Cygnus, steel's MELTING point is 2800 degrees. After it reaches certain temperatures (I already posted on this) it starts bleeding out it's strength like nobody's business.

Corinthian, I can't count how many times I've had to edit out bile and vitriol from your posts, but this time you've gone too far. Enjoy your month off.

~9

you'll see the the buildings (all three of them) fell at maximum velocityMaximum velocity means you have to take everything under the damaged part away. What happened is different, namely that every floor stopped all those falling on it for a short time, until broke under it's weight.

One of the documentaries did this for us and slowed and highlighted the regular intervals of floor collapse. I'm curious how they specified those regular intervals?

There is visual evidence of small bursts or explosions on regular intervals of floors as the buildings fell.Explosions, or more like when you squish a Big Mac?

You can see Both towers fell exactly the same and at the same speed. The only time buildings fall like that are when they are done purposely.Or like when you have two buildings built the same way, having approximately the same mass situated above the floors that took damage and gravitating southwards.

it fell, seemingly out of the blueWhat seems and what is, may be two completely different things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse)

Better said. that's what I meant. :) I figured it was. :)

I was also wondering of the validity of statements relating to a gold depository in the lower levels of tower 7 and how some people weren't allowed near certain areas almost immediately after the collapse.
How could there be Feds with guns on the scene so quickly shooing people away after a disaster of this magnitude?
Oh well, probably for looters and such. :xp: Meh, I tend not to put too much behind those stories. They could be true, but there's no way to verify them.

I was also instantly curious when I heard statements about the owning group of the Twin Towers putting up an unusual insurance policy toward them just months before that fateful day. I can understand putting up insurance for planes hitting buildings that big. I surely would.
But it must of taken a massive amount of clairvoyance to put up insurance for both of them getting hit simultaneously. Considering that the WTC had been the focus of a terrorist attack in 1993, I don't think it is the slightest bit suspicious that he sought to insure the buildings against terrorist attacks.

I do agree that the timing of the sale is suspect, but I don't think it's a smoking gun.

I wonder how much that claim paid out? More than $4.5 billion, IIRC (because there were two planes he was able to claim two acts of terrorism).

...and why aren't there any photographs of a dc-10 splattered all over the Pentagon? How could the same plane do so much damage in NY but hardly a scratch to a much smaller building? Where are the wings and tail and engines after the fires were put out? Can a fuselage be totally disintegrated in an area of damage that small?See below

Also, the plane hit it in the area that had just finished being restored up to current-day military spec. We're talking Blast-resistant windows, fire-doors, reinforced walls, cleaned up ceilings, the whole nine yards.Yep, and the pilot had to fly around the target and make a nearly-360 degree turn in order to do so. Why did the pilot go out of his way just to hit the side of the building which would take the least amount of damage? Why didn't he just aim for the courtyard, or better yet, the side of the building that he was facing on approach?

And, from what I've picked up, the plane disintegrated upon impact, or something like that, I'm not qualified to answer that question.If the plane disintegrated on impact, then why was it capable of producing damage to the inner rings? If the impact was significant enough to incinerate an airplane, then how were they able to recover enough DNA to indentify the passengers? Why isn't there impact damage from the plane's engines?

Maximum velocity means you have to take everything under the damaged part away. What happened is different, namely that every floor stopped all those falling on it for a short time, until broke under it's weight. Free fall speed would have been about 9.5 seconds. The 9/11 commission report says that each building fell in about 10 seconds. Therefore, it does not appear that "what happened was different" at all. Regardless of which explanation we use (fire, explosives, something else entirely) the evidence is that the buildings did, in fact, fall at nearly maximum velocity.

Free fall speed would have been about 9.5 seconds.

No Source, so what you say is irrelevant.

No Source, so what you say is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous.
It's not irrelevant, it's just unproven.

_EW_

XD lol, that just made my day, Corinthian.

Yes, we'd need hard core fact figures about the weight of the top parts of the buildings to determine how fast they'd went down.

Now what we can make is calculate an assumption depending on those 10 seconds of fall with the building working against it, but I am afraid quick estimates tell me that thousands of tons of steel and concrete work more against free fall than thin air would do.

I'm waiting for a source before I can be bothered to pull out accordant physical formulas.

Tone the flaming and snarkiness down, please--it's reaching infraction level for some of you. Being polite will generally get you a lot farther in the discussion, anyway. I'll be evaluating this thread when I get to my home computer unless one of the other staff addresses it sooner.

Yep, and the pilot had to fly around the target and make a nearly-360 degree turn in order to do so. Why did the pilot go out of his way just to hit the side of the building which would take the least amount of damage? Why didn't he just aim for the courtyard, or better yet, the side of the building that he was facing on approach?

I don't pretend to know why the heck they do what they do. If I were to have executed something like that, I wouldn't have thrown an airliner against the side of the building unless I was trying to take out somebody such as SecDef or the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Otherwise, I would have crashed into the center.

Call it luck. I have no reason off the top of my head for them to have chosen that spot. So, maybe we just got very lucky in a bad time? :(

If the plane disintegrated on impact, then why was it capable of producing damage to the inner rings? If the impact was significant enough to incinerate an airplane, then how were they able to recover enough DNA to [identify] the passengers? Why isn't there impact damage from the plane's engines?

Like I said, from what I've picked up. I honestly don't know a lot about the attack on the Pentagon, since at that point in time I being a forth grader, was more drawn to the smoldering wreckage of the WTC, and didn't care a lot about the Pentagon.

I'm going to have to do more research into it, but like I said, I'm not qualified to answer that question.

That's ridiculous.
It's not irrelevant, it's just unproven.

_EW_What isn't? The rate of free fall?

Pretty sure it's been well established by Newtonian mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall#Free_fall_in_Newtonian_Mechanics).

Yes, we'd need hard core fact figures about the weight of the top parts of the buildings to determine how fast they'd went down. Huh? We already know how fast they went down. The gov't official report is ~10 seconds, however you can watch the video with a stop watch if you'd prefer to verify it yourself.

Now what we can make is calculate an assumption depending on those 10 seconds of fall with the building working against it, but I am afraid quick estimates tell me that thousands of tons of steel and concrete work more against free fall than thin air would do. Agreed. Therefore it should have taken much longer than ~10 seconds. This is one of the key arguments of those that believe that demolition had to have occurred.

I'm waiting for a source before I can be bothered to pull out accordant physical formulas.Source for which?

I don't pretend to know why the heck they do what they do. If I were to have executed something like that, I wouldn't have thrown an airliner against the side of the building unless I was trying to take out somebody such as SecDef or the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Otherwise, I would have crashed into the center.

