I second this !
I'm eating this up and learning along the way.
Rock on ! huuaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus i'm at work by myself til thursday and have nothing else to do but answer phones.

You are exactly right.

In fact, it's happened already within THIS same thread.

Sorry you think that way.
As for me , i am starting to think that maybe it's not relevent anymore as to How the twin towers fell.

What's more relevent to me now is WTC7 and if it was imploded.

The imact floors were 78 to 84. The firefighter was on 78, apparently he didn't go any higher. There were more fires on the higher floors. As Sunshine points out, if you look at closeup footage prior to the collapse, the fires are still apparently quite extensive. If you look at these photos you can still see a lot of smoke pouring out of the building just prior to the collapse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...stc_frames.html

Take Two:

There is another theory. After the hijackings of the early 70s (pioneered, incidently, by Yassir Arafat), Boeing engineers decided to design in a "back door" on future planes into their FMS (flight management system) so that, during a hijacking, remote control of the aircraft could be accomplished from the ground.

I don't know if:

a) this is true, although it is certainly possible. Look at the Predator.

B) that it was done. There is no discussion about it I am aware of.

But, again, suppose that the hijackers were TOLD that after they killed the crew and visually guided the planes to NY and DC, they would be landed by remote control? What if they were told that this whole stunt was to embarrass the Americans (Arab cultures are big on Pride and Shame). It is entirely possible that the hijackers who hit the buildings were just captives going along for the "ride".

Not relevant? That's it?

If you don't accept the easier story on the main towers, it's going to be a lot harder to talk about WTC 7.

Landings are one of the hardest parts.

Oops. I had meant to say take offs and landings were the "hardest" skills to flying, not the "easiest". Sorry, my typo. But you agree, so good.

That is the easy part.

OK, you agree with me that someone can easily course correct a jet from a far distance on their way toward a tall building. But that contradicts claims terrorist can't hit those towers.

Regarding the terrorists being fooled into thinking a beacon would take them elsewhere.... OK, I didn't understand that part of your vision of what might have happened. So, yes. That could be possible. However, reports on a NG channel show have said the terrorist pilots knew they would die and that one of them even considered backing out of the plan, though apparently he didn't. The truth? I don't know.

And I disagree with you on whether the last minute swerve is more indicative of a manual correction by a live pilot, or an auto correction by an autopilot/beacon. I think it is common sense that a live pilot would more likely have required a manual correction of that magnitude than an autopilot, and that an autopilot would not have needed noticeable course corrections in the final 100 feet or so such that the wings had to tilt as drastically as they did.

The Lone Gunman fox tv movie was exactly like this.

All i'm saying is, i'm starting to believe you.
Maybe they did come down due to catastrophic failure. Maybe they had help?

But if WTC7 was indeed imploded/demolished, then you, as an engineer should know that a 47 story building could not possibly be rigged for demolition on the fly.
You would have to know exactly where to place the charges to make it fall, correct?
This would more than likely take several days wouldn't it ?

I personally think the fall of WTC7 is the most suspicious aspect of this controversey. Even I agree it looks like a pulldown, whereas IMHO the towers looked to fall in a completely expectant way as a result of jet strikes.

If people could fully explain the WTC7 collapse, I think this whole 911 controversy would be better understood (though even if it were proven it fell as a result of natural causes due to falling debris from the towers, many people would still believe otherwise).

Regarding Silverstein, I am not aware of him "admitting" he had WTC7 pulled down. However, I am aware of some websites that claim he aid he "wanted" to pull it down. That's a big difference. I think it is reasonable for a building owner to ponder at the site on the day of the attack whether a building is salvageable or not and might need to be pulled down after watching two nearby towers fall due to jet strikes and seeing debris fal onto his own building.

So, if you have links that prove he admitted he pulled down WTC7, I would be interested to see them. Because if he did pull it down, I have many questions (some of which others here have asked)? For example, how did he get the explosives so soon and find anyone on that day of days to find time to wire them up?

please don't defer. Rather, stay and help.

If they won't read my posts, maybe they'll read yours.

Finally, a little common ground. Here's your link
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

One other thing, insurance payments from WTC 7's collapse profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million.

I'm looking in and contributing when I think that I have something to offer. But you have obviously invested a lot more time on this issue than I have.

OK, thanks.

So according to that, the firemen reccomended a pulldown in order to minimize risking more lives. And Silverstein agreed.

It seems reasonable the firemen, unlike Silverstein, would have access to experts and explosives to help them do this.

So if that webpage is true, where's the problem in that?

