South Tower Collapse Defying The Laws of Gravity?

[Holymakinaw]

This is IDIOTIC, of course. Planes loaded with fuel flew into the frigging buildings and they fell down........as they should have in that instance. Honestly, has anyone ever seen a passenger jet fly into some other building and it stayed up???

And the ground all around the also burning building 7 was SEVERELY damaged with those hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and metal falling down on it, so it ended up falling down too.

BE SMARTER, PEOPLE.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

Idiotic? To believe that the main cause of the Tower's collapse was a plane impact, but WTC7 fell as a result of falling debris just damaging one lower side of it? Or how about how WTC6 was in between the Towers and WTC7, was damaged more severely than 7, but never collapsed. Yes..idiotic. I agree.

[kush997]

10 secs wow...

[IronLion27]

How does this defy laws of gravity? Heavy things without support fall down towards the earth?

[muzicmaker2001]

@IronLion27

Objects don't normally fall into the path of MOST resistance.

[Holymakinaw]

@muzicmaker2001

You expected the fucking thing to fall sideways, maybe? 

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

Yes, its pretty simple physics. Objects usually seek out the path of least resistence..meaning air. They usually don't fall straight down into tons of steel and concrete, undamaged floors and thousands of joints and bolts. Here's some examples:

watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

watch?v=fwjcQOlX8Xw

[Holymakinaw]

@muzicmaker2001

Way to compare apples to oranges. You show two building that had no planes fly into them, or had no 110 story building fall all around them, fall over due to poor engineering. Show me some OTHER building falls that were because of passenger jets hitting them or extreme damage to the ground all around them from a million tons hitting it, and maybe we'll see something that could be compared.

BE SMARTER.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

How about two buildings where planes hit? A B-25 bomber hit the Empire State building. Guess what? No collapse. And here's another example below..Don't you just love REAL references as evidence?

watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU

[Holymakinaw]

@muzicmaker2001

The plane that hit the Empire State building was 1/4 the size of a 767. And the C-130 Hercules is much slower and MUCH lighter than a Boeing 767 - like 100 tons lighter!! Not to mention the fact that it hit a concrete reinforced structure!!

Apples and oranges again.

BE SMARTER.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

I will understand this logic. You point to the plane impact as if this was the main reason why the Towers collapsed. But, when it comes to WTC7's collapse, all it took was some falling debris only damaging the one lower side of the building? Apparently, falling debris is equivalent to a plane impact in its ability to take down massive buildings in seconds..well except for WTC6, which was in between WTC7 and the Towers. Please use your head..its easy to do.

[Holymakinaw]

@muzicmaker2001

LOL. "Falling debris"???? IT WAS ABOUT A MILLION TONS OF FALLING BUILDING THAT DESTROYED THE GROUND BENEATH WTC7. Not every building in the area was damaged enough to collapse, but that one obviously was!!

BE SMARTER.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

And the same "MILLION TONS OF FALLING BUILDING" could not collapse WTC6? Really? Is that what you're going with? Ya know..reading and learning is still free. Try it. you might ike it...

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

Ok, the plane impacted and that section was weakened, right? But, the 80-90 lower floors held the weight of the building in place since the 70's, right? Since the building fell in seconds, this must've caused the thousands of joint and bolts holding each floor to separate in nano-seconds, right? Did this also cause the explosions all thorought the building, demolition flashes, and pre-collapse ground shaking. Ya know, some of common characteristics of a controlled demolition?

[Holymakinaw]

@muzicmaker2001

There were no explosions, or demolition flashes. Only deluded, dumb Idiots think that. A million tons of falling building caused all kinds of stuff to happen, but the two building were NOT loaded with explosives before the big planes flew into them, and they did NOT burn for 49 minutes before they suddenly "blew up" and caused a controlled demolition. LOL. Listen to yourself, Man. That shit sounds so absolutely retarded.

BE SMARTER.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

"There were no explosions"

"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."- NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

"There were no explosions"

"We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"- NYFD Firefighter Edward Cachia

"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"- NYFD Firefighter Thomas Turilli

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

"or demolition flashes..Only deluded, dumb Idiots think that."

Just curious. By deluded, dumb idiots, did you mean a fireman?

