Do you just want another one to start? Why not keep the discussion in one place.

Sadly, today a plane hit an IRS building, a direct hit, big flames and everything. I sure hope that building wasn't made of steel and concrete! The 'probability' of it completely collapsing into rubble is pretty high, right Nick? Let's see...

The IRS building is wired by special ops to collapse at free fall speed.

FASTER THAN the free fall speed we know is allowed by simple physics.

Oh, and no steel and concrete building has EVER collapsed due to fire before.

EVER.

That was even posted on www.whatwevebeentoldtothinkhappenedon9-1...ereparanoid.com

also on the
www.youshouldonlylookatonephotoofanexten...einyourlife.com

website.

It's on the internet so it simply MUST be true.

At some point, like when there's over 100 replies, a thread is beaten to death. I'm just trying to help move the forum as a whole along. You can loiter here all you want but please, don't go on and on and on in the same thread endlessly, let it die so other threads can develop.

Could you explain this joke? The documented collapse time of the wtc towers, verified by your 'experts', was 10 seconds. 12 seconds to complete rubble. You have specifically pointed that out yourself, as well. I realize you don't know enough about "simple physics" to debate that, but it is the accepted collapse time.

The documented collapse time of the IRS building was...oh wait...why it didn't collapse into rubble!?!? Why didn't the frame of the building disintegrate, like building 7? This physics stuff is so finicky. That's WAY longer than free fall.



Please stop with the jokes. Are you serious?

Stop trying to justify who, why, or how they got away with it. You have no way of know whether or not it was Special Ops. You say the probability of the conspiracy being more complicated than what the official story tells you is low, but probability of the physics defying collapses was lower than that, because you don't understand the physics.

You are basing your assertions on a complete void of knowledge of physics or any sort of military operations whatsoever.

Realistically, the probability that the conspiracy was more complicated than what you were told is pretty high, unless you believe it's OK to defy the Laws of Physics that have been widely accepted for hundreds of years. THEN, it's low.

Contrary to what I want to believe, the probability that the story is incomplete is higher than the probability that the story is complete. You guys proudly claim, while beating your chest, that no one will ever know what really happened. Yet you then mysteriously rule out any other possibility. Now, to back up your leap of faith, you are debunking the official story.

Here's another quick, easy question:

Why didn't the IRS tower collapse into rubble?

This should be good.

Oooh .. I know .. because it wasn't as tall?

Nah ... probably since it wasn't preplanned, they didn't have time to get the explosives in it. They didn't even have time to lock people in the building to up the death count.

The internet is a perfectly acceptable source of information, as long as it supports your view of the event, right?

You yourself have relied on photos and quotes from "the internet" (unless you took those shots yourself) to make your case for the 'expert' story. I got the official reports from the internet, too, so maybe that set of reports is bogus.

So your (very weak) argument here is apparently that internet based information is unreliable, as you simultaneously quote some guy on the internet debunking your 'expert' official story, and somehow, after that irony, you actually expect someone to take your arguments seriously.

Get it?

It's more than a little intriguing that you (and Mark Kluth) continuously argue with something that NOBODY said.

1) To be perfectly clear: I NEVER said there is a specific or documented collapse time. Indeed, my entire point re: your "collapse time" argument is that NOBODY KNOWS what the exact collapse time was. What is more, we will never know, with certainty.

I'm not sure how many times you have to type out for yourself that I said it was 10, or 12 or ANY NUMBER of seconds, to convince yourself you are winning some argument with me about the collapse time, but, I hope it ends soon.

To repeat: I never said I think ANYONE knows what the "collapse time" was. Nor would I, because...

My point is that NOBODY KNOWS what the exact collapse time was and we will probably never know.

