TerrorStorm: Free movie

[GostHacked]

When I said education, I was referring to the illiterate hoardes in the third world who believe the Americans or "Jews" did it. I guess I was also referring to the out of touch here. For example, a lovely young thing whose world revolves around fashion and reality television. It took me about a minute and a half to get her to realize the silliness of such a belief.

Fashion designers and reality TV show junkies tend to be really shallow people and have an attention span of a peanut. They don't take much out of there time to look at the real world when there is so much glamour and partying going on.

Yes. And they constitute most of your "believers". Just substitute "video games" for "fashion shows", and "hockey games" for "reality tv".

But at least, when you pour a little reality and logic onto them it kick-starts their minds into actually considering things so that they can realize how silly their belief was.

Then there's people so fixated, so obsessed on these conspiracy theories that they're like mesianic religious nutbars, where faith alone is sufficient to ward off truth, logic and science.

You know - people like you.

Well, say all you want about me, call me crazy and other things. I don't really mind or care in the least. It's not something I beleived all in one shot. I thought the premise of bombs in the buildings quite insane as well. Then actually I started noticing the same thing in a number of different videos.

Obsessed about the topic I am indeed. Not ashamed to say it.

Also I am not so sure a 'pancake collapse' would have the sufficient energy needed to throw large sections of steel weighing tones into surrounding buildings.

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh...r-damage2_b.jpg

World Financial 1. Large section of wtc framework about 20 floors up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/terr9...nttemplate5.htm

Same building same beam. Whoa 600,000 lbs? When energy is needed to throw 600,000 pounds a couple hundreed feet?

Also why did the WTC 1 and two explode damaging everything, while #7 fell straight down damaging essentialy nothing.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc...er.west.air.jpg (#7 is the collapsed one on the left)

But then again, I am one of the cooks. So take everything with a grain of salt if you must.

[Michael Hardner]

I thought the premise of bombs in the buildings quite insane as well. Then actually I started noticing the same thing in a number of different videos.

Given that you accept that there were planes, do you really think that the extra effort to plant bombs would have been worth it ?

And USA Today could have been wrong about the weight of that beam, too...

[Charles Anthony]

Given that you accept that there were planes, do you really think that the extra effort to plant bombs would have been worth it ?

Why not?

[GostHacked]

I thought the premise of bombs in the buildings quite insane as well. Then actually I started noticing the same thing in a number of different videos.

Given that you accept that there were planes, do you really think that the extra effort to plant bombs would have been worth it ?

And USA Today could have been wrong about the weight of that beam, too...

Bombs could have been on board the planes. Just offering another outrageous possibility. Hence the speculation of military aircraft were used instead of civilian aircraft. Not enough investigation was done into the wreckage of the site.

Here is something I find interesting. Now bear with me. I am going on the notion that military planes were used for this next bit here. IN searching for some pics today about debris in the surrounding buildings. I came across a site that proposed the plane that hit the South Tower, had a pod on it or a missle, that end up plowing through the building to smack the bottom part of WTC 7. I can say that is crazy but who knows.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/

To say the US government did not have enough forsite to prevent this is being disingenious. They were given several warnings from other countries. But George was not worried about Osama at all.

Given everyone could be wrong about everything. Everything in this thread could also be a lie.

[Michael Hardner]

Bombs could have been on board the planes.

Now that doesn't sound crazy at all.

Just offering another outrageous possibility. Hence the speculation of military aircraft were used instead of civilian aircraft. Not enough investigation was done into the wreckage of the site.

What about the missing passengers ?

Here is something I find interesting. Now bear with me. I am going on the notion that military planes were used for this next bit here. IN searching for some pics today about debris in the surrounding buildings. I came across a site that proposed the plane that hit the South Tower, had a pod on it or a missle, that end up plowing through the building to smack the bottom part of WTC 7. I can say that is crazy but who knows.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/

They fired a missile through the building they were going to hit ?

To say the US government did not have enough forsite to prevent this is being disingenious. They were given several warnings from other countries. But George was not worried about Osama at all.

Can you imagine the volume of intelligence that goes through the US government ? I'll bet they got warnings like that before and since.

Given everyone could be wrong about everything. Everything in this thread could also be a lie.

Sure, but things have to get done. They could undertake to do a background check on every person on the planes, and every person who was part of the WTC security team, and everybody who was an air traffic controller that day...

