This has been around a few months, but is a fairly concise examination of what happened to the three buildings at the World Trade Center that collapsed.

Yeah, I know, we're all bored of talking about 9/11, and everyone's made up their mind already. But it doesn't hurt to see presentations from people who actually seem to know what they're talking about, and aren't just selectively filtering information that best suits their world-view. (Except James Fetzer. He's a kook.)

I have no doubt that the usual suspects (and I'm not proclaiming my own innocence here) will take the opportunity to espouse their own pet theories here. Can we keep it related to the science in the video please?

-

That whole "it sounded like a bomb" series of clips was annoying - mainly b/c of the abscence of logic displayed here: http://911myths.com/html/bombs___not_literally.html

-

A bit disappointing. Technically, an argument does not equal "evidence".

Answer: You are.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

It seems to me, at least in the first 5 minutes - that they are just trying to find clips of people using the word "explosion" in short little sound bites.

dag, you're right - even 'level-headed' people seem to need to exaggerate and sensationalise when it comes to 9/11, and too often it stops people having mature discussion. Not here though, I'm pleased to say (with the exception of theo47...)

There's some interesting observations in this film, besides e.g. the physics of pyroclastic flow and doubts about the pancake theory (which probably goes over most of our heads, so we end up having to choose an authority to appeal to), such as that the designers of the towers believed it could withstand multiple strikes from a 707 with ease, and that the core was explicitly designed to prevent fire spreading.

Er, the designers never believed any such thing though, re: multiple strikes. One strike, apparently yes, and under very limited circumstances - and even that belief is poorly documented, as the original calculations have been lost.

The idea was that if the towers were hit by a plane on final approach to one of the local airports and got lost in the fog, they could take the hit; this would also mean the plane would crash at a lower speed - 200 mph vs. 500 or 600 mph. Big difference in energy in that case.

The physics really aren't that complicated if you read through them slowly (although perhaps it helps if you took a few physics courses).

Gehirnwäsche = Tatsachen, die so lange Havwissenschaftlich verbogen werden, bis das Gegenteil als Wahrheit angenommen wird.
Have a look at www.reopen911.org and find out funny things!

[quote]
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it - that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting.
[/quote]

That was from Frank DeMartini, the on-site construction manager of the WTC. It's all in the video. Unfortunately we'll never know whether or not he was surprised by the collapse because he was in the North Tower helping people to evacuate when it fell.

You're right to point out, of course, that a plane travelling at 500mph has much more kinetic energy than one flying at 200mph (a little over 5 times as much, in fact). It's a little disingenuous to focus on this, however - it implies that the towers could resist a hit from the slower moving plane, but not the faster moving one, as if the slower plane would be stopped dead in its tracks! You're obviously a smart guy, Krupo, so I'm not going to suggest that this is what you believe - I'm just pointing out that kinetic energy isn't as important a factor as you might think.

There's nothing "mature" about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Children, all.

-

There isn't any "argument" about the events of 9/11 anymore than there is the Holocaust or global warming.
It pretty much goes like this: start with a conclusion (9/11 was an inside job, or, say, Iraq has WMD), then find "facts" to fit said conclusion. Awesome.
How, pray tell, does one keep the "9/11 inside job" a secret? Bill Clinton can't even keep his sex life on the down low, but this global conspiracy is sealed tight? Good thinking there.

I am confused about the purported motive. What did the government have to gain by bringing down these buildings if indeed they did?

tgeff: There is a huge industry that benefits from any military action. As well, neo-cons who have been wanting to boost america's power in the middle east used this to push for the war in Iraq.

I don't agree with the argument this documentary is making, but many did perversly benefit from 9/11.

tgeffeney - I'm glad you asked. As Donald Sutherland once said:

"Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public."

There are many possibilities (and at the moment, that's all they are - possibilities. I'm not saying I endorse any of these in particular). Oil is one obvious motive. Establishing a military presence in the Middle East to guard against the increasing might of Russia and China is another. Halliburton's no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq. The corporations that supply the military industry. Israel getting the US to do its dirty work. Distraction from politically damaging domestic issues. An excuse for bad legislation like the Patriot Act. Legitimising NSA wire-taps. These are just a few off the top of my head.

The fact is, many people have benefitted financially and politically, and while that's no evidence of a conspiracy (much of it, no doubt, is mere cynical opportunism), it is an important question to ask.

Now: who didn't benefit? Al-Qaeda didn't - they've had their arse thoroughly kicked. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Err...

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by burdturgler.