It's not a conspiracy

[hdood]

[Citation needed]

Citation for what? If you mean part of the core remaining standing, it was established from video evidence.

The problem with timing the collapse though is that there isn't actually an accurate measurement of how long it took. The official report does not make any accurate claims, althogh it estimates that it took nine seconds (WTC 2, 1300 ft) for the first exterior panel to hit the ground after the collapse started. That's not the time of the full collapse though. There was no unobstructed video or other means of accurately measuring that.

[Pas]

s1k3sT: trust me, i can't be insulted by the ilk of people like you. you see, you have no realm of reason or intelligence. you've shown complete ignorance in this thread. whoever said it above is correct; you should move to montana or michigan and join a militia and prepare for the upcoming invasion of america by federal troops. you remind me of the tea party people who claim the government is going to ban fishing in america.

[Growled Member]

Moved to It's a Conspiracy.

[episode]

LOL, that same dumb picture again, huh? I think it is you that doesn't understand the meaning of the term. Look up the definition of conspire, then get back with me. If you don't think conspiracies happen all the time I feel sorry for you.

Yes, that is the definition of the word 'conspire'. Congrats, you can use a dictionary. However, the term 'conspiracy theory' has a different definition. See if you can handle looking that up.

[Nihilus]

s1k3sT: Claims thermite was used/links to a fake non-scientific un-peer reviewed paper/claims the building collapsed in "free fall"

The rest of Neowin: Points out his errors.

s1k3st: Makes an ad hominem attack, rants about conspiracies.

The rest of Neowin: *sighs*

s1k3st: *repeats*

/thread.

[Joe User]

Citation for what? If you mean part of the core remaining standing, it was established from video evidence.

The problem with timing the collapse though is that there isn't actually an accurate measurement of how long it took. The official report does not make any accurate claims, althogh it estimates that it took nine seconds (WTC 2, 1300 ft) for the first exterior panel to hit the ground after the collapse started. That's not the time of the full collapse though. There was no unobstructed video or other means of accurately measuring that.

It was definitely over 30 seconds for the full collapse. Actually, if you were there you would have heard the floors collapsing shortly before the outside structure fell. (That's when we started running, stopped a few mins later)

[Solid Knight]

It was definitely over 30 seconds for the full collapse. Actually, if you were there you would have heard the floors collapsing shortly before the outside structure fell. (That's when we started running, stopped a few mins later)

According to Sk1somethingsomethingsomethingsomething all the floors collapsed simultaneously. Every video of the WTC collapse is CGI that was generated in real time. Everyone in the video is an actor or actress.

[Joe User]

According to Sk1somethingsomethingsomethingsomething all the floors collapsed simultaneously. Every video of the WTC collapse is CGI that was generated in real time. Everyone in the video is an actor or actress.

Now, I don't think he said that. If he did, he's trolling.

[iamawesomewicked]

Now, I don't think he said that. If he did, he's trolling.

He believes they fell at free fall speeds.

[justmike]

Seriously. You really need to learn what conspiracy "theory" is.

Wiki

Here's where the wheels fall off. Definitions: Let's see how many different definitions for this we can find. This could start a new thread called how many definitions can we find on X?

"unlawful OR wrongful act" Definitions for wrongful next... Definitions for morality next...

People choose to believe what they want, period, based on everything or nothing.

If you read this definition close enough, you will realize that you most likely conspired at your last gathering of two or more people at work/school, wherever.

[HawkMan]

Who said anything about lava? WTF

You haven't proven anything either, so don't get too smug.

The fact is no one around here can prove anything either way. No one here has access to any solid evidence of anything, so all this arguing is really pointless.

Jet fuel can most definately melt and even more so weaken metal.

you're only thinking of opera air burn temperatures. you're forgetting that the jet fuel burned inside what was essentially a ventilated furnace after the place crashed through the building. That increases the temperature it burns at significantly. How do you think We used to melt metal and steel in "nacient" times when we didn't have stuff that burned anywhere near the melting point of any metal at open air burning ?

