9/11 controlled demolition theory question

[Erik von Nein]

I was having a discussion with some friends of mine who are normally perfectly reasonable (yeah, that doesn't sound like a lead in) after watching an episode of the X-Files. I had made an off-hand comment that whenever Mulder started talking it reminded me of 9.11 conspiracy people. Low-and-behold that's what my friends were.

The evidence? Well, the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds (well, it was a second or two off) instead of being slowed down and pancaking out, that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact, that multiple people heard explosions (including NY City firefighters!) and that (related because it's a conspiracy) the plane that hit the Pentagon had an impossible flight pattern, because it flew 16-feet off the ground for a half-mile (something that's supposed to be nearly impossible to do) while not hitting any powerlines (he saw pictures afterwards with no damaged powerpoles).

Obviously completely convincing evidence.

[PeZook]

The bit about people "hearing explosions" is something of a pet peeve of mine, because it represents a major problem with typical layman thinking.

For some reason, most people think that the best thing to do when investigating a large and sudden catastrophe is to ask journalists and civilians who were on the scene what happened.

Because, you know, they would obviously know what is going on, rather than being busy running for their fucking lives. And, of course, they can obviously tell an explosion from a huge structure giving off noise during a structural collapse.

[Mange]

Your friends needs to get their facts straight.

The evidence? Well, the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds (well, it was a second or two off) instead of being slowed down and pancaking out,

The towers did not collapse uniformly or in free-fall. Afaik much of the core of at least one tower was left standing for 10-15 seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed. And did your friends explain what sort of magic force there would have been to arrest the collapse of the buildings?

that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact,

This has been discussed in the thread.

that multiple people heard explosions (including NY City firefighters!)

Yes, it's true that people heard noises which sounded AS explosions, which isn't strange as there were explosions, from the impact of the planes to jetfuel etc. 911 Myths have several good examples.

and that (related because it's a conspiracy) the plane that hit the Pentagon had an impossible flight pattern, because it flew 16-feet off the ground for a half-mile (something that's supposed to be nearly impossible to do) while not hitting any powerlines (he saw pictures afterwards with no damaged powerpoles).

I'm no expert on the flight pattern of flight 77, but that claim is ridiculous. Furthermore, several light poles were knocked down as Flight 77 made its dive (one of which speared the windshield and seats of a cab of an eyewitness).

Obviously completely convincing evidence.

Your friends could learn a bit more critical thinking, I think...

[Mange]

To add about the collapse of the cores:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

NIST FAQ (which also deals with the "free fall" claim).

[Broomstick]

the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact

Too bad they were hit by 757's, then. In any case, the withstood the impact, it was the FIRE that critically weakened the support structures and lead to the collapse.

that multiple people heard explosions (including NY City firefighters!)

Explosions during fires are quite commonplace in building fires of all sizes, and do not require a conspiracy to occur.

and that (related because it's a conspiracy) the plane that hit the Pentagon had an impossible flight pattern, because it flew 16-feet off the ground for a half-mile (something that's supposed to be nearly impossible to do)

WTF do people think airliners do when taking off and landing? Roll on the ground - *>POOF!<* - 20,000 feet in the air? A half mile is a little further than usual in ground effect but far, far from an impossibility!

[Surlethe]

Well, the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds (well, it was a second or two off) instead of being slowed down and pancaking out,

Youtube alone is sufficient to debunk this claim; there are probably hundreds of videos of the towers collapsing, and there's a handy little timer at the bottom of each video screen.

that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact,

Yes -- lost. low on fuel, and traveling slowly, and the designers (according to the chief engineer) didn't model any ensuing fires or their effects on the building.

Alternately, they did withstand the impacts magnificently; they lasted what, more than an hour after.

that multiple people heard explosions (including NY City firefighters!)

Yeah, because it's not like a gigantic building was falling down.

and that (related because it's a conspiracy) the plane that hit the Pentagon had an impossible flight pattern, because it flew 16-feet off the ground for a half-mile (something that's supposed to be nearly impossible to do)

Why? If the plane was traveling 500 mph, it would have taken all of 4 seconds to fly that half-mile. I'm no pilot, but staying more than 16 feet off the ground for four seconds doesn't seem terribly difficult.

while not hitting any powerlines (he saw pictures afterwards with no damaged powerpoles).

A year or two ago there was a couple of 9/11 truthtards in the HoS. Look up the thread; I posted pictures of clipped lightposts and power lines.

Obviously completely convincing evidence.

Indeed.

