So let me get this straight. In 1993, a massive bomb blows up and does minimal damage to the building.(I watched all of that coverage). At the time, they said that the building was one of the strongest in the world. Then a plane hits the building and pours tons of slow burning diesel on it as a primary fuel. There were tons and tons of secondary fuel. It is call carpet, plastics, paper, wood from furniture, drywall, foam cusions from plush furniture etc, etc, etc..... tell me what the higheset temperature that a fire can get when you douse an entire house from one side to the other(the explosion from the plane went out the other side) with diesel and use all of the contents as fuel. This was not an empty steel structure that was doused with slow burning diesel fuel. In fact, this was a building full of stuff that was doused with fuel through a large part of a floor. I never believed that the towers could be destroyed after the 1993 bombing. It proved to me that the building could handle a major bombing. I figured no one would try again. When I saw the fires and the initial aftermath, I assumed that it was horrible but it was just a matter of a day and the people would be out. It never occured to me that a fire burning for hours on end and spreading would compromise the integrity of the structure. But that is what happened. Why would the building be wired with explosives when it didn't work with a massive bomb from before? Makes no sense. What does make sense is that they wanted a plane full of fuel to kill and burn as many as possible. Just as they were unlucky in 1993 where I think only one died, they got lucky with the amount of innocent human carnage they were able to achieve on 9/11. They may say they knew what they were doing to get it to collapse, they didn't. They got LUCKY. Plain and simple.
That bomb in 1993 was a LOT smaller than the potential fuel and plane hitting the WTC's. Why don't you guys consult a structural (civil engineer) as you hypostulate? The few I know say they wondered why it stood as long as it did.
correct. These people are the dumbest in the room. for something to fall 77 feet slower than terminal velocity does show resistance. anything to the contrary is bogus. 77 feet (or even 40 feet out of 400) is significant. These people don't understand terminal velocity at all. XRAY has been on this site for years and now he is a gov't paid shill. I am, too. We are spies so be careful cause we are going to find you..... If you want to use physics, you must first understand it. back to the books, fellas. Sell me some arabic tea and crumpets along with 10 wives who I can abuse. That is what makes y'all happy, right.
Good luck with the paranoid stuff in your heads. I hope you can quiet the voices.
Hey yeah, man. I'm a paid disinfo agent too, just like the other guy -- making a killing disrupting your profound thoughts. You can't believe how much the government pays me to suggest that you're full of baloney. As a sideline, the feds pay me to hoard canned goods and matches so you can't buy any to put in the hole with your silver.
I guess this is what passes for financial discussion on a site for silver hoarders. (PS: Now to be serious: I like silver, and I like guns too. But I'm not terrified of my dopey Senator or the cop on the beat.)
You are clearly a disinfo agent deliberately trying to disrupt a meaningful discussion on the most important event of our life times.
Your logic: physical evidence points to the Pentagon not being hit by a jumbo jet therefore if you can't tell me where the plane that was supposed to be there went, then you are wrong and a jumbo jet did hit the Pentagon. Just great.
If you are not a paid disinfo agent, my condolences for your terrible low IQ. Yes, I am sure you would believe whatever the government tells you regardless of the physical evidence.
look at all of the security cameras that were not destroyed after the phantom boeing hit the pentagon.
largest scam in history and the sheep believe it all. lol
thanks for asking this question without anger and ridicule as many of your other posts have been.
I am not implying that WTC 1, WTC2, and WTC7 fell faster than gravity would allow. I am implying that they fell (almost very close to) free fall speed or gravity would allow without resistance other than the Air the materials were falling through.
if you dropped a piece of wood from the top of the WTC 7 the moment it collapsed. The wood would hit the ground at almost identical times.
How is it possible for the falling building material to fall at (very close to) free fall speed where the greatest area of resistance would be?
I recommend you that you study the work done from these website below and come up with your own opinions and hypothesis.
Take out a stop watch and do the calculations for yourself
I can’t explain any of this any further. You have to do it for yourself: Replace DOT with . on links provided below:
In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.
The final figure for theoretical collapse acceleration rate of WTC7 in complete free fall in atmosphere and at sea level is 8.94m/s2, which is only a little above the actual observed 8.71m/s2 acceleration rate arrived at from analysis of the CBS footage and using the Emporis height measurement. From this we can imply that the structure provided a negative acceleration, i.e resistive force of approximately 0.23m/s2 to the gravitational collapse.
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
• The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
• The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
• On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
• On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
I posted a link proving gasoline fires can melt steel and concrete last night to this thread. Strangely, it has been removed. Interesting.
Don't fear the truth people.