More 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Options

[Hartmann]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801

More fuel to the fire...

[nickluto]

It doesn't free fall. The guy does his calculation at like 9 seconds. And 1 second is really all is needed for gravity to smash the top floors onto the bottom ones. The lower floors would not have stopped the falling floors much (if at all.)

9.2 seconds is the minimum time for any object to fall from the height of the world trade center towers to the ground in a vacuum (regardless of mass/size), unless Galelieo and Newton were wrong on that day. They desintegrated in 10 seconds....they were not in a vacuum, so ths is to be expected. Therefore, they were in what we call "free fall".

and i love how you ONLY use heat as the reason for the building collapsing. I guess you forgot a 100 ton air plane smashed into the building and all the supports.

Nuh uh. Not all the supports, unless the airplane was 110 stories tall, 250 feet wide and was made out of indestructable material. Oh, pissed off 'cause I tried to prove you wrong based on semantics? Just trying to beat you at your own game, buddy...

but okay, ill go with you, every support on the levels affected by the planes were weakened enough to be structurally compromised by a weak fire (which is an extremely huge stretch). what would you expect to happen? The entire building to start systematically falling down with no resistance until it was a pile of rubble? really? Or would you expect the top floors to collapse on the lower floors, and then have the remaining floors maybe buckle under the pressure ?(again a huge stretch... if the supports could hold the entire building up from x floor to the top, what makes the load of x floors to the top different if the floors are closer together? well, they have an acceleration, but not much of one. Constructing a building with just enough strength to support the above floors never happens, so the even if this happened the supports would have at least provided some resistance and probably caused the floors to collapse in one direction or another, NOT directly down)

Not to mention you need to look at how the building is designed to begin with. It has the internal cylinder type support in the very middle and then only the outter wall supports. When the jet demolished the outter structure it put all pressure to the inner cylinder which was also damaged by the plane.

So the second plane that was struck, which took a blow significantly more off center than the north tower collapsed first, with less damage from the resulting fire...explain your logic here?

GRAVITY and heat can do a LOT of damage that high in the air.

This statement doesnt even make sense. Can you clarify? Any high school physics professor, or even student that had completed such a class would laugh at your for even suggesting this.

oh and those supposed "demolition blasts" blowing out the windows were just the supports buckling, falling to the floor down, and breaking the window.

If you really believe this, that they were random failures in a structure destroyed by fire/being struck with an airplane then why did the towers collapse almost completely into their own footprints, with almost NO collaterall damage? Assuming all of the support structures had reletively the same loads to bear on all sides, wouldnt an "explosion" or failure of a single support somehow force the collapse in one direction or another? The coincindences that you are suggesting about random failures 30 FLOORS below the "demolition wave" is physically impossible and highly improbable.

Building 7 is the only one that i wonder how it fell.... but it could have been any of numerous variables (like the twins falling on it) that could be the explination.

both towers fell almost directly down. pretty neatly, little collateral damage right? So how can both of them fall on WTC7 with the gemoetry in mind? Even if pieces of one tower fell on it, if the supports were compromised at that time, and the building fell as a direct effect, then I might tend to agree with you, but standing just fine until hours later, and then following the same free fall collapse as the other towers (Silverstein referencing the "pulling" of the building on TV)....doesn't add up.

The only way WTC7 would have fell that neatly down into its own footprint would be by controlled demolition. Any random act itself would not produce the same effect is even suggesting so is ridiculous.


Sadly, I wouldnt have to explain any of this to you if you have taken a simple middle or high school level physics class.