We're just getting started.

It's easier to take things apart than to put things together.

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Sep 25 2006, 01:20 PM) *

Given that you accept that there were planes, do you really think that the extra effort to plant bombs would have been worth it ?

Why not?

Because planting bombs in buildings would require several times the effort, expose the plan to several times the risk, for a marginal pay off. Given that the plotters were shrewd, and wanted to succeed: this doesn't follow.

Of course, anything is possible but as I said, when there are things that have to get done, it's best to dwell in the realm of the extremely likely.

[Charles Anthony]

Of course, anything is possible but as I said, when there are things that have to get done, it's best to dwell in the realm of the extremely likely.

The extremely likely?

Like..... going to work one day and having two airplanes crash into your office towers?

and demolition them in their footprints due to the fire?

because buildings on fire are expected to come crashing down due to fire alone...

and demolition a third tower that was not even hit later that afternoon?

[Michael Hardner]

The extremely likely?

Like..... going to work one day and having two airplanes crash into your office towers?

It happened.

and demolition them in their footprints due to the fire?

Also happened.

because buildings on fire are expected to come crashing down due to fire alone...

The steel was weakened by the fire. People in the top floors reported large cracks.

and demolition a third tower that was not even hit later that afternoon?

A little harder to explain, admittedly.

[Riverwind]

Building science is not perfect - it is extremely difficult to predict what would happen to tall structures subjected to extreme conditions since it is impossible to collect experimental evidence (we now have a sample size of 3). What 9/11 seems to have shown is that we need to re-examine the science used to explain how buildings fall down. For example, I suspect that most skyscrapers are subject to cascade failure: i.e. when one support is weakened the load is shifted to other supports which then fail shortly after from the additional load. This means that collapsing into its footprint is likely the 'normal' behavior for a building that has experienced extreme internal damage.

[GostHacked]

The steel was weakened by the fire. People in the top floors reported large cracks.

Large cracks in what? The steel, concrete, glass? What? I doubt steel cracks at those temperatures.

Riverwind

Building science is not perfect - it is extremely difficult to predict what would happen to tall structures subjected to extreme conditions since it is impossible to collect experimental evidence (we now have a sample size of 3). What 9/11 seems to have shown is that we need to re-examine the science used to explain how buildings fall down. For example, I suspect that most skyscrapers are subject to cascade failure: i.e. when one support is weakened the load is shifted to other supports which then fail shortly after from the additional load. This means that collapsing into its footprint is likely the 'normal' behavior for a building that has experienced extreme internal damage.

If building science is not perfect, then how did all 3 buildings fall perfectly on their own foot print. Okok that might not be valid here, but the people who designed the building had to take into account of high winds in NY City. Those two towers had more stress on them on a daily basis from the wind than a single plane hitting the tower. The twin towers were designed to flex in the wind.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm

In the end, they designed the towers so they could sway about 3 feet in either direction. To minimize the sway sensation, they installed about 10,000 visco-elastic dampers between support columns and floor trusses throughout the building. The special visco-elastic material in these dampers could move somewhat, but it would snap back to its original shape. In other words, it could give a little and then return to its initial position, absorbing much of the shock of the building's swaying motion.

A plane hitting a small section would not move the building as much as the wind hitting the entire side of the building.

[Charles Anthony]

since it is impossible to collect experimental evidence (we now have a sample size of 3). What 9/11 seems to have shown is that we need to re-examine the science used to explain how buildings fall down.

What I find distressing is that the opportunity to do a thorough forensic investigation seemed to be avoided swiftly. The rubble and scrap metal was quickly collected and dispersed.

I just have trouble accepting the party line on this one.

[Michael Hardner]

Large cracks in what? The steel, concrete, glass? What? I doubt steel cracks at those temperatures.

The floor beneath their feet.

If building science is not perfect, then how did all 3 buildings fall perfectly on their own foot print. Okok that might not be valid here, but the people who designed the building had to take into account of high winds in NY City. Those two towers had more stress on them on a daily basis from the wind than a single plane hitting the tower. The twin towers were designed to flex in the wind.

Where did you get that from ?

Is somebody submitting the idea now that a jet hitting the building represents a similar force to wind ?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm

QUOTE

In the end, they designed the towers so they could sway about 3 feet in either direction. To minimize the sway sensation, they installed about 10,000 visco-elastic dampers between support columns and floor trusses throughout the building. The special visco-elastic material in these dampers could move somewhat, but it would snap back to its original shape. In other words, it could give a little and then return to its initial position, absorbing much of the shock of the building's swaying motion.

