that two/three buildings defied laws of physics
that all the suspicious behavior such as:
actions by the airline companies right before 9/11
2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon the day before 9/11
some amounts of blackouts and building evacuations before 9/11
removal of bomb sniffing dogs
the way the evidence was quickly taken from the scenes and destroyed
the way video tapes of the Pentagon and surrounding buildings were confiscated
etc

Do you believe all these things are coincidences and the government is hiding nothing?

And if they are hiding nothing, why all the continued guilty demeanor?
Why all the panic before and after 9/11?

Why are so many people ignorant to believe everything on TV that is owned by coroporate media
could have been finely paid off after the 9/11 attack with the 2.3 trillion missing from Pentagon

inconclusive, anything man made can be altered

@K0be,

Let's deal with the issues you raised one by one. I hope you have evidences to support them so you don't turn out to be a rumor monger as some people are. Someone was also on nairaland recently with rumors that no Jew was killed on 911 because all 3,000 Jews working at the WTC didn't come to work on that day. Conspiracy theories abound, but what is more appalling is that simple minds that will believe anything that aligns with their prejudices abound even much more.

To the issues you raised. 1. that two/three buildings defied laws of physics - The first question to ask is which 2/3 buildings defied the laws of physics? Secondly what are the laws of physics and which of them were violated? Thirdly, please explain how they were violated.

I hope we can deal with these issues thoroughly one by one. Hopefully, no one will be in doubt to the veracity or otherwise of these claims by the time we are done.

yes o.

i will respond to you very shortly so stay posted.

but in short, it didn't make sense that the buildings would fall completely like that over a hit.
they attributed the total collapse to heat generated or whatever. the airplanes weren't solely responsible for the collapse of the wtc
i mean heat my foot.

umm dude, there are other laws of physics that could have made the buildings collapse. What about Momentum? Impulse?

Momemtum and impulse dont cut it. Those buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes and tremors of up .8 ricther scale. I believe there is more to 911 than we are being told.

Think about it Esss, object of large magnitude in relative uniform motion, so to say, collides with another object at rest. Combined with the heat generated. . .i mean a whole fuckin' airplane. I daresay both could have cause ruins and shit. . .

I learnt about my first biggest lesson in politics yesterday.
This information that you are trying to get at, will it serve the greater good or not?

How is this revelation you seek going to benefit the larger society on the long run?

I like that word "could", but lets examine the structures of the twin towers. The building collapsed into itself. This a building that was constructed with the finest grade of steel which melts at a much higher degree than the aviation fuel (jet A1) could have produced. Looking at the pictures again, you will see that most, if no all of the jet fuel burnt out upon impact.

I agree that because the building was impacted by a plane, forces would have travelled in all/different directions around the building, but for the buildings to both collapse like a pack of cards is still unexplainable. atleast a reasonanle amount of floors should have remained standing. The structural integrity of such a building was was destroyed too cheaply by an incident like a plane flying into it. Even a controlled explosion couldnt have produced a finer destruction.

Conspiracy theory or not, there is something we just aren't seeing.

Abi o.  Mind you even after the world trade center incident I have seen reports on news telecasts about planes colliding with buildings.  those buildings never folded like the wtc did.

i mean the wtc just completely melted like it's ice dissolving into water.


moreover, i have seen footages of baseball stadiums being completely demolished; they often detonate bombs to do this.
that's exactly what it was like watching the wtc go out.  like there was some type of bomb in there causing its paralysis,

in short, we shouldn't be so quick to rectify the possiblity that the collapse of the wtc looked like controlled demolitions.

watch this footage: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOtQtpupYhY
"huge explosion" "the building fell" - in a matter of approximately 10 seconds.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UVK9x44W82o&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bavn4T26jcw&mode=related&search=

the more I look the more it just doesn't make sense to me.  how could that much be generated all a sudden and cause the building to just give way and start flying out like that. it burned up there for about 12 seconds then the whole thing looked like xplosions sets.

