Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11

[Ray Jones]

I'm tired.

 

So long then, and -- enjoy your read.

[Jae Onasi]

Achilles, Ray--tone it down. Leave the snarkiness at the door. It doesn't belong here. The rest of the staff and I will evaluate the latest round of posts--it's too late for me to do that right now.

[Ray Jones]

have you everluretortured the thread Jae?

 

Actually, did. The buildings did not magically lose a floor (or several) when the planes struck. Therefore the buildings were still 1350 and 1360 feet when they started collapsing.

That is correct.

 

Quite irrelevant.

Nope. Both sticks had the same total height, yet one has a 99 metres shorter way down. An analogy applicable to the towers' collapse.

 

Really? why?

1. my stick analogy, 2. did you read the document I linked to in #126?

[Jae Onasi]

@Ray--I'm going to look it over with a couple other staffers before deciding on what actions, if any will be taken. It was Father's Day yesterday and so a lot of us were with family instead of looking over heated threads. If it gets any hotter here, though, I have no problem taking an immediate action. So, let's just all take it easy on each other....

 

Here's a report from Popular Mechanics for those of us not wanting to wade through multivariate calculus. I was going to point out, Ray, that calculating building fall was a. not exact due to the dust obscuring the last couple seconds of video and b. involved much more complex equations than a simple free-fall calculation when both you and the engineering report did it for me.

 

Regarding the source for the ratio of a 767 vs. 707 hitting the WTC--I just did a simple F=ma calculation with the weights and speeds listed from the reports, and 'a' being the deceleration (or negative acceleration) to zero, then taking the ratio of the 2. However, after having the car wreck, I found the more appropriate formula to use was F=-1/2mv^2/d and here's a site calculator. Input the data in whatever units it specifies. Comparing the ratio (distance drops out in this case if you assume they're the same for both planes), the 767 hit the WTC with over 11 times the force of a proposed 707. Just for fun, input the max takeoff weight of a 767 (395,000 lbs), speed of the 767 on 9/11 (545 mph), and be generous in giving it 100 feet to come to a full stop (I'll have to look that up later--there's probably data on that somewhere). The plane hit the building with 19,623.7 tons of force. I'm sure that exceeded design specifications.

 

Achilles--you mentioned not having the conversion feet/meter conversion in one of your previous posts. Here's a converter for that and a number of other units such as temperature and volume.

[Achilles]

Nope. Both sticks had the same total height, yet one has a 99 metres shorter way down. An analogy applicable to the towers' collapse.

Considering that the upper floors collapsed too, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why you think this analogy is applicable. Even the time-lapse frames from the site you provided a few posts ago show this.

 

1. my stick analogy, 2. did you read the document I linked to in #126?

This doesn't answer my question.

 

Yes, I read the document. Did you?

 

Here's a report from Popular Mechanics for those of us not wanting to wade through multivariate calculus.

Yep, I've seen that before too, however it doesn't address my question(s) either.

 

I'm sure that exceeded design specifications.

Even assuming that all the assumptions that you made above are applicable, surely you can recognize that without knowing what the design specifications were this is simply a guess.

 

Achilles--you mentioned not having the conversion feet/meter conversion in one of your previous posts. Here's a converter for that and a number of other units such as temperature and volume.

Thank you for the link.

[Jae Onasi]

Yep, I've seen that before too, however it doesn't address my question(s) either.

I thought it addressed some of the questions--sorry for any confusion on that. I think it addressed some of the points others brought up, though.

 

Even assuming that all the assumptions that you made above are applicable, surely you can recognize that without knowing what the design specifications were this is simply a guess.

Well, do you know of any buildings designed to withstand about 20,000 tons of force hitting it? Is it reasonable to assume that buildings are ever designed to take that kind of force, with maybe the exception of some uber-bomb shelter? Sure, it might be a guess that a skyscraper isn't designed to take 20,000 tons of damage, but I think it's a pretty darned good guess just the same.

[Achilles]

I thought it addressed some of the questions--sorry for any confusion on that. I think it addressed some of the points others brought up, though.

They seemed to spend a lot of effort debunking (what I think we'd all agree are) rumors. What effort they do extend toward actual engineering/science type stuff is perfunctory at best

 

Hence why I'm so terribly disappointed with sources such as Popular Mechanics, etc. I would have thought that if anyone would have been able to address these points and truly debunk the alternative hypothesis, it would have been groups such as these. It really was kind of a let-down.