"before No. 2 came down, I saw low-level flashes. I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down ... You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."- NYFD Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

[Holymakinaw]

@muzicmaker2001

Some people(NOT EXPERTS IN DEMOLITION IN ANY WAY, by the way...) heard snapping metal beams and floors of a falling building slamming into each other and described what it looked and sounded like.

LAUGHABLE that that's your "evidence".

[muzicmaker2001]

@Holymakinaw

Let's see. Accounts of explosions and demo flashes from many witnesses actually there VS. some random guy on YT? Which evidence shall I choose? This is tough one, huh? And how about the video evidence of demo flashes? Yes, I agree. Laughable...

Before the collapse:

watch?v=LQYFABSlCQ4

During the collapse:

watch?v=elYw7MHf7GQ

BE SMARTER.

[esjael]

Couple things about conspiracy theories, in my opinion:

1) Conspiracies are plots hatched by secretive malcontents, who by their very nature are not the most trustworthy people around.

2) The only people who will go along with such plots are themselves secretive malcontents who are every bit as likely to turn on the mastermind for their own benefit as they are to see the plot through.

3) Conspiracy theorists are paranoid and self involved, thinking ONLY THEY are capable of seeing the truth.

[muzicmaker2001]

@esjael

I guess I'm not a conspiracy theorist then. It seems I just have a brain...

[justinbridget]

Larry Silverstein and The USA Government have a lot to answer for. Do some research and youll find that there is no way in hell 2 planes would ever cause that much damage to that many buildings. Between the way the twin towers were constructed and the raw footage it doesn't take a genius to see that ('yes' there were aeroplanes flown into the very tops of the towers ) the collapse of these buildings was no accident.

Larry Silverstein and the USA President - fucken disgrace to the human race

[azar78342able]

@justinbridget Two airplanes did not cause the Twin Towers to collapse! The Twin Towers were designed to survive an impact of a 707-340 aircraft and a 767-200 aircraft carrying 23,000 gallons of jet fuel! The two airplanes that crashed into the Twin Towers were flight 11 and flight 175 which were 767-200 airplanes! Those airplanes carried about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel! It is impossible for the Twin Towers to collapse the way they did!

[g1234538]

@azar78342able

Where the hell did you get this from? You really think that the engineers thought "oh we have to proof the building just in-case terrorists fly planes into it". Must be some innovative engineers!

[azar78342able]

@g1234538 Why don't just do your research and study the history of the Twin Towers and how they were constructed. I got this information from 9/11 research.com. Flight 11 and 175 were each carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Go to 9/11 research.com and you'll see what I am talking about!

[hypobusa]

Concrete and steel turning to instant dust??

20-30t flying steel framework??

If the build has turned to dust, then where is the weight coming from to crush the lower part of the building??

How does aluminium, (which is soft) penetrate 2.5" of solid steel ??

[g1234538]

@hypobusa

Think of all the other materials that made up the WTC.

I don't know about you but I don't see it flying out, it just falls out.

It weakened a part of the building, part got weakened by fires, rest of building also putting stress on the weak steel?

Going 500~ mph yes it does.

[nothwind]

Matt L. is one fucking moron. A tool, propagabdist for the nwo.

[seeknthetruth]

i can't believe that there is still people out there that actually believe that 911 wasn't an inside job.

[izzysykopth]

@seeknthetruth There isnt. Any advocating official accounts are traitors or victims of the media hype, govt propaganda and a public education brought to them by the same killers that brought them 911.

[shooter686]

@seeknthetruth Zogby has CTists listed as 3.6% of the population. So, I find it funny to think there are still people out there that think it was an "inside job".

[seeknthetruth]

@shooter686

the title "CT" does not belong to people that use their heads. but you wouldn't understand that because you are a 911 troll

[shooter686]

@seeknthetruth If you used your head, then you would understand that there is 100% more info than what your CT websites are telling you. So, if you used your head, then explain why thermite cannot burn laterally on a vertical box beam.

[seeknthetruth]

@shooter686

the actual video evidence and witness accounts speak for themselves, not CT or debunking websites.

