[split] 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[theVOID]

A little reading also turned up the black box being found in pensylvania but was too damaged to recover meaningful data, but the cockpit recorder was found albeit in bad condition and confirmed the idea that there was a struggle on the plane.

So your little bit of reading counts as proof, but mine is hearsay? You chastise my proof as just owrds on the internet, but all you have is words on the internet. That is where we internalize the debate and decide which piece of hearsay seems more likley than the other. How does the damage of the black box, which is nearly indestructible mean there was a struggle? It was such a fantastic struggle that is damaged the flight data recorder? I would lean towards a crash into the ground as more likely a cause of said damage.

1) There is a difference between Hearsay and testimony

2) I do not consider it proof, i posted it because i wanted to see if you have any rebuttal to the statement made by the engineer. The evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon is very convincing, i am yet to see anything but amateur hour assumptions from the other side. I was hoping you knew of some scientific sources supporting the idea of a missile striking the pentagon.

Supposed witness accounts are not good evidence. Next.

I will admit that I didn't quote my sources, but I assure you that you can do the research yourself if you are so inclined. The reason I did not post my sources is because it is hearsay, that you can choose to believe it or not. but what makes my sourced witness "not good evidence" and you witness otherwise?

I'm surprised by the fact that while you claim to have good evidence against the official story you so far have not provided any - i have been researching and i haven't found any serious scientific inquiry that suggests any unreasonable conflict with the mainstream scientific opinion, i was hoping you could share some, as you have mentioned before that you have it.

Where is this proof? That's what i'm interested in, the proof - not you just claiming you can prove it.

But you cannot prove that the official story is valid either. So we are at am impasse, where as free-thinkers we have to figure it out ourselves. It seems less likley that the official story is possible or plausible than some other information and theories. There is not proof, there is nothing I can reach through the screen (and dimension of time) and show you, as there would be nothing for you to do the same for your side of the argument. But if you posit that it is more likley that the boxes were not recovered, than I think that is incorrect.

All serious studies into the events that i have found so far support the official story - this is not an impasse, i am simply waiting for some serious studies to the contrary. Where is a scientific paper demonstrating problems with the official science?

But you also seemed to show that they indeed were collected, then the question becomes can we hear or see trascripts of them? If they were collected, why were they not entered into public record during the investigation, and remained behind closed doors, same as presidential and vice presidential testimony?

I'll do some more digging on this issue and before i comment, so far i've only investigated the science.

I am saying that they were likely collected, and then we were told that they were not. you come back with a Popular Mechanics article quote saying that they were. So are we disagreeing?

If all they have on either side of the issue is testimony then this isn't a point i can use to give credence to either theory.

I am terrible a math, but lets do it. how long would it take a free fall object to cover the same distance?

A moot point, an object in free fall is not obstructed by a building. and regardless, the tallest WTC building from the top is 415m to the roof, from free fall of 10^2 m/s it would take approx 2.3 seconds for an object to fall from the top. The towers came down, as Adrian said, in 14 seconds from an impact height of 380m.

How much resistance to gravity do undamaged floors present?

A more important questing is what is the weight bearing load of each floor with and without weakened steel supports?

If the fastest collapsing tower sustained impact between the 77th - 85th floor you then have between 15- 23 floors of extra weight bearing down upon the lower part of the tower, putting excessive pressure on the steel support structure which is already damaged by the impact of a plane traveling 500 miles an hour plus the fire damage from the fuel that leaked into the building and down the elevator and support shafts - it is more than feasible for the weight bearing floors to reach critical mass and cave into floors below them each instance with increasing weight, heat and momentum leading to a accelerating vertical collapse.

In a pancake collapse theory, what is a reasonable time frame of said collapse whereas there is a congruent amount of gravitational resistance from the floors below involved in said collapse?

The amount of time it would take each subsequent layer to collapse would be exponentially faster than the layer before it. The 'gravitational resistance' as you call it is however long it takes x number of tons to destroy it, again, increasing exponentially as you descend.

I assume that it is much higher than 9 or 14 seconds, more like 45ish. But feel free to crunch numbers. In a pancake collapse, would we not expect the falling load to meet resistance form the floors and supports below it, and that that would possibly cause the collapsing portion to fall to one side or another? How does a pancake style collapse maintain a downward trajectory for the entirety of the failure?

The tower was designed to spread the weight evenly across the supports, minimizing the chances substantially for an angular collapse. It is also very dependent on the height at which the building was struck, you would expect that the lower down you went the more likely the chance for an angular collapse despite the weight distribution, however both of the planes hit the tower within the last 15 floors meaning the chances of an angular collapse are substantially lessened.

Wouldn't the building literally fall over at some point? Especially taken into account that all supports could not fail simultaneously.

Again, too high up the building for an angular collapse, and the structure was designed for weight distribution so you would expect a significantly lower chances for the buildings to fall on an angle.

Even if most failed, and caused the rest to, it would be impossible with an hour of kerosene and aluminum aeroframe impact for literally every support to fail simultaneously. Would that not also then lead to a lilting, or "falling over" of the structure? This isn't math, but speculative introspection.

An hour and a half with a continual increase in weight on the floors below impact combined with the initial impact that would have caused significant damage to the supports and the fact that 1 and a a half hours of intense heat slowly skewing the supports seems likely to bring down a tower. I have already explained why an angular collapse does not seem likely.

I'll check out the commission report and some peer-reviewed science, if you can provide the names of any real scientists who have evidence against certain events, that is the type of evidence i would be happy to see.

Well, you keep trying to find a real scientist, but I would suggest you use your own faculties to figure this one out. At some point we have to think for ourselves, and not outsource our opinions and ideas to perceived experts.

But that's the thing, i haven't been able to find any. None of the conspiracy theorists have good science included in their speculation, it is all much the same as what you posted, but with marginally more detail of the mechanisms. You already mentioned a few times that you had this serious evidence but haven't mentioned specific studies or even names, i'm interested in seeing a critical scientific analysis - that is the type of evidence that could be convincing.

So yeah. Your hearsay trumps mine because you has the balls to copy and paste it.
Thanks for listening, I do enjoy discussions with you, we just don't see eye to eye.

Again, didn't mean to make it seem like i considered that proof, i just wanted an opinion.

Yeah i enjoy our little arguments, i like being challenged even when i don't necessarily agree.