Alternative news sources

[Sean]

That's certainly a question Giuliani has sidestepped many times- he's on film marching down the street just after the impacts saying that he's been told the WTC is coming down...

[MishaK]

One short reply for now, in the early hours here-

Well MishaK, if you knew the tower was going to collapse you were in a small minority of people, most of whom are extremely suspicious characters, including Mayor Giuliani and leaseholder Silverstein.

More to the point, the fire department's 300 men not to mention 3000 others inside, never thought for a moment that a fire way up on a few floors would demolish the whole building.

You didn't think to make any calls to warn anyone with you great insight I suppose...

You're a weasel, Sean.

I was in a large group, all of whom had made the wise choice to vacate the area in as expedient and ordely a fashion as possible, because all of us were aware that staying close to a burning, flaming 100+ story tower with people and large chunks of steel facade falling from it would be an extremely boneheaded idea that would put us all in extreme danger. There was nobody I needed to warn because they were all a lot smarter than you, apparently, and were doing the right thing in the first place. The first responders on the scene had a duty to rescue people and save what could be saved, which is why they did what they did. I'm sure none of them knew at that moment exactly how much fuel was in those planes and how intensely that (and the contents of the offices) would burn or how extensive the structural damage was exactly until the first tower came down. After that, you bet they knew the second tower would likely follow the same fate and that's also coincidentally why they didn't even bother with WTC 7.

As to Giuliani, your answers are here: http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning.html

Buckling was visually evident on the facade before the south tower came down. Again, completely consistent with the structural damage and the weakening from the fire. No sinister conspiracies required for someone to observe the obvious and warn the people in charge.

I note that you are still failing to provide a positive theory that strings all of your beliefs about 9-11 together into a coherent narrative. Is it really that hard?

[MishaK]

Actually, now thinking about it some more, the Giuliani point is probably the dumbest piece of circumstatial "evidence" put forth by the truthers. If Giuliani was in on the plot (which he necessarily had to have been), why did he go into the danger zone at all? Why did someone have to warn him only shortly before the collapse of the south tower of that tower's imminent collapse? This makes no sense at all.

[Parsifal]

It's been demonstrated many times by scholars that the pancaking theory doesn't work and any downward movement of upper material should be absorbed and stopped again.

No it hasn't. Not by any scholars of structural engineering. Not sure what "scholars" you refer to.

Apparently there is a community of "scholars" who do not accept Newton's laws of motion.   When the structure in the damaged section of the building gave way the more-or-less intact top section of the building was unsupported and started to fall.  The more-or-less intact lower portion of the building was called upon to "catch" it.  Newton's second law tells us that an enormous force would have been necessary to neutralize the downward momentum of the falling upper section of the structure.  This is why the lower portion of the building was not strong enough to arrest the collapse, although it was strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper portion of the building.

[MishaK]

Apparently there is a community of "scholars" who do not accept Newton's laws of motion.   When the structure in the damaged section of the building gave way the more-or-less intact top section of the building was unsupported and started to fall.  The more-or-less intact lower portion of the building was called upon to "catch" it.  Newton's second law tells us that an enormous force would have been necessary to neutralize the downward momentum of the falling upper section of the structure.  This is why the lower portion of the building was not strong enough to arrest the collapse, although it was strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper portion of the building.

Also, these anti-Newtonians don't believe in the existence of kinetic energy, because according to them an aluminum aircraft obviously should not even be able to penetrate a steel building, much less cause its wholesale destruction. 

[North Star]

Also, these anti-Newtonians don't believe in the existence of kinetic energy, because according to them an aluminum aircraft obviously should not even be able to penetrate a steel building, much less cause its wholesale destruction. 

So Isaac is in on this WTC thing, too!

[Sean]

MishaK I just looked up weasel, meaning a deceitful or treacherous person- go on then, it's not easy to get by in life without a little deceit. I guess you're some other kind of rodent, not sure which right now but I'll make a choice.

Nor do you understand that this was intentionally a lightweight structure in order to create open floor plans.

It was also a structure intentionally and successfully designed to withstand airliner impacts.

Note that it caves toward the point of impact.

Well there's a tilt in the top half when it falls, can't remember which one, but the thing still comes down vertically because the supports beneath are being rapidly removed- there's never a chance of it toppling over as anyone would expect.

Not sure what "scholars" you refer to.

Check out the Journal of 9/11 studies.

