The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

[BobK]

The JFK assassination, initially explained as a lone gunman, is now known believed by some to be a conspiracy.

FTFY.

 

[Major_Arcana]

Good job that's not what the stated cause if the collapse was then.

"This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7" Source

Nor is a video a good indicator of the time elapsed for collapse

I'm not talking about the time elapsed. The simulation shows a collapse that is asymmetrical from the start.
The building (the perimiter columns and fasade) came down symmetrically the first 100 feet.
It went from holding to symmetrical free fall in an instant.

Citations aren't guessing games, what are you saying the difference is?

See above.

Fortunately the NIST model doesn't suggest a "free fall"

("stage two" in figure 3-15 on page 46 of the final NIST report).

rather a (relatively) gradual structural decline followed by amassed "pancaking"

It does not explain the sudden and simultanious collapse of ALL the perimiter columns.

 

[Dotini]

The genocide of a million Muslims, a million Muslim orphans, the destruction or Balkanization of many Muslim countries, the mass migration of a million Muslim refugees to Europe, the perpetual war costing trillions of borrowed dollars, ALL this madness and horror is based upon and justified by 9/11.

If you accept without question or objection the conventional narrative of 9/11, then you also must accept without question or objection the madness and horror that have been directly generated and justified from it.

 

[Northstar]

The genocide of a million Muslims, a million Muslim orphans, the destruction or Balkanization of many Muslim countries, the mass migration of a million Muslim refugees to Europe, the perpetual war costing trillions of borrowed dollars, ALL this madness and horror is based upon and justified by 9/11.

If you accept without question or objection the conventional narrative of 9/11, then you also must accept without question or objection the madness and horror that have been directly generated and justified from it.

I've seen boxers dance around the ring less than this.

Make with the proof already!

 

[Scaff]

"This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7" Source

As you say in the quote above "impact of debris from the collapse of WTC1", so the building was not simply subject to fire damage, but also impact damage.

Now the report does suggest that the collapse could well have occurred without the impact damage, however that doesn't changethe fact that fire damage was not the only factor.

I'm not talking about the time elapsed. The simulation shows a collapse that is asymmetrical from the start.
The building (the perimiter columns and fasade) came down symmetrically the first 100 feet.
It went from holding to symmetrical free fall in an instant.

Citation required.

How do know this, is the only sign of a building collapse what is going on inside the building? What about internal stresses and collapse that may not be visible (but would be detectable by seismic activity that I note you ignored)?

What about the visible buckling and collapse of the penthouse floors before the final collapse?

("stage two" in figure 3-15 on page 46 of the final NIST report).

Dishonest quote mining to the max.

What it actually says is that only the north face, during the second stage of collapse descended at gravitational speed, and quite clearly states that the entire first 18 floors of the collapse was 40% longer than free-fall.

The AUP is quite clear in regard to making deliberately missleading claims, and this fits that bill perfectly. The report does not state what you are claiming it does, quite the opposite. Don't misquote a source again.

It does not explain the sudden and simultanious collapse of ALL the perimiter columns.

You base that claim on?

The genocide of a million Muslims, a million Muslim orphans, the destruction or Balkanization of many Muslim countries, the mass migration of a million Muslim refugees to Europe, the perpetual war costing trillions of borrowed dollars, ALL this madness and horror is based upon and justified by 9/11.

If you accept without question or objection the conventional narrative of 9/11, then you also must accept without question or objection the madness and horror that have been directly generated and justified from it.

No you don't.

That's a massive logical fallacy.

 

[Major_Arcana]

As you say in the quote above "impact of debris from the collapse of WTC1", so the building was not simply subject to fire damage, but also impact damage.

Now the report does suggest that the collapse could well have occurred without the impact damage, however that doesn't changethe fact that fire damage was not the only factor.

Structual damage to a part of the building contributed to the symmetrical collapse?

Citation required.

How do know this, is the only sign of a building collapse what is going on inside the building? What about internal stresses and collapse that may not be visible (but would be detectable by seismic activity that I note you ignored)?