Call it luck. I have no reason off the top of my head for them to have chosen that spot. So, maybe we just got very lucky in a bad time? :( We're going to attribute the pilot choice to fly out of his way to make a 350-something degree turn to hit a specific side of the building to luck?

I'm sorry, but that's clearly intent. The motivation for the intent is certainly up for discussion, but this didn't "just happen".

Like I said, from what I've picked up. I honestly don't know a lot about the attack on the Pentagon, since at that point in time I being a forth grader, was more drawn to the smoldering wreckage of the WTC, and didn't care a lot about the Pentagon.

I'm going to have to do more research into it, but like I said, I'm not qualified to answer that question.That's all I can ask :D

What isn't? The rate of free fall?

Pretty sure it's been well established by Newtonian mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall#Free_fall_in_Newtonian_Mechanics).But) it's not free fall. Especially not since the buildings tops crashed down upon them and tore them down. Actually it's tightly tied to a chaotic process where you have a stable system (order), change one or two parameters and it then changes into another stable system via an unstable system state (chaos).

Huh? We already know how fast they went down. The gov't official report is ~10 seconds, however you can watch the video with a stop watch if you'd prefer to verify it yourself.Huh? No, no. I do not doubt the buildings went down in ten seconds. The collapse lasted ten seconds. You seem to advocate that the buildings would need the same time when in free fall over that distance. However, I think we must establish what we mean by free fall first, since I'd argue that the collapse (of the WTC in particular) was not free fall.

Agreed. Therefore it should have taken much longer than ~10 seconds. This is one of the key arguments of those that believe that demolition had to have occurred.No, no. Disagreed.

Source for which?--that--
Free fall speed would have been about 9.5 seconds.

But it's not free fall. Especially not since the buildings tops crashed down. Source please?

EDIT: Actually, could you please tell me what you mean by "crashed down"? I assumed you meant toppled over and fell intact, but it just occured to me that you may have meant something else instead.

Huh? No, no. I do not doubt the buildings went down in ten seconds. The collapse lasted ten seconds. You seem to advocate that the buildings would need the same time when in free fall over that distance. However, I think we must establish what we mean by free fall first, since I'd argue that the collapse (of the WTC in particular) was not free fall. Free fall as in various parts encountered no discernable reisistance as they fell. As in if you dropped a billard ball from the top it would have landed at the bottom at roughly the same time as the top floor.

And you don't need a source for that (even though I can provide one if you want), all you need to crunch the numbers yourself.

No, no. Disagreed. Okay, now I'm confused. The building should have fallen faster than free fall speed, because there were other floors (acting as resistance) in the way? Please help me understand what your position is.

--that--Will you accept the National Institute of Standards and Technology (See #6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm))?) If the answer is yes, then the only remaining question is whether or not you accept their explanation.

Source please?

EDIT: Actually, could you please tell me what you mean by "crashed down"? I assumed you meant toppled over and fell intact, but it just occured to me that you may have meant something else instead.No, I didn't mean it fell over. I meant the part of the buildings above the levels where the planes dug into them crashed down into the building and "pressed" it towards the ground. Source: * video.

Free fall as in various parts encountered no discernable reisistance as they fell. As in if you dropped a billard ball from the top it would have landed at the bottom at roughly the same time as the top floor.I would doubt that.

And you don't need a source for that (even though I can provide one if you want), all you need to crunch the numbers yourself.Of course I can. However, I'd like to take a look at your source underlining how the building underneath had almost no resistance to offer against the "falling" top.

Will you accept the National Institute of Standards and Technology (See #6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm))?) If the answer is yes, then the only remaining question is whether or not you accept their explanation.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.11 seconds? 15, 25? Which number is it. Are the last 40/60 stories of the building not part of the collapsing building? The NIST clearly states "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." At best is took 11 seconds for the stories 90 to 60 (or 40) to collapse under the pressure of the 20 stories above. Quite a difference in distance and speed compared to a free fall from the towers total height.

So, while the facts might be correct, the indication/notion of question #6 ("equals free fall") isn't. I'm afraid your source doesn't support the "down in 10 seconds" idea.

Do you got another one?

No, I didn't mean it fell over. I meant the part of the buildings above the levels where the planes dug into them crashed down into the building and "pressed" it towards the ground. Source: * video. So how does this rule out free fall?

I would doubt that. Okay. Do you have something more substantial?

Of course I can. However, I'd like to take a look at your source underlining how the building underneath had almost no resistance to offer against the "falling" top. The NIST source that I provided above (and you quoted below) will confirm it. As would the fact that 110 stories collapsed in ~10 seconds.

11 seconds? 15, 25? Which number is it. From the source you quoted (and emphasized) yourself:
11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)

11+9=20
20/2=10

Approximately 10 seconds is what I have been pretty consistently saying all along correct?

significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds You'll have to take the NIST to task for their use of approximation sir, but I will point out that they are referring to "the cores", not complete floors.

Also, if someone (you perhaps) would like to point out where we can see the cores in the footage, it would go a very long way towards helping me to believe that this is actually true.

Are the last 40/60 stories of the building not part of the collapsing building?As I pointed out above, the source said "cores" not "stories". If you have another source that says otherwise, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.

The NIST clearly states "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." Yet they feel comforable asserting that 40/60 stories of cores stood for another 15-25 seconds. Sounds like they are tying to have it both ways to me.

The footage seems pretty consistent with ~10 seconds and the official 9/11 commission report would appear to agree. Even the NIST report confirms 11 and 9 seconds respectively. It seems to me that there is some degree of concensus on the issue.

At best is took 11 seconds for the stories 90 to 60 (or 40) to collapse under the pressure of the 20 stories above. Quite a difference in distance and speed compared to a free fall from the towers total height. At best for who's case; yours or mine? Are you hanging your argument on ~1.5 seconds?

Let's just go with 11 seconds. That's 10 floors per second. Gone. "One-one-thousand" = 10 floors gone. Where is the resistance? The floors that were not hit by a plane collapsed just as quickly as those that were? Really?

So, while the facts might be correct, the indication/notion of question #6 ("equals free fall") isn't. I'm afraid your source doesn't support the "down in 10 seconds" idea. You're correct. It only supports the "down in 11 seconds" and "down in 9 seconds" ideas. My apologies.

Do you got another one?Well, if you won't even accept the offical report, why even try?

Alright, fair enough. Just wanted to keep you on your toes. At any rate, what does that prove, precisely? Spell it out for me, I'm too lazy to think this through.

So how does this rule out free fall?How is it free fall when there's constantly something you fall on?