[shakey]

No one has the truth, because No one was actually there and knows all the details. For those who think the government didn't do it, you have little knowledge about what our government does on a day to day basis with foreign affairs. Do you know what goes on in Area 51? The government, out of any thing/person/place in the world, has the power to pull off anything it wants. If you don't believe that, you are already out of the loop.

That's not to say they did do it though, because we still don't have all the proof. Sure, 2 planes made 2 building fall, but what made the 3rd building fall? Why does everyone just ignore the 3rd building that fell that day, like it was just something regular? Google WTC building 7, if you have no clue to what I'm talking about.

There are many reasons though not to believe it completely, and you have to give credit for those who do not believe the governments word on this, as it does not make too much sense to those who have been around such things. Most buildings that get damaged by such a thing, if they do go down, will lean and fall to the side, or it will just blow up the whole side. It is very very very rare to have an accident on a building, as such did happen, and have not just 1, but 2 buildings fall perfectly down as they did. Trust me, demo crews have wet dreams about such demo's going that way.

To call 1 person crazy for believing something isn't true like this, well, crazy could be thrown right back at anyone who takes the governments word without a grain of salt.

[Phenom II]

Eye witnesses are the best kind of proof


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150#


How much more proof do you need, of course it was planned

[shakey]

Eye witnesses are the best kind of proof

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150#

You get this from almost anyone who was in those buildings and lived. Why no one will believe them is another story. Apparently firefighters are liars and can not be trusted. the movie ms. march was right!!!!

Also, I can not find a single story about a plane ever taking down a building as such.

Was Polands plane crash just an accident? After how many years the russians and pols have been at each others necks, finally a "truce" and they all die on the way there.....

What we believe to be truth in the world is normally not. It is just things we compile together that seem to make sense. Hell, physics is being turned on its head right now with everything they are finding out. There is more mystery and unknown than you could ever imagine.

[Phenom II]

Even bush cant keep the lie straight

[Solid Knight]

You'd feel the temors when the building started to come down. You'd feel the tremors from the structure buckling under the weight. Weaker parts of the structure would fly apart under the stress. Feeling "explosions" isn't the odd. Anyone ever been on a sub? You hear all kinds of crazy stuff when the structure is under stress.

[Phenom II]

But the eye witnesses say it sounded like firecrackers, bang bang bang bang bang bang - perfect example of how a controlled demolition explosion sounds

Why would the buildings collapse from the bottom, when the fire was at the top, and what are the chances of them collapsing perfectly down on themselves, that take demolition experts months of planning, not just blow the top off and hope for the best

If they collapsed of their own free will, they would have weakened / failed on 1 side and fallen sideways

[shakey]

You'd feel the temors when the building started to come down. You'd feel the tremors from the structure buckling under the weight. Weaker parts of the structure would fly apart under the stress. Feeling "explosions" isn't the odd. Anyone ever been on a sub? You hear all kinds of crazy stuff when the structure is under stress.

There's a difference between tremors and explosions. If the building was coming down due to planes, the tremors would have been from above, not at the basement. They would not have felt "explosions" from the basement before the tower collapsed. Also, if there were tremors as such, it would have meant the building was most likely leaning to a side, in which we know it did not do, it only fell straight down.

But, lets leave the 2 buildings behind. What happened to building 7? why did a 3rd building just fall? No plane hit it..... I'm sure it was just the tremors.....

But the eye witnesses say it sounded like firecrackers, bang bang bang bang bang bang - perfect example of how a controlled demolition explosion sounds

Why would the buildings collapse from the bottom, when the fire was at the top, and what are the chances of them collapsing perfectly down on themselves, that take demolition experts months of planning, not just blow the top off and hope for the best

If they collapsed of their own free will, they would have weakened / failed on 1 side and fallen sideways

I likes yo logic lol

[hdood]

No one has the truth, because No one was actually there and knows all the details. For those who think the government didn't do it, you have little knowledge about what our government does on a day to day basis with foreign affairs. Do you know what goes on in Area 51? The government, out of any thing/person/place in the world, has the power to pull off anything it wants. If you don't believe that, you are already out of the loop.

No, "the government" does not have the ability to pull of anything it wants. In fact, if the government was a person, he'd barely be able to tie his own shoelaces.