By watching the simulation (I'm sure you can find that) and watching the actual footage.
Again, I'm talking about the perimiter columns and the fasade of the building.
Even if the entire core structure had collapsed and the perimiter columns couldn't hold the stress it would still offer great resistance and would consume a substantial portion of the potential energy in the work needed to crush/displace the remaining structure. Freefall should be impossible from a mechanical point of view.

The AUP is quite clear in regard to making deliberately missleading claims, and this fits that bill perfectly. The report does not state what you are claiming it does, quite the opposite. Don't misquote a source again.

Which missleading statement are you accusing me of making?

You base that claim on?

The video evidence that I presented. It takes effort not to see it.

 

[Dotini]

My father was there at the time. He and many of his generation believed the truth of this conspiracy. I'll say it again. Many lies are useful, necessary and justified. Hypocrisy is a high artform developed for good reason.


Front page of Hawaii Tribune-Herald about a possible Japanese strike somewhere in Asia or the South Pacific, dated 30 November 1941.

The Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is the argument that U.S. Government officials had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Ever since the Japanese attack there has been debate as to how and why the United States had been caught off guard, and how much and when American officials knew of Japanese plans for an attack.[1][2] In September 1944, John T. Flynn,[3] a co-founder of the non-interventionist America First Committee,[4]launched Pearl Harbor revisionism when he published a forty-six page booklet entitled The Truth about Pearl Harbor.[3]

Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett,[5] retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Robert Alfred Theobald,[6] and Harry Elmer Barnes[7] have argued various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into the European theatre of World War II via a Japanese–American war started at "the back door".[8][9] Evidence supporting this view is taken from quotations and source documents from the time[10] and the release of newer materials. However, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy is considered to be a fringe theory and is rejected by most historians.[11][12][13]

 

[Famine]

If WTC 7 was pulled, then they all were.

If you accept without question or objection the conventional narrative of 9/11, then you also must accept without question or objection the madness and horror that have been directly generated and justified from it.

Even for you, these are insane things to think.

I know you like to play the devil's advocate, question everything role, but this load of aardvark knackers is nothing short of barking mad - you'd need to turn your brain inside out to rationalise either of those two statements.

 

[Imari]

Take a look at the simulation and then watch the actual collapse and see if you can spot the difference.

Any hypothesis that suggests fire as the primary cause of a global symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is worth as much as a 3$ bill, no matter what (undisclosed) parameters it uses in its computational model.

So can you explain clearly why it is impossible for fire to cause a collapse of the type seen? Which was not a global symmetrical collapse as you claim, but something more complex.

I can buy that it's unlikely that the building would collapse in the way it did, but not impossible.

I'm not talking about the time elapsed. The simulation shows a collapse that is asymmetrical from the start.
The building (the perimiter columns and fasade) came down symmetrically the first 100 feet.
It went from holding to symmetrical free fall in an instant.

Er, not really.



You can see the top corner starting to disappear, but you can't see detail because real buildings aren't transparent. It matches up pretty well until the whole structure starts to drop, at which point the simulation stops. Presumably because the butterfly effect of minor details on whether the thing falls in Land's End or John o Groats would make it entirely misleading.

@Scaff has done a good job of showing where the report clearly states otherwise as well. You have the video, you can do the measurements and math as well as anyone, one assumes.

See above.

You are incorrect. The similarities are remarkable, considering that modelling how an entire building fails under load still falls under the description of "simulation", and we all know the simplifications and assumptions that lead to inaccuracies in those.

It does not explain the sudden and simultanious collapse of ALL the perimiter columns.

Good job that's not what happened. Or did you have 360° vision? As far as I can tell no one has clear footage of the far side, which was shrouded in smoke from the fire anyway. But what you can see matches up startlingly well with the equivalent points on the (transparent, but you knew that) computer model. What you can see is the top left corner of the roof dropping away significantly before the fall of the building. You can see the front side flexing. You can see the whole front twisting as it falls because it's not dropping entirely straight initially, but it's still a relatively rigid mass.

But the major problem with the demolition hypothesis is the lack of sound. Go and watch any demolition video. The amount of explosive necessary to drop a building is significant. You cannot muffle that sound. Not with that many people around, many of them military or with similar training. It's both distinctive and incredibly loud, even over all the hubbub and commotion that would have been going on that day.

