I would rather demonstrate how I think the towers should have reacted to planes flying in and only gravity to do the rest. See my video linked to in my response to Tristan. No planes involved but compare the damaged foundation to where the tower was damaged.
Twisted logic? What the hell...
Well, it does a good job of showing the damage caused by the planes flying into the towers, but once again as soon as the collapse begins, what happens? It is worth the look but don't say it's evidence to prove the collapse of the towers when it doesn't even speak about it nor show simulations of it. Free fall is hard to simulate with all the material in the way.
If you watched the video you'd see that the plane, and it's wings damaged alot of the core support beams.
I believe you'll find that (recalling from my science lessons) the moment is not big enough to make it fall over.
Take on a smaller scale example, if you're standing, and you lean over. Then you get a freind to push down on your head.
You'll fall straight down, however when you lean over enough, you will fall over sideways, as in your video.
My biggest question is why do you care so much about this issue? I mean, to me anyway, nothing matters less in my life.
It happened several years ago now, it was a tragedy. Many people lost thier lives, thier loved ones, family members, freinds... not really as important, but anyone who survived may have lost thier jobs, suffered unimaginable personal, physical and emotional distress, and yet all you (and Tristan) can do is banter, bicker and argue about why you think it was done on purpose by the government, blown up or whatever the hell you're on about.
Of course NIST and others wrote about energy. The energy calculation show that the towers were doomed as soon as one floor collapsed. This is broadly admitted, and usually they focus their report on the most interesting part: why did one floor collapse?
Many people just do not want to read or listen. Their way of thinking is closer from faith than anything else.
And how the energy was dispersed? excepted sound and ground vibration which allow energy to travel, all the energy was dispersed locally...and ended as heat. Heat is the ultimate state of energy...energy used mechanically to crush floors ends as heat too.
Another good article talking about WTC collapse energy. In this article they precisely consider fall time and tower mass. And they find energy released by fall at least 10 times bigger than my quick-and-dirty estimation. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
You are trying to tell us that all gravity collapses should look the same?? There are as many different ways of gravity collapsing as there are different types of structures. Think about cards towers, matches structures....etc.
And you compare again a concrete building with the WTC. It's like comparing the fall of a cooked egg with the fall of a raw egg. Different structures...one is full of concrete walls, the other is almost empty excepted a strong shell.
its funny how there is almost no situation in life that you cant find a fitting douglas adams quote for
In bed that night, after I had lain awake for a while worrying about Murara and Serundori's casual propensity for shooting people, I turned to worrying instead about Helmut and Kurt. If they were going to be like that, then I just wished they hadn't actually been German. It was too easy. Too obvious. It was like coming across an Irishman who actually was stupid, a mother-in-law who actually was fat, or an American businessman who actually did have a middle initial and smoke a cigar.
Reading the first few paragraphs it is already sounding like some propoganda paper. It says the buildings were designed to take a plane hit, but they fell? When they designed the towers did they fail to take into account how long the fuel would burn and how much of it there would be?
Is metal a good heat conductor? All that steel connected to each other didn't disperse the heat? It all stayed local? Ok, at what point was all this energy at its greatest?
I can't see this happening. I can't see enough heat to melt/weaken anything at the beginning of the collapse. The structure below would also be so strong it wouldn't be crushed by the top ~20% of the building(14 floors for the second tower to fall and 28 for the first). I got them figures from that article you gave me.
Reading some of it, it does actual sound credible but as I've no clue the workings of these equations and calculations I can't actually fully agree or disagree with them. I've read up abit about Mr. Greening since reading this and because I have no clue about these equations I obviously missed this - http://www.freerepublic.com/fo ... /1678935/posts?page=25#25 (post #25)
Well I'm still not sure even about what this person says but it's not looking good for his equations if his calculation of total mass is wrong.
No, I never said ALL gravity collapses should look the same, that would be a rediculous statement. What I did say is "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." The first tower to collapse, at first, acted the way this building did, but then it lost all resistance front below and came straight down, how/why? 4inch thick floors don't just get turned into dust from floors falling on top of each other. Right from the get go, the towers were spitting out dust, debrit and large chunks of the building, where did all that energy come from? Watch that building fall over, the only time you see clouds of dust is after it falls apart when it hits the ground, not as it's falling over/down. And I'm sure they found large sections of concrete still fully intact.
