Q for Shades about 911 conspiracy

[_Sethbag]

Here's another engineering tidbit for you guys. About the pancaking. Keep in mind that the beams are designed to withstand a static load. Pancaking involves a dynamic load with significant energy.

Try this for a moment. Take a 35 lb iron ball. Set it on your toe. I'm guessing your toe can support the weight with some discomfort, but it'll remain structurally sound. Now drop that iron ball on your toe from a height of about 8 to 10 inches. I did this (it was a 35 lb kettlebell) a few months ago and my toenail was destroyed, my toe bled for hours, and my whole nail is now all messed up. In addition, it was one of the most painful experiences of my entire life. You see, my toe was sufficient to support a static 35 lb load, but was not up to the task of supporting the much greater instantaneous load that a falling kettlebell would put on through on impact.

When the beams of just one floor of the WTC towers gave way, the entire weight of all of the building above that point fell the, I dunno, 12-15 feet down to the next floor. The beams below, which previously had been able to support that weight, could not support the same weight moving downward after a 15 foot fall. The G-forces involved at the moment of impact would magnify the load tremendously.

Imagine if you built a 4 foot tall tower out of toothpicks, that was sufficiently strong to hold a brick without collapsing. Now drop that brick from 3 or 4 feet above your tower. Are you really that surprised at the idea that it might collapse almost instantaneously, at nearly the speed of a falling brick?

Imagine if you took a 1000 foot high steel girder, and dropped a bowling ball onto the top of it. If you had a device at the bottom of it to measure the shockwave from the impact, how long do you think it would take to register the impact? The real answer is something like less than a second. But how long would it take a bowling ball to fall 1000 feet? About 8 seconds neglecting air resistance, a bit longer taking air resistance into account. The shockwaves from higher levels of the building falling into the support beams of the floors below would be transmitted downward through the steel beams at much higher speeds than the speed of falling building materials. The beams below were already suffering under the forces of the impacts of falling building onto the floors below well before the falling material actually got down to their level.

I don't know what the cross sectional area of the WTC towers was, but whatever it was, multiply it by 12 to 15 feet of vertical space, or whatever the spacing was between floors, and come up with a volume in cubic feet of air, and then imagine that as the whole thing came down, that volume of air was squished out of the building in a small fraction of a second. That's what caused the billowing clouds of debris blowing out the sides.

[_Bryan Inks]

Here's another engineering tidbit for you guys. About the pancaking. Keep in mind that the beams are designed to withstand a static load. Pancaking involves a dynamic load with significant energy.

Try this for a moment. Take a 35 lb iron ball. Set it on your toe. I'm guessing your toe can support the weight with some discomfort, but it'll remain structurally sound. Now drop that iron ball on your toe from a height of about 8 to 10 inches. I did this (it was a 35 lb kettlebell) a few months ago and my toenail was destroyed, my toe bled for hours, and my whole nail is now all messed up. In addition, it was one of the most painful experiences of my entire life. You see, my toe was sufficient to support a static 35 lb load, but was not up to the task of supporting the much greater instantaneous load that a falling kettlebell would put on through on impact.

When the beams of just one floor of the WTC towers gave way, the entire weight of all of the building above that point fell the, I dunno, 12-15 feet down to the next floor. The beams below, which previously had been able to support that weight, could not support the same weight moving downward after a 15 foot fall. The G-forces involved at the moment of impact would magnify the load tremendously.

Imagine if you built a 4 foot tall tower out of toothpicks, that was sufficiently strong to hold a brick without collapsing. Now drop that brick from 3 or 4 feet above your tower. Are you really that surprised at the idea that it might collapse almost instantaneously, at nearly the speed of a falling brick?

Imagine if you took a 1000 foot high steel girder, and dropped a bowling ball onto the top of it. If you had a device at the bottom of it to measure the shockwave from the impact, how long do you think it would take to register the impact? The real answer is something like less than a second. But how long would it take a bowling ball to fall 1000 feet? About 8 seconds neglecting air resistance, a bit longer taking air resistance into account. The shockwaves from higher levels of the building falling into the support beams of the floors below would be transmitted downward through the steel beams at much higher speeds than the speed of falling building materials. The beams below were already suffering under the forces of the impacts of falling building onto the floors below well before the falling material actually got down to their level.

I don't know what the cross sectional area of the WTC towers was, but whatever it was, multiply it by 12 to 15 feet of vertical space, or whatever the spacing was between floors, and come up with a volume in cubic feet of air, and then imagine that as the whole thing came down, that volume of air was squished out of the building in a small fraction of a second. That's what caused the billowing clouds of debris blowing out the sides.

The only problem with the pancake idea is that it takes time for said energy to be transmitted. It isn't a lot of time, but it is longer than the near-free fall times that were documented.

I've watched a building pancake on the news. It took nearly 2 minutes for the building to collapse, and that building was nowhere near the height of the WTC.

I said it before and I'll repeat myself here. There's too many things that just don't add up.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I said it before and I'll repeat myself here. There's too many things that just don't add up.