The antenna indeed ended up in the graveyard of Trinity Church a few blocks away - so much for "controlled" demolition

Blown out sideways by forces beyond any gravitational collapse.

Which means the collapse of a building just from falling upper floors under gravity.

I already know about the debunking sites and they're full of quaint oddities I find myself talking to like you.

But from the questions you ask I know you haven't seen the relevant videos from the opposing view- see if you can bring yourself to, you might even have a catastrophic religious conversion. Really there are endless scholarly articles and discussions that answer your rather naïve questions in the last paragraph of that post...

Sign yourself up.

[kishnevi]

What it boils down is this:
The evidence is fully consistent with the "official" story,  and there exists a coherent, logical narrative in which the human actors act like human beings.  (I would have said "normal human beings" but obviously this does not apply to Mohammed Atta and companions.)

There is no actual evidence for the "alternative" story, which barely deserves the name, since there is no coherent, logical narrative behind it, and such narrative as if offered requires thousands of people to act against their own interests without any motivation to do so, for an extended (now more than a decade) period of time.


Like all conspiracy theories,  the WTC consipiracy theory is only superficially reasonable, and breaks down upon the stress of actual examination.  Those how believe it are motivated mainly by an intense disdain not only for government and mainstream media,  but also an intense disdain for the general public (for a close to home example, read Sean's post regarding his Chinese students); and to validate that disdain they must equip themselves with a gnosis not achievable by the hoi polloi--even if that gnosis must be made up out of whole cloth.  No matter what the actual evidence is,  they will adhere to their belief because it satisfies a psychological need.  They feel compelled to belong to an elite, and if they have to invent a reality to attain that status, they will.   So it's no use debating them.  They've already decided you are wrong and they are right.    All you will gain is the satisfaction of having them call you a rodent.

[Sean]

MishaK

Buckling was visually evident on the facade before the south tower came down.

The towers were readily supportable by the core columns alone, any buckling on the sides is irrelevant.

And it took five years or so to manufacture explanations of the towers 1-2 and eight years for the bizarre report on Building 7, each of which dismissed by thinking architects and physicists.

Yet Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse even before they did- almost as much prescience as you.

Why didn't the bastard have the building evacuated and stop the firefighters going in, who know all about building collapse in fire? Because the phone call to him shouldn't really have been made... It stinks.

[Sean]

Jeffrey

What it boils down is this:
The evidence is fully consistent with the "official" story,  and there exists a coherent, logical narrative in which the human actors act like human beings.  (I would have said "normal human beings" but obviously this does not apply to Mohammed Atta and companions.)

Oh dear. Atta had nothing to do with this- he couldn't fly a plane and is probably still alive. See Loose Change etc etc.

There is no actual evidence for the "alternative" story, which barely deserves the name, since there is no coherent, logical narrative behind it, and such narrative as if offered requires thousands of people to act against their own interests without any motivation to do so, for an extended (now more than a decade) period of time.

Youtube. Be brave.

Like all conspiracy theories,  the WTC consipiracy theory is only superficially reasonable, and breaks down upon the stress of actual examination.

No it doesn't. And debates in the end tend to side with the unofficial rather than official conspiracy theories.

Those how believe it are motivated mainly by an intense disdain not only for government and mainstream media,  but also an intense disdain for the general public (for a close to home example, read Sean's post regarding his Chinese students); and to validate that disdain they must equip themselves with a gnosis not achievable by the hoi polloi--even if that gnosis must be made up out of whole cloth.

Motives for interest in the subject aren't relevant to its claims.

No matter what the actual evidence is,  they will adhere to their belief because it satisfies a psychological need.

This is also what I'm saying about the lamestreamers- perhaps we're closer than we think...

I really think though that you're just funnelling your views through the media, the carrier of the culture which you clearly identify with, however sadly despite posting on a fine arts forum, a critical platform with a basic distinction from the moronic masses and their trough fodder.

Jeffrey do yourself a favour and bin that brainwashing piece of trash in the corner of your living room...

[Sean]

Gurn, any chance of locking this thread- it's for complete wackos.

[kishnevi]

well, I did say it's useless debating with such people.  But it's very convenient to note that Sean has a deep contempt for the general public and have him supply an example of that contempt  twenty minutes later.

I really think though that you're just funnelling your views through the media, the carrier of the culture which you clearly identify with, however sadly despite posting on a fine arts forum, a critical platform with a basic distinction from the moronic masses and their trough fodder.

