|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
. . and that the official explanation is a physical impossibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawH … r_embedded
Hey you forgot about the boeing 757 cruise missle that hit the pentagon and completely disappeared. I have to wonder how boeing designed these planes to burn hot enough to completely disappear and yet still leave loose papers and identifiable human remains lying about. I am also curious as to why they designed this plane to allow the wings and tail to fold in on impact to lessen the damage to any building it might hit. Gee we sure have amzing engineers in this country.
Small minds consider major topics and concoct untenable conclusions. tch, tch.
and have a good time doing so, lol. Or is it possible you are refering to the official 9/11 report with the conclusion remark. I don't know for sure what hapened that day. The only thing I am sure of is that the official story doesn't explain what happened.
Don't be so hard on yourself Qwark.
it will be OK
So the footage of the airplanes crashing into them was photo shopped then?
Gimme a break.
A controlled demolition could be seen by watching them fall. No more evidence actually required.
I still don't buy the conspiracy theories on this. There are still too many flaws in the rationale, and I'm not interested in trying to justify why. It just doesn't add up to me. There is little, if any, incontrovertible evidence about such a "demolition." Until there is, conspiracy theories are very suspect, at best.
And I might add that explanation and reasons are not incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence would include that there pieces and parts of explosive devices, a plan uncovered about such a demolition, and witnesses and accomplices to carry it out. So far, there is nothing like this, and even though you can say they are being kept secret and protected, that can't last forever. If it was a conspiracy, evidence will start showing up. But so far, it hasn't.
I don't care if you don't want to discuss the conspiracy theory.
It's obvious to anyone who understands physics (or anyone who's been alive for more than 16 years of life) that buildings hit by airplanes wouldn't collapse in such a fashion unless through coordinated collapse. My first reaction to seeing the buildings fall was "what? that doesn't make sense". Everyone around me was thinking "how the heck did they fall like that from an Airplane?!" But then the chorus of "EVIL MUSLIMS" came in to shut us up.
The official story is bullshit.
I'm not saying that "the evil whatevers are trying to take over the world", or anything of the sort - it's just clear that the official story is complete nonsense.
I like your answer.
What I don't understand is how they got the experts to be silent.
"then the chorus of "EVIL MUSLIMS" came in to shut us up."
Exactly! And it allowed them to invade Iraq, Afghnanistan, Pakistan and the coming planned for Iran.
Now, I'm seeing the new boogie-man being repeated all over the righty-place. Sharia Law.
And i AM saying the evils are out to take over the world!
Give me incontrovertible evidence. Observation of what happened isn't much the way you describe it. If what you say is true, there has to be boatloads of physical evidence to back it up. Otherwise, just rehearse your story to your children ad naseum.
I've heard it all, and I don't see enough evidence to substantiate the claims.
Isn't that... like... kind of my entire point? There IS physical evidence of it - that was, y'know, the entire point of the video presented in the OP.
Anyway, i won't convince you, you won't convince me. Yada yada yada.
Buildings don't fall down that way.
All evidence was destroyed by Mayor Guilliani.
The use of the phrase conspiracy theory helps any possible conspiracy become invisible.
Does the government lie to its country, I think we have to give that a YES. In the 1970s they supported the oil companies scam that we were running out of oil. They did this twice in that decade. Now over thirty years lateer, guess what we still have oil.
Can the government keep a Secret for long periods of time, the answer again would have to be a YES, the Manhhatan Project and the A bombing of Japan gives us another YES.
Is it possible that there is more truth than fiction in these so called Conspiracy Theories. I think that the smart answer based on the history of the government has to be YES.
My point is that the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" shouldn't itself be an answer.
Is conspiriracy theory anything like Darwin's theory?
Thank you, Mr. Voice of Reason!
Actually, I think Obama sneaked over here from his Kenyan birth place and blew up the buildings to make W look bad. Hillary helped. After all, you know how many people the Clintons have murdered. And yes, it's an LOL!
This falls right in line with the faked moon landing and all the other nutjob conspiracy theories....the number of people required to pull this off would have been staggering....and we're supposed to believe that ALL those people kept quiet lo these many years?