If you try to use thermite or other non-explosive means, it would be a total crapshoot as to the timing of the thing, and actually achieving a perfect burn that resulted in the building coming down square is so unlikely that I'd actually say that the footage we have disproves that hypothesis.

I can't think of a quiet way to bring a building down square, but if you have one then I'm all ears.

The genocide of a million Muslims, a million Muslim orphans, the destruction or Balkanization of many Muslim countries, the mass migration of a million Muslim refugees to Europe, the perpetual war costing trillions of borrowed dollars, ALL this madness and horror is based upon and justified by 9/11.

If you accept without question or objection the conventional narrative of 9/11, then you also must accept without question or objection the madness and horror that have been directly generated and justified from it.

What the hell are you talking about? Just because one had their own questions and decided that the conventional narrative seemed most plausible, they're then disqualified from questioning anything that happened thereafter?

Talk about trying to shut people down. If you have a hypothesis, explain it clearly and we can discuss. If you're just going to keep calling people names and throwing around buzzwords then perhaps you can find somewhere less free thinking to peddle your trolling.

I think you're ignoring that the US and Russia had been messing around with the Middle East for decades before 9/11. They didn't need that to start a war. The Afghanistan wars have been going on since the 70s. If they wanted to, they'd always find some sort of casus belli.

On the other hand, their continued messing around in the Middle East pretty much guaranteed that eventually someone smart and powerful and motivated enough would put together a plan to do real damage to America in revenge for what had already been done to their country, their people, their religion and their beliefs. They might have been incorrect in what they believed that the US had done, but there's plenty of evidence that the US did their fair share of destabilising the region well before 9/11.

 

[Dotini]

The official story is not true. This can be proven.

Starting at ~8:30, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, is seen saying "pull it".

 

[Scaff]

The official story is not true. This can be proven.

Starting at ~8:30, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, is seen saying "pull it".

Please do go on to claim that 'pull' is demolition jargon for demolish with explosives (it's not), then forgot to mention that the two people in the discussion don't work in demolition (so would not use it even if it were the right jargon), then forget to mention that it could have a wide range of other meanings.

 

[Dotini]

Please do go on to claim that 'pull' is demolition jargon for demolish with explosives (it's not), then forgot to mention that the two people in the discussion don't work in demolition (so would not use it even if it were the right jargon), then forget to mention that it could have a wide range of other meanings.

You have not had enough time to view the video. General Stubblebine explains the usage in the video.

 

[Imari]

The official story is not true. This can be proven.

Starting at ~8:30, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, is seen saying "pull it".

This is the guy who is talking about not even knowing what started the fire in WTC7? Yeah, real convincing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

I mean, as far as guys whose word you'd want to take without actual real evidence to back them up, I wouldn't rate him real high on the list.

As a colonel, Stubblebine participated in a special task force which defined the requirements of the U.S. Army for future conflict. By 1980, General Stubblebine commanded the Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM). Stubblebine was strongly influenced by Lt. Col. Jim Channon's New Age document First Earth Battalion Field Manual (1979). Stubblebine became a proponent of psychic warfare and initiated a project within the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), which he commanded from 1981 to 1984, to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He attempted to walk through walls himself[3][4] — but failed, as he himself described in a 2004 interview.[5] (These activities feature prominently in Jon Ronson's 2004 book The Men Who Stare at Goats.[6][7])

A key sponsor of the Stargate Project (a remote viewing project) at Fort Meade, Maryland, Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his battalion commanders learn how to bend spoons in the manner of celebrity psychic Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, in addition to walking through walls, such as levitation and dispersing distant clouds with his mind. Stubblebine was a key leader in the U.S. military invasion of Grenada (1983) and was, according to a report published by the Daily Mail, "at the heart of America's military machine" at that time.[4] After some controversy involving the experiments with psychic phenomena, including alleged security violations from uncleared civilian psychics working in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Stubblebine took "early retirement" from the Army in 1984.[8] (This occurred after an incident at which Stubblebine offended Gen. John Adams Wickham, Jr. — then U.S. Army Chief of Staff — by offering to perform a spoon-bending feat at a formal gala. Wickham viewed such phenomena as associated with satanism.[9])

You have not had enough time to view the video. General Stubblebine explains the usage in the video.

