[rich1068]

The paranoid conspiracy theories are just that, paranoid conspiracy theories. The internet has a lot to answer for. Take Loose Change. Any nut case with an axe to grind (or looking for a DVD boxed set deal) can churn out just about anything and it's taken as gospel. In short, if there is a worldwide conspiracy instigated and run by a mysterious, shadowy cabal made up of <insert people you don't like here> and they're capable of masterminding a huge murderous plot that kills thousands of people and changes the course of world events, don't you think this same shadowy cabal could deal with a few failed film school applicants, military deserters and internet radio talk show hosts? I'm guessing they could. Double tap to the head or some odd accident involving brake lines. Or a faulty ski lift. Or a fatal mugging never fully investigated by the police. Or... whatever Hollywood fantasy you like.

But hey, I could just be saying that. They may have already got to me!

As far as Bin Laden is concerned he got what was coming. They were heavily armed military personnel going into hostile surroundings. People die. That's what happens when the military are involved, it's what they do best. And shooting to wound is another Hollywood fiction before anyone mentions it. Who else was going to drop from a helicopter and ask him to come quietly? The Respect Party? A crack team of The Guardian and The Independent feature writers?

On certain occasions I can put my woolly liberal idealism to one side and think 'Yes, that was justified' because I know that in a world run by Bin Ladens I wouldn't even be allowed to post this.

[briers]

What is my suggestion on how they fell?

&

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

Ive yet to hear a structural engineer argue that the towers were demolished intentionally.

I think that sums it up.

No scientist or engineer can publically speak out about this atrocity because they would be crucified. They don't have any evidence, they don't have private documents stating this, they don't even have physical evidence because it was all destroyed or recycled within days. That in itself doesnt seem right.

All scientists or engineers have to go on is theory and that isn't strong enough to provide a case.

However we know deep down that the evidence we have gathered, the video feeds we have scrutinised and even the equations done say that it is extremely unlikely that the buildings fell due to the impact of a plane and subsequent fire.

There is just too much evidence pointing to suggest a demolition. The area was evacuated apart from casualties, trapped workers and the emergency services. Scores of emergency services workers, newws reporters and WTC staff reported random explosions. The basement was partially destroyed, the lobby windows blown out, all of this the opposite end of the impact with all floors in between intact. Dust clouds can be seen raising from the basement at certain points, whistles can be heard second before the collapse, followed by an explosion, then the fall. Flashes can be seen during the collapse, several floors down, dust is ejected 10 floors below the leading edge of the dust cloud as the collapse happens (defying gravity). The dust cloud as the collapse is happening signifies that most of the mass is ejected outwards and is no contributing to the downwards pile driving motion (the dust cloud is dense as it falls downwards at a fast rate meaning it has substantial mass). All this mass that supposedly crashed through each floor was no where to be seen once it was all over. There was no concrete left, just a few steel pillars. Steel pillars that could be seen were sporting strange angular cuts, typical of explosive charges used to cut beams to control the direction of a collapse. Extremely hot molten metal can be see in live videos dripping from the corner of the building whilst it was still standing, exposed because of the hole the plane left. Private samples of dust collected by civilians were sold to scientist for testing where particles of nano-thermite, a cutting agent used in demolitions capable of producing those types of molten metal reactions. Firefighters reported extreme temperatures days, even weeks after as they sifted through parts of the rubble, again an element of nano-thermite.

I've probably missed a bunch of things but what i have said isn't made up, its public-ally available.

It's not just the evidence that makes me suspect a demolition. It is the peripheral evidence. Like the fact the G.Bush lied about seeing the first plane strike on TV which is impossible, there was no live feed. He couldn't answer a live question posed to him by a reporter when he was asked if he had prior knowledge, seriously stumbled over his words. The fact that Condoleezza Rice and other gov members openly said on TV that they could never imagine or prepare themselves for a plane hijacking crashing into a building. Yet for the 1st time in american history rumsfeld signed over the orders of defence shoot to kill from commanders to the head of homeland security. He also for the first time in history took over a training exercise on the day of 9/11 and that very exercise was a hypothetical hijacking situation which scrambled jets hundreds of miles away from the actual flight paths. Everyone was confused and it took over an hour to get the jets to these hijacked airliners. Again never happened, the jets would be on a plane in minutes normally. The funniest thing i saw was the destruction of building 7, it fell like a classic demolition. The BBC were actually fed information from the U.S. gov to say building 7 had also collapsed. The women reporting it was standing with her back to the NYC skyline, in line of site of the now gone twin towers, but funnily building 7 was still standing and fell 23 minutes after that live report. Oh and there were more forward selling of stock options on 9/11 than at any other time in the history of the stock market. Even silly things like the owners of the WTC complex was on TV saying he decided to "pull it" referring to building 7. A term used in demolition, which he later revised, that he meant pull out the firefighters, and it was also leaked that he renegotiated his insurance terms so they would pay out in the act of terrorism, just 6 months before this happened.