But why is it so hard to believe that terrorists from the middle east would hijack airliners and fly them into high profile targets in America? They already tried to bring down the towers in '93 (or was that an inside job too, by Bush and Cheney before they were even in the White House). Muslim terrorists want to commit terrorists acts in America? No way.

Why is it easier to believe that government officials snuck into the WTC and planted explosives, nobody saw them apparently, and as Sethbag points out, these explosive detonators survive the impact and inferno and detonate an hour later in the exact spot where the planes hit (talk about some impressive flying). And no plane even hit the Pentagon, instead it was diverted to some other location and everyone executed, while a truck bomb blew up the pentagon and then they made up the story of the plane hitting it. And then the "phony" government story says most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a US ally, and the mastermind was a guy from Afghanistan who also hides out in Pakistan. And the government made up that story as an excuse to invade Iraq? WTF? If it is all a government conspiracy to justify attacking Iraq, why not say Saddam Hussein ordered it?

It makes my head spin making sense of any of that. It's like trying to make sense of Mormon apologetics.

[_Dr. Shades]

SatanWasSetUp, have you watched this video?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

SatanWasSetUp, have you watched this video?

It's a long video, but i'll watch it.

[Alf'Omega]

Oh, there's no doubt about the fact that some (ie many) of the so-called "truth claims" made about 9/11 are outrageous. No doubt whatsoever.

I did watch a 2 hour speech given by an engineer (wish I could find the link) that was pretty compelling. No frills, no sensationalizing... just a straightforward look at the evidence. That guy was very convincing.

I totally admit that the majority of the people I've encountered or listened to make some pretty outrageous claims when it comes to who's behind it, why and how they did it. I would never make an assessment or theory of what happened that day because I simply don't know enough. I just think people are kidding themselves if they completely believe what they've heard from our media. I mean, can you really trust any of the interested parties' sources?

I just don't know. I don't believe either/any side, quite frankly. I'm a 9/11 agnostic.

[_richardMdBorn]

I suggest that people watch

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action= ... eId=240087

The next time it is aired.

[_Coggins7]

I've got the entire Popular Mechanics analysis here on disk. Perhaps we should go over it, point by point.

But having to do that with other adults in this day and age makes my stomach hurt.

[_Bryan Inks]

I said it before and I'll repeat myself here. There's too many things that just don't add up.

But why is it so hard to believe that terrorists from the middle east would hijack airliners and fly them into high profile targets in America? They already tried to bring down the towers in '93 (or was that an inside job too, by Bush and Cheney before they were even in the White House). Muslim terrorists want to commit terrorists acts in America? No way.

Why is it easier to believe that government officials snuck into the WTC and planted explosives, nobody saw them apparently, and as Sethbag points out, these explosive detonators survive the impact and inferno and detonate an hour later in the exact spot where the planes hit (talk about some impressive flying). And no plane even hit the Pentagon, instead it was diverted to some other location and everyone executed, while a truck bomb blew up the pentagon and then they made up the story of the plane hitting it. And then the "phony" government story says most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a US ally, and the mastermind was a guy from Afghanistan who also hides out in Pakistan. And the government made up that story as an excuse to invade Iraq? WTF? If it is all a government conspiracy to justify attacking Iraq, why not say Saddam Hussein ordered it?

It makes my head spin making sense of any of that. It's like trying to make sense of Mormon apologetics.

I'm not saying that other people weren't involved.

Lord, why does everyone seem to have this "all or nothing" approach to this topic.

Here's my problems with the attack, the people "involved", and its aftermath.

A. 12 of the 19 hijackers are still alive.

B. Those few of the hijackers that don't appear to be alive were Saudi Arabians, and yet for some f*****g reason, we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. *Bush family has close financial ties with Saudi Royalty*

C. The "BinLaden Video" that claims credit for the attack does not show BinLaden and praises hijackers for dieing, despite their still being alive. You'd think that the organizer of the attack would know who he sent, right?

D. The funds that were supposedly given to these men for the attack came from a man, known to work for the CIA, who was in DC on 9/11 eating breakfast with top government officials. And according to the official report who funded the attack and how is not important.

And in answer to your attempted snark about the previous bombing of the WTC, the answer is yes, it was.

The CIA funded it and supplied the materials and that has been proven, with documentation, by one of the CIA agents involved.

As to why not just say that Saddam did it?. . . Bush did. Remember the whole "Saddam has close links to BinLaden and AQ" fiasco?

And then someone pointed out that Saddam had no connection to BinLaden, but Bush did? You don't remember that? On the day of 9/11, Bush Sr. was in a meeting with Osama's brother Shafig, at a Carlyle Group meeting *one of the groups that has made s***-tons of money off this war*

You don't find that interesting? Or do you chalk it up as mere coincidence?

I could maybe chalk it up as coincidence, but the chances of 50+ coincidences all happening on the same day with such a devastating immediate result (not to mention the 10-35 years of death and b***s*** in Iraq, that's come because of it). . . there's too much there to just go with the flow.

[_Gadianton]

I watched the entire L2 film last night. One part I didn't get. Flight 93. What was the point? To take all those from the other flights and get rid of them?