Well, do you know of any buildings designed to withstand about 20,000 tons of force hitting it? Is it reasonable to assume that buildings are ever designed to take that kind of force, with maybe the exception of some uber-bomb shelter? Sure, it might be a guess that a skyscraper isn't designed to take 20,000 tons of damage, but I think it's a pretty darned good guess just the same.

Considering that the buildings designers claim (and I understand that it's a claim) to have over-designed the buildings to withstand multiple hits from comparable craft, I would say that we have at least two contenders.

[Totenkopf]

Considering that the buildings designers claim (and I understand that it's a claim) to have over-designed the buildings to withstand multiple hits from comparable craft, I would say that we have at least two contenders.

 

Despite your disclaimer, it's pretty interesting that you seem so willing to accept their claims. Since no one actually flew a 707 into the towers in 1972 (or thereabouts) to test their claims, I suspose it's be easy to claim such. Afterall, they had to fill the building with tenants to make the investment pay off.

[Darth Xander]

Theres a lot of opposing info on this subject but I believe it was an terrorist attack.

[JediMaster12]

I suppose it would do no good to mention the Loose Change The Final Cut. In that he cites an example where I think a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building. Damage yes but still standing. He also cites that when the towers collapsed the seismic station picked it up but when the car with bomb was driven into basement, not as much. I think also he highlights where possible explosions occurred.

 

I may be spinning my wheels here but I watched the towers collapse, well the second one on live tv and it is suspicious in nature. Looking at it, it looked more like a controlled demolition.

 

I should point out that before the 'attacks' on Sept. 11th, a neo conservaative group published a manifesto entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. Listed in it were acts that we have already taken. It also said that it would have to take a grave atrocity for it to begin hence we get Sept. 11th. Conspiracy? I don't know. Do I care? Not really since I have read enough of different conspiracy theories to make me laugh til New Years. However there are things out there that are pointing out things that don't make sense. It's the same evidence but it is up to the interpreter.

[Ray Jones]

Considering that the upper floors collapsed too, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why you think this analogy is applicable. Even the time-lapse frames from the site you provided a few posts ago show this.

Regarding the physical model of the collapse, the upper floors collapsed separately. You can also see that in the sequences.

The model of the collapse as introduced in the document from #126 underlines this pretty clear as well. (Figs. 1 and 2)

 

To take the towers' total height as drop distance gives inaccurate results regarding the vacuum-free-fall comparison, approximations at best.

[Achilles]

Regarding the physical model of the collapse, the upper floors collapsed separately. You can also see that in the sequences.

The model of the collapse as introduced in the document from #126 underlines this pretty clear as well. (Figs. 1 and 2)

What do you mean "separately"? There was one continuous collapse. The collapse started, continued, then ended. The commonly accepted time span for this is approximately 10 seconds. A billiard ball dropped from the roof at the same time the building started to collapse would have hit the ground in 9.2 second in a vacuum.

 

To take the towers' total height as drop distance gives inaccurate results regarding the vacuum-free-fall comparison, approximations at best.

Based on what?

[Jae Onasi]

.8 seconds doesn't seem like much, but at that distance, it's a lot. I haven't made it through the entire engineering report yet, but there is the question of whether the WTC fell like one single building or as essentially 2 separate pieces from an engineering standpoint (which may be different from what we can see visibly). Regardless of that, as the architect's site noted, the floors were self-supporting via attachments to the core and the side walls. If the planes and resultant damage and fires destroyed large parts of the walls and part or all of the core in one section, those floors failed, everything above it failed because there was no underlying support for those side walls anymore, either. Everything below was crushed by everything above. If the floors were individually self-supporting and were not designed to be weight-bearing for any of the floors above them, it should be no surprise that they collapsed at the rate they did. It was like taking a bowling ball and dropping it on a house of cards.

 

I think we should be surprised not at the fact that the towers fell, but at the fact that they stood as long as they did after that kind of massive damage.

[Achilles]

.8 seconds doesn't seem like much, but at that distance, it's a lot.

.8 seconds assuming that it fell in a vacuum (which we know it did not). As I pointed out earlier, a half second of resistance per floor would have produced a collapse that took 55 seconds; 5 times longer than it actually did. So I wouldn't recommend hinging a counter argument on .8 seconds.

