First off, they didn't fall at free-fall speed. Steel can be seen falling faster than the debris cloud - which itself is falling faster than the towers.(Image: http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg )
(Also see here and here for why it wasn't free-falling.

110 stories in 10 seconds. That's about as close as you can get. Oh, a few steel girders fell faster, but not by a whole heck of a lot. It wasn't perfect free-fall, no, but it was a damn sight faster than it would have occurred if the floors met any resistance to the collapse.


Second, with each floor taken out, the debris became heavier. Each time it gets heavier, the next floor gave less resistance. Not to mention the force may be 'opposite', but it isn't quite 'equal'.

No. You can't turn the concrete and offices and people into a massive dust cloud and still have mass left to speed up the collapse. Sorry, but the laws of nature are not in the governments favor on this one. If they are to be believed, then the laws of nature were suspended for that day.


...at the rate of free-fall can only be accomplished by intelligent control.
Again, it wasn't at the rate of free-fall.

Again, yes it was.


Of course - I didn't mean that's how everyone involved with this is, though I have yet to see any very reliable work from these serious investigators.

Then you haven't been paying much attention.


And it's silly that Silverstein would 'confess'. If this was the government, why would he even know about what was going to happen?

Seriously? He's in on it. Duh. His buildings, his disaster. No, he's not the lone gunman here, but he is a player.

He is not a demolition expert, and "pulling it" being demo jargon that meaning very well may not have been the first thing to come to mind. In fact, meaning it as getting everyone out of there does make a lot of sense.

Nope, sorry to spoil it for you, but that explanation doesn't cut it. He confessed to pulling 'it', where it referred to the previous sentence where the subject was WTC7. 'It' is WTC7. If he did mean pulling the people out, then the question still stands, how did he know to pull them out? Either way, he had prior knowledge of the collapse that was about to take place. That alone is enough to warrant an investigation.

A coincidentally terrible choice of words, maybe, but that doesn't mean any more than Rumsfeld calling the planes missiles.

Yes, it does. He admitted foreknowledge of the collapse, and from what it appears, actual participation in the destruction.


Full and total symmetrical collapse into it's own foundation at the rate of free-fall can only be accomplished by intelligent control.
WTC7 would be the first building to have collapsed into its own foundation without the help of explosives. However, this wasn't how WTC7 fell. This link discusses Silverstein's 'confession', the fall of WTC7, and how it ended up falling - not symmetrically as you had said.

If they try to sell you an asymmetrical collapse, they are arguing from a foundation of falsehood. The building came down symmetrically. Watch the videos.


Out of curiosity, what would the government's motive been? They seem to have destroyed many of their own offices, and even killed some of their own personnel.

Simple, furthur centralization of power, a state of fear and terror that they can manipulate to their own ends, and pretext for invasion of the middle east to secure the oil fields and strategic military locations in preparation for the coming war with China, as well as to nix some bad happenings that were taking place, such as the loss of trillions of dollars and the Exxon investigation. Others just went along for the wealth and power, or because they didn't want to end up dead.



If the government's trying to kill people, wouldn't this have been a better plan in their eyes?

Nope. They're not trying to murder people for the sake of murder. They are manipulating people, not destroying them. Some people had to die in order to mobilize the American people to war. It's the same as Pearl Harbor.


Also, what do you have to say regarding the other two planes that weren't headed towards New York - and please don't argue a cruise missile hit the Pentagon...

Nope, they were most likely A-3 Sky Warriors. A commercial jet wouldn't have been able to make the maneuvers radar reports indicate without stalling out, but the flight path does resemble military aircraft flight. The one that hit the pentagon was most likely carrying a missile to make a bigger impact, and the one in PA was most likely shot down in flight.

Strange, it seemed to have cut off the beginning of my reply. Stupid AJAX. I wish this didn't use stupid dynamic html for replies and edits. Retarded glitz.

don't think they were living in caves at that time, in fact many were already in America. Even if they were, so what? Many of them had college educations and had been in flight school. And isn't demeaning them by calling them Arabic a bit racist? I mean, an Arab can do anything a Westerner can do.

Anyways, I was going to say that calling someone Arabic isn't any more insulting than calling someone Asian or African. There's no racism in the usage of it.

If you want to be specific, let's call them Saudi Nationals, since that's what most of them were. Funny how a bunch are still alive, too, huh?
Xooxer wrote:
First off, they didn't fall at free-fall speed. Steel can be seen falling faster than the debris cloud - which itself is falling faster than the towers.(Image: http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg )
(Also see here and here for why it wasn't free-falling.

110 stories in 10 seconds. That's about as close as you can get. Oh, a few steel girders fell faster, but not by a whole heck of a lot. It wasn't perfect free-fall, no, but it was a damn sight faster than it would have occurred if the floors met any resistance to the collapse.

For those who would like to see what Nickr5 was referring to; and if you did not click through his link, here is a large excerpt that should help understand this issue using "basic physics":

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Bootyboy wrote:
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds.

Frank is trying to use the old pile-driver theory, which doesn't fit the video evidence. If the top mass is exploded out and down, hitting the ground before the demolition wave, you can't still use that mass to accumulate on top of the structure to propel the collapse. I've said it many times, you can't have it both ways. If it pancaked, the video evidence says otherwise in the form of the massive debris thrown out from the collapse and the dust cloud. The rubble doesn't match a pancake collapse. The official story already denied it was such a collapse, so trying to defend that position isn't even defending the official story.
Wouldn't a plane with a nearly full tank of gas cause a massive explosion?
Jeff8500 wrote:
Wouldn't a plane with a nearly full tank of gas cause a massive explosion?

One just about big enough to bring down a 110-story building.
SuperAntx wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
Wouldn't a plane with a nearly full tank of gas cause a massive explosion?

One just about big enough to bring down a 110-story building.

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that it could have contributed to the collapse more than most people think. If some fuel dripped down a few stories and was lit there, it could have weakened the support beams.
I heard they just started welding with planes.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg
Page: 1 2