Everything you wanted to know about the 9/11 official conspiracy theory in 5 minutes.

How,exactly,do we have the power to 'bury' a video you post,scott?....we don't have that kind of power.

You sure seem to whine alot about us.

 

OK. You want to be made a fool of again? So be it.

You have what.... 13 witnesses who say something slightly different from over a hundred other witnesses BUT who directly refute your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim that the 757 overflew the Pentagon. The physical evidence agrees with all the other witnesses who YOU claim are all plants, but have absolutely zero evidence to back up that paranoid delusion and can't explain how the big bad gubment managed to block all traffic around the Pentagon except for their plants.

So what does this video prove? That Scott's theories aren't even backed up by his supposed proof videos. That is HILARIOUS!

Hey Scott, here is something else I want you to explain. It is your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim that the media has blocked all witnesses and that any witnesses are bullied / killed to keep them quiet. So what about the witnesses in the video? Direct refutation of your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims is right there staring you in the face. Those witnesses were not intimidated. They freely told what they witnessed. They didn't need the MSM. And don't forget, none of them saw a 757 zooming off into the distance.

Now, in ANY investigation with more than one witness, you're going to get different stories including stories that are in direct conflict with one another. This is nothing new. That is why you can't put blinders on like truthers do. You have to look at ALL of the evidence because when you look at ALL of the evidence, you get the real story.

So lets look at the common points.

ALL eye witnesses claim it was a plane that hit the Pentagon
NO eye witnesses claim they saw a plane leaving the scene
Radar tracks show the 757 coming in at the angle most witnesses agree on
NO radar image is seen leaving the Pentagon
Damage along the track including light poles show the 757 coming in at the angle most witnesses agree on.
Damage inside the Pentagon show the 757 hitting at the angle most witnesses agree on.
DNA evidence shows the victims to be the hijackers, passengers and crew of Flight 77.
Many witnesses see the plane actually impact the Pentagon.
NO witnesses see two planes as you claim.

Hmmm. This doesn't take an awful lot of critical thinking skills to see what happened. A shame truthers lack such skills.

 

The brake systems in vehicles have nothing to do with the mechanics of the collapse of the WTC buildings

ABS brakes are useful because the coefficient of friction between brake pads and brake rotors is much greater then the coefficient of friction between vehicle tires and asphalt. Braking in a vehicle works as a system of friction. Pads apply friction to rotors, rotors apply torque to axles, axles apply torque to wheels, wheels apply friction to the ground. The stopping power of a vehicle is limited by the amount of friction that a wheel can apply to the ground. The axles can apply far more torque to the wheels, the rotors can apply far more torque to the axles, and the pads can apply far more friction to the rotors than the wheels can use to apply to the asphalt.

In fact, once the wheels transition between static friction and kinetic friction, they apply less friction to the ground. Sliding wheels apply less friction to the ground than rolling wheels because rolling wheels have a contact patch that remains static in relation to the ground.

The goal of ABS brakes is to keep the tire operating right at that transitional state between static friction and kinetic friction because that's when the most amount of force is transmitted to the ground. They accomplish this goal by pulsing, or reducing the pressure that the pad applies to the rotor every time they sense that the rotor has come to a complete stop. This reduces the amount of torque the rotors apply to the axles, and reduces the amount of torque the axles apply to the wheels. In short, ABS brakes don't generate more friction. They generate less friction.

Now that you understand how ABS brakes work, let's try and see how analogous they are to a building collapse. One major difference is that the system you are comparing is not subject to an acceleration. Typically, you don't use the ABS brake system when you have your foot on the gas. If you did, the vehicle would take much longer to stop. There's even a theoretical point at which the acceleration could apply enough torque to the axle during the pulse phase to cancel out the torque applied to the rotor during the braking phase of the ABS system.

In a building collapse, gravity is the gas. So for you to have an argument about exactly how long the building should have taken to collapse you have to do a bit of math. You have to show how much energy is used in the breaking (notice the different spelling) of the support system, how much energy is supplied by the acceleration of gravity, and how much energy is lost from the system in the form of heat, light, sound etc.

Another major difference is in the scale of the event. The inertia of a vehicle is much less then the inertia of a building, but even vehicles using the exact same braking system have different stopping lengths. This is due to different types of tires, different masses, different wheel bases, etc. I don't see any way to scale an ABS brake system to a building collapse.

