1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at WTC

[Singing in the Drizzle]

Originally Posted by musicgeek

Hold on....
The bowling ball has a smooth, polished surface, while the tennis ball's fuzzy surface gives, in all likelihood, a greater total surface area. How would this affect the coefficient of drag? (I honestly have no idea, but it seems to me the idea of the tennis ball experiencing greater resistance from the air might have some merit.)

This may help understand if I remember how this works after 25 year of not using it. If we have 2 bowling ball with the same shape and density, but one is only half the size of the other. All assuming you do not run in to the problems that bring other factors into significant play do to micro or macro size. The difference sizes should effect the drag coefficient such the the 2 objects fall a the same speed. I think this had something to do with proving the theory in the first place.

Anyway any two objects all at the same speed in a vacuum. Again assuming that we are not talking about thing very large that have their own strong gravity field or very small and may be affected by other laws that I do not understand.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Mad Jay

I can one-up that. One of the professors in my electronics courses didn't know how cell phones work. He had no idea that cell phone towers existed. Some of my classmates spent one class teaching him the basic operation of cell phones while rest of the class goofed around.

I think I might be able to beat that.

I had a biology professor at the local community college declare that ravens did not live in the area, only crows...

While a large, black, heavy-billed bird that was distinctly not a crow was perched on a fence just outside the window.

I don't think he liked me too much after that.

[Astra]

I'm sort of surprised they only got 1270. It's really not that many considering how many architects and engineers are out there. Odds are some of them have to be going senile.


My contributions to the list of the clueless:

High school history/economics/government teacher told her class that if you felt you were not accurately represented in the legislature, you could send a letter to Congress saying as much and as a result would not owe taxes that year and the IRS could not pursue you.

College chemistry professor who spoke of pool chemicals that turned colors in the presence of urine and then tried to explain how they worked (apparently by assuming that the chemical content of the pool would be very, very uncomfortable).

[crocoduck_hunter]

Hey, question I had involving the Truthers.

So, okay, they're all about the "brought down by explosives by the gov'ment" angle, mostly (except the ones who think it was a plane-shaped missile, had an argument with one of them a couple years ago- he was under the impression that if a 767 collides with a skyscraper going about 500 mph, it will stop instantly and plummet straight to the ground in one piece- physics by Wile E Coyote) but what is the motive? The one that sticks in my mind is the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't make sense on several levels, is this a detail I made up somewhere?

[Singing in the Drizzle]

I think the conspiracist should pay for their own independent investigation. They will not listen to the government one and more will not change anything. Plus I do not see is going to be accomplished by wasting my money on another investigation. I would also guess that a large majority of the country does not wish to waste their money on another one as well.

[fitz1980]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

The one that sticks in my mind is the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't make sense on several levels, is this a detail I made up somewhere?

I've tried to argue that point with some nuts before. If the administration's goal of planning 9/11 was to invade Iraq than why blame it on Saudi men & a terrorist in Afghanistan? Why than spend 2 years trying to tie Saddam to it in the public's mind, exaggerations about evidence of WMDs and all of that. Why not just come right out of the box saying "men working for Saddam Hussein did it?" We could have started the invasion of Iraq the next day.

The standard response is something like "I don't know all of the details about it, but there's no way planes did that, the government is lying to us about what really happened."

[firefighter_raven]

Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle

I think the conspiracist should pay for their own independent investigation. They will not listen to the government one and more will not change anything. Plus I do not see is going to be accomplished by wasting my money on another investigation. I would also guess that a large majority of the country does not wish to waste their money on another one as well.

I've seen some of their attempts at experiments to replicate what happened that day and it is comical.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by fitz1980

I've tried to argue that point with some nuts before. If the administration's goal of planning 9/11 was to invade Iraq than why blame it on Saudi men & a terrorist in Afghanistan? Why than spend 2 years trying to tie Saddam to it in the public's mind, exaggerations about evidence of WMDs and all of that. Why not just come right out of the box saying "men working for Saddam Hussein did it?" We could have started the invasion of Iraq the next day.

But they are saying the Iraq invasion was the motive? I couldn't remember.

[Johnny Slick]

My experience is that they tend to be very vague about stuff like motive because, well, the whole "theory" isn't really an alternate theory as to how 9/11 was a big con job or whatever, it's more of a "I don't know the actual answer but I don't trust the government not to have this a big conspiracy" thing. It's a lot like how you can never really nail down with a Birther why Obama was manufactured by secret evil Muslims by being born in Nigeria. They really don't have answers because answers are hard. All they have are questions.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

I don't think he liked me too much after that.

Why you? You didn’t call the raven to the window so why were you the object of his rage so to speak?

[Canuckistan]

My guess is that crocoduck pointed out the bird at a most inopportune time for the instructor.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by diddy

Why you? You didn’t call the raven to the window so why were you the object of his rage so to speak?