He tries, but he's wrong.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/is"pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean"demol

 

[Scaff]

Structual damage to a part of the building contributed to the symmetrical collapse?

Stop asking for proof of claims the report hasn't made.

First you need to prove a symmetrical collapse.

By watching the simulation (I'm sure you can find that) and watching the actual footage.
Again, I'm talking about the perimiter columns and the fasade of the building.
Even if the entire core structure had collapsed and the perimiter columns couldn't hold the stress it would still offer great resistance and would consume a substantial portion of the potential energy in the work needed to crush/displace the remaining structure. Freefall should be impossible from a mechanical point of view.

Good job its still not freefall then isn't it.

Which missleading statement are you accusing me of making?

You cite the report as supporting a claim that the collapse was 'free fall', you even reference the page number. It doesn't come even close to supporting that claim. As such to cite it as doing so is missleading.

The video evidence that I presented. It takes effort not to see it.

Does not support the claim you are making, it refernces the exact same material as the report and says quite clearley that only the collapse of the North face, during the second stage of the collapse is gravitational free fall. The first and second stages are stated as both being slower than gravitational free fall.

What takes a real effort is to try and present that as something its not, and that effort is to be missleading.

You have not had enough time to view the video. General Stubblebine explains the usage in the video.

I've seen the video before, the claims are nothing new and are still not supported at all.

So stop making assumptions.

 

[Major_Arcana]

So can you explain clearly why it is impossible for fire to cause a collapse of the type seen?

Something had to remove the entire loading structure before the onset of frefall. Scattered office fires can't do that.
They can lead to a failure of parts of the structure which in turn can lead to more severe failures, but to suggest that this would result in the freefall collapse of the entire fasade seems not only unlikely, but impossible to me.

Which was not a global symmetrical collapse as you claim, but something more complex.

Well, the perimiter columns and fasade came down very symmetrical, and in freefall.

You are incorrect. The similarities are remarkable

I was referring to the first simulation. The second one is a lot closer, I admit.

Good job that's not what happened. Or did you have 360° vision?

No, but I've seen the collapse from several angles. Of course we're talking about degrees of symmetry.
You have to admit, it's quite symmetrical.

But the major problem with the demolition hypothesis is the lack of sound.

I can't think of a quiet way to bring a building down square, but if you have one then I'm all ears.

Well, there are countless witnesses that heard explosions and in some videos you can even hear what sounds like charges going off.

 

[Major_Arcana]

You cite the report as supporting a claim that the collapse was 'free fall', you even reference the page number. It doesn't come even close to supporting that claim. As such to cite it as doing so is missleading.

It's highlighted in the photo you posted.

Gravitational acceleration. Free fall drop. The degree of symmetry for the whole facade mean it all came down within a few percent of 9,81 m/s^2.

 

[Dotini]

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Under GW Bush, PNAC (Project for the New American Century) became official US policy.

At the end of the day, we come home to our basic, intuitive, most deeply held desires and beliefs, despite any words presented by 3rd parties.

So, at the end of the day, I'm an American, and I'm for America and against the terrorists.

America, right or wrong, is my home. So I will accept any lie useful and necessary to assure that America maintains empire and domination in the world. 9/11, in my judgment is a lie. But I have no trouble accepting its usefulness and necessity.

 

[Scaff]

It's highlighted in the photo you posted.

Gravitational acceleration. Free fall drop. The degree of symmetry for the whole facade mean it all came down within a few percent of 9,81 m/s^2.

A 40% difference for the first stage is not a few percent and that's without the slow down for the third stage.

Now looking a the the timeline of collapse we have the following from the report:

The red line would be a total free fall at gravitational speeds, and it roughly 3.5 seconds in duration (and matches the second stage of the north face collapse (still not the whole building). However once the slower first and third stages are accounted for its final duration is roughly 5.5 seconds. Two seconds, or 57% greater than gravitational free fall. So no not within a few percent at all.

And its still also for the exterior visual collapse of the North face only,not the whole building.

