9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Human001]

first bold section: yeah but whether or not it was the planes in conjunction with explosives, or some other kind of structural sabotage, is why i'm interested.

What kind of sabotage?

i would think terrorists capable of hijacking four planes could plant some explosives anyway, i'm not proposing anything radical.

I suppose really determined terrorists could, given enough time, money and security bungling, plant explosives in the towers. But then one would want to see evidence of this. Did you see evidence of this?

if you saw a man kick the building just before it fell, did that cause it?

Interesting question. How much energy is in the kick?

planes gotta be pretty light to fly, would have thought they would tear apart rather than do a lot of damage.

If they were travelling at 10mph maybe they would tear apart anddo little damage. But their speed and therefore momentum were much higher in reality. Steel is not indestructible. The vertical steel columns were simply sliced through on impact. This was shown on numerous videos. Are you disputing that jetliners crashed into the buildings?

fire must have been pretty hot to melt/weaken metal and concrete sufficiently. the building's gotta cope with tremors, wind etc. would think its capable of dealing with some stress.

The steel did not need to melt. Only lose enough strength for the beams to be unable to support the weight of the above sections of the towers.

 

[Human001]

And you are one of the geniuses who keeps trying to convince people that a building can fall neatly into its own footprint this way.

There was nothing neat about the way the towers collapsed. debris was scattered all over Manhatten. WTC7 took a good dealof damage,which contributed to its collapse.
How should the towers have collapsed? Sideways?From what pivot point?

 

[James R]

My question has always been, why would the towers collapse straight down upon themselves.

Because of the particular construction of the WTC. The floor structure was supported at the inner core and the outer edge of the building. When the outer edge buckled and the floors started to detach, the floors fell straight down onto the floors below. The floors below weren't built to take the load, so they detached from the support structure too. This led to a vertical cascade.

It would make more sense to me if the top parts of the buildings had toppled to one side.

There were no horizontal forces acting that could possibly make the building fall that way. As spidergoat said, gravity pulls down, not sideways.

And you are one of the geniuses who keeps trying to convince people that a building can fall neatly into its own footprint this way.

Yes.

 

[Prince_James]

You know, I used to thought it was odd the building didn't fall over sideways at that point, either.

THen I actually did a simulation on my computer of what would happen.

Get Pontifex's demo. You can make a nice little steel tower (meant for supporting a bridge). Remove one of the struts and watch how it collapses.

 

[DJ Erock]

Because of the particular construction of the WTC. The floor structure was supported at the inner core and the outer edge of the building. When the outer edge buckled and the floors started to detach, the floors fell straight down onto the floors below. The floors below weren't built to take the load, so they detached from the support structure too. This led to a vertical cascade.

There were no horizontal forces acting that could possibly make the building fall that way. As spidergoat said, gravity pulls down, not sideways.

That is a good explanation for the vertical collapse, although wouldn't the structural core remain if the floors were detaching themselves from it?

Its obvious that gravity pulls things down, yet its also obvious that things follow the path of least resistance, which in this case is anywhere but straight down.

 

[iceaura]

Its obvious that gravity pulls things down, yet its also obvious that things follow the path of least resistance, which in this case is anywhere but straight down.

The shortest path to the ground - the path of minimum energy - is straight down.

Something would have to give the thing an enormous sideways kick to knock all those tons of stuff sideways through the air.

Take it one floor at a time: the first floor to give drops out from under the entire building above it. This floor falls straight down, pulling its support joints inward, and the entire building above it loses support likewise (if one side drops a split second early, the opposite side is pulled loose and detaches, thereupon joining the straight drop to the next floor. You can see that happen in the videos if you look sharp just at the first little wiggle). Once it's rolling, it's staright down all the way - blowing out chunks of stuff by compression etc, but mostly just piling down through the central hollow.

It didn't all drop neatly into its footprint, btw - huge chunks of stuff hit nearby buildings.

 

[CptBork]

Some of you folks seem to have this silly idea in your heads that a tower could lean out at say, 20 degrees, and still remain intact. The WTC is not the Leaning Tower of Pisa. As a tower starts to bend over, the columns will start experiencing a tremendous amount of torque, in a sideways direction which they weren't meant to withstand. The columns will then snap and the upper floors will start falling downwards as usual, perhaps slightly skewed to one side but not by much. Any of you who think the WTC could just topple over sideways and smash into buildings hundreds of feet away, go put on your dunce caps and sit in the corner.

 

[Read-Only]

Some of you folks seem to have this silly idea in your heads that a tower could lean out at say, 20 degrees, and still remain intact. The WTC is not the Leaning Tower of Pisa. As a tower starts to bend over, the columns will start experiencing a tremendous amount of torque, in a sideways direction which they weren't meant to withstand. The columns will then snap and the upper floors will start falling downwards as usual, perhaps slightly skewed to one side but not by much. Any of you who think the WTC could just topple over sideways and smash into buildings hundreds of feet away, go put on your dunce caps and sit in the corner.

Fully agreed.

But you've got your work cut out for you trying to convince some of the dunces here - we've been working on them for years with no sign of success. Personally, I just ignore the old timers (like Metakron) who don't understand basic things and refuse to learn. Instead, I try only to help new people like the one who started this thread.