Better hurry, dude, I think I hear your black helicopter warming up on the tarmac......
yeah yeah yeah - it'd be difficult.
But the official story is nonsense. Just watching the videos of the buildings falling proves this. How the hell could 3 buildings - one that wasn't even hit - fall PERFECTLY downward, even collapsing in on themselves, from 2 airplanes that hit at completely awkward angles, without any sort of controlled demolition.
I"m not going to say anything more than that, because I don't want to be branded a maniac, but the official story is nonsense.
The government likes you and your kind of thinking.
This falls right in line with the faked moon landing and all the other nutjob conspiracy theories....the number of people required to pull this off would have been staggering....and we're supposed to believe that ALL those people kept quiet lo these many years?
Better hurry, dude, I think I hear your black helicopter warming up on the tarmac......
As you say, a long and complicated operation, difficult to pull off, so tell me how a guy holed up in a cave in Afghanistan masterminded the whole operation, and sent some trainee pilots who had trouble flying a Cessna 2 seater plane to carry it out.
If you believe that, you will believe anything - oh I forgot, you already do.
The thing that hurts the official story so much I think is that it LOOKS like a controlled demolition.
Even Dan Rather (I think it was) said that on the air on September 11th.
People are going to believe what they see over what you tell them.
Watch the towers fall and watch a controlled demolition.
It looks the same.
It's like the JFK assassination.
The official story says the bullet(s) hit from behind.
But if you watch the Zapruder film, it LOOKS like his head snaps backwards not forward, indicating (to most people at least) a shot from the front not the back.
Or as the "JFK" mantra goes..."Back and to the left".
So yeah those conspiracy "nutjob" theories are great.
Like Operation Northwoods, The Dreyfus Affair, Operation Mockingbird, The Tuskegee Syphilis Study...hey...wait a minute....
Given that it is the gift giving season, it is good to know that we are in no danger of running out of heavy spiced cakes containing nuts and candied or dried fruits.
I have no idea why that thought just popped into my mind..
Um, what exactly stops a building whose internal steel pillar are softened by a raging jet fuel fire from collapsing exactly as it did? One cause is a more parsimonious explanation than two. Damn coincidental if [whoever] demolished the buidling a short while after some other people drove two enormous planes into it for reasons that they made fully public.
If you just take the time to watch the video, it answers all of your questions. Then it's up to you what you choose to believe, but as you will see, the "official" version of the collapse is a physical/scientific impossibility . . .
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
The official story, no matter how it's twisted, makes no sense. -- Even if the steel were "weakened", there would STILL have been resistance. Those buildings fell at free-fall speed, and all videos of the buildings collapsing (remember: WTC 7 wasn't even hit!!!), shoes that they not only fell at free-fall speed, but that they collapsed in on themselves STRAIGHT down.
Even if the steel was reduced to 10% of it's normal strength, we're still talking about 10% of steel's resistance to a 100% free fall speed of collapse. And that 10% resistance would have been non-uniform throughout the building as it fell, thus it wouldn't have fallen straight down.
It's completely obvious to anyone who ignores the chorus of "conspiracy theory".
Once again, I'm not saying that someone is trying to manipulate us into attacking space aliens or anything else -- I'm simply stating that the official story is complete bullscheisse.
One of Venezuela's tallest buildings caught on fire in October 2004.
It burned for more than 17 hours and the fire spread over 26 floors.
The heat was so intense, firefighters couldn't reach the upper floors.
Yet it didn't collapse.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/ … 9824.shtml
Besides the physics or whatever
I think we need to consider past things
like maybe Hitler, or communism,
well History repeats itself
do you think maybe our govt wants to...make us welcome "terrosist fear" and therby give up rights?
That is very bad, esp if it gets to the point where we can't own guns...
the bill of rights, one of them is the right to bear arms for several reasons, one to defend againt an oppressive govt
just a thought
I'm sure the people who were thinking that the reichstag was burnt down by their government were told they were conspiracy theorists.
Henry Kissinger said it!
Operation Gladio in Italy did it!
"Make them so fearful that they will BEG you to take away their rights!!!"
