Roswell, Dealy Plaza, and now the WTC. The conspiracy freaks have sunk their stinking, fetid, and neurotic minds into the 911 attack. There are lots of variations on the conspiracy. There is the Jews blowing up the towers, there is the Bush's blowing up the towers, and I am sure that the Roswell aliens are really to blame. Why is it so hard to believe in physics? There has to be some star-chamber B-moive plot to destroy the world, or kill a President. It couldn't be Oswald or a bunch of religious fanatics? There really was a conspiracy to bring down the WTC and the people responsible bought the islamic farm on each of the air liners. But I know that freaks will be freaks. So here goes my attempt to refute the dufus brigade.
The WTC is not a tree. If you cut a tree in half the top portion has enough molecular stabillity to allow it to thwart gravity and it will fall to one side or the other. However if you make the cut even slightly angled then the top portion of the tree will slide off the bottom and it will fall, as straight as it can, to the ground. Of course the other thing a tree has going for it is that it is not brittle but gumby and flexible. Far more so than a 110 story office building. Gravity dictates that all matter seeks the center of the earth. So given enough mass and instability you get the WTC collapse. Each building was 500,000 ton house of cards. Once the floor collapsed where the plane hit, the other 175,000 to 200,000 tons of steel and concrete were allowed to seek the center of the earth. If you take 200,000 tons of material and allow it to fall even a tiny bit you convert that into a gigantic amount of kinetic energy and that energy, contained within the moving mass of steel and concrete will pile-drive as straight as it can toward the center of the earth until it hits something that is rigid enough to stop it; say the surface of the earth.
The so called puffs of smoke that can be seen from lower floors are due to hurricane force winds, generated by the compression of the upper floors, blasting the windows out. Try sitting on a balloon and you'll see what I mean.
The buildings did not fall evenly to the ground either. The outer walls splayed out from the pile driving effect. The outer walls, avoiding the 200,00 ton pile driver flew outward in arcs away from the destruction. Ground zero looked nothing like a controled blast area. Furthermore the amount of damage inflicted on nearby buildings was in some cases catastrophic leading to further collapse. In a controled demolition the charges are timed and arranged to bring the center of the building down first and buildings walls back into each other to create the pile driver effect. Nothing about the collapse of the towers looked even remotely like that. The collapse for both towers began at the floors of impact.
In short conspiracy freaks should go F' them selves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm curious how serious you are about this. I mean, suppose we leave the major crazies on one side for a moment and concentrate on people who've got at least halfway coherent theories about 9/11, presented in an orderly fashion.
Take Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon or David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbour. These are the theories that need to be refuted, if any. (You can find good summaries and video lectures on the net pretty easily if you want.)
Now, Ruppert insists on making his case without any reference to the collapses, confining himself to means, motive and opportunity, sticking to public knowledge (news reports mainly) and avoiding all "physical evidence" like a plague or Zapruder film. He makes a pretty convincing case. I.e., after you listen to his version of what's going on in the world, 9/11 as an inside job becomes pretty plausible. And it's not wacky stuff at all -- it's just a pretty dark and intricate vision of what kind of world we live in. To believe it, and, by implication, to "refute" it, there's a lot of fact checking to do. It's the enormity of that task that probably strikes his critics as absurd.
Griffin does make a lot hinge on the demolition theory. But he certainly doesn't assume that the WTC towers were like trees. Your alternative "house of cards" (think about it) is of course just as absurd. Both fail the stood-up-against-countless-full-force-gails-for-thirty-years reality check.
Nobody denies that the job was messier than a standard controlled demolitions "implosions" by the way. But as it turns out, even controlled demolitions are only rarely implosions, since you often have a vacant lot to dump the building into on its side ... yes, a bit like a tree, and that's normally how it's done because it's easier. Or so I'm told (some fact checking there for a would-be refuter.)
I agree with you that there are probably all kinds of good explanations for each individual "puff of smoke", but here's a little thought experiment that I haven't been able to get my mind around yet. (It's not quite as fetid and stinking as you may think, I hope, but you decide.) Suppose instead of the airplanes, the terrorists had been able to directly vaporize, say, the relevant 3 floors of each tower, so that the top part of the building just came crashing completely unimpeded down on the rest of the building below (covering about 36 feet). This event would be much worse, I would think, than what really happened. But what do we imagine would happen to the perfectly good 70 or 90 floors of steel frame building? I seems very implausible to me that the top of the building would fall to the ground at roughly the same rate as if those 70/90 floors (perfectly intact, still capable of sustaining hurricane force winds, and another airplane impact for that matter) weren't there at all.
I'm not entirely convinced either way yet, but until someone describes, second by second, the mechanics of the structural failure in a convincing way, I will not claim to know how those buildings came down. Without explosives, what happened on 9/11 is, well, peculiar, mysterious, surprising, unlikely ... something like that ... in any case, in need of explanation. And the official report (NIST) studiously avoids describing the 12-16 seconds of the actual collapses. So I don't know. Facts there still waiting to be understood by me.
What is also implausible (and what I really would like a coherent theory about) is how three buildings (remember WTC7), each damaged in different ways, managed to collapse in rather similar ways, on the same day. This peculiar never-before-seen-and-then-three-times-in-one-day engineering failure, coupled with the failure of the American air defense system, intelligence community, airport security, and criminal investigation, is suspicious, but also highly unlikely if anything like the official story were true.
If Ruppert and/or Griffin are right, however, it all pretty much makes sense. Though it's a world I'm not happy to live in.
So a refutation of their theories would be helpful.
But then you may really just be one of those people who like making fun of people who are obviously insane, deluded, paranoid, and suffering terribly in their own private nightmare worlds because it helps you to feel a little more sane.
Then "F" you, mister.
Otherwise, let's talk about it.
Best,
Tom
Occam's Razor will suffice here. I sat at home and watched many hours of this event from just after the first plane hit to the striking of the second plane.
I indeed am trying to insult the concussed idiots who see a boogyman of whole cloth behind every real tragedy. Instead of actually trying to learn from the events they go off and seek the most absurd solutions.
You may choose to live in the dark and scary world. Bush would like you to live in that world. The post 911 conspiracy to use the event as a pretext for war-without-end is the only conspiracy I see in operation. Most of the so-called internet-info is a bunch of idiots, yes idiots, acting like the useless sowing circle that they are.
I suppose you will tell me to F’off. If so then I shall will do just that. Nothing like a good orgasm to regain sanity.
Post a Comment