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.
So all of these brilliant men are 'nutcases'? I don't think so. They are people who are not afraid to follow the truth, no matter where it leads
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
I have an idea to test your theory.
Go into a plane and jump out of a plane at 1355 feet (the height of the wtc), when you finish, come back and tell me if your "shattered" or in one whole piece.
If you come back in one piece, I'll confess that you might have a valid argument. I'll even be willing to ignore the fact that you didnt have tons of other cement and steel land on top of you..
Let me know when you return. I'll be here waiting to shoot down the next argument that you copy/paste from another theory website. Are you using us to decide if their theories are real, or do you believe the garbage your pasting?
So all of these brilliant men are 'nutcases'? I don't think so. They are people who are not afraid to follow the truth, no matter where it leads
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
By the way, Charles Goyette caused the Popular Mechanics folks to cancel their remaining interviews, they were so beaten up. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe they were smart enough to realize the conversation wasn't going anywhere - much like this one. All of your points have been refuted, and you have not answered any of the questions asking for evidence of who, what, why, how, and you continue to make blind assertions in the face of facts and reason.
Hmmm to blow up the trade centers would require massive amounts of exposives and prework. So massive that it would be impossible to conceal even a fraction of the work required. And yet no witnesses? I have actually seen controled drops, I have seen buildings blown up using bombs. Big difference between how the 2 versions look. Neither looked like what happened on 911. I think it is as the experts claim. The steel frame work lost its temper from the extreme heat of the fires. As the upper floors collapsed it created a domino effect. WE had millions of tons come crashing down all at once. Hard to imagine concrete holding up against that.
The experts to whom I refer actually designed the trade centers. I would think that they would know more than some college professors whose greatest accomplishment in the feild may have been building a model to get a final passing grade.
Maybe they were smart enough to realize the conversation wasn't going anywhere - much like this one. All of your points have been refuted, and you have not answered any of the questions asking for evidence of who, what, why, how, and you continue to make blind assertions in the face of facts and reason.
I knew another whackjob like this.. He continued to act the same way.. ask a question answer it, ask a question in return.. they would ignore you, and then ask another one.
The whole time, never acknowledging that your reply was right, or answering one question you asked them.
Eventually they just disappeared, I'm assuming that the government found him and killed him so as he couldnt get the real truth out. Bush is very good at finding these people and then silencing them..
You are telling me that steel high rises in 3rd World countries can burn for days and still maintain the steel frame, while 2 buildings built by world class architects and engineers to withstands crashes and fire, will collapse with evaporated steel in a couple of hours, into a neat footprint, with no steel skeleton - and a 3rd totally implode from some falling debris? Who's being naive now? By the way, Charles Goyette caused the Popular Mechanics folks to cancel their remaining interviews, they were so beaten up. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, per the designer of the WTC, it was never designed to withstand crashes, it was designed to withstand wind.. hence the reason for the support being on the outside of the building vs the standard inside near the elevator shafts.
Actually, per the designer of the WTC, it was never designed to withstand crashes, it was designed to withstand wind.. hence the reason for the support being on the outside of the building vs the standard inside near the elevator shafts.
Yeah, but..........it could never have fallen unless it was from a controlled explosion. A waitress nearby said it looked like a bomb went off.
After Charles got done with them, the Pop Mechanics crew simply disappeared! They were stymied! For example, Charles asked them what happened to Building 7. They said that there were secret pictures that only they got to see, which showed huge damage to the building. Charles asked them why they, as civillians, were able to view documents that he was not. They had no answer. The 'pancake' theory, is ridiculous, and even if you subscribe to it, look:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". [SIZE=-1](That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast.) [/SIZE]But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.
Air can't do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?
Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.
Not even close! Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actually dissociated is a much better word. [SIZE=-1](Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!)[/SIZE] And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, [SIZE=+1]gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once[/SIZE].
[SIZE=+2]Conclusions[/SIZE]
In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down collapses reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The purported "gravitational collapse" of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis. The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.
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.
Popular Debunkers Were Debunked!
