You know that this comment isn't going to be taken lightly... :pThat's fine. Whatever arguments are directed at my sarcasm can be used against those that make similar comments in all seriousness. :D
So is also the second one (the one he left out while quoting from #192 so happily in #194) which states that 17 seconds is a reasonable estimate for the time frame of both collapses.Oh is that what you meant?
Ray, do you really think it's wise to try to play the "he isn't responding to my arguments" card, considering that you've conveniently ignored about 50% of this thread? I'd be happy to go through and make a "greatest hits" collection of all the stuff that you've failed to respond to if you'd like. I don't think it would look good for you though :(
I thought my point was sufficiently clear, however if it was not, feel free to redo my math with 17 seconds rather than 15 and just superimpose that number on my previous response. I hope that helps.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/wtc.gif)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/wtc-1.png)
This shows how the building's top part above the crashed plane "telescopes" into the lower part. It is only logical that the first sections which are crunched are the 10 stories where the tower got hit, as the animation (seconds 0 to 3) points out. Note that these 10 stories neither belong to the upper nor the lower part.
Please keep in mind that this animation is made of the first, third, fifth and seventh picture of the sequence provided in #197, where it (read: the sequence) was used to prove that the radio tower came down first. Poppycock, as I think this animation shows clearly that the radio tower on the roof and the top start moving down as one unit, and not as suggested in #197. They start moving together.
PS: please note that I put the word telescopes in quotation marks, and used it simply to describe the way it looks in above animation when the damaged stories give way for the top to follow gravitation.
Of course it only looks like this, and it should be more than obvious what I meant.
Thank you for helping to make my point. The illustration is much clearer with the lines that you've added.
Now compare this with your previous sketches which suggest that the upper floors are being crushed at the same time as the lower floors, or your source from #126 that suggests that the upper floors collapse last (or "crush up") after they have helped to crush all the floors below.
Clearly you can see that we have three scenarios and only one of them has video evidence.
Thanks for reading.
This shows how the building's top part above the crashed plane "telescopes" into the lower part. "Telescoped"? Tell me Ray, what was pushing down on the lightest part of the building (i.e. the part of the building with no mass above it), that caused it to "telescope" down as you're suggesting (as opposed to "collapse" as the video suggests)?
Also, please address how this "telescoping" matches neither your earlier drawings or the much lauded source you provided in post #126.
It is only logical that the first sections which are crunched are the 10 stories where the tower got hit, as the animation (seconds 0 to 3) clearly shows. Note that these 10 stories neither belong to the upper nor the lower part. Your "only logical" explanations keep changing, Ray.
What's pulverizing the floors above the impact? How about the vast majority of the building on the impact floors that wasn't damaged by the planes? What's pulverizing those? The "mass" of the pulverized concrete and broken steel beams from above?
Jae mentioned earlier that it was like "dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards". I said "Not quite" because the closer analogy is that it was like someone dropped half a deck of cards on a bowling ball...and the bowling ball collapsed.
So, as I said earlier, any time you'd like to get around to those physics...
However, I think this animation also clearly shows that the radio tower on the roof and the top start moving down as one unit.Another claim directly in conflict with the video evidence. Han sala's link clearly shows that the tower goes first. We can discuss why, but we can't change the facts.
Hey kids, what to do something crazy? Let's see..why don't we try something that you even can do at home right now?
OK. Take two eggs, put one on the ground and hold the other one above it at, what do I know, half a meter distance.
Now let the one you hold go at watch closely. -- Whoa there, that was cool wasn't it?
That's all for today, kids!!
And the next time uncle Achilles will come here to tell us why both eggs broke, and not just one.
The WTC buildings were constructed from free falling eggs? :eyeraise:
Do you intend on actually addressing any of the points raised in the last two pages or are you really hoping that these attempts at distraction are going to make us forget that the video evidence doesn't match your sketches or your source from post #126?
And the next time uncle Achilles will come here to tell us why both eggs broke, and not just one.
That was possibly... the weirdest... analogy I have ever heard you TRY to explain. What the hell did that have to do with anything?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but.....:confused:
Also, the "concrete evidence" you displayed with the frames of the tower falling: Was that displayed in frame-by-frame or was it just random frames of the moment? It looked like it skipped a lot of frames.
That was possibly... the weirdest... analogy I have ever heard you TRY to explain. What the hell did that have to do with anything?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but.....:confused:In post #203 the questions "What's pulverizing the floors above the impact? How about the vast majority of the building on the impact floors that wasn't damaged by the planes? What's pulverizing those? The "mass" of the pulverized concrete and broken steel beams from above?" are asked.
The egg analogy points out the physical principle behind that process. You have intact floors or building structure above and below the impact zone (the eggs). Then you got damaged and rather not intact structure in between which barely can hold the mass of the upper part (the egg you hold). Once a critical limit in structural degeneration is crossed the damaged section gives way and allows the top part to follow gravitation. Note that it will not give way slowly, it's more like when you break a thick stick. At first it's pretty withstanding but the more you manage to bend it the easier it gets, and once the structure's integrity is seriously damaged, it will lose stability at exponential rate, and it will completely break trough in no time.
That point is equivalent to when you let the egg go. Then, when the egg hits down onto the other, the kinetic energy it has gained through the fall exceeds the limit which the fully intact structures of the eggs' shells could withstand -- they break.