I'm reading your post's sunshine.
And I see sense in a lot of what you are saying.
Give me time , i'm trying to focus on the bigger picture that's all.
I think a lot of what keeps everyone arguing is what's clouding the real picture.
Which I have not quite figured out yet. Thanks to those &#*!*#^*? demolition companies who won't return e-mails.

The timing!
How long would it take to place the charges to correctly and neatly drop the building?
Hours? Day's , weeks?

Sorry I PO'd you off.

I admire you for actually trying to contact those companies.

huggs

Thanks,
I really did too.
More than once :cold:

Why won't they answer?

No clue, but as usual, I have a perspective.....

Scenario 1: A controlled demolition in a busy area and nearby other buildings that MUST NOT be touched by any falling debris due to subsequent lawsuits by other property owners..... It would take days or weeks of planning and preparation.

Scenario 2: A controlled demolition at the site of a national disaster where an obviously damaged building (WTC7) sits in, within, or very near ground zero wherein 100s millions of dollars of damage has already occurred and where rescue operations need to proceed immediately but can't because of fears that WTC7 might collapse onto the rescuers working nearby..... I would expect that they would atempt to get the job done in just a few hours, and by virtue of havnig access to experienced demolishion experts, they'd probably do a pretty darn good brute-force military-style job despite the short timeframe.

BTW.....

I am happy with myself for recognizing that WTC7 may have been pulled down, and I am happy you showed me a link wherin the firemen themsleves were the ones who recommended it be pulled down. This has helped me in just the last few minutes to be less suspicious of the WTC7 pulldown (but I'll keep watching out for other details)

You'll probably have to show up and talk to someone in person. They have no idea who you are and what they'll do with any comments they provide you otherwise.

From that same page as the video.

Consider the facts:

* The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
* Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
* Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
* WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
* Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire there can be only one conclusion as to what happened to WTC 7: it was demolished.
The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time the rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11.

Doesn't this strike you as an odd and dangerous thing to do? If there were no terrorist attacks on 9/11 then a disgruntled employee could have brought down WTC 7 simply by thumping a red button - it makes no sense whatsoever.




There had to be a very good reason for this building to be rigged for demolition whilst it was still occupied. Did Silverstein, the new WTC owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks?

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people:

"You can stick your lousy job up your ass!"


WHo in the hell put that on my post????????

That didn't come from the page I copy and pasted it from.


Woops ! My bad.
It was under the picture
Jeeze man ! I was freaking out for a minute there.

I am not a demolition expert, but yes I beleive it would take a while to rig a big building. But there is the rub. The building was on fire after it got it hit by debris from the big towers during the initial plane impact. Then they evacuated the building. Footage shows it continuing to burn.

A lot people think what Silverstein said is very suspicious. But none of those people know any fire captains. You think its dangerous to fly a plane into a building? Try telling a fire captain that a building he has been watching burn for 7 hours is rigged to explode. I'd rather be on the hijacked plane than anywhere near that fire captain. Therefore, I think Silverstein misspoke. Otherwise the fire captain would have killed him.

By the way, pulling a building without a permit is illegal. So that's another thing. According to the conspiracy theory Silverstein admitted to felony, first in front of a government official, second on national TV. That's a little hard to believe for a savvy building owner.

This is not as black and white as arguing the laws of physics, but I think you can see what I am getting at her.

Insurance Fraud ?

Sunshine,
I have seen with my own two eyes a video of Silverstein saying himself that they decided to "pull" WTC7. I'll have to see if I can find a copy of the video online here in a little while. It's not a quotation. It's Silverstein himself saying those exact words.

If what Silverstein said was in response to a fireman's suggestion to pull down the bldg7 for safety reasons, then it is not suspicious at all.

If a fireman suggested pulling down the bldg due to emergency needs at a disaster site, I doubt a permit is needed, and instead, I would think the fireman had authority to do it.

If a fireman wanted a bldg pulled in a short time, perhaps so they could commence rescue operations at ground zero without fear of WTC7 falling down around them, then I suspect they could get the job done within hours. But I am not a demolition expert, so can't say for sure.

Phoenix,
I have seen that video of him saying they decided to "pull it" several times. With my own two eyes. Sometimes you have to wade through a lot of BS in the video tape before you get to that part but he says it.


http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/ Here's him saying it in audio. I'll see if I can find the video of him where he is actually saying this on video.

Here's the quote

Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. 1

As a matter of building engineer, you can't conclude that just because another building survived a fire, that WTC 7 would have.

