• An archived thread from Something Awful on the morning of 9/11
    326 replies, posted
Can you please summarize those main half-a-brain points? I'm not willing to watch a video where one of the arguments is that reporters were saying the building was collapsing ahead of time with spooky music over it just because some people don't understand that "collapsed building" does not necessarily mean "the building fell and crushed itself flat". Actually don't, it's been 17 years already and I've yet to see an argument that isn't either already explained by materials or other sciences or completely idiotic. Interviewing "former NIST employee" who has nothing to do with any relevant fields or even the investigation itself is a waste of time. Interviewing a carpenter who builds sheds for a living would be more productive.
If you would have taken a moment of your precious time you would have seen he was a Simulation specialist and as the report was based off of one computer simulation you would likely think his information is somewhat relevant. If you don't have time, neither do I, you seemed to have spent quite some time with that pointless ass post though.
People are still going on about building 7? lol
There's people who think the moon landings and the attack on Pearl Harbor were faked. This shit never dies because its believers aren't concerned with reality.
I was 8 or so, I was in class and I remember everyone going home early. We lived right under a main landing approach for MSP int'l, so jets flying over was a day-in day-out thing until then. It was many days before we heard another one, and months for the typical volume of planes to return. We always flew to FL to visit family once a year, and we went again in jan-mar 2002, My younger siblings were toddlers when it happened and by the time they started school Bush's middle east escapades were in full swing. Starting in the 2019 school year, every american K-12 student will have been born after Sept 11 2001. We've been in cyclical conflict and paranoia since before any of these people could read.
Yeah, a simulation specialist. Means he helped building/materials specialists prepare a model and run the simulation. That doesn't mean he knows what the end result of the simulation means. Just like how being a driver doesn't make you an expert on why your car broke down. But you're right, maybe I do have the time to be annoyed by conspiracy theories. Just don't post a 20 minute video where just skimming through I immediately bullshit. I can already picture you saying "well okay, I don't agree with that part of the video". Might as well not post it then? If you think there's issues with the investigation, either point out these issues you find - or don't. There might be some good argument in that video, but if it's plastered over with "wow look at the media reporting isn't that suspicious???" then don't think anyone who disagrees will even look at it, much less watch the whole of it. I sure as hell won't.
In 9th grade in Tech Ed class we had to do a report on architectural engineering, and to choose a famous skyscraper (current or not) and go into how it was built, the history of it, etc. I chose WTC7 and reported on how no plane hit it and even if it did jet fuel couldn't melt the steel beams that supported it. I got like a B and the teacher was pissed it was funny tho
You constantly act like you know what you're talking about. But you actually don't.
"Controlled demolition" entails extensive preparation (tearing open walls etc.) that would be impossible to hide. The idea of it being carried out surreptitiously is, always has been, and always will be completely asinine.
I'll never understand the stigma surrounding the debate around this issue. I'm aware that it's a sensitive topic, people died, but to see everyone throw physics out the window based on one government report has nothing short of baffled me and many others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVHWiZu8NM Any counter arguments?
https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
As witty as it is it does not address the issue. If this is the best answer you guys can come up with in response to the counter NIST arguments, some redneck in a workshop bending a steel beam as if it suddenly blows the laws of physics out of the water then I guess it's just denial that is left.
No. Stop. Cease this shit immediately. There is no "debate" about how the WTC went down. Planes hit the fucking buildings, the towers themselves and ANYTHING nearby would have been annihilated by debris from the collapses. The only people trying to make a "debate" exist are actual fucking lunatics who refuse to understand reality. Multiple dozens, if not hundreds, of people who aren't the government have managed to come up with explanations for the collapses that make complete sense based on the materials used and physics we observe in this universe, not whatever fucking bizarro universe you live in. There is no "debate". Stop trying to force a "debate" about settled, factual matters. This kinda of shit post is essentially concern trolling.
Absolutely mental. Please go over the facts to me once more on how it was possible for 3 buildings to come down with little to no resistance between floors in the time frame allowed. If you dropped a set of keys from the roof they would have hit the ground a moment before the top of the tower did. This is basic fucking maths people, and the NIST report didn't include any, they averaged out the speed of the entire fall right there in the formula if you actually look at it. This debate is far from over, the scripture you are repeating is flawed, the math is shit, the laws of physics are not.
I wouldn't start asking for people to supply science and math if the only thing you've posted is a YouTube video
Posts like this remind me that maybe my life isn't so bad after all.
the debate ended over a decade ago, dragging out the pile of bones that used to be a dead horse for a few more whacks doesn't really count
I dunno, I really feel like a thread dedicated to the sobering reactions of regular people to the horrific loss of thousands of lives in real time is the place to "debate" conspiracies like this. I would prefer if that took place in a separate thread if at all.
