Yeah, “scientists”, explain that! Something doesn’t add up!
6 Likes
For this paragraph to pass the giggle test, the author has to have witnessed controlled demolitions, uncontrolled demolitions, and be able to tell us just how video footage of the two should differ.
Thing is, demolitions are rare, since buildings are expensive. And uncontrolled demolitions are by their very nature unanticipated, and rarely recorded on video. In fact, I challenge you to find video footage of an uncontrolled building collapse prior to 9/11.
And yet, these self appointed experts just assume that the two events are easily distinguished by their untrained eyes. This is part of why “troopers” get treated with so much derision and contempt: this level of question begging begs for it.
3 Likes
Emperor here.
6 Likes
It is a fascinating sort of extremely selective anti-authoritarianism and appeal to the wisdom of the “common man”.
I’ll explain like you’re 5: fires can bring buildings down. That is why buildings have fire suppression systems. When fire suppression systems fail, fires don’t get suppressed, and that can cause a building to come down. WTC7 lost its water supply, and so the sprinkler systems failed. The fire was not suppressed. So the building came down.
5 Likes
I’m going to guess that you’ve never knocked down a building. I have; it’s incredibly difficult to drop one straight down. You’re arguing from ignorance, which is difficult (if not impossible) to counter.
@brainspore, your link does not address the question. It is talking about truther bullshit that I never mentioned. And of course for every “real engineer and physicist” that buys into the official conspiracy theory there is another that does not - the Intertubes tell me over 2300 of them have petitioned the government to protest the absurd fantasy that is the third building “explanation”, so appeal to authority is probably not your best approach either.
But we can quit now. You’ve adequately proved my point! I’ll share with you what I think, and you can mock it at your leisure, since I have no real answers.
It’s certainly possible that the official explanation for the falling of the first two towers is legit. Those buildings had an unusual structure that was subjected to unprecedented stresses, so they certainly could have fallen in a manner visually indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. The idea that a third, differently constructed building subjected to different damage would fall in an identical manner seems incredibly unlikely; the weirdly inappropriate actions of the Bush administration afterwards make this idea even less believable.
People who want to believe the political powers will believe their story, and people who don’t will try to come up with alternatives, some of them even loonier than what Bush and Cheney were selling. But, truly, objectively, we just don’t know. None of the narratives conform to freely available records of the actual events.
2 Likes
Fascinating. I was not aware gravity oscillates in our corner of the universe.
3 Likes
By virtue of writing software, I am qualified as an “engineer” to be on that list. I am not, however, qualified to certify the soundness of a building design.
(editing since the web interface called upon me to combine responses)
Except that they didn’t. WTC6 was squished like a bug from falling debris. WTC7 was so heavily damaged it collapsed later on. The Deutche Bank building suffered so much damage it was condemned and had to be pulled down I-beam by I-beam.
You’ve had 14 years to learn this. What’s your excuse?
4 Likes
A little off-topic, but I’m kind of a 9-11 Truther Collector: I try to find the most outlandish, but respectable, sources of 9-11 “Truth”: my sad favorite so far is AK Dewdney’s.
Did any of you follow Scientific American in your youth? When I was in high school, I couldn’t get enough of the Mathematical Recreations column, written by Douglas Hofstadter, then Martin Gardner, and then AK Dewdney.
So, I was dumbstruck when I found out “my” AK Dewdney, a hero of my youth, and an unarguably brilliant man is, unaccountably, also a truther. And, what a truther he is. The short form of his supposition is that remote-controlled, empty planes hit WTC 1/2. (With the implication being that the ~400 passengers/crew on the planes were debarked and murdered off-site? Or that they were themselves all in on the conspiracy? You’ll have to read it to find out. I cannot; it’s too sickening.)
The “truther” bug doesn’t just strike down the ignorant.
10 Likes
They trust other truthers implicitly. It’s those engineers and people who were there who can’t be trusted! Power to the peeeoooople!
1 Like
And I’m sure that that crash was tested at approach speeds – say – ~200-250 kts. The 767s both hit at 400+ kts. So the velocity component is 4x the energy (plus however much a 767 outmasses a 737)
2 Likes
Your quote tool is quoting the wrong person.
5 Likes
The government calls today, Sept. 11, Patriot Day. A better name is NSA/FBI/CIA/DOD Failure Day.
2 Likes
That is a patently false statement.
I assume your “2,300 architects and engineers” number comes from those who signed the petition by “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” But even assuming that number is accurate (and not inflated by self-professed architects and engineers who have no relevant qualifications), it’s a TINY number compared to the number of experts who wholeheartedly dismiss the “controlled demolitions” theory. Key takeaway from that Wikipedia page:
The NIST explanation of collapse is universally accepted by the structural engineering, and structural mechanics research communities.[41]
6 Likes
True. My bad for quoting a quote.
They eschew all experts. (The more expertise you have, the closer you are to the event, the more corruptible and corrupted you are.) Yet, if some random crackpot with a PhD [invariably unrelated to the topic] opines on their side, they’ll gobble him up and say “See, the experts are on our side.”
The wisdom of the common man is the gut which tells them: “Something doesn’t feel right.” One hears that phrase over and over from these people. SO WHAT? Nature and physics will not conform to your gut. Jesus’ image is found both on tree bark patterns and on dogs’ assholes. Does that feel right? These people are at the same time Know-Nothings and self-styled Know-It-Alls.
3 Likes
No shit!
I don’t have to; I was present for one. I was a teenager on Market Street in Wilmington when a derelict office building came down ahead of schedule in the late 70s or early 80s. Luckily it made so much noise that everyone got out of the way in time; we dug through waist-deep rubble for many hours, but found no bodies. Buildings don’t fall straight down by nature; they are designed to never do that for reasons that I would have thought are obvious (although it’s possibly true that the design for the towers was fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out earlier).
Are there any here? I am simply not willing to accept the official explanation, since it doesn’t conform to reality as I have experienced it in my life. Does that make me a “troofer?” Y’all are pushing conspiracy theories created by the Bush administration and I’m calling for restraint, rather than wholehearted and vocal support for the official pronouncements of a regime that is literally famous for its lies that killed millions. I do not claim to have any “truth” - do you? Who’s the “truthers” here? I can’t change my mind, because I haven’t made my mind up yet; I’m still open minded.
Gotta go, y’all can keep massaging egos and worshiping idols without me. I’ll check back on Monday and see if anyone has anything better than appeals to authority or ad hominem to offer.
2 Likes
JAQ’in off, I see.
Exactly like the Antivax movement. So sad, such ego and inflated sense of self.
“I know what I know, what do DOCTORS and Big Pharm know?”
7 Likes
Not exactly. The Air Force would be very, very busy if that was the response every time an airliner strays from its flight plan. Trawl the aviation forum for stories. It happens a lot, for all sorts of reasons. A few years ago an airliner overshot its airport and flew straight for an hour because the captain and copilot were discussing changes in the company vacation policy. IF the Air Force answered every stray with a jet interception, life would be very, very different.