 

I haven't made it through the entire engineering report yet, but there is the question of whether the WTC fell like one single building or as essentially 2 separate pieces from an engineering standpoint (which may be different from what we can see visibly).

I could have fallen in 110 separate pieces, but that still won't help explain why both building fell at nearly free fall speed, meaning that they encountered no resistance while they came down.

 

Regardless of that, as the architect's site noted, the floors were self-supporting via attachments to the core and the side walls. If the planes and resultant damage and fires destroyed large parts of the walls and part or all of the core in one section, those floors failed, everything above it failed because there was no underlying support for those side walls anymore, either.

Then the portion above the impact should have fallen intact. As Ray's earlier photos show, they collapsed first.

 

Everything below was crushed by everything above. If the floors were individually self-supporting and were not designed to be weight-bearing for any of the floors above them, it should be no surprise that they collapsed at the rate they did.

Thousands of welds, bolts, etc instantly failing, simultaneously, at a rate of 10 floors per second. Not buying it.

 

If the building had taken a minute or more to collapse or if we had stacks of compressed floors, I would be right beside you on this.

 

It was like taking a bowling ball and dropping it on a house of cards.

Not even close.

 

I think we should be surprised not at the fact that the towers fell, but at the fact that they stood as long as they did after that kind of massive damage.

Would you care to explain why?

[Nedak]

I suppose it would do no good to mention the Loose Change The Final Cut.

 

On Loose Change I found it strange however that they couldn't get their facts straight after two installments.

[Achilles]

What do you do when you find new evidence?

[Totenkopf]

Try not to massage it as transparently as the old "evidence".

[Nedak]

What do you do when you find new evidence?

 

So if that evidence was flawed in the beginning, what could the new evidence be?

[Achilles]

Please do not answer the question with another one. I'll be more than happy to answer anything that you would like to present after you've shown me that same respect. Thanks.

[Totenkopf]

So if that evidence was flawed in the beginning, what could the new evidence be?

 

He either doesn't know or would likely suggest you watch all the versions and figure it out for yourself. Seriously, if the "old" evidence is handled so badly in analysis, why would anyone trust their spin on the so-called "new" evidence? This is also a problem with the whole "global warming" argument. If the biggest proponents don't demonstrate through their actions that they take the theory seriously, why should they expect anyone else would either. If the source of the info is suspect, then it's probably just as likely that their slant is too.

[Nedak]

Please do not answer the question with another one. I'll be more than happy to answer anything that you would like to present after you've shown me that same respect. Thanks.

 

It was more-or-less a rhetorical question... Have you actually even seen Loose Change? If you truly want to debate on a topic (in this case Loose Change) you should probably watch the videos.

 

But if you must insist on me answering your question I guess I will.

 

What do you do when you find new evidence?

 

When I personally find new evidence I include that evidence. However, I personally wouldn't even release a film before I have all the correct evidence. Why? So I do not look like I didn't have my crap together in the first place.

 

Now that I have gotten that taken care of, I'll ask you my question again:

 

If the creators of Loose Change were still flawed after two movies, isn't there a pretty large possibility that they could still be wrong about some things?

 

They made very drastic changes in the films that just left me confused. First they claim that a missile hit the Pentagon... and then they just change their claim to that it was a military plane.

[Achilles]

Have you actually even seen Loose Change?

I have, however that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

 

When I personally find new evidence I include that evidence. However, I personally wouldn't even release a film before I have all the correct evidence. Why? So I do not look like I didn't have my crap together in the first place.

We shouldn't ask questions until we have the answers first?

 

If the creators of Loose Change were still flawed after two movies, isn't there a pretty large possibility that they could still be wrong about some things?

That would depend a great deal on what changes were made and why. Your argument seems to be that that the flat out got everything wrong and kept taking blind stabs in the dark. I don't agree that this was the case at all. For instance, the changes between the 2nd edition and the final cut were largely stylistic as the Final Cut was intended for theater audiences.

 

They made very drastic changes in the films that just left me confused. First they claim that a missile hit the Pentagon... and then they just change their claim to that it was a military plane.

Perhaps you should ask them why they decided to throw their support behind one hypothesis over another. They may even have an explanation on their website.