A plane hitting a small section would not move the building as much as the wind hitting the entire side of the building.

[PolyNewbie]

After the jetliners hit the buildings the natural frequencies of vibration didn't change therefore structural damage was not significant to take buildings down.

Also the fuel mostly burned off immediately after impact - some inside the building burned off within a few minutes. This stuff is volatile and doesn't take long to burn.

The remaining fires were due to office furniture. We know from the wtc '75 fire that a fire burning for three hours and totally engulfing multiple floors doesn't do any structural damage.

Thats just one way of hundreds of seeing that 911 was an inside job.

Others are:

(1) Jets were not shot down

(2) Evidence destroyed

(3) Money made by neocon pals, Enron & others evidence destroyed

(4) Lack of proper investigation

(5) History of terrorism on the part of USA gov.

(6) Motive - Iraq & Afganistan war

(7) The number of high ranking insiders comming out and saying 911 was an inside job.

[Michael Hardner]

After the jetliners hit the buildings the natural frequencies of vibration didn't change therefore structural damage was not significant to take buildings down.

Also the fuel mostly burned off immediately after impact - some inside the building burned off within a few minutes. This stuff is volatile and doesn't take long to burn.

The remaining fires were due to office furniture. We know from the wtc '75 fire that a fire burning for three hours and totally engulfing multiple floors doesn't do any structural damage.

Here's a collection of essays from MIT researchers that dispute what you posted:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

From the Preface:

From his exacting mechanical analysis, he concludes that the North Tower must have lost between 4 and 12 core columns ¾out of 44¾ while the South Tower lost between 7 and 20 such columns, and that both were brought to the verge of collapse by the collisions. Ghoniem examines carefully the fire conditions inside the towers, and determines that the temperature within the buildings must have been close to 1000°C, hot enough to significantly lower the stiffness and strength of the steel columns and girders. He also demonstrates that the chemical power of the aircraft fuel together with the combustible materials in the building, when released as heat over the course of one hour, was a staggering one gigawatt, which is comparable to the power of a large electrical power plant.

Thats just one way of hundreds of seeing that 911 was an inside job.

If you're LOOKING for evidence that it was an inside job, and discarding evidence that it was not then you will obviously come to that conclusion.

Others are:

(1) Jets were not shot down

That's been covered already.

(2) Evidence destroyed

Are you talking about building debris ? It wasn't completely removed until May.

(3) Money made by neocon pals, Enron & others evidence destroyed

This implies that somebody took a risk in plotting this disaster in order to make some money.

Assuming that those in power are inhuman enough to kill 3,000 of their own kind, they would stand to lose too much to gamble on such a plan.

(4) Lack of proper investigation

(5) History of terrorism on the part of USA gov.

(6) Motive - Iraq & Afganistan war

(7) The number of high ranking insiders comming out and saying 911 was an inside job.

4 - The investigation was completely appropriate, and would satisfy anyone but the conspiracy-minded, who are never satisfied.

5 - Killing 3,000 of their own kind (ie. rich Republicans) is quite a leap from funding Contras in Central America.

6 - They had no problem drumming up support for Gulf War I, Panama, and Grenada and possibly Iran next so why risk social disorder, the loss of faith in the country, and looking completely unprepared in order to drum up support for these wars ?

7 - High ranking insiders ? I have heard of a few otherwise sane university professors suspecting an inside job, but that's all. Post links, please.

The sad thing about these conspiracy theories is they're a direct offshoot of the distrust in government which has been spreading since 1980. It was started by the California Republicans, then countered by Oliver Stone's JLK. Such ideas serve individual interests quite well, but they are a cancer on public faith in institutions.

[kimmy]

After the jetliners hit the buildings the natural frequencies of vibration didn't change therefore structural damage was not significant to take buildings down.

I'm quite curious-- how was this determined? How were the buildings' natural frequencies of vibration measured between the time they were hit and the time they collapsed? This strikes me as a rather odd claim.

-k

[M.Dancer]

After the jetliners hit the buildings the natural frequencies of vibration didn't change therefore structural damage was not significant to take buildings down.

