I have alot of questions but I'm going to start off with something that struck me as sort of obviously wrong when watching. You guys claim the towers fell in free fall time, and that's somehow related to a controlled demolition. My question is, how can you possibly think that when you see debris rushing far ahead of the pancaking, by over 30 floors easily. You can't possibly be assuming the debris is falling faster than free fall, are you?

Also, how long should the collapse have taken. I'm not a structural engineer but I've never heard this addressed. Forget the plane crashes, the fires, whatever else. Say I simply break the skeleton along the perimeter and the inside supports, around the 70th floor, and the thing starts falling. What would it look like?

Thanks

I'm far from a engineer, but I know that what you're asking is very hard to answer. If you are talking about basically dropping the weight from the top floors onto the floors below, then one could probably come up with a rough calculation. But when you account for weakness in one corner or something of that nature, calc's become very different.

and we also don't have any real world experiences to compare to. That's why there still so much debate.

Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job (the plane v. Explosive) doesn't change the fact that the towers fell fast, and that can be considered real world data. In the end I think the Truthers are just trying to make themselves feel safer by thinking it wasn't the boogey man trying to get them that day.

near freefall. The issue really is that the buildings wouldn't have collapsed that fast without something moving the support out of the way.

Something like.....gravity?

How fast would they have fallen if there was nothing "moving the support away"?

No it wasn't. Free fall or even near free fall. Debris which would actually be experiencing free fall is 30 to 40 floors ahead of the pancaking collapse on many pictures. The only way a building free fall collapses is if all its floors are falling simultaneously. This wasn't happening with the WTC collapses, 1, 2, or 7. The pancaking was apparent.

As for your second claim, I actually thought this would just be something too complicated to put in the video, but judging by your and Nyxus's posts, you guys just don't know.

I find this a rather criticla flaw in the whole theory. You can claim all you want it was demolitions, but if you can't tell what IT SHOULD have looked like if it did fall unassisted, then I think your claims are outlandish and unfounded. It's like claiming the sky is blue because you're happy, and then citing instances of you being happy and the sky being blue, but you never compare the sky color when your mood is sad. Had you done this you would have seen that your mood makes no difference.

And I am sad, seriously, and I'm disappointed. I work for an engineering consulting firm, and after reading through some other posts here I feel lucky I didn't mention any of this nonsense with my co-workers. There's just so much laughably wrong physics here, it's astounding. Good-bye.

You should stick around. There's always a place for some good engineering talk to counter the "common sense" of the truth movement. :)

I'm trying to find the logic in this statement. You seem to be assuming that the "theory" claims the buildings would have massively failed no matter if they were "assisted" in the failure or not.

I personally do not think any of the buildings (WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7) would have fallen unless they had significant "assistance."

Kudos to you for working for an engineering firm. Are you a secretary? The donut boy?

There had to be forces exerted on the building that made them fall. The discussion, rightfully so, should focus on what those forces could have been. The official conspiracy theory, so far (all results not in yet, mind you, thus we still wait for NIST to produce a report on WTC7) offers an unproved hypothesis that damage (from plane impact or pieces of crumbling buildings impact) together with ("raging" or "uncontrolled") fires was sufficient to provide the force to bring 110 stories times 2 plus 47 stories times 1 down to the ground in near free-fall speed.

Can you support the NIST theory? NIST's own report sure can't. Let's see your "physics" please.

Ours is on display, at numerous sites.

Could you tell me....if an airplane is flying at 20,000 feet and it loses its engine(s), what force is exerted on it to make it fall?

What in NIST's report doesn't support their conclusions?

>>down to the ground in near free-fall speed.

Thanks for ignoring my other point, that the towers didn't fall at freefall speed or even near it. Kudos for being blind to counterevidence.

Good job belittling me too, expected from little kids. And you wonder why you're seen as clueless nutjobs? What qualifications do you have to talk on the isuse kiddo or do you just assume that any counter government nutter babbling on must be speaking the truth?

And yes, your physics is on display. Your members have trouble understanding how acceleration isn't velocity. Your physic is very clear.

>>Can you support the NIST theory?

Yes, infact it was only after the NIST report was out that people even noticed anomalies that already came with explanations. There's photos of the truss buckling that clearly show the frame being pulled in.