Again, all this evidence is there but cannot be proved out right because what really happened has been hidden and destroyed, just the people in the know either slip up along the way or keep eternally quiet so we can only draw conclusions from theories. And of course we could be completely wrong. Even the people who were commissioned to explain the official theory admit it is wrong and have never revised it. I.e. they dont know.

My head says that it feels like some type of demolition, by whom i dont know, that is speculation and speculation is a dangerous thing. But my heart says how can any human plan something like a demolition in this event. It is not in the human nature. It is something that is going to bother me till i'm no longer here.

[rich1068]

Originally Posted by briers

how can any human plan something like a demolition in this event. It is not in the human nature.

Aliens then. Hadn't thought of that.

[Teutonicdriver]

Re the post by Briers, Im sorry but what a load of complete Tosh. All based on speculation and lies. All the evidence was quickly hidden or destroyed????
The wreckage was there for weeks.
Anyone who has any knowledge of buyilding demolition knows that to bring down buildings of that size would involve drilling holes for the explosive charges (hundreds of them), connecting all of the charges with detcord (miles of it). The process usually takes a considerable number of days prior to the demolition.
So, we are saying that office workers, security staff and members of the public were walking around these demolition crews as they prepared, and were completely unaware?
Utter poo, Im afraid. Those Towers were struck by aircraft hijacked by terrorists. Those two crashes on their own would have been a successfull terrorist mission, they just got lucky when the towers collapsed.
The reasons for their failure and collapse have been adequately explained by structural engineers on several television programmes.
So either a terrorist organisation destroyed the towers, or a cunning Government decided to murder its own people by the thousand so that they could go to war.............
Im sorry but the latter idea is just so far-fetched and improbable that its up there with the alien theory. Perhaps Elvis did it because Bush didnt buy his records??

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

Re the post by Briers, Im sorry but what a load of complete Tosh. .....

This was discussed at some length before in this thread : http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=430115

And following all the inputs from the conspiracy theorists we can conclude that most believe in some combinaton of (taken from my post here) :

Originally Posted by Dave_3

Done to a tune of .... ♫ mingle mangle, mingle mangle ♫

"A cast of thousands, sworn to utter secrecy and willing to devestate a city and murder thousands of fellow countrymen, all involved in the following [to each make money/go to war] :

Secretly rigging 2 of the tallest buildings in the world full of intricate explosives, making 4 flights of people "disappear" then flying specially modified missile carrying planes [with half-arsed disguise] fully laden with fuel into both towers [as a diversion], secretly detonating all these explosives without being detected using a method NOBODY uses to bring down buildings from the top down at the exact point of impact [and in a way that makes dust fall faster than gravity, but lets thermite melted iron leak out the building way before it collapses], taking the opportunity to pull down WT7 in full gaze of the world's media because it is too costly to keep cleaning its windows [and you have new insurance] while lobbing a cruise missile at the Pentagon, and blowing up a big hole in a field in Pennsylvania.

Through the power of bedroom internet kiddies produce YouTUBE videos making up rumours as needed, or finding any nutter that says what you want to hear [standard interweb practise] and then blame it all on Masterminds, The Govt., Mossad, Bankers or [insert your choice]."

and from another response by me in the same thread.

