaze pilots who will sign up for the job...
So did the planes or the fire cause the collapse? The planes can't have caused uniform damage across the floors they struck (especially not the second tower strike) so the resulting fire must've been especially diligent in burning hotter at the places where the planes didn't do enough damage in order to bring the building down flat.
I'm really not trying to give credence to the demo theory, I just don't buy the accepted story at all and I don't have any appropriate knowledge to bring to bear to explain that behaviour in any other way.
I'm not a believer either way. I don't believe the official report is sufficient. It's a lie by omission, in large part.
That said, these conspiracy theories are no less faulty. It's simply not reasonable for me to be skeptical of the official version and not apply the same level of skepticism to the theorists' arguments. When I do that, I find that there is more information available than that which is offered, and that the theorists also manipulate the information in their delivery, and also do so through omission.
The other problem I have is that people, like (but not only) Racer X NZ are susceptible and are faithful followers of good-sounding conspiracy theories, whether or not they have value. A few people, in the last couple of days, spotted the one that I introduced myself:
And off we went. Proof of a conspiracy, right? I didn't lie, though. What I posted is true. And that's the problem.. I chose not to mention what dihydrogen oxide is. It's water.
I believe there is a conspiracy. The conspiracy I believe exists is not the body of what is in this thread, and I do think this stuff has been thoroughly debunked. And yet a conspiracy remains.. how Bush got us to go to Afghanistan, and Iraq (and Iran next), and how Haliburton got to Iraq, and how the price of oil has gone nuts despite the fact that ALL of the oil pumped out of Iraq is completely unmetered, and will be until it turns a profit (which it can't ever do, because it's unmetered), and who's getting that free oil, and where it's going, and who's ultimately paying for. By comparison these conspiracy theories, pushed deceitfully, pale by comparison with the bigger picture.
I agree it's hard to know who's got what agenda when it comes to explaining stuff like this. You have to love the way Michael Moore's positioned himself as the peoples champion against his corrupt government but he's surely made millions out of Bush being in office, and by employing dishonest journalism.
Anyway, until the US government decides to fully disclose what it knows and put all their evidence in the public domain, I'm going to continue to treat the whole sorry mess as a shockingly callous mechanism that a bunch of greedy oilmen used to line their own pockets. Given that they're the only people who could prove otherwise and they choose not to, and given the really blatant related lies we've already been offered, it seems disingenuous to credit them with sincerity about any of it.
I like to think I have a functional bullshitometer, and my common sense tells me there's just no way the US government could've been anything but complicit in the whole affair, if not responsible for conceiving and implementing the whole plan. If "experts" want to try to make it stick with science then that's up to them - I'm in no position to review their findings.
Well, you could say that demolition "experts" have really been running a highly successful and high-paying scam for the last century. That, or million (plus)-ton steel-framed buildings simply don't and can't implode neatly, which begs an obvious question...
Here are reproductions of Engineering News articles from the late 60s/early 70s giving details about the WTC construction (interesting articles in and of themselves actually). I found this particularly interesting:
That's a seriously hefty piece of metal. I wonder if anyone here could be bothered working out how much heat it would take to weaken just one column sufficiently to make it fail, all at once, and fall straight down, not just bend or fall over. They'd then have to multiply that by the total number of core columns (16 I think) and work out the probability of that exact same scenario happening twice, in identical buildings with exactly the same effect (I'm sure a demolition expert or a structural engineer could have a decent crack at it).
I'm sure someone will mention the "pancake theory" (one floor smacking onto the one below, perfectly flat and even, in sequence, fast enough to collapse the tower, at the same time as every single steel support column in the core fails at precisely the same time as each other) but going by what I saw (buildings almost falling from the bottom up) as well as what I've just read about the floor design & various load-bearing capacities of floors and floor supports, that seems less likely to me than ever.
Hypotheticals and my non-engineering background aside, these articles give a good indication of how the WTC towers were built and the methods and materials used. These things were tough as hell and, it seems to me anyway, should've taken something a little more substantial than a mostly hollow aluminium & plastic aircraft to bring down. We're talking a few hundred tons of thin aluminium plate & plastic reducing the largest skyscraper in the world, constructed on a skeleton of over 200,000 tons of solid steel columns many feet thick, to rubble in seconds. Twice. I don't have any theories myself (I'm suprised anyone does, including the government, considering the shameful lack of evidence), but that does not compute.
Extraordinary things happen in extraordinary circumstances. Sometimes things happen that are plain inconceivable. In the aftermath of a tornado, I've seen a pencil pierce the rear panel of a pickup truck, cans of coke exploded through the sheer violence of atmospheric pressure change as a tornado passed by, and whole houses picked up and deposited hundreds of yards away with almost no perceivable damage at all.
Sometimes things genuinely happen that, no matter how long you pour over them, you just can't get your head around.. but it doesn't change the fact that they happened, and it isn't *always* proof, in and of itself, that a conspiracy exists.
Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
so they were fused together from sheet metal at considerabely lower temperatures than where the steel would melt which will cause structural weak points and bonds that should be able to be broken at the same lower than melting temperatures
I really hate repeating myself, so if you read my past posts, you will see that the central columns are NOT the reason for the buildings' collapse. It's the trusses spanning from the core to the outer skeleton that failed.
Ughhh... again, as you stated, this HAS been mentioned. First off, the buildings collapsed from the point of impact. That is where the collapse started, and it worked its way down from there. The collapse was NOT a pancake collapse, as is clearly seen by simply watching the videos. It was simply a matter of the top part smashing its way through the bottom.
*sigh* Did you read any of this thread? I actually went through great pains to explain how the collapse happened. I don't see what's so surprising about BOTH buildings going down. Don't you think it's more likely that if a design fault caused one to collapse, the other would collapse too? Seeing as they were both subjected to the same exact attack? I personally would find it MORE odd if only ONE fell down. Read my post on, I think page three (the loooong one.) That gives a somewhat detailed explanation as to why they collapsed.
Are you sure? It seems to me that the top part - at least on the first tower that goes down (can't remember the second) disintegrates pretty early on. I don't think it stayed in one piece and obliterated everything in its path. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that either.
Right. Now you made me go and watch the footage again, and now I'm sad.
Stang, let's say your right about the towers, do you have any answer to all these highly suspicious things?
The passports found, Bin Laden saying he's not responsible, wouldn't he be all proud and happy it all worked out his way, wouldn't he say that he did it? What about that fake Bin Laden video where he do confess he did it, where he wears a ring, writes with right hand, and looks NOTHING like Bin Laden?
How about 9 of aleged terrorists found ALIVE and well, claiming that they have nothing to do with all that? and the fact that they never officialy confirmed who are the terrorists... so... where's the justification to go to war(s)?
I've been meaning to mention this so many times, and yet it's never slotted in. This idea that the buildings came down on their own footprint - this is just not true. It's a myth. The buildings came down over a much larger area than their footprint. They came down like a Mr Whippy.. like a dog turd. The tops of the buildings came down vertically almost like freefall, but the structures beneath peeled out like bananas.
What does? Fake Bin Laden video was officialy released, passports are also officialy found, and the fact that the "terrorists" are alive is from Loose Change, haven't checked that fact thouroughly..
You know what. It may have well been a government conspiracy. But that doesn't mean that the planes WEREN'T responsible for the collapse of the towers! Why MUST it be more complicated than that? I'm pretty certain that even if the buildings hadn't collapsed, most Americans would have been just as willing to attack Afghanistan.
I'm not trying to make a point that it was or was not an inside job. I'm simply trying to make the point that I BELIEVE the collapse was not a result of explosives, or aliens or drunk drivers... that the planes and subsequent fire were enough to bring them down. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
As i said, maybe you're right, maybe the planes themselves were enough to cause the collapse, maybe fire on couple of floores of WTC7 were also enough to cause it collapse, but you are realising, and i'm glad that you do, that very likely, it was all an inside job, and that's a very very scary fact...
I read your posts, thanks for your concern. This thread isn't about you and my post wan't directed at you personally, but of course in a forum you're free to respond to anything you like. However, I don't see the value in sighing and groaning like some frustrated 14-year old, throwing in the odd CAPS LOCK assault and accusing me of rank ignorance. Certainly doesn't add any credibility to your content.
I expressed my doubts. That's all. Then I shared some info I found interesting and which only served to strengthen those doubts. If people are going to take that personally or as some kind of sign that I'm blatantly ignoring their sage wisdom, I can't help that. This thread's going around in facking circles anyway, like every other thread on this topic inevitably does.
In a controlled demo, everything is removed from the buildings which can be removed to assist the implosion (ie provide as little resistance as possible) but still leave the structure standing. When the implosion happens they're just destroying an empty shell. The WTC towers didn't come down perfectly, there's no doubt about that. There was resistance every step of the way from walls, glass, exterior steel columns & concrete (the "peeling" effect, the great clouds of dust), interior office fixtures etc., hence the slight topple of one of the towers and the massive spread of debris on the ground. In the end though, it was about as near-perfect a footprint as you can probably expect from two fully-fitted 110-storey buildings.
Utterly regardles of the cause, the extremely fast free-fall of both towers is always going to bother me. Granted, it could be a design flaw, as someone suggested. If that's so, I'm wondering how this flaw could affect both buildings in exactly the same way (ie causing total, instant collapse) when the airliner impacts on each building were dozens of floors apart, on different angles of approach, causing different patterns of damage.
Have a read of this Hank. It may not answer all your questions, but it's an interesting insight none the less.
Edit: I've added another document, which although long goes into a lot of detail concerning the events at WTC on 9/11, but primarily revolves around claims made by a Dr Griffins criticism of the official NIST report. It's a very very interesting read.
You're right. This thread is going in circles. Which is why I *sigh*ed. If you'd read previous posts, you'd have seen that the pancake theory was already discussed. You are absolutely free to discuss anything you wish, but at this point, you're only another part of the repetitive process.