[shooter686]

@seeknthetruth Yes, the video proves it could not have been explosives. Yes, the eyewitnesses prove it could not have been explosives. If you ask any professional in the industry, they all agree that it could not have been explosives. If you ask CTists that seem to WANT this to be real, they will say anything that makes it seem real. So, why all this effort to prove the impossible? This explains why you do not see any experts within 100 miles of a CTist video.

[muzicmaker2001]

@shooter686

shooter is a professional 911 debunker/disinfo agent. That is the real reason why he believes it couldn't be explosives.

[shooter686]

@muzicmaker2001 Standard CT cop out #12. If you cannot respond with a valid point, accuse them of being a secret govt agent paid to expose how uneducated CTists really are.

[muzicmaker2001]

@shooter686

Near free fall collapse

Witness accounts of explosions

Pulverized concrete at initiation of collapse

Pre-collapse ground shaking

Demolition flashes

No physical evidence of extreme heat at impact hole but..

Extreme temps buried in basement/rubble for weeks

Nano-thermite discovered

[g1234538]

@muzicmaker2001

k, I don't think if you tried you could do that

Jet fuel igniting

Looking at all the videos, even close up ones, I see the ground is stable

Glare

The damn place is on fire you call that not hot?

Jet fuel pouring down the elevator shaft

Where did you get that bullshit from?

Also why would a government commit an evil crime against itself, that in no way benefits it.

[muzicmaker2001]

@g1234538

I don't understand this logic. If you claim the plane impacts at 500 mph were responsible for the collapse of the Towers, how can you then rationalize the collapse of WTC7. Just falling debris?

[edyken77]

@muzicmaker2001 the big gorilla in the room nobody wants to talk about:

Tower 7 collapses on it's own.

The owner of the building's insurance policy says in an interview he told them to 'pull it' - a demo term.

Nobody investigates. Everybody look over here at the buildings the airplanes hit!

[muzicmaker2001]

@g1234538

"jet fuel pouring down the elevator shaft"

“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" NIST, Sep 2005, PP 183

"But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes." -Lead Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST

[G1NZOU]

The Floors gave way and then the weight of the btop just obliterated each floor at a time, all that tonnage is going to go down once it starts, also people who say the building shouldn't have fallen should know that it wasn't engineered to withstand direct hits with an intense explosion of aircraft fuel and then cope with fire around already weakened steel.

[nemesis318]

Actually, the buildings WERE designed to withstand a direct hit by an airliner.

[G1NZOU]

They didn't factor in the fire's that burned afterward though, the beams did not melt but as an engineer I understand how the combination of umbalanced, increased load and increased temperature caused the structure to fail.

Controlled demolition looks different, the only thing a video of 9/11 and controlled demolition have in common is they both show buildings falling down.

[trtnec]

wow, an 18 year old engineer? OK tell me how building 7 didn't look like controlled demolition. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I don't see how that one collapsed, and no one has a good explanation, even the official investigators... And don't tell me it doesn't look like controlled demolition. I hope you know that a 3rd building collapsed, because a lot of people, including engineering professionals (which you can't be if you're 18) don't even know about it.

[G1NZOU]

I didn't say I was a professional but I certainly have more qualifications than you.

Debris causes structural damage, fires start from burning debris, localised collapse occurs at point of most damage, secondary collapse as fire takes hold, complete collapse as fire and stress causes structural failiure.

Controlled demoltion involves syncronised (Loud) explosions at vital points, this is not the way the twin towers or tower 7 collapsed.

[muzicmaker2001]

Where is any evidence that heat contributed to the collapse? Enter logic: Employees of North Tower, like Edna Cintron, were seen at the impact hole approx. 20 minutes before collapse. This means that the fire had 80 minutes to heat up the steel to failure, but temps were not hot enough to harm Edna Cintron? I'm sure we both can agree that she would've definitely felt steel below her heated to 600 + degrees.

[G1NZOU]

Ever been in a steel plant?

Hot but bearable and that's hotter than the temperature in the towers.

Impact damage from the planes

More damage from the fuel.

Increased and unbalanced forces acting on joints weakened by the plane impact.

Increased temperature in which to hold up the upper floors.

Steel loses much of its load bearing capabilities when subjected to "relatively low" temperatures.