I'm quite curious-- how was this determined? How were the buildings' natural frequencies of vibration measured between the time they were hit and the time they collapsed? This strikes me as a rather odd claim.

-k

Good reasoning.....like most tin foil hat theories....they require a suspension of disbelief

[Riverwind]

If building science is not perfect, then how did all 3 buildings fall perfectly on their own foot print.

Until now everyone has assumed that it is 'unnatural' for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. My feeling is this is the 'natural' way for buildings to collapse when internal supports are damaged. I am basing my conclusions on technical descriptions I have read on how 'cascade failure' happens. If you disagree can you provide any evidence that collapsing into its footprint is somehow 'unnatural'? I don't not believe there is any - it is a myth that we have never had any reason to re-examine until now.

Okok that might not be valid here, but the people who designed the building had to take into account of high winds in NY City. Those two towers had more stress on them on a daily basis from the wind than a single plane hitting the tower. The twin towers were designed to flex in the wind.

The impact of the planes did not cause the towers to collapse - it was the fire combined with the damage to fire protection mechanism that weakened the steel supports and triggering a cascade failure. There is plenty of evidence from other building fires that shows steel can be weakened by even normal fires.

Incidently, why would WTC7 be a target? It was not a landmark and was no more significant than the other tall buildings that surrounded WTC1 and WTC2. If you are going to argue that WTC7 was deliberately destroyed then you have to explain why it would be targeted and not the other buildings in the area.

[Charles Anthony]

If you are going to argue that WTC7 was deliberately destroyed then you have to explain why it would be targeted and not the other buildings in the area.

You are kidding. You do NOT have to explain why it would be targeted at all. The reason is irrelevent.

All you have to do is observe that WT7 was:

1) not hit by a plane

2) demolished in less than 10 seconds

3) not on fire

4) demolished later that afternoon

Are you going to say that it was an accident? flying debris?

[GostHacked]

WTC 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

United States Secret Service

Department of Defense

Immigration and Naturalization Service

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

The Mayor's Office of Emergency Management (the secret bunker)

Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS)

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

http://www.answers.com/topic/7-world-trade-center

Salomon Smith Barney

American Express Bank International

Standard Chartered Bank

Provident Financial Management

ITT Hartford Insurance Group

First State Management Group, Inc.

Federal Home Loan Bank

NAIC Securities.

Like most of the other buildings in the WTC complex, they housed some important tenants. Some major financial institutions and government branches like the CIA and SS.

Now recall this.

Fiscal year 1999, 2.3 trillion missing.

Fiscal year 2000, 1.1 trillion missing.

20 billion to upgrade the computer system to resolve the loss of money.

She also goes into the war games on 9/11, grills both Rummy and Myers, and they both pass the buck to someone else. Seems like something fishy is going on. Look how Rummy wrings his hands, always does that when he is nervous in the spotlight. I have said in my 9/11 thread that it could have bene a huge bank heist. That could possibly be so. So many records from financial institutions completely whiped out. Government records would have been destroyed (if they were not smart enough to back up their systems. maybe that is what the 20 billion was to do, but had not accomplished)

Seems odd to me.

Until now everyone has assumed that it is 'unnatural' for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. My feeling is this is the 'natural' way for buildings to collapse when internal supports are damaged. I am basing my conclusions on technical descriptions I have read on how 'cascade failure' happens. If you disagree can you provide any evidence that collapsing into its footprint is somehow 'unnatural'? I don't not believe there is any - it is a myth that we have never had any reason to re-examine until now.

People always confuse the 707 and the 767 that hit the WTC. Turnes out there is little difference between the planes.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc-demolition.htm

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.

The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.

The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.

The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

All this is over at http://www.boeing.com

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family...pf_200prod.html

In other words, VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PLANES. And the designers of the WTC said they could sustain mutliple 707 hits. So on 767 does not equal whatsoever 2 or more 707s. It is beleived by some that the planes did not have a full fuel load since they were going cross country and not overseas. If the designers took that into account for a full fuel load, and considering those two planes are really the same, the fire damage would have not been significant enough to burn that hot. Most of the fuel burned up outside the building when it hit, both big plumes of fire and smoke describe just that.

Micheal Hardner

The steel was weakened by the fire. People in the top floors reported large cracks.

Source?