Originally Posted by Dave_3

You need thousands of people involved if you believe those "Documentaries" :

• People who sourced vast amounts of demolition charges (or vast amounts of new super secret hypothetical explosives)
• People who planted the super secret explosives in multiple buildings undetected
• People who created intelligence radio/internet chatter in foreign langauge and allow to be intercepted by US and UK intelligence agencies
• People who bought/sourced an Airliner(s)
• People who modified the Airliner with secret pods for missiles, and blanked out the windows.
• People who co-ordinated the "highjacking" of all the planes ..
• People who flew/controlled the swapped "Airliner", which had no windows, strange markings and pods into the building (with the worlds media covering the entire event at this time)
• People who "disposed" of all the crew and passengers that boarded the real planes at the airport.
• People who covered up the landing of the real pane, and "silenced" ground staff that were there
• People who disposed of the plane that landed
• People who were involved in the organised "insider trading" prior to the event
• People who controllled events on the ground during the day, setting off controlled charges - that weren't affected by plane crashes (and set off in a way that our experts on this thread think shows that there were explosives set-off)
• People who faked/staged the radio chatter and cell phone communications from Flight 93
• People who launched a cruise missile at the pentagon
• People on the ground, highway and in the air who later swore that it was an Airliner
• People who organised all of this under the gaze of the worlds media and nobody talked, or slipped up - and would murder thousands
• People to hide evidence at ground zero
• People to fabricate the offical 911 report
• Direct involvement by top membes in the Govt. to co-ordinate all these people

You are right, space aliens from Area 51 are just as likely .....

D.

[zltm089]

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

Re the post by Briers, Im sorry but what a load of complete Tosh. All based on speculation and lies. All the evidence was quickly hidden or destroyed????
The wreckage was there for weeks.
Anyone who has any knowledge of buyilding demolition knows that to bring down buildings of that size would involve drilling holes for the explosive charges (hundreds of them), connecting all of the charges with detcord (miles of it). The process usually takes a considerable number of days prior to the demolition.
So, we are saying that office workers, security staff and members of the public were walking around these demolition crews as they prepared, and were completely unaware?
Utter poo, Im afraid. Those Towers were struck by aircraft hijacked by terrorists. Those two crashes on their own would have been a successfull terrorist mission, they just got lucky when the towers collapsed.
The reasons for their failure and collapse have been adequately explained by structural engineers on several television programmes.
So either a terrorist organisation destroyed the towers, or a cunning Government decided to murder its own people by the thousand so that they could go to war.............
Im sorry but the latter idea is just so far-fetched and improbable that its up there with the alien theory. Perhaps Elvis did it because Bush didnt buy his records??

plus one!

too many urban legends going round these days!...

[briers]

You dont have to apologise, it's good that people disagree with me. It makes the discussion more interesting. As mentioned earlier in the thread i thought twice about posting my views because it is quite rare that people can think outside the box on matters such as this and that isn't an insult but perhaps a distinction between the different ways people think and interpret things.

I was careful to check the facts before posting what i did. Some of the last bits in the post before are a bit grey but you cannot ignore live video evidence posted by independent networks.

Some videos that caught my attention

The first clip of the firefighters was only released recently under the freedom of information act - it had previously been blocked.

And this

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but i don't believe those buildings fell from fire damage and a plane impact. I believe the buildings could have toppled over but not fell into it's own footprint straight down through the path of most resistance in the time it did which was near free fall. Same with building 7. The same can be said about the towers. I'm just amazed that anyone watching the video doesn't question it.

Buildings just don't do that.

[Teutonicdriver]

"Buildings just dont do that". Well actually they do, and that is confirmed by structural engineers who know a little more on the subject than most of us.
Perhaps a read through some of the material at this link may explain more, though it is possible of course that all the experts quoted and evidence given is false.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/911-myths.

[rich1068]

Originally Posted by briers

it is quite rare that people can think outside the box

That may be true but unfortunately believing any old tosh posted on the internet is much more common.

Originally Posted by briers

I'm not a conspiracy theorist

I'm afraid you are. And that's my considered medical diagnosis. I'm not a doctor but I doubt you're a structural engineer. So lets not split hairs.

[briers]

I've read that before and quite frankly it is government sponsored rubbish. Never in history has a fire bought down a building like WTC 7, let alone one of the tallest skyscrapers in NYC (WTC 7).