I'll give you an unrelated example. In 1940 the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed. It was literally blown down by the wind. humans have building bridges for 5,000 years. In all that time, not a single bridge of made of stone, steel, brick or concrete had ever been blown down by the wind. Conspiracy? Lies? Or just bad bridge design? It's bad design, but according to your argument, that's impossible. Not saying that WTC 7 was designed badly. But it was under different circumstances than the other buildings. Specifically, it had been hit by large chunks of burning debris from a much taller building, thereby compromising it's structure, and it had fires in it. To make the example you site of the building burning for 18 hours analogous, you'd first have to damage part of the structure, then set it on fire, not just one or the other.

If fire officials thought the building would collapse, it was because two other buildings had already collapsed that day. So it was not a surprise they were nervous about it that day. If fire officials decided to "pull" the building, they would not have done it immediately, but done it days later.

Essentially that would mean that fire official ordered someone to enter a burning building with explosives. You don't think that sounds strange?

Also, if there really were overriding safety reasons to do something that dangerous, there would be no reason to cover it up.

Naaaah PP we're getting off the topic. "Galloping Gertie" went down because of aerodynamic oscillations which were NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED by the bridge engineers. Mixing apples and oranges here.

re: WTC 7, because it contained very sensitive NYSE materials, as well as FBI and CIA documents, it may have been pre-rigged in order to pull it down in the event of some catastrophe (like the 9/11 fire) putting that material at risk of disappearing. So, there may have been "good cause" (which trumps a demo permit) to "pull it."

Just my s p e c u l a t i o n.

I have seen the film clip. Again,

1)In the unlikely cas that the fire official approved it as an emergency measure, there would be no reason to cover it up.
2) If the fire official did not approve it, it's a serious felony and very dangerous thing to do, and the fire official would have had Silverstein arrested.

You are right. My point is just to get past the naive argument that "It never happened in XXXX years, therefore it can't happen."

I am not a scientist or engineer of any kind, nor a pilot. I can't even fly a Cessna on a desktop PC game. I did once sit in the co-pilot's seat of a flight from Bedford, MA to Lansing, Michigan and back with an emergency physician as pilot; he did an incredibly thorough pre-flight twice, and then had me do it once. He showed me how to operate the plane and its radio, and briefed me on the process for the entire flight. On the way back, after stopping for fuel in Rochester and taking off again, he suddenly handed me the controls. Yikes! I had a difficult time keeping the wings level. (He was instrument rated.)

So I don't have any particular skill, insight, wisdom or intelligence to bring to this discussion. But I will say this....

None of it passes my right-brained "crap detector" test. It doesn't add up. There are many things radically wrong with the entire picture, and many parts of it. Everyone is involved in detailed left-brain analysis, but few are using their right brains to look at the gestalt of the thing.

Perhaps this is one way to summarize this:

Over 3,000 murders were committed that day. Yet no criminal proceedings have been advanced in any way. Some civil cases exist, and proceed slowly. No detailed and specific forensic investigation has occurred (this is what many serious 9/11 investigators are asking for). Crime scene procedures and protocols, as well as those pertaining to civil aviation crash investigations, were not followed that day. Any of the investigative agencies that might have been involved have not been forthcoming. Black boxes and their readouts are unevailable. Videos from Pentagon scene cameras were seized, and their images have never been released. FAA audio recordings were destroyed. Virtually every serious attempt to look at or investigate the day's events has been squashed, stalled, or otherwise compromised. Any attempt by interested people to examine the issues meets with derision, disdain, counter-argument, disinformation, etc. No one has ever been held accountable in any way for the issues, questions or failures. People in charge of the military defense of the nation on the day we suffered our worst continental "attack" in history have been promoted. Numerous opportunities for further investigation have never been pursued (the most egregious example is the one that deals with the "prior knowledge" stock manipulations). No one has or can get a straight answer from the key people around the issue of WTC being "pulled". Numerous people refuse to talk. Serious questions by serious people in serious bodies of deliberation are side-stepped, with no follow-through (ex: Rep. McKinney's inquiries about the "war games"). Key people have been purposefully silenced or "gagged". The President, the Vice President, and numerous others will not allow themselves to be held accountable in any way for any of this. (If the VP has to bury and manage the story about his quail hunt, then.... )

The simple statement about this day's events (and many other elements of governance in this nation) is that the Administration will not answer to the American people. The other statement is that there clearly has been a massive effort at cover-up. If there is a need to deny, refuse inquiry, obfuscate and cover up, then...