And once again you are asking the report to validate something it doesn't claim.

Your making the symmetrical claim, not the report.

Something had to remove the entire loading structure before the onset of frefall. Scattered office fires can't do that.
They can lead to a failure of parts of the structure which in turn can lead to more severe failures, but to suggest that this would result in the freefall collapse of the entire fasade seems not only unlikely, but impossible to me.

It wasn't scattered office fires, it wasn't symmetrical and it wasn't freefall.

You do know that repertition isn't going to turn those into facts.

Well, the perimiter columns and fasade came down very symmetrical, and in freefall.

Nope and nope.

No, but I've seen the collapse from several angles. Of course we're talking about degrees of symmetry.
You have to admit, it's quite symmetrical.

Now its quite symetrical? I thought it was symetrical, which is it?

Well, there are countless witnesses that heard explosions and in some videos you can even hear what sounds like charges going off.

Well we know exactly how loud it would have been at a minimum, as the investigation looked at the blast theory and even the smallest single charge that could have done it would have created a noise in the 130 to 140db range half a mile away. Which is as loud as military jet taking off with full afterburners at 50ft. You are not going to miss that on the recordings and people closer that 100ft are going to suffer permanent hearing damage as a result. Its not a bit loud, its loud to the point of causing deafness.

What was also missing is that the pressure wave from a blast would have resulted in a very distinct pattern of window blow out, and that simply isn't present.

 

[Imari]

Something had to remove the entire loading structure before the onset of frefall. Scattered office fires can't do that.
They can lead to a failure of parts of the structure which in turn can lead to more severe failures, but to suggest that this would result in the freefall collapse of the entire fasade seems not only unlikely, but impossible to me.

Yet you can't explain how it's impossible. I suggest you do some more reading, and come back when you have enough of an understanding of physics and engineering to explain your opinion.

Well, the perimiter columns and fasade came down very symmetrical, and in freefall.

On the one side that you can see. What happened on the other sides?

You'll be interested to know that the initial debris actually took out a bunch of external columns on the far side, or so the NIST report says. But it didn't affect the building until one critical internal column lost bracing and buckled, which transferred the load through the rest of them and they all failed.

I dunno if you ever tried to build bridges out of sticks as a kid, or played one of those bridge building apps that seem to be everywhere, but that's kind of how it works. One critical piece goes, and the whole thing tends follow it down.

I was referring to the first simulation. The second one is a lot closer, I admit.

Yep. Not identical, but close enough. It's not proof of anything in and of itself, but combined with plausible

No, but I've seen the collapse from several angles. Of course we're talking about degrees of symmetry.
You have to admit, it's quite symmetrical.

Not really, because I haven't seen anything showing a clear view of the corner that went first. One side going down clean does not make it a symmetrical drop, especially considering that watching the roofline there's evidence that there's stuff going on on the other side that we can't see.

Well, there are countless witnesses that heard explosions and in some videos you can even hear what sounds like charges going off.

You pinpoint those for me, because I've watched a bunch and the NIST report specifically mentions that they considered explosions and could find no visual or auditory evidence for it. Pages 35 to 37 are good initial reading for you, but the blast conclusion is at the bottom of 36. I assume that they probably go into more detail later on, I'm still browsing through but I at least read the summary of the findings.

While you're at it, watch a couple of real building demolition videos and compare those to the sounds that you hear and what you're seeing on video. Real demolition charges are incredibly loud, by definition an explosive creates a supersonic shock wave so you should be hearing a sonic boom. You wouldn't struggle to hear it, even at several hundred metres. There also tends to be an extended ripple of explosions, both from echoes and because they stagger them to get the fall that they want. Getting a building to fall in on itself is hard.

America, right or wrong, is my home. So I will accept any lie useful and necessary to assure that America maintains empire and domination in the world. 9/11, in my judgment is a lie. But I have no trouble accepting its usefulness and necessity.

This would seem to conflict with the AUP, if you're willing to lie to the rest of us for what you deem to be the good of your country, and to aid America maintain it's empire and domination of the world.

Not to mention that some think that the US should stick to it's own business and quit messing around trying to dominate other countries. Perhaps then you wouldn't find so many people antagonistic to you.