Do you have something more substantial?When you going to provide something more substantial to support the claim I doubt first...

The NIST source that I provided above (and you quoted below) will confirm it. As would the fact that 110 stories collapsed in ~10 seconds.The NIST stated that roughly 40 respectively 60 stories stood longer.

From the source you quoted (and emphasized) yourself:


11+9=20
20/2=10

Approximately 10 seconds is what I have been pretty consistently saying all along correct?Again, you're deliberately putting my words out of context. How can the collapse last 10 seconds, when they state at the same time that the lower 3rd of the building stood longer, just to collapse later? They furthermore state, and I repeat: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

Emphasis on: Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



You'll have to take the NIST to task for their use of approximation sir, but I will point out that they are referring to "the cores", not complete floors."significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds" :dozey:

Call it what you want, the NIST clearly states that at least 1/3rd of both buildings did not collapse within 10 seconds.

Also, if someone (you perhaps) would like to point out where we can see the cores in the footage, it would go a very long way towards helping me to believe that this is actually true.Your own source says that: "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds"

You do trust your own source, don't you?

As I pointed out above, the source said "cores" not "stories". If you have another source that says otherwise, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.As I pointed out above, your source reads significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories.

Yet they feel comforable asserting that 40/60 stories of cores stood for another 15-25 seconds. Sounds like they are tying to have it both ways to me.Hence my question which number it is, and whether you got another source.

The footage seems pretty consistent with ~10 seconds and the official 9/11 commission report would appear to agree. Even the NIST report confirms 11 and 9 seconds respectively. It seems to me that there is some degree of concensus on the issue.How about interpreting it the way the NIST meant it? The building's tops consisting of ca. 20 stories crashed down all all the way from level 90 to 40/60 within approximately 10 seconds where it stopped for another 10/15 seconds until the rest collapsed.

At best for who's case; yours or mine? Are you hanging your argument on ~1.5 seconds?What 1.5 seconds?

Let's just go with 11 seconds. That's 10 floors per second. Gone. "One-one-thousand" = 10 floors gone.The error in your math is obvious. As I repeatedly pointed out (and is supported by your source), it's not 110 floors that did collapse, but 50 at best.

Where is the resistance? The floors that were not hit by a plane collapsed just as quickly as those that were? Really?Source that there was no resistance? Source that the 3 floors that got hit collapsed at the same speed as the others did?

You're correct. It only supports the "down in 11 seconds" and "down in 9 seconds" ideas. My apologies.Stop that poppycock crap already. I think we're beyond discussing average values.

Well, if you won't even accept the offical report, why even try?For the same reason you expect me to provide another source? See, I already said that the facts the NIST presented might very well be true, but I think they're abstracted somewhat "adventurous". For instance, if there was no resistance, how come that the collapse stopped at "significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories" for at least another 10 seconds?

Of course, you don't have to support your claims any further, and we could put this aside as "strange idea of wildly interpreted facts".

How is it free fall when there's constantly something you fall on?Unless there isn't something to fall on. Like if the something that was supposed to be there had suddenly been removed, as if by explosives.

But let's remove the building altogether and just assume that you dropped something from the top of one of the intact towers. Free fall for that would be approximately 9.2 seconds (Forgive my earlier 9.5 reference as I was posting from memory). So if free fall for "something" is 9.2 seconds and the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds respectively, then I really don't see how you intent to argue against the assertion that both towers fell at nearly free fall speed.

If the NIST and 9/11 commission accept this and "the loonies" accept this and you can check for yourself with a stop watch, then I cannot understand exactly what your source of contention is.

When you going to provide something more substantial to support the claim I doubt first... I'll take that as "no, I do not have anything other than my personal incredulity".

The NIST stated that roughly 40 respectively 60 stories stood longer. No sir, NIST argued that 40 to 60 stories of the core stood longer. This was just after they got finished saying that there was too much debris to get an accurate timing for the collapse (apparently not too much to support this assertion though). A claim that I have yet to see any evidence for but would be more than happy to review if it were provided.

Again, you're deliberately putting my words out of context. Saying it won't make it true :)

(hint: saying it repeatedly won't work either :()

How can the collapse last 10 seconds, when they state at the same time that the lower 3rd of the building stood longer, just to collapse later? The (heretofore) unsubstantiated claim about the core? I'll address that when there is evidence.

They furthermore state, and I repeat: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."Get a stopwatch and review the video yourself. Feel free to tack on a 20% margin of error if you think it will help your argument.

Emphasis on: Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Bold the whole thing if you like. I still find it a little bit dishonest that they beg "obstruction" when convenient.

"significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds" :dozey:

Call it what you want, the NIST clearly states that at least 1/3rd of both buildings did not collapse within 10 seconds.Thank you, I will continue to call it what I wish, because I am at least familiar enough with the subject that I am arguing to know the difference between complete stories and parts of the core.

Your own source says that: "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds"

You do trust your own source, don't you? Dear sir, I don't trust NIST as far as I can throw them. They, however, are cognizant of the fact that anyone with a copy of the video showing the collapse and a stopwatch can see that the building came down at nearly free fall speed. I figured you had less chance of dismissing the source as "wacko conspiracy theory nonsense" if it came from the body tasked with completely the official report. Apparentely I figured wrong.

As I pointed out above, your source reads significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories.Sir, if you are acknowledging that we are talking about "stories" of the cores and not stories as in "complete floors" (as you seemed to earlier), then we are not in disagreement.

But we're still left without any evidence of this actually happening, so it seems kinda moot to me.

Hence my question which number it is, and whether you got another source. Another source for math?

Sure, Ray.

Download this (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Science-CAD/Free-Fall-Calculator.shtml)
Run the application
Select the English radio button at the bottom (unless you know what 1355 feet is in meters. I do not.)
In the Vacuum Calculations part at the bottom, find Time (enter distance)
Input 1355 (the average hight of the two buildings; 1350 and 1360 respectively)
Click calculate.
1350 feet=311.48m. 1360 feet=414.53. A meter/feet/fathom conversion calculator is here. (http://boatsafe.com/tools/meter.htm) --Jae

If you don't trust the fast way, let me know and I post the math for you.

My apologies. I didn't realize that you were arguing the laws of physics. I thought you just wanted confirmation that the buildings really fell that fast. I would have posted this sooner, had I known.

How about interpreting it the way the NIST meant it? The building's tops consisting of ca. 20 stories crashed down all all the way from level 90 to 40/60 within approximately 10 seconds where it stopped for another 10/15 seconds until the rest collapsed.Except that I know what "cores" are and therefore know that they don't mean complete floors.

