This only leads to the reality,…someone higher up the chain new WC7 was rigged to be demolished.

That’s a lot of logical jumps to ‘prove’ what you already believe.

WT7 was a controlled demolition,…. please look into it.

The video that you posted shows 7WTC collapsing and shows a controlled demolition for comparison.
Why does 7WTC collapse in one corner first?
Many seconds before the rest of the building?
That’s not how a controlled demo happens.

Your own “evidence” disagrees with you.

This thread is too obvious for you Taylforth.
Take your talents elsewhere. 🙂

It only takes about three “facts”. Steel melts at C. Jets can’t fly at Y. The building fell like Z…and you have the fuel for a conspiracy. And unless these “facts” happen to be in your area of professional expertise it requires a lot of study and energy to understand and disprove them. This is the part they don’t do.

1. your genius mate doesn’t understand aerodynamics or the performance envelopes of aircraft because aircraft can fly at low speed down to about 200mph or less depending on the aircraft, its weight, the wind direction and strength. They’re designed to fly at 40k feet where the air is thin – so flying at low altitudes where the air is like soup in comparison is easy peasy. No really, it is not a challenge at all and certainly not witchcraft. It’s perfectly explainable and understandable. I’m of average intelligence at best and certainly not a genius and fully understand and comprehend it, and indeed in a proper flight simulator have flown a jumbo jet at low speed underneath the Golden Gate bridge, so it is entirely possible.

2. your genius mate has not yet grasped the fact that melting steel has nothing to do with the structural failure of the towers. Steel has lost half of its strength at around 600 degrees c – it’s not even glowing red at that temperature, so no surprise the towers collapsed under the heat of burning jet fuel – which might burn naturally in still air at about 1500 degrees, but can achieve much higher temperatures if oxygen is pumped into it – like the updrafts created when jet fuel is burning in a confined space….say like in a sky scraper. The combustion temperatures in aircraft jet engines achieve well over 2000 degrees C and could go much hotter…and they run off jet fuel.

3. plenty of experts and specialists have confirmed the building collapsed completely and definitely in accordance to expectations given the failure mechanism.

Being a genius or above average intelligence doesn’t mean you always arrive at the correct outcome. History is full of genius’ and experts who have got things wrong.

I’m not sure what all the conspiracy theories are. Why is there such surprise and doubt that the towers collapsed after being hit by aircraft? Are the conspiricsts saying that aircraft didn’t fly into the towers ‘because aircraft can’t fly at low altitudes’? Are they saying that they were flown by CIA operative – ones that signed upto a suicide mission? And if it was so implausible or impossible to collapse the towers by aircraft crashing into them so they felt the need to have a backup plan to cause the towers to collapse, like explosives, then didn’t they anticipate there would be experts out there that would establish the facts?

One thing is certain. Any government or government department is incapable of keeping secrets. they all come out eventually.

Because the top of the building did collapse first, then the weight and impact of the top part of the building falling down over stressed the lower part which then collapsed. This is easily observed – you clearly see the top part of the building fall before the lower part. In controlled demolitions the entire building falls at the same time, not from the top down. The failure mechanism couldn’t be more different from a controlled demolition. You can see from the image below…the top part is collapsing before the lower part…

It is built on a box – or rather built into the ground, like a built in beam. Remember a few years before the failed attempt to drive a van packed with explosives into one of the underground car parks that was rumbled? Experts reckon that if the explosives had been detonated then the resulting explosion would have done significant structural damage and could have event led to the collapse of the tower.

These guys have had a few bites at the cherry and unfortunately in 9/11 they succeeded.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nobody has yet disproved Newton’s Third Law. NIST/The 911 Commission stated that one tower was demolished in 9 seconds, the other in 11. From where did the tops of each tower obtain sufficient potential energy to seemingly overcome NTL, and the Law of Momentum Conservation, continuing to the ground at an virtually constant rate and not just come to a stop after crushing the equivalent of its own mass?

THe nose cone of a plane after hitting a bird…..

Sky scrapers are not designed to withstand dynamic loads, they resist the static load of the weight of the top. If that is moving at a speed downward then that imparts a far greater force on the structure below. The moving mass of the upper structure has a force equal to mass x acceleration. Acceleration is 9.81m/s/s so the force is ten times the mass. Way above the factor of safety applied to structures so no surprise the lower structure was over stressed and collapsed.

Speed of sound at sea level is over 700mph depending upon atmospheric pressure, but the aircraft were not traveling that fast even by watching them on TV they were not going anywhere near that fast. Not sure what the NTSB report actually reads, but even if it is a conspiracy theory that makes even less sense that the NTSB would publish impossible data. They’re well aware of the speed of sound at sea level and the fact a normal commercial airliner can’t get anywhere near it apart form in a steep dive. I can only think there was an error in the data or the measurement of the speed.

Really? That’s your evidence?

A 757 weights over 100,000kg. A weight of 100,000kg travelling at a couple of hundred mph is not going penetrate a skyscraper? A sky scraper is a thin walled structure, should be no surprise an aircraft can penetrate it. Plus once it has hit the momentum of the fuel will travel forward and ignite and blow out the other side – these are all open plan buildings with no structural internal walls, just a structural central core.

So what are you saying? That this was all just some form of mass hallucinogenic thing where they put something int he water so all the eye witnesses hallucinated aircraft crashing into the buildings and what we watched on TV was just CGI? because that sounds so much more plausibleplausinbe

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nobody has yet disproved Newton’s Third Law. NIST/The 911 Commission stated that one tower was demolished in 9 seconds, the other in 11. From where did the tops of each tower obtain sufficient potential energy to seemingly overcome NTL, and the Law of Momentum Conservation, continuing to the ground at an virtually constant rate and not just come to a stop after crushing the equivalent of its own mass?

Ok, lets assume the building did fall at more than 1 g (it didn’t btw, video and semsmic evidence suggest the collapse took between 12 and 15 seconds, which is about 0.7g)

But assuming it did accel at more than 1 g, explain how an explosive demolition could do this?

To do that, there would have to be thrusters of some sort fitted to the top of the building to push it down, and as each tower had a mass of about 500,000 tonnes, to just be say 10% greater accel than freefall would require a force of 50,000 tonnes, equivalent to 15 Saturn V rockets mounted upside down on the top of the building and all firing at once and for the entire duration of the fall.

Did you see 15 S5 moon rockets on the roof?

The linked video talks about 510 knots as though it’s over mach 1, which an airliner couldn’t achieve. Mach 1 couldn’t be achieved, I agree, but 510 knots is way under that, even at sea level.

@wobbliscott – 404 knots for the first plane and 523 knots for the second. The second plane had descended from 28,500ft at a fast rate so it’s likely to have had some momentum from that:

From Wikipedia: “At 08:58, the plane was over New Jersey at 28,500 feet, heading toward New York City. In the five minutes from approximately 08:58 when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City until the moment of impact, the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[14] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”

So not level flight.

I wouldn’t know how to be pompous or condescending – i was going for sarcastic. But in any case i’ve obviously taken your note in a way it was not intended to come across and for that i’ll apologise for my mistake. I took it as you endorsing the conspiracy theories because your clever colleagues/friends believed in them.

@threefish – which bit of “the building was not designed to withstand dynamic loading of the structure above” don’t you understand? Newton’s third law has nothing to do with it.

@jonnyboi – The quote I used was about the plane that crashed into the south tower, yours is about the plane that crashed into the north tower, 100 knots slower speed.

From Wikipedia: “At 08:58, the plane was over New Jersey at 28,500 feet, heading toward New York City. In the five minutes from approximately 08:58 when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City until the moment of impact, the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[14] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”

So not level flight.

That explains it then. Seems a fact those pilots were conveniently ignoring in that youtube video then who were talking about S&L flight.

A building is, in fact, mostly free space (air) It has to be, because we need to put things, like people, furniture etc inside it. It is NOT a solid block.

The WTC was a very unique design.
Due to it’s height, and the necessity to support the high wind sheer forces, but bear a relatively low distributed floor loading (it was just a commercial office building remember, housing, desks, filing cabinets and people, not some heavy storage or machinery), it was designed with load bearing outer walls and thin suspended floors . To withstand bending loads, you get the stiffest structure with the least mass by making the supporting structure as wide as possible, so this is a sensible approach for a very tall, lightly loaded building.

In fact, this very design was probably intrinsic into why the towers didn’t actually collapse immediately due to the initial impact itself, because they were very stiff and had very good load sharing capability (compared to a traditional lattice girder type steel frame)

When the heat of the fire, and the damage from the original impact finally caused the outer structure to bulge too much, those vertical walls buckled (try it, get a drinking straw, put a book on it, then tap the middle of the straw. it’s hold the book when straight, but not when buckled) and at that point, the thin floors what were hung off the external walls simply cascaded down into each other. The outer frame can be seen in numerous pictures and video’s bending outwards and opening like a banana as the floors concertina down the middle.

With the walls bending outwards, as the building collapsed breaking the “hooked on floor supporting structure”, there is relatively speaking nothing of any significance to hold the floors up, and especially so given the massive dynamic load. Try another experiment. Put your hand flat on a table, then put a hammer on your hand, ok, no worries. Now drop the same hammer onto your hand from 1 foot above, now tell me there’s no difference….)

The entire WTC structure was built on a massive underground void, with car parks, subway stations and malls, and into this the above ground structure fell, unstoppably pancaking everything into a dense, but relatively small pile of debris showing above ground (remember, this is a steel framed building, not a concrete one, so the actual ratio of structure to space is pretty small due to the high strength of steel)

^^^ note the outer structure still standing, nearly straight, but with no evidence of any floors

Sorry, I haven’t read the whole thread, but one thing that really, really annoys me is the WTC7 argument.

one question. Why?

lets say it is a government plot, lets say drone planes flew into the WTC, and lets say they then blew up the towers.

why then would anyone involved say “I know, what we need to do is blow up a building that wasn’t hit by a plane, that won’t attract any attention, will it”

Why? If anyone can sensibly answer that question, I’m all ears.

why then would anyone involved say “I know, what we need to do is blow up a building that wasn’t hit by a plane, that won’t attract any attention, will it”

Why? If anyone can sensibly answer that question, I’m all ears.

That’s because some super secret top government data or something was kept there.

Guess what. It wasn’t, you’re wrong, no one takes you seriously, and you are literally wasting your life trying to prove otherwise

You seem to be taking it quite seriously, as do others in this thread……

jimjam.

That’s because some super secret top government data or something was kept there

er, if it was so secret, couldn’t they just have, you know, moved it? [/quote]

No it was far handier to wage a proxy war with the Russians in Afghanistan by spending trillions arming the mujahadeen and promising them that if they beat the Russians the would have the full support of the British and American governments and then abandon them after the Russians were beaten causing a civil war which led to a power vacuum which allowed the Taliban to gain control of the country creating the perfect environment for Bin Laden to organise Al Qaeda and plan a terrorist plot to fly commercial jet aircraft into the twin towers….as a distraction to get rid of whatever they needed to get rid of in tower 7.

Obviously.