I'm not going to claim any knowledge on demolition, nor am I going to claim any knowledge on what is supposed to happen after a plane crashes into a building. I'm not an architect and I'm definitely not a physicist.
There are probably many factors and variables to consider when an airplane collides into a building. Maybe it is possible for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did.
That being said, the way the buildings fell really did look a bit peculiar. I don't think anyone expected them to completely collapse.
Can you tell I'm torn on the issue?
But I do believe there ARE terrorists out there who hate America. I don't believe you can adopt a foreign policy like the one we have and NOT accumulate some haters who want you dead.
And also, conspiracy theory or not, the government DOES lie!
Not only did they collapse, but they fell STRAIGHT down; they fell into themselves; and they fell at free-fall speeds.
There is NO way that this makes ANY sense, unless, some how, magically, the middle, lower, and top of the building's central area's support beams, broke -- despite only being hit by ONE plane at the top of the building.
And, WTC 7 fell without even being hit.
The official story is nonsense.
I hear ya, Evan. There's def some valid points you and other 9/11 truth seekers make.
I have read the engineering experts, and even some demolition experts agree that the plane and its fuel caused the collapse.
The thing that makes demolition of buildings work is the timing and the placement of the charges.
One plane hit on the 60th floor and the other hit on the 80th floor yet they both collapsed in the same manner.
The planes and the jet fuel that they had could not have been distributed evenly or even in the same distribution from both of these crashes.
I don't care about a conspiracy, I just don't see how the results show the plane as the reason for the collapses.
I could see a titled collapse from the stories aboue the creash point, but it wouldn't be straight because the explosion and the fires were not distributed as charges in a demolition would be.
How does 11,000 gallons or even 20,000 gallons of fuel get down to the bottom floors to weaken the structure in perfect timing with the weakened upper floors.
Lets use a 1000 feet for the height of the 80th floor and 720 feet for the height of the 60th floor.
So if we dumped the fuel from the planes at these two points, how much fuel would trickle down the building. We would have eleven or twenty gallons a foot for the 1000 foot mark, and we would have about 28 gallons to 15 gallons per foot.
That would be if we poured it from a container, but when the planes hit the building how much of that fuel turened immediately into flames, subtract that amount from what was left to trickle down.
As the fuel gets down to the floor below the bottom floor of the crash it will already be on fire and that floor would absorb a lot of the fuel and so on.
The floors at the bottom wouldn't have the fuel,or the fire necessary to weaken those supports to perfectly time with a collapse that we saw.
I agree that the building could have possibly collapsed but not in the manner that required such perfect timing.
For it to happen once is extraordinary, but to happen to two buildings in the same manner, now we are talking Royal Flush odds.
Remember the government told us twice in the 1970s that oil was running out. Nobody questioned them when they said it.
One question I have is if it was a controlled demolition, why did they choose to first detonate and collapse the tower that was hit second? Wouldn't logic tell them to first detonate the tower that was hit first?
Or maybe because the second impact hit the tower at a lower floor, they figured it would be more believable to detonate that one first?
If there was demolition at all.
Kerosene/jet fuel does not burn fast like gasoline. You can throw a lit match into a bucket of kerosene and it, like diesel, will burn rather slowly compared to gasoline. This allows the fuel to run down through the elevator and vent shafts before it is completely burned up.
Having said this, why pay large demolition fees when one can merely buy an old jet and have a terrorist fly it into the building instead?
NOT TO WORRY!
The WikiLeack will eventually tell us the whole story UNLESS they crucify the guy first - as they seem to be determened to do - surprize, surprize!
He just got arrested. Looks like he will be crucified first
he has his "poison-pill-nuclear-thermodetonator-secret". If he gets busted he'll release some really damning evidence of something, apparently.
Honestly if you want to go on believing this for the rest of your life... Go ahead, I have my own problems. Believing something so ridiculous just isn't in my nature. I will throw my 2 cents in though.
One of the reasons I've read a lot is that the government lies. LOL, BIG DEAL you have got to be kidding. I lie too, and so do you I assure you. How is that proof in any way shape or form?
