Former Italian President thinks 9/11 was insidejob

Originally posted by bgturk Originally posted by Zagros And the spread of chaos and in fighting amongst Israel's adjacent Muslims is to its great advantage too since all of their time will be consumed vying for power instead of focusing on the Palestinian and Israeli issue.  This means that Isrel can resolve the issue on its terms and its terms alone. It's little wonder that they are also stopping at nothing to escalate the crisis to engulf Iran. Given that Israel's and Iran's traditional enemies are the Arabs, it would seem to me that geopolitically it would make sense for those two countries to be allies. What motivates the Iranian animosity towards Israel? Is it the close ties to the Americans and their past support for the Shah?

Reading this again, I feel compelled to clarify.  Iran's traditional enemies are teh Russians, the Ottmans (Turkey) and Britain.  There has never been any war prior to 1980 with Arabs since the fall of the Sassanids. 

We've already had one commission report and then after that one we're having a second one that is supposed to come out very soon. The second one mind you was only commissioned after the first one in 2004.

I have read the other posts and clearly I have heard (rather read) no facts that demonstrate the potential of a controlled demolition. I have never used the analogies to prove anything merely suggest that certain things are possible. Value them or don't I don't care. My question to you still holds. Why have you not asked for empirical evidence from the conspiracy theorists who claim that the collapse was a controlled demolition. Other than BgTurk who cited Prof. Steven Jones, who has accademic credibility issues if you believe some of his peers, nobody has cited a source for their claims. Providing video of reporters reporting information that was relayed to them by people on the scene is not evidence of a conspiracy like some would have you believe. These reports aren't empirical facts. Commission reports with physical explanations would be empirical facts.

With all due respect, those were some pretty lame analogies.  A massive concrete, glass and steel building can not be compared to a pile of twigs or a fish tank. You can only compare buildings with buildings.  Find another instance of a building collapsing on its footprint from fire - a steel and concrete building if you wish to make a valid analogy.

So you're not going to answer the questions I pose? By the way analogies do help with arguments, the fish tank and twig analogies demonstrate that structures can collapse on themselves. These comments were made in response to bgturk's comments that structures don't collapse in on themselves unless there is a controlled demolition of some sort. Dolphin, with respect, I have provided more documentation then the former Italian PM did in the article at the beginning of this thread. Why don't you go back and read over what I have posted? The only facts provided in this thread have been by the sources that have been provided by Styrbiorn, Myself, and Panther. Why is it that you don't ask conspiracy theorists for "empirical facts?"

The fact that nobody reported any of the preparations isn't evidence that it happened. In fact the fact that there has been no evidence alleging any sort of preparations for a demolition would lead most objective people to the conclusion that there were not preparations ergo it didn't happen. Just because there is an absence of evidence doesn't mean that something happened. In fact it leads to the conclusion that it didn't happen. The point of bringing up the lack of reporting of evidence is not to say that the absence of evidence proves it didn't happen. Rather the point is to show that there is so much work that goes into these preparations and so many people that go into the execution of these preparations that there is no way that somebody would not come forward. This logically leads to the conclusion that these preparations and placement of explosives for a controlled demolition didn't take place. Could you explain how the lack of evidence proving preparations for a controlled demolition proves that a controlled demolition took place?

Next time you go to the woods why don't you pick up four twigs and put them in the ground in a square and place your hand on top of them. Push down. What happens? If the ground holds, the four twigs will snap and and your hand will go straight down. Why is this not a possible scenario for the WTC towers? They were essentially a square foundation, which was severely damaged by the fire and burning fuel from the crashed plane. When some 20 stories come crashing down on top how then is it not possible that the falling stories fell on top of the remaining stories and subsequently caused them to come crashing down on top of one another?

In my humble opinion Loose Change is quite amateurish. Maybe the final version is better, but the previous versions I watched actually make some assertions that are demonstrably wrong or are on a very shaky ground at the very least.  I personally prefer Prof. Steve Jones lectures at various universities that can also be found on youtube and google video.

A documentary that I would recommend as a good introduction to the government coverup is 9-11 Press for Truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481
Very professionally done.


Edited by bgturk - 06-Dec-2007 at 20:38

Originally posted by Styrbiorn But it is hard to do it properly. For example, bgturk's rather inexact number "6-7 seconds", would either yield an average acceleration below or above the gravitational acceleration. From your video, there is no way whatsoever to make a good measurement (not even bringing up the issue of frame rate!). I'm simply interested in these things: who and how was the measurement made? Spelling it out: was it made by some conspiracy nutters or an objective source? Which photage was use? When was the clock stopped and turned of? How was frame rate included in the calculations? Was it done once? Averaged?