That's not to say they did do it though, because we still don't have all the proof. Sure, 2 planes made 2 building fall, but what made the 3rd building fall?

NCSTAR 1A. Did you actually mean that you don't know?

Why does everyone just ignore the 3rd building that fell that day, like it was just something regular? Google WTC building 7, if you have no clue to what I'm talking about.

Actually, the whole WTC complex (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) was destroyed, and several other surrounding buildings received heavy damage (even leading to condemnation.)

There are many reasons though not to believe it completely, and you have to give credit for those who do not believe the governments word on this, as it does not make too much sense to those who have been around such things.

Can you explain how the following explanation reposted from post #259 is wrong?

The planes hit, dislodged fire-proofing (which was already shoddy), damaged some columns, and then spread jet fuel over several floors which set all the interior on fire (which can actually reach over 1800 degrees). Those fires then gradually weakened the steel floors until they pulled the outside wall columns far enough in to fail. At that point they fell, and the maths shows that the floors below could handle at most six floors falling on them. Since more than that fell, the whole building came crumbling down. [...]

Anyway, the buildings did not free fall. If it was slowed as much as a millisecond, it did not fall at free fall speed. Near free fall would be a more correct term (although much of the core remained standing for 20 seconds after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed). "Free fall" is just an irrelevant conspiracy buzzword here. I don't know why people think the lower part of the building was an issue. It simply wasn't designed to handle the massive dynamic load (the top floors had downward momentum). It was only designed to handle the static load. I already explained how much the floors below could handle:

The average load in the WTC was 80 pounds per square feet (although higher for the mechanical floors). Each floor was 31,000 square feet. 80*31,000=2.5 million. Divide that by the amount the intact floors below could handle, and you get 29m/2.5m=11.6. In other words, they could have supported the static load of about 11 floors. Since the load was dynamic, divide it by the dynamic amplification factor, and you get 11.6/2=5.8. At most six floors.

There were more floors than that in the initial collapse. As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum.

People here claim the rest of the building should have substantially slowed or stopped the collapse, but the math simply does not appear to support this. When it comes to something like this, you can't just go with what you "think" should happen.

Most buildings that get damaged by such a thing, if they do go down, will lean and fall to the side, or it will just blow up the whole side.

How many buildings can you name that had the same kind of construction that the WTC did? How many have been hit by fairly large airliners? I suspect the answer to both is zero. Lean and fall to the side? No, we do have something called gravity. It will take the path of least resistance, which tends to be down. As for "blow up the whole side," I'm not quite sure how fires could do that.

Trust me

Why should I trust you? Since you are now making an outright claim of authority, can I please ask you to provide your credentials?

[c3ntury]

Sorry, I'm a moron and can't therefore reply to this thread.

You just did?

Unless im missing out on some sneaky joke intended there.

[Solid Knight]

But the eye witnesses say it sounded like firecrackers, bang bang bang bang bang bang - perfect example of how a controlled demolition explosion sounds

Why would the buildings collapse from the bottom, when the fire was at the top, and what are the chances of them collapsing perfectly down on themselves, that take demolition experts months of planning, not just blow the top off and hope for the best

If they collapsed of their own free will, they would have weakened / failed on 1 side and fallen sideways

Sound isn't stationary and when coming down walls or tubes you only hear it at whatever point it is resonating at.

[shakey]

No, "the government" does not have the ability to pull of anything it wants. In fact, if the government was a person, he'd barely be able to tie his own shoelaces.

NCSTAR 1A. Did you actually mean that you don't know?

Actually, the whole WTC complex (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) was destroyed, and several other surrounding buildings received heavy damage (even leading to condemnation.)

Can you explain how the following explanation reposted from post #259 is wrong?

The planes hit, dislodged fire-proofing (which was already shoddy), damaged some columns, and then spread jet fuel over several floors which set all the interior on fire (which can actually reach over 1800 degrees). Those fires then gradually weakened the steel floors until they pulled the outside wall columns far enough in to fail. At that point they fell, and the maths shows that the floors below could handle at most six floors falling on them. Since more than that fell, the whole building came crumbling down. [...]

