Ok, so since you know so much about how the building acted after the collapse began, maybe you could contact NIST(National Institue for Standards and Technology) with your figures and inform them of what exactly happened because not one investigation into 9/11 actually goes into how each floor reacted, how, once the collapse began, each floor was crushed in fractions of a second.
You seem like you know what you are talking about but applying it to the wrong situation. You see the towers fall like they did and you put the wrong equation or something to it. How come NIST didn't come out and say what you've just said? Or anyone for that matter, you are the first person I have heard actually calculating the energy/force/whatever that it took to bring the towers down in 10seconds. But still it's not right, you say it created billions of watts of energy, ok, but you don't say how this energy was dispersed. It could have been anything, even air friction as you stated. Air frictio wont cause steel to melt, or concrete to be crushed into pieces, tiny microscopic pieces.
Anyway, I just feel you lads think you know what your on about but how come no significant official or investigation has come up with the figures of what happened each floor? NIST came up with a computer program which was altered to make it mimic what actually happened. Ask Kevin Ryan, he was fired because of asking questions about their tests.
Just one more thing Juls, that video of the failed demolition, did you watch it? How come that could fall atleast one floor, 8-10feet, and not fall to pieces? I'm sure it weighed alot and you say that the top section of the tower only had to fall 50cms to gain enough energy to start crushing. I don't know but it doesn't seem to fit the tower, what you are saying.
No, you are the one trying to tell me how it is, so you show me any document which clearly states what happened each floor, after the collapse began. Surely it is easily worked out? Since people here seem to think they can do it with examples and stuff, show me where you get your calculations from.
"Classical explanation" is exactly what? The 9/11 Comission report? NIST report? Both are massively flawed, there are alot of architects and engineers who for one thing are alot better educated on this subject than you or I, so when they say that these reports aren't exactly full reports and they doubt their findings I find it hard to believe these reports when they are trying to tell us about why/how the towers fell and the people like you who use them as their side of the "arguement".
Listen, watch the tower when they start to fall, there is no way they had enough energy to force out the walls/debrit like it did, it's just not possible. @Juls, what energy would it take to force these walls and debrit 100's of feet away from the tower, right at the beginning of the collapse?
Please....lets not start talking silly. I did say whole sections, yes. Sections which were blown off the towers, shit like this doesn't just fall apart from a gravity collapse, sorry it just doesn't. You think it does? Prove it... Here's an image of the Marriott Hotel after the collapse - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WTC1.jpg (large image) It was 22 storeys high and this section was the only part still intact. See here for more info on the building.
Sorry?? Compared to what things? And how do you suggest these temperatures are reached in a gravity collapse? You think dragging rubber on tarmac or unscrewing a rusty screw from wood actually generates alot of heat? If you think that's alot of heat well the heat needed to melt/warp steel/iron would be colossal in your eyes. I can't figure out why you would even use this as a sort of comparison to generating alot of heat, burning rubber is nothing, unscrewing anything isn't in comparison. So use something else like burning propane, now that is quite a mundane act in itself but creates a hell of alot of heat.
You think? Since when have you seen a hollow building? I'd like to see one.
It doesn't? Really? So lets say the whole top part of the building is already in pieces, now drop it. You are saying it would do the exact same damage? Seriously?
Huh? The building was unifrom/symetrical, for the most part. But you say it isn't so prove it.
Lets talk of CoG. The first tower to fall. Example: You are on a bike and begin to fall over, what's the only thing that can happen to make you fall straight down and not over? The ground to be taken from under you. That's exactly what had to happen in the tower. the floors below where it began to tip had to be take out for it to fall down and not over. I don't care how much energy it had falling, nothing can change laws of physics. Once it started moving, nothing should have stopped it continuing to fall over.
I don't get what you are trying to say. If I jump up and down, sorry bounce not jump, is that not an external force as far as the scales is concerned? I can't see the comparison to the towers with tat one sorry.
Well if you don't think you will get answers then don't take part? Simple as. I feel the ONLY way people will get the truth is talking amongst themselves because government officials, corporations or companies are not going to get into the details of it. So this is the only way, imo.
Laughable theories? See, you can't even see that the Official story for 9/11 is itself a theory.
But I don't see the fun in poking you guys for believing in a theory? I'm here to try discuss things and find out more, not diss people because they believe something different.
Yeah, that's going to get you answers isn't it? Silence the dissenters? How silly!
FES=flat earth society. For people who actually believe the earth is flat and that NASA is involved in a conspiracy to conceal that "fact". Yeah, stupid I know, and now you understand why some of us look at the theories being proposed here and can barely contain our mockery.
I never said silence anyone. If you don't think there's answers here why come here and discuss it? Because you think you have the answers when actually it's another theory. If it wasn't a theory but fact, there would be much harder evidence for it being the act of terrorists. Like footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon when a number of cameras caught it on tape but we can't see them. Like getting the chance to analyse all the steel from the towers? Once the gold was found under the towers it was no longer a rescue but a clean up. Why clean up a crime scene when every piece hadn't been analysed?