Explosives do not survive plane impacts so how did it collapse at that point?

[muzicmaker2001]

My theory: The exact point of impact was planned beforehand. The charges were set off at that point. Again, there is no evidence of this heat...

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC." (p 140)-NIST

[piwright42]

That is an interesting aside about Edna Cintron. I even looked it up. You are right there she is, in the gap left by the plane, waving. What bothers me is the photos and the video fail to mention how long after the impact before she is seen waving. Another thing that occurs to me is that an airline is an assembly of individual parts. Even the fuel in the plane would keep moving forward. Also even at the point of impact there would be uneven heating of the super structure.

[muzicmaker2001]

I have a time-stamped clip showing Edna at the hole approx 20 minutes before collapse. And Edna was not the only person seen. There was man seen at the far left of the impact hole also. So, the steel beneath them had approx 80 minutes to heat up. Now, considering the temps needed to cause even a partial failure of steel, the thermoconductivity of steel and the two people seen at opposite ends of the impact hole,...

[muzicmaker2001]

(cont)...

we can make a simple conclusion that these extreme temps (600+ degrees) did not exist beneath them. And, if the heat was unevenly distributed on the opposite side, the building would have initially fallen in that direction. But again, there is no evidence of this heat. Interesting to note, extreme heat did exist, but totally unrelated to the fire 800-1000 ft above:

watch?v=Zww9-AaIgrw

"Still flames coming out of the BASE of the Trade Towers????"

[piwright42]

The only thing that you have proven to me is that you will twist the facts in any way possible to to support your fantasy. It helps you fulfill your need to feel superior to stupid sheep like me if you can some how prove that the US government killed off 2605 of it's own tax payers, lost 1.4 trillion in stock trades, 9 billion to repair and rebuild, some 3 billion in lost wages, and the displacement of some 18,000 small businesses just to justify a war over oil.

[muzicmaker2001]

I am not concerned with motives and why the perps did this. I only focus on the evidence. Why would there be flames coming out of the base of the Towers from fires 800-1000 ft up? Why would there be extreme temps (1000+ degrees) buried in the basements of all three buildings lasting for weeks? If NIST didn't find any evidence of this heat in the steel, where did it come from? These are questions debunkers can't seemed to logically answer. Also, show me how I'm twisting anything?

[piwright42]

Look at the very photos that you referenced. there is fire above Edna to her right and left and a fire below to her left. Uneven heating of the structure would still cause the steel rafters of the floor to fail. Remember there is a reason that fire fighters hate rafter roofs, they tend to collapse in difficult to predict spots.

[esf125]

Wait, defying gravity? How is the building supposed to fall then? into the moon?

[seeknthetruth]

Look up the path of least resistance.

[esf125]

Irrelevant here. If you look carefully, the building starts to fall downward, not to the side. Yes it does tilt a little bit when it falls but when you see the smoke coming out of the building, you can tell that the building starts to fall downward first and down all the way. Path of least resistance? There are no external forces exerting on the building form the sides. None except gravity, which only exerts a force downward

[jeabo0adhd]

reporters need to know when to shut up.

[thorsbond]

Official 911 report clearly stated, "no black boxes were found". Wipe your ass with that report, because in fact 3 were found. Victims families listened to the non-existent tapes except the final 3 minutes which miraculously disappeared. There hasn't been a Building over 30 stories built that hasn't been engineered for hurricane winds, earthquake, and plane crashes, since the late 1940's. All other buildings hit by planes performed exactly as planned and engineered, none collapsed. Lying Nazis.

[piwright42]

Look up those engineering specs and you will find they are intended to survive strikes from prop powered aircraft, like those flown in the '40's. Now what is your fixation on nazis and neo-nazis? I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just curious.

[thorsbond]

Liars figure, but figures don't lie! The Plans, Specifications and Materials list for WTC II are public information. They were submitted to NYC Engineering Dept. for the Constr. permit. During constr, City inspectors then verified the materials and Constr was in strict compliance with plans and specs, including all change orders. There isn't an Engineering Professor in the World, who could keep their teaching position arguing the Laws of Physics don't apply in NYC! Your ignorant or a liar.