I suppose part of the problem lies here. Viewing stuff like this through the lenses of the basics is never really the best idea. Also I'm not sure what relevance dropping your keys have to this
I'd trust someone physically and visually demonstrating the physics of steel over "we made a tower out of snow and it didn't collapse, so the towers couldn't have, look at our animation of 9/11 not happening"
Sheesh, what a waste of time that you made me search for this crap. Read point 6 on NIST's FAQ. It was the first debris to hit the ground that was timed at respectively 9 and 11 seconds, not the entire buildings.
Apologies to everyone if this has been deemed inappropriate. But understand from my position that I and many others, more than a few of you guys seem to be admitting that the deaths of these people have gone completely unpunished. I find this upsetting, really upsetting and as I genuinely believe that a group of people that are not deemed enemies of the country or it's allies had a hand in their deaths. I don't know who, I don't have the facts on that. What I do have is an army of structural engineers, physicists and mathematicians that completely disagree with the findings of NIST, and have shown that the numbers don't add up. They barely even cover explosives in the report as a possibility, it's breezed over in a few seconds. You are dismissing these people as lunatics, they are professionals who see something wrong. Flight MH17 was reconstructed piece by piece, it was a meticulous investigation that went through extreme lengths to get to the truth of it. The US spent $16 Million on the NIST report. Carted off vast amounts of metal immediately and sold them to be melted. It's extreme negligence at LEAST. You can't disagree that if 9/11 didn't happen and it was decided to be demolished, instead of being torn down hypothetically, we surely can't disagree that a control demolition would look just like this in all 3 cases, regardless of planes. It looks exactly the same, the numbers in the NIST report aren't adding up, they can't possibly add up. Why it doesn't add up. If you dropped your keys standing on the roof of the tower at the same time the tower came down, the keys would hit the floor just moments before the building did. The plane went into the upper half, when the top collapsed it still had a great deal of building to go through, that building was not offering any resistance. Floors smashing into floors does absolutely not conserve motion, yet the building accelerates practically to the very end. The entire lower half of the building did nothing to stop the smaller lighter fraction at the top. It doesn't work. There should be large portions of the building still standing, the bottom shouldn't have been pulverized the way it was naturally, I know the NIST report contradicts this, but the laws of physics contradicts the NIST report. As I said, the stigma surrounding this is crazy, it has become excessively bad over time, it's toxic to something many parents, colleagues and families of people who think like I do, and there are many, if you are not seeing the argument it is because you are silencing it yourself due to the social stigma of believing such a thing. It looked like a control demolition to most of the world that day, the amount of anchors saying exactly that as they fall proves it. I'm saying they were right, and I will not believe it was the most amazing domino effect ever to stop a building from interacting with itself on the way down, multiplied by 3 times.
As it was falling, it was gaining more mass as it went along, thanks to the floors below it. Not an entirely hard concept.
Oh man thanks for bumping this thread lads like we really needed to see this kind of lunatic come skulking out of the closet after so many years of this """debate""" finally going away
Neither is resistance. It did not slow down, it should never have reached freefall speeds without tipping over first.
Again, read point 6 on the FAQ, right at the bottom. Many stories of the cores of both buildings remained standing for some seconds after the collapse, that explains how the falling parts didn't provide much resistance and instead just became added weight for the floors further down. The building itself did not reach freefall speeds, it was the debris that landed in 11 and 9 seconds.
Why would a building falling in on itself fall any slower than any other object falling? The whole point of a skyscraper like that is that only the internal skeleton carries the majority of loads. The outer walls (that is, everything you see) are essentially non-structural glass curtains Once the steel skeleton was too weakened - at any point in the building - by fire (not necessarily melting; please read up on thermal fatigue) to support the part of the building above that point, the part of the building above the point of failure would essentially have entered free-fall. It would have accelerated at 9.81 meters per second per second - the same speed as any object falling. Once it started falling, it would have been carrying several times the force the structure below it was designed to resist - buildings are usually designed to resist twice the weight of whatever they're supposed to be carrying, and a force applied suddenly (like a building falling) can be anywhere from four to ten times the load that would happen from a force being applied steadily (lile a building sitting still). At those load factors, the steel structure below the break (also likely weakened by fire in places, but even if not) would have offered negligible resistance to the falling mass - it would simply have been torn into pieces as it was impacted, joining the falling mass and making the falling portion bigger and bigger. Don't make pseudoscientific claims like this when you clearly don't know anything about structure apart from "steel strong, steel no break".
You don't need to slow down in order to not be free falling, you just need to accelerate at less than 9.8 m/s^2.
The building took a total of 14 - 16 seconds total in this piece, however both the official and CD narative have stated 10 seconds in the past. Some video footage has put the number at just over 13 seconds total. 9-11 Review It's barely a dent.
OH for the love of fuck are you serious.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.