9/11 Conspiracy Theories Megathread (please read first post)

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by 1or2posts

ok roasty toasty smarty pants explain this (by the way I have a video of this happening - its not "made up"):

The top 35 stories of the South Tower began to tilt at 9:59 am. A large cloud of grey dust suddenly puffed out of the building. They continued to tip to 23 degrees, hanging over the edge by about 65 feet. A concentric and uniform mushroom cloud then rapidly expanded to envelope the building. Debris was blown away from the building with a powerful blast. The whole building came straight down and the overhanging section was never seen again. The government’s story is that the building experienced a ‘compression’. If there had been a compressed demolition of the building it would not be uniform because the centre of gravity was considerably off-centre.

The centre of gravity was BARELY off centre, and what's imprtant is that it was nowhere NEAR being outwith the base of the structure, which would be required for the whole thing to tip over the way a tree does when it's felled, hence why it came straight down. I've drawn a little picture to help you visualise that It's a cross section at any one of the 22" spaced supporting pillars.

The black dots represent the centre of mass of each of the two "halves" of the building. The centre of mass for the whole thing will lie at a point somewhere on a line between those two dots.

Gravity always acts straight downwards, and there was nothing providing any horizontal component. There will have been a turning moment about the stronger side of the building at the point I've marked as B leading to the tipping. As the pillars failed on the left hand side as seen here (allowing the tipping) the load on the pillars on the right hand side will have increased. At some point they'll have had more load than they could bear; at this point THEY failed and the top section collapsed onto the 75th floor, which couldn't on its own support the top 35 floors, so IT failed, falling onto the 74th floor... etc etc.

A large cloud of grey dust suddenly puffed out of the building

yup, failing concrete does that!

Debris was blown away from the building with a powerful blast

What's unusual or conspiratorial here? Put a tissue on your desk, drop a magazine next to it and watch the tissue flutter sidewise. When things move through air quickly they cause that air to move. Doesn't mean there's explosives present. Ask hoody about this

If there had been a compressed demolition of the building it would not be uniform because the centre of gravity was considerably off-centre.

This is very unclear. WHAT would not be uniform, and in what way wouldn't it be? Really don't know what you mean by this, but again, the centre of mass was still well within the base (this would always have to be the case unless a very large force acted sideways on the building, but even the plane crash imparted a tiny fraction of the horizontal force that would be necessary to change this), so the building as a whole didn't tip. You'd be surprised if apples fell off trees sideways, right? Gravity acts DOWNWARDS.

[Potatojunkie]

Those are some smart pants.

[1or2posts]

all i can say is ROFL.
I'll see if i can get a screenshot from my video DVD somehow.
More to follow

[djtoast]

I just can't wait to see what amuses you.

I've seen the footage of the towers falling dozens and dozens of times and what I see is entirely consistent with my knowledge and understanding of the physics of statics and dynamics, materials, gravity, pressure (re the clouds of dust and their motion) AS DESCRIBED BY THE NORMAL, RATIONAL explanation agreed on by the media and anyone I've ever spoken to on the matter.

Some inconsistancies and gaps in knowledge exist surrounding what happened on that day, but the manner in which the towers fell is just not open to exploitation in this way.

What Bush was doing in the classroom, I can't answer. Why he flew around in Air Force One, I have no idea about. Why fighters headed out to sea under the misapprehension that Russia was attacking perplexes me.

But how and why the towers fell is straightforward: You can't knock out a bunch of the supports and then weaken steel by heating it, in that way, for that long, in those buildings, and have them stay up.

[reptilian]

its funny how people dont think.... dont look..... and hide there ears.. i get the sense that someone is just talkin really loud to avoid hearing the noize of the world waking up.... theres a simple truth. bad shits going on!!!! and it can be changed. it can be stopped.... but avoiding the real questions and answers just isnt the way to go. if anyone in this place doubts what the goverments and controling bodys are capable off and are doing then your extremly foolish and nieve. i suggest if you trust em so much, then obviously you dont spend much time living in the real world as i do and might wanna volinteer for the new micro chippin tech thats being lanch along with the g.p.s. system to find the chips!!!! sinse these people have been running this prison planet things have been fucking rotten. its apparent to even the most inocent children that it doesnt need to be this way. but we choose to let ourself live in under this apparent thin vail of lies and bullshit in the apparency of freedom....

i say believe there lies..... stop taking drug cause your told... give up... pay taxs.... thats your call..... but while anyone with the will and the want, and lack of fear will see the truth. WE ARE BEING FUCKED OVER AND LIED TOO!!!! and as a whole i guess we'll have to wait till the hundreth monkey kicks in, and all though foolish people wake up too.....


but im glad someone took the time to draw a diagram of how the towers actually fell.... "how fuckin scientific"!!!!!

