What really happened???

[clarky003]

If the collapse really was against the laws of physics, why isnt the physics world screaming it out?

Alot of University physicist's have been, and occassionally one manages to grow the balls, gets heard, and manages publishes something that inevitably gets slandered by the subscribers to the origional theory.

There is still alot of divide on the subject.. all I can say is read the NIST and FEMA report's they dont study or anaylise the upward ejection's in any detail, or what caused the change from a tilting top of mass to a steadying disintergrating block, or why it fell at speeds that within the pancake theory dont obey conservation of motion, they always come back to attempting to create parameters where pancaking is allowed to occur.

The top piece clearly disintigrates before it can apply its full weight downward, increased resistance would be met in a pancaking theory even if some did break, no such conservation of momentum in the freefall theory is observed, it falls within the characteristics of a demolishion meeting no noteable lower structural resistance, alot of the weight is outside of the building's radius as ejected steel and an already fine concrete dust.

 

[Solaris]

"Like Putting to Much air in a Balloon"
<3 Futurama star Treck Paradoy.....someone will understand.

 

[Ome_Vince]

This explanation sums it up for me how it could have collapsed

Also, about that department store i was talking about:

Note the part you see standing is the outer-part. The inner structure collapsed like a card-house in a matter of seconds..

note the thing went straight down..

Around 6:05 P.M., the roof gave way, and the air conditioning unit crashed through into the already-overloaded fifth floor. The main columns, weakened to allow the insertion of the escalators, then collapsed in turn, and the whole building pancaked into the basement.

Also, that highway in the States that collapsed due to the earthquake ( if i remember correctly ). 1 or 2 supports had to fail, causing the overweight to send the whole thing crashing down..


Check this link:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Which explains how and why the WTC collapsed. Sure fire might not have been the only reason.. The media just ****ed up on that one, and the documentary focusses on those claims..

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Just for future references, any sound of explosions before the collapse was hundred ton pieces of steel falling off the outside of the building and crashing to the ground 100 stories below.

During the collapse? That should be pretty obvious.

and show explosiions of air through the windows as the building is coming down.

This really pisses me off. Any person with a >3rd grade education knows that air would be forced out the windows because the floors are collapsing.

 

[baxter]

Alot of University physicist's have been, and occassionally one manages to grow the balls, gets heard, and manages publishes something that inevitably gets slandered by the subscribers to the origional theory.

There is still alot of divide on the subject.. all I can say is read the NIST and FEMA report's they dont study or anaylise the upward ejection's in any detail, or what caused the change from a tilting top of mass to a steadying disintergrating block, or why it fell at speeds that within the pancake theory dont obey conservation of motion, they always come back to attempting to create parameters where pancaking is allowed to occur.

The top piece clearly disintigrates before it can apply its full weight downward, increased resistance would be met in a pancaking theory even if some did break, no such conservation of momentum in the freefall theory is observed, it falls within the characteristics of a demolishion meeting no noteable lower structural resistance, alot of the weight is outside of the building's radius as ejected steel and an already fine concrete dust.

I’m sure you can answer this but I just have few questions about the freefall you seem to be branding around.

I’m not going to quote sources but simply put a few questions to you.

The first one is, Did both Towers freefall in exactly the same manner?

That being the case, although the planes hit the towers at different heights, when they fell did they fall in precisely the same manner?

The second is, again thinking of freefall and bearing in mind that the towers were 95% air and once the collapse started is it beyond reason to assume that they would do anything other than simply implode?

The third, and bearing in mind I’m no scientist but surely when a massive section of the upper most towers broke away wouldn’t gravity and inertia determine that this section would fall straight down?

I’m sure you will correct me if wrong but didn’t one tower take some 12 seconds to collapse? this time frame totally contradicts freefall which apparently would have taken less than 9 seconds.

Another question I have is why would the tower that was hit second collapse first? Wouldn’t it fit in that the first tower that was hit would be the first to collapse? I mean taking into account all the laws of Physics surely the one that was damaged first would be the first to collapse?

It’s just that you seem to think both towers that were hit at different heights and different times, sustaining different amounts of damage fell in exactly the same fashion, i.e. freefall. So did they?