And you don't build a sky scraper without taking into account wind shear.(getting back on your other question) The WTC towers to withstand hurricane strenght winds. We know the difference in desctuctive power between a hurricane and a 767. Large flat sufaces offer the most resistance to the wind. In order to sway 3 feet in each direction, the wind must be pretty damn strong to move tones and tones of buiilding. But the designers accounted for that. If the building was not allowed to sway, it would crack like a twig and fall. So when the plane hit, it caused a sway, but end up oscilating back to it's upright position. (this is what Polynewbie was trying to get at. All buildings have a natural oscilation or frequency of movement. Depending on the height and design, some sway more than others. Those Petronas Towers in Malaysia would have been build with those considerations. ALL tall buildings are designed with that in mind. That cannot be easily dismissed. And with the WTC being 110 stores, that would have been more of a factor during design and construction.

Riverwind

Until now everyone has assumed that it is 'unnatural' for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. My feeling is this is the 'natural' way for buildings to collapse when internal supports are damaged. I am basing my conclusions on technical descriptions I have read on how 'cascade failure' happens. If you disagree can you provide any evidence that collapsing into its footprint is somehow 'unnatural'? I don't not believe there is any - it is a myth that we have never had any reason to re-examine until now.

The only times I have EVER seen a building collapse into it's own foot print is from a controlled demolition. If a large section of WTC 7 was taken out of the side facing the twin towers, I would have suspected that building to topple forward onto the other buildings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/935000/image..._toppled300.jpg

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/icons/...s/47/47_945.jpg

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2...-17-taiqual.jpg

http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/1999/12/...1230221302.jpeg

Most of this is earthquake damage, much more than what a 767 can do to a building.

Now take this into account. The Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, less than 10 seconds. About the same time for me to hurl my body off the top of the tower and go into complete freefall, and life is over in 10 seconds. Even if there was a 1/4 second delay in HALF of the floors as it was comming down it would have taken 13 seconds. So 3 seconds does not seem much of a difference at first, but when you take into account how tall these buildings were, that is A LONG TIME. That is if any resistance happened at all. The only way they come down this fast? Controlled demolition. That does not sink in to most and they disregard the laws of physics (which are just my 'beleifs') What could cause the buildings to fall like it was in a vaccuum? Please think long and hard about this. Trust your eyes, not what the government tells you

Answer me that.

[Riverwind]

The only times I have EVER seen a building collapse into it's own foot print is from a controlled demolition.

That is my point. Before 9/11 there has never been a case were a building was subject to severe structural damage _and_ an uncontrolled fire at the same time. After 9/11 we have three examples of buildings which experienced these conditions and they all collapsed into their footprint. For that reason it is reasonable to conclude that it is natural for buildings to do so and we just have to figure out the science that will explain it. From what I have read most structural engineers who have looked at this problem have already figured out the science (i.e. cascading failure of supports)

Most of this is earthquake damage, much more than what a 767 can do to a building.

Earthquakes to not damage the internal structure of a building - they destroy the foundation. So it makes no sense to compare the behavoir of behavoir of buildings after an earthquake to the 9/11 events. In anycase, it was the fire combined with structural damage, not the planes alone that brought the buildings down.

Now take this into account. The Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, less than 10 seconds.

Use are assuming that the only way for a buildings to collapse was by having floors fall on top of each other like pancakes. A cascade failure of structural supports damaged by the plane and then weakened by fire would not necessarily lead to a pancake style collapse.

All of your assumptions are based on the building science that we have today which is imperfect. We know that it is possible for buildings to collapse into their footprint with a controlled demolation. However, no one can prove that the only way to get buildings to collapse into their footprint is to use a controlled demolition.

[kimmy]

And you don't build a sky scraper without taking into account wind shear.(getting back on your other question) The WTC towers to withstand hurricane strenght winds. We know the difference in desctuctive power between a hurricane and a 767. Large flat sufaces offer the most resistance to the wind. In order to sway 3 feet in each direction, the wind must be pretty damn strong to move tones and tones of buiilding. But the designers accounted for that. If the building was not allowed to sway, it would crack like a twig and fall. So when the plane hit, it caused a sway, but end up oscilating back to it's upright position. (this is what Polynewbie was trying to get at. All buildings have a natural oscilation or frequency of movement. Depending on the height and design, some sway more than others. Those Petronas Towers in Malaysia would have been build with those considerations. ALL tall buildings are designed with that in mind. That cannot be easily dismissed. And with the WTC being 110 stores, that would have been more of a factor during design and construction.