[Nedak]

I have, however that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

 

No, but it does however help me understand you, and helps make it so I don't have to ask the question later on. However, if you would like me to do so, just let me know.

 

 

 

We shouldn't ask questions until we have the answers first?

 

Never in my post did I suggest that. However, I did suggest that we do need our answers correct before we continue asking more questions and giving bad answers.

 

That would depend a great deal on what changes were made and why. Your argument seems to be that that the flat out got everything wrong and kept taking blind stabs in the dark. I don't agree that this was the case at all. For instance, the changes between the 2nd edition and the final cut were largely stylistic as the Final Cut was intended for theater audiences.

 

Never was that my intent. A few things I found were a little off in the film and was just stating that maybe the film might not be very trustworthy.

 

You have to understand, that when analyzing a conspiracy you have to look at it from both angles. Who's trying to screw me over? The conspirators who can make money from these films and merchandise. Or is it the government with a secret agenda. I personally lean on both sides.

 

Perhaps you should ask them why they decided to throw their support behind one hypothesis over another. They may even have an explanation on their website.

 

An explanation could easy be scewed to appease me. However if you want me to, I will send them an email.

[Achilles]

No, but it does however help me understand you, and helps make it so I don't have to ask the question later on. However, if you would like me to do so, just let me know.

Ah, ok.

In that case, I've seen each of the Loose Change films, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 Mysteries, and perhaps a handful of others who's titles escape me right now.

 

Some of them are better than others.

 

Never in my post did I suggest that. However, I did suggest that we do need our answers correct before we continue asking more questions and giving bad answers.

I'm not seeing how this refutes the observation I made earlier. This still sounds as though you're suggesting that we should not ask questions until we already have the answers.

 

Unlike many of the others that created movies regarding September 11th, these guys continued to do research and as such released new films as information was discovered and/or specific arguments were sufficiently refuted.

 

To me, this sounds a lot like how things are supposed to work.

 

Never was that my intent. A few things I found were a little off in the film and was just stating that maybe the film might not be very trustworthy.

I have absolutely no problem with that. In each of the films I've seen there have been multiple arguments that I thought were a little on the "too much" side. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume that everything they've said is garbage.

 

You have to understand, that when analyzing a conspiracy you have to look at it from both angles. Who's trying to screw me over? The conspirators who can make money from these films and merchandise. Or is it the government with a secret agenda. I personally lean on both sides.

I would agree with this as well. However, at the same time all of the films I've seen have been made available for free. Hard for me to infer a profit motive if these people are giving their work away (which leaves the fame motive, I suppose).

 

An explanation could easy be scewed to appease me. However if you want me to, I will send them an email.

It's not up to me, it's up to you. I personally don't agree with the drone hypothesis, however I also acknowledge that I don't have access to all the information either, so my opinion is slightly more rigorous than arbitrary.

[Nedak]

Ah, ok.

In that case, I've seen each of the Loose Change films, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 Mysteries, and perhaps a handful of others who's titles escape me right now.

 

I would also like to recommend Zeitgeist. You can watch it for free at Zeitgeistmovie.com

 

 

I'm not seeing how this refutes the observation I made earlier. This still sounds as though you're suggesting that we should not ask questions until we already have the answers.

 

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that LooseChange (I believe you're asking about LooseChange) are not only asking questions (questions are fine) but they are supplying answers to their own questions. The problem is with that is that SOME of their answers have been wrong... And therefore they should get their answers RIGHT before answering their questions..

 

 

Unlike many of the others that created movies regarding September 11th, these guys continued to do research and as such released new films as information was discovered and/or specific arguments were sufficiently refuted.

 

and I can accept that.

 

To me, this sounds a lot like how things are supposed to work.

 

I have absolutely no problem with that. In each of the films I've seen there have been multiple arguments that I thought were a little on the "too much" side. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume that everything they've said is garbage.

 

I never meant for it to sound like I thought it was all garbage. I just thought that people should keep it in-mind so they are not as confused/upset as I was after watching the third installment.

 

I would agree with this as well. However, at the same time all of the films I've seen have been made available for free. Hard for me to infer a profit motive if these people are giving their work away (which leaves the fame motive, I suppose).

 

I don't really have a problem for the movies to cost money.since it takes money to make the film in the first place.However, the money they may make from merchandising may be different in its-self.