The WTC was not bombed.. We all saw the planes go into the buildings. And the pentagon was no different, PEOPLE saw the plane. Not to mention the mourning families of the dead, my condolences, to those families. I am sorry about the ignorance of some people.
If its on youtube, that does not make it true, sorry.
Is this just the ultimate troll? Are we the butt end of a huge joke? I mean honestly if it isn't a troll, I can't believe I share earth with these people. Letting terrorists get off easy by blaming it on our gov't, yeah... thats about right!
I actually (regrettably) read more people's posts and I am dumbfounded. I can not believe what was said and what you guys actually believe. What looked peculiar about the towers falling? If you jump off a building you get pulled DOWN you don't keep going horizontally. Does concrete have legs to do that, so what way do you think its going to go?
Just because a building was on fire and didn't collapse doesn't mean the WTC wouldn't. They aren't the same buildings for Pete's sake. However the 2 towers were and the same thing happened to both of them.
if the support structures of the floors beneath the impact were still half-powerful, then they would not have uniformly supported the upper-floors. Thus the collapse would have NOT been straight down - it's like when you fall down on a ramp - the support structure glides you in one direction.
In addition to this, if there was ANY support structure still in place, then it would have fallen slower than free-fall.
No craziness - just that the official story is nonsense.
Your deductions and comments are amuzing.
All you need to do is review the posts these truther people make on other subjects. You shouldn't be surprised by this at all.
No, the Twin Towers were both much more architecturally sound than the building in Venezuela.
Do you not think it looks funny that both buildings dropped straight down at free fall speed and hardly damaged surrounding buildings?
“Building designer John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. … ug=1687698
That means the building design failed not once, but twice, in almost an identical way.
As far as "fact" goes, 1382 verified architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition demanding Congress conduct an independent investigation of 9-11.
Unless all 1382 of them are wingnuts, I think they know more about it than I do.
Your comment was hardly worth the space it took up in this forum.
Silence is golden.
I want to address this "crackpot" argument:
How do you reconcile the official argument that the support beams were weakened by the jet fuel with the fact that the buildings fell at free fall speed, and that, despite the difference in the trajectory of both planes (and the fact that one wasn't even hit by a plane), that they collapsed uniformly into themselves STRAIGHT down?
If the structures were at all in tact, and the jet fuel had weakened the support structure, then the areas of the steel farther from the jet fuel would have been less weakened, and thus the building couldn't have fallen straight down.
Yeah yeah yeah "crackpot". But I'm making a damn good case.
I still can not work out why there was no aircraft wing damage to the front of the pentagon.
What about the people on the plane that died? What about the people who saw the plane? What about the people who had family members on that plane?
Let's not confuse these people with silly little things like facts.....
9/11 was the work of 19 Muslim extremists....period.....hate to bring reason back to the table, but there it is.....
I agree, it's the work of Muslim extremists who are responsible. The thought of a man (or woman) within the US government flipping the switch for a controlled demolition makes me queasy.
If those thoughts make you quesy, then these facts will likely induce vomiting.
Once again, I'm not saying that the government was responsible for 9/11, I'm merely stating that the official story DOES NOT stand up to even a basic understanding of physics.
"Once again, I'm not saying that the government was responsible for 9/11, I'm merely stating that the official story DOES NOT stand up to even a basic understanding of physics."
At least this is a little more believeable. I mean terrorist had tried to blow up the towers before. Who's to say it wasn't an extremely well coordinated attack, planes and charges. One that was so extensive that the government doesn't want us to know. Because knowing this would reveal their level of incompetency.
Now that being said, what does it prove, even if it's true? What difference does it make? Does it change the end result? Finally do you really believe that so many could keep their mouths shut about the truth? I don't think so.
Of course it means something, something important if your government is bold face lying to you.
What difference does it make?
The implications of those two towers falling in the way they did have HUGE implications for architecture and structural design. If the official story is TRUE, then we need to, apparently, rethink Newton's 3 law's of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, and countless other fields of science.
It matters a lot because the truth isn't being told to our congressional members, and they don't (didn't) seem to care.
And it matters in that, apparently, the entire public is too stupid to figure things out on their own.
