[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
I gave you a very clear answer.
You think terrorists could bring down a building with a bomb they could make once they got here?
Yes, I think terrorists could build a bomb using resources acquired in the US and then use that bomb to destroy the WTC. Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass here, this is the question you asked me.
Or would it be totally normal for the officials in the consulate to let them bring over some giant bomb big enough to do the trick?
No clue what the fuck you're talking about.
I guess since you dismiss the idea that they were let into the country over objections as meaningful, and that someone had their career ruined over these objections, then I guess you can live in a worldview in which huge ordinance packages can also flow with AQ affiliated people from Saudi Arabia and that this also doesn't indicate high level U.S. involvement.
blah blah blah. You still haven't given any kind of answer for "Why would "they" bomb the WTC and also fly a plane into it at the same time?" question.
You're in for quite the ride.
No idea, but if you manage to get through his essays and figure it out, let us know.
Ok, I tried reading through some of this but most of these arguments are merely speculation or completely made up. Is there anyone in here who has any structural engineering experience at all?
Seems to be just arguing for arguings sake. Nothing of substance to see here, I'm out, good luck folks. Some of you need lives.
Ok, I tried reading through some of this but most of these arguments are merely speculation or completely made up. Is there anyone in here who has any structural engineering experience at all?
Ecriture is a PhD in a STEM field I believe, he pops in now and then. He's not a structural engineer though. As for Deuces, he's a complete space cadet, but he can be fairly entertaining, in the laughing at him sense.
Seems to be just arguing for arguings sake. Nothing of substance to see here, I'm out, good luck folks. Some of you need lives.
I could never understand why some people feel the need to involve themselves in others' conversations only to tell them that they are wasting their time. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you come to this thread, my dude.
I could never understand why some people feel the need to involve themselves in others' conversations only to tell them that they are wasting their time. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you come to this thread, my dude.
Ok sorry your dude, didn't realize this was your personal playground, won't comment anymore. As a Canadian I find the chatter rather amusing, but.... not enough to stay.. Have a good day.
The bombs which could be plausibly attributed to Muslim terrorists could not reliably bring down the WTC buildings we saw go down on 9/11. Do you have a differing opinion?
Pretty sure the official story is that the guys in 94 placed the truck in one of the worst possible places if their goal was to bring the building down. The bomb was plenty powerful enough to bring it down if placed near the correct pillars.
LOL, no deuces. As has been explained to you, bazant did not model the collapse as it happened, he used a simplified case to determine if the amount of energy required was sufficient to progress the collapse. He didn't "claim" the top section remained intact. He simply used an intact block in his model and explained clearly it was simplified. You're simply illiterate.
He did claim that. There was even a diagram. It seems to have been removed from the versions now readily available, but it looked like this:
His paper is the source of "crush down crush up".
Just go read the closing comments in the bazant/zhou paper. He says VERY CLEARLY that he's not saying this is what happened, he's saying no matter what the mechanism was, that building stood no chance once a single floor went.
Whether it's "crush down crush up" or the slightly lower level of approximation "pancake theory" which grew out of the former, either are wrong. The section above the impact zone had been supported by the remainder for decades and still would be to this day and no office fire is going to ****ing implode the entire resistance of a ****ing steel framed tower you ****ing dumb ****.
Pretty sure the official story is that the guys in 94 placed the truck in one of the worst possible places if their goal was to bring the building down. The bomb was plenty powerful enough to bring it down if placed near the correct pillars.
We don't know if was powerful enough but it might have been. You never really know until you run the experiment. Anyone interested in maximizing the terror would have been saying that regardless of their belief in it. It's cheap to say things like that which can't really be called wrong. But sure, maybe it is doable.
If AQ did go for the buildings why wouldn't they have gone for the truck bombs? The guy who tried it first was like related to KSM. It's what AQ did and they were good at it. Why get so fancy and high risk when you've got one shot and all you've got to do is get your bomb next to the right pillar and you can bring the towers down? That would involve so fewer people not to mention. And they already know how to make bombs - the CIA taught them. No, we're going to learn how to fly simple airplanes, in America, and then jump into a whole other class of airplane, hijack them and fly them into the buildings in some long campaign fraught at every point?