Anyway, the buildings did not free fall. If it was slowed as much as a millisecond, it did not fall at free fall speed. Near free fall would be a more correct term (although much of the core remained standing for 20 seconds after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed). "Free fall" is just an irrelevant conspiracy buzzword here. I don't know why people think the lower part of the building was an issue. It simply wasn't designed to handle the massive dynamic load (the top floors had downward momentum). It was only designed to handle the static load. I already explained how much the floors below could handle:

The average load in the WTC was 80 pounds per square feet (although higher for the mechanical floors). Each floor was 31,000 square feet. 80*31,000=2.5 million. Divide that by the amount the intact floors below could handle, and you get 29m/2.5m=11.6. In other words, they could have supported the static load of about 11 floors. Since the load was dynamic, divide it by the dynamic amplification factor, and you get 11.6/2=5.8. At most six floors.

There were more floors than that in the initial collapse. As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum.

People here claim the rest of the building should have substantially slowed or stopped the collapse, but the math simply does not appear to support this. When it comes to something like this, you can't just go with what you "think" should happen.

How many buildings can you name that had the same kind of construction that the WTC did? How many have been hit by fairly large airliners? I suspect the answer to both is zero. Lean and fall to the side? No, we do have something called gravity. It will take the path of least resistance, which tends to be down. As for "blow up the whole side," I'm not quite sure how fires could do that.

Why should I trust you? Since you are now making an outright claim of authority, can I please ask you to provide your credentials?

Wow, you sure have a way of taking stuff out of context, but you do know we are ina forum, and people can actually read what I write, so they can tell when youre just trolling...... I said trust me about the demo crews, but you seem to have the government feeding you already, so I'll leave you alone and let you keep eating. I like how you posted a government article about something against the government. It's like if i wanted to know if milk was healthy, i'd go ask the milk seller, because I'm sure he has my best interest at heart and not his business.... And to think the government is incapable of doing anything already shows your ignorance to such a subject. Please, go learn history, architecture, and more about gravity, since things apparently can't lean fall, only fall straight down..... too funny man, too funny.

[Solid Knight]

Wow, you sure have a way of taking stuff out of context, but you do know we are ina forum, and people can actually read what I write, so they can tell when youre just trolling...... I said trust me about the demo crews, but you seem to have the government feeding you already, so I'll leave you alone and let you keep eating. I like how you posted a government article about something against the government. It's like if i wanted to know if milk was healthy, i'd go ask the milk seller, because I'm sure he has my best interest at heart and not his business.... And to think the government is incapable of doing anything already shows your ignorance to such a subject. Please, go learn history, architecture, and more about gravity, since things apparently can't lean fall, only fall straight down..... too funny man, too funny.

It did lean. Look at the top portion as it falls. It just so happens that the bottom floors got pancaked by the upper structure which caused it to fall straight down. But again, the top portion leaned on the way down. You can even see the uneven dispersal of debris as evidence of a slight lean.

[Phenom II]

Gravity pulls down yes, but if one side of the building "melted" of course it would fall to that side

It did lean. Look at the top portion as it falls. It just so happens that the bottom floors got pancaked by the upper structure which caused it to fall straight down. But again, the top portion leaned on the way down. You can even see the uneven dispersal of debris as evidence of a slight lean.

Barely

EDIT - What about bush saying he watched the first plane hit the first tower as it happened, yet the video did not surface till the next day ?

[shakey]

It did lean. Look at the top portion as it falls. It just so happens that the bottom floors got pancaked by the upper structure which caused it to fall straight down. But again, the top portion leaned on the way down. You can even see the uneven dispersal of debris as evidence of a slight lean.

There is a difference in "lean" when it comes to the term of a falling building. It won't fall down like the leaning tower of pisa, but more in a fashion that 1 side goes, and the other side does not.

But after reading that wtc7 report, it tells that the building burned for several hours before it fell, it was a small building.... the 2 wtc towers burned for no more than 56 minutes before totally pancaking in on themselves......

Like I said, I don't believe in either way, as there is not enough hard evidence, only people saying this or that. Tons of whatifs and variables, but no concrete answers. It does still seem very iffy to me that planes were the only cause those, so I do lean more 1 way. But to close your mind off on such things does no one any good.