It's the same forces at work.
Also, the "concrete evidence" you displayed with the frames of the tower falling: Was that displayed in frame-by-frame or was it just random frames of the moment? It looked like it skipped a lot of frames.I took the pictures from here (
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html) and was linked to this source here (
http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2483771&postcount=197).
I used the pictures from seconds 00:00, 01:00, 02:00 and 03:00.
That point is equivalent to when you let the egg go. Then, when the egg hits down onto the other, the kinetic energy it has gained through the fall exceeds the limit which the fully intact structures of the eggs' shells could withstand -- they break.
It's the same forces at work.
Alright, I understand what you're saying now. You should probably quote what people wrote instead of just randomly putting out an analogy of two eggs.
Alright, that all makes sense. Of course when you drop an egg onto another egg, due to the force, it will break. However, your analogy requires there to be no floors inbetween the top and bottom floor. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting from it.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9390/analogyyf8.jpg)
There are a few things wrong with your analogy, from what I can see. 1) Where are the other floors? Do they not matter? 2) Why is it that in any 9/11 video, the top does not appear to be intact the entire time until it reaches the first level, like how you hinted. 3) Also, the egg analogy references that the tower would have been in free fall. Are you suggesting that the tower fell in free fall time as the egg did?
Also on a side note, The 911 commission report states "At 9:58:59, The South Tower Collapsed In Ten Seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside"-9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9, page 305. They admit what so many deny they do admit. There is no way a gravitational collapse could happen within that time frame.
I took the pictures from here (
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html) and was linked to this source here (
http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2483771&postcount=197).
I used the pictures from seconds 00:00, 01:00, 02:00 and 03:00.
Is there any way for you to get them in faster time? Since the building fell fairly quick, those seconds skip a lot of key frames.
The egg analogy points out the physical principle behind that process. No it doesn't. Eggs are fragile objects. Steel beams welded and bolted to one another, supporing concrete flooring are not. Please try again.
Perhaps you'd like to try the analogy with something like bowling balls, or bricks, et cetera.
You have intact floors or building structure above and below the impact zone (the eggs). Okay.
Then you got damaged and rather not intact structure in between which barely can hold the mass of the upper part (the egg you hold). Source please? This is your speculation and nothing more.
Once a critical limit in structural degeneration is crossed the damaged section gives way and allows the top part to follow gravitation. Okay.
Note that it will not give way slowly, it's more like when you break a thick stick. Why not? Because you say so?
We're not dealing with "sticks", Ray. We're dealing with a couple hundred 1/2 inch-thick steel beams. The last time I checked, metal and wood had different properties and therefore behaved differently. I think this might be part of the reason that architects used steel instead of wood when building these really tall buildings.
At first it's pretty withstanding but the more you manage to bend it the easier it gets, and once the structure's integrity is seriously damaged, it will lose stability at exponential rate, and it will completely break trough in no time. Source please?
That point is equivalent to when you let the egg go. Then, when the egg hits down onto the other, the kinetic energy it has gained through the fall exceeds the limit which the fully intact structures of the eggs' shells could withstand -- they break. Except that in your analogy the second eggs falls intact. As we saw from the video, this isn't what happened.
So here's my counter-experiment. Take four eggs. Stack three of them on top of each other. Hold one about a 1/2 inch above the others. Then crush the one in your hand and let the contents fall on the eggs below. Take note of the damage done to the lower eggs.
According to Ray, we should see all the eggs smash and hit the ground in about as much time as if you had dropped the 1st egg without any other eggs below it.
It's the same forces at work. :lol:
BTW, did anything I just wrote make any sense at all?
Barely any sleep does wonders to the brain.
BTW, did anything I just wrote make any sense at all?
Barely any sleep does wonders to the brain.Yes, your point that Ray is conveniently failing to address the parts of the impact floors that were not damaged by the planes is absolutely relevant. At least that's what I took away from your post.
I hope that helps.
^
Well that's good then. hahaha
However, your analogy requires there to be no floors inbetween the top and bottom floor. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting from it.The 'no floors between them' part is played by the weakened structure (damaged stories) between the intact floors. As other video evidence shows at least parts of the plane managed to worm through the whole building, that means through the outer steel beams on two sides and trough the building's supportive core over a couple of stories. And when it went through it means it left nothing but a hole. And nothing but a hole means in this case air. Only a question of time for rest of the structure until it will give way like a stick that finally breaks. Note: structure, not steel or wood.
Where are the other floors? Do they not matter?Imagine two eggs placed over another falling on two eggs over another, and so on. It still works. Replace the light weight and fragile eggs with stories of a skyscraper, much much heavier and larger, and the principle still applies. Keep in mind that the egg is also a construction designed over hundreds of millions of years, made to offer a maximum on stability while consuming a minimum of material. It is made to be most stable (and evidently very successful in doing so), but not to withstand greater shocks.
Naturally, especially the stories of high buildings are just like eggs, maximum stability, least weight, least material, optimum shape to work against the usually working forces.
Why is it that in any 9/11 video, the top does not appear to be intact the entire time until it reaches the first level, like how you hinted.Hm, there is so much debris coming from the crunch zone, hard to tell what's top and what not in many videos for the whole collapse.