[djtoast]

It isn't a diagram of how the towers fell, it's a diagram showing that at 23 degrees of tilt the centre of mass remains within the footprint of the tower.

YES i have issues with the governments of both countries using terrorism as an excuse to encroach on our civil liberties.

But flapping your arms and saying "the towers were blown up by the FBI and I can prove it: look, some dust went at a funny angle" is counterproductive in convincing people that there's some substance to your cause.

I really, really, genuinely DO understand the principles involved here better than 1or2posts. It boils down to the fact that in BOTH intentional controlled demolitions and the destruction of the WTC EXACTLY THE SAME THING HAPPENS and NOBODY IS DENYING THAT POINT:

*******in both cases, buildings fall because the structural supports are weakened*******

whether it's by semtex or an airplane, the vertical pillars are weakened, and the weight of the building makes it crash down. The explosives used by demolition experts don't "blow up" the building, they remove it's ability to stay up, just like the planes did.

And since the exact same thing happens in both these cases, you will never, ever convince anyone that it must have been one and not the other... especially when six billion people have seen the planes weaken those vertical supports by obliterating them at 450 mph.

Look to more fruitful lines of atttack, this avenue is closed, you'll make no progress here.

[TragicHero]

Originally Posted by Lowtone

Maybe somebody made the video up.
Ever seen Thunderbirds? It's that easy!

Thats such a mute point.

Maybe someone made the Bin Laden video up...
...wait a minute... thats what virtually all the experts on Bin Laden think and was many peoples first reaction to seeing the first one...

http://www.unknownnews.org/060214a-Barrett.html

[quote=djtoast;2310560]EXACTLY THE SAME THING HAPPENS and NOBODY IS DENYING THAT POINT:

*******in both cases, buildings fall because the structural supports are weakened*******[quote]

I don't buy this because it requires the premise that all the supports weakened at the same rate. Doubt it.
If even one of the supports buckled just a few seconds earlier than the others, the weight would be on the buckle and the whole thing would start coming down in the direction of that corner.

[eviltwinisdead]

i believe djtoast, cos he had equations..

sorry. i don't think anyone here can actually say we know exactly what happened. and i think we'd all agree on that.

i'm pretty sure there was something a bit dodgy about how the american government handled it, but i don't think we have anywhere near enough evidence to say what their level of involvenent was.

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by TragicHero

Thats such a mute point.

That's “moot”.

Originally Posted by TragicHero

I don't buy this because it requires the premise that all the supports weakened at the same rate. Doubt it.
If even one of the supports buckled just a few seconds earlier than the others, the weight would be on the buckle and the whole thing would start coming down in the direction of that corner.

No, it wouldn't. Mr toast just explained, quite patiently, with a diagram, why this is not the case.

[djtoast]

The point just before it collapses is comparable to when a tree collapses, but a felled tree doesn't have it's structure collapsing. The tree remains solid wood.

The WTC was mostly hollow, empty space, made of just a framework, much much weaker.

If, at the end of the process we had a pretty much intact WTC building lying on its side, like a tree in a forest, then yes, what you say would be true.

But the whole thing just crumbled.

Play jenga more, you'll start to see a bit more of what it looks like when open, latice-like things fall over

[TragicHero]

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

No, it wouldn't. Mr toast just explained, quite patiently, with a diagram, why this is not the case.

It doesn't make SENSE though! If one support starts buckling the weight would lean onto it making that particular support buckle further, and further, and further and further, bringing the building down on that corner, let me please see that diagram in 3D with only one corner collapsing, and not the equivalent of two on the same side.
I don't think it's plausable, sorry.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by TragicHero

It doesn't make SENSE though! If one support starts buckling the weight would lean onto it making that particular support buckle further, and further, and further and further, bringing the building down on that corner, let me please see that diagram in 3D with only one corner collapsing, and not the equivalent of two on the same side.
I don't think it's plausable, sorry.

It's not just PLAUSIBLE, it's NECESSARY.

As for a 3D version, I'm working on it, but remember I said the diagram was a cross section, imagine that repeated across the thickness of the building...

Back in a few minutes with some 3D action

[Potatojunkie]

I've tried to make up for the crapness of this by adding colour (woo), but you'll notice that gravity still acts as a downwards force, even in 3D.

[MarkMono]

Thats a mute point.

[djtoast]

K, i'm gonna do this in a few stages cos it's a bit fiddly.

Firstly, it a certainty that what happened to allow the top section of the tower to tip is represented by diagram on the left, not the one on the right, yeah? cos otherwise the top section would've had to move UPWARDS. Let's agree that THAT didn't happen!