These are huge issues. None of them have ANY thing to do with "evil conspiracy theories about mutant space alien muslim government cover-up crackpot theories". It just means a lot that we're not discussing that we should have been discussing 9 years ago.
PS, i'm surprised you didn't want to talk about Gladio, Unit 731 or the burning of the Reichstag.
The engineering questions are being asked today, before 9/11 and will continue. The details regarding the fall of the towers are irrelevant to "IF" questions are being asked.
Even Congress is fed information regarding National Security on a "Need to Know" basis.
P.S. Why don't you send your ideas to "MYTH BUSTERS"
I am disappointed that no one took my analysis and tried to dismiss it.
Remember the few gallons of Jet Fuel that I mentioned per foot was not a linear foot, but a foot to cover the cubic foot.
And how much of the fuel made it to elevators or ventilation shafts?
My point is that we shouldn't use the phrase Conspiracy Theory to end the discussion of why was the collapse of two 1300 feet plus building hit at different floors, so peculiar.
The entire 911 incident was peculiar in many ways, and it too was like a set of dominos falling. Taken with all of these other strange things, we should look at the big picture.
Fuel weakened the support structure. Fine.
The weakened support structure led to the collapse. Fine
But the support structure was still there, just in a weakened state!! Some of the steel would have been stronger than others - due to distribution of the heat that weakened the steel - and thus the falling would have been led to one direction or another.
The video makes this statement, and provides perfect reasoning behind it - when he took the guiding wooden structures away from the "base", the bricks fell over in a non-straight-down fashion.
Whatever the truth is, it's not the official story.
With all the Wiki Leaks, I'm sure this would be all over the news by now. Once Wiki gate is done, you guys should have nothing to talk about.
If you guys are so sure about this, here is what I want you to do. Go get some real proof for the billions of people on earth that know it was terrorists. And not just what several passionate teenagers say about this on youtube.
Go out in the field and do research. That is all I ask. You are using hear-say and that is it. I'm sorry, come with real evidence, until then I'll spend my time elsewhere. Honestly, so should you.
Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic party questioned the official version of 9/11 presented to the Japanese government and the public by the US administration in a session of the defence commission.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … p;aid=7803
"A poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks."
"In September 2006 an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."
"The World Public Opinion opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 33% of respondents in Mexico believe Al Qaeda were responsible. 30% said the U.S. government were responsible, 1% said Israel and 18% named another country. 19% said they did not know."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_ … nion_polls
So the official story is not a "given" worldwide.
Please don't use polls, they can easily be doctored and are usually in most cases manipulated. In no way shape or form could you use a poll as any form of backing up your cause.
I can agree that my statement of billions may not be correct, but the number no doubt is in the millions. Many people have been tricked like you by people on youtube and are easily swayed to believe anything. This is a part of humans that I just do not understand. Oh well, make it a conspiracy, i can't change your mind.
I would like to know what you guys really think happened. There are so many stories I have heard, and they are all different. So please do share, as I am curious to what you are actually trying to defend. I more or less only care about certain facts.
1. Who did it?
2. Why would they want to do it?
3. What makes you so sure it was them
4. What is your absolute proof that will assure me you are right. Please don't use youtube or conspiracy theorists.
I agree with you on two things:
1) Polls are often misleading and...
2) People watch one freakin' documentary and they think they know all the forbidden secrets of the world.
That being said, I need to diverge from you a little bit. I do think there are some things that don't add up, and I think there is a certain degree of mystery and unknown in the September 11 attacks -- some loose ends that need to be tied.
But I'm not about to claim knowledge to government conspiracy or anything; and I'm definitely not going to criticize someone who doesn't believe in these conspiracy theories. I think the best we can do is either believe what you're told about 9/11 or speculate. Until more evidence comes forward, not much else can be done.
I don't know what actually happened.
But I have read enough (not watched YouTube videos) to see that people with a far greater understanding of these things question the official story.
Like the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, the Jersey Girls etc.,I would like to see an independent investigation.
Even a former FBI director criticized the 9/11 Commission for ignoring key evidence.
I think they need a "do over".