However, in those stills I linked to earlier you can see the shapes of the top parts quite for some time.
Links provided in #122:
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)
When you take another look at the north tower sequence you also may notice how the radio tower is standing there upright on the roof for quite some time as well...it's just staggering a little.
Also, the egg analogy references that the tower would have been in free fall. Are you suggesting that the tower fell in free fall time as the egg did?Oh, the egg analogy doesn't refer to free fall in air in particular. It works under water as well, and water is offering a higher resistance for an egg to fall. And as I said before, when it broke away eventually, the damaged section had almost nothing to give against the tops weight. Maybe barely more than pure air.
On a second thought, it wouldn't work under water any more. Replace water with wind blowing from below or something then. :)
Also on a side note, The 911 commission report states "At 9:58:59, The South Tower Collapsed In Ten Seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside"-9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9, page 305. They admit what so many deny they do admit. There is no way a gravitational collapse could happen within that time frame.So it took longer than ten seconds?
Is there any way for you to get them in faster time? Since the building fell fairly quick, those seconds skip a lot of key frames.No. I only used Achilles' source to disprove the point he was trying to prove with it.
The 'no floors between them' part is played by the weakened structure (damaged stories) between the intact floors. And what percentage of those floors actually sustained damage?
As other video evidence shows at least parts of the plane managed to worm through the whole building, that means through the outer steel beams on two sides and trough the building's supportive core over a couple of stories. And your source for determining how much damage was done?
Also, please address the south tower where the plane hit the corner, thereby missing most of the supportive core.
And when it went through it means it left nothing but a hole.And what percentage of the plane "went through"? How many pieces (and thereby, how many holes)?
A small number means more localized damage.
And nothing but a hole means in this case air. Only a question of time for rest of the structure until it will give way like a stick that finally breaks. Note: structure, not steel or wood. You ever play Jenga? :lol:
Imagine two eggs placed over another falling on two eggs over another, and so on. It still works. Apparently Ray is still insisting that the WTC towers were constructed out of eggs :)
Replace the light weight and fragile eggs with stories of a skyscraper, much much heavier and larger, and the principle still applies. Because everyone knows that the materials used to construct skyscrapers share the same physical properties as eggs :rolleyes:
Keep in mind that the egg is also a construction designed over hundreds of millions of years, made to offer a maximum on stability while consuming a minimum of material. It is made to be most stable (and evidently very successful in doing so), but not to withstand greater shocks. Ray is now going to turn the thread into an intelligent design debate. Poor show, old man. :disaprove
Naturally, especially the stories of high buildings are just like eggs, maximum stability, least weight, least material, optimum shape to work against the usually working forces. Except that the buildings were overdesigned for purposes much more complicated than housing a chicken fetus.
Hm, there is so much debris coming from the crunch zone, hard to tell what's top and what not in many videos for the whole collapse.
However, in those stills I linked to earlier you can see the shapes of the top parts quite for some time.
<snipped links> Quite some time, eh? The frames aren't time stampped so how much time are we taking about, Ray?
When you take another look at the north tower sequence you also may notice how the radio tower is standing there upright on the roof for quite some time as well...it's just staggering a little."quite some time" :dozey:
Oh, the egg analogy doesn't refer to free fall in air in particular. It works under water as well, and water is offering a higher resistance for an egg to fall. And as I said before, when it broke away eventually, the damaged section had almost nothing to give against the tops weight. Maybe barely more than pure air.
On a second thought, it wouldn't work under water any more. Replace water with wind blowing from below or something then. :)
Notice how the question isn't actually answered here.
No. I only used Achilles' source to disprove the point he was trying to prove with it.No you haven't. Respond to my points in #203 and #209 and then maybe you can say that you tried.
The 'no floors between them' part is played by the weakened structure (damaged stories) between the intact floors. As other video evidence shows at least parts of the plane managed to worm through the whole building, that means through the outer steel beams on two caused the other floors to fall
If floors fell the way the "pancake theory" says they fell wouldn't there have been columns left? There is no doubt to me that the floors fell in the manner that is shown, but how is the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related)
Hm, there is so much debris coming from the crunch zone, hard to tell what's top and what not in many videos for the whole collapse.
Not according to the commission report.
Links provided in #122:
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)
I can't really make out anything for the south tower, but the top for the north tower could be seen for most of the frames until the last frame, but who knows where the last frame is at on the tower. I guess where the top went is sort of irrelevant.
Oh, the egg analogy doesn't refer to free fall in air in particular. It works under water as well, and water is offering a higher resistance for an egg to fall. And as I said before, when it broke away eventually, the damaged section had almost nothing to give against the tops weight. Maybe barely more than pure air.
Ah alright,I get it now. Was kinda mixed up between what you and Achillies were saying.
So it took longer than ten seconds?
No, it took 10 seconds. A little less actually, if you put a stopwatch to the video.
If floors fell the way the "pancake theory" says they fell wouldn't there have been columns left? I think regarding the masses and heights and energies we are talking about it's rather expectable that there's not really much left of the building's original structure after the collapse.
There is no doubt to me that the floors fell in the manner that is shown, but how is the problem.What do you mean by how?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=relatedI'll) have to wait until I actually have sound to listen to what that guy has to say.
