Watching a program on National Geographic on 9/11 Conspiracies


SC Tiger

New member
I'm watching a program on 9/11 Conspiracy theories on National Geographic. I'm not trying to start a debate on whether 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy or not, but honestly, some of these conspiracy theorists are either insane or stupid. I actually hope they are insane since you can't fix stupid.

My favorite is this kid that produced "Loose Change." What qualifies him to know whether a jetliner can bring down a skyscraper or not? I also saw another show where this guy claimed that he had been involved in building construction for 12 years and demolition for 12 years so he "knows how buildings go up and how they go down." Now he's a nurse. Wonder if that's because he sucked at his previous careers?

While I am not trying to start a 9/11 conspiracy debate, I think people need to remember that the WTC buildings were built like no other buildings on earth and therefore will not collapse like any other building on earth.
 

camsf150

USCG
I flipped over to it for a sec when man woman wild went to commercial. All I can say is what do you expect to be put out from a sheeple left wing org like nat geo ?
 

FN1910

New member
the WTC buildings were built like no other buildings on earth and therefore will not collapse like any other building on earth
.

Could you explain this a little better. The WTC were built using the same basic design as most modern day tall buildings with the steel support structure in the center and outer walls. Gravity is a powerful force that as long as we remain here on Earth we are going to have to deal with it. The steel supporting the top of the builds went through a second annealing process when the fuel of the airliners kept burning. When the weight of the top floors finally gave way the sudden shock caused the support below to fail. If the crash had been at a much higher level the bottom structures may not have failed or at least in the way they failed because the weight would have been much less. If the crash had been at a much lower level the the upper portion would probably have toppled over rather than straight down.

The key was that the crashes were at the proper level to cause the total failure as it did. The terrorist were probably just lucky with where they hit rather than any real intent for those floors. Just like with the Katrina conspiracist, Mother Nature and all of her laws seem to be ignored and they vastly overestimate the power of man to control her. Gravity is a part of nature and controls lots of things.
 

Pinnacle Safety

New member
Please don't take this to its most basic elements it takes the crazies out of the discussion come on gravity next thing youll say is a iceberg can sink the titanic
 

CharlieK

New member
.

Could you explain this a little better. The WTC were built using the same basic design as most modern day tall buildings with the steel support structure in the center and outer walls. Gravity is a powerful force that as long as we remain here on Earth we are going to have to deal with it. The steel supporting the top of the builds went through a second annealing process when the fuel of the airliners kept burning. When the weight of the top floors finally gave way the sudden shock caused the support below to fail. If the crash had been at a much higher level the bottom structures may not have failed or at least in the way they failed because the weight would have been much less. If the crash had been at a much lower level the the upper portion would probably have toppled over rather than straight down.

The key was that the crashes were at the proper level to cause the total failure as it did. The terrorist were probably just lucky with where they hit rather than any real intent for those floors. Just like with the Katrina conspiracist, Mother Nature and all of her laws seem to be ignored and they vastly overestimate the power of man to control her. Gravity is a part of nature and controls lots of things.
Not just annealing, the steel was greatly softened causing it to lose much of its strength after almost an hour of heating at temperatures of about 1800°F, which is considerably higher than the normal annealing temperature of structural steel.

What the conspiracy theorists failed to point out is that the EPA was in on the conspiracy starting 30 years before 9/11/01 when the agency made it illegal in 1972 to use asbestos to protect steel structures from fire. The substitute insulation that had to be used had neither the insulation qualities nor the physical integrity to withstand the tremendous fire and impacts of the planes, thereby exposing the structural steel to much more intense heat than would have occurred had asbestos been used.

Further, the buildings had used asbestos up to about the 52nd floors when it became illegal, so the planners of the 9/11 event had that information and made use of it by flying the planes into the buildings much higher up.

Pouring gasoline on the fires of conspiracy theories.
 

fuhr52

New member
Also to add, those planes were packed full of fuel adding to the intense heat. As the building collapsed each floor pancaked on the one below adding more weight to each floor as the building went down.
 

CharlieK

New member
Also to add, those planes were packed full of fuel adding to the intense heat. As the building collapsed each floor pancaked on the one below adding more weight to each floor as the building went down.
Your second statemen is not true. They couldn't have added more weight than was there before the buildings collapsed, but the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling upper stories impacting the lower floors certainly caused the lower floors to collapse because the load on the remaining floors was more than doubled.
 

fuhr52

New member
My point is that building was not designed to withstand a forces of that magnitude from top to bottom. I realize the weight would not change but drop a fifty pound block on a scale and tell me the scale will still read fifty pounds on impact.
 

walt629

New member
[/B]Your second statemen is not true. They couldn't have added more weight than was there before the buildings collapsed, but the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling upper stories impacting the lower floors certainly caused the lower floors to collapse because the load on the remaining floors was more than doubled.

Actually his statement from a structural engineering stand point is correct. The Towers were constructed on an internal support and distribution framework. The individual floor space loading is limited by the structural weight bearing capability of the under support of the individual floors. The whole building structure is all part of the weight support and the collaps of one floor onto the next does not "add additional weight" to the total mass of the building but will "blow out" the weight capability of the individual floor structures.