official 911 report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

TayoD in addressing your question:

The buildings fell too fast.
The towers fell fully to the ground in a just over 10 seconds, which is near free-fall speed in a vacuum
Account for air resistance and you'll realize that it is faster than freefall
For an object to fall at such speed all its potential energy must be converted to KE
potential energy used for any other purpose will cause the speed to decrease
The towers had to not only counteract the effects of air resistance, they had to pulverize concrete, & sever steel at high speeds
all of these require large, I mean gigantic energy which we would need to subtract from the speed of the collapsing building.
Clearly, for the building to freefall & at the same time do these things there had to be some other source of energy causing it.

now read this and tell me it doesn't make sense:

the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml


then listen to what fire fighters on the scene had to say about WTC 7 (which no airplane hit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&NR=1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY

@topic,

I didn't expect this topic to have created this much buzz so fast. I just hope I wont have to spend so much of my time trying to explain one thing or the other. Now to my responses.

@k0be,
While you have not told us what laws of physics were violated, it appears you are more inclined to believeing the building was taken down by controlled implosion. That is absolutely not the case. Let me explain to you briefly how a controlled implosion occurs.

First, I think I need to explain the way load is transfered to the foundations in a building. The weight of everything in a room is directly borne by the floors. These loads are then transfered to the beams which then transfer the load to the columns unto the foundation. To demolish a building via controlled implosion, you will be wasting your time targeting the floors or the beams, rather your target should be the columns and possibly the foundations in very rare cases.

An Engineer realises that once the columns give way, gravity will kick in to do the rest. Based on principles that I will explain as we go on, a building will not collapse by falling over unto its side. Rather, it will collapse by falling inwards due to the effect of gravity.

Going by the principle I stated above, there is no way the towers we saw came down by controlled implosion. The tower gave way because of the collapsing floors. I implore you to take a further look at buildings that are demolished through controlled implosion, and you will realise that the demolision experts target the base columns and allow gravity to do the rest.

This is certainly not the case with the twin towers. The collapse started at about the same floor where the impact occured and the weight of the falling floors and the accompanying momentum could not under any circumstances be resisted by the lower floors. As a result of this, the columns will be left vulnerable because the floors which provides resistance to bukling are no longer there and the columns become what we call slender columns. Slender columns fail when unbraced and that explains the failure of the floors above the impact area.

Now here are some videos of some controlled implosion. Please notice how the columns especially towards the foundation area are the target of the explosions. This was certainly not the case with 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewyM7xNo40o&mode=related&search=

@ TayoD:

thanks for that explanation, really appreciated it.

@ Esss:

tayo's explanation seems to bring a new perspective to this topic.

Let's look at it from another angle. Picture a tell pyramid/deck of cards. I believe what tayo was saying in essence was remove one of the supporting cards at the edges (columns, i hope i got it?), the ones on top first give way, gravity does the rest of the job, the collapsing cards impacting on the ones below. . .

Let me rephrase one of my post. It seems heat generation is out of the question. Does momentum still stand? I think so. After giving it some thought, i concluded there was no way that plane could be moving at a relative uniform velocity. Think about it - m1v1=m2v2 (hope i got it right, lol). On the other hand, m2v2 is at rest. The impact would depend on the mass of bodies in motion, their velocity. . .shit. . .the impact of the crash must have been enough to destroy some of the supporting beams and 'columns' on the floors hit first, causing the top ones to collapse which caused the lower ones to give way. three things i think may have happened here, gravitational pull, impulse - judging the time, which is a component in determining the velocity- the force of the plane also and Hooke's law (hope that doesn't sound too far-fetched, lol)


sheesh, i can't believe gbade's been rambling science and some, lol . . .

Ok here let me provide  you with these bits and pieces as they clearly demonstrate what I've been trying to say.

- It requires temperatures of at least 5,000 fahrenheit to melt steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse.