Not according to the commission report.What are you referring to?
I can't really make out anything for the south tower, but the top for the north tower could be seen for most of the frames until the last frame, but who knows where the last frame is at on the tower. I guess where the top went is sort of irrelevant.Down and *poof* is pretty much a sure shot I say. :)
Ah alright,I get it now. Was kinda mixed up between what you and Achillies were saying."Ter messi comz hided somewun maed u Archnollis a iknorited uers ya kno."
Seems he's posting this all over LF, so no problem for me with getting mixed up. ^^
No, it took 10 seconds. A little less actually, if you put a stopwatch to the video.Actually, I find most videos don't allow to take the collapses' times exactly. Also, sources differ in what they say, it goes from that it took 10 seconds for the collapse, while others state it lasted 10 seconds until the first chunks of debris hit the ground, or even, as in one of Achilles' source, that it took 17 seconds for the towers to collapse.
I personally think it is safe to go with what we can read on Wikipedia:
"Analysis of video footage capturing the initial collapse and analysis of seismic data from Palisades, New York shows that the first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed north tower struck the ground 9 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the south tower after 11 seconds."
I think regarding the masses and heights and energies we are talking about it's rather expectable that there's not really much left of the building's original structure after the collapse.
Of course
What do you mean by how?
The cause of the collapse.
I'll have to wait until I actually have sound to listen to what that guy has to say.
Fair enough
What are you referring to?
Stupid computer. I've had a lot of spyware and malware all over my computer lately and I THOUGHT I deleted that. hahah damn viruses. Lesson, don't download internet explorer.
Down and *poof* is pretty much a sure shot I say. :)
Haha, I don't even know why I was debating over that in the first place. Probably because I had no sleep from trying to fix my computer and the egg analogy at the time screwed with me. lmao
Actually, I find most videos don't allow to take the collapses' times exactly. Also, sources differ in what they say, it goes from that it took 10 seconds for the collapse, while others state it lasted 10 seconds until the first chunks of debris hit the ground, or even, as in one of Achilles' source, that it took 17 seconds for the towers to collapse.
I think it would be safe to credit the 9/11 Commission Report over every other source... I also believe that some conspiracy websites and non-conspiracy websites are scewed in some way. Achillies' source (if this is true) would probably not be very credible if they ARE wrong. Which I believe that they are.
I personally think it is safe to go with what we can read on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia?! That has to be a joke.
I also I want to know about the central core columns. Why aren't they there?
I think it would be safe to credit the 9/11 Commission Report over every other source...I disagree. If the collapse of the three WTC complex structures (one of which wasn't even included in the Commission Report) was the work of the U.S. government, then why on Earth are we going to trust the U.S. government report over all the others?
It's like questioning a suspect in a crime and then determining that he's telling the truth because when you asked him if he was lying, he told you "no". He may be telling you the truth, but does he have a really good reason to lie? You bet he does.
I also believe that some conspiracy websites and non-conspiracy websites are scewed in some way. I believe that every source (offical gov't reports and independent scholars and "conspiracy whack-jobs") is skewed in some way. This is a function of not having all the information.
Achillies' source (if this is true) would probably not be very credible if they ARE wrong. Which I believe that they are. My source for what? Wrong regarding which arguments?
I also I want to know about the central core columns. Why aren't they there? Because they fell down (not over) :)
The cause of the collapse.The collapses were caused mainly due to structural damage coming from the plane crashes.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Ill.jpg)
Note how the paths of the planes lead basically directly through the cores' structures, causing at least two faces to be cut through from the plane's bodies, just like they simply went through the outer steel columns as well.
As a result we have effectively lost like 40% of the core structure (at least) and 20% of the hull structure. It is known that the core took the main stress of the stories above, but let's assume both, core and hull provided the same level of stability to the buildings structure, and we have like 30% of the supportive structure removed. That means the mass of all the stories above the crash zone is now carried by only 70% of the structure in a best case scenario.
And we're not even talking about the explosions yet.
I think it would be safe to credit the 9/11 Commission Report over every other source... I also believe that some conspiracy websites and non-conspiracy websites are scewed in some way. Achillies' source (if this is true) would probably not be very credible if they ARE wrong. Which I believe that they are.I'm fine with a ten seconds time frame, however, I'd not doubt that at least some lower parts of the buildings managed to remain a couple of seconds longer.
Wikipedia?! That has to be a joke.Wiki hee wiki ho, I don't care. Everybody cooks with water after all. ^^
I also I want to know about the central core columns. Why aren't they there?Where are they not? In the core? After the plane flew into/through it?
PS: As for the YT video guy talking, I think he's merely parroting all this "conspiracy" stuff, there's basically nothing new coming from him. :)
Ok, seeing as my first two posts were completely ignored, let me try again seeing as I have one of the few legitimate links in this entire thread.
National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55)
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
----
They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1 ( wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf ), a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55)
You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.
Or if you would like the original link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
Have fun.
EDIT:
December 14, 2007
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm)
I disagree. If the collapse of the three WTC complex structures (one of which wasn't even included in the Commission Report) was the work of the U.S. government, then why on Earth are we going to trust the U.S. government report over all the others?