People did actually believe that at one stage, it was the "norm" and people who actually knew the truth were dismissed as crazy, now it's the opposite. Also, people thought Vietnam was a just war because of the Gulf of Tonkin attack, but that has now been declassified and it never even happened. Alot of things that people think are true are in fact propoganda, so how is it so hard to believe that 9/11 was another act to get America into a war? A war which was never declared by congress btw.
Clear? Did you see the question marks? I never stated for anyone not to come here, I asked if you don't think there's answers, why come here? Not, well if you think like that, don't come here! There is a difference and I know you're not stupid enough to miss that. Actually when you think of it, I would be the dissenter, you are the one giving me the story, the official one, to ask questions about. It's obvious you, and everyone esle who agrees with the official story, will always be here, no matter what I or anyone else will say because you think you are on the right side of the arguement, you believe you have the facts. Facts we both agree on, but then the official story turns into a theory. Paper surviving an inferno and the most indestructable parts of the planes never being found? The flight recorders? They also have evidence they wont show, why not? Video footage of the Pentagon.
What is so funny? You think it was all analysed? That's funny.
I haven't given any story, least of all the "official" one. I have my own ideas about 9/11, about who "did" it, who benefitted from it, whether they were part of the scheme to make it happen or whether they took the initiative and exploited it. I have a lot of thoughts and ideas about it, and very little of what I believe tallies with the "official", "government" version.. but absolutely nobody benefits at all, except the "bad guys" when absolutely ludicrous theories are being pushed way out in front of genuine questions that need asking and answering.
This revisionism that you're perpetuating, like the "no phorensic examination of the crime scene" shit, is sickening. The steel WAS examined, while it was at ground zero, and for weeks afterwards at Staten Island. Phorensics went on well into the summer of 2002. I'd be surprised if it's finished yet, in some capacity.
You and your co-theorists twist the truth that IS available and try to wring out your conspiracies, but don't expect everyone to fall in line with it. Some of it smells like bullshit because it IS bullshit.. but you guys are getting in the way of anyone finding out the truth because EVERYONE is going to be left rolling their eyes, sick to the back teeth with all the STUPID conspiracies until EVERYONE is conspiracy-deaf and NONE of the REAL truth will ever get out.
Well I apologize for putting you in that group, it just seemed like that's the way you were feeling/thinking.
I agree SOME steel was examined but the majority of the pieces were only from the impact zone. What about the core columns, that could be seen in some photos, cut near the basement? Where are the tests on them? The pieces of molten metal at the ends of them, where is NIST report on them? Any report on them for that matter.
Show me where I've twisted the truth? Some of it does smell like bullshit and more times than not it is what it is. I also agree that poeple are turning away as soon as anyone mentions this because it's been talked about so much. But there's no other way to find out, is there? If I am asking legitimate questions, why should I stop because of a few crack pots? Nothing will ever be found out.
The impact zone was the crime scene. Do you have any proof that no examination was performed on the core columns or even any areas that in fact ARE relevent to the crime?
Iron burns, by the way. That's just a scientific fact. Friction causes heat, and iron heats up and sometimes catches fire when exposed to oxygen. Do you have any proof that there was anything suspicious about iron melting etc, and behaving exactly as it would after a building collapse? No?
If you were asking legitimate questions, but I don't think you are. People are hearing facts about physics, and having their conspiracy theory completely proven groundless, and then saying "okay but what about.." and spitting out their next conspiracy theory. It's now at the point where reasonable and knowledgeable people aren't bothering to answer the questions, leaving the conspiracists standing proud, thinking they're right when they're not. It's long past the beginning of the end of all hope, thanks to the stupid conspiracy mutts.
Stop perpetuating previously-debunked conspiracy theories. There is as much if not more information on the web to counter each and every WTC conspiracy theory so far touted. Be responsible (and not so groan-worthy) and please only perpetuate a theory that hasn't been debunked a thousand times or more.
Sorry but YOU are going to have to prove to ME how all this could happen. I'm not here making statements, only asking questions. If I have evidence that I have seen relating to what we talk about I will gladly show you. You coming making a statement like "Friction causes heat, and iron heats up and sometimes catches fire when exposed to oxygen." means nothing unless it is accompanied with the temperatures need to do this. Now, you go find out how hot that iron would have to be. Then find out, probably off Juls, how much energy it would take to generate that amount of heat. I agree with the statement and have heard witnesses saying exactly that but, how can iron banging of itself create this much heat to make it catch fire, so it would have to be red hot, when it's exposed to oxygen?
Show me some physics facts about 9/11 that I don't agree with? Conservation of momentum and follow the path of least resistance are two things that can't be changed, yet they didn't happen on 9/11.
You just said every theory has been debunked, obvioulsy it will be hard to find one that isn't. The same can be said for the official report, there's sites that debunk every part of that but they still spit out the same crap. Planes+fire brought the towers down and damage+fire brought WTC7 down. I say impossible, what you say is what you can understand according to the knowledge you have. If you don't want to listen, that's fine, but don't say to me only say this or that when I haven't seen one fact from you, so should you only bring up things that haven't been debunked?
Actually, I read a long time ago that they actually did survive and with the help of the firefighters they found 3 of these boxes but nothing was ever said to the families or the commission report about them.
Simply unscrewing a rusty screw can heat the screw to above 100°C. One bolt. Now imagine the forces involved in a collapsing building - many factors higher, so accordingly the temperatures reached could be factors higher. Comprende?
It is an approximation of a general structure, and is totally valid as an approximation. Admittedly I believe the WTCs were endoskeleton rather than exoskelton, but that's merely a detail in such an approximation.
Yes. Take 10 tonnes of steel billet and put it on your head. Hurts, doesn't it? Now take 10 tonnes of steel swarf and put it on your head. Still hurts, doesn't it? Same mass, same momentum, same forces (albeit slightly modified in how the forces are distributed.
The building may have been symmetrical, but it certainly wasn't uniform. It has empty space and hard bits and soft bits and tought bits and brittle bits... That is not uniform. As hard bits and soft bits didn't necessarily line up perfectly during failure the forces aren't going to all be in the same direction.
The laws of physics didn't change, but your understanding of them in a real world situation are seriously lacking. You are using classical physics with the assumptions of zero friction and smooth, uniform bodies. Buildings don't behave like that.
The closed system is you and the scales. Standing still should, therefore, give the same reading as moving. But it doesn't, because internal forces do change the reading. Sit in a car and bounce around - the car bounces too, despite your movement acting purely on the car and not on the surroundings. Internal forces creating external movement....
Or else what? You're going to continue to believe stupid things? Go ahead, punk, make my dinner.
I'm not your physics teacher for crying out loud. Why don't you just go ahead and demonstrate exactly the mentality that makes the whole 9/11 truth completely irretrievable. History will thank you, I'm sure.
Put the spliff out and step away from the bong. You don't have any proof whatsoever for the things you state as facts.
And Elvis is alive and living in my basement, and until you come up with some proof that he isn't, that's just an unquestionable fact you're going to have to live with. What a twisted logic you have going on there. Got any messages for Elvis?
Because frankly a lot of things about the whole thing don't make sense.
I'm not really sure what I believe tbh - I'm sure the American government was at least in on the Pentagon attacks, and the war seems to have made a lot of people very rich (at least those who own shares in military companies...).
Yup. But the most interesting, and most concealed/suppressed question for me is WHY they did it. While there's all this utter guff about conspiracies on the day, nobody is asking the question that really needs an answer.
I'm pretty sure that if you go and ask any of the countries in the middle east, they'd give you a solid answer. There are lots of reasons to hate the west if you aren't seeing the benefits of its consumerist society.
As I said, gravity driven collapses DO NOT have massive amounts of energy and at its least powerfull is at the beginning. So throwing large sections 100's of meters away from the tower is impossible in the kind of collapse you suggest. And as I said before, the top of the first tower should have fallen off the tower, not straight down through it, the path of MOST resistance btw. And your example of a can is totally unrealistic. For one the person is in no comparison to the top section of the tower. If you were to scale it and use the top third of the can and try make that crush the rest of the can you will find it's impossible.
Ok, here's a gravity collapse on tape. I believe the top sections of both towers, but more so the first to collapse, should have acted exactly the way this did if what you are saying is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 3U1So&feature=related @Sam - this is what I am trying to explain, it's on tape. A gravity collapse, now try compare this to the towers. There was a huge amount of explosive energy at the beginning of it's collapse but nothing here, slow and gradual. The force of gravity on something altering it's CoG isn't a quick occurance, it happens slowly.
Of course 10tonnes of anything on my head would hurt, but 10 tonnes on top of a 50 tonne structure wouldn't do much damage.
Well, being hard or soft wouldn't really matter when the weight of the object falling far outweighs the objects being crushed, occording to Juls shit just gets crushed in split seconds, everything! Obviously nothing is particularly strong if this is the case, so it wouldn't massively affect its direction or speed.
I'm the one thinking of zero friction? You are the one saying 2! 110+ storey towers, each floor 4inch thick concrete and massive core columns "collapsed" in 10seconds! What? That is near free fall, i.e. No friction, not even air! So come back with something better than try make me look like the fool.
Why should it give the same reading? It's obvious that it should change. Internal forces create external movement, sounds good but what internal movement happened in the tower? Once the tower started to collapse it was 2 seperate pieces, falling piece and piece getting crushed. What internal force changed the direction of the falling section of the first tower to collapse?
It seems to me you aren't actually putting the right knowledge into how these towers fell. Some of what you say makes sense to me but it doesn't fit what happened in the towers.
Unless either of you actually know anything about buildings, how they're constructed, the properties of the materials, the engineering side of it, I think you should both stop taking pot shots and making assumptions about how buildings are constructed, and how buildings collage.
@U4IK, gravity pulls downwards. If the building stays mainly upright it'll collapse downwards. If it's at an angle, like in your video, it'll fall sideways. Common sense of physics, really.