They guy starts out saying that he is an amateur. Where does scientific findings step in?

I have been a working mechanical engineer for most of my career. Engineering is 80% mathematics and 20% blind luck. On almost every major structure ever built there is significant scale testing that goes on. Yet,ships sink,airplanes fall out of the sky,storage tanks explode and buildings do collapse.

Heated steel doesn't need to melt to lose it's tensile strength. There are many opinions on what actually brought down the twin towers. But if you investigate the actual construction methods of the floor system it becomes less of a mystery. You can put a dozen MIT PHD's in engineering together in a room and you will get a dozen different opinions. They will all see the same data yet will still have their own ideas. It's inconclusive and will always be that way.

yes launch the alert rotweillers...they cant be bought.

oh wait..all bomb sniffing dogs were ordered out of the WTC buildings months before hand....most likely because dogs cant be bought or silenced

Can someone drop a plane on the Montreal Stadium... What a waist of space and money LOLOLOLOL

if your attention span can make it past the first five seconds..he doesnt rely on his beliefs..he goes straight to MIT professors and other people who should be in the know.

As an engineer, what would you say the odds are of 2 very tall buildings freefalling in pancake fashion without the assistance of demolitions with minimal damage to buidlings accross the street? What are the odds of yet a 3rd building following the same pattern?

Sorry that video is shit... this one is much more convincing. Only about 18 minutes give it a watch.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...d=20205 11837

yes...difference of opinions exist..but i have to ask..do those opinions exist because peopel dont want to believe in something ugly lurking behind the shadows? or do they actually believe the explanations they come up with.

pancake theory? that is about all they can offer...but that would not expalin the missing mdddle columns nor the fact that pancaking should have been a much slower fall then free fall.

each floor adds resistance..it would not speed it up.

That may be true, but the truss construction of the WTC buildings made them very vulnerable to fire. The fire exploited their weak point and made them fail. If you watched the Nova video, you would understand.

Now... what do you think inertia does? Where are the middle columns? Id assume the millions of tons from all the floors from where the airplanes struck on up may have had an effect on them.. ya think?

From what i remember, Bush admitted that there were bombs in the WTC.

Official Transcript: President Bush admits bombs were in World Trade Towers. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. "

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...dmitsbombs.mp3 :upsidedow

As each floor collapses, it means ever increasing weight on the remaining ones.

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.

It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.

I'm pretty sure those buildings were designed to collapse like that to avoid collateral damage.

I would need to study the blueprints of the locations of compressed airlines,hvac components even the compressed waterlines for the sprinkler system would have a large impact. Superheated water pipes would create a tremendous steam pressure as well. Along with that,there were a lot of additional combustibles that would continue to fuel the fire.

But based on the locations of the initial impacts to each building and the timing that they each fell I sure wouldn't bet the farm that additional explosives were required to set the collapse in motion. I have seen drawings of the clips and purlins that were used in the floor construction and it seemed fairly clear to how those clips failed after a short period of exposure to the heat generated.

Like I mentioned, engineering is not black and white. There are far more experienced structural people that will argue their points without really having solid evidence to support it.

Each floor that collapses adds more weight to the other floors that have also collapsed, speeding up the fall on the floor below.

contrary to your belief..weight has no effect on gravity.
so nothing would speed up at all.

you drop a 1 million ton bowling ball and a 1 pound bowling ball off the empire state building and they hit the ground at the same time.


i like you man..but did you not take high school physics even ;)


anyway...yes...as the floors fell there should be a decrease in the time interval between which each floor fell to the other.

however...this would also be dampened by the floors meeting resistance..sort of like

i would have believed the pancake theory if it had fell in like 15 seconds

or 12 or something.
but not at the speed of gravity as if there was no resistance at all.

This is rich. Lots of smoke means a cold fire.... seriously. They are talking about a fire with wood. Smoke might just be affected by all the different things in there burning. Plastics etc. Silly silly movie. I love how they show a fox news clip right at the beginning, then he goes on to say "Im a conservative republican" rofl. RICH!:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I don't see either side as being 100% conclusive, based on the conflicting evidence and expert opinions I've seen... but I do have a deep distrust for government, for very good reasons. Why can't we all just agree that there are questions left to be answered, and a real investigation needs to take place?

thanks for the info...:)

This is bad physics. Drop a lemon and a bowling ball and they're going to fall at the same rate. The force of gravity is constant.