[Darwin]

that multiple people heard explosions (including NY City firefighters!)

Yeah, because it's not like a gigantic building was falling down.

Anyone who's ever heard heavy metal bolts and Ibeams suffer stress-based structural failures will know exactly what those 'explosions' probably were.

[Sea Skimmer]

Too bad they were hit by 757's, then. In any case, the withstood the impact, it was the FIRE that critically weakened the support structures and lead to the collapse.

What’s more, the 707 impact requirement assumed a 180mph hit with the plane having almost no fuel onboard. This was because the scenario the designers thought might lead to a plane hitting the building was that of a 707 trying to land in bad weather, having run too low on fuel to keep circling.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sick of people saying that the designers of the building "blundered" because the building could not withstand something that was totally out of its design parameters. Suppose Al-Quaeda loaded up a much smaller plane with a huge bomb and smashed it into the WTC; would people be saying that the designers of the WTC "blundered" by not designing it to withstand large bomb explosions?

Could the building have been made stronger? Yes. But this does not imply incompetence on the part of the designers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A much stronger building might have come with a price tag and office limitations that the people paying the bills would've thought unacceptable. Kiddies at home who have never worked with anything in real life, is where this comes from. Has no one ever done a job? Worked in an office? Worked on a project with colleagues? Is it really so hard to extend to analogy to major professional work?

[FSTargetDrone]

I think part of this stems from a disbelief/outrage/ or unwillingness to accept that these massive structures were brought down by something as, shall we say, "mundane" as an airplane strike (or rather, the fires that resulted). Clearly, there has to be something more sinister. Some shadowy group who planted explosives throughout the building well in advance. A missile, launched by a nefarious entity within the government.

Bin laden himself was apparently surpsied that the buildings fully collapsed. He expected only partial collapse, and then only above the point of impact. You're doubtless going to find conspiracy-theorists who will use even that as proof that the buildings shouldn't have fallen the way that they did. Because, by God, if bin Laden was amazed at the total destruction, it proves that there were other elements involved!

A lot people have a hard time believing that an event such as the towers' collapse could be set into motion by anything other than the most extraordinary of circumstances.

[PeZook]

A lot people have a hard time believing that an event such as the towers' collapse could be set into motion by anything other than the most extraordinary of circumstances.

Personally, I think american culture of distrust for the government had more to do with it than disbelief in the attack ; After all, the truther movement did spawn in America, and was preceded by decades of various conspiracy myths being present in mainstream culture, including holywood movies.

It's a popular theme, this super-competent, all-powerful government agency which doesn't give a shit about its own citizens. And who usually fights against it? A maverick reporter, a l337 hacker, a street cop all average Joes. They usually win the fight, too! It's really no wonder that troothers, apollo hoaxers and other idiots think that a conspiracy is plausible, having grown up in such culture.

[Darth Wong]

Americans have a cultural distrust of government scientists, and government politicians. Strangely, they have absolute trust in the government's military personnel.

[Surlethe]

A lot people have a hard time believing that an event such as the towers' collapse could be set into motion by anything other than the most extraordinary of circumstances.

Probably because we don't realize how the extraordinary has become mundane. We strap ourselves into cigar-shaped aluminum cans with big sheets of metal attached, accelerate ourselves to 500 miles per hour, and fly five miles in the sky. What's not extraordinary about that?

Well, yes, we do it every day; but what we don't appreciate is the devastation that occurs when that goes wrong, because it so rarely does. We don't even think about what our vehicles are capable of when they're not used for what they're intended.

[FSTargetDrone]

Probably because we don't realize how the extraordinary has become mundane. We strap ourselves into cigar-shaped aluminum cans with big sheets of metal attached, accelerate ourselves to 500 miles per hour, and fly five miles in the sky. What's not extraordinary about that?

Well, yes, we do it every day; but what we don't appreciate is the devastation that occurs when that goes wrong, because it so rarely does. We don't even think about what our vehicles are capable of when they're not used for what they're intended.

Well, air travel is commonplace, so much so that people are not nearly as enthralled with it than they used to be. Air travel is also a hassle. There's nothing special about it.

So then no one expected something as ordinary as an airliner being used as a weapon. It was the stuff of a Tom Clancy novel, but it surely wasn't real, wasn't something that could actually happen. Certainly not in the USA. But then, it was real. Despite evidence of news footage actually showing what was clearly a large aircraft hitting the building (not to mention the hundreds of witnesses on the ground), some people still insist it was really a missile. Or it was really a building packed full of explosives. It couldn't possibly be what it appeared to be.