Wow. Just Wow Achilles. You've had some amazing arguments before, but please read what you just posted again and explain the reasoning to me.
So, you wont trust any evidence coming from a US funded organization? And you seem to be dismissing all other evidence to the contrary to hold onto your singular documentary.
I dunno about you, but you are starting to sound like a bible lover here Achilles. Dismissing all logic and reason to follow a fairy tale.
Now if that doesn't get your attention, I'll just assume I've been blocked by you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu...eature=related)
Jeff King? I guess he knows everything.
Here are my scientists:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/)
And here are my fact sheets:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/)
But we've already said that the towers took 10 seconds! Not 15.
Also, you haven't explained why they found sulfur and traces of Thermate in the debris...
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
gypsum wallboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum)
gyp·sum
–noun
a very common mineral, hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSO4·2H2O, occurring in crystals and in masses, soft enough to be scratched by the fingernail: used to make plaster of Paris, as an ornamental material, as a fertilizer, etc.
Your turn.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1777/n5223062441972903718sv8.jpg)
I disagree. If the collapse of the three WTC complex structures (one of which wasn't even included in the Commission Report) was the work of the U.S. government, then why on Earth are we going to trust the U.S. government report over all the others?
It was in the case that we assume that it is not trying to deceive the American public.
My source for what? Wrong regarding which arguments?
Please read what Ray posted before responding to mine.
Ray stated that a source you provided included the details that the building fell in 17 seconds. I was also saying that I believed that that would be wrong and that it did not fall in 17 seconds. Lots of video (including conspiracy theorist video) have supported that it did in fact fall in 10 seconds.
Because they fell down (not over) :)
According to the 9/11 Commission Report the floor "Pancaked" each other. They also explained this on The History Channel a while back, which I got a glimpse of. The problem is, if this pancake theory was true there should be a portion of the core column left. Which is displayed in the follow videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-mq9SvjhQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU)
And we're not even talking about the explosions yet.
What explosions?
I'm fine with a ten seconds time frame, however, I'd not doubt that at least some lower parts of the buildings managed to remain a couple of seconds longer.
Wouldn't that support the theory that it would be impossible for the building to fall that fast without the help of explosives? Also, wouldn't the fact that you think the buildings lasted a little bit longer mean that you disagree with the 9/11 Commission Report and would practically contradict everything you have been saying? Are you a conspiracy theorist or are you agreeing with the official report? It's kind of hard to tell.
Where are they not? In the core? After the plane flew into/through it?
Shouldn't a portion of the core still remain? According to the pancake theory the floors were designed to fall that way... but there should still be part (or a lot of) the core remaining.. Since we obviously didn't see the towers fall over. The only explanation I can come up with is that the core was dealt with by explosives (which is seen in most landmark implosions).
. Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
The evidence you have presented is very interesting and could explain a lot of my questions. However, as you might have guessed I still have more.
Besides the fact that the trade centers were shut down a weekend before for "routine maintenance" which could have been a good time to place such bombs I have another questions that has been gnawing at me.
Why did WTC 7 collapse? The official report were that a few small fires (not even in the lower infrastructure of the building) made the 40-story building fall. Seems kind of unlikely... WTC 7 is shown bellow. As you can tell not very close to the other buildings.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8990/tradecenter7fm7.png)
What explosions?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg)
Wouldn't that support the theory that it would be impossible for the building to fall that fast without the help of explosives?Actually, no.
Also, wouldn't the fact that you think the buildings lasted a little bit longer mean that you disagree with the 9/11 Commission Report and would practically contradict everything you have been saying?I said "I'd not doubt that at least some lower parts of the buildings managed to remain a couple of seconds longer." That means parts of the core or the shell etc.
This is also supported by the NIST report (as I already quoted in #112):
"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."
and supported by photo evidence (although rather shell than core):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/WTC1.jpg/800px-WTC1.jpg)
Photo of World Trade Center 3 with remains of WTC1 (left background) and WTC2 (right foreground) visible.
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010917-N-7479T-509.jpg)
Are you a conspiracy theorist or are you agreeing with the official report? It's kind of hard to tell. I don't think someone would make the effort to bomb the WTC after he managed to fly two planes into it, what practically rendered them useless already.
On the other hand, I also doubt that someone would make the effort to fly two planes into it after he successfully managed to bomb wire the WTC to let it collapse.
Shouldn't a portion of the core still remain? According to the pancake theory the floors were designed to fall that way... but there should still be part (or a lot of) the core remaining.. Since we obviously didn't see the towers fall over.Well, according to the aforementioned NIST statement, parts of the cores remained longer than the floors.
The only explanation I can come up with is that the core was dealt with by explosives (which is seen in most landmark implosions).Another explanation would be that you had basically the whole building including a huge chunk made of the buildings' upper 20 or so stories, rubbing and crushing their way down along the core's structure, and that the core just was not made to take this kind of process free of damage.
Why did WTC 7 collapse? The official report were that a few small fires (not even in the lower infrastructure of the building) made the 40-story building fall. Seems kind of unlikely... WTC 7 is shown bellow. As you can tell not very close to the other buildings.
An official NIST report is not yet available:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf)
Ok, seeing as my first two posts were completely ignored, let me try again seeing as I have one of the few legitimate links in this entire thread.
National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55)
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55)
You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.