Then, I guess that means that Oswald did it.

Essentially that would mean that fire official ordered someone to enter a burning building with explosives. You don't think that sounds strange?

Probably. But it would depend on the circumstances. For example, if they knew the fire/damage was contained to the upper X floors and they felt confident that they could plant the explosives on the first floor with less risk than if they conducted rescue operations outside the bldg while it remained standing but unstable in the longerterm (especially with earth moving equipment rumbling around outside, which might threaten to cause it to collapse onto nearby workers), then they might conceivably decide to load it up and pull it down even as it burned.

But if we are to assume they wouldn't risk doing that, then the only reasonable thing to believe as far as I can determine is that the bldg was pre-fitted with explosives before the attacks. And then we have to ask why would it be necessary to plan to pull bldg7 down in order to make the whole 911 tragedy work? What is the value in pulling down bldg7 when the main attack on the towers was virtually guaranteed to be sufficient to cause terror in every American (even if the attack failed)?

Also, if there really were overriding safety reasons to do something that dangerous, there would be no reason to cover it up.

Just because we don't know the answers does not mean it is covered up. Indeed, now you are making a new claim that this was coverd up. Can you be more specific? I was just shown a website that had all the details and wave files, so it didn't appear too secret to me.

My right brain says that the guys at the top didn't do their job right, never did anything right before or since and have lined their own pockets all along the way. That's all I really need to know.


My right brain says this sounds too left brain for it to follow.


My right brain says, "so what else is new."



My right brain says

Gulp !

I think you pretty much said it all right there

I mean that every official report and article by structural engineers I have ever seen points to some combination of structural damage and fire as cause of the collapse and none even considers the possibility that a fire official ordered the building to be pulled. If a fire official did make such an order, he would have included it as part of his official incident report.

Magmak, there is more than one way at look at the overall gestalt of it.

If there was a conspiracy of such major proportions, then why has NO ONE offered credible testimony to support it? Everyone who would have had to have known of such a conspiracy would have had to either be so morally depraved that they would not think of revealing it, or to afraid to do so. Everyone! Now I can imagine that several people would have fit in either or both categories, but everyone.

One thing to remember is that the Pentagon was hit that day. If the Bushies had been in on this they certainly would have made sure that everyone important (to them) would have been in a safe place, and that all the necessary files and records were protected. (Personally I spoke to a manager from a Pentagon office that lost files, I don't recall them as being particularly critical files, although that office wasn't the one overseeing the laundry contract or something like that either). There would have been planning for that, and a fair amount of movement away from the side that was hit. No one could have predicted precisely what the area of impact would have been.

since this is based on human judgement, I can't prove that no-one would do that. But I would never in a thousand years expect a fire official to order anyone to any part of a burning building with explosives. It sort of goes against everything they are trained to do.

Also, you have to consider that just about all explosives can be set off by fires. Since there were clearly fires in the building, if the building was pre-rigged, those fires would have set them all off.

Nor mine Mag.....and some of it doesn't pass my left-brained filter either. In fact I take the whole 5+ years in toto in terms of considering this one event....and as I've mentioned before there are distinct patterns of behavior and obsfucation. There are lies, deceit, deception and outright corruption. Do I think them capable of either allowing 911 or perhaps being in some manner involved? YES.....and despite the fact that we are unable to retrieve the valuable physical evidence of this devastation and that we have to rely on opposing testimony or expert opinion, I can in the end only come to my own best judgement. One thing is certain that the focal point of everything that has transpired and that has been transgressed in this administration stems from this catastrophic event.

As to your expertise or for that matter anyone elses.....the best knowledge always comes from within.

The reason we are discussing WTC7 is because there are claims it was pulled down.

You are saying no one is their right mind would enter a burning building and plant explosives.

Hence, that means it is more logical to assume the bldg was pre-rigged.

So then, I again ask, what is the value of pulling WTC7?

And how was the fire started? Was it a coincidence that the only smaller bldg that was pre-rigged also caught fire by falling debris, or did someon intentioanlly set it on fire to make it appear it suffered terrible damage?

But you claim if it was pre-rigged, that fire would set off the explosives.

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here.

I'd like someone who believes WTC7 was rigged, to answer these questions in this post and to clearly state how/what/why it was rigged.

If there was a conspiracy of such major proportions, then why has NO ONE offered credible testimony to support it?

