Bush has mail. And it could be yours.

How fast should 20-or-so stories of a skyscraper fall, if they’re suddenly allowed to drop a foot or so. How long until they reach terminal velocity? What’s special about the design of the WTC towers to make the weak in this respect? O lover of knowledge, dig up the answers. Please look outside of that one-sided movie. There was a special about it on the History Channel.

I hate to break this to you, but engineers are human. They are no smarter, stupider, or less-susceptible to propaganda than anyone else. Their advantage is the assumption that they should be able to understand some of the mechanics of these situations better than the average person, assuming their area of engineering is similar. If you’re into electrical engineering, for example, it might not help much. But clearly, being an engineer doesn’t make you immune to one-sided conspiracy theories. So far you’re not giving the other side a chance.

“Little” is an interesting choice of words. A “little” plane would probably have bounced off the towers, literally, seeing as how much of their weight-bearing steel was on the outside. But they were not hit by one little plane, it was two very big planes with full loads of fuel. Again, buildings of traditional design might not have had the same problem with such a fire, but these buildings were built differently. I’m sure this difference was not covered in Loose Change.

He’s supposed to lead. NY Mayor Rudy Guliani showed a good example of leadership after the attack. Bush showed a bad example after hurricane Katrina. I’m not sure what he could have done right at that moment, but if it had been me I would have excused myself from the classroom and immediately immersed myself with as much information about the situation as was available to me, so I could start making intelligent decisions as necessary. He chose not to attempt this.

If he actually knew it was coming, I’d expect him to react a lot more than he did. of course he’s not an actor at all, and he’s a bad speaker, but that’s beside the point. :slight_smile: He got caught with his pants down just like everybody else. I’m no fan of George Bush, but I have no reason to believe he would:
a) Want to cause so many American deaths and destruction.
b) Be able to carry it off so well, while bumbling like an idiot with so many other things.

Or mis-controls it. It doesn’t control me, and it doesn’t control the laws of physics. Gilby offered you a clue. Again, what happens to aluminum in a fire, and why is this important?

Years later? Okay… Are they supposed to be in any way connected to the 9/11 attacks, assuming any of this is actually factual at all? The police would do DNA testing and other studies to find out as much as they can, to identify the bones. Any results? Or just enough information to make it look like something fishy’s going on, only years later?

I watched enough to get the idea. No, they don’t answer my questions, and they don’t ask them. If they did ask them, their theories would fall apart. So I’m asking them to you. It’s not bait, its just real questions about the way things should be expected to work. Not in a “regular” plane crash, and not in the planned, controlled demolition of a 15-story building.

Yeah. Or, make up a bunch of nonsense that doesn’t even make sense, and have the same clean slate. Can’t prove any of the conspiracy stuff apparently, either.

Whatever, dude. Remember this when you reach my age. :smiley:

But before you get there, please try to learn to filter what the hell is going around you so you can separate the BS from what may be reality. You’re showing yourself to be quite the easy mark at the moment, engineering student or no.

Like all those other older people, the ones who built the buildings, designed the planes, etc. Yeah, old people are lame. :stuck_out_tongue:

Aw, you can’t quit now, just when you’re convincing so many people!

Sorry topic, I really do feel bad about you. Reading my mail? Go ahead. I don’t read most of it anyway…

Like mentioned twice before in this thread,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Holds more truth than any of those cute conspiracy videos.

The perpetuators of popular 9/11 conspiracy theories, while very spirited and excellent communicators, are making arguments that hold no water. None.

Believe what you want - the truth lies nowhere near where you’re standing.

I know I said I wouldn’t come back. haha. I didn’t read anything, it’s of no worth to me. Just watch the link I put. Then put your statement. They will answer ALL your questions. 90 Minutes of goodness all for your eyes. Not one of two facts. But 90 minutes of goodness. Enjoy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+mysteries&hl=en

Again, just for ya.

-Shaun Johanneson

You’re afraid you might stop believing some of your theories!

That one’s much better than Loose Change. I gave it about 20 minutes. Though less controversial-sounding, it’s doing exactly the same thing. Giving you some facts, omitting others, and maximizing and minimizing as it sees fit to support its claims.

To believe that film, you must believe that the WTC fires were “small” and “scattered,” based on a recording of the voice of one fireman on the 78th floor of one tower (they didn’t say which), saying there were two isolated fires and they could be taken down with “two lines.” If the fires had been only on that 78th floor I’m sure the buildings would still be standing.

Then they go into a long treatsie on steel, its melting points and the various temperatures of flames. Also how pots and pans don’t burn on your stove (they’ll melt if they’re empty). They omit to mention whether steel gets weakened, distorts or otherwise loses strength at the temperatures those fires were estimated to be. Why not? It damages the “bomb” argument.

