Sunday, September 13, 2009

September 11th Conspiracy Theory Debunked

The september 11th terrorist attacks are the object of various conspiracy theorists' claims. Some people argue that the collapse of the twin towers, for instance, was a fabrication. According to them, the towers must have been brought down by a controlled demolition (and not by the fires initiated by the jet fuel).

A computer model created by the American Society of Civil Engineers, in conjunction with the Purdue University, debunks such claims.

The computer simulation shown on the video below is a result of the 2 years study they carried out.



16 comments:

  1. This model could work if it weren't for these things called "walls" which I am pretty sure existed in the WTC during the attack. These walls existed in between the perimeter columns and the central steel support beams which actually did all the holding up of the building. These walls may not seem like they would make a difference to Purdue but as a Physics Post Graduate there is a concept called impulse dampening which would allow these walls if they existed to have slowed and dispersed the paper thin aluminum material wings and the fuselage(not as much as the wings) even if there was still a fireball that broke through the other side. The Fuselage could have taken out a couple of beams in the central steel support structure(the video does not do a good job showing that these beams were farther in and uses the camera angle to make it look like the beams were spread throughout the structure which any 911 conspiracy theorist would know due to the abundance of pictures of the construction of the WTC) but the majority of the beams would remain intact because they are much thicker than anything besides engine parts and things in the fuselage which would be dampened by these "walls". The beams would also conduct the heat up and down the steel SUPER STRUCTURE. This of course was never discussed like all media pabulum it distorts and ignores the real proof. Goto my website http://www.freeworldalliance.biz/911.html for the real story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why hasn't this study been questioned by any serious scientific or engineering institution? Why are such studies always questioned only by obscure guys who are generally not qualified to analyse the data?
    I don't know all the details of the model, but it is really hard to believe that any relevant variables or boundary conditions have simply been ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When people make fun of Bill O'Reilly they often say 'playing hardball is more than just making fun of the pitcher, you actually have to swing the bat to make the point' I don't know all the details of your male model essence ie whether or not you are lying but it is really hard to believe that my school, JMU is worse than Purdue, and it seems obvious that relevant variables can be OMITTED in something called a "government conspiracy". Please if you are going to play hardball try batting at some points rather than trying to debase people. You know Plato say if your whole argument boils down to; you're wrong because you didn't go to MIT for engineering then the entire argument against the opposing logic chain(proving the original hypothesis at the end of the chain of points) is fallacious. But since nobody knows how good my school is or reads the other pages on my website to see my actual nanotech engineering theories I guess I will just have to link you right to somebody who is from MIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related and if you are going to bat at something try batting at something small that I understand; nanoparticles shredded by explosives. And no you don't have to go to MIT to understand that shredding concrete into nanoparticle dust requires both thermate and explosives not just feeble Earth gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alex,

    I neither used "ad hominen" nor "appeal to authority" arguments. Perhaps I did not express myself well.
    What I mean is that all over the world there are many many scientists, reporters, engineers, among various other of professionals, who would become almost instantly rich and famous if they could provide reliable evidence to support such theories. Not to mention the fact that their names would be part of history. It would be far more sensational than the Watergate scandal.
    The Bush Administration did not manage to cover up many scandals (CIA secret prisons, torture in Irak, the weapons of mass destruction farse, Human Rights violations in Guantanamo). I would not overestimate its capacity to cover up something like the 911 conspiracy, that would be orders of magnitude more difficult to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well apparently I did discover your essence as a liar. You did use "appeal to authority" arguments first you debased me as "obscure guy[] who [is] generally not qualified to analyze the data[.]" and then you attempt to convince the reader "[that] it is really hard to to believe that any relevant variables or boundary conditions have simply been ignored" in Purdue's model.

    Then I find that my original statement about you being a male model is true because you are more focused on fame, fortune, and "sensational[ism]" than actually debasing the fundamental pillars of the 911 conspiracy. Again try batting at something relevant.

    But you did swing the bat once, however the torture scandal that did get exposed is the tip of the iceberg, virtually nobody knows about the subliminal mind control that goes on at Guantanamo Bay which is evidenced by the picture of the Orange People on my previously linked 911 site who are obviously listening to techno music, praying to AlA, and getting Zooed out by fancy visuals so that they will be mind programmed(like Westerners are mind programmed by television programming{which does have subliminals in them}). "The weapons of mass destruction farce" is not a farce and is best dealt with at http://www.freeworldalliance.biz/NuclearWar.html

    Now what I like to see is a point that is neither a lie, a reference to sensationalism, or an OMG there was like a scandal 4 years ago so nothing else must be true, argument.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alex,

    When I wrote about "obscure guys" I was NOT referring to YOU. I just intended to say that no serious institution has ever questioned the official version of the facts. Why not?
    When I wrote about fortune and fame, I was talking about HUMAN NATURE. It is very unlikely that a conspiracy like that would be successfully kept secret. That is not how things work. That is not how humans behave.
    When I wrote that it was hard to belive that the model disregarded relevant data, I was just saying that, if there were such elementary flaws, the model would imediately be contested by scientists and engineers all over the world.
    By the way, we are not talking about Purdue only. The American Society of Civil Engineers also took part in the study.
    This conspiracy must be really something out of this world because it seems to be supported by an ever increasing number of people all over the world, who analyse the data and come to the same conclusions.
    At last, talking abaut fallacies, although you criticize me for using "ad homini" arguments, you insulted me a lot in you comments. Is that the way you intent to corroborate your claims?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please allow me to make an additional comment about what you wrote:

    "This model could work if it weren't for these things called "walls" which I am pretty sure existed in the WTC during the attack"

    Well, the animation really does not show walls. It does not mean that they where not taken into consideration in the model. And even if they were indeed not considered, one could question if they are really so relevant. First of all, their function is NOT STRUCTURAL in oposition to columns and beams. In addition to that, walls are realtively frigile. You can break a wall with a hammer. What kind of obstacle would they be for a hundred ton aircraft, at hundreds of mph? During the collapse of the towers, how could they resist the weight of the foors above them?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Institutions are controlled by Administrators, which is why we have to rely on individual scientists to debase the official story, and they have come out, in droves. Maybe you actually need to do your homework and go to a 911 convention because they are happening all over the world. IT IS NOT SUCESSFULLY BEING KEPT AS A SECRET, which is why everybody is talking about it. The American Society of Engineers is controlled by Administrators, so is Purdue.