What 1.5 seconds? The 1.5 seconds (which should be 1.8) between free fall (9.2 seconds) and the longest duration of the collapse (11 seconds).

In other words, are you arguing that 1.8 seconds slower than free fall does not qualify as "nearly free fall speeds"?

The error in your math is obvious. As I repeatedly pointed out (and is supported by your source), it's not 110 floors that did collapse, but 50 at best.I really would recommend some more research before posting further. At this point, you're creating arguments based on misinterpretation of the source that can be discounted by stock news footage.

Source that there was no resistance? Source that the 3 floors that got hit collapsed at the same speed as the others did? Yes, sir. Where was the resistance?

"nearly the rate of free fall in a vacuum" means "encountered no resistance". You are saying there was resistence. Please help me understand where this resistance (which would have extended the duration of the collapse) was.

Stop that poppycock crap already. I think we're beyond discussing average values. I would have hoped so as well, but your previous post led me to believe that we were not.

For the same reason you expect me to provide another source? See, I already said that the facts the NIST presented might very well be true, but I think they're abstracted somewhat "adventurous". For instance, if there was no resistance, how come that the collapse stopped at "significant portions of the cores, roughly 40/60 stories" for at least another 10 seconds?I've already addressed this a few other times, so I won't be doing so again here.

Of course, you don't have to support your claims any further, and we could put this aside as "strange idea of wildly interpreted facts".Right. And either one of us could leave the thread at any time since both of us understand that participation is optional and completely voluntary.

Take care, sir.

Unless there isn't something to fall on. Like if the something that was supposed to be there had suddenly been removed, as if by explosives.So, they bombed away all floors below the plane so the top would crush down unstopped?


I'll take that as "no, I do not have anything other than my personal incredulity".I'll take that as "no, I'll provide no source supporting my claim, so you understandably have no other choice but to doubt it."


No sir, NIST argued that 40 to 60 stories of the core stood longer. This was just after they got finished saying that there was too much debris to get an accurate timing for the collapse (apparently not too much to support this assertion though). A claim that I have yet to see any evidence for but would be more than happy to review if it were provided.Your source, remember? Either your source is reliable or not. Can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, you might reread what your source said: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

To say that a part of the building (namely 50 stories) broke down in the same time as an object would need for the buildings whole height, and to conclude this means free fall speed, is well, erroneous.


The (heretofore) unsubstantiated claim about the core? I'll address that when there is evidence.Again, this is coming from your source. If, then it is you that has to prove/disprove that, in other words: is your source reliable, or is it not?


Get a stopwatch and review the video yourself. Feel free to tack on a 20% margin of error if you think it will help your argument.hint: saying things repeatedly doesn't work


Bold the whole thing if you like. I still find it a little bit dishonest that they beg "obstruction" when convenient.YOUR source.


Thank you, I will continue to call it what I wish, because I am at least familiar enough with the subject that I am arguing to know the difference between complete stories and parts of the core.Okay then, how about sharing your knowledge. What is a building's core, when is it a "significant portion" of the building's core? Why is the building still fully collapsed when 40 to 60 stories of this "significant portion of the building's core"?

Oh, and, source, of course.


Dear sir, I don't trust NIST as far as I can throw them.So, NOT a reliable source then?


They, however, are cognizant of the fact that anyone with a copy of the video showing the collapse and a stopwatch can see that the building came down at nearly free fall speed.You saw that the whole building went all the way down? Wasn't there talk about debris in your source, making this impossible for video evidence to reliable determine the TOTAL TIME of collapse?


I figured you had less chance of dismissing the source as "wacko conspiracy theory nonsense" if it came from the body tasked with completely the official report. Apparentely I figured wrong.Conspiracy? Where? Did *I* say so?


Sir, if you are acknowledging that we are talking about "stories" of the cores and not stories as in "complete floors" (as you seemed to earlier), then we are not in disagreement.

But we're still left without any evidence of this actually happening, so it seems kinda moot to me.:dozey: Your. Source.


Except that I know what "cores" are and therefore know that they don't mean complete floors.As I said above, enlighten us, and share a source.


I really would recommend some more research before posting further. At this point, you're creating arguments based on misinterpretation of the source that can be discounted by stock news footage.Could you please support that claim with like, evidence?


Yes, sir. Where was the resistance?

"nearly the rate of free fall in a vacuum" means "encountered no resistance". You are saying there was resistence. Please help me understand where this resistance (which would have extended the duration of the collapse) was.I think I have showed many time that the building did not fall at near free fall speed.


But let's remove the building altogether and just assume that you dropped something from the top of one of the intact towers. Free fall for that would be approximately 9.2 seconds (Forgive my earlier 9.5 reference as I was posting from memory). So if free fall for "something" is 9.2 seconds and the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds respectively, then I really don't see how you intent to argue against the assertion that both towers fell at nearly free fall speed.

If the NIST and 9/11 commission accept this and "the loonies" accept this and you can check for yourself with a stop watch, then I cannot understand exactly what your source of contention is.You clearly misinterpret what they say.


To clarify any further uncertainty about my points for you, and to point out the flaws in your argumentation:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/fig1.png)

So, they bombed away all floors below the plane so the top would crush down unstopped? I'm inclined to clarify what you mean by "they" and "bombed", but I think this is a sufficiently accurate synopsis of the argument.

I'll take that as "no, I'll provide no source supporting my claim, so you understandably have no other choice but to doubt it." That's absolutely correct. Since the discussion is physics, I am left with no choice but to doubt your doubt about how free fall works without knowing why you doubt it.

Your source, remember? Either your source is reliable or not. Can't have it both ways. Not trying to have it both ways :)

As I've already stated, I don't think NIST is reliable. I used the source to show that there is consensus about the amount of time that it took the buildings to fall.

To say that a part of the building (namely 50 stories) broke down in the same time as an object would need for the buildings whole height, and to conclude this means free fall speed, is well, erroneous.No doubt that it would be in the model you've envisioned.

Again, this is coming from your source. If, then it is you that has to prove/disprove that, in other words: is your source reliable, or is it not? It's reliable so far at it confirms what everyone with a copy of the video tape and stop watch can confirm on their own :)

hint: saying things repeatedly doesn't work Come back to me with that after you've done it. :)

Okay then, how about sharing your knowledge. What is a building's core, when is it a "significant portion" of the building's core? Why is the building still fully collapsed when 40 to 60 stories of this "significant portion of the building's core"?

Oh, and, source, of course. Here (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/floor.jpg) Is a picture of one of the WTC towers as is being contstructed.