In light of these 2 differences how did you calculate your "longer then 10 seconds" conclusion?

 

Yes, it did. You can clearly see it here.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvmecjFmVyY&feature=related"]New View of the First WTC Collapse - YouTube[/ame]

 

Yup. It clearly rotated around its center of inertia. The building didn't topple over like a cut down tree, however, for two major reasons.

The first was that there was no force acting perpendicular to the building. The only force acting was gravity which was in a vector parallel to the building.

The second is the building's ratio of lateral stiffness to moment of inertia. As the top portion began to rotate around its center of inertia, the unmoved portions of structure were not strong enough to transmit the force through the rest of the building. Instead, they snapped, freeing the top portion from the base, and eliminating the rotational force.

 

hahaha...it's easy to do.

 

This is a resounding endorsement from a guy who thinks there are stars the size of volkswagons between the Earth and Moon that would have fried any astronauts going to the moon. That one STILL cracks me up!

 

your finding out why its a complete waste of time to even bother with him.save your breath on him,he is not worth the effort.None of the OCTA'S here are.

 

as you know,they never watch videos since they know they cant refute the facts in them.they never address the points brought up in them so I dont bother with them. I leared that a couple years ago since they wont even try and counter the facts in the videos, why even bother with them?

 

oh yeah you can clearly see in the pics taken as well that the tower tilts sideways at the top.Thats how we know beyond a doubt explosives were used because the laws of conservation of momentum that scientists have gone by for thousands of years,dictates that the top tier of the tower SHOULD have continued to tilt over sideways and never should have collapsed at vertical freefall speed no less. Looks like all the OCTA'S here slept through junior high school science class.thats something kids always learn a that age.

 

What you see is the top portion rotating around its center of inertia. This motion is caused by the failure of support columns on one side of the tower coupled with persistent strength in columns on the opposite side. Gravity pulls on the side that failed, the compressive strength of the columns on the other side "push up" on the opposite side, and torque is generated. Once the columns on the opposite side failed, there was no more torque and the rotation began to decelerate.

If explosives were used to prevent a force pushing the building sideways, the laws of conservation of momentum dictate that the force must have been applied in a vector opposite the pushing force. Are you suggesting that explosives must have been used outside of the building to push it back in the direction of some as of yet, unnamed tilting force?

The towers did not collapse at free fall speed.

Observation is relative. To you it looks like someone has slept through science class. To us on the other hand...

To us your comment is evidence that this statement:

Is false.

 

amen to that.so very true.The OCTA's they cant refute the facts and evidence in that video.they just try to tap dance around it.

 

What is an "OCTA"? Is that an insult?

Seriously though, drop the flame baiting. It makes you look silly.

 

Name the very best "fact" in that video. What do you think is it's most compelling bit of evidence?

 

I don't have enough information to pose a theory about what happened on 9/11, but I find that there are enough holes in the official version of the story to make it less than plausible that it happened the way the establishment says. The lack of plane debris at the Pentagon, the missing frames from security cameras that had direct view of the flight path and impact, the improbability of an inexperienced pilot to pull off the highly difficult, precision flight maneuver required to hit the Pentagon the way it did, the collapse of building 7, the numerous reports of people at ground zero stating that they heard a series of explosions just before the building collapses, the direct claims made by members of the 9/11 commission that the integrity of their investigation was compromised and that people were apparently deliberately working to keep them from discovering the truth...

It is quite apparent that the official version doesn't hold water.

 

You've been scammed by conspiracy propaganda: nearly everything you list above is not factual.

 

You fail to address the issue being discussed so you attempt to convince the online 9/11 forum community that I am "a complete waste of time to even bother with" and that I am "not worth the effort". Those opinionated statements are personal attacks that do not further discussion and or debate. Do you like irony? Because you just wasted my time.

 

Well, in fairness he DOES admit he doesn't have enough information.

Lets look at the claims.

Lack of plane debris. What are you basing this off of? The people who were there and removing the parts? Or the very limited number of pictures? None of the people involved in the removal of the plane had any doubts about the plane being there, which means you're relying on your OPINION of how much plane there was.

Missing frames. Oh, you mean the missing frames from the LEAKED security footage? Yeah, those were all found when the FBI released all the videos including the security camera frames. You're just completely misinformed on this one.