Well, it wasn't actually the first time I'd called attention to his having failed a spot check- a couple weeks earlier he'd been talking about evolution in the class when he stated that mammals first appeared in the late Cretaceous when there was a chart on the page of the textbook we were open to that said "Mid Triassic- first mammals appear." Probably doesn't feel to good to have a student point out that you'd missed a relatively important detail by about 100 million years.

Also, he was a serious to the point of eco-worshiping environmentalist who had the tendency to try to pass of his personal beliefs as facts in class, and, well, I come from a locally well known timber family. The guy actually had something of a reputation for being a very political teacher, and as I didn't agree with his politics, well, that's how it goes.

[Singing in the Drizzle]

The biggest problem I have about these conspiracy theorist is how the jump to conclusions and say it is prof of the conspiracy. If "a","b" or "c" are not fully explained to our satisfaction and "d","e" and "f" do not with what we think. Then this proves "x", "y" or "z" it the truth. They never explain in any detail how they got from the event and the actual evidence to their conclusions. It goes from the faults assumption that a airplane must be filled with explosive, because they believe it could not do that much damage with out them. To the conclusion that it was the government with any chain of evidence, events, papers ... or even logic.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Well, it wasn't actually the first time I'd called attention to his having failed a spot check-

Makes sense now - seems you had a little bit of history pointing out facts to your teacher. I like that...

Thanks for the explanation.

[videoguy]

Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses

FYI: Bowling balls are not that dense, even the 16 lb ball will float on water.

That's not true, from my experience. A lot of bowlers these days soak their bowling balls in a bucket of hot water to help remove the lane oil. Mine are 15 lbs. and they all sink.

ETA: It says here that bowling balls heavier than 12 pounds will sink. Lighter ones float.
http://www.science-house.org/learn/floatingballs.html

[Nick Theodorakis]

[re: density of bowling ball)

So, assuming a spherical bowling ball... (old physics joke -- assumption is actually right for a change)

Let's see: various sources say bowling balls (10 pin) have a circumference of 27 inches (all same size regardless of weight).

Converting to metric for ease of calculations:

27 in = 68.58 cm.

radius of sphere = circ/2pi = 68.58/2pi = 10.915 cm

volume of a sphere is (pi*r^3)4/3 , (pi*10.015^3)4/3 = 5446.8
so bowling ball volume is 5446.8 cubic cm.

A volume of water equal to volume of bowling ball is 5446.8 g

5446.8 g is equal to 12.01 lb, so that's right. If a bowling ball is less than 12 lb it will float.

Nick

[fitz1980]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

But they are saying the Iraq invasion was the motive? I couldn't remember.

That's the one that I mostly remember hearing from that crowd. It's probably because that was where most of the big military news was coming from for so many years.

[Eddylizard]

I remember seeing a documentary about explosive demolition of disused buildings, and there's a lot more to it than just planting some explosives and letting them off.

One of the key things is to run steel cables diagonally between the walls or support pillars and anchor them in place with ragbolts or something. This will (or should) ensure that the building will collapse in a tidy heap. They put who knows how many of these cables in, and for a modest sized high rise building it takes weeks.

For a building the size of the Word Trade Center towers I imagine it would take months. Would nobody working there who's still around have noticed this work going on? I mean in the case of the derelict buildings in the documentary, should anyone have been living or working in them the work would have been intrusive and obvious.

Per the documentary there are (or were) only two companies in the world who do explosive building demolition - has anyone checked with them?

[Singing in the Drizzle]

[sarcasm]Don't you know that all it takes to set up a building demolition is a dozen people working night shifts and couple of floors closed for a few days.[/sarcasim]

I wounder how much this question of demolition would not have happen if some reporter trying to put word to what he saw, described the fall of the tower to that of a building demolition. Though I sure it would have come up eventually since they also included everything else even remotely plausible and many that were not.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

I remember seeing a documentary about explosive demolition of disused buildings, and there's a lot more to it than just planting some explosives and letting them off.

Indeed - I would wager that most people who think that there was some kind of controlled demolition think that explosives in real life work the same way that they work in Looney Toons or . They just don’t understand that you could not get a controlled demolition going on without it being pretty obvious. Where are you going to store them? It is obvious that they weren’t in a basement and we aren’t talking a few sticks of TNT that you can hide in a closet - were talking about an operational office building.

Per the documentary there are (or were) only two companies in the world who do explosive building demolition - has anyone checked with them?

It doesn’t matter to the CTers. Any sort of denial would just be considered part of a conspiracy OR that the government has some sort of sekret building demolition crew that they keep on salary just in case.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle

I wounder how much this question of demolition would not have happen if some reporter trying to put word to what he saw, described the fall of the tower to that of a building demolition. Though I sure it would have come up eventually since they also included everything else even remotely plausible and many that were not.

I think it would have been inevitable - building collapses and demolition aren’t all that much different from each other since demolitions try not to tip the structure - they just try for a collapse since that is the safest outcome and the most controllable for clean-up.