• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11

Please, enlighten us.

Let me put it this way: the only way the twin towers could have fallen as fast as they did (10 seconds according to the 9/11 commission, 14 seconds according to other observers), is if the floors were magically suspended in the air without vertical beam supports. Even if we assume that, it would have taken almost 16 seconds to fall. But there were vertical beams there holding the floors up. The height of the south tower was 1362 feet. If you dropped a rock from that height in a vacuum, it would take 9.2 seconds to hit bottom. That is without air resistance. How long would it take that same rock to fall through 1362 feet of water? Longer than 10 seconds? Of course it would. Not only did the towers have air resistance to work against, they had to work against concrete and steel. So you at least have to ask yourself one question: Shouldn't the undamaged floors in the towers have offered more resistance than air?
 
Oh yeah, add this one to your homework assignment!

There were numerous warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, some even mentioning the use of hijacked planes. That's why I know they had prior knowledge. I only THINK they let it happen because NORAD reacted like a back alley drunk on 9/11, but they had no problem intercepting Payne Stewart's airplane in about ten minutes.
 
There were numerous warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, some even mentioning the use of hijacked planes. That's why I know they had prior knowledge. I only THINK they let it happen because NORAD reacted like a back alley drunk on 9/11, but they had no problem intercepting Payne Stewart's airplane in about ten minutes.
do you have any clue how many varying 'threats' the intelligence agencies receive? daily?
 
Don't forget that the downward momentum is always increasing by way of the accelration gravity as well as increased mass from additional floors being included in the falling body.

I assure you I have not forgotten. But I think you are forgetting the time required for the top floors to hit the ones below and dislodge them in order for them to be included in the "increased mass" you speak of. Also keep in mind that an object dropped in a vacuum at 1362 feet (south tower height) takes 9.2 seconds. The government says it took 10 seconds to fall, other observers say around 14 seconds. Regardless of acceleration gravity, there is still air resistance to figure in to the equation, plus concrete and steel. The towers did not exist in a vacuum, so the math just doesn't work for the official theory.
 
do you have any clue how many varying 'threats' the intelligence agencies receive? daily?

Did those threats include Bin Laden and the use of hijacked airplanes as an impending threat? How many of those threats did they get every day? And does your question even refute that they did have prior knowledge? No, it does not. I would think they would take Bin Laden threats seriously, since he had proven himself before, and pretty recently.
 
Did those threats include Bin Laden and the use of hijacked airplanes as an impending threat? How many of those threats did they get every day? And does your question even refute that they did have prior knowledge? No, it does not. I would think they would take Bin Laden threats seriously, since he had proven himself before, and pretty recently.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a method/means of attacking the US that the Intel agencies has not already heard about
 
Please, enlighten me. Show me how the math doesn't work. I mean actually show the math.

Here's how free fall works in a vacuum (no air resistance):

Gravity makes an object fall at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. That means if you drop something in a vacuum, it will be falling at the rate of 64 feet per second after the 2nd second, and 96 after the 3rd and so on. Here's the formula: Distance = 1/2 gravity x time(squared). So if you want to know how far something would fall in a vacuum after five seconds you can show it with this:

Distance= 1/2 x 32 x 25

After five seconds, an object will have fallen 400 feet, and would be traveling at 160 feet per second.

WTC2 was 1362ft tall. To find out how long it would take for an object in a vacuum to fall that distance we can rearrange the equation like this:

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance)/Gravity

so we have:

(2 x 1362)/32= 85.13

The square root of 85.13 is 9.22 seconds. Also, the velocity is about 295 feet per second, which is like 200mph. Have you ever stuck your hand out the car window while going 65mph? Lots of air resistance there. Imagine what it is at 200mph. Anyway, the figures above are for free fall in a vacuum with no air resistance or concrete or steel to deal with. In order for the towers to fall in the time they did, all structural members would have to fail simultaneously, offering no resistance on the way down. However, the undamaged floors below the damaged area should have offered many times more resistance than air. If we are to believe the pancake theory, along with the government's time of 10 seconds, then 11 floors per second would have to fail. But let's be generous and use the 14 seconds other observers have calculated. That means almost 8 floors per second failed. Still rather preposterous, since that means there was no resistance. Keep in mind I'm not saying there was a conspiracy. I'm just saying the pancake theory is impossible in the physical world.
 
I think you would be hard pressed to find a method/means of attacking the US that the Intel agencies has not already heard about

So again, how do your comments disprove prior knowledge?
 
You conspiracy believers won't believe any of this but, it may be interesting for some others.

Why did WTC7 collapse? - Irish Architecture Planning Forums

The Physics of the World Trade Center tragedy

Think about the logistics of what you're implying. Besides that, "science" and "mathematics" supports the official story.