You still haven't given any kind of answer for "Why would "they" bomb the WTC and also fly a plane into it at the same time" question.
They are crafting a narrative, plane hit building then building go down mean plane make building go down.
The planes and the demise of the buildings create the spectacle worthy of tremendous sacrifice of not just our money but our rights. They could have done one or the other but it wouldn't make the same emotional impact and get the desired cooperation from the public. We lost way more than a few thousand people that day. We lost our rights. I'm guessing that those who committed the attacks felt they needed something just that spectacular in order to achieve their objectives.
We don't know if was powerful enough but it might have been. You never really know until you run the experiment. Anyone interested in maximizing the terror would have been saying that regardless of their belief in it. It's cheap to say things like that which can't really be called wrong. But sure, maybe it is doable.If AQ did go for the buildings why wouldn't they have gone for
Yes, it's always going to be in the favor of the people in charge to scaremonger as much as possible so who knows if it was strong enough or not. If the building was exposed to have a weak point, a la the death star, that a single U-Haul truck could bring the whole thing down, you have to assume security getting into the parking garage would be pretty tight. But if it was an inside job, it would be a lot easier with less moving parts to arrange to have multiple truck bombs bypass security rather than rig entire skyscrapers with explosives/thermite beforehand and then hijack 4 planes.
Deuces, is it your argument that these guys were going to detonate building 7 even if the other buildings didn't go according to plan and ignited the building? Would they just detonate as a bonus? It seems like the way it played out worked very well for them.
Think of it like buying insurance on your blackjack.
Ok sorry your dude, didn't realize this was your personal playground, won't comment anymore. As a Canadian I find the chatter rather amusing, but.... not enough to stay.. Have a good day.
Nobody said or implied that this thread was their personal playground, and nobody said or implied that you shouldn't comment anymore.
Thank you for [strike]leaving[/strike] dropping by, dude!
So, Deuces. You repeatedly ignore things you can't or don't want to answer and follow ups to those things, yet you fancy yourself as an honest debater. Reconcile that for me, since I'm beginning to doubt that your characterisation of yourself as honest is... well, honest. In fact, I'm starting to suspect that you're a bit of a lying, disingenuous, bad faith scumbag.
I'm still waiting for him to let us know where a well run terrorist organization finds experienced hijackers.
He did claim that. There was even a diagram. It seems to have been removed from the versions now readily available, but it looked like this: His paper is the source of "crush down crush up".Whether it's "crush down crush up" or the slightly lower level of approximation "pancake theory" which grew out of the former, either are wrong. The section above the impact zone had been s
Good lord, not only did you not understand what bazant wrote, you didn't understand what I wrote. I'm going to shout this so get ready. THE POINT OF HIS PAPER WAS NOT TO EXPLAIN THE COLLAPSE MECHANISM, IT WAS TO CALCULATE WHETHER THERE WAS ENOUGH ENERGY TO PROGRESS THE COLLAPSE AFTER ONE FLOOR COLLAPSED.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MECHANISM WAS USED IN THE PAPER BECAUSE HE NEVER CLAIMED THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. HE JUST USED IT FOR A ROUGH CALCULATION. LEARN TO FING READ IDIOT
Do you others see why I just ignore this clown? He is Brian James level deluded and stupid, but with the persistence of decades.
Directly from the abstract, Deuces:
Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of
the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows
that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load
carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed. The structural resistance is found to be an
order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying
assumptions are introduced.
SIMPLIFIED
APPROXIMATE
And from the closing comments:
Closing Comments
Once accurate computer calculations are carried out, various details of the failure mecha-
nism will doubtless be found to differ from the present simplifying hypotheses. Errors by a
factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising, but that would hardly matter since the present
analysis reveals order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural
resistance.
There have been many interesting, but intuitive, competing explanations of the collapse.
To decide their viability, however, it is important to do at least some crude calculations. For
example, it has been suggested that the connections of the floor-supporting trusses to the
framed tube columns were not strong enough. Maybe they were not, but even if they were
it would have made no difference, as shown by the present simple analysis.
The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have
collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor.