The answer to this question may lie simply in the use of "compartmentalization" or "need to know" techniques. These are common and "old hat" in the military and inteliigence fields and have been taken to new levels in the Total Information Awareness-type data mining efforts underway within and outside of the NSA. No one except a very few people at the top get to see the whole picture; everyone working on "the project" gets to see only one small section of it, and even that they have to hand off blindly to someone else, where it is "washed" and transferred onward up the ladder. Only at the very top do a handful of people get to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. In this way, there are layers of "plausible deniability" built in, and no one at lower levels can "rat out" or "blow the whistle" because they simply don't have all the facts and data. They can only say "I did this one little thing over here" which, on the surface, looks benign and insiginificant.

Still, you have a good point, Arneoker. On a moral level, at least, you'd think someone would eventually puke their guts out and say something.

One point that was made early on in another similar "investigation" is this: All the available data is limited and "weird", and much of the available or desired information has been destroyed, or obfuscated, or denied, or seemingly "debunked". [Perhaps we need to issue official "debunker" status to a limited few who meet rigid, published, peer-reviewed standards of scientific thought, logic, probability, forensics, etc. I'm not picking on anyway here (I could include myself), but a debate such as this on a thread like this where people are anonymous yet claim to have special knowledge or insight is pure bunk. What is required is an open process, as in scientific, forensic and/or legal procedure, where everything is open to examination by anyone.]

So, lacking such an open process, what we have left, in a fuzzy and incomplete picture, is two options that might be useful:

1) We can construct the image as best we can and then look at the "negative" of that image, or (and maybe this is saying the same thing in a different way)

2) We can take what we have and inquire about what's missing, what's abnormal, what's been hidden or destroyed, and ask ourselves what that picture tells us.

Silverstein may not have thought it was a serious felony at the time. He did say it and he wasn't arrested. So how do we hang that together into some cohesive explanation?

What are the possible explanations?
What is the most likely explanation?

I've read he said he didn't mean it the way it sounded. In the clip he sure looks pretty confident in how he meant it.

And how does this one clip fit in with the other information we have? Or does it fit in at all?

I love the way you say things, DWB. Always have!

I want an analysis that passes both my right and left brain filters but also that of others. I want something that other people who view the world differently than I do look at the information and say, "yeah, I think that is how it happened, too."

Now I don't see it as an innoculation attempt like I did in the past where I ferociously fought for people to "see what really happened on 9/11." I'm much more relaxed about it now. I think everybody on the planet has at least heard this theory and thus the administration (or Cheney et al) are under a much shorter leash. They can't get away with this same kind of crap again. And that gives me a huge feeling of security. I know terrorists can still strike us but I know the FAA will never lag behind in their response, confused by a sophisticated wer game of "let's hijack commercial airliners" again. I know the intelligence and military are watching these guys like hawks. Just like the rest of the country.

Now I see it as we all have a chance to take a more liesurely approach and actually listen to what the other side is saying. And see what the left brain has to say to the right brain and visa versa and then process it and see what we come up with. To my knowledge that hasn't really happened much anywhere. And it's starting to happen here today.

Neither left or right brain works as well in isolation as they do together.

I am saying it was not rigged. I am saying it fell down because it was hit by debris and experienced a subsequent fire. If I researched it further, I think I could find a good technical explanation, but most of what I've read so far is not particularly good.

So then I go on to other factors. It is not logical to assume the building was either pre-rigged or rigged on 911 itself. Both create great difficulties in terms of timing and plausibility.

Also, there were three approximately 10-story buildings at the WTC, these were WTC 4, 5 and 6. These are rarely mentioned. All of them were gutted by fires but did not collapse. they were pulled down a few weeks later. And then there was the Marriot Hotel, AKA WTC 3. It was about 20 stories tall (definitelycollapsed, not sure if there was a fire or not). It was hit by debris and collapsed except for the lowest 3 stories. So I am saying that every single building in the WTC was hit by falling debris and permanently destroyed.

bUSH41 DID EVERYTHING

Start with that concept and the rest is easy

Can you say Vice President James Baker? Start learning it, its gonna happen.

Why do some other people (not you jeff) need common ground on did 9-11
happen the way Bush said it?

Either it did or it didn't.
There doesn't need to be any compromise.

If he lied, he lied.

Is Bush43 a compassionate conservative? No he is a sadist neo-con, who gets off watching people die in the electric chair, during Katrina, and uses collateral damage to further daddy's goals.

Who needs common ground to see that? It's out there. Just gotta open your eyes.

And no, most people cannot handle the truth, therefore we are all doomed to believe what they tell us.

The only terror is in Bushfamilyinc's mirror.

