World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That's debatable. At best you could say that they blindly believe whatever theories they are told to believe via a Youtube video. But most get a thrill out of being part of a small group; it gives them a sense of both being special and being part of a community. At the end of the day they know they're promulgating lies, but the emotional feedback the group gives them is worth the loss of integrity to them.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Does the Conservation of Momentum have anything to do with physics? Supposedly the top of the north tower above the impact zone could fall on the portion below the impact zone resulting in the total destruction of the building.

    After SEVENTEEN YEARS, minus three months, how could the lack of analysis of that supposed collapse taking the Conservation of Momentum into account not be funny since it could not be done without reasonably accurate distribution of mass data? The Wikipedia entry says the towers came down in 25 seconds, and that is because the remains of the core took longer than the commonly mentioned 11 seconds for the material outside the core.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Is there ever any reason to count the drones?
    I seriously doubt that they can tell reality from the fabrications surrounding an event. I was given all forty volumes of the Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor when I was fourteen. The elderly neighbor who gave them to me said "You like history, find the smoking gun in there."

    He later told me he was a veteran, too, having served with G. Washington at Valley Forge.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The collapse of the WTC towers has been extensively studied by engineers and (yes) physicists. Your claim that there has been a lack of analysis is silly. Equally silly is your claim that a competent engineer or physicist would ignore something like conservation of momentum, if it was relevant.
    RADII likes this.
  8. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    This is the kind of crap that makes this so funny.

    If it has been so extensively studied then you should know that the NIST said that the top of the south tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees. Consider the top 27 stories of a skyscraper with a 200 foot square footprint tilted approximately 22 degrees.

    Where was the center of gravity? Show us a link to where your physicists or engineers addressed that question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The bottom of that tilted portion was about 900 feet above the ground. But the CoG does not come up when the NIST also admitted that the Core supported 53% of the weight. The core was only 85 by 135 feet.

    Of course you know all that since you KNOW that the scientists and engineers did such extensive research.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I don't see the problem, psikeyhackr. You allude to something to do with centre of gravity, but you never actually explain what you think the problem is.
  10. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    So you mean that you have never seen something fall over when it tilted too far?

    How is "too far" determined?

    Now the obvious difference between the car and the tilted top portion of the south tower is that the road is not going to give way because the total weight of the car is concentrated on one side. How could one side of the lower portion of the tower take the weight and allow the top to tilt further. Why would the other side without the weight collapse? But then the entire top portion just disappeared in a dust cloud.

    When did the "scientists and engineers" explain these things?

    The Twin Towers destruction is totally unique. It is the lack of analysis that is the issue. It is the TRUE BELIEVER who can't figure out obvious questions that I have a problem with. I do not really care who did it any more.

    Oh Yeah! The NIST just had to say that global collapse was inevitable. LOL
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Because the destruction was not symmetrical, and the structure did not fail uniformly.
    Because the building relied on the entire structure (including connections between the external walls and the central core via the floor itself, and via horizontal spandrel beams that circle the tower) to support itself. Once a part of the floor gave way on one side, the rest of the structure followed quickly.
    Yes. Pressurized air was ejected from the broken window openings and carried a lot of dust.
    They've been explaining them regularly since 2001.
    Yes, it is - fortunately.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    That is not what happened in the tower collapse. It clearly did not lean over and then fall. The tower began to fall by having the one side buckle slightly ahead of the rest of the floor giving way, this caused the top of the tower to lean out as it was falling. If you watch a video of the tower falling it is obvious. Your need to have this huge grand conspiracy is clouding your perception.

    There is no mystery here. Some well financed asshole radicals attacked us.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i suggest a few basic ideas
    1 the foundations were probably insuficient & flawed (shifting - queue climate change issues)
    2 the construction design was flawed (thats farely obvious)
    3 all the materials used were probably poor quality (cheapest bidder wins to cut as many corners as possible to deliver cheapest possible product to make the maximum profit from the lowest price)
    4 various people in positions of power probably knew this

    occums razor...
    cheap low fire rated (if at all) wall boards with only a single centre of steel which is already cut into tiny small peices then bolted together by cheap low grade steel with even cheaper lower grade bolts...
    having an office fire the size of a jumbo jet funnelled up it like a furnace for several hours.
    super heating the plaster board all material and melting the cheap steel bolts
    there is no compresion resistance like concrete.
    impact force of say 200 tons on to the steel bolts which might only be able to hold say 20 ton sheer force...

    you can paint all sorts of boogy men on the outside of the event, however the basic facts looks like it was a total con job on the construction and an accident waiting to happen all paid for by stealing out of the tax payers pocket.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    There is no evidence that the foundations were flawed.
    Why? The design specs included surviving an impact by a smaller aircraft (707.) We of course don't know if it would have survived such an impact, but surviving the impact of a larger aircraft was beyond the design specs of the building. (The 707's at the time of the design of the WTC had a max takeoff weight of 312,000 lbs; the 767 can be as high as 450,000 lbs.)

    In retrospect, of course, there were a lot of things that could have been done differently - including using a more standard "steel skeleton" approach rather than a core plus curtain wall design, and having stronger protections on the fireproofing of the support beams in the center. However, also keep in mind that the building stood for almost an hour after being hit, indicating that at least the initial design could in fact withstand the impact. It was the fires that weakened the remaining structural members that eventually caused the collapse.
    "Cheapest materials that meet spec" is what pretty much everything in the world is designed with. I haven't seen any evidence that the materials did not meet spec.
    The fire was not hot enough to melt the bolts.
    There is no evidence that that was the case.
  15. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Nice bit of make believe.

    And what engineering school has modeled this in SEVENTEEN YEARS? How could they model it if they don't even talk about the Center of Gravity?
  16. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Oh, boy...
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Purdue, in 2007.
    They did.
  18. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Watching this is a must for anyone who purports to have an opinion on the twin towers issue.

    The New Pearl Harbor ~ full

    (2:40:27 time mark)

    Be sure to check out the comment section.
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Watch 5 hours of silly unentertaining bullshit. Are you nutz? Seriously, are you that deluded?????
    sideshowbob likes this.
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Make Believe...? Dude, seriously, you sound like a nut with this. Next thing we know, you'll be telling us you have 'insider knowledge' of the Twin Towers because your grandfather's uncle's best friend's girlfriend's brother hauled a few truckloads of steel to the construction site...
  21. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    This is one of the reasons for ROFLMAO

    First of all: It is not a collapse simulation it pretends to be an aircraft impact simulation. I have been talking about a collapse simulation.

    Second: They only simulate the top 20 stories. So that kind of screws up a collapse simulation anyway.

    Third: The NIST admits that the aircraft impact deflected the south tower 12 inches horizontally 130 feet below where the aircraft impacted. The Purdue simulation did not go that far down. They simulated the north tower.

    Fourth: If the south tower deflected on impact then the north tower had to also. The Purdue simulation does not move. Since energy had to be lost deflecting the building the damage calculation of the Purdue simulation had to be WRONG!

    This site is So Scientific about not noticing errors by Scientific Authority!
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    I have noticed that no one has provided a link where "scientists" and "engineers" have discussed the Center of Gravity of 27 stories of building 900 feet above the ground tilted at about 22 degrees. Yeah right, I'm nutty and this site is scientific.
  23. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Basic physics. The centre of gravity doesn't fall outside of the base support. It needs to be around 45 degrees before that occurs. Also, the building section tilted is still connected to the non tilted part so even less of the 22 degree spill will be in effect.

Share This Page