Please re-read that a few more times before posting your next response that supposedly argues with MY alleged "collapse time" for the towers.

and

2) Your basic physics argument is flawed for a number of reasons anyway, not the least of which is: a) an alleged collapse time for the towers of 15 or 12 or even 10 seconds does NOT violate the basic laws of physics and terminal velocity and b) the smaller falling debris from the buildings was CLEARLY falling FASTER than the structure of the buildings themselves, which presents a nice little self-contained argument for why the whole "the buildings fell faster than they could have" argument is based on an improper assumption of how fast they fell.




This is WHO'S "accepted collapse time"?

Where is this 10 seconds the "documented and verified collapsed time"?

Are you going to cite the 9-11 Commission report again?

Some internet conspiracy theorist?

Who ever said: "This is THE collapse time. No deviation from THIS stated time is possible" or anything similar? Where did they say it? Is that a credible claim?



Absolutely.

No steel and concrete building has EVER collapsed due to fire, in the entire history of the world (other than the WTC towers).

It has never happened before (or since).

Justin, you're not moving the discussion along, you're just being annoying. Sorry to be blunt, but if there are 100 posts in a discussion it means that people are interested in it, not that it's beaten to death.

I should add that locking a thread doesn't induce anyone to post about audio.

But I do still love you.




Repeating that (and variations) doesn't make it so, Sean.



Neither does patronizing me.

To start with, why would it make any difference whether or not another steel building had collapsed because of a fire? This one's construction is unique and the circumstances are unique. Yes you can learn from other events, but they're not going to provide ironclad evidence either way.

As to physics, how do you answer the objection that the building didn't really fall at free-fall speed? By thumping one report. How do you know that the windows popping below the main collapsing pile are explosions and not due to stress or air coming out or columns collapsing on their own or or or or or or or? How do you know that explosives are required to make the building collapse at the speed it did collapse, that the sheer weight of a 1-acre concrete slab isn't enough to break the support columns? Or even that timed explosives would have made any difference?

That diagram you posted showing the picture of the building slice with floors underneath it on one side and nothing on the other side looks to me like the Monty Python skit weighing a witch: totally faulty logic!

I kind of knew this would happen, but, what the hell:



Nope.

The point is: The internet if a perfectly good source for SOME information, SOME of the time.

IN other words, Sean, you need to make sure that what you are reading on internet sites (and indeed form anywhere) is accurate.

Any argument that depends SOLELY on some internet website that has nothing supporting it in terms of independently verifiable facts is highly suspect.

An argument that depends on OTHER independently verifiable facts, and perhaps also includes some internet website that includes independently verifiable facts is much more reliable.

Got it?



See above.



I don't know. Did you verify that they were legitimate and not edited?

You can do that, you know...



Again, see the first point at the top of this post.

An argument that depends on independently verifiable facts is much more reliable than any argument that depends SOLELY on some internet website that has nothing supporting it in terms of independently verifiable facts.



I honestly have no idea what any of this means.

What guy on the internet did I quote?

It's prime evidence of a very weak position and bad thinking to continuously argue with something that WAS NOT said.

Care to engage me on what I've actually said any time, soon?

I'll wait...

OMG what are you guys, part of Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy theory TV show? Why are you even talking about this? How about something more audio related?

You gotta f'n kidding me. You actually said that I quoted the 9/11 Commission Report (a document), which states that the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds, and you pointed us to the chapter in that official document(Heroism and Horror) that quote came from.

You then incorrectly pointed out that the 9/11 Commission Report was just a 'story' about the Firemen and the NYPD (when actually it spells out in graphic detail the entire official conspiracy theory minus all that pesky science), and that the actual science was in the other report, another document, the official NIST 'expert' report, which states that the towers were 'reduced to rubble' in 12 seconds. YOU said that, pointing to the official documentation.

Are you now saying that you didn't say that there was a documented collapse time? I was working under the assumption that the '50+ NIST scientists' and their official documents represented your source of fact. Silly me.



