I don't really think anyone here is regurgitating "a watered down version the government insists on." All I see are logical explanations that do not require a conspiracy. Shit, I'm going off of what I have read and seen from engineers and witnesses. I haven't even seen what the government has to say about it.

(May 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(May 1, 2012 at 9:58 pm)Abishalom Wrote: No it's not that easy unless we rationalize it as you have. Even if the top floors collapses that does not explain the domino effect we see in the WTC collapse videos. You're claiming that because the floors were large the top floors cause the lower floor (that are not on fire) to just collapse at once (in less than 2 hours). It doesn't work like that.

Rationalize it in what way? I mean, you say rationalize as if it is a bad thing. Would you rather I unrationalize and make wild claims?

Yes, it does completely explain the domino effect. It's simple. Something heavy lands on something else. If it is heavy enough to collapse that something, it will do so. It then gains the weight of the said thing it has collapsed and will subsequently crush the next thing below it, given that said thing is also not strong enough to hold up the weight of these collapsed structures. Such was the case with the floors of the World Trade Centers. Now, if it was controlled demolition, there would have been explosions within the structure while rescue efforts were underway. There was no such thing. Furthermore, it would not have collapsed from the top down. It would have collapsed from the inside. The effect would have been pretty much the same, but we would not have seen very clearly that it was being crushed from the top, as we see from every angle in every video.

Observe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs

There is a very notable difference. You can even fucking see the flashes as the demo materials explode.

You're making the same fallacious argument. You're claiming that the weight from above was too heavy for below. Well gee...If that's the case then it's no wonder that the tower did not collapse before the plane crashed. Their was no significant mass added above (other than a couple plane) during the ordeal. Yet you claim the top was to heavy for the bottom. The top floor collapsing on the bottom floors does not explain how the whole structure collapsed in unison. But that is not sufficient to explain how the whole structure collapsed.

BTW The planes hit on the 93rd and 99th floors of the buildings. So you are basically saying that 17 and 11 floors collapsing on 93 and 97 floors respectively. Which is irrational.

(May 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(May 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm)jackman Wrote: here is byu professor steven jone's study: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volum...llapse.pdf

here is an mit study against the previous one posted: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

they're both valid papers from reputable programs that give very valid hypothesis as to what happened.

I'll take the one from MIT any day of the week.

of course, lol, many people would. but i don't just accept the bazant's based on the school which put them out, i read them both for relevance and make a choice based on what i feel checks out better.

I think it's more indicative of "the government" reaping the mistrust that has grown wild over the last few decades. The boy who cried wolf springs to mind; even when they are telling the truth, there will be some people who refuse to listen. Governments of all nations indeed have a known track record for deceiving their populace; however, they also have a proven track record for getting found out. As Stephen Fry once said on this subject, Bill Clinton couldn't even keep it a secret about where his penis was. Facts need people of integrity to speak on their behalf, and an audience willing to pay attention.

Ugh, before the collision, the tower did not collapse because the structure was intact. It's perfectly fucking rational. The unfathomably hot fire fucking demolished anything we could call an infrastructure for several floors, thus compromising the entire structure both above and below it. It got so hot that people several floors away from the impact were goddamn jumping out of the building. Yes, eleven destroyed floors could collapse those beneath them. Eleven intact floors above multiple floors that were also still intact and not damaged by the impact and the subsequent fire, no.

My house as an example . . . again. Right now, the structure is intact. It holds up the weight of this floor because everything is where it was built to be. If something smacked into my house just right and caused the top floor to fall, it would be much different than the bottom floor holding up the top floor as it was built to be held up, don't you think?

---

(May 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm)jackman Wrote: but i don't just accept the bazant's based on the school which put them out, i read them both for relevance and make a choice based on what i feel checks out better.

I do if that school is MIT. I have a feeling I couldn't even sleep my way into that school.

(May 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm)Shell B Wrote: Ugh, before the collision, the tower did not collapse because the structure was intact. It's perfectly fucking rational. The unfathomably hot fire fucking demolished anything we could call an infrastructure for several floors, thus compromising the entire structure both above and below it. It got so hot that people several floors away from the impact were goddamn jumping out of the building. Yes, eleven destroyed floors could collapse those beneath them. Eleven intact floors above multiple floors that were also still intact and not damaged by the impact and the subsequent fire, no.

My house as an example . . . again. Right now, the structure is intact. It holds up the weight of this floor because everything is where it was built to be. If something smacked into my house just right and caused the top floor to fall, it would be much different than the bottom floor holding up the top floor as it was built to be held up, don't you think?

---

Look I perfectly get what you are trying to say. This might be plausible if such conditions were in place. BUT the fire was concentrated at the top. What part of that do you not understand (or are you purposefully ignoring it). Unfathomably hot fire at the top 11-17 floors will not destroy a whole 110 story building.

I mean really if you've ever seen demolitions, the amount of explosive needed is tremendous, and you can hear the blasts.

It was not the top. The fire was concentrated near the top. The infrastructure was severely compromised. What part of that do you not understand? The building was made to withstand an impact, not an impact and a fire of that intensity. If there had been just a gaping hole in the building, it would have continued standing. The structure would have remained intact enough to continue holding the floors beneath the impact. Given that the floors beneath the impact were damaged by the fire, it was nothing at all for the floors above it to continue putting pressure on the compromised structure until it collapsed.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that there is zero evidence for controlled demo beyond conjecture. There were no tell tale flashes or explosions. You can't hide explosions from that many cameras.

(May 1, 2012 at 10:50 pm)Christi Wrote: I mean really if you've ever seen demolitions, the amount of explosive needed is tremendous, and you can hear the blasts.

Not to mention all the weeks of preplanning, weakening key points of the structure, setting explosive charges etc. Someone would have noticed.

(May 1, 2012 at 10:31 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think it's more indicative of "the government" reaping the mistrust that has grown wild over the last few decades. The boy who cried wolf springs to mind; even when they are telling the truth, there will be some people who refuse to listen. Governments of all nations indeed have a known track record for deceiving their populace; however, they also have a proven track record for getting found out. As Stephen Fry once said on this subject, Bill Clinton couldn't even keep it a secret about where his penis was. Facts need people of integrity to speak on their behalf, and an audience willing to pay attention.

i'm so glad you said this. not to pander, but i really do have a lot of respect for the way you approach your point of view. even tho we disagree on this subject, i'm fine with that. i do need to point out that i'm not in on the moon-fraud deal tho. i'm all about the luna and beyond. but THIS that you've pointed out is exactly what may be happening. we've been lied to so many times here, it's very easy to then believe a big coverup is going and i can appreciate that as a possible explanation.