    Why does the only "sufficient" model come from a university that is LITERALLY just 2 blocks from the Capital Building? This just screams conspiracy. More and more people are getting on the boat because of scientific facts surrounding 911 not because of sensationalism.

    I insulted you because you use only fallacious arguments like "everybody would know" when all my friends know and people I meet on the street know as well. You are a liar because you pull the most basic trick of all in your discussions; dictating authority and debasing me as "[an] obscure guy[] who [is] generally not qualified to analyses the data" when I am a physicist who more than qualified to deal with architectural engineering. No "ad hominen" arguments my ass. Walls may be fragile to a hammer made of solid steel hitting it over and over again, but the aluminum frame wings are light and full of fuel mostly, they would not cut through the INNER steel support columns because of IMPULSE DAMPENING which you failed to mention.

    In an intellectual foray it is acceptable to use insults when they are not lies however you failed to directly criticize any relevant points of the 911 conspiracy except the walls and you failed to even use my terminology: impulse dampening. The first few walls were sufficiently broken into but what you failed to factor into your equation is that there would be an exponential decrease in velocity caused by the principals involved in the concept of impulse dampening. The dampening would occur at every layer and the fragmentation of the walls would take energy to not only break the covalent bonds but also to accelerate the fragments which would spray randomly into the floors, ceiling, lateral walls as well as the next walls. After the first 8 or so walls and everything inside the building, like desks, cubicals, computers, copy machines file cabinets etc. before the inner support column the wings(or even the fuselage practically which is basically a fireball at this point) would not be capable of CUTTING multiple decimeter thick steel columns. The animation clearly shows the wing cutting these columns. The calculations used to model what we did see ie the exterior columns "[were honestly not fudged at all]" but the rest is warped beyond belief.

    Now try batting at my primary point: HOW WAS THE CONCRETE SHREDDED WHEN THERE ARE THESE "THINGS" CALLED COVALENT BONDS WHICH HAVE TO BE BROKEN AT EVERY POINT IN THE CONCRETE AROUND THE 1 MICROMETER PARTICLES which constitute the dust cloud!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The EMPTY weight of a Boeing 767 is between 176,650 lb and 229,000 lb. Imagine something as heavy as that flying at hundreds of mph. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the kinetic energy that results from such masses and speeds? Not to mention the energy released in the explosion of thousands of gallons of fuel!
    Besides, concerning the damage that may be caused by "light aluminum", I do not agree with you once more! Provided the right conditions (high pressure or high speeds, for instance), even light and/or soft materials can cause damage or destroy heavy and/or hard objects. High-pressure water jets are used in the industry to cut metal; the aeronautical industry makes bird-strike tests to make sure that the fuselage of the airplanes is strong enough not to be broken due to the impact with birds; the shock waves generated by an explosion breaks even concrete. That is AIR under high pressure! Pretty light air!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You mention "Kinetic Energy" and "Explosion" but I fail to see you even mention or delineate any proof through investigation through complex fragmentation based impulse dampening. "High-pressure water jets are used in the industry to cut metal[,] the aeronautical industry makes bird-strike tests to make sure that the fuselage of the airplanes is strong enough not to be broken due to the impact with birds[, and] the shock waves generated by an explosion breaks even concrete", yet birds hitting planes is not relevant to this discussion as that would be a nonfragmentary and small impact and there was only explosions before the buildings fell; right! Or were there explosions in the building that caused the fragmentation. Please post paragraphs of points to dispute the fragmentation theories and please use correct grammar in your thus far sensational rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. English is not my mother language. I am sorry for the mistakes (athough this is not relevant).
    Concernig the bird strikes, that was just an example intended to show you how pretty soft and light objects can cause serious damage, if the right conditions occur. It is basic materials science.
    Regarding the kinetic energy, I only mentioned it because you seem to ignore the magnitude of the ernergy and forces involved.
    I will no longer discuss this. I do not have to prove anything. The onus of proof is yours. You are the one who makes the extraordinary claims. If there were irrefutable evidence to corroborate your claims, we would not even be discussing this.
    Additionally, if you do have reliable evidence, why waste your time with me? Why don't you send whatever information you have to someone who has the means and power to do something about it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The onus of proof is on the Authorities to actually dispute these scientific claims but they have failed like you have failed to factor in impulse dampening in a fragmenting environment, thermal conductivity of steel, and chemical bonds in the nanoparticleized concrete and asbestos.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The onus of proof is on the Authorities to actually dispute these scientific claims but they have failed like you have failed to factor in impulse dampening in a fragmenting environment, thermal conductivity of steel, and chemical bonds in the nanoparticleized concrete and asbestos. Why Don't the Authorities just actually post here why the theory is wrong. They stand to clear their record and end the dissidence with nothing more than posting.

    ReplyDelete