[piwright42]

In science a law is universal irreguardless of locality. That is why Relitivity is is not a law, it is too hard to test for confirmation. Now if you read those engineering specs you will realize that they stoped using asbestos to insulate the steel members that constitute the floor structure of the Towers. That insulation could have bought more time for people to escape. Further most of the "beams" were trusses. Ask any fireman how much a truss can be trusted and they will tell you not at all.

[G1NZOU]

unfortunately, the kind of people that belive in the conspiracy discount the opinion of anyone with qualifications and don't bother researching actual evidence.

The vast majority of qualified professionals agree on impact damage, resulting stresses and heat as the cause for collapse.

The vast majority of CTs don't want to know about anything that contradicts their theory and believe that any falling building looks like it's been destroyed by controlled demolition.

[muzicmaker2001]

You mean like these people?

patriotsquestion911*com/engine­ers*html

[G1NZOU]

Some engineers belive otherwise (Reason for me saying "the vast majority") and I am all for having another investigation.

You can see in video's that the floors where the airliners hit gave way, in this video you can see the top part of the tower fall and tumble, as it should in that situation.

My point is when the middle floors failed, you have the kinetic energy of the above floors that pulverise concrete and rip apart welded steel structures.

[muzicmaker2001]

Some engineers? Actually, its 700+ Engineers and Architects. To address your theory: The entire building (including the above floors) turned to dust. So, the logical question is: Where was the bearing weight downward if the above floors were nothing but dust. If you claim they weren't, where was this chunk of concrete that remained in ground zero that was heavy enough to continue/force the collapse all the way to the bottom floors?

[trtnec]

actually it's over 900, if you look at the website

[piwright42]

Excellent observation G1NZOU. That is why I quit talking to these people. No amount of proof or logic you present them with could sway them from their attempts to garner a following of others who want to maintain the fantasy that George Bush or the Rockafellers could actually benefit politically or financially more than Al Qaeda could have. This is why I gave up. In the end it is my determination that I cannot rationalize with them because they are not rational.

[muzicmaker2001]

Where is the proof that heat contributed to the collapse? Only theories are presented here. The only real proof would be the heat damaged steel directly from the impact zone. As a start, proof:

1. Accounts of explosions in locations unrelated to the fire

2. Near free fall collapse

3. Pulverization of the majority of the concrete

4. Massive steel ejected laterally

5. Conservation of momentum defied

6. Thermite found in WTC dust samples

[G1NZOU]

You are not very good at visualising the forces at work when support structures fail, Concrete does pulverise and the energy of floor after floor giving way does eject steel laterally.

If you CTs have widely differing theories then doesn't that show that your "proof" is inconclusive/non-existent.

[muzicmaker2001]

Logically, the best references are other bulding collapses. Here's two other examples. First, note how both buildings follow the path of least resistance. Buildings don't fall directly into undamaged floors, tons of concrete and steel unless assisted. Next, where is the pulverized concrete? Material ejected? The different CTs come from free thinking. We all don't share the same brain. Please wake up soon...

watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

watch?v=fwjcQOlX8Xw

[G1NZOU]

You're telling me to wake up?

What if everything you have said is true?

Youtube is a pretty stupid place to talk about it on.

Talk to a firefighter about building collapse when damaged and on fire.

[muzicmaker2001]

Firefighter?

"It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."- NYFD Richard Banaciski

"We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom"- NYFD Edward Cachia

You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."- NYFD Stephen Gregory

[G1NZOU]

Stephen Gregory has got it wrong.

You can see in this very video and others that it is the floors at the point of impact that failed, this rules out explosives as the primary cause of collapse as any explosives would not survive plane impacts without premature detonation.

In videos of controlled demolition, you can see that multiple, syncronised detonations cause all floors to simultaniously fall, this is not the case with the WTC as you can see in your own video.

[muzicmaker2001]

Planes did not strike the WTC. All you have to do is watch the crashes frame by frame to absolutely know this:

watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ

No immediate damage to the plane or building at impact. No debris falling from the plane or building. A cartoon entry into the building. It defies physics. You're assuming that all demo jobs are the same. Controlled demolition is called "controlled" for a reason. The demo crew can control when, where and how the building falls.

[G1NZOU]

Tell that to the witnesses.