The black, slightly rectangular section in the middle is the core. It is not solid. This is where the elevators and emergency stairwells are located.

The parts around that are the floors themselves.

If the NIST claim is correct, then some of the black part was still up after the white part had collapsed.

That is why it is important to distinguish that we are not talking about entire floors.
You saw that the whole building went all the way down? Wasn't there talk about debris in your source, making this impossible for video evidence to reliable determine the TOTAL TIME of collapse?Why don't you watch a clip with a stopwatch and then we can chat :)

I think I have showed many time that the building did not fall at near free fall speed.Please direct me to that post sir, as I do not recall seeing it once.

You clearly misinterpret what they say. Feel free to educate me at any time.


To clarify any further uncertainty about my points for you, and to point out the flaws in your argumentation:
<snip>1) The buildings were 110 stories each. All 110 stories collapsed, not 50 as you reference in the photo.

2) the core would've been a long tubular structure going up the center of the building rather than an amorphous blob settled at the base.

So since your picture fails to match what really happened, I'm not sure how it points out the flaws in my argumentation.

Thanks for your response.

P.S. What did you think of the freeware program? I'm curious to know what number it generated for you. Each time I try it, it comes back with approximately 9.2 so I'm hoping that it did the same for you. Take care.

I'm inclined to clarify what you mean by "they" and "bombed", but I think this is a sufficiently accurate synopsis of the argument.Ui.


That's absolutely correct. Since the discussion is physics, I am left with no choice but to doubt your doubt about how free fall works without knowing why you doubt it.See, I'm very educated in the field of physics, and good grief, I sure as hell do know free fall.


As I've already stated, I don't think NIST is reliable. I used the source to show that there is consensus about the amount of time that it took the buildings to fall.Using a non-reliable source to support your point here?

I have to wonder.


It's reliable so far at it confirms what everyone with a copy of the video tape and stop watch can confirm on their ownNope. It says "total collapse time is not determinable through video evidence".


Here (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/floor.jpg) Is a picture of one of the WTC towers as is being contstructed.

The black, slightly rectangular section in the middle is the core. It is not solid. This is where the elevators and emergency stairwells are located.OK, and despite 40 or 60 stories still standing the building is totally down?


If the NIST claim is correct, then some of the black part was still up after the white part had collapsed.Is the core not part of the building?


That is why it is important to distinguish that we are not talking about entire floors.
Why don't you watch a clip with a stopwatch and then we can chatThe source you brought up clearly says I could *not* use video evidence to stop the total collapse time, yet you insist on being able to do so.

Once for all, is your source reliable and true or not? Note that I'm afraid cherry picking parts of it to be true and others not, possibly in favour of supporting your argumentation is not an acceptable thing to do here.


1) The buildings were 110 stories each. All 110 stories collapsed, not 50 as you reference in the photo.Not within those first 10 seconds you are talking about, and which are shown in my graphic.


2) the core would've been a long tubular structure going up the center of the building rather than an amorphous blob settled at the base.OK. I put more focus on the height rather than on a correct display of the core, so I think I'll keep that in mind for the next time.


P.S. What did you think of the freeware program?Well, I became all curious whether it will on Linux using WINE, and it does.


I'm curious to know what number it generated for you. Each time I try it, it comes back with approximately 9.2Time of free fall of a constant mass in a vacuum from a height of 1355 feet (413 metres) accelerated by Earth's gravitational force? 9.18s, yes.


Although I'm not sure how exactly the collapse of the tower involves a vacuum or constant mass?

Ui. ?

See, I'm very educated in the field of physics, and good grief, I sure as hell do know free fall. Yet the physics is precisely what you are arguing :confused:

Using a non-reliable source to support your point here?

I have to wonder. I've already explained why I used the source. You have no cause to wonder.

Nope. It says "total collapse time is not determinable through video evidence".Yet they quote 9 seconds and 11 seconds respectively. You seem to be more inclined to quibble over their caveats than address the point.

OK, and despite 40 or 60 stories still standing the building is totally down? 40 or 60 stories of the core (i.e. steel beams) allegedly standing, sir. Not complete floors. Everything else around the cores (i.e. the actual floors) had collapsed.

Is the core not part of the building?Not the way you seem to think it is. You seem to think that since some small portion of the internal support structure may not have fallen right away means that the rest of the building didn't do what everyone except for you (well, and maybe others who haven't been heard from yet) acknowledges did happen.

The source you brought up clearly says I could *not* use video evidence to stop the total collapse time, yet you insist on being able to do so.

Once for all, is your source reliable and true or not? I have already addressed this. Repeatedly.

Note that I'm afraid cherry picking parts of it to be true and others not, possibly in favour of supporting your argumentation is not an acceptable thing to do here.:lol: Nice try :)

Not within those first 10 seconds you are talking about, and which are shown in my graphic. Says you :)
I'll need something more substantiative than your sketch pad as a source.

OK. I put more focus on the height rather than on a correct display of the core, so I think I'll keep that in mind for the next time. Ok. Let me know when I can look foward to seeing version 2.

Time of free fall of a constant mass in a vacuum from a height of 1355 feet (413 metres) accelerated by Earth's gravitational force? 9.18s, yes.


Although I'm not sure how exactly the collapse of the tower involves a vacuum or constant mass?Well if a constant mass dropped from the top of the tower falls as a certain rate which we call "free fall" and the tower itself falls at slightly slower rate, then I think the argument is that we can say that the tower fell at nearly free fall speed.

Let's try this. Assume that each floor encountered 1/2 a second of resistance before it collaped onto the floor below. 1/2 a second for all the kinetic energy to be transferred, all those welds and bolts to simultaneously fail, etc before adding it's mass to the mess and continuing into the floor below.

110 * 0.5 = 55 seconds. 55 seconds to collapse compared to the ~10 second consensus.

So please, as I've been asking for several posts now, please tell me what happened to the resistance. Where did it go?

Thanks in advance for your post.

For some reason I can't find my last post. Oh well.

Here are some interesting videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjEycLali9Q)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P72v8zryZAE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGN9jWBnXA)

So please, as I've been asking for several posts now, please tell me what happened to the resistance. Where did it go?OK, since you ask so eager for it: It disappeared in your false interpretation of facts and erroneous calculation.

Why? How? Here we go:


Mistake 1: drop height

The drop height is defined as the shortest distance between the dropped object and the ground.

Your height of 110 stories (1355 feet) demands that the roof only started dropping down. Was it really so?

Let's have a look at:

the north tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/nothtower/collaps_north_tower.htm)
the south tower collapse picture sequence (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/southtower/collaps_south_tower.htm)

As we can see clearly in both sequences, the whole upper parts of both towers started to drop, giving an object to ground distance of less than 110 stories (1355 feet).