- Building 7 was not hit by a plane, it was only hit by debris and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics(momentum & energy), unless the building was brought down by explosives.

- Buildings that collapse without the aid of explosives produce large piles of in-tact concrete and do not turn to dust as they are falling, as was witnessed on 9/11.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/121105twintowers.htm


tell me this is not an explosion.  a collapsing building does not spit out like this. where are the large chunks of concrete? everthing turned into dust in a matter of like milliseconds.

. . .and that is the reason why i ruled out heat generation as it is not enough a theory to explain such a crash. . .

the buildings’ free-fall collapse is tip-off number one.
(NIST) has admitted the South Tower came down in ten seconds and the North in nine.
a mechanical engineer(judy wood), has observed that even objects in free fall, encountering only air resistance, would require at least 12 seconds to hit this means the buildings were actually destroyed at a speed faster than freefall.

without something below the collapsing debris removing the building’s natural resistance(such as the hard steel), there's just no way it can fall that fast.

WTC 7, came down though it wasn’t hit by an airplane. it followed the convention of an implosion. The Twin Towers on the other hand, were blown up from top to bottom turning to saw dust. i mean it requires a lotta energy, I don't see how that airliner can provide that much energy.

I am almost tempted to contribute to this debate but of what benefit will it be?

If we even find a picture of JUDGE Bush planting demolition explosives in the atrium of the building will it achieve world peace? Or will there be disastrous calamity?

The problems 911 caused have almost been resolved. And lately I've realised it won't do much good to bring them up again.

All of them are not pure. In as much as we should let the matter die, it irritates me when they keep trying to create new events like the new Glasgow attacks and use 911 to substantiate it. Because if the father is a goat and the mother is a goat, the offspring too must be a goat. If 911 was a hoax and 7/7 was a hoax, then Glasgow was a scripted drama. But anyhow, y'all don't even get me started.

The painful bit about that 9/11 event is the number of lives lost (no, sacrificed) to satisfy the sinful desires of a greedy few. Reminds me of what happened during Biafra.

I just hope all these events will not lead us to WW3.

Is it possible that the plane was laden with explosives by those Terrorists, such that on impact and detonation of these explosives (in the building), we had such debris jutting out of the building like shown above?

you can dismiss everything k0be said if you want to. Afterall it is very debatable.

But why did building 7, a building that was hit by no plane or anything, catch fire and collapse? Why did the buildings around building 7, office and residential apartments NOT catch fire? What brought building 7, almost 2 blocks away from the wtc crashing down?

How did a building not hit by fire spontaneously catch fire and come crashing down? When last did a steel column building do that?

Building 7 is the key to this puzzle. Why did building seven collapse? If you can answer that, you win.

I think the building was stuck by SHANGO the god of IRON, and I still wonder how the IRONs melted, kai Shango is powerful deity.

@k0be,

the buildings’ free-fall collapse is tip-off number one.
(NIST) has admitted the South Tower came down in ten seconds and the North in nine.
a mechanical engineer(judy wood), has observed that even objects in free fall, encountering only air resistance, would require at least 12 seconds to hit this means the buildings were actually destroyed at a speed faster than freefall.

There is nothing strange about the speed of the towers' fall. An object that falls with the momentum that the WTC fell will do so faster than the speed of gravity which is 9.8m/s. Let me give you an example. When you shoot a gun downwards from a particular height, it will reach the ground faster than when the bullet is dropped in a vacuum. Why is that the case? It is because the bullet is propelled by a force which gives it a high momentum. Same thing is the case with the collapsing floors of the WTC. Each floor gives way under the momentum provided by the collapsing floors above it, and the nearer to the ground the floor is, the greater the momentum it receives.

without something below the collapsing debris removing the building’s natural resistance(such as the hard steel), there's just no way it can fall that fast.

there is nothing removing the support. Each floor is supported by trusses which are either welded or bolted to the columns with the help of plates. These welds/bolts are designed with a compound factor of safety that can't be more than 3. That means it is possible that it could handle the weights of 3 floors (that is if the FOS is 3), under optimum condition. That was not the case when the floors came crashing down. Not only were the steel severely weakened because of the heat, a phenomenon we call load redistribution already implies that every member was carrying more load than was planned for after the plane crashed in. There are a lot of factors that contributed to this collapse which I hope to explain as we go. Hopefully we'll get there.

WTC 7, came down though it wasn’t hit by an airplane.  it followed the convention of an implosion.

I have not seen the collapse of WTC 7, but I can imagine the combined effect of the heat and foundation displacement creating the kind of conditions that brught the twin towers down. If we understand that debris was found many blocks away from the twin towers, then it is not too far fetch to assume that jet fuel and other debris were propelled to the WTC7 on impact of the plane.

The Twin Towers on the other hand, were blown up from top to bottom turning to saw dust.

There is absolutely no scientific way to explain the collapse of the twin towers based on what you are saying. Conspiracy theorists are just propagating these stories to fulfil an agenda. They are feeding on the ignorance of most people with respect to engineering and science. Please talk to a structural engineer and they'll confirm the things I'm saying to you.

i mean it requires a lotta energy, I don't see how that airliner can provide that much energy

The energy didn't come from the airline. The airline succeed in destroying the outer columns and part of the core column. The heat from the fuel reduced the yield streghth of the steel which the gives way under its own weight. The falling weight then provided the energy required to destroy itself. That seems to be the best way I can explain it to a Lay-man.

Let me just share this thought with y'all. I think you give this Government a lot of credit when you claim they could pull out such a feat without being found out. A CIA agent's identity was leaked and someone paid for it. If they couldn't hide that, how can they have done the same thing here? And more importantly, if they could pull off such stunt, you don't think it would have been a piece of cake to suddenly produce WMDs in Iraq to justify their invasion? Logic just don't add up when we think of all these factors!

When you shoot a gun downwards from a particular height, it will reach the ground faster than when the bullet is dropped in a vacuum. Why is that the case? It is because the bullet is propelled by a force which gives it a high momentum.

Exactly! What others are suggesting is that there was an explosive force that brought down the towers.

Along with the conspiracy theories we've seen. there are also those who scientifically debunk such claims which you don't often hear about.

This site shows building 7 and offers an explanation.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm#reporter

Computer models used to prove tower collapse
http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007/March%202007/D-Spotlight-ComputerModeling-Mar07.pdf

@Seun,

Exactly! What others are suggesting is that there was an explosive force that brought down the towers

No single explosion force brought down the tower. Abi no be d twin towers u dey talk about?

First, you need to understand that the resilience of the towers even surprised engineers. No building was designed to handle the kind of damage that the WTC was subjected to.

Also, please note that the tower didn't collapse for over an hour after the impact. This time was sufficient enough to weaken the remaining structural components by reason of the heat. Like I said, the failure of the steel through heat lead to the collapse of the floors and the sound one may think was explosion was that of steel on steel.

No scientific explanation can account for explosives as the means through which that tower fell. Please try and find out the papers written by experts to explain this.

It is also important to note steel loses about 20% of it's strength at some 300C-500C, and about 50% of it's strength at about 1000C. It wouldn't have to melt to buckle and fail.

People are forgeting we don't use bricks to build houses in USA we use dry walls. compact woods

See the below page that shows some steel bars for the floors were missing the sprayed on fire proofing they should have had. These steel reinforcements may have been naked before 9/11.
http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Also see
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

And
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

@Mariory,

Thanks for those links. I was going to get to the nitty gritty details later but you anticipated me. The fire-coating on the steel was actually knocked off by the impact of the plane and that left the steel susceptible.

My take on this is the same as in all others. People are quick to believe rumors and take a following after those who spread them, rather than seek the opinion of experts. 911 suddenly turned everyone into structural engineers and explosive experts. How funny!