How does 11,000 or 20,000 gallons of Jet Fuel get the same reaction as a demolition timed charge in two buildings.
How many gallons of fuel were used to fly to NY, and then how many gallons were immediately exploded and vaporized, and then how many made it past the floors of impact, and then how many gallons made it to the elevator shafts or ventilation shafts.
How uniform could the disbursement of the fuel be compared to structurally placed explosives that are timed by a very precise sequencer.
This is just a test of reasoning.
If it's a test of reasoning, you failed it,
the amount of fuel is not relevant, as the collapse wasn't the same as a controlled demolition.
The rational man understands that reality is not in flux, it does not change no matter how much he would like for it to change. The crackpot understands only that reality is an inconvenient thing that doesn't change no matter how much he wants it to so he changes it in his imagination.
That is why we consider crackpots delusional. Funny thing about delusions, if they are held to strongly enough and long enough their processor can no longer discern what is and is not real.
Be gentle a psychotic break is a terrible thing to witness.
You're right. it's just that woolly thinking, and inability to think rationally, and ignorance of the importance of relevance tend to irritate me (-:
I understand. It used to bother me until I finally decided to let go. We cannot change someone's mind. It is much better to understand your own mind and lay out your reasoning and let them dance on in their delusions. I don't ever get angry just consistent, persistent and distant. (rhyming by acci-dent)
For those of you who would prefer an extended 9/11 theory, this one is very highly rated
i can't say there aren't details that are hidden, because I am sure there are. But anything on youtube is ridiculous, I vaguely remember the documentaries and things that were unbearable to watch. But it was always some idea out of left field with no backbone, and lots of problems with the story.
I finally got around to watching this video, and I wasn't very impressed. It's fine and good that this gentleman wants to apply experiment here, but his cinder blocks ignore matters of scale to the degree that it's untranslatable.
He seemed hung up on the lack of "jolts," which just means that the countering force was relatively uniform throughout the fall, which doesn't seem unreasonable on the surface when you consider how much momentum was involved.
With regards to the "total free fall," he showed a plot at the beginning of the video that was interesting. It was actually relatively hard to find it on the wilds of the internet. If anyone wants to look at it more, it's here: http://www.hamsayeh.net/images/WTC1_Acc … 00x430.jpg
The slope of that line is the change in velocity per time, or the acceleration. The measured acceleration is 6.3 meters/sec^2, or about two-thirds the acceleration due to gravity. Clearly the free fall thing doesn't apply to the main towers.
While looking for that I found this plot: http://html.scribd.com/9nbrpsaqkgnt9bs/ … d/000.jpg, which is for Tower 7 and actually does show free fall for the first 2 seconds of collapse. This corresponds to about 25 meters, or roughly 10% of the total initial height of the building, which is non-trivial.
The ostensible free fall occurs almost at the start of collapse. There is no cover for any sort of explosion that would have to have taken out 10% of the building. A controlled demolition then seems inconsistent with video evidence and witness reports.
NIST explains their view of it here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/fact … 082108.cfm
A catastrophic failure of support structures is a plausible argument for me, although I don't know much about structural engineering.
Since we're in the business of "scientific proof" and youtube videos, here are some interesting ones to chew on:
The fires weakened the structures that were attached to the outer casing of the buildings, thereby pulling those outer casings inward (the buildup of flammable debris on one side of the building is also an interesting thing to pay attention to):
I think some have said that the buildings fell in a straight line down. They did not. In fact, all the footage clearly shows the upper portions of the buildings falling diagonally and sideways (as we would expect if one side of the outer casing was weaker than the opposite side). The large antenna on one of the towers (forget which one) makes it easy to see that it did not fall straight down. The antenna--which is straight up and down when the tower stands normally--can be used as a visual guide, a pointer, to see that the falling action is largely diagonal in direction.
The towers did not fall at "free-fall" speed:
That one is pretty straightforward. It may seem, visually, that the towers fell at free-fall speed because the entire structure becomes completely engulfed in smoke, rendering it almost invisible. But nevertheless it is not falling at free-fall speed.
And some more fun stuff here:
Informative stuff. Definitely provided a fresh perspective with this.