Are you sure you're smart enough to use electronic equipment? Stop now before you embarrass yourself even further.

[muzicmaker2001]

I employ to embarrass me. Post just 15 witnesses (not connected to the government/media) recorded live on 911 that saw the WTC planes. Just your average citizens. This should be an easy task considering the amount of people in NYC, right? Good luck..

[G1NZOU]

You Fail, if you actually did some research you would find I am British.

If you ask for the truth then why do so many of you demand that the government "admit" to your theory when your theory is wrong.

The closest story to the truth is the official story, it's got some small details slightly wrong to cover peoples backs but the part where it tells you the buildings collapse from a combination of impact damage and fire is 100 times more accurate than your theory.

[muzicmaker2001]

I have no idea what your nationality has to do with any of this? But, I live in NY. Proof that even 15 people saw the WTC planes? And this has been happening over the last 8 yrs. Just this past September in NYC, 80,000 people signed a petition ot reopen the 911 investigation. You offer no proof of anything, just your opinion..

[G1NZOU]

Your own video contradicts your claim that it fell straight down, you can see the top half topple over to the front left.

You ignore evidence like crash wreckage, photographs and videos and offer a few testimonials as proof.

Re-open the investigation if you like, I have no problem with that.

It will not radically change the true story though.

You think all the people who saw planes slam into the building were hallucinating?

You want me to procure some kind of video memory?

[muzicmaker2001]

The upper section of the Tower tipped over, fell down and was pulverized to dust. Otherwise, there would have been a big intact section at ground zero. So, the logical questions are:

1. What force caused that upper undamage section to turn to dust? There was nothing above it?

2. If the upper section was found as dust, what force caused the collapse wave all of the way to the ground level?

It's all common sense from here...

[G1NZOU]

How high up was it?

It fell, concrete does not perfom well under impacts, it gets pulverised.

This is an engineering fact.

The lowest floors had all those floors fall on top of them, wouldn't it be suspicious if they survived after the rest of the building fell on them, Gravity + current velocity = increased force (more than the lower floors were designed to handle).

[muzicmaker2001]

In both Towers, "something" caused the collapse wave to continue pretty much to the bottom. And, this mass or force had to be significant to have caused this. The force also had to be continuous to the end, otherwise the collpase wave would have stopped. The Towers were complete obliterated. But, there was no mass or force at ground zero. Again, common sense...

[G1NZOU]

Something that you don't have.

You're embarassing yourself by using words you don't understand.

Tons of steel and concrete at Ground zero is "mass" you fool.

You will always have a force when something is falling, it's called "gravity" and as an object accelerates it gathers kinetic energy, this combined with the abount of mass that is falling determines the force transmitted to anything in the way.

[muzicmaker2001]

Look up the conservation of momentum Mr. Engineer. The undamaged floors must offer resistance. The resistance includes tons of concrete and steel, thousands of bolts and joints, two massive sky lobby bands, etc. The force of gravity alone wouldn't cause this. All three buildings suffered asymmetrical damage but fell symmetrically..The above video? The Tower begins to tip over and magically corrects itself and falls straight into undamaged floors? The path of least resistance? Heard of it?

[muzicmaker2001]

Your comments have sparked an idea to save a ton of money for the demolition industry. Instead of having a demo crew to take down a building the conventional way, why don't we just create a hole in the building, start a small azz fire and watch the building just crumble in seconds. Moron..

[G1NZOU]

Seconds?

You said seconds, right?

No wonder you don't belive it fell down because a plane hit it, you've been fed misinformation, just like all the other CTs.

It took a while and the hole went the whole way through, causing massive structural damage.

It also fell on many other buildings, one thing controlled demolition is designed to avoid.

Moron...

[muzicmaker2001]

Yes, I said seconds. In your mind, did it take minutes?

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,"-911 Commission Report, Chapter 9, Section 2

FEMA's Building Performance Study includes the chart describing the duration of seismic signals. The chart gives 10 and 8 seconds for the durations of the signals corresponding to the South and North Tower "collapses", respectively.

"This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds"-MIT

[G1NZOU]

You seem to have forgotten the period where the reduced number of supports were supporting unbalanced weight with increased heat, how convenient.

