Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Mike said,
Okay maybe, but buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over. The whole foundation doesn’t fail instantly across it’s entire area.
If the buildings were demolished by causes other than the plane crashes then why would they make them collapse that way? They are smart enough to organize this whole scheme but they make the buildings collapse in a highly suspicious way? Doesn’t seem very likely.
Olo Baggins of Bywater said,
>> How does that happen? I’m sure there’s an explanation for it.
I have no idea. Trying to answer all the questions of the conspiracy theories would be a full time occupation.
And totally futile… when one is answered, they either dispute the facts or just move on.
The timeline for the fire and collapse of WTC7 is completely documented to the minute.
Are you suggesting that the NYPD was told stand down by Dick Cheney or the Jews or the Trillateralists or somebody?? That’s an insult to the NYPD to suggest they would not do their duty.
>> # 59 Mike said, on September 15th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
>> And where is your information coming from? I haven’t heard ths theory before.
It amazes me that people will argue for HOURS about WTC7 but not do the slightest research into the facts.
Mr. Fusion was completely right about WTC7 being built on an existing ConEd building. It had a design weakness because of it. The fire raged for a couple of hours (if I remember correctly) and key pillars where weakened.
This is not a big mystery. Really smart guys with all the facts have figured it out.
Read the link I gave to Structural Magazine. It’s all explained there.
#62 Mr. Fusion
Oh please, give me a break. There are plenty of experts who support the demolition theory of the towers. Arguing with you is pointless. I don’t give a shit what you believe, you’re only hurting yourself.
And where is the information I asked you for? I never claimed to be a physics expert and I provided sources for my arguments. Maybe it’s you who is the one talking out his a/ss?
#64 jccalhoun
Because the population is brainwashed to only believe what they see on the 6 o’clock news and they think they can get away with it. And they only have to fool everyone for a period of time. When the truth finally does come out, the people responsible will have died and then it’ll just become another part of history that you won’t learn in school.
If you want to know the truth at some point you’re going to have to think for yourself, no one is going to spoon feed it to you. If you don’t want to know, then good luck to you.
>> jccalhoun said, on September 15th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
>> buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over.
That reminds me of a video of a totally over-designed building which ran on this blog. (I think)
Anybody else remember it? They where trying to demolish it and it just rolled over intact.
But jccalhoun, I don’t think sky scrapers “tip over” very often.
I can’t remember ever seeing one. There are other guys here who could better answer that.
>>nick the rat said, on September 15th, 2010 at 9:11 am
>> how did this building get set on fire again? all the other buildings surrounding it seem fine, and its not right next to the wtc
Now that you mention it, the streets and buildings in that video did look unusually pristine for New York.
I wouldn’t call myself a “truther,” but I do have some lingering doubts about the motivations of the Bush administration. They had numerous warnings about plans to attack the USA, but took little or no action. Also, the Bush clan has a long relationship with the Saudi Royal Family. If memory serves, the hijackers were almost all Saudi, and Osama bin Laden (a Saudi) was quickly identified as a prime suspect. Though Osama had ties with the Saudi Royal Family, members of the Royal Family were cleared to exit the US (by the US Government) in the days following 9/11, while US citizens were grounded. Soon after, the US decided that the Taliban were the real enemy, followed by Saddam Hussein. The rest, of course, is history.
>> Mr. Fusion said, on September 15th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
>>> #53, Lyin’ Mike,
>>> Dan, you are a liar. Everyone knows that fire does not melt steel.
>>Apparently Mike knows something “everyone” else doesn’t. A blast furnace doesn’t melt steel.
I wonder how Mike thinks welding happens? Magic, maybe?
#66 Greg Allen
Ya I read the pdf you linked to. All it says is that a critical column failed and that is what caused the building to collapse in a “demolition” like manner.
They also say fire, debris and bad construction is to blame for the column failure but they have no proof for this. Explosives could have caused the exact same effect. Of course I have no proof for explosives either… so it looks like we are in the same boat, both theorists.
Again, you have to think for yourself. Just because something is typed up neat and tidy in a magazine doesn’t mean you don’t examine it critically.
Osama bin Laden was outraged by the presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia before, during, and after the First Gulf War. 9/11 was his way of showing his disgust.
>> just me said, on September 15th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
>> I wouldn’t call myself a “truther,” but I do have some lingering doubts about the motivations of the Bush administration. They had numerous warnings about plans to attack the USA, but took little or no action.
It’s called incompetence.
That’s why presidents should be really smart and really informed and really curious — and Bush was none of this.
>> Also, the Bush clan has a long relationship with the Saudi Royal Family. If memory serves, the hijackers were almost all Saudi, and Osama bin Laden (a Saudi) was quickly identified as a prime suspect. Though Osama had ties with the Saudi Royal Family, members of the Royal Family were cleared to exit the US (by the US Government) in the days following 9/11, while US citizens were grounded. Soon after, the US decided that the Taliban were the real enemy, followed by Saddam Hussein. The rest, of course, is history.
You are conflating about three issues there.
Yes, bin Laden and most of the hijackers where Saudis — but they where criminals, exiles and enemies of the Saudi Royal family.
Yes, the Bush’s are close to the Saudi royals and had been for years. Bush let them fly out as a favor to avoid lock-down and press scrutiny but probably not because he thought they where guilty. The Saudi royals are the last people in the middle east who would want to attack America, their cash cow.
It’s harder to explain whey Bush would be so hell bent on attacking Iran when, clearly, the enemy was in Afghanistan. It could have been personal for Bush (Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.) but the neo-Cons had been obsessed with Iraq for decades. And then there’s oil.
Whatever the motivation, the Iraq war will go down as one of the most boneheaded and bungled foreign policy debacles in US history.
And the conservatives cheered it on, every step of the way.
# 71 Greg Allen
If you have researched the collapses as much as you’ve claimed you should know what MikeN (not me by the way) meant when he said steel doesn’t melt. You don’t have to be a dick and berate him.
He meant jet fuel, which officially is what ignited the fires in the towers, doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel.
>> Mike said, on September 15th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
>> Again, you have to think for yourself. Just because something is typed up neat and tidy in a magazine doesn’t mean you don’t examine it critically
It was the facts and logic that convinced me, not the graphic design. (which kind of sucked, actually)
You actually did a pretty-good job of summarizing what happened.
It burned like hell in there for hours and collapsed, aided by a flawed design.
When you watch the video above, it’s not at all hard to imagine.
Forget about Bush. Presidents and most political figures are puppets.
#77: Then forget about Obama too.
>> # 75 Mike said, on September 15th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
>> He meant jet fuel, which officially is what ignited the fires in the towers, doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel.
Have you ever worked with steel? I have a little.
The stuff softens and bends when you put it in a furnace. I think in the old days they melted iron with food fires. Jet fuel seems like it would do nicely on steel (although there was none of that in WTC7)
Your criticism of me being a “dick” is fair enough.
But c’mon, man, everybody knows that steel melts.
It’s how they make the stuff. And you know it too. Surely, in grade school, you watched some film about the steel industry where they are pouring the the stuff out of vats.
Furthermore, it wouldn’t need to melt for the building to fall down — just weaken and break.
uummm spammmmy
#78 just me
Ya, exactly, forget about Obama. That’s what I said, presidents are just puppets.
#79 Greg Allen
No, I’ve never worked with steel. I’d think, with my unexpert knowledge, that weakened steel wouldn’t lead to a demolition like collapse at close to free fall speed.
For me though, it’s more about the big picture. 911 is only a small part of what is going on all over the world and I have seen enough proof from both sides to be convinced of what I believe. I know that’s “classic” conspiracy theorist mentality but that’s what interests me and I don’t care about how I “should” be thinking.
GregA…I have no use for the conspiracy bullshit and the morons who cling to it…I’m legitimately curious about what was going on.