It really is interesting (and confusing) to watch videos debunking 9/11, and then watching videos debunking the debunkers.
Both perspectives have me convinced and I'm torn!
I am going to try for the third time.
How does 20,000 or 11,000 gallons of jet fuel fill the basement to the 60th or 80th floors where the planes hit.
How do they spread to come up with the same result as a demolition?
I have mentioned the details of these questions in previous replies, so I won't do it here.
(1) The result wasn't the same as a demolition.
(2) Jet fule filling basement to 80th floors - irrelevant.
My point is that there wasn't enough jet fuel to fill the places that a demolition would have put charges for the very tightly synchronized timed explosion.
The fuel which wasn't enough to get to the lower floors, at least not in enough quantity couldn't have achieved the same result as a demolition.
If you are going to say something is irrelevant, then back it up with at least why you think that is true.
Your reply was terse, and without a point.
This doesn't really give much to practicing law in the UK, if you can get away with these kinds of objections.
Controlled demolition, free-fall and other myths.
The towers did not collapse in "free-fall" at all. it didn't look like a controlled explosion, and didn't behave in the same way as a controlled explosion.
As Philip Mole put it:
In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground.
However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2.
Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary.
The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage.
In relation to the way they fell:
Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle.
Forget the 10% weakening. Steel loses 50% of its strength in a fire of 650 degrees F.
I don't get why some people keep asking about jet fuel dripping down many stories so the bottom collapsed, too. get a load of building dropping, and it smacks the floors below it down, too.
For some, it can be because they need to have an enemy.
They are angry and need a target. The evil Government lies to them, keeps the truth from them.
For others, it makes them feel smart (sometimes for the first time in their lives) to "know" something that is different from common knowledge.
Still others are just far too gullible.
I love it when someone disagrees with an official government explanation and they are branded crackpots, psychotic, nutjobs etc because they have questions.
Oddly enough, those that believe everything they are told are logical.
Oddly enough mainstream thought often is logical. Fringe thought often is nutty. Not always, but generally.
Just because you hold to a mainstream thought doesn't mean you haven't looked at the evidence and thought it through. It just means you arrived at a position that a great many other people did.
Ergo, that if a huge plane hit a building that may well be what caused it to fall down.
The lower floors fell because the higher floors fell on top of them--no jet fuel required.
According to your explanation, the building would have not been able to be standing even before the plane crashing into it because the floors above it would have caused the building to collapse.
The foundation and the lower floors are built to hold up the entire building, no matter what the size. So unless there is something to substantially weaken the lower floor they will remain standing.
That doesn't follow. Just because the support structure can hold up the building when it's static doesn't mean it won't fold like cardboard when the upper part is falling on it. The momentum involved was enormous.
Not completely true. Think of it this way, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. When the planes hit, they destroyed the integrity of the upper 20 floors so that they were being supported by the lower floors. The floor closest to the damage was shouldering most of that weight. It failed and led to a chain reaction of subsequent collapse... Not to mention the added weight of the planes or the explosion or the fire resulting from fuel spillage.
Given your level of certainty you don't seem to know a lot about civil engineering. There is in fact a huge difference between the force of a thousand tonnes sitting on a piling, and a thousand tonnes falling onto a piling from 40 feet up.
As in "weight broke the wagon?" Sounds logical to me.
To get the result of a demolition collapse without having the same kind of setup where the explosives are set at the load bearing supports, and they are detonated in a very tightly controlled sequence.
To think that two huge sksscrapers can be hit by planes carrying a relatively small amount of fuel, and have that fuel dispersed in both buildings to flow into the very strategic load point is not a reasonable result.
Where the fuel exploded on impact, and where the rest of the fuel went is very important in proving how the building went down.
Explosives detonate instantaneously, while a fire takes time. The fact that jet fuel burns at a relatively low temperature takes time and the results of the burn cannot be done evenly.
We spent more time on investigating the crash of TWA Flight 800, then we did on the WTC.
Unless this is a faked site, this is REALLY freaky.
Its a message board where they were discussing what would happen if a Boeing 707 Intercontinental hit the World Trade Center.
