Can the official theory of the twin tower collapses be proven with experimentation?

[gyroscope]

Let's see if the pancaking or pile driver theory can be replicated through real-world experimentation using models. We will also see if fire can cause a structure to collapse and freefall symmetrically into its own footprint. Since 9/11 was the first time in history skyscrapers have collapsed in such a manner outside of controlled demolition, experimentation is all the more important. A theory is little more than mental masturbation if it can't be empirically tested and proven.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[BigOleDummy]

1. WTF?

Take this crap back to Breitbart.

[gyroscope]

7. All you have are insults?

Hurling insults is the favored method of Republicans in an attempt to shut down the discussion before it begins. I would expect that kind of behavior from Trump supporters but not posters on DU. I guess they aren't much different anymore.

[OBenario4]

10. Does it hurt your feelings? n/t

[gyroscope]

11. Do you have anything intelligent to say?

of course not but you are good at trolling better than Trump with all 24 of your posts

[greymattermom]

2. Some say that the I85 collapse in Atlanta

shows what hot metal can do

[global1]

3. Surely Companies That Specialize In Controlled Demolition....

rely on certain techniques of explosive science (both placement of and amount of explosive) to take down a building relatively close to its footprint to assure they minimize destruction to the area around said building and surrounding buildings. There seems to me that there is some formula to their success.

Wouldn't such controlled demolitions serve as a model or experiment that 911 researchers can rely on?

Not knowing much about this type of thing - the video seemed pretty reasonable to me as to how they posited their experiments and the experimental results.

So I guess this video has put some doubt in my mind. Maybe more experiments need to be performed to verify.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Not a very good model since towers 1, 2, 7 did approximately 2 billion dollars worth of damage to

buildings outside the WTC complex. (Not counting WTC 3, 4, 5, 6)

[Laffy Kat]

4. Oh FFS. nt

[exboyfil]

5. Ridiculous

In any controlled demolition you hear the sound of the charges going off. Not so in any of the video from 9/11.

The collapses start at the point of impact. We know the jets hit the building. We have video of the first impact (not to mention thousands and thousands of eyewitness reports). We have probably at least 50 videos of the second impact. Both collapses start at the point of impact - where you would have expected the charges to have been most disrupted if they had been placed.

So you wait around for the building to start collapsing at the point of impact and then set off the charges to bring the rest of the building down?

No one observed hundreds of charges being placed in the building?

Scaling is a factor in engineering. His simplified model does not reflect the actual construction of the building.

Listen for the lack of sound of charges going off.

Here is a controlled demolition. The charges are the loudest thing on the video.

[gyroscope]

6. Patently false

In any controlled demolition you hear the sound of the charges going off. Not so in any of the video from 9/11.

What do you think this video is?

Why do OCTists keep repeating this lie when there are literally dozens of videos that proves there were explosions before the collapse? If that isn't an explosion, then what is it? Are you hard of hearing? I suggest you clean out your ears and get yourself a hearing aid. Or perhaps invest in a better sound system.

Are these firemen lying when they say they heard explosions in the lobby?
Why would they be lying? Are they secretly working for Putin and just trying to make Bush look bad?

[hack89]

8. Was it a delayed CD?

Where the building collapsed well after the explosions? Interesting.

[gyroscope]

9. NY Fire Chief: Devices were planted in the buildings.

Every major media news outlet have reported on massive secondary explosions (ones that took place after the initial plane impacts) described by their on-scene reporters and other witnesses on that day. I don't know how anyone can say there were no secondary explosions. Many reporters mentioned how much the collapses resembled controlled demolition. Yet after that day they never said anything about the explosions again. Censorship is alive and well.

&t=599s


Go to 06:59 for more media reporting on the explosions

?t=6m59s

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

17. There were lots of erroneous reports that day.

At one point one of the networks was saying there were reports of "multiple fires" on the Mall, and the reporter doing that stand-up was perhaps four or five blocks from the Mall. But did he walk over to check it out? Nope. Just repeated what could have immediately been disproven by looking.

[gyroscope]

18. What makes you say the reports were erroneous?

were you there?

what evidence do you have to refute what has been reported by hundreds of first responders and journalists who have witnessed the collapse events first hand?

NY Times Oral Histories
Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions

On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders. The interviews were conducted between October of 2001 and January of 2002 under the order of New York City's fire commissioner at the time of the attack, Thomas Von Essen, who wanted to preserve first-hand accounts of the attack. 1

The New York Times published the oral histories, and provides an index of PDFs of the interviews here. 2 The Times converted a subset of the interviews into text files. 3 The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*

Explosions
Dust clouds
Ground shaking

The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

19. I was referring specifically to the reports that there were fires on the Mall.

There were no fires on the Mall.

There was also a mention of "multiple large plane crashes in Pennsylvania." There was one. Not multiple.

Eye witness reports can be incredibly unreliable.

[Separation]

20. As a matter of fact

The very first report I saw live on tv, perhaps just minutes prior to the second plane hitting the building, was a guy being interviewed. He claims that he saw the 1st plane hit the building, he said it was a small commuter plane. The reporter asked him several times if he meant a regular sized passenger aircraft (747, 737, etc.) and the guy was like, "no no no, I'm certain it was a single engine small commuter plane."

There were so many incorrect reports that first day. When man sees something incredible, mind boggling, they tend to make up stories. It's how early man survived the early plains of Africa. They would sit around the fire and talk about the scariness out in the darkness. It's one main reason why man creates and believes conspiracy theories. I mean, what's easier to believe? The government did it? Or 19 men took over 3 aircraft and flew them directly into New York's most prominent skyline feature, killing 3000 people. Most of it on live television?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

21. Even after the second plane crashed on live TV

some people kept on insisting it was a small plane. It was, to me at least, incredibly obvious that it was a larger commercial aircraft, and I was astonished that anyone could think it was a small plane.

And the footage that does exist of the first plane, again the brief glimpse you get it's likewise obvious it's a larger commercial airplane.

Which is why eye witness testimony should always be suspect.

[snooper2]

12. This has already been proven, but you have to use concrete blocks and chicken wire

Don't you know anything about truther history?

[whitefordmd]

14. Spooked911 is that you?

[Theobald]

15. When you start off with a lie, it is impossible to get to the truth.

"We will also see if fire can cause a structure to collapse and freefall symmetrically into its own footprint."

WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not free fall symmetrically into their own footprint, so your entire premise is faulty to start.

[gyroscope]

16. Yes they did

I suggest you have your eyes checked. the towers fell straight down.

they did not fall over like a tree as the absurd official story would have you believe.

[zipplewrath]

22. Yes it could

In some senses quite easily. Of course, short of rebuilding those structures, and flying two planes into them, something tells me the critics still won't be silenced.

[gyroscope]

23. Quite easily?

show me one experiment that proves the official story.

[zipplewrath]

24. For various values of "prove"

I said the experiments could be done. It could be expensive depending upon what is wanted to be done.

But the basic buckling phenomenon is done by engineering students in their freshmen year. The material science is usually sophomore year. The math is really just high school level calculus.

[ucrdem]

25. wow.

it was what it was and it only gets more obvious with the passage of time.

[Pachamama]

26. I wish that there would be thorough studies of the

...building collapses and under the circumstances of what occurred to the twin towers. It would be costly, but it would provide some answers that none of us have or always left with some doubt.