9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how the lower floors, which presumably aren't affected by the fire/heat, could have their angle clips compromised? Is it the shear force coming down on them, and not the weight, coming down on them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The forces caused by weight of the building were distributed among the columns. The weight of each floor was borne by the floor joists, which are attached to the columns by the angle clips. The floors themselves did not bear the weight of the floors above--that's borne by the columns. [Sorry if I butchered this--I'm not a physicist or engineer.]

Suddenly, here comes a whole lot of building falling down on to the floor below. This is more than the joists and clips were designed to handle, so they fail. The columns themselves are twisted and distorted by the falling structure. They also fail. (Think also of the I-35W bridge--once the structure failed, the steel began to twist and fracture in spectacular ways.) Each floor adds its weight to the one above and comes crashing in on the floor below.

It wasn't a neat and orderly process, either. Air compressed and expelled from the collapsing floors rushed outwards and also down elevator shafts, blowing out windows several floors below. These explosions of air are passed off by the 9/11 truth squad as squibs from controlled demolitions--even though they are haphazard and apparently random.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]


Nielsio responded with:

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhWkRAR1Vc

[/ QUOTE ]


So there's your answer, no data to back up the claims that the jets did insufficient damage to bring down the buildings, just conjecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll find that Nielsio is not capable of expressing a sustained argument, it's all links and one line slogans, and he doesn't know enough to be embarrassed by it either.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
That makes no sense. You said the floors came loose of the support structure. The floors surround the support structure. If the trusses fail and the floors start to fall then the support should still be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when there's several stories of building falling on it. As I said, LDO.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and another thing: this floor collapse theory fits with the video evidence in no way. NIST has a nice theory though: they say the floor concrete jumped up in mid-air and exploded itself. That was awesome to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to misrepresent what NIST wrote. Pathetic.

[ QUOTE ]
Why derail? Do you forfeit your point about down up versus up down?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ThaSaltCracka]

If the building fell as you described, is this the first time something like this has happened? One of the major tenets of the conspiracy argument seems to be buildings aren't meant to fall like this, in a situation like that. But this stance seems based on the fact that it "never" happened as opposed to it couldn't.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
1 ) How do you attach explosives to load-bearing I-beams in such a way that they stay in place during the initial violent explosions when the planes hit at 450+ MPH ?

2) What kind of explosive and remote detination device was used that could withstand the 1000+ fahrenheit fire for 55 minutes without cooking off ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where my OTIS theory comes in. Two freight elevators in each tower were "out of service." They were packed with explosives, and then traveled to the proper floor and went off. The proof of this is that even NIST admits that the collapse was caused by pancaking -- the weight of upper floors crashing down on the lower ones, creating a progressive collapse.

Eye witnesses state there was a line of UPS and FTD flower deliverers backed up waiting for elevators, proving the elevator shortage. These are not just any eyewitnesses, these are sworn depositions. At least that's what I heard.

I predict this elegant theory will soon be all over the nut wire, conveniently leaving out the fact that the author (me) thinks it's stupid, and came up with it only for sport.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
If the building fell as you described, is this the first time something like this has happened? One of the major tenets of the conspiracy argument seems to be buildings aren't meant to fall like this, in a situation like that. But this stance seems based on the fact that it "never" happened as opposed to it couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem with this argument is twofold--(1) there aren't many buildings like 1/2 WTC, so it's hard to know what "should've happened," and (2) nothing like the attack had ever happened before. No one had ever crashed a fully-fueled wide-body jet at 550 mph into a building before.

[LongRedHair]

[ QUOTE ]

An attempt at looking at things like that:

Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3615&hl=en
25m22s

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I did spend 25mins. watching it. He starts off by saying don't belive anything he says and I don't.

The reason is simply I have no idea what his qualifications are to talk about building implosions and he never said on video what his experience is. If you could please tell me which explosive demolition company he currently works for or has worked for in the past I will then be able to make a better judgement about what he says.

The reason I currently don't belive anything he says is because Protec say in THIS REPORT that everything he says is BS.
The tend to put more weight on the Protec's report because I know that they have experience blowing up over 1000 structure.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's the funny thing about conspiracy theories/theorists, they are always like "psh you guys believe everything you're told! idiots!!" but then they will point to the testimony of a small % of experts who may back their claim, and they'll believe that as absolute gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the funny thing about statists, they're always like "pshh, you conspiracy theorists will believe any conspiracy theory you hear, idiots!" Then they see a greater number of experts supporting the states' story on a few minor issues surrounding a major event, and believe it as absolute gospel, that the major event couldn't possibly have been a conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you're not an expert, it's usually a good strategy to believe the side with the most experts on it.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's the funny thing about conspiracy theories/theorists, they are always like "psh you guys believe everything you're told! idiots!!" but then they will point to the testimony of a small % of experts who may back their claim, and they'll believe that as absolute gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the funny thing about statists, they're always like "pshh, you conspiracy theorists will believe any conspiracy theory you hear, idiots!" Then they see a greater number of experts supporting the states' story on a few minor issues surrounding a major event, and believe it as absolute gospel, that the major event couldn't possibly have been a conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you're not an expert, it's usually a good strategy to believe the side with the most experts on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably true in general, but you need to be very careful how you define 'expert'.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's the funny thing about conspiracy theories/theorists, they are always like "psh you guys believe everything you're told! idiots!!" but then they will point to the testimony of a small % of experts who may back their claim, and they'll believe that as absolute gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the funny thing about statists, they're always like "pshh, you conspiracy theorists will believe any conspiracy theory you hear, idiots!" Then they see a greater number of experts supporting the states' story on a few minor issues surrounding a major event, and believe it as absolute gospel, that the major event couldn't possibly have been a conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you're not an expert, it's usually a good strategy to believe the side with the most experts on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably true in general, but you need to be very careful how you define 'expert'.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh sure, i agree.