I like you too, but what are you basing your claim that the building fell at the speed of gravity on?

Yes I've taken physics, calculus and a whole lot of other subjects and passed with flying colors.

hmmmmmmm
:warning :warning

id be happy with that.
but all the material was shipped away forever with no investigation being done on it. :(

I would listen to you people more if you did not start off with such asinine comments. I mean how many planes do you think it needs to start causing a building 'trouble'?

On a more general note the trouble you (and others like you) have with your argument is that for it to work you need to convince people that a commercial airliner crashing into a buildings is initself not going to cause serious damage...

...which, unlike the airlines in question, is never going to fly

No one will ever be able to convince me that the WTC was bombed. I saw - on live TV - a large jet take out multiple floors of the WTC. The combination of the crash itself, the burning jet fuel, and the resulting fire was too much for the buildings to handle.

You can't compare a building on fire to what happened to the WTC. The building on fire didn't have multiple floors destroyed the moment the fire started, nor did it have millions of gallons of jet fuel concentrated in one area.

You can talk to experts all day long and every one of them will have a different idea of what happened. However, you can build thirty WTC towers, crash a jet airline into each one of them, and still get a different result each time.

If anyone thinks our government was able to pull this off without it leaking out yet is just plain stupid.

well..i understand your concerns.

let me say this to address it.

the steel outerframe of the building was connected in such a fashion that it could actually be compared with a mosquito netting..it was very strong.
and wasnt reliant on only a linear form of strength..it was fastened in multiple vectors..tied in everywhere...so really..you could take out a big chunck right from the middle of it..and the material above and below it would not be affected at all....the material above and below and to the side had many other places to draw strength from.

sort if like if you cut our a big piece of netting from your mosquito net

it wouldnt affect the whole.

Only in a vacuum. We do not live in a vacuum.

Oh ditto to the lemon and bowling ball.

FYI in an atmosphere they would only start to fall at the same rate once both objects had reached their respective terminal velocities

millions of gallons? of jet fuel?

you were in the military if im not mistaken....have you ever blown something up? how much kerosene do you think made it into the inside of that building?
im guessing here..this is my guess..not any scientific authority.

but im guessing at least 60% of the fuel was consumed upon impact...that would account for the explosion that was seen by everyone on the outside of the building...so that does leve quite a bit of fuel inside.

but millions of gallons?

This isn't bad physics and has nothing to do with gravity, you just misunderstood him.

As the dynamic load of the falling floors increased, the resistance offered by the remaining floors decreased. It's pretty simple.

agreeing with you here.

but i need to point out..that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity which implies there was zero resistance.

there was nothing to offer any resistance..it was all blown up:)

What about Bush actually saying there were bombs?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...dmitsbombs.mp3
and transcript from White House website?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

Too many people don't even wanna think outside what they've been fed..

I totally heart you.

this applies if we are looking at things with high resistance

basically everything that is semi round will fall at almost the same speeds


we arent comparing bowling balls and feathers

First thing is Jets do not Use kerosene, the Use either Jet A or Jet B

The amount of plastic and other shit inside the building would give off so much smoke, the kerosene argument is gone.

The speed of gravity has nothing to do iwth the fall, and the argument abot a lemon and a bowling ball is just stupid in this situation.

The building would fall with a constant increase in speed because terminal velocity would never be achieved before all the shit was on the ground.

Now go out and get the tin foils hats, there is a killer asteroid (or is it hemmorhiod) on the way

What about building 7 that fell even though it wasn't hit by a plane? It only had 2 or 3 small fires. It collapsed pankake style, just like the two towers.

Or the fact the both the towers were turned in dust and steel beems were launched into building a couple blocks away. If the building did pancake like they say this couldn't have happened.

Fast forward to minute 44 of the video. I find that the most interesting of the video. Also from minute 55-65 about building#7 and the sensitive information that building was holding...

