What really happened ....11 september

[james_bond_3rd]

I am amazed at all the idiocy displayed here. Why don't you guys/gals take a look at what scientists have learned so far about the WTC? The scientists have no motivation to hide any data (their scientific reputation is much more important than someone's political agenda). A very cursory search on Google found these:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 128, Issue 1, pp. 2-6 (January 2002)
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"

J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 128, Issue 3, pp. 369-370 (March 2002)
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000003000369000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

The addendum presents the responses to several questions on a preliminary version (which arrived too late for publication as part of the paper). The questions deal with the aircraft impact at a higher floor of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 damage to the upper part of the collapsing tower, weakness of connections, plastic cushioning of vertical impact, estimation of the equivalent mass, and the collapse of the adjacent lower building.

How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory
Fire Safety Journal
Volume 38, Issue 6 , October 2003, Pages 501-533
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=5ab02e4a5b9041f8dfc2a000d2f80416

This paper uses a finite-element model to investigate the stability of the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Center, New York for a number of different fire scenarios. This investigation does not take into account the structural damage caused by the terrorist attack. However, the fire scenarios included are based upon the likely fires that could have occurred as a result of the attack. A number of different explanations of how and why the Towers collapsed have appeared since the event. None of these however have adequately focused on the most important issue, namely ‘what structural mechanisms led to the state which triggered the collapse’. Also, quite predictably, there are significant and fundamental differences in the explanations of the WTC collapses on offer so far. A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance). There is, however, a consensus of sorts that the fires that burned in the structures after the attack had a big part to play in this collapse. The question is how big? Taking this to the extreme, this paper poses the hypothetical question, “had there been no structural damage would the structure have survived fires of a similar magnitude”?

A robust but simple computational and theoretical analysis has been carried out to answer this question. Robust because no gross assumptions have been made and varying important parameters over a wide range shows consistent behaviour supporting the overall conclusions. Simple because all results presented can be checked by any structural engineer either theoretically or using widely available structural analysis software tools. The results are illuminating and show that the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire. The analysis results show a simple but unmistakable collapse mechanism that owes as much (or more) to the geometric thermal expansion effects as it does to the material effects of loss of strength and stiffness. The collapse mechanism discovered is a simple stability failure directly related to the effect of heating (fire). Additionally, the mechanism is not dependent upon failure of structural connections.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&...s/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also
typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of World Trade Center
towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one °oor
(or group of °oors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model
of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more
e®ective to characterize the continuum by an energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse,
in which two phases|crush-down followed by crush-up|must be distinguished, is described in each
phase by a nonlinear second-order di®erential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of
a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated
and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will
be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy
dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential
during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of
the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse
driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satis¯ed (for the World Trade Center it is, with an order-
of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of
mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the
most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. Using inverse analysis, one could identify
these parameters from a precise record of the motion of °oors of a collapsing building. Due to a
shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of WTC are useless here. It is proposed to obtain such records
by monitoring the precise time history of displacements in di®erent modes of building demolitions.
The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacri¯cial accelerometers, or
by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be
valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under
extreme ¯re, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation movements.

All the conspiracy theorists, can you please study these reports first, before exposing more of you ignorance? It's getting really embarassing.

 

[bsmeter2]

Real scientists look at the physical structure and then formulate their thesis. These government funded "scientists" had to bend over backwards to derive all that esoteric computer modelled nonsense when they could have use one simple statement: " Use of thermite and controlled demolitions" .

How do they explain that these were the only buildings in history to collapse due to fire? Oh wait, they don't. Kind of like how atta's passport was found in the rubble. It's funny how the online references to the passport reports are slowly being eradicated from the net. In fact much of the good well researched information is no longer available online. All for the benefit of the brainwashed sheep.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from bsmeter2:

Real scientists look at the physical structure and then formulate their thesis. These government funded "scientists" had to bend over backwards to derive all that esoteric computer modelled nonsense when they could have use one simple statement: " Use of thermite and controlled demolitions" .

How do they explain that these were the only buildings in history to collapse due to fire? Oh wait, they don't. Kind of like how atta's passport was found in the rubble. It's funny how the online references to the passport reports are slowly being eradicated from the net. In fact much of the good well researched information is no longer available online. All for the benefit of the brainwashed sheep.

