Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Law of conservation of energy says some work must have been done to the structure before it's freefall happened (gravitational potentional energy to kinetic energy). Considering there was more than an hour gap before the impact and the building collapse, there was external work (controlled demolition), or a complete breakdown of the building's insulation and fire suppression system (thermodynamic conundrum). For starters, jet fuel doesn't melt steel. It can weaken its integrity, but it doesn't melt it. No skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire "melting" the steel.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 07-29-2014 at 11:48 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
The 9/11 attacks were Saudi funded and nearly all of the hijhackers were from Saudi Arabia-it makes no sense that who funded and committed the attacks was of no concern to our Government. We go after the poor and helpless instead of the moneyed interest-as per usual in our society. It is also very unsettling that the Bush family are like lapdogs to the Saudis.
So while I don't think you could say the Bush administration was directly responsible for 9/11, I do think that we had enough knowledge to stop it (as per dozens of NSA and CIA whistleblowers) but our Government chose to take advantage of a catastrophe to push through laws that would typically be rejected (and were) under normal circumstances.
Naomi Klein wrote a book called The Shock Doctrine about how Governments around the World take advantage of unsuspecting citizens directly following catastrophes and terror in order to wage wars and push through laws.
Some of the more eloquent truthers, I will listen to. I'm no expert on buildings' physics. But I don't believe in some conspiracy.[MOD CUT/off topic] They had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda.
Skyscrapers do not collapse from airplane impacts.
Correct, as evidenced by the fact that both towers kept standing after the impact. However, setting off a 20,000 gallon Molotov cocktail to add to the impact damage - that's a different story.
Correct, as evidenced by the fact that both towers kept standing after the impact. However, setting off a 20,000 gallon Molotov cocktail to add to the impact damage - that's a different story.
Oh, and I'm not a rightwinger. Far from it.
So your hypothesis is that the 20,000 gallon explosion that happened over an hour before the building collapse did the work necessary to comply with the law of conservation of energy?
Correct, as evidenced by the fact that both towers kept standing after the impact. However, setting off a 20,000 gallon Molotov cocktail to add to the impact damage - that's a different story.
Oh, and I'm not a rightwinger. Far from it.
1) That sounds a bit absurd. Why would an explosion well above the 80th floor cause the whole building to come down?
2) No airplane and no jet fuel struck Building 7. Why did it collapse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