You'll have to look for Elvis somewhere else.

I'm not implying anything at all, therefore logistics don't come into play. I'm just saying the pancake theory doesn't work in the physical world.
 
I'm just saying the pancake theory is impossible in the physical world.

rwh,

You're wrong. Have you actually read what these real "experts" have said about this? If you're not open to being wrong you'll never see it if the evidence is right in front of you.

I have a video somewhere, if I can find it, that shows how this happened and explains it very well. I'll keep looking.

Re: the idea that these bldgs were brought down by controlled demolition: In every video I have ever seen of controlled demolition, the entire bldg falls "at the same time". With the WTC and WTC #7 the bottom floors are intact until the top floors fall on top of them. That's also another reason why they fell so straight, not to mention the center core of columns. The popping or clapping noise is the... pancaking of the floors.

I know that Pilot dude is not open to the possibility that he is wrong, which he is. Are you open to being wrong? Are you willing to look at opposing evidence?
 
Here's how free fall works in a vacuum (no air resistance):

I think you're using bad data in several areas.
*You have incorrect elapsed time of towers fall.
*You're not acknowledging that each floor has a limit it can withstand.
*Once the above falling debris got so big (which it was as soon as it started falling!) it never even slowed down when it hit each floor. The debris vastly overpowered each floor's resistance.

If you have any proof supporting your # please show us. And I don't mean your calcs, no offense.
 
So again, how do your comments disprove prior knowledge?
it proves that just because they caught a whiff of this possibly happening someday, ti does not implicate them in the actual act when it did occur when thousands of other possible things they heard about did not occur

would be a beautiful world if they could protect us from every possible, conceivable possibility
but unfortunately i can not do that to my son
i am well aware that my son could die from a robbery at the store he currently works in
the fact that it actually happened, hypothetically in this case, dose not mean i am responsible for not reacting to said possibility

when terrorists consider 1000's of possibilities, than actually act on one of those possibilities, which turns out to be effective, that does not mean that the victim, who was aware of the multitude of possibilities is culpable
 
I'm not implying anything at all, therefore logistics don't come into play. I'm just saying the pancake theory doesn't work in the physical world.

You most certainly are. If the pancake scenario couldn't happen you are implying that you agree with the conspiracy nuts. In which case explosives had to be set, holes had to be drilled. Supports had to be weakened or removed. Electronics had to be installed which several of those gov't agencies would have detected. All of this would have required an awful lot of people to pull it off. None were seen, detected, suspected or reported.

It is impossible for these things to have happened. 100%!

If not, show me your proof. You too Pilot if you have any.

Don't get me wrong. Debunking these things is fun... well, for some of us. :)
And if you show me proof you are right and I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. But, I need to see proof.
 
You most certainly are. If the pancake scenario couldn't happen you are implying that you agree with the conspiracy nuts. In which case explosives had to be set, holes had to be drilled. Supports had to be weakened or removed. Electronics had to be installed which several of those gov't agencies would have detected. All of this would have required an awful lot of people to pull it off. None were seen, detected, suspected or reported.

It is impossible for these things to have happened. 100%!

If not, show me your proof. You too Pilot if you have any.

Don't get me wrong. Debunking these things is fun... well, for some of us. :)
And if you show me proof you are right and I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. But, I need to see proof.

This is good look it over:
NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, NIST and the World Trade Center. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system

Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
 
rwh,
You're wrong. Have you actually read what these real "experts" have said about this? If you're not open to being wrong you'll never see it if the evidence is right in front of you.
I have a video somewhere, if I can find it, that shows how this happened and explains it very well. I'll keep looking.

Said about what? Anything specific? I'm very open to being wrong. If any of these experts have evidence that air, steel, and concrete provide virtually no resistance for an object to fall, I'd like to see it. I'd also like to see some evidence that 8 floors can fail in one second.

Re: the idea that these bldgs were brought down by controlled demolition: In every video I have ever seen of controlled demolition, the entire bldg falls "at the same time". With the WTC and WTC #7 the bottom floors are intact until the top floors fall on top of them. That's also another reason why they fell so straight, not to mention the center core of columns. The popping or clapping noise is the... pancaking of the floors.

I have not brought up the idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I'm saying the pancake theory is invalid. And you bring to light another problem of the pancake theory. The official story is that the floors gave way from the columns and pancaked downward. For one thing, that assumes the core remains behind. For another thing, in order for this theory to be valid, you would expect to see a pancake of floors when all is said and done. Instead, all the concrete is pulverized. If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there would have been pancaking or pulverization, but not both. That energy can only be used once. If the energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward.