A fireman is quoted to describe the floors collapsing as sounding like individual explosive charges going of on each floor in succession as they went down. Well, he’s a fireman so he must be an expert on such things. Actually, he was just saying what it sounded like, and I believe him. He did not speculate that there were bombs. Neither did any of the other journalists and others who were quoted saying they heard “explosions.” A steel box popping when it heats up too much, or other things having sudden failures due to a fire are not bombs, but they do explode. Sure there were explosions.

They ask “where did the WTC towers’ core sections go?” They don’t answer or offer a theory. To me it’s obvious from watching the videos. They went down. The whole upper section of each building collapsed, not just the concrete flooring. It seems obvious to me.

Anyway, I now believe Shaun is on the payroll of the 9/11 conspiracy filmmakers, and they want him to promote their films. For entertainment purposes only, of course! :slight_smile:

Anyway Shaun, if you don’t want to give up the argument so easily, please respond to the aluminum and fire question.

So basically, Shaun has proved that he is arrogant, discrimating, and a jackass. Nothing about the WTC so far.

When someone links me to a video, I will give it five minutes. If, within that five minutes, it hasn’t given me reason to believe that it has some merit, I stop watching. During the first five minutes, all I saw was some bald dude with glasses trying to be all mysterious, and some poorly thrown together footage trying to make everything seem all spooky. And then this lady started talking, using all kinds of lovely spin words.

Whoopdee-freakin-do, let’s stage a coup.

Sorry again, folks. I made the mistake of watching some more of the video, and it’s pissing me off. What made the buildings fall so fast? How could all those pins and connectors give way at the same time? Why does some debris fall faster than others? Why find bone (fragments) five years later. How could this happen? HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN???

The theory seems to boil down to “how could this happen.” After the experts, who are the ones explaining what is reported as the “official story” give the answers, they look at it again and seem to say “That just doesn’t seem right.”

Put a 20-story building on top of an 80-story building, with a central core of support columns and an outer skin of support columns but wide areas of unsupported floor around the core. Break something at the top of the 80-story building to allow the 20-story building to fall a few feet. What’s going to stop it? How fast should that stuff come down? I’m thinking 20’ per second per second, once it gets going. Comparing the WTC collapses to films of 10-story building implosions is a joke. Give them another 90 stories to fall and see how much speed they pick up. Grrr. Shaun, I know you’re not listening. You’re young and objective, so you are in no danger of being misled.

Using this quote, I can now deduct that John believes the conspiracy theory that the government caused 9/11. When he first heard about this theory, he was filled with so much outrage at the possibility it could be true that he was compelled by a yearning for the truth to watch our video. After watching the video and studying all the inaccuracies carefully presented by our expert physicists, architects, and the fireman on floor 78, he is now a true believer.
Congratulations John.

~Brad, a Conservative Republican

Assuming all of these conspiracy theories are right about there being explosives in the towers (which I highly doubt), why are all of these theorists blaming the government? Why doesn’t anyone think that terrorists planted these explosives to assure that the towers fell? I really, really, really (really really) doubt that the government would want to pull off this huge hoax just to raise the price of gas.

Back on topic: I don’t write letters, but that is quite screwy. Any bets as to how many terrorists they will catch now that they can read anyone’s mail?

You’re on the same page as the theorists then.

Hmm. The problem I’m having is, where does everyone get the idea that explosives were required to “help” bring down those buildings? If you had the explosives in place, what would you need two jets for? Duh.

They already tried the bomb approach in 1993. Then they sat back and thought about it, and aimed much, much higher to have a pretty amazing success in '01. Even if the buildings hadn’t collapsed, hundreds of people would have died and it would have been a pretty massive disaster

Why did the building that was hit second fall first? I heard this annoying question in the video as well. The answer was provided by the experts who they chose to ignore. More weight above the fire zone, because the plane came in on lower floors. More weight = less time for the structure to be compromised.

Still looking for airplanes? What happens to aluminum in a fire?

My thoughts on it, kinda. lol

2nd tower falls first, because of what John said. More weight was being pushed down in the 2nd tower than in the first.

Why did the towers take a little while for them to finally fall? Because they were built strong, and one impact isnt just gonna send them down just like that. The irst impact of the plane was the start of the strength deduction, then the jet fuel burning inside the building weakens the steel. Its not just gonna instantly heat up just like that, its gonna take some time for the fire to have an effect on the steal. Combine that with the weight of the other stories on top, and its like having a guy slowly put all his weight on top of a pop can, it will hold alittle then give way and crumble.

That explosion, it was probably upper stories collapsing down, or an effct caused by the jet fuel burning and weaking the steel. Possably was a buckling steal beam. Crashing stories would have more of an explosion sound though.

After that “explosion” the upper stoies pushing down constantly on weakening steal, the steal couldnt hold. Top part crashes down. The weight of that buckles on the stories below, they give way, below that, the steal buckles again, building crashes down.

:frowning:

For those of you who didn’t watch the factual, unbiased truth that Shaun was kind enough to provide a link to, Brad was the person who made it. I wasn’t poking fun at Republicans

And for some reason, Brad had to introduce himself as a conservative Republican, because apparently this adds credibility. :smiley: