Reverence for 9/11

I independently did the simple calculations performed in tryst's last link. What they imply is this:

If the very top floor of a building had been where the collapse had started and if the floors all stuck together on the way down and if the slowing down due to the failure of the floors is ignored, the collapse would have taken 13 seconds

Fortunately, someone else has taken the time to determine more precisely how long the fall took from the nearest real-time video and audio record. The actual time was just over 15 seconds. The extra 2 seconds over the theoretical minimum indicates that about 25% of the energy was absorbed in the collapse, which seems entirely reasonable.

The puzzle of how a tower could fall in 9 seconds is solved by the fact that it actually fell in 15 seconds. Accurate empirical data - a wonderful aid to understanding. Or to put it another way "garbage in, garbage out".

We don't know what type of explosives were used. But, it appears as though the detonation of the explosives was not compromised by where the planes hit. Once the explosives were detonated, anything above the point of impact disintegrated with as much ease as the massive rods in the center of the building...simply turning to dust.

No one claimed responsibility for the attacks. It is a key modus operandi for any terrorist group committing a terrorist attack, to claim responsibility. Whereas a "cover-up" is acquainted with governmental crimes.

Soon after the attacks, a widely reported anthrax assault occurred. After investigation, the anthrax turned out to be of "military grade". A gentleman by the name of Dr. Bruce Ivins was accused of the assault. Later it was found that he could not have had access to this "military" weapon.

We do not know what type of explosives were used. It could be explosives not normally used in building demolitions. It could be  high-tech military explosives. There is no doubt that this country is at the "cutting edge" of military weapons, spending over 40% of every tax dollar on the military--military weapons technology.

It is just not beyond reason to find those investigating this event as "concerned", rather than "crazy". There is much about this event which does not allow one to remain comfortable as to it's cause, and who really perpetrated it.

Which evidence do you think is more relevant, a video of a tower falling in which you can see it took 15 seconds, or a soundbite that says otherwise?

You can go on believing Shyam Sunder's erroneous soundbite, I'll continue to believe reality.

There's no reason to get huffy about it. Sunder was part of the N.I.S.T investigation. I'm sure they have better ways of concluding the time of collapse than the obviously edited video that you posted.

 If I thought for a second that you, throughout this dialogue, would resort to implying that any evidence presented would be disregarded based upon belief alone, I would not have continued. I assumed you were passionate about your position. I also assumed that you found no reason to question further than your own investigations concerning the matter, therefore you would be comfortable calling someone 'crazy' if they doubt it. Once, through this dialogue, you see that there are legitimate questions, you resort to saying it's a matter of belief. Not very scientific, Elroch...

"Bored" would be a better description of my attitude than "passionate".

Watch any video of a collapse and you will see upper floors falling into STATIONARY lower floors.

From this, physics tells you the upper floors could not hit the ground in 9s (because they cannot accelerate as fast as in free fall). No theory about explosives changes this fact. Do you understand this? It took me a while to realise the significance of this myself.

No soundbite has any effect on this argument. I infer that "9s" can only refer to the time when the first loose debris hit the ground (this is debris that fell unimpeded outside the building), not to the time when the top floor hit the ground.

I'm sorry about that. I didn't know.

You could not be expected to. But please do read my last post, and see why I prefer to rely on physics to any quote.

I assumed you were interested in the physical details of the event. I have spoken to you before, and I remember having a sense of your interests.

The investigation of the 9/11 event is important to people. You are interested in facts to support a conclusion on the matter. I'm not satisfied with what I have been told about the matter. Many feel the same way. We can't be specialists in every field, and we can't be present at this past event. We know that what has gone on since, is quite disturbing. You already know about the varying positions on any event, but this event is worth a contemplation. A re-visitation. It really is worth investigating.

Yes, I am quite interested in what happened physically, which is where I have the most relevant knowledge and experience (physical modelling of various types).

But consider for a moment the stupendous absurdity of the idea of the US government blowing up the buildings under the (literal) smokescreen of a series of attacks by Islamist suicide terrorists. This is up there with disguised lizards in the senate.

My feeling is that the psychological motivation for this delusion is an unwillingness to accept the fact that the US was attacked by outsiders.

Probably try to look at it like a crime scene, that way some of the shock factor is assuaged.

Just very briefly, look at the narrative leading up to 9/11/01. Prior to the 2000 elections, a group of people named "neocons", wrote a manifesto entitled "The New American Century". In it, they argue for a more aggressive imperialism, in order to obtain  resources which they claim are dwindling, and to have a greater influence in those countries which control those resources. It was concluded that such an aggressive foreign policy would not be supported by the American people. A key point in the manifesto asserts that the people would not support them unless there was some cataclysmic event, like a sneak attack from a foreign force...like a "new Pearl Harbor", which they claim would unite the people against an enemy.
When Bush jr. "won" the election, his cabinet was named, and in it were the neocons. Immediately, Bush resumed where Clinton began in negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They wanted the Taliban to allow a pipeline to go through Afghanistan and guarantee it's security. In exchange the U.S. would support the Taliban as sole governors of the region, and give them whatever positive press necessary to show that they were friends of the U.S. But, the neocons were more aggressive in negotiations than the previous administration.
The Taliban did not trust the neocons, so they were not going for this deal. Negotiations lasted for months, with the Bush goverment getting frustrated and pissed off. By July, the negotations had turned into threats from the Bush government.  The negotations were broken off in July of 2001. Within a few weeks, intelligence agencies around the world were picking up on some vague plan of an attack on the U.S. Of course, no one would suspect the Taliban, for they just didn't want the U.S. in their country. There would be no reason for the Taliban to plan some attack on the U.S. But, the U.S. did have a former intelligence operative who could easily be linked to the attacks, and who was residing in Afghanistan...

Of course, there is much, much more to the narrative, if you would like me to continue?

No, the concept of an explicit collusion concerning an attack on New York is already so unbelievable, no more is needed.

Not true.  Dissenting opinions are valuable and constructive not only to a Republic, but to this website.

Take your gag to some other website.

Don't you understand?  Without Trysts arguments, I never would have learned what Elroch had to teach me.

Do I detect a terrorist or Bush sympathizer here? Take your rightwing rhetoric to some other website, it's not welcome on chess.com.

You're too kind, bigpoison. I too learned a few things as a result of the discussion that I had an less accurate understanding of earlier.

I feel it's a bit unfair to claim that trysts advocated the attacks - she merely has a strange view about who was behind them. IMDeviate's view is similarly daft, but more explicitly politically motivated.

I should make the point that it is not so surprising that engineers could make mistakes like believing the towers could avoid collapse after the collision of an aircraft. There was no empirical data, and simulating the initial damage that would be done is an imprecise science at best. It appears a crucial error was underestimating to what degree the insulation on the central column would be compromised. But I feel the far more important failure was in not making more sure that at least one escape route from upper floors would remain intact. Only 4 people survived from the floors above the impacts, and this huge factor in the disaster can be blamed on inadequate design (especially since they made it clear the collision of a plane had been considered).

You're a chess player!  Look at all possibilities no matter how absurd they look at first.

As regards your political stance:  that's your prerogative.  From where I sit, the only discernible difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama can speak in complete sentences...usually.

okay

However.... he sometimes... has a hard time... putting together.. said complete sentences... in a timely manner.