But FYI, about the only TV I watch nowadays is the Weather Channel Local on the 8s.  And I don't take in the newspaper.  All my information nowadays is gotten, in one way or another, off the Intertubes.

And one more thing:

Gurn, any chance of locking this thread- it's for complete wackos.

If the heat in the kitchen is too hot for you,  you can lock this thread yourself,  since you are the Original Poster.

[Parsifal]

MishaK

The towers were readily supportable by the core columns alone, any buckling on the sides is irrelevant.

And it took five years or so to manufacture explanations of the towers 1-2 and eight years for the bizarre report on Building 7, each of which dismissed by thinking architects and physicists.

Yet Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse even before they did- almost as much prescience as you.

Why didn't the bastard have the building evacuated and stop the firefighters going in, who know all about building collapse in fire? Because the phone call to him shouldn't really have been made... It stinks.

Sean,  do you have any understanding of physical science at all?  I have a lot of training and experience in the practice of classical physics.  Upon watching the video of the failure of the two towers the mechanism was immediately obvious.  The structural members in the fire zone were compromised.  When one fails its load is taken by the adjacent one, and with each subsequent failure the accumulating load is distributed among a smaller and smaller number of remaining members.  As more members fail the cascade becomes more rapid, causing an apparently sudden failure.  At that point the intact but unsupported top portion of the building is like an enormous hammer pulled down at high velocity by gravity, pulverizing the the building below as it falls.  It was the most spectacular demonstration of classical mechanics ever seen, and it was obvious to anyone with technical training that this was the outline of what happened.  It took some time to do a detailed analysis to elucidate the exact mechanism of failure.

Your bizarre statements that the collapse couldn't have happened as it did, or that some other absurd thing should have happened if had not been for Dick Cheney's diabolical scheme just reveals you to be a crack-pot without even an elementary school student's understanding of Newton's laws of motion. 

[Sean]

Okay Parsifal

Newtons' Third Law states that a force on one object produces an equal and opposite force in response.

The most the upper 15 floors could have done is destroy another 15 floors, then there'll be nothing but rubble.

Once again Parsifal you're another poster who hasn't seen a blink of anything past CNN who thinks that 'conspiracy theorists' ie a group of serious scientists and architects who just happen to take a different view on an issue are somewhere less than a joke.

[Parsifal]

Okay Parsifal, Wagner's last opera for some reason, what was ever wrong with your name may I ask?

Newtons' Third Law states that a force on one object produces an equal and opposite force in response.

The most the upper 15 floors could have done is destroy another 15 floors, then there'll be nothing but rubble.

Fair enough, as the top comes down floors below are being pulverized by the falling top section and at the same time floors in the top section are being pulverized by their impact with the bottom section.  That's more or less what is seen in the video.

But that doesn't change anything.  The top of the building was presumably reduced to rubble by the time it had descended 15 floors into the lower part of the building.  So what?  That rubble still weights 100,000,000 kg and descending at 30 meters per second, would be just as effective in crushing whatever is below as the intact segment of the building.  It would take just as much force to withstand that falling rubble as it would to withstand the falling of an intact structure of the same weight.

Come back to me to when you know what you're talking about.

Come back when I know what I am talking about?  If you want to debate physics with me, better study your Landau and Lifshitz. 

Here's a quiz for you.  A 1 kg mass falls under earth gravity a distance of 10 meters then lands in a bed of sand, which brings it to rest after traveling 1 meter.   What the force required to hold the mass at rest, and what is the average force exerted on the mass by the sand?  Hint:  If you can solve this high-school physics problem you can understand why the WTC collapsed.

[ralfy]

Zero Hedge

Resilience

Desdemona's Despair

[Sean]

Parsifal, sorry I didn't mean to talk to like that. I'll try not to post on this thread, before it fills up with vitriol.

I understand the argument about the rubble. However calculations show the collapse should slow and stop because the resistance is greater than the falling momentum.

One famous article considers the 110 massive concrete floors as if they were hovering in mid air with no core or perimeter supports to be dislodged: even here the floors' stationary inertia alone has to be overcome to get them moving, and the material above just doesn't have the force to do it as fast as observed. Only timed explosions below the demolition wave can get them falling.

Not sure about your physics test but I am sure all the qualified physicists involved in this would be sure.

The building came down at free fall while also destroying itself and that's impossible- energy expended in destruction would have slowed the collapse.