There is really nothing new here, I was just amazed that it was dated "Thu Nov 30 2000 07:39:15".
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum … /336291/4/
Reminds me of that Lone Gunman pilot episode where they predicted the same thing.
It was broadcast on March 1st, 2001, months before the actual attacks.
Sorry, that was kinda off topic I know.
You don't have to melt steel just cause it to lose it's temper and it will become extremely weak.
Well it must have gotten really hot because there were reports of molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts up to five weeks after the attack.
I cannot find anything saying that jet fuel will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
So why did the temps jump up that high?
I don't understand the question.
What do you mean how did they know it was steel?
If you saw a liquid metal at the bottom of an elevator shaft, how do you decide it's steel as opposed to, say, aluminum?
How did you get so logical and rational?
Are you saying that's how they can be distinguished or that's how they were distinguished?
If the latter, I would be interested in a source if you have one. From what I find from a cursory google search the basis for the molten steel is one or two dubious eye witness reports. Example: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
Yes, I agree. I don't pretend to validate the reports. I was speaking about how you can determine melted steel from other melted metals.
Also one of the accounts is very dubious because it also reports that they found evidence of a sulfur compound commonly used in military grade explosives. HMMM, doubt it. I'm suspicious of this whole thing because the initial claims from sites like this was that it was an "inside" job. No one bought that, so now they want to sell you the idea that the government lied....I just don't know that I buy that. I would entertain alternate theories of "exactly" what caused the collapse in the terms of physics and science. Not in terms of "WHO" done it.
So far I have found reports of molten steel from witnesses Ken Holden (demolition, excavation and debris removal operations), Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC), Alison Geyh (head of the team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11), Ron Burger (public health adviser), William Langewiesche (journalist), a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, and New York firefighters and paramedics, so it's more than a couple of accounts.
It matters "WHEN" the molten steel was found. Torches were used to cut steel in the aftermath. Acetelene torches use rapid oxidation to cut steel. The result is slag and molten steel.
There was melted steel particles found at the site.
Thats the temperature of the fuel, not the steel. Some substances conduct heat better than others. Place a piece of steel in your oven and eventually it will melt ...no don't do that. But you get the idea. Steel melting was not required for a collapse. The fact that melted steel was found doesn't mean it melted before the collapse.
Sorry, but someone's opinion on a low quality video isn't "hard scientific proof." Please don't confuse evidence / proof with conjecture.
As a preface, I'm an engineering student so I have a good level of exposure to people knowledgeable in the field of civil engineering and architecture, among many other things.
In regard to the validity of his opinion, I am of the belief that most experts agree that the towers could have fallen in such a way. A minority will always disagree with the popular opinion. With that in mind, I'd assume that the majority of experts are, in fact, correct. That's not to say that this guy's opinion doesn't warrant additional investigation. It's just not a very good reason to jump on the controlled demolition!!!!! bandwagon.
Long, but very interesting regarding 9/11:
ADDRESS OF MICHAEL C. RUPPERT
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB – SAN FRANCISCO
TUESDAY AUGUST 31, 2004
by Rod Martin Jr4 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFldtLnmc8One expert after another goes on record, laying their career on the line, to state, categorically that WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition. Since it...
by Rod Martin Jr5 years ago
There have been numerous plans in American history for the government to murder American citizens for political gain.I seriously doubt that the Operation Northwoods document is the only tangible, direct evidence of such...
by sannyasinman4 years ago
It's OK to disagree with the governments version of what caused the twin towers and building 7 to collapse on 9/11. A new campaign for truth, and a recent poll shows that 1 in 2 Americans have doubts about the...
by Oilersmyth5 years ago
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?I want to hear other people's opinion on this. I'm currently doing research for a personal project, and would love to hear people's opinion.
by ArtzGirl5 years ago
Do you think that Conspiracy Theories are worth investigating further?What is your feeling about the term "Conspiracy Theory"? Does this have a bad connotation and meaning to you?
by Adamowen5 years ago
Do you have any questions that you think need to be answered about the 9/11 attacks?With the recent anniversary of the tragic event, it's been in high debate whether or not a new investigation should be looked into and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.