Yes, so the tower would be stronger, no? Concrete can break up easier than steel. The tower should have stood and the top floors burnt out, because the fires never burned long enough to heat the metal up to high enough temps where it would fail.
I will talk about it all but none of the official story tellers want to say anything about it. They never seem to respond to your questions. I wonder why?
WTC 7 has to be a conspiracy favourite. The so called 'conspiracy' theories behind why it was demolished are laughable. The building was sat at the base of the twin towers when they collapsed. The building suffered massive structural damage after having 2 towers collapse basically on top of it, and was then gutted in parts by fire. It had to be demolished in a controlled way later on, no question. Yes, it held lots of papers and stuff about criminals but how that makes it a conspiracy I do not know
The Pentagon, yes, now that is interesting. If the US government wanted to put all these conspiracy theories to bed, all they need to do is release the tapes which the FBI confiscated from the fuel station down the road from the Pentagon which would have filmed the 'plane' hitting it
late reply, but yea, someone got it loose on the net.. it was a frenzy back then, so everyone assumed it was true.
story said, that Q33 NY was the flight number from one of the planes. type that in winword and change font to Wingdings.. l33t h04x. simple things exagerated. try NYC with the same font..
I've been glancing through Mr. F. Greenings paper and found somthing interesting in relation to what you lads have been saying about how the top section did what it did. Go to page 4 and read - http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf - it says there were 2 stages of collapse, the top section crushed the bottom section, then when that hit the ground it collapse on itself. Interesting... because how could this top section stay intact all the way down? Where is his calculations for that? Have you got any? I doubt it since you say it got damaged as it crushed the floors below. And people say I believe in a crazy theory? This contradicts what you lads have been saying, come back with something good, please.
Well ok, show me some images of the damage to WTC7, the fires in there, anything that you have said there, do back it up. Are you also stating that it was a controlled demolition? Do you know how long it takes to set one up? Listen to this fella, well read the translations, and see what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
The video from the fuel station has been released, along with video footage from the Doubletree hotel under the freedom of information act I believe. But none of them are clear. A video from either the hotel facing the Pentagon, can't remember it's name, or a video from the highway cameras will show, without doubt, what hit the Pentagon.
If WTC 7 didn't collapse due to the fires and damage sustained by it it almost certainly was a controlled demolition. It collapsed several hours after the towers fell, plenty of time to wrap explosives around the base and bring it down. The site was going to be bulldozed anyway so they were simply saving themselves a job later. Every piece of video footage I have seen of the collapse of WTC 7 has the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. Now I'm no expert in demolition of buildings but I'm calling it like I see it. If you showed 2 videos of different buildings being brought down by controlled demolition to someone who had never seen one before, one of the videos being WTC 7 I bet he/she would say the same sort of thing brought down both buildings
as far as I was aware the fuel station video hadn't been released, but if it has I stand corrected. I am one of the people of the opinion that it wasn't what was reported as hitting it, no way did a 757 do that little damage to the Pentagon
The default explanation is simply this: a plane flew into the tower - there was an explosion and a fire - a bit later, the tower collapsed. No complicated math, no report from no commission, just a basic chain of causes & effects. It's the simplest explanation.
Anyone who claims that there is another cause underlying the events, such as controlled demolition, is going against Occam's razor. And because of that, the burden of proof is on him. He will have to come up with a decent underpinning of his hypothesis. Not only must he show that  the default cause is not sufficient, he must also prove that  the alternative cause was present (there were explosives), and  it was sufficient to cause the effects (lots of explosives, well-placed). The conspirationalists have only concentrated on  afaik.
And they have the same burden when it comes to human actions and motives. The default explanation (a known enemy of the USA) is so much simpler than the alternative (a government suddenly killing thousands of its own citizens). That makes 2 mountains to climb.
BTW, it's odd that they embraced the "controlled demolition" story. They could have made it easier on themselves by accepting that it was the planes that brought the WTC down, and only claiming that Bush allowed Bin Laden to do his dirty work.