My point about the Collapse is it is inefficient, there is a reason we use syncronised detonations to destroy buildings, not destroy a few columns and then sit around for an hour whilst toxic smoke fills the city environment for the combined unbalanced forces and heat to take effect.

[muzicmaker2001]

Again, you assume that all demo jobs MUST be the same. Controlled?

[wakenjake420]

the towers were built like "brick shithouses" drop the astronomy and check out newtons laws.

,,,

[piwright42]

wakenjake420, Newton's laws were astronomical though, at least they originally were to be used to describe astronomical effects, after Einstein they are just good rules of thumb. The cores of the Towers were the strongest single aspect of their construction. In relation the outer wall pannels were not very strong at all. The Towers archetect said that much himself. There is a reason brick structures do not go above six stories you know. They are not that strong when it comes to sheer loads.

[piwright42]

One thing I learned in astronomy is that gravity is not an instant effect. A simple rule of thumb is that gravity pulls things toward the center of the earth at 32.2 feet per second per second. Then you have to figure for teminal velocity because of air resistance. A human in freefall tends to stop accelerating at 130 to 140 mph, but limbs tucked in and head down can fall even faster due to decreased wind resistance. I see no defiance of gravity here.

[bowhunter6999]

Please everyone! The towers are only designed to with stand a certain set of wind speeds. ( wich is around 100 mph or less ) They are not ment to with stand a fuckin big ass plane flying into them at over 500 mph. How about someone fly a big ass jet into your house at over 500 mph and see what happens.

[jamotide]

well, im pretty sure my house would not collapse when the house next to me falls down like tower 7.

[skate4ever33]

IT WAS ALL PLANNED

[jamotide]

well duh...the question is who planned it.

[1skatomatic1]

the government

they have subliminal messages

all over theyre money

this is skate4ever33 by the way

[Garrettv3]

In a video on youtube bush has been practically proven to have advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attack.

[jordansonmyfeet23]

Those towers should not have COMPLETELY fallen from that aircraft. Why did tower 7 collaspe? Other buildings took more damage than tower 7 with many more fires.

[1skatomatic1]

because they were built weak

to destroy easy to scare america so they can

brain wash them into thinking they have all the power

[911TruthMatters]

They built them weak in 1970!!! Man that's good planning. Of course, it's bullshit.

[Seifter16]

and what everyone misses while the OPAQUE smoke cloud swirls around is that the top of the building continues on its own independent vector before crumbling with the subsequent failure of the rest of the tower, which could have been caused by structural damage from 50 tons of falling debris on an already weakened superstructure and design ment to allow the building to collapse into itself in such an event... but no thats impossible, our govt just wants to kill us for oil

[piwright42]

That last part is sarcasim right? Because everything else you said made too much sence and was very inteligently organized.

[Seifter16]

Yes, I usually end my retorts with satirical remarks. Adds effect without employing ad hominem. Good tactic to learn. But yeah I just recently finished another debate about this same thing and simple physics proves that the towers would have fallen exactly how they did. With the support of a doctorate of physics, I think my position holds more validity than a paranoid theory, don't you agree?

[piwright42]

Of course. One would think that observation and common sense would reduce the number conspiracy nuts out there. I'm just an english major and I can see that the towers fell because they were operating outside of their design. Its just that among all these conspiracy freaks your satyr threw me off balance.

[thorsbond]

An English major can certainly learn to read before publicly displaying their ignorance. If you are defending the Official 911 Report it is a fraudulent document that failed to even interview the FBI Agents responsible for the non-reaction to the Phoenix Field office solid documentation and evidence. Those Agents instead of standing trial for Treason were promoted for their diabolical participation in this Fraud. "No Black Boxes", same plane reported landing two locations - Neo-Nazi lies!

[piwright42]

thorsbond, on the first page of one search I found three spearate stories that contrdict your claim. Following is an exerpt from Dave Lindorff: two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.): I suggest you read more my "shoot from the hip" friend.

[gezurarbeit]

it looks very much like gravity.....at first it leans very slow to the side and then begins to get faster...and this Building wasnt made of stone...its quite normal.