 

[Dotini]

some think that the US should stick to it's own business and quit messing around trying to dominate other countries.

We're not doing it on our own. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK are in the club. So is Israel.

As a libertarian, it is formal dogma that the US should stick to its own business. But that is no longer possible. When McKinley took office, we were a continental republic. When he left office, we were a global empire. There is no going back.

 

[Nessy]

Conspiracy theories...

Quite a lot of my childhood friends I grew up with, are really into them. I used to believe in some of them to a certain extent, until I started to question (more in depth) the rationale and reasoning behind the conspiracies.

Why do my friends believe in them? It's not because they're unintelligent (they're quick witted and have a lot of street smarts, some of them even have degrees, so I don't think it's a question of bad education). They'll believe any conspiracy though, from Jackie Kennedy being the one who shot JFK, 9/11, Flat earth, NASA being fake, CERN being a portal to evil and many many more.

I've asked the question time and time again (and have got into many arguments with them about the subject), why do they believe in this crap so easily?.. And I think the answer is religion closely tied with spiritualism. That and maybe too much DMT.

 

[Aerocoupe]

My father was there at the time. He and many of his generation believed the truth of this conspiracy. I'll say it again. Many lies are useful, necessary and justified. Hypocrisy is a high artform developed for good reason.


Front page of Hawaii Tribune-Herald about a possible Japanese strike somewhere in Asia or the South Pacific, dated 30 November 1941.

The Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is the argument that U.S. Government officials had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Ever since the Japanese attack there has been debate as to how and why the United States had been caught off guard, and how much and when American officials knew of Japanese plans for an attack.[1][2] In September 1944, John T. Flynn,[3] a co-founder of the non-interventionist America First Committee,[4]launched Pearl Harbor revisionism when he published a forty-six page booklet entitled The Truth about Pearl Harbor.[3]

Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett,[5] retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Robert Alfred Theobald,[6] and Harry Elmer Barnes[7] have argued various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into the European theatre of World War II via a Japanese–American war started at "the back door".[8][9] Evidence supporting this view is taken from quotations and source documents from the time[10] and the release of newer materials. However, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy is considered to be a fringe theory and is rejected by most historians.[11][12][13]

All officials knew when they cracked the Japanese codes was that an attack was being planned, there was no "when" or "where" included in the messages (likely to avoid all of their plans being revealed in case something like this happened). Hawaii was deemed highly unlikely for attack as it was thousands of miles from Japan, and let's not forget that the aircraft carrier went around all of the American patrol areas to avoid detection. Couple that with the fact that the Japanese planes were mistaken for B-17s headed toward the US mainland on radar, as well as it being a Sunday morning when most sailors were sleeping in, meant the Japanese couldn't have asked for an easier time to attack. (Although, I think one of the biggest contributing factors was how much we underestimated Japan as a whole.)

I simply cannot believe that anyone just let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose; I mean, a fair number of ships and people were lost on that day, and why anyone would want to force a war with part of your naval fleet destroyed is beyond me.

 

[Major_Arcana]

@Scaff @Imari

I'm talking about a global collapse of the perimiter columns/structure.
NIST's timeline starts well before that moves.

The perimiter strucure starts moving when stage 2 starts. It falls very much straight down at a rate indistinguishable from frefall. It falls in way that can only be described as symmetrical for the first 2 seconds (you're never going to get perfect symmetry, even with the best demolition crew money can buy).

After 2.25 seconds (measured by David Chandler using frame by frame with 30fps footage) it encounters resistance and the downward acceleration decreases. As expected the building now starts deforming and rotation occurs in multiple planes.

We're discussing seperate events here it seems.

Again, I'm talking about the perimiter structure.

Even if the entire core structure had collapsed there would still be a lot of perimiter support left to absorb a substantial portion of the potential energy of the top section of the building.

Where did that support go?
It had to fail completely all the way around the perimiter more or less simultaniously in order to get a collapse like we saw.

NIST claims that the buckling columns provided negligible resistance but doens't explain how this could occur in a manner that explains the observed result.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff @Imari

I'm talking about a global collapse of the perimiter columns/structure.
NIST's timeline starts well before that moves.

The perimiter strucure starts moving when stage 2 starts. It falls very much straight down at a rate indistinguishable from frefall. It falls in way that can only be described as symmetrical for the first 2 seconds (you're never going to get perfect symmetry, even with the best demolition crew money can buy).

After 2.25 seconds (measured by David Chandler using frame by frame with 30fps footage) it encounters resistance and the downward acceleration decreases. As expected the building now starts deforming and rotation occurs in multiple planes.

We're discussing seperate events here it seems.

Again, I'm talking about the perimiter structure.

Even if the entire core structure had collapsed there would still be a lot of perimiter support left to absorb a substantial portion of the potential energy of the top section of the building.

Where did that support go?
It had to fail completely all the way around the perimiter more or less simultaniously in order to get a collapse like we saw.

NIST claims that the buckling columns provided negligible resistance but doens't explain how this could occur in a manner that explains the observed result.

You may be talking about the perimiter, but the report is quite clear that its not talking about a simultaneous failure of the perimeter at all, you are (once again) asking for proof of something you are making up.

Its quite clear from the report that its looking at a failure of the internal floor and floor supports around column 79 (your internal support to the outside goes with it), followed by the failure of column 79. That starts a cascade that causes one side of the building to fail before the other. The internal failures start 6.6 seconds before any external collapse can be seen, as such its perfectly possible (and actually quite probable) that the North face exterior (which is what the time frame for collapse speed is referring to - not the the entire perimeter as you keep misleadingly claiming) is hanging on by a metaphoric thread at this point.

That thread being column 79, as soon as that fails the few remaining supports and trusses account for the initial slower collapse of the north face, as they all fail it enters near freefall (and its not consistent either as the report clearly shows) before the lower section starts to encounter the debris pile and slows again.

All of which is clearly explained in the report.

Oh and no the timeline for the collapse of the north face that we have been discussing does not start before the first external movement. A totally separate table details that (hence why it clearly states that the internal failures side starts at -6.6 seconds).

As such I can only conclude that either you have not actually read the report, not understood the report or are deliberately misrepresenting the report.

 

[Imari]

@Scaff @Imari

I'm talking about a global collapse of the perimiter columns/structure.
NIST's timeline starts well before that moves.

The perimiter strucure starts moving when stage 2 starts. It falls very much straight down at a rate indistinguishable from frefall. It falls in way that can only be described as symmetrical for the first 2 seconds (you're never going to get perfect symmetry, even with the best demolition crew money can buy).

After 2.25 seconds (measured by David Chandler using frame by frame with 30fps footage) it encounters resistance and the downward acceleration decreases. As expected the building now starts deforming and rotation occurs in multiple planes.

We're discussing seperate events here it seems.

Again, I'm talking about the perimiter structure.

Firstly, the perimeter structure was damaged in the initial debris impact, so your model of the situation is flawed from the beginning. It's not a simultaneous collapse because some of the columns were damaged seven hours earlier.

Secondly, you're still assuming that you know what happened on a side of the building that you haven't seen. That probably couldn't be seen, because it was wreathed in smoke from the fires. You want to claim simultaneous collapse? Prove it happened on all four sides first.

Even if the entire core structure had collapsed there would still be a lot of perimiter support left to absorb a substantial portion of the potential energy of the top section of the building.

Where did that support go?
It had to fail completely all the way around the perimiter more or less simultaniously in order to get a collapse like we saw.

How structural were the perimeter columns? How many of them were there, and what load did they bear? What was their construction and safety factor? How was the load distributed if one or more were to fail? How quickly is that load distributed? Same questions for the centre columns. And all the truss work that linked them together.

I think there's too many things you don't know here for you to be making any sort of absolute statements. At best, it's a sign that there's more information that you should be looking for in order to make an informed opinion. Because right now, you simply don't know enough. I suggest starting with section 1.2 of the NIST report for a better overview of the structure and its idiosyncrasies.

Besides, you're not absorbing the potential energy of the top of the building initially. Concrete and steel are kind of brittle. If you drop an entire building a few meters, it's just gonna fracture and keep going down until enough junk builds up underneath it to start softening the drop. If you drop a long vase on a concrete floor, the top of it doesn't slow down appreciably when the bottom hits. But if you drop it on a pile of already broken glass it does.