Terminal velocity? Please. So here we have a guy that professes to not know enough about physics to actually know one way or the other, who now doubts the content of the official story, but only the part he thinks 'no one could know', and then proceeds to spout out with conviction that the Laws of Physics were NOT broken (for a number of reasons). Could you please list for me the actual mathematical flaws in the physics? (Hint: A photo of 'See? The debris from below the top of the tower is actually below the top of the tower' is insufficient.)

The physics equations are certainly valid and accepted, the collapse time actually fits that equation perfectly. But only if 80 floors of concrete and vertical structural steel beams somehow didn't offer any more resistance to the falling top of the tower than air itself.



That could be true, the rate of fall of the newly ejected material was actually falling at free fall speed through air, so reason would have it that the top of the tower had to fall slower, as it had supporting columns to fall through.

The official story says the towers fell in 10 seconds, reduced to rubble in 12 seconds (I know, I know, they didn't actually know this, they just, well, printed it for our 'consideration'). That means they scientifically concluded that the top made it to the bottom in that period of time, regardless of whether any pieces from below the top section landed ahead of the top section. They just didn't bother to try to explain how.

Although it would certainly be expected that the top of the tower would be the last part of the building to reach the bottom (the top was certainly the highest point of the towers), and would fall slower than the debris released into the air (it was unfairly disadvantaged because it had to fall through those pesky vertical steel beams and stuff), it still collapsed, documented by the experts, and pointed to by you, in that approximate 10 second period.

That is the part that needs explaining.



Uh oh.



What is the reason for that, do you think?

From my point of view, I find the official theory fascinating in it's simplicity. That event has led to the 2 big wars we are in, and has affected me and people I know personally, and has gripped the globe with fear since that day.

I think the official, unproven conspiracy theory is a valid OT topic, worthy of debate.

Plus, I just can't help but feel like I'm somehow the slow one around here, that I am missing something. Knife keeps asking me if I "get it", and I'm really trying to "get it".

What I found on the internet is the Laws of Physics and Conservation of Energy. You must certainly agree that those laws are accepted, independently verifiable facts.

I also found the (unedited) official reports, which are the accepted official story of the event, put together by '50+ scientists' who admittedly know more about the event than you, and they reported, presumably verified by at least '50+ NIST scientists', among other folks, a collapse time of 10 seconds for the South tower.

That's all the information required to rule out a gravity collapse.

There is a simple observation and calculation that can be made regarding gravity in Earth.

As we know: from the Law of Falling Bodies and the Laws of Motion, described by Galileo and Isaac Newton over 300 years ago,

(legend: s=distance, u=initial velocity, t=travel time, and a=acceleration due to gravity, a known constant)

s = ut + 0.5 x at^2 (^2 means squared)

or, if u=0 (was at rest at the onset of collapse),

s = 0.5 x at^2

Rearranging for t gives:

t = ( 2s/a ) ^ 0.5 (^ 0.5 means square root)

So, for a bowling ball dropped from the top of the towers, it would drop a distance of 412m (s=1350ft). In the equation above, a is actually the acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s2.

So, the time taken for the ball at free fall =

t = ( 2(412)/9.81 ) ^ 0.5= 9.1649289 seconds, roughly (assuming no air resistance)

Therefore, the towers came down with almost no resistance. This is clearly not possible, as there were 47 steel center support columns and 236 steel exterior support columns, which would offer a resistance much higher than zero.

This is easy, high school level physics here, kids, which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, regardless of any "who" or "why" theory (official or otherwise), that this was not a gravitational collapse.

You can speculate all you want on the rest (planes, Arabs, fires, government, etc), but this question remains. Did they all (50+ NIST scientists, FEMA, 9/11 Commission) miss this? Or is this simply an ommission? Or bad math?

Because this isn't an audio board anymore.
Nothing even close to serious audio can be discussed here.
Live with what you created.

Wrong - this is still an audio board and I encourage you all to remember that. In the spirit of moving on, I will now lock this thread which started about why I lock long threads. Please continue discussing audio and please refrain from this topic - at least for a while.