I'm not a preacher and i'm not playing games which is why i won't force my point. I feel very strongly about what happened on 9/11. For it was that event that not only lost 10,000 lives on that day but many many thousands more, devastating 2 countries and people's communities and livelihood in the process, not just there but also at home with revenge attacks. My civiil liberties have been eroded and there is a highlighted awareness these days for me and my family as a direct result of what happened that day and the wars that followed.

If i had any doubts in what i believe i wouldn't say anything. What happened that day, in my opinion does not fit with the official explanation. Even the official explanation of the WTC collapse was withdrawn a few years later after much criticism, it has never been revised. All i believe is we haven't been told the truth and I want the wars to end. That we probably agree on, i hope. But i won't try and force my views or theories on others.

As for bin laden. He might be the ring leader but al qaeda is the result of his deluded view on how to solve the many things that the U.S. did against Muslim countries and land. Bin ladens idea was that all non believers were friends of satan and that they should be killed and the streets should flow with their blood. Clearly a fruit loop. His attacks we in retaliation for the sanctions the U.S. placed on iraq after the gulf war. Seizing control of all the oil / gas and goods trade in which he claimed thousands of muslim children died. Also the attacks Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir and Lebonan where thousands of Muslims died. He even had a bee in his bonnet from the war when the British handed Palestine to the Jews and gave them Israel. I dont agree with anything he says or does because death is not the answer and like i said, in his view now the americans should die. But an eye for an eye will leave a lot of people blind. This is the problem with war. Mass loss of life, if it happened here or in the U.S. retaliation takes place (as it did) and it just carries on. The retaliation is spread much wider than bin laden, all his death is going to do is motivate the remaining members to carry on and glorifying his death and parading pictures of his body will only accelerate the retaliation.

The best thing they can do is get the soldiers out of the there as quickly as possible without jeopardizing the security of the people as its already gone too far. Thankfully that is what is happening now.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by rich1068

That may be true but unfortunately believing any old tosh posted on the internet is much more common.

Originally Posted by briers
I'm not a conspiracy theorist

I'm afraid you are. And that's my considered medical diagnosis. I'm not a doctor but I doubt you're a structural engineer. So lets not split hairs.

I don't share briers's view on why those towers fell. Not saying he's definitely wrong, but I've never suspected anything except two terrorist-hijacked planes did it. I don't think Dubya Bush 'did' 9/11, he just exploited it.


But let's be careful about bandying about the term 'conspiracy theorist', that's a very heavily loaded phrase. Anybody who expresses any suspiscion or cynicysm about governments can be instantly pigeon-holed and neutralised as a 'conspiracy theorist', but that doesn't mean every conspiracy is or has always been just a theory.

The classic counter-example is the JFK assassination. Mainstream media outlets, including the sainted BBC, routinely use the 'pretend spooky' comedy voice to intone the phrase 'conspiracy theorists', but JFK was not, as the US govt claimed, killed by a 'lone nut' named Oswald; whatever you think about who killed him, or why, you must concede there *was* some sort of conspiracy. Not convinced? The US govt themselves, back in the 1970s, concluded there *had* been a conspiracy to whack Jack.

And some of the ways the US govt have mishandled the dissemination of information (not to mention disinformation) over the Bin Laden assassinaton, do call to mind the biggest 'conspiracy' of modern times, for which theories are only required with respect to who, not if.

Hell, they whacked him, with no legal basis. They're relying on the "we are at war with Al Quida" defence, which is patently absurd. I mean, I'm glad that c*nt Bin Laden is dead. Damn right. But I don't feel unequivocal about what Obama did. Already been pointed out by others, but the fact that they tried top Nazis at the end of WWII was advantageous i nnumerous ways, not least in backing upp assertions of superior morality.

[briers]

Originally Posted by rich1068

That may be true but unfortunately believing any old tosh posted on the internet is much more common.



I'm afraid you are. And that's my considered medical diagnosis. I'm not a doctor but I doubt you're a structural engineer. So lets not split hairs.

Your opinion

I'm not forcing my point by i will re-iterate those videos are no bedroom conspiracy "tosh". They are independent live news feeds clearly showing lies and contradictions to the official state of events.