Mike #72…you’re making a false equivalence. You can see the intense fire, there was questionable construction, and so on. There is no doubt—none—that these factors contributed to the collapse of WTC7. There is, however, zero evidence of demo explosions. Zero, none. You’ve seen these demos, right? Dozens of precisely-timed charges at precise locations???
Now seriously, which cause is 99% likely, and which one is <1% likely? Engage your objective brain, first…this is in no way a 50:50 deal, so your opinion as to the cause does not hold the same weight as the engineering analysis. Sorry.
Geez people, watch the damn video. That black smoke is plastics burning…have you never burned plastic? I have…even in a hot fire it lets out tons of black smoke. Offices are loaded with the stuff….carpets, furniture, wall coverings, wiring, light fixtures, office equipment, etc. That stuff burns black until it’s completely gone. Btdt, just this weekend, in fact.
For over 50 years the British, French and American political and cultural incompetence, through 2 world wars screwed the middle east. They together plunked down the jewish state in the middle of Arab land for they felt guilty, as they did’nt act when the Nazis were killing Jews in their thousands. Then when middle eastern nations got some political power through oil, they decided to put the boot on the other foot.
Yes, and out of this came plenty of middle eastern radicals, bastards who hate the west and all it intails…The list of hijacks, killings, hostage taking, mass murder, international arms dealing, drug running to fuel wars is endless.
There is Rowanda, India and Pakistan, African nations , Ugandah,Congo and list is goes on
That tragic day on September 11th, sad as it may seem, is just another pot hole in the road of international politics and power.
“He meant jet fuel, which officially is what ignited the fires in the towers, doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel.”- Mike
are you purposefully trolling or just that ignorant?
ANY and ALL heat will soften steel. The lame ass comment that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough is completely ridiculous. Jet fuel ignited EVERY thing in that building. The fuel didn’t just set on top of desks and hundreds of file cabinets full of paper. STEEL DOES NOT have to get to melting point to weaken, especially with 100k lbs of concrete and steel above it pushing down with the force of gravity. Gravity is probably controlled by the evil Jews and Saudis in your world too….right.
BTW what is with these truthers suggesting the muslims (saudis) and Jews and George Bush? That’s even more farfetched than saying secret govt people were all working together to plants thousands of pounds of explosives in all these buildings with no one seeing it.
Seriously if you don’t understand how screwed up your thinking is, you need to be committed. i don’t think it’s safe for you to be on the streets
# Mike,
No, I’ve never worked with steel. I’d think, with my unexpert knowledge, that weakened steel wouldn’t lead to a demolition like collapse at close to free fall speed.
Then you have no idea of mechanical properties. And I suppose when your doctor tells you smoking causes lung cancer you’re going to dispute that too.
Steel is a plastic material and will deform. A simple experiment would be to take a steel coat hanger and push the ends together, eventually the hanger will bend. If the steel is heated the amount of force required to deform the hanger decreases. The higher the heat the less load it can hold before deformation.
Basic skyscraper construction consists of a steel frame made up of lateral and vertical support members. Everything else is attached to that frame. When the frame is damaged it requires the adjoining support members to carry their load. That load is not distributed equally; it is distributed unequally to the support members closest to the damaged frame. When those support members lose their strength the added load will cause the steel to deform.
When the support members lose their integrity they will catastrophically collapse. That is what happened with the Twin Towers and WTC7. All three buildings were damaged and on fire. The unequal loads caused the softened support members to deform until the buildings collapsed.
Free fall is (colloquially) the speed an object will attain when the force of gravity is balanced against all resistance. A typical example would be a parachutist before opening his chute. In all the WTC buildings that collapsed, each floor that crashed on the one below added resistance that would slow this process down significantly. Because of the dust and debris this process can not be seen in any of the WTC collapse videos.
With the Twin Towers there were large pieces of the buildings that did fall off and would have reached free fall. It is a common misconception that the buildings fell into their footprints. The debris field covered several blocks and damaged several other buildings.