This would be relevant if anybody were claiming that the force of the plane had pushed the building over. However, since that was not the collapse mechanism, the ability of the buildings to withstand windsheer is of no consequence.

The only times I have EVER seen a building collapse into it's own foot print is from a controlled demolition. If a large section of WTC 7 was taken out of the side facing the twin towers, I would have suspected that building to topple forward onto the other buildings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/935000/image..._toppled300.jpg

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/icons/...s/47/47_945.jpg

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2...-17-taiqual.jpg

http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/1999/12/...1230221302.jpeg

Why did the buildings fall more-or-less straight down? Because of the way they're built. (comparing them to some 5-story apartment in Malaysia is pointless.)

People don't have a frame of reference to understand what it was like, so they come up with something along the lines of chopping down a tree. If you chop a tree on one side, that side can't hold up the weight anymore, so the tree falls toward the side it was chopped at... so the same thing should have happened to the twin towers, right?

Except the twin towers are built a lot differently from a tree. The twin towers were built more like... picture one floor of the WTC tower as a drum, or a trampoline, or a cot... a flat surface supported at the edges. When one of the supporting walls was damaged, the weight of the floor put extra stress on the remaining walls. As the floor starts to sag from the heat and the initial damage, it starts to pull *all* of the walls in toward the center of the building. Finally, the weight of the floor pulled the remaining walls of the tower in. Now that those walls have been pulled inward at that point, that floor of the building isn't strong enough to support the weight of the floors of the building that are above it. So the top of the building starts to move *downwards* (not to the side)... and when that much weight begins to move in a direction, it keeps moving in that direction-- no structure built by man would have been strong enough to halt the momentum of the top of the building once it started moving.

Now take this into account. The Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, less than 10 seconds. About the same time for me to hurl my body off the top of the tower and go into complete freefall, and life is over in 10 seconds. Even if there was a 1/4 second delay in HALF of the floors as it was comming down it would have taken 13 seconds. So 3 seconds does not seem much of a difference at first, but when you take into account how tall these buildings were, that is A LONG TIME. That is if any resistance happened at all. The only way they come down this fast? Controlled demolition. That does not sink in to most and they disregard the laws of physics (which are just my 'beleifs') What could cause the buildings to fall like it was in a vaccuum? Please think long and hard about this. Trust your eyes, not what the government tells you

Answer me that.

Well this one is easy. The buildings would have fallen at the same rate whether they were destroyed by the airplanes or by a controlled demolition. The same laws of physics control the rate of descent in either case.

The same forces (air resistance inside the building, and the remaining building structure) oppose the fall in either case. You're not proposing that in addition to planting explosive devices, the Black Ops people also found some way to vacuum the air out of the building and transform the remaining steel into Jell-O, are you?

-k

[GostHacked]

Use are assuming that the only way for a buildings to collapse was by having floors fall on top of each other like pancakes. A cascade failure of structural supports damaged by the plane and then weakened by fire would not necessarily lead to a pancake style collapse.

Then why are all the official reports claiming it pancacked on itself? No it does not happen in all buildings, but they specificly said that about the WTC 1 and 2.

Contruction of the WTC by the NY Port Authoriy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857

http://exploze.wz.cz/animace/colaps.swf

More on the Pancaking, click a bit.

http://exploze.wz.cz/animace/colaps.swf

The tube like design of the exterior support colums contains most of the energy of the falling building, preventing debris from bursting outward.

But burst outward it did.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc...ncrete.full.jpg

http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_...ent/221-wtc.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/ndocs/tower2_exp1.jpg

Well tower 1 and 2 did. 7 fell straign down and looked more of the typical pancake collapse.

[GostHacked]

Kimmy

Well this one is easy. The buildings would have fallen at the same rate whether they were destroyed by the airplanes or by a controlled demolition. The same laws of physics control the rate of descent in either case.

Yes the laws of physics govern the collapse. Some say the building peeled like a banana, that would expose a core with those 47 beams would it not? And let's not forget that fireball that ripped down those elevator shafts, which out of the 90+ elevators in each building, there was only 2 that would have gone the entire hight of the towers. The Express elevator to the skylobby and a maintanence elevator. So that massive fireball that screamed down the shafts to blow out the basement seems just as outragous as explosives in the buildings. Not to mention the elevators were in 3 sections and a floor seperated all 3 sections.