To this day I am amazed how people can watch these collapses and not think they were demolished. How can they not comprehend that a top down collapse just isn't possible. Lets assume that the top mass did fall a few stories to build up some acceleration onto the floors below, that mass would be slowed down by the mass pushing upwards from the intact building below. But instead the collapse carried on accelerating. That is using mass (concrete/steel) etc. as the driving force. However it can clearly be seen on the videos, large clouds of material and dust ejected meters aside. Dense dust clouds they fell at the rate of collapse. So all this mass is not acting as a downwards driver it is actually displaced into the air. And the fact that again physics and science states aviation fuel just doesn't burn hot enough not even with an abundance of oxygen to melt steel. It baffles me, it really does. But I'm sure the theory is equally baffling to most.

Hence why we will always take sides.

And when people see WTC 7 falling 5 hours or so later. Why don't they still not get it. I'm not saying it was an government job. I have no proof i'm just saying in my opinion those buildings fell, logically in my head, as the result of a demolition or similar. Some type of explosion assist is my only logical explanation because in my opinion it is impossible for them to fall from a plane crash at the top and a resulting inefficient (black smoke) fire they way they did. There is too much to consider when drawing this type of conclusion and if you dont get it, it is unlikely you ever will.

Anyway...

[Teutonicdriver]

Government sponsored rubbish?

They are the facts as described by experts and those who actually assessed the damage and circumstances.
I dont believe everything, and I am certainly sceptical about much that the Americans say and do. I would also love to see an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.
However, to deny that those acts were committed by terrorists in the face of all the evidence is madness. I suppose everything will be okay now then, we can disband our anti terror units and intelligence systems as the actual terrorists were in the Whitehouse all the time.
Now then, how can we start a war? We could make false allegations against our enemy and go to war on the basis that they have weapons of mass destruction and intend to destroy the world, or, we could assassinate one of our own and say it was an enemy act or... we could kill thousands of our own. Yes lets do that it makes perfect sense.
Oh and if we are talking facts and not government or conspiracy rubbish, we would know that the death toll on 9/11 wasnt 10.000 but actually 2996 including 19 hijackers (or government sponsored murderers depending on your point of view)

[rich1068]

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

including 19 hijackers (or government sponsored murderers depending on your point of view)

Now you're talking nonsense Teutonicdriver. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was in fact a pilotless drone controlled by a C-130 flying over Washington. Apart from the photographs and eye witness accounts of American Airlines wreckage there is simply no evidence of a terrorist plot. Do keep up. And obviously there wasn't really a plane crash in Shanksville either because that flight was re-directed to Cleveland and the passengers were abducted. Or there was a plane but it was shot down and wreckage was found eight miles away to support this. But that was eight miles by road. Damn Google Maps. And the plane in Cleveland was magically turned from United Airlines into a Delta flight.

Shit, I'm getting my conspiracies mixed up. I hate it when that happens.

[Teutonicdriver]

You got me there! I'm obviously a little confused but that's only to be expected as Ive just seen Bin Laden,Elvis and Lord Lucan enjoying a pint in my local.

[Vaheed1]

Originally Posted by rich1068

That may be true but unfortunately believing any old tosh posted on the internet is much more common.



I'm afraid you are. And that's my considered medical diagnosis. I'm not a doctor but I doubt you're a structural engineer. So lets not split hairs.

There's no difference between believing the "complete tosh" from the internet and believing the 'Complete Tosh' from the Government. Both theories have something in common - they aren't proved 100%.

Sorry, but people like yourself are more deluded for believing the shit that came from the Bush administration than people who think there's allot more to the whole story.

Tell me then, why does there appear to be so much more evidence in favour of the conspiracy theories than the "official" reasons as to why 9/11 happened?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by briers

Buildings just don't do that.

Yes they do. It's basic physics.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by briers

Lets assume that the top mass did fall a few stories to build up some acceleration onto the floors below, that mass would be slowed down by the mass pushing upwards from the intact building below. But instead the collapse carried on accelerating.

This is still complete bollocks. Your statement is complete nonsense. From a structural perspective it makes no sense at all.

[briers]

Originally Posted by NFS

This is still complete bollocks. Your statement is complete nonsense. From a structural perspective it makes no sense at all.

So nice of you to chip in again

It is nothing to do with a structural perspective its newtons law of motion which according to you took a day off on 9/11. And you should realise yourself that a steel structure will redistribute the stresses if columns are removed. The undamaged steel will act as a truss network to bridge this.