Thanks Mazz4200 :up: I've heard of Dr Griffin's criticism but not read it. Now I shall depart, lest I attract more stern disapproval from the keepers of the thread.
I've finally found the time to read those documents you linked to, and very interesting they are too.
I can't claim to understand everything i read. But i know for certain that the theory of "pancaking" isn't mentioned once in either document, infact they hardly mention the failure of the lower (undamaged) sections of the buildings at all. I also know for certain that your quoted sentence from the second document is taken completely out of context. All you've done is quote a line from part of their evaluation process of a huge on going scientific experiment, and completely avoided (or failed to understand) the summery of their findings; i.e
"The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
You've fallen into that old conspirators trap of only quoting something if it fits with your particular theory, and completely ignore anything and everything else that doesn't fit (including the main findings of the official report)
Go check it yourself. And to save you time having to wade through the whole 292 page document, go directly to Chapters 6 and 8 and read thoroughly.
Seriously Racer X, start checking stuff out for yourself before making such wild statements, and stop being so naive. Don't just believe the first thing you read on a conspiracy theory website. Check your sources, know your enemy, and stop being such a wally
George W. Bush is simply the President of the USA; he is not some sort of king, or deity; he is an administrator, the head of the Executive branch of the U.S. government. Virtually everything that he does, involves the knowledge, and requires the assent and cooperation, of other persons, who have their own understandings and their own consciences. And there are competing branches, and other agencies, of the U.S. government, and laws and common practices that control them, and that provide "checks and balances" on the use of any Powers that may be asserted by the President.
It is a popular "conspiracy theory" that Bush deceived everyone into believing that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. A little thought should enable one to recognize that this is absurd. Mr. Bush had no recognizable, independent ability to know whether or not there were WMD's in Iraq; as I stated, he is no sort of deity or magic man. Instead, there are intelligence agencies (that long predated his being President), and other common, formal methods by which he would, and did, achieve any understanding of WMD's in Iraq, or other such matters.
It would be only slightly hyperbolic to say that "everybody in the world" was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD's (and this was true, btw; what was not, apparently, true was the expectation of the extent to which Hussein had WMD's; that expectation had been based upon what was previously understood about Iraq's WMD's, and Hussein's further pursuit of them, and his elimination of the "inspections" that had been intended to keep track of the actual facts of the matter). All U.S. intelligence agencies reported their opinions, to the President, that Iraq had significant quantities of WMD's, and so did the intelligence services of many other nations, and the UN Security Council believed likewise. Furthermore, virtually every U.S. federal politician of note, gave a speech or press conference or something, urging concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD's. Yet somehow (according to "theory"), Bush (who, some say, is too stupid to tie his own shoelaces) nevertheless was the only guy in the world who actually knew the truth that "there were no WMD's in Iraq," and yet "lied" to everybody - by telling them what they already believed. Such a theory is senseless; in actuality, Bush was simply the U.S. government's administrator, who acted upon the information that was given to him by people whose professional function was to do that.
Halliburton got to Iraq, because it has long been a contractor to the U.S. government; it is a large enterprise with expertise in (among other things) matters of energy production and, particularly, oil fields. It was employed to put out the many oil well fires that occurred during the first Gulf War, and I suppose that its expertise was recognized and further utilized by the U.S. government, with regard to oil, and perhaps other, matters pertaining to the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq, subsequent to the invasion.
Afghanistan, btw, was known to be a (Taliban-controlled) state supporter of Osama bin Laden, who claimed responsibility for destroying the WTC towers, and other terrorist acts against the USA. That's why "Bush got us to go to" Afghanistan. The reasons for going to Iraq, I have elsewhere, in this forum, described (a couple of times, so if you're interested, you can check my previous postings, by clicking on my name) - the short version is that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was regarded as (among other things) a resource for Islamic terrorists, against which the USA was waging war; this is how warfare is conducted: eliminating the enemy's resources and thus ability to wage war; this is why the "Allies" in WWII, for example, destroyed many German factories, oil refineries, bridges and railroad tracks, hydroelectric dams, etc. (it is not because these objects were expected to jump up and invade Europe or the USA).
One reportedly major reason for increasing oil prices, is greatly increased demand - especially by China, which is very rapidly industrializing and therefore consuming much more oil than had previously been the case - and not so greatly increased supply. I don't know anything about "unmetered" Iraqi oil, although it has been reported that Iraq has been selling oil (and has achieved some political agreement, among Iraqis, pertaining to the equitable distribution of financial proceeds from the sale of oil), so I would assume that they thus know what they are selling, and what money they are getting from such sales - which would involve quantitative measurements.
Actually, we're talking about a few hundred tons of material, moving at several hundred miles per hour. That's quite a lot of kinetic energy, to be absorbed by the building. And that's not even counting the effects of a large amount of burning fuel.
Note that a bullet weighs a few ounces, and an artillery shell weighs a few pounds. Yet a tiny bullet's momentum can knock someone over, and bullets and artillery shells do considerable damage, by transferring their kinetic energy.