Inexperienced pilot pulling off a highly difficult maneuver? Wrong. Hanjour wasn't the best pilot, but he sure wasn't inexperienced. He had an FAA flight license once before in 1999. As for the maneuver, what is difficult about a 270 degree turn taking several minutes? As for hitting the Pentagon, it's pretty easy. Big building and all. Once again you're using your OPINION of Hanjour and the maneuvers as evidence when your opinions are based on bad info.

Building 7. Are you an expert on building collapses and structural engineering? No? Big surprise. Once again your OPINION is being substituted in place of EVIDENCE. The NIST found the weak link in WTC 7 that caused the collapse. The report was put together using the expertise of numerous structural engineers and specialists throughout the US. But we're suppose to believe your OPINION over their science? I don't think so.

Explosions at ground zero. Hmmm. Let's see. The building was starting to collapse. Apparently to truthers it should have been absolutely quiet before the collapse. Riiiiight. Not one shred of evidence has ever been produced of explosives at ground zero where there should have literally been TONS of evidence. Steel girders ripped apart by high explosives have a distinct look. Blasting caps and wiring are all well known by demolitions crews like the one cleaning up ground zero. The FACT that demolitions are done to highly prepped buildings where major beams are cut most of the way through so they don't have to us enough explosives, yet nobody prepped the beams at WTC so they would have had to use much larger charges. The FACT these charges are detectable by seismographs which failed to detect charges going off. The FACT that no recording of the collapse recorded the explosive charges going off that in a normal demolition are heard for miles. Add all that up and your opinion looks pretty sad, doesn't it.

9/11 commission members whining. Did this happen? Yes. Does ANYONE from the commission believe the truther bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about anyone other than Al Qaeda being behind 9/11? Not a one. The lies the commission was told were detected and reconciled with the rest of the facts. The commission members signed their names to the document saying it is true. Would they do that if they thought it was all a lie? No.

It's quite apparent your opinions are flawed and silly while the truther theories are a joke. As for the official story, it holds water far better than ANYTHING offered by ANYONE else.

 

I see your points quite clearly now but I want to emphasize something. That is that, like you said, ABS braking has a pulse phase. I was trying to say that the many floors the building fell through should have acted as the pulsating agent that opposes the downward acceleration of gravity. And the inertia of a building is much greater than that of a car so the force of gravity should have been minimized especially when it only had a few short seconds of actual free fall if we hold the official report to be true. Having established that and the 50-100 floors of friction should have delayed the building from hitting the ground in 10 seconds. That 10 seconds was not a calculation, it was just broadcasted on the news.

 

Oh I see now. But it simultaneously started to tilt to one side and collapse straight down. Why? It should have been one or the other, there is no way the building suffered severe structural damage throughout the entire structure.

 

Also please explain the concept of rotating around a center of inertia

 

You're missing an extremely important part of the equation and that is the continued collapse and just how much energy that releases.

A little background information. If you already know this, sorry for boring you.

There are two kinds of energy; kinetic and potential. Kinetic is the kind of energy you see released in a collapse. It is what tears the building apart and causes the damage. The potential energy is the energy stored in the building.

Energy can not be created or destoryed, just changed. The energy you use to lift something (such as when you build a building) doesn't just disappear. It is stored in the object you lifted as potential energy until it is lowered back to the ground. If something is slowing that object, the energy is expended on what is slowing the object down. If nothing slows the object, then all the energy is released at once when the object hits the ground.

So lets take the south tower. Approximately the top fifth of the building fell about 11 feet until it impacted the lower section of the building. The towers weighed approx half a million tons each, so, for the sake of argument, lets say that is 100,000 tons of material that dropped 11 feet. That is 200,000,000 pounds of material.

Now imagine how much energy it takes to lift 200 million pounds 12 feet. That much energy was released on the next floor down. There is no way that next floor can survive that kind of energy release so it collapses too.

Now you have 200,000,000 pounds of material, plus all the weight of the lower floor dropping ANOTHER 12 feet. True, SOME of the energy was released destroying the floor underneath, but then all that energy PLUS 12 more feet worth PLUS another floor's worth of material hits the NEXT floor down.

Do you see where this is going? You keep adding more energy and mass as the collapse progresses down. The entire mass keeps growing and increasing speed as it goes down.