Or if you would like the original link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
Have fun.
EDIT:
December 14, 2007
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm)
Wow. Just Wow Achilles. You've had some amazing arguments before, but please read what you just posted again and explain the reasoning to me.
So, you wont trust any evidence coming from a US funded organization? And you seem to be dismissing all other evidence to the contrary to hold onto your singular documentary.
Now if that doesn't get your attention, I'll just assume I've been blocked by you.
I can't imagine why someone would want to block you.
Jeff King? I guess he knows everything.
Here are my scientists:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/)
And here are my fact sheets:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum)
gyp·sum
–noun
a very common mineral, hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSO4·2H2O, occurring in crystals and in masses, soft enough to be scratched by the fingernail: used to make plaster of Paris, as an ornamental material, as a fertilizer, etc.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1777/n5223062441972903718sv8.jpg)
:lol: All the guy needs is some antennae now.
I have yet to see solid scientific reasons refuting Bazant, btw. A non-engineer saying 'It doesn't follow the model' doesn't tell me where or why and does not hold the same credibility.
Hm... If you like conspiracies you should see "Zeitgeist, the Movie". It's made in 2007.
It says about termite used in 9/11 at several stores to create the "cake" collapse effect and many more, it also says about Jesus being created from other sun gods from other religions, including ancient egyptian Horus, the sun god from ancient India- Krishna and many more. It's and interesting movie...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg)
ah alright, didn't know what you were talking about there.
Actually, no.
How so? Scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for them to fall at that rate.
This is also supported by the NIST report (as I already quoted in #112):
"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."
Well I guess that answered that question for me.
An official NIST report is not yet available:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf)
Though the WTC7 collapse is still kind of strange to me, you have provided, in my eyes, enough sufficient evidence to support the official claim. Now, I can only assume that two planes hit the world trade centers and caused their collapse.
There are of course other questions about the Pentagon and the possibility that they were government planes that hit the towers, but for now I believe that terrorists did in fact hit the twin towers with planes.
The collapses were caused mainly due to structural damage coming from the plane crashes. I'm still waiting for a reputable source that supports this.
<snip>
Note how the paths of the planes lead basically directly through the cores' structures, causing at least two faces to be cut through from the plane's bodies, just like they simply went through the outer steel columns as well.
I think it helps a great deal to recall that these incidents took place in 3 dimensions.
Top-down is great for showing where the plane hit on the x and y axis, but I think it tends to make people forget that there's a z axis as well (meaning that engines impacted on different floors, wings tore through parts of multiple floors rather than snapping through all the columns of just one, etc). For example:
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5489/wtc2impacttg0.th.jpg) (
http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc2impacttg0.jpg)
Notice how there's only damage on one of the building's four sides?
Where things get tricky is the internal damage.
I suspect that Ray wants us to believe (possibly because he believes himself) that the damage from the impacts were spread throughout the entirety of the impact floors. The planes hit, wiped out all the external columns on that side, snapped all the core columns, huge chunks o' plane passing through the opposite side, etc.
However, even NIST (again, using them as source to give "you guys" the benefit of the doubt) concedes that this isn't the case:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8161/wtc2impact21ky6.th.jpg) (
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc2impact21ky6.jpg)
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/2354/wtc2impact22ds7.th.jpg) (
http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc2impact22ds7.jpg)
Keep in mind that only the parts of the plane that are intact in the first image are going to be able to take out any core columns (unless you want to argue that steel and almunium shards are capable of taking out steel beams), so please don't interpret the "cloud" in the 2nd image as "the area where all the beams have been destroyed".
If this is NIST's best guess (and it is a guess), then I have a difficult time accepting that your best guess is going to be better informed.
As a result we have effectively lost like 40% of the core structure (at least) 40% of the core on which floors and what is your source?
and 20% of the hull structure.20% of the shell on which floors and what is your source?
It is known that the core took the main stress of the stories above, but let's assume both, core and hull provided the same level of stability to the buildings structure, and we have like 30% of the supportive structure removed. That means the mass of all the stories above the crash zone is now carried by only 70% of the structure in a best case scenario. What is your source please? This sounds very much like numbers that you have made up.
It was in the case that we assume that it is not trying to deceive the American public. That's fine, however I'm not sure why I (or we) should assume this. Bush dragged his feet for how long before he would approve an investigation? Not inspiring a lot of confidence there.
Please read what Ray posted before responding to mine. I always do.
Ray stated that a source you provided included the details that the building fell in 17 seconds. I was also saying that I believed that that would be wrong and that it did not fall in 17 seconds. Lots of video (including conspiracy theorist video) have supported that it did in fact fall in 10 seconds. I think you're misinterpreting what Ray said. I haven't presented a source that argues for 17 seconds. I presented a source for a different argument which Ray then read and noticed that they argued for 17 seconds, but that doesn't mean that I ever presented that source for that purpose.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report the floor "Pancaked" each other. They also explained this on The History Channel a while back, which I got a glimpse of. The problem is, if this pancake theory was true there should be a portion of the core column left.I am very much aware of that. I'm also very much aware that this hypothesis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I don't think someone would make the effort to bomb the WTC after he managed to fly two planes into it, what practically rendered them useless already.
