For my beloved Tommy Choump-a-loomp.
Okay, Tom? First of all, in presenting evidence for a balanced, objective, science-based argument, you'd definitely do better than to cite the fucking New American. Read up on the John Birch Society and you'll know exactly what I mean.
Tom, I know the claims laid out by the 'other side'- I've believed them for years, and often against my better judgment. A PSYOPS (Psychological Operations) campaign like this one is otherwise known as state terrorism, and in this case, the United States government has answered for its actions by proxy in describing the cold, black heart of terrorists found alive ten days after the attacks of 9/11. Traumatize the people and they'll be willing to believe anything, and if there's anything I've learned, it's that Popular Mechanics isn't among the most reliable outlets for scientific knowledge in the known world. And if their claims are so well-researched, so well thought out and employing such a vast array of sources in its irrefutable counterargument to "conspiracy" nuts like me, why is their only fucking citation, referenced again and again and again, the National Institute of Standards and Technology? Parenthetically, we're talking about an organization responsible for innumerable advancements in surveillance, information technology, airport security, law enforcement and military, all under the pretext of 9/11. Furthermore, we're talking about a non-regulatory agency (read: a group with a carte blanche, more or less), operating under the United States Department of Commerce with a mission to, and I quote, "promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life."
Not to mention FEMA, and don't get me started on them. Just think of Katrina.
In other words? Be careful whose word you take as absolute gospel when refuting arguments against the legitimacy of the alibi of a government that has inestimably profited from the tragedy of September 11th, 2001.
First of all, their claims about a pancaking building. Yes, that's very true- a building, especially one the size of the World Trade Center, when collapsing on itself, will fold to the earth, but not at a rate of free-fall as the Twin Towers did. In order for buildings the size of WTC 1 and 2 to come down as quickly as they did, there first needs to be nearly zero resistance limiting the rate of collapse. In order to achieve this- and I can't phrase it any more simply than this- you need to blow the shit out of the inner skeleton. Six concrete-reinforced supports, right at the center of the structure, blown with one charge each, but not before taking out the whole thing where it's coupled to the ground. Six flashes, six low thuds reported by firefighters and emergency personnel, completely consistent with what you'd expect. Then, in a matter of seconds, likely during the descent of the structure itself, the inner framework needs to be pulverized. A building brought down by its own force will encounter resistance from within by its own steel, resulting in a slow, ugly collapse. The World Trade Center came down so cleanly, relatively speaking, that its hulking debris was contained to a single Manhattan city block.
Second, the postulation that an aircraft wing will apparently sever the internal support columns of the Twin Towers. I don't know if you're aware of this, Tom, but the wing of a jetliner is composed primarily of aluminum, tempered at stresspoints with titanium alloy. If you've ever been on a jet in flight and hit turbulence, as I know you have, you've seen the wing flex and bend with the aerodynamic forces to compensate. Thus, the material composing a commercial aircraft is light, as it must be to permit flight. The columns at the center of the Twin Towers, all fourty-seven of them, were built from the strongest materials known to man, reinforced with concrete. I can put it this way, Tom- the next time you're in Toronto, go down to Bloor Street and take a look at the construction of the new Gehry-esque wing at the ROM. See the webwork of conrete and steel at the heart of the structure? That's what we're talking about, except the World Trade Center was designed for vertical- rather than lateral- reinforcement, thus requiring the standards to bear significant vertical loads. That's like needing one upraised arm to support all that weight, rather than an interlocking network of them as you'd see at the ROM. That's the durability in question here, and there is absolutely no physical way for the wing of a commercial aircraft to slice through that kind of support, to say nothing of all fourty-seven of them.
Third, the fire damage. I can use the aforementioned argument and come to the same conclusion. While the NIST claims that steel can weaken, rather than melt, it sure as hell doesn't happen at 800-1500 degrees farenheit. The construction of the World Trade Center was compliant with standards requiring the steel of both towers to withstand temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees F for several hours with no compromise. That includes bending, or minimal fire stress.