Building materials can be surprisingly brittle when outside of the circumstances they were designed for. Few buildings outside major earthquake areas are designed to fail gracefully. The strength tends to be put into making the building not fall in the first place, as it's not really that likely that the building will ever be stressed beyond it's designed safety factors.

I think Chapter 2 of the report provides a pretty decent sequence of events that at least sounds plausible to me. I'd think that the easiest place to start looking for holes would be that. While you might think that other things might be more likely, ultimately reality only gives one result. Probabilities are good for predicting the future, but not so much for analysing the past. You'd have to demonstrate that some part of their proposed sequence was hugely improbable, or propose an alternative sequence that provides an overall better explanation.

Given how detailed and thorough the NIST sequence is, I think you'll have a hard time doing that on a forum. But do try if you can, even if you start in broad strokes and we refine it as you go.

NIST claims that the buckling columns provided negligible resistance but doens't explain how this could occur in a manner that explains the observed result.

I haven't got to that bit, but the report seems aimed at a layman audience. Generally one doesn't get too far into technical detail in those sorts of reports, simply because there's usually a whole lot of background engineering knowledge that needs to be assumed in order to understand it fully. The report doesn't and shouldn't be Engineering 101, and so it likely assumes that anyone technical enough to understand what went on is capable of figuring it out for themselves with the information given.

I mean, not to put you on the spot but can you explain clearly to an educated layman why you believe that a column in this case would provide more than negligible resistance? Feel free to make whatever assumptions you need to, this is more in the vein of demonstrating how difficult it is to do so. I don't think you'll know how hard it is to justify what you're saying until you actually try.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

A large and growing number of physicists, engineers, architects, pilots and retired military now seem to think that the twin towers and WTC 7 were brought down by detonations involving Thermite. I suggest you sit down and view the video I posted. That said, I will agree the event was justified in that it got rid of two asbestos infected buildings, with a sweet insurance settlement, the perfect justification for a perpetual war on Muslims and the perfect justification for the surveillance state we live in today. We do not need to revisit 9/11 or show a conspiracy, because to do so would cause more trouble than its worth for our fragile, stressed-out population. It's best for 9/11 to live on as a useful and necessary lie.

Yeah I've seen these "engineers" on campus selling this to us engineering students and trying to recruit us for their group. It's quite the story, keyword being story.

Also there was plenty of justification to go to war without the attacks on the World Trade center.

 

[Joel]

The 9/11 conspiracy stuff to me just reads "I'd rather believe there's someone pulling the strings because the idea that:

The genocide of a million Muslims, a million Muslim orphans, the destruction or Balkanization of many Muslim countries, the mass migration of a million Muslim refugees to Europe, the perpetual war costing trillions of borrowed dollars...

happened because a few dozen jihadis hijacked some planes" is incredibly discomforting.

 

[PeterJB]

Are there many conspiracy theories over WW1 because 16 million people died over four years because one guy and his wife got shot in a car?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are there many conspiracy theories over WW1 because 16 million people died over four years because one guy and his wife got shot in a car?

Yes. The Freemasons did it.

Spoiler

This article's a real turd. Mild language warnings.

http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/world-war-one-was-conspiracy.html[/QUOTE]

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Are there many conspiracy theories over WW1 because 16 million people died over four years because one guy and his wife got shot in a car?

Yes, there are and there are for WW2 as well. The one that really made conspiracy theorist happy was when Vietnam showed to be true in that the golf of tonkin incident never happened. And official proof came out on that, thus showing Vietnam's provocation for troops being sent was bs.

Now of course since that was true, surely all the other wars before and since have to have some conspiracy within be true as well. Just need time and people to be honest. Or so those who believe this crap would have you believe. There is no doubt that politicians from time to time use either half baked, or thin evidence as means to go to war. But the notion that this war on Terrorism going to Afghanistan and Pakistan and various other countries was triggered by the collapse on two buildings is false for one. And those who don't realize that and peddle it along with a massive government conspiracy, of it being an inside job are just silly.