Picture a series of boxes stacked on top of each other and joined by an exoskeletal structure with minor structure connecting crosswise from corner to corner. Now drop a weight that is 2X the support capability of the floor loading into the top box. As the weight breaks through the 'floor' of the box, the cross ties will break and eventually the exterior walls will flex to the center then to the outside. Once the 'pancake' effect starts, there is nothing to stop it except a structure capable of supporting the entire mass of the colapsing structure.

You are absolutely correct that the kinetic energy of the falling floors was part and parcel of the collaps in total.
 

CharlieK

New member
My point is that building was not designed to withstand a forces of that magnitude from top to bottom. I realize the weight would not change but drop a fifty pound block on a scale and tell me the scale will still read fifty pounds on impact.
You just supported my point. The block will still "weigh" 50 pounds. It's the change in momentum and kinetic energy that causes the scale's reading, the "load", to suddenly jump wwaaaaaayyyy up....just as in the building collapse.
 

FN1910

New member
I think you all are just arguing orver semantics and technicalities. The only conspiracy I believe in about the collapse of the WTC in the one the OBL and his cronies were able to fly jet planes loaded with fuel into the towers and cause their collapse. I don't think Bush or anyone outside of the OBL group had anything to do with it. I also don't think that anyone other than Mother Nature had anything to do with the flooding of Nawleans after Katrina. That is other that the stupidity that some people think they are smarter than her and can control Mother Nature.
 

fuhr52

New member
You just supported my point. The block will still "weigh" 50 pounds. It's the change in momentum and kinetic energy that causes the scale's reading, the "load" to suddenly jump wwaaaaaayyyy up....just as in the building collapse.

Well I'm not an engineer, maybe you are. I do believe we are saying the same thing.:pleasantry:
 

CharlieK

New member
You just supported my point. The block will still "weigh" 50 pounds. It's the change in momentum and kinetic energy that causes the scale's reading, the "load" to suddenly jump wwaaaaaayyyy up....just as in the building collapse.

Well I'm not an engineer, maybe you are. I do believe we are saying the same thing.:pleasantry:
I agree, we are saying the same thing. Yes, I am an engineer; my PhD is in engineering mechanics with a specialty in structural mechanics, impact phenomena, and dynamic properties of materials. You are relying on your intuition, which is just fine in this case.
 

FN1910

New member
I agree, we are saying the same thing. Yes, I am an engineer; my PhD is in engineering mechanics with a specialty in structural mechanics, impact phenomena, and dynamic propterties of materials. You are relying on your intuition, which is just fine in this case.

My degree in in electrical engineering but I did have to take statics and ###namics. This is like people always talking about power surges which technically there is no such thing. I had a fellow bet be $50 on that one time and pulled out his book to prove it and never could find the author refer to power surges. (It is a voltage surge)

I like tuts40's story, plane hits building....building burns....building falls down. End of story.
 

CharlieK

New member
My degree in in electrical engineering but I did have to take statics and ###namics. This is like people always talking about power surges which technically there is no such thing. I had a fellow bet be $50 on that one time and pulled out his book to prove it and never could find the author refer to power surges. (It is a voltage surge)

I like tuts40's story, plane hits building....building burns....building falls down. End of story.
I like tuts40's story, too. Well, I taught statics, dynamics, and solid mechanics when I was in graduate school.
 

Dennis1209

New member
I'm not disputing common sense and/or the governments and experts explanations of the events, however. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction how WTC #7 fell. Also, probably THE most secure and protected property on earth (the Pentagon)as far as video surveillance, to my knowledge, there should have been dozens of photo's of what hit the building? Any thoughts?
 

CharlieK

New member
I'm not disputing common sense and/or the governments and experts explanations of the events, however. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction how WTC #7 fell. Also, probably THE most secure and protected property on earth (the Pentagon)as far as video surveillance, to my knowledge, there should have been dozens of photo's of what hit the building? Any thoughts?

The geophycisists at Columbia Universiy in New York City (News Archive - The Earth Institute - Columbia University) say that the shaking of the earth due to the falling buildings of WTC 1 and 2 was not enough to cause the nearby buildings to collapse; however, they also say that they can't be sure that it didn't cause such damage. They didn't have seismographs near the site, though; their closest sensors were about 35km away.

They think the main effect on the nearby buildings was the pressure wave emanating from the falling buildings. There was a huge volume of air inside the buildings that was compressed when the buildings fell. This air had to move outward and away from the falling buildings and had to have had significant effects on the nearby buildings.

One thing they did not discuss, though, was the fact that the usual earthquake has energy released over a huge area very deep inside the earth, so that sensors many miles away would see a much larger signal for a given Richter Scale reading. The event in question had energy released in a concentrated location compared to an earthquake.
 

FN1910

New member
As for why WTC #7 fell there was a bumper sticker quite popular a few years back saying excrement (####) happens. Yup, lots of theories but few hard facts or proof.

For the Pentagon there are lots of pictures, just none that are suitable for framing. The plane was traveling app. 500mph which is 703fps. The cameras outside the Pentagon were not high speed-high definition type cameras and not designed or intended to capture images of things moving at that speed. As much and the producers of CSI and NCIS would like us to think, every inch of the US is not monitored by surveillance cameras, even the Pentagon is/was lacking in some spots.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,390
Messages
623,095
Members
74,213
Latest member
balesofhay6230
Top