I referred you to Prof. Jones. Actually calculating the rate of fall of wtc7 was one of the assignments he gave to his students in a freshman physics course he taught. Most of them reached the same result independently.

Of course there is an error involved in calculating the exact time of the fall due to the quality of the video, and the dust that blocks the line of site. A proper measurement would take that error into consideration and propagate it through all the calculations. But in any case you will still get a an acceleration which is sufficiently close to the rate of free fall.

It's an incredibly strong thing to claim this. Therefore you are also obviously expected to provide hard evidence. Counting to ten watching a Conspiracy! show does not count as hard evidence.

The videos of the collapse are part of the official media archives of that day.I hope you will not go as far as denying their authenticity.




Edited by bgturk - 06-Dec-2007 at 20:27

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Why? What empirical evidence do you have on that? If the remaining supports are not strong enough to support the weight above them alone, they will snap, making the building go straight down anyway. We're talking about complex buildings here, that cannot be modelled as a solid.

The floors below were strong enough to support the building for 50 years, why should they suddenly fail?
You could probably argue that the kinetic energy of the collapsing floors above was so great that the ability of the floors below to arrest the motion was negligible and that they therefore did have only a negligible effect on the rate of collapse. However, this theory has not been quantified with serious calculations.
 
Quite to the contrary, I cam across an article where the building was modeled as a series of static floors, and the collapse starts progressing down from the damaged floors by accelerating each floor below which is initially assumed at rest (the so called pancake theory). The model results in a fall time which is at least twice as big as the one that was observed.

The only way the building can fall so fast is if all the supporting columns were compromised globally all over the building at once. How can this happen? I can only think of one way.

What I meant was who and how were the measurements made? To put it precisely: how was the actual fall time calculated? And by whom?

The actual time is calculated as the time it takes for the top floor of the building to reach the ground. There are at least three video of WTC7's collapse.  Anybody can calculate the time. But I would refer you to the work of Prof. Steven Jones.

So what was exactly the words of the reporter? "This building is going to collapse in 20 minutes and 6...5...4 seconds!" Or did she say "There is fear that this building might also collapse, just like the two other towers!" The difference is enormous.

She said the building had already collapsed even though it stood right behind her. You can easily recognize WTC7 or the Solomon building as it is also called if you are familiar with the NYC skyline.  Here is the report in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA

Somebody obviously was planning the collapse of the building, and made a premature press release to the BBC.
Imagine if that woman was not cut off, and we actually saw wtc7 collapse behind her on live television. How would she explain her foreknowledge of the collapse? What would you have thought?




Edited by bgturk - 06-Dec-2007 at 20:19

Originally posted by bgturk My assertion is that building which are asymmetrically damaged would not collapse symmetrically down the vertical line. This is especially true for skyscrapers whose center of mass is very high. You would expect them to tilt in the direction of the damage and topple over rather than going straight down.

Why? What empirical evidence do you have on that? If the remaining supports are not strong enough to support the weight above them alone, they will snap, making the building go straight down anyway. We're talking about complex buildings here, that cannot be modelled as a solid.

The path of greatest resistance is the vertical line along which the collapsing debree faces the resistance and inertia of the undamaged floors directly underneath.�As for measuring the acceleration, anybody who knows the height of the building and time of it took to collapse can confirm that it fell at the rate of free fall. WTC7 was a 47 storey building and it took approximately 6-7 seconds to collapse. With basic physics (a = 2*h/t^2) and a calculator, you can easily figure out that this means the building collapsed at an acceleration close to g. Under normal conditions the floors below would arrest the collapse, and the acceleration would be substantially lower than g. But the building collapsed as if those floors were never there, consistent with controlled demolition.

What I meant was who and how were the measurements made? To put it precisely: how was the actual fall time calculated? And by whom?

It is one thing to say a building may collapse, another to predict the collapse of the building 20 minutes before it actually happens.

So what was exactly the words of the reporter? "This building is going to collapse in 20 minutes and 6...5...4 seconds!" Or did she say "There is fear that this building might also collapse, just like the two other towers!" The difference is enourmous.




Edited by Styrbiorn - 06-Dec-2007 at 19:21