You're misunderstanding/misinterpreting science, just like the creationists do when they find science disagree with them. Has there been a historical precedent that scientific community is collectively involved in conspiracies/cover-ups? Never.

Publications on peer-reviewed scientific journals are NEVER removed online. They form a permenant record of scientific research. Show me a "real" scientific article on one of the peer reviewed journals that supports the claim of conspiracy. If you think that US scientists are tainted, then any foreign journal would be fine - there are plenty of well-reputed scientific journals in France, Germany, UK, Japan, Singapore, or even China or India.

Has there been a single scientific article on conspiracy theory that has passed the threshold of peer review? No. Not a single one. Not a friggin single one!

Tells you how solid the case is for conspiracy. And BTW, "Journal of 9/11 Studies" or some such thing does not count as a scientific journal. Its sole purpose is to publish conspiracy theories, and it publishes them with no serious critical review.

 

[Avid_Consumer]

leave your ego at the door - there's no need to go generalizing about the intelligence of everyone who questions the official story. did you read my post a page or two back re motive and the potential for a non-act to constitute complicity? what's your take on that

it's a simple idea, it doesn't prove anything, but i think the existence of motive and the fact that the administration ignored so much information and governmental alarm are a compelling logical combination

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Avid_Consumer:

leave your ego at the door - there's no need to go generalizing about the intelligence of everyone who questions the official story. did you read my post a page or two back re motive and the potential for a non-act to constitute complicity? what's your take on that

Never ascribe to malintent what can perfectly be explained by stupidity.

Bush is stupid and lazy. He was on vacation and ignored all the warnings. Not on purpose for some strategic consideration, but from sheer stupidity. The fact that he benefited immensely from the event only proves the stupidity of the people who voted for him. His reaction on 9/11 was that of a deer caught in the headlight - I cannot understand why some highly intelectual people considered his handling of 9/11 to be good.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Avid_Consumer:

it's a simple idea, it doesn't prove anything, but i think the existence of motive and the fact that the administration ignored so much information and governmental alarm are a compelling logical combination

Lol, sounds exactly like an ID theory to me. Now I know why conspiracy theories are so prevailent in this country.

 

[Avid_Consumer]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Never ascribe to malintent what can perfectly be explained by stupidity.

does the existence of motive affect the assumption of stupidity?

how much explicit motive is capable of outweighing a stupidity defense? no amount?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Avid_Consumer:

does the existence of motive affect the assumption of stupidity?

how much explicit motive is capable of outweighing a stupidity defense? no amount?

That's assuming that Bush can understand cause and effect. I think you're overestimating him.

 

[Avid_Consumer]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Lol, sounds exactly like an ID theory to me. Now I know why conspiracy theories are so prevailent in this country.

lol i don't see the analogy. to me, it seems like we have both motive and cause. i guess the cause side is highly open to debate, but it seems like there's definitely at least *some* degree of causation thus negligence. very complex to establish for sure though as a non-act - which is why the president's commission with all its conflicts of interest did us no favors by limiting the scope of the investigation. regular citizens are hardly in the position to prove or disprove cause. we only know a highly sanitized sliver of what really happened behind the scenes

hard to say, it makes me want to research precedents of legal causality for cut and dry comparisons to the basic facts we do have

it's very frustrating to have a mountain of motive and largely unprovable cause in the public domain

 

[CaptainObvious]

"You can't handle the truth" is the only thing that comes to mind when dealing with the CT'ers. They want a boogie man, or a group of boogie men to pin it on. Sorry boys and girls, it ain't that simple. You can't handle the truth of a government so inept, yet so arrogant. The complete indifference of our leaders leaves you dumbfounded. You simply cannot digest that our glorious government is so corrupt, at so many levels, that there is in fact, no solution to be found. If 2, or 20, or 200 are bad seeds, well then, we just kick them to the curb and move on. BUT, what happens when the whole crowd, top to bottom, is the problem? What then? Your simple fuckin' minds just can't conceive of just how fucked we are. You dopes actually think this is fixable. It ain't! The die is cast kiddies, and all "we the people" can do now, is observe.