The same forces (air resistance inside the building, and the remaining building structure) oppose the fall in either case. You're not proposing that in addition to planting explosive devices, the Black Ops people also found some way to vacuum the air out of the building and transform the remaining steel into Jell-O, are you?

So you admit there would be resistance to the collapse? Air would have to be pushed out, floors pancaking on top of each other. That would have taken longer than the 10 seconds to completely, and I mean COMPLETELY destroy the two towers.

By blowing out the floors below the impact zone and progressvly doing so would cause all that debris to fly outward instead of in. Which results in no resistance, you blow out below and above can free fall.

[kimmy]

Well this one is easy. The buildings would have fallen at the same rate whether they were destroyed by the airplanes or by a controlled demolition. The same laws of physics control the rate of descent in either case.

Yes the laws of physics govern the collapse. Some say the building peeled like a banana, that would expose a core with those 47 beams would it not?

The steel beams were pulled down by the floors that were anchored to them.

And let's not forget that fireball that ripped down those elevator shafts, which out of the 90+ elevators in each building, there was only 2 that would have gone the entire hight of the towers. The Express elevator to the skylobby and a maintanence elevator. So that massive fireball that screamed down the shafts to blow out the basement seems just as outragous as explosives in the buildings. Not to mention the elevators were in 3 sections and a floor seperated all 3 sections.

Fireballs? hmm? What is this in reference to?

The same forces (air resistance inside the building, and the remaining building structure) oppose the fall in either case. You're not proposing that in addition to planting explosive devices, the Black Ops people also found some way to vacuum the air out of the building and transform the remaining steel into Jell-O, are you?

So you admit there would be resistance to the collapse? Air would have to be pushed out, floors pancaking on top of each other. That would have taken longer than the 10 seconds to completely, and I mean COMPLETELY destroy the two towers.

Yes, there was resistance to the collapse. Air resistance, and the remaining steel structure. Which, in comparison to the mass of the falling portion of the building, would have been inconsequential. The buildings fell like they were in free-fall because essentially they *were* in free-fall.

You said earlier that if you jumped off the roof of a 110 story building, you'd hit ground in 10 seconds. I haven't actually verified this (either through experience or research) but ok. So, why would you assume that a building would take any longer to collapse?

Use some perspective. The air resistance and remaining structure of the building are as trivial in slowing the rate of descent of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel as the air-resistance a human jumper would encounter. Proportionate to the falling mass, the opposing force was miniscule.

By blowing out the floors below the impact zone and progressvly doing so would cause all that debris to fly outward instead of in. Which results in no resistance, you blow out below and above can free fall.

All that debris was blown outward as the natural consequence of a large building being turned into a small building in a matter of seconds. The air wanted to leave, because it knows that pressure is not his friend.

Air resistance would have been such a negligible factor in determining the rate of collapse of the twin towers. I can't see any basis for claiming that the rate of collapse shows that the air must have been evacuated beforehand. Whether there was still air in the building or not, the difference would have been insignificant.

Let's do a little grade 10 physics on this just to explain why I keep stressing the word *proportion*.

Start with some basic Newton to find out how fast the building accelerates downward.

F=ma or a=F/m

a=acceleration, F = the net force on the building, and m = the mass of the falling object.

To find the net force: the force downward, obviously, is gravity. That's equal to the mass of the falling portion times the acceleration of gravity which is roughly 9.8m/s^2; we note this as "g". The force downward, then, is F=mg. The force opposing it? That's equal to the air resistance (let's shorthand that as AR), plus the resistance of the remaining steel structure (let's call that SR).

So, let's put it together:

a = F/m and F = +mg -AR -SR

a = (mg -AR -SR)/m

Simplify and you get:

a = g -(AR/m) -(SR/m)

So, AR might be a big number-- a sail, or a blimp, or a parachute have lots of air resistance... but because it's AR/m, and m is such a gigantic number (we're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of tons falling), AR/m will be tiny regardless of whether there was air in the building or whether the building got blown out before hand.

-k

[GostHacked]

It's been awhile since I have done some math. Kudos for you for pulling it out. But essentialy you are saying that no resistance whatsoever was present when the towers fell?

You said earlier that if you jumped off the roof of a 110 story building, you'd hit ground in 10 seconds. I haven't actually verified this (either through experience or research) but ok. So, why would you assume that a building would take any longer to collapse?

I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse.