General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Your thought experiment is completely irrelevant if you have no background in fire, metallurgy, civil engineering, explosions, etc. You can rationalize anything if you are completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

I'll ask again, why do you cling to opinions of a tiny % of "experts" (you believe a physician's opinion), but ignore all other evidence contradicting your uninformed viewpoint?

The reference to the Empire State Building airplane crash is not like for like, I have had a very quick glance at the circumstances and the plane that hit the Empire State was relatively tiny – a B-25, and it was also probably flying at its minimum speed and not what I assume was the terrorist attempt at maximum.

Using the operating empty weights and the full cruising speed the B25J will have hit the Empire State with a momentum of

(370000/3600) x 8855 = 910097 kg m/s

The Boeing 767-222 that hit the World Trade Centre would have had a momentum of:

(851000/3600) x 80130 = 18941841 kg m/s

or approximately 20 times the momentum (the actual weights and speeds on the day probably lean toward a much larger momentum hit from the airliner, the B-25 was probably flying as slow as possible as opposed to the 767 hitting fast.)

The maximum amount of fuel on board these planes also produces a massive difference 63000L versus 2422L. ie, a factor of 63000/2422 = 26 times different.

You are uncritically dredging up really tenuous evidence in support of your belief but heavily criticising any evidence produced in favour of the more likely simple explanation of a terrorist attack. You are clearly not deeply researching any of this material.

As far as the speed of fall of the Twin Towers as you state they will not exceed the possible physical limits. You can see the floors of these main towers collapse in a sequence like dominos from top down. The only way some external agent could have speeded this up is if either
(a) Someone (the US government) somehow increased gravity under the Towers.
(b) Someone (the US government) wired both main Towers from the exact floor just below the plane hit to the ground with a carefully arranged sequence of explosives wired to explode timed exactly one after the other in the visible sequence.

If this collapse was achieved with only one floor, somewhere around the 80th, detonated and all the others fall in sequence from the upper weight, this would go against your postulate that it fell faster than would be expected. This would be the same as if one floor buckled from the heat and damage and the weight from above caused the others to domino. So, according to you all the floors must have been wired! I feel this would be a massive job and would be impossible after the hit. So this would mean that the sinister agency (US government) would have to know that the terrorists would fly the planes into these buildings and be reasonably sure of what floors they would hit. If as is very likely something had gone wrong with the terrorist’s plan (such a pity it didn’t) and say only one Tower was hit the other would still be wired up with explosives and with the entire world media’s focus pointed at it. Wow, what a risk to take and if it was a government agency it would need bi-party support. Catastrophes like these tend to gain support for the ruling party and so the Democrats would have had a lot to lose (or the Democrats could get into permanent power if they exposed this crazy Republican government plan). It just doesn’t make sense.

A much simpler explanation is needed and this is that some terrorists flew jets into building that collapsed due to the fires and damage.

I could possibly support a theory that the politicians used these events for their own gain afterwards – this seems a pretty common way politicians behave and hardly even news – it is what they always do.

The Power of Nightmares Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave

this is actually a really interesting BBC documentary (all 3 parts). it asserts that the Bush administration used 9/11 for political gain by creating the myth of a centralized, super terrorist organization called "Al Qaeda."

(a) Someone (the US government) somehow increased gravity under the Towers.

Occam's razor draws me to this...

Using the operating empty weights and the full cruising speed the B25J will have hit the Empire State with a momentum of

(370000/3600) x 8855 = 910097 kg m/s

The Boeing 767-222 that hit the World Trade Centre would have had a momentum of:

(851000/3600) x 80130 = 18941841 kg m/s

or approximately 20 times the momentum (the actual weights and speeds on the day probably lean toward a much larger momentum hit from the airliner, the B-25 was probably flying as slow as possible as opposed to the 767 hitting fast.)

The maximum amount of fuel on board these planes also produces a massive difference 63000L versus 2422L. ie, a factor of 63000/2422 = 26 times different.

I agree. The planes are not the same size nor have the same capacity in the example. I won't disagree with the mathematics. You are using fundamental laws to prove a point.

I hope you can see, as am I.

I'm not calling for a recount on the laws of gravity here, I'm just asking simple questions which so far the government has failed to answer in any sense of a convincing fashion. (Unless you think that announcing on TV 'We know who did it' within 90 minutes after the 'surprise attack', so 'we don't need to investigate it' is convincing).

The things I am most concerned about are the laws that cannot be violated. i.e. the laws that govern us independent of political party or affiliation; gravity, conservation of momentum, et al.

No no, there probably was a gravity accelerating device under the towers. It makes sense. And if the secret branches of the government know how to create an accelerating gravity device, can't they also make a negative gravity device? Talk about a super weapon!!! Hello Iran...oh sorry, are you guys all now floating in space?...oops!!!

Your thought experiment is completely irrelevant if you have no background in fire, metallurgy, civil engineering, explosions, etc. You can rationalize anything if you are completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

As far as the simple thought experiment goes, we all have a background in fire, metallurgy, civil engineering and explosions etc in enough of a sense to show that it is pure doublethink to hold the idea that these buildings were somehow built wrong and it was always going to collapse if fires took hold. You don't need a certificate or badge, you just need a brain.

The idea is designed to highlight clear flaws, did you try it? Next time you are in a tall building try it. My friends job is in an 8 story building, she works on the 6th floor. Imagine for some reason huge fires were on the 3rd floor, but then the whole building collapsed through itself in 0.8 seconds. Would it be reasonable?

It hasn't happened before.

For example, in 1975 one of the twin towers had fires. Didn't collapse. Okay no surprise there.

So why on 9/11 because "we've been attacked" does the above logic not apply?

What about Northwoods, Tonkin, Gladio? Do you not see that our own governments are capable of false flags.

What exactly did they do immediately afterwards? Yep. Not arrest Osama Bin Laden. Because there was no evidence. Instead start a war, blow up countries completely unrelated to the their hijackers (17 of 19 are from Saudi Arabia, yet Saudi Arabia remains the number one ally in the Middle East.. Hhmmm), take away freedoms at home 'to protect our freedom'... nice one.

Your points to base your belief that this was a controlled demolition are pretty weak.

-People heard explosions.
Covered already, many reasonable explanations for this, why dismiss them?

-Some people had motive.
Many people have motives to do things, that doesn't mean they will do those things. The military industrial complex had a profit motive but that isn't enough for anyone to jump to the conclusion that they carried out a false flag attack. Some people have a profit motive to kill their parents for inheritance, that doesn't mean they would do it or if their parents were killed that we can conclude it was them.

-Governments are capable of false flag attacks.
Doesn't allow us to conclude that 9/11 was one.

-Other buildings didn't fall due to fire or being hit by a plane.
Covered already. Not all buildings or planes are equal. Whats the sample size on planes hitting large buildings, I know of three, and two fell.

Pigeonholing people into those who believe the government story, and those who believe it was a controlled demolition is silly. There is a million shades of gray in between. It is quite possible to think the official 9/11 story has holes and not come to the conclusion the government carried out a false flag attack.

Alright

Your points to base your belief that this was a controlled demolition are pretty weak.

As you posted and for brevity you disagree with the idea that the following can be considered as strong evidence.

-People heard explosions.
-Some people had motive. (Namely government higher ups)
-Governments are capable of false flag attacks
-Other buildings didn't fall due to fire or being hit by a plane.

If the above is not worth observing then exactly what can be considered as strong evidence?

Edited for clarity. I want you to think about this. Go to the largest building in your neighbourhood. Where I live at the moment in Daejeon the tallest building I have seen is about 20 stories. This is a thought experiment only, I am not encouraging you to actually do this.

Stand outside that building be it 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and so on stories.
Massive fire engulfs the building, all floors.
Now truly ask yourself, could this building accelerate through itself at around 10 floors a second?

The 911 commission report said 110 stories collapsed in under 12 seconds.

Does fire explain this? I doubt it.

Where I live right now, its about 12 stories. I can't ever imagine this whole structure despite how severe the fires are collapsing in 1.2 seconds.

Go to the nearest large building you can see from your window or home. Now imagine that per floor 0.1 seconds (or 10 stories per second) is all it would take for it all to collapse into dust due to fires.

The floors would be collapsing and accelerating due to gravity as they go. A smaller building would not have time to gain enough velocity to collapse 7 or 8 per second.
If freefalling the distance travelled is d = (g*t^2 )/2, where g = 9.8 m/s/s
or t = sqrt(2d/g)

I'll assume your floors are the same size as the WTC ~= 3.9m. The very fastest you could collapse would be
t = sqrt(12 * 3.9 / 9.8) = sqrt(4.78) = 2.186s

In the WTC collapse, floor 80 or so collapsed and the top 27 or so floors hit the weakened one below which collapsed. The residual strength would have slowed this a touch from freefall speed but by the time the 3rd floor in sequence was hit it would be seeing ~30 floors bearing down at a decent pace, gaining speed, and would give little resistance. This would be repeated and by the 5th or 6th to collapse I wouldn’t expect much difference from freefall speed.
The momentum hit would have been extreme on these. You can easily hold the mass of a bullet in the palm of your hand but if you fire that bullet into your palm it will go straight through due to the momentum with little reduction in speed. The mass is the same but you would need great strength to stop it.


I do not know if the12 seconds you mention is correct time but it doesn't seem unreasonable.
t = sqrt(80 * 3.9 / 9.8) = 5.6 s

5.6s would be the freefall speed from the 80th floor – so this 12s seems to be about what I would expect..

By the time a stone falling from your 12 story building hits the ground it is travelling at
V = sqrt(2*g*d)
V = sqrt(2 * 9.8 * 12 * 3.9)
V = 30.3m/s
Or ~ 8 floors per sec.
The average speed is half of this.

So in the worse case if some sinister agency wired your building with explosives on every floor and detonated them in either simultaneously or in quick succession the final floor would hit the ground travelling at approx. 8 floors per second. The reason the Twin Towers could average over 8 floors per second is simply due to their original size. At the very end of the collapse it would be more like ten or twenty floors per second.

v = sqrt(2 * 9.8 * 80 * 3.9) = sqrt(6115) = 78m/s ~= 20 floors per sec, or ~= 10 per sec on average.

I do not know much of the information that would be needed to get a very realistic model of this collapse but from the little I know it seems very, very believable.

Before you mention the WTC7 building. This was damaged from the bottom floors and collapsed in a similar way to a controlled explosion. When demolition experts demolish towers they blow out the bottom sections to allow the momentum of the top floors hitting the ground to do the work. In the case of WTC7 it seems very reasonable to me that fire and some damage did the work of the explosives - a common way to demolish lesser buildings is to destroy the load bearing parts with fire.

I should mention that I have no connection to any sinister agency (does dc count here), I am a UK citizen, I have a degree in physics (but have'nt used the mechanics/ballistics side of it for many a year). I have now looked at several of the items you find unbelievable/inplausible and to my limited knowledge these have all seemed very plausible. I do not think the US government had any hand in the collapse of the WTC buildings.

As you posted and for brevity you disagree with the idea that the following can be considered as strong evidence.

-People heard explosions.
-Some people had motive. (Namely government higher ups)
-Governments are capable of false flag attacks
-Other buildings didn't fall due to fire or being hit by a plane.

If the above is not worth observing then exactly what can be considered as strong evidence?

Worth observing, fine, but strong evidence of a false flag attack, no. That is an illogical jump to make. There are many other potential causes of explosions, many other people had motive, not every attack is a false flag attack, not all buildings have the same structure, not all buildings receive the same structural damage from planes, debris, or fire.

You're making points in a way to give them more weight than they are worth. If this is intentional you are being dishonest. If not you are repeating this tactic unaware to yourself. Take the following:
-No building has ever fallen due to being hit by a plane.

An honest question you have avoided twice; What is your sample size for fires or planes not causing collapse?

If your sample size is close to one, while your phrasing makes it sound like we have a large sample and that such a collapse is not possible, you should stop phrasing it in such a way.

And for planes hitting skyscrapers; Is your sample the same three as I am aware of, where two fell and one didn't?




.

Worth observing, fine, but strong evidence of a false flag attack, no. That is an illogical jump to make. There are many other potential causes of explosions, many other people had motive, not every attack is a false flag attack, not all buildings have the same structure, not all buildings receive the same structural damage from planes, debris, or fire.

You're making points in a way to give them more weight than they are worth. If this is intentional you are being dishonest. If not you are repeating this tactic unaware to yourself. Take the following:
-No building has ever fallen due to being hit by a plane.

An honest question you have avoided twice; What is your sample size for fires or planes not causing collapse?

If your sample size is close to one, while your phrasing makes it sound like we have a large sample and that such a collapse is not possible, you should stop phrasing it in such a way.

And for planes hitting skyscrapers; Is your sample the same three as I am aware of, where two fell and one didn't?

Sample size is obviously very small. To my knowledge there has been only the empire state building as previously mentioned, the Austin crash and a much smaller crash in flordia (a Cessna 172). Obviously WTC 1 and 2 had larger impacts than the above.

Are you suggesting that saying no other buildings have collapsed due to plane impacts or fires is false? Because it clearly isn't. Therefore I should and will phrase it in such a way, because it is a fact.

With regards to building fires having no precedent of free fall collapse there are too many examples to mention so here's a list of 2001-present from wiki and a load of images you can take a look at anytime.

The floors would be collapsing and accelerating due to gravity as they go. A smaller building would not have time to gain enough velocity to collapse 7 or 8 per second.
If freefalling the distance travelled is d = (g*t^2 )/2, where g = 9.8 m/s/s
or t = sqrt(2d/g).

Please refer to Dr.Judy Wood's Billiard Ball Explaination

Here's a simple image which quite quickly explains the forces at work.

I will quote a part of her introduction.

Very shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government proclaimed its certitude concerning who the attackers were -- 19 Arabs suicide bombers under the guidance of one Osama bin Laden. What followed in quick succession were ‘authoritative’ pronouncements, through NOVA and a few academicians, about what brought the WTC towers down. This early public authoritative consensus was that the buildings could not withstand the horrific onslaught of the plane crashes and subsequent fires. Since that time questions have arisen about the veracity of the Official Theory (as presented by government agencies) of the events of 9/11. One area of particular interest has been the issue of the WTC tower “collapses.” Are the given times possible?

The purpose of this site is to look at that question from a single, simple perspective -- that of the timing of those “collapses”. Absent other forces, gravity alone must have generated them. We will examine whether that was possible, from the perspective of the law of gravity and the visual record.

This is the method she used to come to these conclusions.

Based on what? What is your background in civil engineering, explosions, detonations, etc? Why do you latch on to the less than 1% of the "experts" who say there is a conspiracy but completely ignore all of the actual evidence supporting the theory that the buildings were brought down my planes crashing into them?

There is any evidence that supports the official story?
I mean it does not even make sense. And what about the other planes? Vaporizing on impact and the second one created a 10 meter wide hole with no debris. And what about all the people who heard explosions before the plane hit the building?

WTF I thought you agreed you were wrong?