On the other hand, I also doubt that someone would make the effort to fly two planes into it after he successfully managed to bomb wire the WTC to let it collapse. Gee, unless someone wanted to blow up the building and then blame it on something like a terrorist attack. Maybe said someone would be relying on the scientific illiteracy and all-around apathy of the general public as a means to avoid scrutiny.
I have yet to see solid scientific reasons refuting Bazant, btw. You need "scientific evidence" to see that two things don't match.
Okay.
The first step in the scientific method is obseravation. Have a look at the document and see how it illustrates the upper floors remaining intact and collapsing last. Then look at the video and noting how the upper floors collapse first. If the paper argues that the upper floors remaining intact is what drives the collapse, but the video evidence shows that this isn't possible because the upper floors collapse first, then the "hypothesis" (which isn't actually a hypothesis because it's not based on observation) fails. Is that scientific enough?
A non-engineer saying 'It doesn't follow the model' doesn't tell me where or why and does not hold the same credibility.Further testing of my hypothesis is indeed indicating that Jae does not actually read my posts before responding to them. Fascinating.
Well I guess that answered that question for me. Core struture, not actual complete floors. Ray and I went round and round about this a few pages ago.
but for now I believe that terrorists did in fact hit the twin towers with planes.This was in question?
That's fine, however I'm not sure why I (or we) should assume this. Bush dragged his feet for how long before he would approve an investigation? Not inspiring a lot of confidence there.
Interesting point.
I think you're misinterpreting what Ray said. I haven't presented a source that argues for 17 seconds. I presented a source for a different argument which Ray then read and noticed that they argued for 17 seconds, but that doesn't mean that I ever presented that source for that purpose.
Ah, I see.
I am very much aware of that. I'm also very much aware that this hypothesis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The hypothesis that there should be a core column left standing?
This was in question?
I mean as in controlled demolition. And yes it could have been in question. Loose Change questioned it.
My conclusion for my belief is that I simply don't know. It's the same for me and global warming. I can't tell which side is telling the truth and which side has an agenda. If it turns out that the government is responsible for September 11th then I will help rise against the people responsible. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions here and there and continue to examine the arguments.
The hypothesis that there should be a core column left standing?The hypothesis that localized damage will initiate a synchronous pancake collapse in not one, but two steel frame tube structures that were overdesigned to withstand multiple impacts from comparable planes.
I mean as in controlled demolition. And yes it could have been in question. Loose Change questioned it. Loose Change questioned that airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? I'm not aware of anyone questioning that.
My conclusion for my belief is that I simply don't know. It's the same for me and global warming. I can't tell which side is telling the truth and which side has an agenda. If it turns out that the government is responsible for September 11th then I will help rise against the people responsible. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions here and there and continue to examine the arguments.Seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.
Loose Change questioned that airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? I'm not aware of anyone questioning that.
No I mean, that they were flown into my terrorists. I think at one point the suggested a military plane.
I do not think I will change anyone's mind however another BBC documentary was done on 9/11 this time by the Conspiracy Files team;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm) I think you can watch the whole episode there.
Basic conclusions;
There was a Conspiracy to cover up evidence AFTER 9/11 not before, the programme pointed to a systemic failure of leadership, poor acting on intelligence and a cover up going all the way to the White House, in trying to suppress evidence the at the government could have done more to stop the attacks.
However continually all the conspiracy theories were debunked. The programme, as far as is possible represents my opinion on events.
I do not think that 9/11 was preplanned by the American government, however I do believe that JFK's assassination was; so those looking for a conspiracy theory I would advise going there ;)
My 2 cents.
There was a Conspiracy to cover up evidence AFTER 9/11 not before, the programme pointed to a systemic failure of leadership, poor acting on intelligence and a cover up going all the way to the White House, in trying to suppress evidence the at the government could have done more to stop the attacks. How would they cover up evidence beforehand? Does one rule out the other?
However continually all the conspiracy theories were debunked. The programme, as far as is possible represents my opinion on events.Because they said they were debunked or...?
I do not think that 9/11 was preplanned by the American government, however I do believe that JFK's assassination was; so those looking for a conspiracy theory I would advise going there ;)Nice. So basically no one is questioning this because it doesn't add up? They're only doing it because they lack something better to do?
My 2 cents.Indeed.
My 2 cents.
Indeed
Why so snarky, ach? That kind of attitude cuts both ways, as you've taken pains to point out elsewhere. :tsk:
Nah... I don't know to much bout this subject, were they using termite? Cauze they found molten steel...
I see you're going for the succinct answer today. :D
Plenty of words have been wasted debunking this rubbish - I'm just going to abuse my doctorate. :p
Seriously, though, at the moment I don't have the time - or, in fact, the inclination - to go through and knock out each of the film's claims...
How would they cover up evidence beforehand? Does one rule out the other?
Let me rephrase, there was no evidence of a plot beforehand.
That said, given the US military has spend more than a million a day since the birth of Christ (or 0AD if your Achilles ;)) and failed to intercept any of the planes is rather shocking. There are reasons for that; confusion etc, but it's still something jobs should be lost over.
Because they said they were debunked or...
No, the film debunked them, but I think those who want to believe the conspiracy theories will.
Nice. So basically no one is questioning this because it doesn't add up? They're only doing it because they lack something better to do?