I dont know what you think but many who refer to the structure weakened to the point of collapse cite the floor truss connectors which are a weaker part of the design. Even the head structural engineer said after the car bomb in the 90's that the building would withstand the impact of a plane crash and massive fire. Let's assume the jet fuel burn't hot enough to weaken these floor truss connectors, the floors would fail and fall onto the floors below, which was the official reason for collapse. The pancake theory. However, it was rightly retracted when it was proven that this defied newtons law of motion when measuring the time it took to collapse.

The acceleration of the collapse was uniform, you cannot dispute that, it was televised. The weight of the falling mass is LESS than when it was at rest. If the weight is less then the downward force is less too. Newtons 2nd law of objects in motion. And in accordance with newtons 3rd law, all actions must have and equal and opposite reaction. The upward force was also less. This fact cannot be broken or changed.

In that case, something else must have weakened the supports as the building collapsed. That weakening force cannot come from the falling mass because it would slow down as it hit the lower part of the building (newtons 2nd law again), not allowing it to uniformly accelerate, which it did, quite clearly from the videos, it has even been timed and plotted on the videos, you also cannot dispute this.

Simply put you cannot have a structure fall with almost pinpoint consistency in acceleration which all 3 buildings had without removing the resistive mass below (concrete, steel, building contents etc.). Mass falls onto mass, mass initially crushes due to mass + acceleration + gravity, but the resistance slows mass down, fact. That didn't happen, the acceleration as i already said was a constant, it was almost free fall speed, i think around 12 seconds to completely collapse, abiding by newtons laws of motion, there is simply no way the buildings could collapse in 12 seconds, from memory i think the calculation was something like 30-40 seconds, how many times do i have to explain this.

What i say is insignificant, as Ghandi said, "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it". Fortunately, there is now running into the thousands, Engineers and Architects that have signed a petition calling for a thorough investigation because they share the same views on the WTC, : http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

I cannot apply my knowledge to this event, realising the above and ignore it. It was the precursor to so much devastation and mass loss of life.

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by briers

The acceleration of the collapse was uniform, you cannot dispute that, it was televised. The weight of the falling mass is LESS than when it was at rest. If the weight is less then the downward force is less too. Newtons 2nd law of objects in motion. And in accordance with newtons 3rd law, all actions must have and equal and opposite reaction. The upward force was also less. This fact cannot be broken or changed.

In that case, something else must have weakened the supports as the building collapsed. That weakening force cannot come from the falling mass because it would slow down as it hit the lower part of the building (newtons 2nd law again), not allowing it to uniformly accelerate, which it did, quite clearly from the videos, it has even been timed and plotted on the videos, you also cannot dispute this.

Utter garbage with respect to physics, a falling object will exert less force on an object in a collision ? Meaningless. So people, if you are going to have an accident in your car make sure you are accelerating hard at the time as your car will exert less force on the object you hit .....

Besides the complete nonsense you write with regards to physics, you base your calculations on fuzzy YouTube videos, and compare them with what exactly ? Previously conducted demolitions and first hand experience ... Or just a feeling you have ? If the building was defying physics as it collapsed, what is your explanation to that ?

I will refer you to Simon's reply to your first try at physics : http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=122

Just because something is beyond your comprehension of physics doesn't mean it is impossible.

D.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by briers

It is nothing to do with a structural perspective its newtons law of motion which according to you took a day off on 9/11.

Which law took a day off? The towers collapsed under gravity.

Originally Posted by briers

And you should realise yourself that a steel structure will redistribute the stresses if columns are removed. The undamaged steel will act as a truss network to bridge this.

You are right, this will happen, up until a point, where if the damage is serious enough the structure will collapse.

Originally Posted by briers

I dont know what you think but many who refer to the structure weakened to the point of collapse cite the floor truss connectors which are a weaker part of the design. Even the head structural engineer said after the car bomb in the 90's that the building would withstand the impact of a plane crash and massive fire.

From what I have seen the floor trusses (and the small steel angles they were connected to) are indeed a weak point. The buildings had an unusual design with an extremely strong 'cage like' facade and a similarly strong central core. Clearly this is a strong structure, but if you load it sufficiently it will buckle centrally. The floor and hat trusses tied the 2 tubes together to limit this under ordinary conditions.

Unfortunately, I think it is very likely that the floor trusses would have been sliced through by the huge mass of the upper section of the building as it collapsed. I did some rough calculations the last time this came up and the loads applied would have been something like 100 times the design strength of the floors. They could not have withstood this and would have been cut through like a knife through butter.

Originally Posted by briers

Let's assume the jet fuel burn't hot enough to weaken these floor truss connectors, the floors would fail and fall onto the floors below, which was the official reason for collapse. The pancake theory. However, it was rightly retracted when it was proven that this defied newtons law of motion when measuring the time it took to collapse.

The pancake theory is wrong, but not because of the 'time to collapse' argument. See my comments above

Originally Posted by briers

The acceleration of the collapse was uniform, you cannot dispute that, it was televised. The weight of the falling mass is LESS than when it was at rest. If the weight is less then the downward force is less too. Newtons 2nd law of objects in motion.

Objects don't weigh less when they are falling. Newtons second law is F=ma, which tells you that the force exerted by a falling object (which you are calling weight) increases as it accelerates under gravity.

And in accordance with newtons 3rd law, all actions must have and equal and opposite reaction. The upward force was also less. This fact cannot be broken or changed.

These were huge structures, the steel frames were designed to distribute static and wind forces, including the self weight of the buildings, but only in certain conditions. The top and bottom sections of the buildings would not have behaved like cohesive objects (e.g. billiard balls). It would be more like dropping sheets of glass.

Originally Posted by briers

In that case, something else must have weakened the supports as the building collapsed. That weakening force cannot come from the falling mass because it would slow down as it hit the lower part of the building (newtons 2nd law again), not allowing it to uniformly accelerate, which it did, quite clearly from the videos, it has even been timed and plotted on the videos, you also cannot dispute this.

The uniform acceleration is visual evidence of Newtons 2nd law (F=ma). The argument you are making is crazy. What happens when you drop a glass on a glass table?

Originally Posted by briers

Simply put you cannot have a structure fall with almost pinpoint consistency in acceleration which all 3 buildings had without removing the resistive mass below (concrete, steel, building contents etc.). Mass falls onto mass, mass initially crushes due to mass + acceleration + gravity, but the resistance slows mass down, fact.

If the structures were solid lumps of concrete or steel, this argument would make some sense. Obviously they were not.

Originally Posted by briers

That didn't happen, the acceleration as i already said was a constant, it was almost free fall speed, i think around 12 seconds to completely collapse, abiding by newtons laws of motion, there is simply no way the buildings could collapse in 12 seconds, from memory i think the calculation was something like 30-40 seconds, how many times do i have to explain this.

Unfortunately, you are not explaining it. You are repeating things you have read, without understanding them.

Originally Posted by briers

What i say is insignificant, as Ghandi said, "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it". Fortunately, there is now running into the thousands, Engineers and Architects that have signed a petition calling for a thorough investigation because they share the same views on the WTC, : http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

I cannot apply my knowledge to this event, realising the above and ignore it. It was the precursor to so much devastation and mass loss of life.

As I mentioned in the previous thread on this subject I was suprised at the prevalence of these 'demolition' based conspiracy theories. I remember watching the impacts on the TV and at the time and my immediate thought was that they would be likely to collapse.

I read into this when the last thread came up, looking at the designs for the building and the collapse videos etc. There is nothing there that does not make sense structurally. Frankly, it would have been stranger if the buildings had not collapsed.

[F31-340i]

Briers,

Its all been said but this conspiracy stuff is crazy.

You can see a genuine attempt at cover up in the helo that was downed. In this case is it patently obvious that even something simple like a new variant of stealth helo cannot be easily kept from the media.00

This is clearly not a blackhawk ....(or even close to a known variant)



....google images for "blackhawk tailrotor"

....plus witness the US/Pakistan attempts to cover up the evidence...



They don't normally erect screens around crashed blackhawks. This shows how difficult it is to keep secrets - plus suggests the Pakistan govt was helping the US to conceal the ac.

Still have to say the US have been effective in keeping it secret until now - wonder how long they've been in service and doing ops in "whisper mode"

Secret helicopters for insertion work are not new of course....

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-...quiet_one.html

...but the scale of modifications on this new one do seem, well, expensive.