As we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11/2001, the usual whack jobs are out spouting the demolition theory.
Demolitions occur from the bottom up. First floor destroyed first, then the second floor, then the third floor ….. The top floor is the last to be destroyed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRoVMvmmM4o]
The WTC did the exact opposite – it collapsed from the top down. Upper floors were destroyed first and the bottom floor was the last to be destroyed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrBi0Qm2BQ]
ABC news got this wrong real time and started a different culture of morons from the ones we usually discuss here.
Steve,
You don’t understand each floor was detonated at exactly the right time, just before the floor below it. I have had discussions (actually I just smile politely and listen) to people tell to just ignore how unlikely some aspect must be and JUST think about XXX – say how buildings don’t fall straight down so it HAD to be a controlled explosion.
That gravity pulling things straight down concept is tricky. The interesting thing about that is the reason it fell straight down was exactly because it wasn’t demolished. The bottom was structurally intact as the top collapsed.
stevengoddard says:
April 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
That gravity pulling things straight down concept is tricky
LOL!
Considering avoidable mortality, the Law of Gravity should be scraped.
Government is trying to repeal oceanic and solar cycles. Why not repeal gravity while they are at it?
Steve,
you don’t understand the mentality here. These are people who believe government is evil and will stop at nothing to promote a socialist agenda. That government would be willing to totally falsify data and engage in fraud to cover up their diabolical plots. I know those ideas are foreign to you, but that is really what these people think like!
I am sympathetic to the idea that the government can’t be trusted. However, there has to be evidence to back up claims of fraud. The 9/11 nutters don’t have much of that.
Steve,
yet they claim to have overwhelming evidence, based on many different aspects, from the physics of demolition, the composition of the debris, contradictions in media coverage, and inconsistencies and blatantly unbelievable explanations and impossible time lines from the government. There are brave scientists and architects willing to jeopardize their careers by standing up to the “consensus”. And when presented with unequivocal evidence that they are wrong about something they invent bizarre justifications.
Tony,
Your complete lack of scientific discernment never ceases to amaze me.
Steve,
I JUSt read a great book about the subject. The Ground Truth, from the counsel for the 9/11 commission. He explains how stupid mistakes and a silly cover-up to protect reputations and bureaucracy allowed conspiracy theorists to justify all sorts of insane hypothesis that would have ben impossible to consider otherwise. I think it is a very good look at how government ACTUALLY works, when things screw up, rather than these silly ideological ideas that government is just evil and trying to find ways to destroy our freedoms and enslave us.
Exactly what I have been trying to explain to you about climate science.
“each floor was detonated at exactly the right time, just before the floor below it”
Let’s correct that to be actually accurate:
[E]ach floor [FAILED DUE TO STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE] at exactly the right time [as a result of the impact, explosions, fire, and structural failures as the MASS of the structure could no longer be supported; the failure of enough beams and members the structure could no longer support the mass load above, not only that but the acceleration of the above mass due to the collapse increased the forces involved to surpass even the intact floors design capabilities to support the structure. The result is what we saw because that is what those two buildings look like when airplanes fly into them and what the buildings do what they collapse in response].
The real secret of the WTC towers is that we learned the hard way that structural steel buildings all over the world are no where near as safe as we once thought. The WTC towers where simply not engineered for the load forced which went well beyond the designed maximum stress loads which a essentially static load of a normal building has.
Start taking away the structural elements of a building or structure and soon enough it’ll let loose like a house of cards.
By the way I was a block away during the 1993 attack on my way to lunch in the block next to the South Tower. I lived 1 1/2 blocks away in Battery Park City (seeing Lady Liberty out my window). Not only that, the day I moved from Manhattan I was taking the Lincoln Tunnel and it was that very day that the plan to destroy it was foiled by the FBI. Needless to say they diverted traffic.
Oh and to be sure the “explosions” where due to the fuel on board the planes and any office materials in the building combusting as things like that do.