And again jeff, this aviator of yours is the best yet.I don't know how you are going to top it, but I am waiting.

Well again. I just have to base my judgement on my knowledge of owners of major buildings. And all of them would know they need a permit for that. Building permits are like driver's licenses. If you got into a car accident, and the other driver said they didn't know they know they needed a driver's license, would you believe them? Though it's logically possible that the person didn't know that, it's very unlikely to be true as a practical matter.

As for whether it is a serious crime or not, all I can do is refer you to the New York City Department of Buildings. No need to take my word for it.

Hi PP, hope you don't mind some challenging ...

Actually, floors of the WTC did NOT support one another as you attempt to explain above.

The weight of each floor was carried by a central column and the external steel frame.

In other words, WTC towers were as strong with all the floors as they would have been had they only the central column, the steel frame and only the top 20 or 30 floors.

For the pancake theory you attempt to push forward, it would suggest that the column and all the beams of the steel frame gave way

- together

- on roughly the same level

- at roughly the same time.

Which is precisely what does not happen in a case of assymetrical damage. The frame and the building would have tilted and twisted the time the beams bend under surcharge and NOT snap as the pancake theory suggests.

"moving weight that created forces" ????

When both towers collapsed, and during their entire collapse, they were both subject to the SAME STATIC "loading", or force: gravity.

The moment when there was any significant dynamic loading on the towers was during the impact of the jets against the towers.


Well maybe you could mention dynamic loading of a rock flying towards a skull, when there actually is a lift effect. But why a rock ? and why 20 lbs ? does mass matter ? Not really.

A .30 caliber weighs between 150 and 173 grains, let's say roughly 10 grams or a 1/3 of an ounce. As you can easily imagine, when shot, a .30 bullet will penetrate but won't collapse a skull.

If you are keen in doing some simple math and physics, try figuring:

- the mass of a WTC floor, 15 inch thick concrete

- the speed at which a floor falls on the lower floor 10 feet below

- the energy of a WTC floor falling on the lower floor 10 feet below

- compare that with the energy of a 100 ton jet hitting a WTC tower floor ( or distribute the impact on 2 or 3 floors) at 300 mph.

If you think a WTC floor should give way with no resistance to the floor ( or 2, or 3 floors falling) immediately above, then why didn't these floors simply disintegrate when the jet hit the towers ?

Anyways, for those for whom numbers have a meaning, even though I do not support nor share the authors' political stance:

http://911research.wtc7.net/

Thanks for comming back to the discussion G4A,
I started off jumping in on this thread because of the subject. 9-11 (my favorite).
And of the many 9-11 threads we have had over the time we have all been here I have come to just about the same conclusion in my own mind as Magmik1.

It doesn't really matter how the towers fell or who flew the planes. We will never be "privy" to that kind of information. What really matters most is that it happened under the so called "watchful" eye of our very own government.

Arneoker raises a damn good question too!
How could they "All" be in on it ? The infamous $64,000.00 question.
All I know is this:
If we keep debating on how things possibly went down instead of finding out who did it and why ? We are defeating ourselves aren't we ?

I didn't say the floors supported each other. They were tied to the central column and to the outer walls, which supported all the floors. When one floor fell, with it's portion of the central column, it landed on the floor and support material of the floor below with great enough force to instantly cause the supports for the next lowest floor to fail.


don't know what this means.


never said anything about snapping. Only "failing, which can be due to anything. And no the whole building would not have twisted and tilted at the same time.


Did you take physics 101. If not, please get a textbook and study the difference between potential and kinetic energy, and what happens when a fast moving object hits a stationary one at various speeds.



If something is moving, it is by definition a dynamic load. when the buildings fell, they were moving, therefore there were dynamic loads.



Of course mass matters! Try the same thing with a 1-ounce pebble.



I don't know about that it. It can kill you and make a pretty good size hole, at least from what I understand.



Kinetic energy - 0.5mV^2
I get 2.4 billion joules for this.

Okay. I will have to work on that for a while. According to this website, the weight of the entire building was 500,000 tons. I assume about 1/5 of the building weight is above the impact floor
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

I get 8.9 billion joules for this for just the first floor collapse. Objects in free fall gain speed and energy as they fall so the energy for each additional floor is even higher .

Did I make a mistake? I did the calculation quickly.


Based on my own eyewitness account, extremely large portions of several floors were pushed out of the building and fell to the ground in large and small chunks. I am not aware of any photo showing this clearly, so you will just have to take my word for it, or maybe locate some other eyewitnesses who may have seen it.