Certain aspects don't add up; but nothing in this thread - I am surprised your on the conspiracy side of the thread here.
Indeed.
I do not think I will change anyone's mind
The BBC, has no reason to get it's facts wrong - infact, all the independent, non-American qualified to comment individual's I've ever heard don't think the twin towers were destroyed by anything but two planes flying into them. The one strange event is building 7.
You can take it or leave it, I'm out of this topic, people are free to believe what they want to believe :)
people are free to believe what they want to believe :)
Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?
Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?
What ever is the truth is the truth, and people will continue to try and establish what is the truth, or to bring others round to their way of thinking. It is entirely ones own decision, to participate or not...
How so? Scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for them to fall at that rate. No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.
As of now we (A) do know that the total collapse time (including the inner core) probably was some seconds longer and also that debris and parts came down along the buildings' fronts (logically at free fall speed), (B) thus have proof that at least big portions of a building of that type can come down in those approximately ten seconds, (C) have proof of two planes flying into the buildings causing massive damage to their structure.
But (D) we have an apparent lack of proof that we *have* to use explosives to bring a building down like the WTC.
No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.
That's not what I have heard.
I have heard that it would have been impossible for the building to fall that fast. That it would have needed to be "controlled" if it were to fall that fast.
Well, yes. But that's delving into things like physics, of which my grasp is rudimentary at best. :pSeriously, though, at the moment I don't have the time - or, in fact, the inclination - to go through and knock out each of the film's claims...:confused:
Let me rephrase, there was no evidence of a plot beforehand.Says who based on what evidence?
As I like to point out, it is impossible to prove a negative, yet this source of yours claims to have done precisely that. This alone makes me question the degree of critical thinking that your source applied to their "investigation".
That said, given the US military has spend more than a million a day since the birth of Christ (or 0AD if your Achilles ;)) and failed to intercept any of the planes is rather shocking. There are reasons for that; confusion etc, but it's still something jobs should be lost over.Not once, but 4 times. For something that is considered routine. :dozey:
No, the film debunked them, but I think those who want to believe the conspiracy theories will. Debunked them how? Without actually seeing the video I can't comment, but I will say that I will be very disappointed if it's another "expert" saying that the such and such hypothesis is debunked just because they say so. Also keep in mind, that if there is a valid counter-argument, then it actually hasn't been "debunked"
Certain aspects don't add up; but nothing in this thread - I am surprised your on the conspiracy side of the thread here. Because I have a reputation of not being skeptical of claims that don't make sense and critical of bad arguments that are used to support them? :)
The BBC, has no reason to get it's facts wrong - infact, all the independent, non-American qualified to comment individual's I've ever heard don't think the twin towers were destroyed by anything but two planes flying into them. The one strange event is building 7.That's fine, but I'd like to know what they're basing their arguments on.
I also think that it's important to point out that there's a whole lot of room for bias in your selection process, my friend ;)
No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock. Why?
As of now we (A) do know that the total collapse time (including the inner core) probably was some seconds longer and also that debris and parts came down along the buildings' fronts (logically at free fall speed), That's fine.
(B) thus have proof that at least big portions of a building of that type can come down in those approximately ten seconds, Glad that's settled. The question of why/how still hasn't been touched though.
(C) have proof of two planes flying into the buildings causing massive damage to their structure. You've yet to produce any evidence for this.
But (D) we have an apparent lack of proof that we *have* to use explosives to bring a building down like the WTC.Non-issue because that's a separate discussion. Not A does not equal B. The claim is that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. This claim is either valid or it is not.
Even if in the end someone can prove that demolitions were used to bring down the towers, it won't prove that any US administration was involved. America has been an open book for awhile and has many enemies in this world. If there is a coverup, it might be one to hide incompetence/being caught off gaurd and not malevolence.
Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?
If we all agree to disagree there's no reason for debate at all.
Uber cop out, my friend.
_EW_
If we all agree to disagree there's no reason for debate at all.
Uber cop out, my friend.
_EW_
Sure, why not continue to bang your head against the wall. Feels good, don't it. :xp: Seriously, though, at some point a debate becomes pointless if neither side is willing to move from their own position due to lack of sufficient evidence on the other side. I think telling someone to agree to disagree is just a more polite way of saying you've got your head up you *** pal and I'm sick of talking to you about this (fill in the blank) topic. ;)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a debate, I love a good debate as much as anyone, but when we go round and round in circles, it begins to look like an excercise in futility.
Just my two cents, anyway.
Hmmm, well since I've made a point to address each of everyone else's arguments...
:confused:
Sorry - that was about "Zeitgeist".
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. :)
I have heard that it would have been impossible for the building to fall that fast. That it would have needed to be "controlled" if it were to fall that fast.Well, that is what it is: you heard it. But we hear a lot of things, don't we?
I think we all agree that you can bring down a building at "near free fall speed" using explosives. It is also pretty sure that the buildings came down in 10, 11, or maybe 15 seconds. It doesn't really matter, since every time frame means almost free fall.
From there on we can only guess. The physical aspect makes both scenarios possible (for me at least :P).
While demolition is almost impossible to be disproven, the ultimate evidence that the WTC was demolished would be to prove that the towers could not come down that fast on their own.
But until then it's up to you. :)