Is this highly simplified? Yes. The principals and science behind it are sound.

Now, in your example, you talk about inertia. You're right. The building as a whole has a metric buttload of inertia. Unfortunately, the building is not a solid object. It is a whole bunch of smaller pieces connected together into a whole. The entire building can't absorb the impact of a collapse at once. The floors directly below the collapse have to absorb the entire collapse at once and they don't have anywhere near the inertia to do so.

Here is an example for you. Hold a bowling ball in your hands. Should be pretty easy to do and you can probably hold a lot more weight, right? That is the static weight the tower floors were designed to hold. Now take that bowling ball 12 above you and drop it into your hands. Think you can hold it? Maybe, but that would only be the load of the floor above you. Add into that the 10-30 loads above you (depending on the tower) and all the building material. Inertia isn't going to stop that. Not a chance in hell.

So to sum up, yes, the floors DID slow down the collapse due to resistance in the form of inertia and resistance from support structures. Did it make much of a difference? No. As has been demonstrated, the energy and mass continued to grow and accelerate as the collapse progressed.

 

I will answer both of those questions.

In order for the tower to tilt to one side, the structures on one side of the tower have to start collapsing first. Think of the towers in terms of building blocks to see why it can't just tilt. If you have a tower of ten blocks and you want to tilt the top block, you can't without lifting the other edge. That can't happen in real life because the tower is an object made up of countless interconnected individual objects. So one side has to fail which starts the building rotating towards the collapsed side.

So now think about what this does to all the other structures in the building holding up the other side. Those structures are not designed to hold up the entire top part of the building suddenly twisting down, so they fail. Gravity takes over and the rest is history. There is only one way to go: down.

Rotating around the center of inertia is simply a way of describing the rotation of an object. Go back to the block example above. If you tilt the top block over the edge, the center of inertia is the leading edge of the block that the rest of the block rotates around. When the building started to collapse on one side first, the center of inertia was the middle of the building as one side collapsed and one side remained attached to the lower portion of the building. You can clearly see in the video that this rotational center is NOT the leading edge but the center of the upper structure.

 

Can you do a better job pointing out what is not factual like Patriot 911 has? He apparently believes that saying "nuh uh" and being insulting and condescending makes a valid argument.

I'm relying on the fact that there has not been evidence presented of a plane hitting the pentagon. Do you have any actual evidence besides the old stand by "if there weren't plane parts the people there would have mentioned it" non-argument?

No, I'm talking about the footage that was released, incomplete and with missing frames, that doesn't prove nor disprove that a plane hit the Pentagon.

LOL!!! Do you fancy yourself and expert on the subject? Your rebuttal is "he wasn't inexperienced, he had a pilots license once back in 1999". That does not prove that he was an experienced pilot. I don't know how you can suggest that coming out of a 270 degree spiral turn at just above ground level and to hit the Pentagon in a manor to cause such maximum damage as happened was not a remotely difficult maneuver. In fact, you suggest it would be easy.

I am not an expert and I don't claim to be. I do, however, understand logic and reason, and I find it very unreasonable for anyone to believe that a building suffered total structural failure and collapse without even being hit by a plane. Simply because a theoretical model can explain that it is possible for the conditions to all be in place for it to jive with the official version of events, that does not mean that the official theory is beyond question.

My opinion is that people know the difference between the sounds of explosions and the sound of a building collapsing. My opinion is also that people know the difference between hearing sounds just prior to the collapse and hearing sounds as the building collapses. You also present a lot of unsupported "evidence" to answer my questions. Your "opinion" is beginning to look as sad as your credibility seems to be.

Yes, declaring that their work was compromised and their investigation was apparently deliberately blocked is just a bit of whining and doesn't leave any question as to the final outcome of the investigation.

You come off as someone that is disinterested in discussion and merely has an agenda to say anything in order to marginalize any questions into the official version of the story.

The fact of the matter is that someone looking for truth doesn't accept a story full of holes and then attack those that are asking questions about it and attempt to marginalize every question asked because it is "better than anything offered by anyone else".

You aren't truthful and you aren't looking for truth. You are merely looking to promote the official government theory that doesn't hold water and you're about as transparent as it is.

 

Irt's a flat out lie that no one has presented evidence that a plane hit the pentagon...plenty of etwitnesses saw it,