[ChastityArgyle]

the speed isnt

[Kamatzu]

Only one side collapsed, so that side naturally leaned down first.

Looks like it's obeying gravity to me.

[ArmchairRevolution]

Buildings are not built like trees. As the top section begins its descent, there is no pivot on the opposite end that would allow it to contiune to topple to the side. It fell vertically and global collapse occured.

forums dot randi dot org/showpost dot php?p=2243709&postcount=1243

forums dot randi dot org/showpost dot php?p=3278462&postcount=82

911myths dot com/WTC2TIP dot pdf

[muzicmaker2001]

"Buildings are not built like trees."

youtube[dot]com/watch?v=uKeENd­yIluI

youtube[dot]com/watch?v=YCfgfc­cpHpc

[ArmchairRevolution]

You're comparing a few multi-story buildings to the Towers? Both buildings fell at the base, there was no structure underneath. Apples and oranges, MM.

[muzicmaker2001]

Just illustrating that the a building (or object)will always follow the path of least resistance. It does not discriminate. Simple common sense.

[Apollo580]

Defying the laws of gravity?! Come on are you guys that stupid?! Its falling! Thats not defying the law of gravity!

[muzicmaker2001]

Initially, it starts to fall in one direction away from the rest of the building and then somehow changes it's direction and falls straight down??? The path of least resistance?

[Apollo580]

O brother it hit something on the way down thats y it tiped and then falling straght down is when the bottom gave way. Try to think about what happend the grovernment wouldn't do such a thing!

[muzicmaker2001]

How are you so sure? Were you there? It's not that easy. There's too much evidence pointing to another scenario other than a plane impact/fire. It's pretty obvious at this point.

[Apollo580]

Watch it's tiping toward the weakest side in this case the point of impact were the plane hit.

[muzicmaker2001]

Yes. The initial momentum is in the direction of the impact zone. But, this momentum stops and the building then falls straight down into the rest of the building. Starts into the path of least resistance then changes direction into the path of most resistance? It doesn't make logical sense.

[Apollo580]

yes it does you just don't see it.

[piwright42]

You've failed to factor the buildings design into your query. The towers were structured around their elevator shafts. The outer walls bore no more load than necessary. Girders, not solid steel beams, were used in the floors that connect the outer walls the the elevators. This was done to keep weight down. The top portion would not keep moving in the direction of the initial fall because it still attached to the structure by three other corners and the elevator shafts.

[earthlings911]

That easy, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

[dudepal187]

Wait...the top tipped over...how did it keep collapsing evenly then?

[petercheese]

lol that homeric guys just a retard ignore him like everyone else :)

[chocalatebunny]

that ground zero is an ideal p-lace for the zionist temple. i am sure if all those who ar commited to reestablishin the temple mount, they could eazily make the temple here, even the arabs / hezbollah agree to that 2 state solution 1 state of isreal in the usa, with the ground zero or washington dc being the capital, also another state of isreal in great britain, we could have another temple there the arabs welcome this solution. and would love to proceed with this two state solution

[lightning1975]

Read the book, 'A new Pearl Harbour'. There is more to all of this than meets the eye.

[homeric9]

Questions in the law of gravity from someone named"muzicmaker".

It isn't amusing, it's annoying.

[muzicmaker2001]

I'm changing my name to "Newton" tomorrow. What difference does it make what my internet name is????

[chocalatebunny]

switzerland can be the capital of the european state of isreal, & the gold they the so called christians can / should be returned to the jews, it is about time all the victims of war / holocaust are properly compensated.the evangalical christians or that is what they call themselves the fraudsters, yeh try taking me to caught i will take you to the cleaners, you will not be able to show your face, you are mushriqeens / munafiq's hypocrites, .

[piwright42]

I don't recommend that name change. I do agree that your name has no bearing on the argument. But you don't delve far enough into a problem before you make your proclamations.

[chocalatebunny]

it's simple what goes up must come down as will christ son of mary & joseph, can you imagine these religios con artists / fraudsters trying to tell the man about christianty, are they going to tell christ what he said , or are they going to look for a place to hide because if the law enforcement wake up they will do them for fraud ,obtaining money by deception,

perjoryetc. they are mushriqeens, munafiq's, hypocrites, period