 

[James911]

Very simple to explain:

We know that the plane hit the south tower at the 83rd floor.
We were told that the floors above the impact zone caused the undamaged floors below to crash ( or I may say disintegrate ) one after the other.

Lets do some simple calculation:

If every floor that gave way during the vertical collapse took, let say, half a second to break ( I am very generous here ), then if we time 83 by half a second we get 41 seconds.

the whole collapse should have taken a minimum of 41 second.

But we know for a fact that the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds

The only explanation is CONTROL DEMOLITION, planed months before

Conclusion:
The US government has killed 3000 of his own people that he pledged to protect, in cold blood.


Why they did it.....watch the news.

 

[John99]

Couldnt be J911.

How to plant explosives?

Oh, and they could not just be taped to walls.

 

[andbna]

Very simple to explain:

We know that the plane hit the south tower at the 83rd floor.
We were told that the floors above the impact zone caused the undamaged floors below to crash ( or I may say disintegrate ) one after the other.

Lets do some simple calculation:

If every floor that gave way during the vertical collapse took, let say, half a second to break ( I am very generous here ), then if we time 83 by half a second we get 41 seconds.

the whole collapse should have taken a minimum of 41 second.

But we know for a fact that the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds

The only explanation is CONTROL DEMOLITION, planed months before

The good news is, your argument is logicaly sound. The bad news is, your premises is fataly flawed, and hence, your conclusion is unsupported.

If every floor that gave way during the vertical collapse took, let say, half a second to break ( I am very generous here ),

You're definatly being generous with the bullshit at least.
Got experiments, physical data, and a peer-reviewed journal, with expert opinion that supports your claim? No? That's because it's wrong.

-Andrew

 

[spidergoat]

The floors didn't take a half second to break, they couldn't support the weight above for any time at all, they were breaking up as soon as the floors above hit them. In other words, they provided no significant resistance, just like a landslide.

 

[CptBork]

Looks like 9/11 "truthers" are trying to use Zeno's (the real Zeno, from ancient Greece) paradox to prove 9/11 was a US plot. Just like we can never reach any destination, not even the local convenience store, so the exteriors of the twin towers couldn't fall in 13 or whatever seconds. Brilliant! :scratchin:

 

[James R]

But we know for a fact that the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds

Where did you get that number from?

It can't be correct.

An object free-falling from the top of a 100-floor building would take at least 6 seconds to hit the ground.

 

[James911]

Where did you get that number from?

It can't be correct.

An object free-falling from the top of a 100-floor building would take at least 6 seconds to hit the ground.

Watch the south tower collapsing again and time it.
Many clips are available on Youtube and Googlle video

The free fall from the top of the south tower takes 9.2 seconds
The formula is : t = sqrt( 2 * Height / g )

height is 415 meters
g is the gravity = 9.8 m/s/s

Hence t = sqrt( 2 * 415 / 9.8 ) = 9.2 seconds

The question now is: Can a steel framed building fall at the same rate as a free falling object?

 

[James911]

I would really advise everyone to go and learn about the following:

1. What is free fall speed.
2. What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
3. Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
4. Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
5. Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
6. Why Building 7 collapsed to the ground, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
7. What is control demolition.
8. How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
9. How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
10. When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
11. Why there was no plane debris at the pentagone.
12. Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagone, approaching and crashing into the pentagone.

These are documentaries that can help you - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:

911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
911 Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions

I think this should be enough for you to start your own investigation.
Good Luck

 

[spidergoat]

Watch the south tower collapsing again and time it.
Many clips are available on Youtube and Googlle video

The free fall from the top of the south tower takes 9.2 seconds
The formula is : t = sqrt( 2 * Height / g )

height is 415 meters
g is the gravity = 9.8 m/s/s

Hence t = sqrt( 2 * 415 / 9.8 ) = 9.2 seconds

The question now is: Can a steel framed building fall at the same rate as a free falling object?

Yes of course. What is the resistance required to stop a falling building? It's tremendous. The structure can only support it's weight when it's still or under wind loads.

 

[James911]

......The structure can only support it's weight when it's still or under wind loads.

That's exactly what the towers did for 30 years.

Every floor did support all of the floors above it for 30 years.
If the top floors collapsed, as it did on 911, they should collapse through the less resistant path which is side ways, not through STEEL and CONCRETE.

Watch the first seconds of the south tower collapsing. The top section was breaking up and leaning away from the center of the tower. The law of physics says...that the top section should have fallen away from the south tower, not through the tower. Also if you watch it again and again, you can see the top section of the south tower disintegrating ( exploding ) in midair before the collapse starts happening.

 

[spidergoat]

If such a weight falls even 1 foot, the forces become vastly more than if it's still, due to acceleration from gravity.

By analogy, a car's suspension can take the weight of the car for the lifetime of the car, but try jumping it like the Dukes of Hazzard, and you probably won't have shock absorbers anymore.

 

[James911]

Can you watch the first seconds of the south tower collapsing and tell me if the following is TRUE:

youtube.com/watch?v=qJsq_mu9sus&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&feature=related

The top section was breaking up and leaning away from the center of the tower. The law of physics says...that the top section should have fallen away from the south tower, not through the tower. Also if you watch it again and again, you can see the top section of the south tower disintegrating ( exploding ) in midair before the collapse starts happening.