>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.
And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?
It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.


You'll have troubles looking up temperature in any scientific literature because the real measure that matters in energy. Temperature is just a measure of how much energy a particular object is storing in the form of heat. Jwray's very valid point is simply that a skyscraper is storing an utterly enormous amount of energy in the form of gravity. If even a small portion of that energy is converted to heat, which a collapse is guaranteed to do, it will raise temperatures of whatever material absorbs that heat. If it is concentrated enough it could melt whatever is heated up. The point is simply that the collapse turned more than enough energy into the form of heat to melt a good mass of steel, the question is only how that energy was distributed through the wreckage. Odds are in a random collapse it will be distributed fairly broadly, meaning less temperature increase per mass, but the already very hot steel may not have needed that much either.

All said, it is absolutely hard to say. Meaning it's hard to rule out the collapse and simmering fires within the wreckage couldn't have melted some steel over time. Hard say that would be expected either. The more complex an event is the harder it is to predict.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.


I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.

And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?

It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.

Skepticism is a virtue, to me. Ignorance is not.

Things are bad with the corporations quickly taking over in our society. At some point in our lives most of us will work for a large corporation as there will be very few small businesses left. And these corporations use the apparatus of government to create legislation and regulations that help them grow, increase profits, but most importantly they use it to stifle competition. And a lot of these corporations are profiting from the war, particularly the oil companies. Gas prices just rose here in LA to over $4 a gallon. And what gets me is how surprised people act when they see the new price hikes. I can't wait to see how they'll react when it goes over $5/gallon.

And we all think voting once every two or four years will fix all the ills of society and somehow magically contain the corporations and spendthrift politicians and bureaucrats. It's a bit of a joke when you think about how powerless we really are. But, before things turn for the bleak, I can say I believe what Joseph Campbell once said (and I paraphrase) that the world is as good today as its ever been and as bad as its ever been. In other words, it will always be getting worse and better, and we each participate in it.

So, yes, we should question everything the government does, and if we don't give in to cynicism we should participate in changing it as well.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

You know, I have been thinking about what you said, and not only is it not being a dumb fuck, or a nut job to question. Isn't It our duty as American Citizens to question things our Government tells us that don't make sense? I mean, the whole GasLand thing going on. And Inside Job. This shit is getting out of control. They are getting away with anything they want and are not being held accountable for any of it...

As @VoodooV put it:
"To me it's a moot point. Even if it was proven that it was a conspiracy. America simply doesn't show any willingness to prosecute anyone anymore. No one was prosecuted for the lies that led us to the Iraq war, no one is prosecuted for Wall Street destroying the economy. America simply doesn't care about justice anymore. Justice is inconvenient.

Of course, one could imply that because of America's inability get much done these days, that it's a strong argument for it not being a conspiracy. It actually takes competence to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. We're too busy fighting with each other."

Ever heard the quote "there are no straight lines in nature" ?

Seriously, what are the chances that random, organic events caused three symmetrical collapses at free fall speed? How can a building collapse in the direction of most resistance (through load bearing columns) especially when it is damaged unevenly by either a fire or a plane strike. You make a cut in a tree and it falls in the direction of the cut. You light a wood framed building on fire and it collapses in the direction of whatever column succumbs to fire first. I'm not an expert but what happened does not make sense.

Again, not saying it was an inside job. I'm just pointing out what seems probable vs improbable in my mind, in the same way that I would point out a straight line in the forest.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

You know, I have been thinking about what you said, and not only is it not being a dumb fuck, or a nut job to question. Isn't It our duty as American Citizens to question things our Government tells us that don't make sense? I mean, the whole GasLand thing going on. And Inside Job. This shit is getting out of control. They are getting away with anything they want and are not being held accountable for any of it...

As @VoodooV put it:
"To me it's a moot point. Even if it was proven that it was a conspiracy. America simply doesn't show any willingness to prosecute anyone anymore. No one was prosecuted for the lies that led us to the Iraq war, no one is prosecuted for Wall Street destroying the economy. America simply doesn't care about justice anymore. Justice is inconvenient.

Of course, one could imply that because of America's inability get much done these days, that it's a strong argument for it not being a conspiracy. It actually takes competence to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. We're too busy fighting with each other."

One thing that keeps repeating in this thread is the idea that planes were a factor. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and it collapsed symmetrically into it's own footprint. I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

I think it should be pretty obvious which is the "conspiracy theory" and which is the simpler explanation. The logistics of someone rigging a building really have no bearing on the mechanics of the collapse - that is a separate body of evidence altogether. I'm not saying it was an inside job I'm just saying what it looks like and what is to me the simpler explanation (from a mechanical perspective only). I can't make a clear argument on intention or logistics because honestly, nobody in this thread can be sure what the government is really capable of.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do those who believe 9-11 was an inside job, requiring the competence and lack-of-conscience of thousands of conspirators, deny the possibility obama is hiding his true foreign birthplace?
Trirthers?


So you agree..?
Indeed, both ideas are equally stupid things to believe without more objective evidence.

Yay! This and that whole cannabis stance is encouraging. = P

Do those who believe 9-11 was an inside job, requiring the competence and lack-of-conscience of thousands of conspirators, deny the possibility obama is hiding his true foreign birthplace?

Trirthers?

"99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis."

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

When you don't believe and then disprove flimsy evidence from a shady government it does not make you a "truther" crack-pot conspiracy theory nut job.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?



17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).

Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


I enjoy the dissenting viewpoints for 9/11. Most of them are probably wild accusations, but that doesn't make the official 9/11 commission's report the open-and-shut gospel. What I find interesting is the amount of varying opinions from that day, and I think that deserves our attention. I'm not sure I buy the official story, but that doesn't mean I believe Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11.

It's not like government hasn't ever lied to us. Gulf of Tonkin incident took the US into Vietnam, remember?

1. War? Which means profits. Investing in improbable insurance to cover the buildings? I simply do not know, but smarter men than me probably could come up with some reasons.
2. Some physicists claim the explosions are visible during the collapse, as concrete is blown outwardly and reduced to dust.
3. Exactly the kind of question that should be asked. I did watch some people interviewed who work in the building say the security was on hiatus for that month while a construction crew moved in a week or so before the incident.
4. Meh. Not sure even if this was an "inside job" if they'd want that to happen.

I find the whole debate fascinating!

I live and breathe outside the US media bubble is the liberal getto known as Canada... most of us here are under the impression 911 was some sort of inside job.


I'm Canadian and I'd like to state, for the sake and reputation of my countrymen and women, a very small amount of Canadians think that 911 was an inside job. Probably around the same percent as in the US.

imstellar28, you imply that if you are not an engineer, you cannot understand physics learnt in grade 8 science? Also, if you value the opinion of engineers so strongly, what do you think of the fact that of all the engineers in the world, practically none of them raise issue with the widely accepted explanation?

Funny that the ones that do raise issue only make sloppy video experiments using a profoundly poor understanding of the scientific method and logical arguments, as eloquently stated by rychan in the above comment.

Thank-You Pantalones. Well said.

This video does not corroborate conspiracy theory, nor was that the intention. It simply disproves the official story to pressure the public and powers that be to find the real answers.

I live and breathe outside the US media bubble is the liberal getto known as Canada... most of us here are under the impression 911 was some sort of inside job. Not because of the white smoke, or the perfect furnace/office conditions or the vaporizing Pentagon plane or the free fall of building 7, but because of what America did after.

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."

Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?

Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."

Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\

>> ^direpickle:

This actually made me feel sick to my stomach.


Yeah I watched this and couldn't take it. Then I watched "Inside Job" and I couldn't take it more. I'm sick of this shit.