Okay, Jessica Rose is itchy to get out the door, so I'm going to leave this for now.
I love you, Tom! You beautiful piece of ass.
Tom, I know the claims laid out by the 'other side'- I've believed them for years, and often against my better judgment. A PSYOPS (Psychological Operations) campaign like this one is otherwise known as state terrorism, and in this case, the United States government has answered for its actions by proxy in describing the cold, black heart of terrorists found alive ten days after the attacks of 9/11. Traumatize the people and they'll be willing to believe anything, and if there's anything I've learned, it's that Popular Mechanics isn't among the most reliable outlets for scientific knowledge in the known world. And if their claims are so well-researched, so well thought out and employing such a vast array of sources in its irrefutable counterargument to "conspiracy" nuts like me, why is their only fucking citation, referenced again and again and again, the National Institute of Standards and Technology? Parenthetically, we're talking about an organization responsible for innumerable advancements in surveillance, information technology, airport security, law enforcement and military, all under the pretext of 9/11. Furthermore, we're talking about a non-regulatory agency (read: a group with a carte blanche, more or less), operating under the United States Department of Commerce with a mission to, and I quote, "promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life."
Not to mention FEMA, and don't get me started on them. Just think of Katrina.
In other words? Be careful whose word you take as absolute gospel when refuting arguments against the legitimacy of the alibi of a government that has inestimably profited from the tragedy of September 11th, 2001.
First of all, their claims about a pancaking building. Yes, that's very true- a building, especially one the size of the World Trade Center, when collapsing on itself, will fold to the earth, but not at a rate of free-fall as the Twin Towers did. In order for buildings the size of WTC 1 and 2 to come down as quickly as they did, there first needs to be nearly zero resistance limiting the rate of collapse. In order to achieve this- and I can't phrase it any more simply than this- you need to blow the shit out of the inner skeleton. Six concrete-reinforced supports, right at the center of the structure, blown with one charge each, but not before taking out the whole thing where it's coupled to the ground. Six flashes, six low thuds reported by firefighters and emergency personnel, completely consistent with what you'd expect. Then, in a matter of seconds, likely during the descent of the structure itself, the inner framework needs to be pulverized. A building brought down by its own force will encounter resistance from within by its own steel, resulting in a slow, ugly collapse. The World Trade Center came down so cleanly, relatively speaking, that its hulking debris was contained to a single Manhattan city block.
Second, the postulation that an aircraft wing will apparently sever the internal support columns of the Twin Towers. I don't know if you're aware of this, Tom, but the wing of a jetliner is composed primarily of aluminum, tempered at stresspoints with titanium alloy. If you've ever been on a jet in flight and hit turbulence, as I know you have, you've seen the wing flex and bend with the aerodynamic forces to compensate. Thus, the material composing a commercial aircraft is light, as it must be to permit flight. The columns at the center of the Twin Towers, all fourty-seven of them, were built from the strongest materials known to man, reinforced with concrete. I can put it this way, Tom- the next time you're in Toronto, go down to Bloor Street and take a look at the construction of the new Gehry-esque wing at the ROM. See the webwork of conrete and steel at the heart of the structure? That's what we're talking about, except the World Trade Center was designed for vertical- rather than lateral- reinforcement, thus requiring the standards to bear significant vertical loads. That's like needing one upraised arm to support all that weight, rather than an interlocking network of them as you'd see at the ROM. That's the durability in question here, and there is absolutely no physical way for the wing of a commercial aircraft to slice through that kind of support, to say nothing of all fourty-seven of them.
Third, the fire damage. I can use the aforementioned argument and come to the same conclusion. While the NIST claims that steel can weaken, rather than melt, it sure as hell doesn't happen at 800-1500 degrees farenheit. The construction of the World Trade Center was compliant with standards requiring the steel of both towers to withstand temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees F for several hours with no compromise. That includes bending, or minimal fire stress.
Okay, Jessica Rose is itchy to get out the door, so I'm going to leave this for now.
I love you, Tom! You beautiful piece of ass.