This purpose justifies the optimistic simplifying assumptions regarding survival made at the
outset, which include unlimited plastic ductility (i.e., absence of fracture), uniform distri-
bution of impact forces among the columns, disregard of various complicating details (e.g.,
the possibility that the failures of floor-column connections and of core columns preceded
the column and tube failure, or that the upper tube got wedged inside the lower tube),
etc. If the tower is found to fail under these very optimistic assumptions, it will certainly
be found to fail when all the detailed mechanisms are analyzed, especially since there are
order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural resistance.
Deuces, it's in PLAIN ENGLISH what this paper was trying to do and that it the mechanism he used was SIMPLIFIED and not meant to replicate or describe the actual collapse.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ THE PAPER OR YOU'D KNOW THIS.
You still haven't given any kind of answer for "Why would "they" bomb the WTC and also fly a plane into it at the same time" question.
They are crafting a narrative, plane hit building then building go down mean plane make building go down.The planes and the demise of the buildings create the spectacle worthy of tremendous sacrifice of not just our money but our rights. They cou
lol, yes it would have. Why would things have been any different if they'd just used a bomb? It's ludicrous on its face.
And once again, getting public support for a war in Iraq was trivially easy. You do not need to pull insanely complicated false-flag ops to get Americans excited about bombing people in the Middle East, esp in 2001.
So, Deuces. You repeatedly ignore things you can't or don't want to answer and follow ups to those things, yet you fancy yourself as an honest debater. Reconcile that for me, since I'm beginning to doubt that your characterisation of yourself as honest is... well, honest. In fact, I'm starting to suspect that you're a bit of a lying, disingenuous, bad faith scumbag.
Nobody's perfect.
Do you others see why I just ignore this clown? He is Brian James level deluded and stupid, but with the persistence of decades.
Not ignoring. Just sayin'.
Directly from the abstract, Deuces:
SIMPLIFIED
APPROXIMATE
And from the closing comments:
Deuces, it's in PLAIN ENGLISH what this paper was trying to do and that it the mechanism he used was SIMPLIFIED and not meant to replicate or describe the actual collapse.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ THE PAPER OR YOU'D KNOW THIS.
Yeah if I played the lottery 5 times and won 3 I guess I suck at the lottery. I'm sure the people who collectively got trillions of dollars when their plane sized tickets punched in were in total shambles at their sorry success rate.
ts.
I think trying to hit the two buildings that were significantly higher than the rest of the NYC skyline would have been pretty easy and were the buildings intended to be struck with the planes. But assuming they missed those targets, the hijackers could have crashed into 800 other skyscrapers with the same domestic terror impact (except, of course, those buildings werent alll rigged for a control demolition, were they?) . Similarly, hitting a building of national importance in DC is not exactly difficult once you have the plane and are willing to die crashing it. Your so called lottery calculation scenario is real quite a worthless analogy and really just another thing you have made up to lie about.
The hijackers in the PA plane werenÂ’t able to control the passengers once they learned they were going to die, proving that the plan really was quite simple: steal planes and purposely crash them. Something Muslims would be able to devise. You probably should show your math for getting this one in a billion result.
Deuces, is it your argument that these guys were going to detonate building 7 even if the other buildings didn't go according to plan and ignited the building? Would they just detonate as a bonus? It seems like the way it played out worked very well for them.
I can only speculate on the contingency plans. They probably had some fake truck bomb plan as a backup in case they lost control of any of the 200 security checks which could have foiled the plot we saw. It wouldn't have been the spectacle they wanted but people probably would have bought it given enough people buy building 7 going down like that without getting hit by a plane. (but I want to point out that less than a majority of people believe AQ did this).
I think the main thing to focus on is how efficiently those buildings just completely crumbled and pulverized and all the unexplained energy evident. That capability would be what you plan the attacks around. The alternative view, which I assume is your view, is that the terrorists, who were no Ramzi Yousefs (the 1994 or 93? WTC bomber) who had an EE degree and still failed, somehow managed to completely destroy 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes when they would have no reason to think they could do anything like that. The terrorists completely knocked down 3 buildings with 2 planes by accident is what you are telling me. You have to ask if you had that crew with those skills and you had to knock down 3 buildings with 2 commercial planes, how many times do you think you would have to run it to achieve that?
So you think the plan was to take out two 110 story towers and the 47 story building as well? That seems logical.