A second, closer look indicates that these parts were everything above where the planes hit.

Supportive source - NIST:

"At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns."


What heights are we really talking about?

The planes hit the towers between floors 93 and 99 respectively 75 and 83. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Impacts_of_airl) iners)

That means the maximum that can be taken as drop height is story 99 for the north tower and story 83 for the south tower.


I adapted the drop heights relatively to 1355 feet as follows:

north tower: 1220 feet
south tower: 1022 feet


Then I used your program to calculate the time an object of constant mass would need in a vacuum to drop from those heights to zero.

1220 feet: 8.7 seconds
1022 feet: 8.0 seconds




Shall I proceed?

OK, since you ask so eager for it: It disappeared in your false interpretation of facts and erroneous calculation. Sorry, Ray, I didn't see anything here that helped me understand how the building did not fall in greater time than the times I've provided (~10 seconds)

If there was resistance, the building would have taken more time (not less time) to collapse. In the "0.5 seconds of resistance" model that I offered earlier, the collapse would have taken 5 times as long. Even your "it isn't officially collapsed until the last phantom steel beam is on the ground" model is roughly half that.

Nothing you've posted here tells me where the resistance went.

P.S. Tell me sir, if I have a 110 story building, and someone magically removes any one floor from the structure, would the roof of that 110 story building suddenly be about one floor closer to the ground? Suppose that we wanted to magically remove all the floors and track the amount of time it takes the top of the 110 floor to make it to the ground, would it matter where we started removing the floors? I don't think that it does, but if you disagree, I'd very much like to hear your rationale.

Shall I proceed?Yes, sir, please do.

Sorry, Ray, I didn't see anything here that helped me understand how the building did not fall in less than the times I've provided (~10 seconds)Huh? The point is that the height you are using for your free ware tool is simply false. You assume that the fall started at the tower's height, which it did not, which I try to explain now since ages.


Nothing you've posted here tells me where the resistance went.You don't listen. :/


P.S. Tell me sir, if I have a 110 story building, and someone magically removes any one floor from the structure, would the roof of that 110 story building suddenly be about one floor closer to the ground? Suppose that we wanted to magically remove all the floors and track the amount of time it takes the top of the 110 floor to make it to the ground, would it matter where we started removing the floors?Wrong way. You stand on the roof of said 110 story building, and are holding a 1 and a 100 metres long stick each at their upper ends. When you let them go which one hits the ground first, thus has the shorter free fall period?


I don't think that it does, but if you disagree, I'd very much like to hear your rationale.

Yes, sir, please do.The height you use for your time-of-free-fall prediction is false. It is significantly shorter, thus the vacuum-free-fall-comparison-time value is to high, which means the difference to the ~10 seconds is greater.

Huh? The point is that the height you are using for your free ware tool is simply false. You assume that the fall started at the tower's height, which it did not, which I try to explain now since ages. Actually, did. The buildings did not magically lose a floor (or several) when the planes struck. Therefore the buildings were still 1350 and 1360 feet when they started collapsing.

You don't listen. :/Okay, well maybe you should just add me to your ignore list then.

Wrong way. You stand on the roof of said 110 story building, and are holding a 1 and a 100 metres long stick each at their upper ends. When you let them go which one hits the ground first, thus has the shorter free fall period? Quite irrelevant.

[i]The height you use for your time-of-free-fall prediction is false. It is significantly shorter, Really? why?

I'm tired.

So long then, and -- enjoy your read (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf).

Achilles, Ray--tone it down. Leave the snarkiness at the door. It doesn't belong here. The rest of the staff and I will evaluate the latest round of posts--it's too late for me to do that right now.

have you everluretortured the thread Jae?

Actually, did. The buildings did not magically lose a floor (or several) when the planes struck. Therefore the buildings were still 1350 and 1360 feet when they started collapsing.That is correct.

Quite irrelevant.Nope. Both sticks had the same total height, yet one has a 99 metres shorter way down. An analogy applicable to the towers' collapse.

Really? why?1. my stick analogy, 2. did you read the document I linked to in #126?

@Ray--I'm going to look it over with a couple other staffers before deciding on what actions, if any will be taken. It was Father's Day yesterday and so a lot of us were with family instead of looking over heated threads. :) If it gets any hotter here, though, I have no problem taking an immediate action. So, let's just all take it easy on each other....

Here's a report from Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) for those of us not wanting to wade through multivariate calculus. I was going to point out, Ray, that calculating building fall was a. not exact due to the dust obscuring the last couple seconds of video and b. involved much more complex equations than a simple free-fall calculation when both you and the engineering report did it for me.

Regarding the source for the ratio of a 767 vs. 707 hitting the WTC--I just did a simple F=ma calculation with the weights and speeds listed from the reports, and 'a' being the deceleration (or negative acceleration) to zero, then taking the ratio of the 2. However, after having the car wreck, I found the more appropriate formula to use was F=-1/2mv^2/d and here's a site calculator (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/carcr.html#cc1). Input the data in whatever units it specifies. Comparing the ratio (distance drops out in this case if you assume they're the same for both planes), the 767 hit the WTC with over 11 times the force of a proposed 707. Just for fun, input the max takeoff weight of a 767 (395,000 lbs), speed of the 767 on 9/11 (545 mph), and be generous in giving it 100 feet to come to a full stop (I'll have to look that up later--there's probably data on that somewhere). The plane hit the building with 19,623.7 tons of force. I'm sure that exceeded design specifications.

Achilles--you mentioned not having the conversion feet/meter conversion in one of your previous posts. Here's a converter (http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/meters-to-feet.htm) for that and a number of other units such as temperature and volume.

Nope. Both sticks had the same total height, yet one has a 99 metres shorter way down. An analogy applicable to the towers' collapse. Considering that the upper floors collapsed too, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why you think this analogy is applicable. Even the time-lapse frames from the site you provided a few posts ago show this.

1. my stick analogy, 2. did you read the document I linked to in #126?This doesn't answer my question.

Yes, I read the document. Did you?

Here's a report from Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) for those of us not wanting to wade through multivariate calculus. Yep, I've seen that before too, however it doesn't address my question(s) either. :(

I'm sure that exceeded design specifications.Even assuming that all the assumptions that you made above are applicable, surely you can recognize that without knowing what the design specifications were this is simply a guess.

Achilles--you mentioned not having the conversion feet/meter conversion in one of your previous posts. Here's a converter (http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/meters-to-feet.htm) for that and a number of other units such as temperature and volume.Thank you for the link.

