World trade center video

[Rat Faced]

"The building fell at the same speed as the rubble outside the building."

Please explain this and why you have a problem with it, within a Newtonian interpretation of gravity and terminal velocity.

I seriously have no idea what point people are trying to make when they post things like that.

The "Cushioning" effect of the floors as they pancaked would have prevented the collapsing building reaching terminal velocity. The crap outside had no such restrictions and would have done so..

The fact that they both fell at the same speed means that the top of the building was also falling at terminal velocity ie: There was no "cushioning" from the floors collapsing through impact from the floors above.

This means the floors below had already collapsed before the ones above reached them.. ie: They did not "pancake" as j2 puts it.

[Rat Faced]

what about the motives for doing this. i doubt out of all the people supposedly involved (according to the government) none of them realised how incredibly counter productive this would be. in fact i wonder if anyone can work out how anyone but the american and isreali governments benefits from this

I can name a few...

Oil Companies, Arms/Munitions Manufacturers and Military Contractors.

Unless you have evidence that any member(s) of the US/Israeli administration is/are involved in any of these Industries, I insist you withdraw that monstrous allegation.

[GepperRankins]

what about the motives for doing this. i doubt out of all the people supposedly involved (according to the government) none of them realised how incredibly counter productive this would be. in fact i wonder if anyone can work out how anyone but the american and isreali governments benefits from this

I can name a few...

Oil Companies, Arms/Munitions Manufacturers and Military Contractors.

Unless you have evidence that any member(s) of the US/Israeli administration is/are involved in any of these Industries, I insist you withdraw that monstrous allegation.

halli-what?

[JPaul]

"The building fell at the same speed as the rubble outside the building."

Please explain this and why you have a problem with it, within a Newtonian interpretation of gravity and terminal velocity.

I seriously have no idea what point people are trying to make when they post things like that.

The "Cushioning" effect of the floors as they pancaked would have prevented the collapsing building reaching terminal velocity. The crap outside had no such restrictions and would have done so..

The fact that they both fell at the same speed means that the top of the building was also falling at terminal velocity ie: There was no "cushioning" from the floors collapsing through impact from the floors above.

This means the floors below had already collapsed before the ones above reached them.. ie: They did not "pancake" as j2 puts it.

And what is your problem with this. The big feckin missile hitting the building may have caused lower floors to collapse, before the debris hit them. Or do you think that it hit 1 floor, which then collapsed on top of the others, which then fell.

I suspect that some of the energy was transferred elsewhere at the point of impact. A shock wave throughout the building which weakened the structure, not just at the point of impact.

Some sort of interweb, quasi-physics suggesting that the building did not collapse properly does not constitute evidence that the whole thing was staged. That really is just mentalist talk.

[JPaul]

Is that supposed to be serious.

yeah, you gonna dispute it then?

A group wants Jihad at all costs.

They attack the foundation of the Western World.

The Western World retaliates.

The group then calls on it's "followers" to fight against the infidel oppresor.

This galvanizes anti-Western sentiment.

Feck, that would work.

[GepperRankins]

so the buildings stood for nearly an hour before the initial shock managed to disinterate the steel and concrete core. i wish i hadn't skived all those physics lessons

[Cheese]

i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately, not only because of the latest "missing threads/pilfered password" debacle, but because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

It's an interesting rebuttal but, surely, you could have managed it without the childish insults. No wonder people have fun deleting your posts...

[Rat Faced]

The "Cushioning" effect of the floors as they pancaked would have prevented the collapsing building reaching terminal velocity. The crap outside had no such restrictions and would have done so..

The fact that they both fell at the same speed means that the top of the building was also falling at terminal velocity ie: There was no "cushioning" from the floors collapsing through impact from the floors above.

This means the floors below had already collapsed before the ones above reached them.. ie: They did not "pancake" as j2 puts it.

And what is your problem with this. The big feckin missile hitting the building may have caused lower floors to collapse, before the debris hit them. Or do you think that it hit 1 floor, which then collapsed on top of the others, which then fell.

I was desputing a point that the building collapsed through "pancaking" nothing more. This means that one floor WOULD have collapsed onto the floor below causing a collapse onto the one below, and so on..

I suspect that some of the energy was transferred elsewhere at the point of impact. A shock wave throughout the building which weakened the structure, not just at the point of impact.

I suspect that would be true. As the "Missile" hit one side of a building however, then that shockwave would have had disproportionate effects. The Shockwave would have had a more de-stabling effect on one side of the building to the other.. the collapse would therefore not have been straight down, it would have been in the direction of weakness, if this shockwave was powerful enough to cause the collapse.

Some sort of interweb, quasi-physics suggesting that the building did not collapse properly does not constitute evidence that the whole thing was staged. That really is just mentalist talk.

I am merely knocking things that other people post at the moment.

I think there are plenty of suspicious things about it, and a great deal of coincidence. That does not mean that I think the American Government destroyed the Twin Towers.. just that there are an awfull lot of coincidence and that I think the US Government is covering something up.

Why they are doing this, i couldnt tell you..

[JPaul]

so the buildings stood for nearly an hour before the initial shock managed to disinterate the steel and concrete core. i wish i hadn't skived all those physics lessons

Would that they were the only ones you skived.

[JPaul]

And what is your problem with this. The big feckin missile hitting the building may have caused lower floors to collapse, before the debris hit them. Or do you think that it hit 1 floor, which then collapsed on top of the others, which then fell.

I was desputing a point that the building collapsed through "pancaking" nothing more. This means that one floor WOULD have collapsed onto the floor below causing a collapse onto the one below, and so on..

I suspect that some of the energy was transferred elsewhere at the point of impact. A shock wave throughout the building which weakened the structure, not just at the point of impact.

I suspect that would be true. As the "Missile" hit one side of a building however, then that shockwave would have had disproportionate effects. The Shockwave would have had a more de-stabling effect on one side of the building to the other.. the collapse would therefore not have been straight down, it would have been in the direction of weakness, if this shockwave was powerful enough to cause the collapse.

Some sort of interweb, quasi-physics suggesting that the building did not collapse properly does not constitute evidence that the whole thing was staged. That really is just mentalist talk.

I am merely knocking things that other people post at the moment.

I think there are plenty of suspicious things about it, and a great deal of coincidence. That does not mean that I think the American Government destroyed the Twin Towers.. just that there are an awfull lot of coincidence and that I think the US Government is covering something up.

Why they are doing this, i couldnt tell you..

I'm not having a go at you, just anyone who decides to post pish re how the towers should have fallen in those circumstances.

They were (perhaps) the largest buildings in the World. They were hit by commercial planes travelling at high speed, full of jet fuel which then exploded.

There are few people in the World who are competent to opine on what the consequences would be.

I would suggest that the select band who are competent to do so are unlikely to be authoring interweb conspiracy theory sites. They are probably rather too busy for that.

There is no point in forming theories based on a common sense understanding of physics, because the circumstances are just too outlandish.