I know that Pilot dude is not open to the possibility that he is wrong, which he is. Are you open to being wrong? Are you willing to look at opposing evidence?

I sure am. Are you? I'm not asking anyone to believe in some conspiracy theory, I'm just asking you to ask yourself if the pancake theory holds water.
 
I think you're using bad data in several areas.
*You have incorrect elapsed time of towers fall.
*You're not acknowledging that each floor has a limit it can withstand.
*Once the above falling debris got so big (which it was as soon as it started falling!) it never even slowed down when it hit each floor. The debris vastly overpowered each floor's resistance.

If you have any proof supporting your # please show us. And I don't mean your calcs, no offense.

I allowed 10 to 14 seconds for falling time. Ten seconds was the government's number. I do acknowledge that each floor has a limit it can stand, and I know more mass would accumulate as the falling continued. However, you cannot have both pulverization and pancaking at the same time. The kinetic energy can only be used once. Given the only numbers I gave were my calcs, what numbers are you referring to?
 
You most certainly are. If the pancake scenario couldn't happen you are implying that you agree with the conspiracy nuts. In which case explosives had to be set, holes had to be drilled. Supports had to be weakened or removed. Electronics had to be installed which several of those gov't agencies would have detected. All of this would have required an awful lot of people to pull it off. None were seen, detected, suspected or reported.

It is impossible for these things to have happened. 100%!

If not, show me your proof. You too Pilot if you have any.

Don't get me wrong. Debunking these things is fun... well, for some of us. :)
And if you show me proof you are right and I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. But, I need to see proof.

Actually, it seems you are the only one implying anything here. I haven't offered any explanation as to why they collapsed so fast, nor can I, because I don't know what the heck happened. You continue to attack an argument I have not offered.
 
I know that Pilot dude is not open to the possibility that he is wrong, which he is. Are you open to being wrong? Are you willing to look at opposing evidence?

Actually I am quite open to being proven wrong and have changed my position on my incorctness. This includes my standpoint on immigration. So please, don't pretend like you know me.
 
The square root of 85.13 is 9.22 seconds. Also, the velocity is about 295 feet per second, which is like 200mph. Have you ever stuck your hand out the car window while going 65mph? Lots of air resistance there. Imagine what it is at 200mph. Anyway, the figures above are for free fall in a vacuum with no air resistance or concrete or steel to deal with. In order for the towers to fall in the time they did, all structural members would have to fail simultaneously, offering no resistance on the way down. However, the undamaged floors below the damaged area should have offered many times more resistance than air. If we are to believe the pancake theory, along with the government's time of 10 seconds, then 11 floors per second would have to fail. But let's be generous and use the 14 seconds other observers have calculated. That means almost 8 floors per second failed. Still rather preposterous, since that means there was no resistance. Keep in mind I'm not saying there was a conspiracy. I'm just saying the pancake theory is impossible in the physical world.


Come now. A child can do a simple velocity calcuation.

I asked for you to give the math that shows that it could not have occured as described. Instead you give me a 12-year-old's physics calcualtion and anecdotal nonsense.

Honestly, give me the math proving your claim of impossibility. Not more anecdotal trash. (hint: in a discussion of mathematical proofs, resorting to statements like "should" and "Imagine" = failure)

This means show that the air resistance effect mathematically (even more important, you need to show what the air resaistance effect for a collapse would be when the object has no face being exposed to air resistance :shock:)

Then mathematically show the resitance of the steel that proves your contentions. Calcualte the ultimate compression strength of the steel vs. the impact momentum of the colapsing upper floors. The calculate the rate at which this resistance would slow the acceleration of the sytem.

Basically, you need to come back with something more than 8th grade physics to support your claims.

You'll need engineering/physicist-level mathematics. Somthing a good deal more complex than 9.6 meters per second squared.
 
Well, bust my britches! There seems to be some confusion of terms... on my part. rightwinghour, you are indeed correct and I am wrong! :( My sincerest apologies.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:
(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
*the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
*the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence of any blast or explosions
[/B][/COLOR]

I was calling the floors failing one by one on top of the next as "pancaking" but, the NIST and you, have a different definition. I'll have to check out the difference.

I hope these sites have helped others see this "discussion" in a different light.

Respects,

ADK4ever
 
Actually I am quite open to being proven wrong and have changed my position on my incorctness. This includes my standpoint on immigration. So please, don't pretend like you know me.

What the hell are you talking about? I never addressed you.
 
You typed that without even the slightest sense of contradiction or irony, didn't you? :roll:

Who would tend to be the more reliable expert regarding 9/11: a government-paid scientist, or an independent scientist? Seriously...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom