You’re a sarcastic ass – best head for the EU thread, you’d fit in well over there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/cache/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067.html

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.
I posted the links above before the quoted posts, if Whathaveisaidnow had looked into them…

delete – canny make the link work

And anyway they did fall at less than freefall speed precisely because hitting each lower layer slowed it

Apparently due to the viscosity of the mush in front of it… It is very hard measure as the top bit disintegrated on the way down and defining which bit falls at what speed is tough if the bit you measure changes shape during the movement.
Not to mention that calculating the freefall speed is also complicated by the shape and air resistance of the objects varying as they disintegrate and tumble, some parts be like a lead ball others like a feather. Plus some of the material was ejected sideways which complicated matters further.

My understanding is that the “freefall speed” adherents expected it to fall much much slower, and to kind of klunk at every level, whereas it fell more or less in the amount of time it would take a single object to fall. Any pauses were microscopically short because the kinetic energy was massive compared to the energy devoted to the work of destroying the material below.

The implication to the uninitiated is that the close to freefall speed means the building was destroyed from below, ie conspiracy. Woooooo

I can’t believe it’s gone 6 pages & no-one’s mentioned the plane hitting the Pentagon and not a single of the 500000 security cameras in the area seen it happen 😉

you could if you used thirty ton tea bags

yes floor by floor as no floor was designed to withstand the impact of 15-20 % of the mass of the tower hitting it [ why does this surprise you?]- its a cascade fall

I am only an accountant so I am not used to such big numbers, and I haven’t had my coffee yet however:
It was 20 floors I just read, of 120. So thats 16% of the mass which was 450,000,000 KG. (https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml)

lets get it moving by say 1/2m the gap it fall through when it started to fall.
PEi=mgh
Potential energy (i means intial, lets make that zero)
=0.16x450000000x9.8×0.5 =352million joules. That much energy to give up in the first half metre..

it is not relatively small its 16% of the total mass below it, and it only needs to destroy one floor below it ie 1%, the mass is now 1% bigger and still accelerating. By a few more meters. Every floor it increases mass and is going faster.
Plug in the original mass, having now moved a single floor (2 metres) and its 4 times as much energy as we had in the beginning..

Edit – as I was typing this junkyard and Jim jam replied with the same point.

They did it to cover up the fake moon landing and the fact gwb was a woman

Why even indulge the argument? If you just assume a devils advocate position and say “okay, it was a controlled demolition, now lets hash that out” you are into an even more fanciful and far fetched conspiracy – ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructed and invasive pre-demolition prep on the twin towers which would easily have taken 6 months to a year and no one noticed.

The whole “freefall” thing is classic conspiracy theory thinking- it doesn’t have to be credible, it just has to contradict the official account. A controlled demolition wouldn’t completely take away the resistance of the structure below either so the same “issue” with the official version would also apply to the consipracy version. But that’s not actually important.

Double agree ^^^^^

There have been some fairly successful secret projects in the past.
Bletchley park managed for many years post war(as an aside one reason it was kept secret was the allies generously sold a bunch of enigma machines after the war to various governments so they could have “secure” communications).
Manhattan project was fairly secret despite its size with most people not knowing what they were actually working on. Although of course in that case the foreign government infiltration might have proved inconvenient.

So whilst I think the government conspiracy line is rubbish it is conceivable that for some variations of the theories where the number involved are fairly low it could be kept secret. Of course once it gets to the ones where random police officers, firemen and bbc reporters are in on it does seem rather hopeful.

Do you have a figure in mind for the number of times you’re going to raise this point and ignore the responses explaining your logic fail? 🙂

it is not relatively small its 16% of the total mass below it, and it only needs to destroy one floor below it ie 1%, the mass is now 1% bigger and still accelerating. By a few more meters. Every floor it increases mass and is going faster.
Plug in the original mass, having now moved a single floor (2 metres) and its 4 times as much energy as we had in the beginning..

You’re overlooking the unavoidable resistance that the lower, undamaged portion of the structure provides. There must be a deceleration as each new layer is reached, no matter what the condition of that layer is. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system – which is what each tower (and WTC7) were – does not change. So, whatever the momentum of the upper 15% ( for arguments sake) the momentum of the lower 85% is 0 (zero); therefore unless additional energy is introduced to accelerate the upper portion, which is essentially what it is being claimed the upper portion did, Newton’s Third Law dictates that any damage (distortion) that occurs to the lower portion as a result of the impact of the upper portion will also occur in the upper portion. Kinetic energy is absorbed by both portions until they gradually (a relative term) come to a halt after roughly the equivalent mass of the upper portion has been distorted in the the lower portion. For all intents and purposes, the structure of the upper portion and the lower portion are identical, so the example is even easier to consider than if the upper portion had a greater mass, in which case it might have travelled further into the lower portion before coming to a halt. It’s remarkably easy to test and observe for ones self – go and drop a breeze block onto a breeze block, snowball onto snowball, or pumpkin ont pumpkin – whatever you like and however many times you do it, I guarantee that at no point will the dropped object accelerate through the static object beyond its equivalent mass.

It’s fundamental, foundation physics. Uncomfortable, I know, but physics says that all three buildings were demolished. I’ve absolutely no idea by whom, though looking at who profited (considerably) might shed some light.

Seriously? You need to go back to school.

Three_Fish, i guess being a conspiracy theorist also limits you ability to read?

I explained, in some detail, about 4 pages ago how the structure of the WTC, which differs markedly from most lowrise steel framed buildings results in the floors pancaking very easily compared to a high mass, cross braced steel or concrete building.

Go back and read it.

What is also notable is how many of these nutters happily say things like “Newtons 3rd Law” and then go on to demostrate they haven’t got a fricking clue what Newtons 3rd Law actually means in terms of physics!

for example:

“Newton’s Third Law dictates that any damage (distortion) that occurs to the lower portion as a result of the impact of the upper portion will also occur in the upper portion”

er, no. no it doesn’t! Here is Newtons actual 3rd law:

It says nothing about damage, and nothing about accelerations (that’s his 2nd law f=ma)

er, nope, not even slightly secret it turns out!

More moles than the average school footy pitch 😉

I recommend reading Richard Rhodes seminal work on the development of the atomic bomb:

(838 pages of rigorously researched, cross referenced and often first hand information on the project)

No you havent actually explained anything …..Go back and read it.

Are you aware of how the 2 towers were actually constructed,

If you buy into the pancake theory of collapse why did the cores not remain in situ ????

Why does it always have to be about you ?