Yep, I've seen that before too, however it doesn't address my question(s) either. :( I thought it addressed some of the questions--sorry for any confusion on that. I think it addressed some of the points others brought up, though.

Even assuming that all the assumptions that you made above are applicable, surely you can recognize that without knowing what the design specifications were this is simply a guess. Well, do you know of any buildings designed to withstand about 20,000 tons of force hitting it? Is it reasonable to assume that buildings are ever designed to take that kind of force, with maybe the exception of some uber-bomb shelter? Sure, it might be a guess that a skyscraper isn't designed to take 20,000 tons of damage, but I think it's a pretty darned good guess just the same.

I thought it addressed some of the questions--sorry for any confusion on that. I think it addressed some of the points others brought up, though. They seemed to spend a lot of effort debunking (what I think we'd all agree are) rumors. What effort they do extend toward actual engineering/science type stuff is perfunctory at best :(

Hence why I'm so terribly disappointed with sources such as Popular Mechanics, etc. I would have thought that if anyone would have been able to address these points and truly debunk the alternative hypothesis, it would have been groups such as these. It really was kind of a let-down.
Well, do you know of any buildings designed to withstand about 20,000 tons of force hitting it? Is it reasonable to assume that buildings are ever designed to take that kind of force, with maybe the exception of some uber-bomb shelter? Sure, it might be a guess that a skyscraper isn't designed to take 20,000 tons of damage, but I think it's a pretty darned good guess just the same.Considering that the buildings designers claim (and I understand that it's a claim) to have over-designed the buildings to withstand multiple hits from comparable craft, I would say that we have at least two contenders. :)

Considering that the buildings designers claim (and I understand that it's a claim) to have over-designed the buildings to withstand multiple hits from comparable craft, I would say that we have at least two contenders. :)

Despite your disclaimer, it's pretty interesting that you seem so willing to accept their claims. Since no one actually flew a 707 into the towers in 1972 (or thereabouts) to test their claims, I suspose it's be easy to claim such. Afterall, they had to fill the building with tenants to make the investment pay off.

Theres a lot of opposing info on this subject but I believe it was an terrorist attack.

I suppose it would do no good to mention the Loose Change The Final Cut. In that he cites an example where I think a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building. Damage yes but still standing. He also cites that when the towers collapsed the seismic station picked it up but when the car with bomb was driven into basement, not as much. I think also he highlights where possible explosions occurred.

I may be spinning my wheels here but I watched the towers collapse, well the second one on live tv and it is suspicious in nature. Looking at it, it looked more like a controlled demolition.

I should point out that before the 'attacks' on Sept. 11th, a neo conservaative group published a manifesto entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. Listed in it were acts that we have already taken. It also said that it would have to take a grave atrocity for it to begin hence we get Sept. 11th. Conspiracy? I don't know. Do I care? Not really since I have read enough of different conspiracy theories to make me laugh til New Years. However there are things out there that are pointing out things that don't make sense. It's the same evidence but it is up to the interpreter.

Considering that the upper floors collapsed too, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why you think this analogy is applicable. Even the time-lapse frames from the site you provided a few posts ago show this.Regarding the physical model of the collapse, the upper floors collapsed separately. You can also see that in the sequences.
The model of the collapse as introduced in the document from #126 underlines this pretty clear as well. (Figs. 1 and 2)

To take the towers' total height as drop distance gives inaccurate results regarding the vacuum-free-fall comparison, approximations at best.

Regarding the physical model of the collapse, the upper floors collapsed separately. You can also see that in the sequences.
The model of the collapse as introduced in the document from #126 underlines this pretty clear as well. (Figs. 1 and 2) What do you mean "separately"? There was one continuous collapse. The collapse started, continued, then ended. The commonly accepted time span for this is approximately 10 seconds. A billiard ball dropped from the roof at the same time the building started to collapse would have hit the ground in 9.2 second in a vacuum.

To take the towers' total height as drop distance gives inaccurate results regarding the vacuum-free-fall comparison, approximations at best.Based on what?

.8 seconds doesn't seem like much, but at that distance, it's a lot. I haven't made it through the entire engineering report yet, but there is the question of whether the WTC fell like one single building or as essentially 2 separate pieces from an engineering standpoint (which may be different from what we can see visibly). Regardless of that, as the architect's site noted, the floors were self-supporting via attachments to the core and the side walls. If the planes and resultant damage and fires destroyed large parts of the walls and part or all of the core in one section, those floors failed, everything above it failed because there was no underlying support for those side walls anymore, either. Everything below was crushed by everything above. If the floors were individually self-supporting and were not designed to be weight-bearing for any of the floors above them, it should be no surprise that they collapsed at the rate they did. It was like taking a bowling ball and dropping it on a house of cards.

I think we should be surprised not at the fact that the towers fell, but at the fact that they stood as long as they did after that kind of massive damage.

.8 seconds doesn't seem like much, but at that distance, it's a lot. .8 seconds assuming that it fell in a vacuum (which we know it did not). As I pointed out earlier, a half second of resistance per floor would have produced a collapse that took 55 seconds; 5 times longer than it actually did. So I wouldn't recommend hinging a counter argument on .8 seconds.

I haven't made it through the entire engineering report yet, but there is the question of whether the WTC fell like one single building or as essentially 2 separate pieces from an engineering standpoint (which may be different from what we can see visibly). I could have fallen in 110 separate pieces, but that still won't help explain why both building fell at nearly free fall speed, meaning that they encountered no resistance while they came down.

Regardless of that, as the architect's site noted, the floors were self-supporting via attachments to the core and the side walls. If the planes and resultant damage and fires destroyed large parts of the walls and part or all of the core in one section, those floors failed, everything above it failed because there was no underlying support for those side walls anymore, either. Then the portion above the impact should have fallen intact. As Ray's earlier photos show, they collapsed first.

Everything below was crushed by everything above. If the floors were individually self-supporting and were not designed to be weight-bearing for any of the floors above them, it should be no surprise that they collapsed at the rate they did. Thousands of welds, bolts, etc instantly failing, simultaneously, at a rate of 10 floors per second. Not buying it.

If the building had taken a minute or more to collapse or if we had stacks of compressed floors, I would be right beside you on this.

It was like taking a bowling ball and dropping it on a house of cards.Not even close.

I think we should be surprised not at the fact that the towers fell, but at the fact that they stood as long as they did after that kind of massive damage.Would you care to explain why?

I suppose it would do no good to mention the Loose Change The Final Cut.

On Loose Change I found it strange however that they couldn't get their facts straight after two installments.

What do you do when you find new evidence?