[Parsifal]

One famous article considers the 110 massive concrete floors as if they were hovering in mid air with no core or perimeter supports to be dislodged: even here the floors' stationary inertia alone has to be overcome to get them moving, and the material above just doesn't have the force to do it as fast as observed. Only timed explosions below the demolition wave can get them falling.

That doesn't make any sense.  If they were hovering with no supports they would simply fall with the acceleration of gravity, planes or no planes.  If they are "hovering" with the assumption that gravity is removed, of course the collapse would dissipate.  Gravity is the sole force driving the collapse and if you take it away there is no collapse.  Every time the collapsing upper section/rubble hits another floor, the structural support of that floor is destroyed and that floor starts to free-fall, until it hits the next fall.
[/quote]

The building came down at free fall while also destroying itself and that's impossible- energy expended in destruction would have slowed the collapse.

That is simply not true.  The building did not come down in free fall.  It came down at roughly constant velocity.  This is obvious because debris ejected from the building as each floor pancakes does experience free fall and you can see it descending faster than the progress of the building collapse. 

[Sean]

Yet each building collapsed in about 10 seconds, indistinguishable from free-fall; the collapse I expect is analysable for acceleration.

The paper about the levitating floors is just a thought experiment to say that even without having to dislodge the floors there's not enough force even to move them fast enough because of their basic inertia.

[MishaK]

It was also a structure intentionally and successfully designed to withstand airliner impacts.

Oy vey.... Listen to me. I work with airliners for a living. It was designed to withstand an impact by a 707, an aircraft with little more than half the mass of a 767. And that calculation didn't at all take into account fuel, nor high speed, as normally in the event of an accident, an airliner would be going at 250kts maximum due to low altitude speed restrictions. The two aircraft that struck WTC were 767-200s, much heavier aircraft fueled for a transcontinental flight, which they had just begun, going nearly 500kts. This is several orders of magnitude larger than an impact by a 707. Kinetic energy is one half times mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. You do see that if you more than double both the mass and the velocity you end up with eight times as much energy, right? If you do not see that, you simply don't have the scientific understanding to say any of the nonsense you're saying (because your sources are as educationally deprived as you are).

Check out the Journal of 9/11 studies.

I suspect this is peer reviewed only in the sense that loonies reviewing loonies constitute peers.

Blown out sideways by forces beyond any gravitational collapse.

All collapses within a gravitational field, such as the one we have on earth, are gravitational, Sean. Give it up.

But from the questions you ask I know you haven't seen the relevant videos from the opposing view- see if you can bring yourself to, you might even have a catastrophic religious conversion. Really there are endless scholarly articles and discussions that answer your rather naïve questions in the last paragraph of that post...

Dude, I've seen them all. They're bunk science and lack a coherent affirmative theory of the crime. What is the f76cking theory of the crime? Spell it out! Just try it for yourself. Who did it? How?

Yet each building collapsed in about 10 seconds, indistinguishable from free-fall; the collapse I expect is analysable for acceleration.

Nope. The fall took well over 10 seconds, more like 13 or 14. You just can't see very well due to the dust clouds and the buildings in the foreground. But you can see clearly pieces of facade falling faster than the rest of the towers, which plainly refutes the "free fall" nonsense. Also, in controlled demolition, buildings don't fall at "free fall speed" either, whatever that is supposed to be. A collapse is a collapse. This is simply bunk science on every level.

The towers were readily supportable by the core columns alone, any buckling on the sides is irrelevant.

Nope. Simply wrong. The exterior tube was essential. If you'd ever have been to the building you'd have known. I went in and out of it all the time. The lobby was a marvellous, cathedral like open space. I was amazed that 100 stories rested on it. That's exactly why it was apparent to me that it would collapse. Saying that the building should have stood without the facade is like saying Notre Dame should be able to stand without all the flying buttresses.

Yet Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse even before they did- almost as much prescience as you.

Maybe that's because we were actually there and saw it with our own eyes and it was plainly obvious to anyone who didn't fail physics in middle school?

Well there's a tilt in the top half when it falls, can't remember which one, but the thing still comes down vertically because the supports beneath are being rapidly removed- there's never a chance of it toppling over as anyone would expect.

It comes down vertically because gravity acts vertically. Absent a lateral force (and there was only a gentle breeze that day), no one with a brain would "expect" for it to topple over.