But anyway, let me ask you something. You guys have all these crazy claims about the building being wired and demolished. But I ask you, if the truss had failed as claimed, what would the result have looked like? Why were more explosives needed? That burden of proof is on you because it's pretty clear that they wouldn't have needed any more explosives yet this is what you guys claim your entire demolition theory around. That there's free fall collapse (which there isn't). The section failing and falling on the floor below it would have led to the collapse AS OBSERVED. You wouldn't need any more explosives. You believe otherwise, and you're going to have to prove this.

You keep ignoring my posts and nitpicking tiny pieces out of context and I'll have my proof you're just some nutter scared to debate.

There's more to this forum than just the 'skeptics' area, you know? :)

It wouldn't have moved at all.

A diffused upper mass, free to vector in any direction cannot demolish a still intact and undamaged structure that had held up the towers for 25 years.

But you knew that.

What do you base this claim on? Your own "common sense"? or a structural engineering background?

I'm curious what you think would happen if the structural supports of one floor of the tower lost 90% of their strength.

"Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
- Albert Einstein

Is that yet more nebulous questions gungadin?

Pretty good on the nebulous questions, not good on the answers though are you?

I think if the tower lost 90% of its strength it would have 10% left, how's that for common sense?

What makes you so sure? Or do schills not have opinions just questions.

What's a schill, chum? Is that some kind of insole?

A paid government agent that frequents these forums.

The good news is that they are all herded into a pen here, where we can have recreational pleasure with them.

Here's the situation you're proposing:

Government: We'd like to make you an offer. We'll give you $x if you post on this website, which is dedicated to exposing a government conspiracy, arguing with the theorists.

You must believe that someone would actually take the money, otherwise you wouldn't call so many people 'schills' (the word you're looking for is 'shills'.) You actually believe that people would take money to help cover up a government conspiracy; not by getting an image of a professional engineer, not by being armed with fake evidence created by the government, but by watching YouTube videos, reading articles online, and posting on an internet forum.

If that's not a crazy theory, I don't know what is.

Are you proposing that the government does not pay journalists and bloggers directly and covertly via shadowy public relations companies to promote their propaganda?

that's the craziest case of denial i've ever heard.

Hmm...that's a pretty interesting claim...what do you have to back it up? (No, an article on prisonplanet.com doesn't count)

Assuming that's true, (keeping in mind that if the government did that with any consistency, there would probably be more than a marginal approval rating for them) asking people to tilt their stories toward the government's side is one thing; asking people to help cover up a conspiracy is quite another.

YOU believe in the OCT.
Its not out of the bounds of reason to think that someone like the Rendon Group or the Lincoln group would be contracted to employ people like you to be active in internet forums to counter "bad publicity", perhaps operating together in small groups to reinforce their "groupthink". you'd only be paid to do what you already believe in and do what you already do now. There are even companies who market service to recruit bloggers to do such a thing. Your assumption that someone approaches the Rendon group and says "we pulled off 911 and they're on to us, we need you to setup a counter operation" is not the way its done.
there are plenty of examples i could give you, so there is no "assuming its true".
look at PNAC document and see what they say about control of cyberspace, google Armstrong Williams for example, Judith Miller and her fake WMD in the NY post. The Popular Mechanics staff were fired and replaced with government shills to do their hit piece. Henry Kissenger and Richard Perle sat on the board of Hollinger which owns all the papers which put out pro-war propaganda pieces. The editor of that danish newspaper which printed the Mohamad cartoon is friends with Daniel "kill all the arabs" Pipes. Its called propaganda.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...hitehouse_x.htm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle621189.ece

CENTCOM are even at it:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15287

And your belief is that the government is doing the same thing with the official 9/11 story?

The first link was the Bush administration paying Armstrong Williams to advertise for NCLB. And what did he think of it? "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in." Nowhere in there did it say the money influenced the views he expressed on the topic, only that it was for him to mention it more often.

The second link didn't work for me.

The third link had nothing to do with money at all. It was a reachout program designed to give bloggers the full story when they were only getting one side of it. I don't see why that's significant.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=537932

So...

a quater million buys a lot of belief.
did you expect him to say "damn, you caught me, i'm such a fraud"

and what does this have to do with 9/11?