Try not to massage it as transparently as the old "evidence". :xp:

What do you do when you find new evidence?

So if that evidence was flawed in the beginning, what could the new evidence be?

Please do not answer the question with another one. I'll be more than happy to answer anything that you would like to present after you've shown me that same respect. Thanks.

So if that evidence was flawed in the beginning, what could the new evidence be?

He either doesn't know or would likely suggest you watch all the versions and figure it out for yourself. :lol: Seriously, if the "old" evidence is handled so badly in analysis, why would anyone trust their spin on the so-called "new" evidence? This is also a problem with the whole "global warming" argument. If the biggest proponents don't demonstrate through their actions that they take the theory seriously, why should they expect anyone else would either. If the source of the info is suspect, then it's probably just as likely that their slant is too.

Please do not answer the question with another one. I'll be more than happy to answer anything that you would like to present after you've shown me that same respect. Thanks.

It was more-or-less a rhetorical question... Have you actually even seen Loose Change? If you truly want to debate on a topic (in this case Loose Change) you should probably watch the videos.

But if you must insist on me answering your question I guess I will.

What do you do when you find new evidence?

When I personally find new evidence I include that evidence. However, I personally wouldn't even release a film before I have all the correct evidence. Why? So I do not look like I didn't have my crap together in the first place.

Now that I have gotten that taken care of, I'll ask you my question again:

If the creators of Loose Change were still flawed after two movies, isn't there a pretty large possibility that they could still be wrong about some things?

They made very drastic changes in the films that just left me confused. First they claim that a missile hit the Pentagon... and then they just change their claim to that it was a military plane.

Have you actually even seen Loose Change? I have, however that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. :)

When I personally find new evidence I include that evidence. However, I personally wouldn't even release a film before I have all the correct evidence. Why? So I do not look like I didn't have my crap together in the first place.We shouldn't ask questions until we have the answers first?

If the creators of Loose Change were still flawed after two movies, isn't there a pretty large possibility that they could still be wrong about some things?That would depend a great deal on what changes were made and why. Your argument seems to be that that the flat out got everything wrong and kept taking blind stabs in the dark. I don't agree that this was the case at all. For instance, the changes between the 2nd edition and the final cut were largely stylistic as the Final Cut was intended for theater audiences.

They made very drastic changes in the films that just left me confused. First they claim that a missile hit the Pentagon... and then they just change their claim to that it was a military plane.Perhaps you should ask them why they decided to throw their support behind one hypothesis over another. They may even have an explanation on their website.

I have, however that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. :)

No, but it does however help me understand you, and helps make it so I don't have to ask the question later on. However, if you would like me to do so, just let me know. ;)



We shouldn't ask questions until we have the answers first?

Never in my post did I suggest that. However, I did suggest that we do need our answers correct before we continue asking more questions and giving bad answers.

That would depend a great deal on what changes were made and why. Your argument seems to be that that the flat out got everything wrong and kept taking blind stabs in the dark. I don't agree that this was the case at all. For instance, the changes between the 2nd edition and the final cut were largely stylistic as the Final Cut was intended for theater audiences.

Never was that my intent. A few things I found were a little off in the film and was just stating that maybe the film might not be very trustworthy.

You have to understand, that when analyzing a conspiracy you have to look at it from both angles. Who's trying to screw me over? The conspirators who can make money from these films and merchandise. Or is it the government with a secret agenda. I personally lean on both sides.

Perhaps you should ask them why they decided to throw their support behind one hypothesis over another. They may even have an explanation on their website.

An explanation could easy be scewed to appease me. However if you want me to, I will send them an email.

No, but it does however help me understand you, and helps make it so I don't have to ask the question later on. However, if you would like me to do so, just let me know. ;) Ah, ok.
In that case, I've seen each of the Loose Change films, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 Mysteries, and perhaps a handful of others who's titles escape me right now.

Some of them are better than others.

Never in my post did I suggest that. However, I did suggest that we do need our answers correct before we continue asking more questions and giving bad answers. I'm not seeing how this refutes the observation I made earlier. This still sounds as though you're suggesting that we should not ask questions until we already have the answers.

Unlike many of the others that created movies regarding September 11th, these guys continued to do research and as such released new films as information was discovered and/or specific arguments were sufficiently refuted.

To me, this sounds a lot like how things are supposed to work.

Never was that my intent. A few things I found were a little off in the film and was just stating that maybe the film might not be very trustworthy. I have absolutely no problem with that. In each of the films I've seen there have been multiple arguments that I thought were a little on the "too much" side. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume that everything they've said is garbage.

You have to understand, that when analyzing a conspiracy you have to look at it from both angles. Who's trying to screw me over? The conspirators who can make money from these films and merchandise. Or is it the government with a secret agenda. I personally lean on both sides.I would agree with this as well. However, at the same time all of the films I've seen have been made available for free. Hard for me to infer a profit motive if these people are giving their work away (which leaves the fame motive, I suppose).

An explanation could easy be scewed to appease me. However if you want me to, I will send them an email.It's not up to me, it's up to you. I personally don't agree with the drone hypothesis, however I also acknowledge that I don't have access to all the information either, so my opinion is slightly more rigorous than arbitrary.

Ah, ok.
In that case, I've seen each of the Loose Change films, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 Mysteries, and perhaps a handful of others who's titles escape me right now.

I would also like to recommend Zeitgeist. You can watch it for free at Zeitgeistmovie.com


I'm not seeing how this refutes the observation I made earlier. This still sounds as though you're suggesting that we should not ask questions until we already have the answers.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that LooseChange (I believe you're asking about LooseChange) are not only asking questions (questions are fine) but they are supplying answers to their own questions. The problem is with that is that SOME of their answers have been wrong... And therefore they should get their answers RIGHT before answering their questions..


Unlike many of the others that created movies regarding September 11th, these guys continued to do research and as such released new films as information was discovered and/or specific arguments were sufficiently refuted.

and I can accept that.

To me, this sounds a lot like how things are supposed to work.

I have absolutely no problem with that. In each of the films I've seen there have been multiple arguments that I thought were a little on the "too much" side. That doesn't mean that I automatically assume that everything they've said is garbage.

I never meant for it to sound like I thought it was all garbage. I just thought that people should keep it in-mind so they are not as confused/upset as I was after watching the third installment.

I would agree with this as well. However, at the same time all of the films I've seen have been made available for free. Hard for me to infer a profit motive if these people are giving their work away (which leaves the fame motive, I suppose).

I don't really have a problem for the movies to cost money.since it takes money to make the film in the first place.However, the money they may make from merchandising may be different in its-self.