..the official report doesnt even support the pancake theory, so don't confuse the issue. The buildings fell because weakened floor trusses caused complete structural failure of the outer steel structure.. gravity took care the rest.

yep..building 7 should be the shining beacon in the night..but it is ignored

major investigatioons into very high pwoered people going on in there.

all turned to dust.

funny how everyone WANTS to believe what they believe at any cost... then point out retarded and weak points as "FACT" and redicule people for the exact same behavior they exhibit.

the above statement in bold is a fallacy. Simply not true. The buildings did not fall at the speed of gravity. This is a lie and a fallacy. There is absolutely no accurate measurement of this quantity. You cannot define either the exact moment when the buildings began to fall nor when they stopped falling with ANY degree of accuracy.

That fact that you perpetuate this lie is laughable.

my ofiffical report doesnt support the pancake theory either.

thousands of floor trusses dont give out all at the same time.
especially as there was most likely very little jet fuel inside tbe building and concentrated at those areas to do anything to the trusses which were both fastened by bolts and welded into place.


this whole story doesnt add up...anyone claiming otherwise has got their head stuck in the sand.

why is it that everyone else has their head stuck in the sand for not accepting YOUR version... while you are just reasonable, rational and intelligent for not accepting THEIR version?

here is a clue for you dipshit. the argument exists because their are arguments. YOU chose to summarily dismiss 1/2 of the story to reinforce your own paranoic views... if you were interested in "facts" and "truth" you would be carefully weighing all arguments as carefully as you claim to be weighing your own.

are you for real?

the buildings fell at the speed of gravity..that is now a given amongst everyone

there is no debating this....you can find numerous examples where this is proven....all it takes is a stopwatch and a video of the event.

how about the massive explosions heard rippling through the buildings as a start...then the visual cue as it began falling.
then couple that with the video showing it collapsed into itself 9 -10 seconds later....a few simple calcualtions later...you are not suprised to find out they fell at g

im starting to doubt you actually graduated with the degree you claim

let me throw some names at you and then try to argue back without slinging shit your way..lol


anyway..genius...i would gladly accept any alternative story if it added up.
I have indeed weighed both sides of every argument. What is your official belief?

two planes hit two separate buildings and took down 3 separate buildings?

it must be nice to live in your world

lets try Reason and Logic 101: proving that building 7 was brought down intentionally, does not prove that 1 and 2 were. does not prove a link between the 3 and doesn't prove there was a conspiracy by the US government to fly planes into building 1 and 2 and does not prove why 1 and 2 collapsed.

you are right...building 7 in itself doesnt prove anything.

but it should raise some serious questions.
especially coupled with the fact that all rubble was removed and shipped away to be melted down and never seen again.

a simple investigation into the molten steel at the base of the tower would suffice

why is it hard to accept that it was intentionally demo'ed because it housed a lot of secret shit (CIA, IRS etc) that the federal government did not want rescue and construction workers sifting through? sounds simple to me. sounds like something that could be done with good reason and something that could be expected to be lied about. why wouldn't they lie about it? i would.

that still has nothing to do with the twin towers... you, like all others have to keep bringing building 7 into the argument in a weak attempt to add credibility to the notion that the federal government also destroyed the twin towers, when the simple fact is that they and their demise are totally and completely,...100% not related to building 7.

qualify everyone as "everyone... who believes in 9/11 conspiracy". Saying something over and over and over doesnt make it true.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh 'proven'? For someone who has a degree in a science you seem to have very little respect for the scientific method. You are wrong - there is no video that can identify the exact moments when the buildings began to fall and when they stopped falling. The giant dust cloud created by the collapses completely obscures the view for anything below a couple hundred feet. That is a fact. This is the kind of shitty non-science that all your cracked out theories are based on - and EXATLY why the theories have no validity.

You wrongly assume that the sound of an 'explosion' impllies a bomb. Here's an example. 2 days ago part of a crane fell down at a condo construction site at Wellesley/Jarvis. Nearly all of the surrounding residents reported hearing 'an explosion' or 'something that sounded like a plane crash'. Do you think there was a bomb there too, genius?

Again, your 'calculations' don't fall within any scientifically acceptable confidence interval. To claim the buildings 'fell at the speed of gravity' would require very precise measurments. Measurements with such precision are impossible.

Dude, you are the sheep and the one with your head in the sand. Let it go - find something better to do with your time.