As for the “puffs of smoke” seen coming out of some windows in the lower floors before they where obliterated, that was the pressure wave in the materials and/or the air pressure blowing out the windows and dust or smoke from the fires billowing out.
Seen the Matrix movie with the slow motion explosion wave moving across the building? Like that but not so exaggerated and coming from above as the top floors behaved like a falling anvil tossed down upon the lower structures.
This was also seen in WTC 7 as the inner core started collapsing ~34 seconds or so before the facade started. You can see that fact when the elevator/maintenance room on the roof disappears ~34 seconds before the facade starts to fall and then the puffs of smoke on that building appear as a result of the inner structure distorting the structural elements – beams and floors and members – breaking the windows and releasing smoke from the internal fires.
It’s really quite simple. A tale of people – a trained civil engineer none the less – causing enough damage to trigger structural collapse. In the end it he turned out not to be a very civil person after all.
Steve,
I am sorry I have totally misunderstood you.
here I thought you were saying that all of the evidence for ACC is wrong, when you are actually saying there are are a few inconsistencies but there is no doubt that ACC is actually happening. That is what the book says about 9/11. Some bureaucrats covering their asses, but the planes caused all the damage! I think other on this blog might be upset with you about this however.
There was little doubt that planes were flow into the towers. There was an extreme impact and extreme heat. The conspiracy buffs are barking up the wrong tree this time.
You need to know something about conspiracy buffs – no matter what evidence you provide they will NEVER accept the explanation.
As for AGW there is no strong evidence for co2 causing most of the recent warming or to cause any runaway warming. The evidence we see today is the lack of warming. The jury is still debating.
Jimbo,
the difference now being that ALL climate scientists accept the greenhouse effect, including Lindzen, Michaels, Christie, Spencer, Pilke, etc. Yet I see no one on this site being skeptical of those that deny its reality. the “consensus” position of the government and all vast majority of scientists is that ACC is real and will cause some significant rise in global mean temperature. the argument is about how much and what the consequences will be. Deniers of climate change have been predicting cooling temps for a number of years. If mean temps increase over the next 10-15 years will they change their minds and believe in ACC?
Every time you breathe, you increase the global temperature.
Steve,
I don’t think Hansen has said that a .000000000000000001% of an increase in atmospheric CO2 would put Manhattan underwater. Even if I was breathing CO2 that my body produced from licking limestone that was not a part of the current carbon cycle it would not cause a noticible increase in temps.
So pick a different ridiculously large effect from a ridiculously small change in CO2. Then call yourself the world’s greatest climatologist.
Look at building 7. This was not hit by a plane and went down too. Why?
If you can answer this question with hard science facts then you have the answer for everything.
Good question. After 10 years, that was forgotten. What was the reason given for building 7?
Here is a ten story gash in building 7 from the damage of the collapse of the towers. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg
Compare WTC7 to:
On 4 October 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747 cargo plane of the Israeli airline El Al, crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmermeer
How much of the building was destroyed and how much was left? The fire and the plane did only take a section!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYDcvDAgwB8
I’ve seen the fire on TV at the time and was surprised how little of the building was destroyed in the end.
The Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain was gutted by a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed. Again, a very bright visible fire.
WTC 7 shows a lot of smoke that indicates a partial starved fire. I know from a young age that fire with a lot of smoke is not hot enough to burn wood or coal. The fire will die without extra oxygen. Blowing into the fire helps. How could it impact steel?
I’ve seen in the past a big wooden barn filled with hay on fire with bright and high flames. Still, the firebrigade killed the fire in the end and some of the barn structure was still standing.
People that think George Bush and Rudy Giuliani were in on 9/11 are just nuts. Even the makers of “Loose Change” don’t really believe it. They say “could”. But they are definitely making money from their DVD, not ‘could” be making money from it. But really, even people that drum up such ideas, even using the word “could”, are nuts.
AGWers and Warmists have one thing in common. They see only what they want to see.