So all they had to do was strap bombs to the columns at the bottom and it would be fine? It would fall into a neat pile? No chance! Watch the building kink in the centre and then collapse, that means getting timing right to within a fraction of a second. It means planning. Also, there would have to be devices planted throughout the building to get it to fold up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa6z41EOt4o this is what happens when only the lower explosives go off. And there would be alot of energy there so how it didn't fall to pieces has me amazed.
Here's the fuel station vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z32xH3skes This is what we get, more blurred censored video of the Pentagon. It's hard to believe that this is what they gave us, wrong dates, blurred images. It's insane. Why not just prove it to us and show the other footage they have?
I do think that it is completely plausible that WTC 7 was demolished on purpose. It was already damaged, and they probably didn't want it to collapse randomly and kill people. So, they demolished it since it was so damaged and a risk. That would make sense, sort of.
Ok, for  there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building. See the falling building video I linked to. What could cause that?
EDIT: Well obviously there was enough energy produced because that's what happened but it wasn't caused by floors falling on each other I can assure you.
And  If you look at the towers and honestly believe that all that debrit and sections of the building were propelled by a gravity colapse then I think we should stop right now. I'm trying to look at this with an open mind, if it doesn't look right and I do research to back up what I believe then that's all I need. If you choose to follow the official story you now need to back it up. You need to prove it, you are coming up with the original theory not me.
So Occam's razor is what your going by? The theory with the least amount of assumptions is being selected yes? Well I feel the official story has alot more assumptions and also leaves out a hell of alot more of the facts than the conspiracy theory does. Why did the Commission leave out so many witness reports?
I can't understand this, just because a theory is simpler it automatically gets the vote of everyone? That's crazy. So bin Laden is an enemy of the US? Do you think he is responsible for 9/11? The organising and funding of the operation?
But why, because that's not true? The whole idea behind this is to find the truth, not to come up wit the simplist theory so it fits into Occar's razor. When people who work in the field of controlled demolition look at a vid of WTC7 and say that's controlled demo, what is any intelligent being supposed to think, he's a lier? Listen to this man - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
This is true, but the buildings did exactly what they were designed to do. When hit in the side by a heavy, fast moving object, such as a plane, to not tip over or collapse. They did fall, for whatever reason but both towers took the initial hit without falling or collapsing.
As for not taking into account the heat caused by burning avaition fuel, how can you take that into account? Everything has a melting point, however high. Steel has to be able to be melted in order to construct girders and supports to the desired shape and size for the application they are produced for. If such a material that wouldnt melt under that intense heat could be found then it must be impossible to use it as there is no way of converting it from its raw state into anything usable.
I totally fail to see your logic in this. The building collapsed in on itself from the top downwards. Pieces of the steel/concrete/glass outer 'shell' (for want of a better word) were pushed outwards by the force of the collapsing building. Building collapses by their very nature are unpredictable, and even more so if the building in question has had a 757 flown into it
when the buildings were originally constructed they were designed to take a hit from the biggest plane flying at the time. Not a modern 757 which was much much larger than anything the designers had thought about
aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, fact. The towers collapsed due to most of the vital central support columns being obliterated by the planes, which removed all the structural integrity from the top
I don't care for how long, hours, days, burning jet fuel, in the conditions that were in the tower, will never melt steel because it can never reach those temps. If you think it will then you need to do more research.
Not a 757, no, but a 707. It's not that much smaller actually. 707 and 757.The 757 has the same diameter fuselage as the 707. Also, the 757 could carry approx 11,500 gallons of fuel compared to the 707 which could carry 23,000 gallons.
I'm sorry but gravity collapses at their beginning, do not have alot of energy(edit: I should have said "do not release alot of energy"), not matter how much weight is invloved. Gradually signs will begin to show that something is going to happen. Not bang, girders, debrit and huge sections of the towers going away from the building, not just falling off it, getting flung 100's of meters away. Not the characteristics of a gravity collapse.
Again, true. But, considering the long distance video footage of the events (who would want to be that close to the towers at this point anyway??) there may have been so called tell tale signs of slight movements and such but because of the x500 zoom used on some footage of it the quality is quite grainy and rough. You simply wouldn't be able to see these signs of imminent collapse with the footage available.