More 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Options

[Hartmann]

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

More fuel to the fire...

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

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".



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)

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?


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.



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.



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.

sigh....

despite your very noble effort to try and cover up your "lack ofs" with insults, you still didn't prove much of anything.

Its a known fact that the structures were DESIGNED to fall straight down. Thats why the inner support system was a cylinder.

And i disagree with you about the plane you say did less damage being the one that brought down the first tower. It hit at a angle that would have done more damage to one side of the building and also the engines hit lower and higher than the body of the aircraft, thus more damage to other floors.

here is another website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

oops, no conspiracy theories at that one...

Im sure it was made by the government. The whole "showing how the wtc building layouts being different than most buildings" is just jibber jabber from more stupid people like me that

"Any high school physics professor, or even student that had completed such a class would laugh at"

And the example from that website of the beams connecting the inner and outer support system falling down (and hitting the structure below it) is just the same... more stupidity huh?

And i love how you think about, what: 30-40, stories of concrete and medal falling ... 10 feet even, isn't much momentum... heh. And that the lower supports could "easily" handled the extra effort because

"they were built for more than just BARELY holding up the building"

I've seen what ONE floor falling down onto another can do by simply watching the history channel. Hell the one i watched pretty much showed all the floors pancaking down on one another... straight down... and not really "stopping" the falling floors. Granted it was a building going up and the top floor gave up, the same things happening again are plausible...




Anyway, you are gonna try and make me feel stupid when you are the one believing that the government destroyed the twin towers, attacked the pentagon, and then tried to make us believe that a plane crashed in a field randomly (when it would serve no purpose)

Give me a break, get some proof (other than a stupid video with drama music) before you trying to act high and mighty.

oh, and here on that site is "an enginers explination of why the towers fell" (I WOULD COPY AND PASTE IT, BUT ITS MULTIPLE PAGES EXPLAINING WHY IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN, WHY THE FIRES WERE HOTTER THAN EXPECTED, HOW IT WAS DESIGNED AND HOW IT "FREE FELL"... HAVE FUN):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html



Feel free to tell me how this MIT engineer is a retard like myself