About 9/11. Can someone explain this to me?

Question

Where did magic's answer go?

Can you delete an answer?

Answer 1

none of us want to believe it either, but there it is. if you're following what is truly happening in politics, you can't ignore it. i understand how you feel.

the fact that silverstein admitted on national television that he gave permission to demolish WTC7 is enough evidence for me. to demolish a huge building neatly like that needs enormous preparation & therefore he must have known about it before 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV1...

the WTC was also no longer viable.

its construction had already begun before the use of asbestos was banned in 1971, so spray-on asbestos fire retardant was used up to the 64th floor & a different insulating material was used for the remaining floors.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/12/...

permission to have the towers demolished had been refused & the cost of the alternative, to dismantle it floor by floor, was enormous.

despite this, silverstein decided to lease the WTC six months before 9/11 & promptly insured the buildings against 'terrorist' attacks. he put a down-payment of $125 million for the lease, then claimed for two separate attacks (2 planes) & was rewarded $7 billion. german insurer, Allianz, put up a fight & took the longest to pay up.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march20...

the WTC Construction Manager stated that the towers could have withstood multiple plane crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0e...

the firemen heard the thermite explosions when they were inside the towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5Qg...

a typical thermite reaction could be seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSk...

& here's a fun experiment on how thermite can dissolve a car!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

this isn't people's usual idea of a 'bomb' so they can't comprehend it.

finally, if anyone starts quoting the NIST official govt report of 9/11, please scroll down to the very end where they admit that their whole theory is merely a 'hypothesis'.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs...

3000 deaths & that's all they can give us - a hypothesis.

Answer 2

For anyone well read on the matter, including the flaws in the NIST investigation and the refusal of NIST to make key data available for peer review, there is only one explanation offered to date that makes any sense.  Thermite.

In any event, I believe that to justify a new investigation into 9-11, it is not necessary to offer an alternate theory for the tower collapses.  The onus is on the government to provide a credible explanation to the people, not the other way around.

The evidence for foreknowledge and complicity by people in the government stands on its own. It is enough to warrant a full and impartial investigation to replace the coverup that was the 9-11 Commission investigation.  The exact cause of the building collapses is just a detail.  Let an impartial investigation shake out the details. Let’s just get on with the investigation to hold all of the criminals responsible for their crimes.

Answer 3

Challange #1:

If a force is acted on an object it moves is that direction.  The only external force on the towers was gravity (which of course pulls downwards).  Therefore since were no other forces to make it travel in any other direction it had no choice but to go downwards.  If the world trade center towers were the leaning tower of pisa than you can bet it could/would have happened otherwise.

Challange #2:

There is/was an incredibly hude amount of stored potential energy in skyscrapers (or any large structure for that matter).  When the top several floors above where the planes hit started to collapes and the one floor that could have stopped it (the one right below it) didn't then it was essentially like a ball rolling downhill through grass, comparatively.  What you need to know is there is a huge difference between statics (not moving objects like buildings) and dynamics (like the crankshaft in a car).  All structures are primarily built for static loads considering it has no reason for otherwise.  The biggest reason it fell at near free fall speed is momentum.  I'd find it too hard to explain the complete details by simply typing but conservation of momentum can be a b**ch.  

If you have more questions or confusion at my shotty attempt to explain it the just say so.

Answer 4

I respect the first two that answered your question without resorting to name-calling.  Like most debunkers tend to do.  And they actually gave you a thoughtful answer.  BTW, I'm not giving these guys a thumbs down.. they were respectful and offered a well thought out opinion.  

However.. if either of them come back.  I would like to hear what they have to say about building #7.  As it was a block away and was not hit by as much falling debris as the remaining WTC buildings, but yet was the only one (besides the towers) that seemingly fell on it's own.

http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

Also, they've still not explained it away for me.  We saw those towers fall evenly and without favoring the sides where the damage was at.  It doesn't make any sense to believe they fell as a result of a plane crash.  I would think they would topple over instead.  Also I've seen pictures of buildings that have fallen as a result of earthquakes and other types of damage.  And they did topple and fall unevenly as would be expected.  Nothing like the WTC buildings.

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis...

Answer 5

can you say mini nukes??? thats why the  bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building 2 weeks b4  9 11 happened .

really people is every one of the areoplanes that  were highjacked and crashed , not ONE had pieces of the aero plane that actually had to have machinery to haul  off ..everything could be picked up by hand .Come on now ??

Still believe in Santa?

Ok  how is it in all the buildings of the world only  the wtc..all 3 mind you  were the only ones to actually burn so hot to leave it as dust ?

hasnt happened since either .wtf is up with that ??

2 planes brought down  3 buildings  to nothing but dust ... geesh that must be some good brain washing they have done on ya'll !!You ignore common sense  and  believe what is fed to you .

h**l, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer , but i do know when someone is feeding me bullshyt and telling me its steak !

Answer 6

I would just like to point out

that taking the WTC tower building as a complete system and they applying chaotic input (the plane crash & fire) you then get coherent results, that is a very orderly vertical drop of the WTC building(s) + tons of pulverized concrete.

Doesn't add up!  The only explanation that works is that the whole thing was a planned event.

but planned by who, and why.... well thats why CONGRESS needs to hold hearings!

Answer 7

I doubt anyone here can explain that for you.  NIST cannot fully explain it.  They take their theory only up to where collapse is "inevitable", but don't take it further.  How is that an explanation?

Maybe you can find some answers in this recent article published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction"

ABSTRACT:  "Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conten...

The 14 points of agreement are interesting, but what is more interesting are the points noted for better and further explanation by NIST.

The whole article is interesting.  Worthy of note as pertinent to your question are these points.

Point 3 - Pancake theory not supported  (interesting how NIST actually debunks FEMA and Popular Mechanics!)

Point 5 - Essentially in free fall

The page linked above links a PDF download containing the report.

The explanation that the buildings were brought down with the help of explosives makes more sense than any government theory I have seen.

To believe the pancake collapse theory (which as noted, the government no longer claims as a result of the NIST report), one would have to be completely clueless about the design of the inner columns of the towers.  Read the points of agreement with NIST to learn a little more.

EDIT

For the benefit of people who cannot read PDF files on-line, I set out the conclusion here:

"... We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center.  We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been SHOWN TO BE WRONG, SUCH AS THE IDEA THAT STEEL IN THE BUILDINGS MELTED DUE TO THE FIRES, OR THAT THE TOWERS WERE HOLLOW TUBES, OR THAT FLOORS "PANCAKED" to account for total Tower collapses.  We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC7 (which was not hit by a jet) IS HARD TO EXPLAIN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A FIRE-INDUCED MECHANISM and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives [3, 22, 27].  Our investigative team would like to build from this foundantion and correspond with the NIST investigation team, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY HAVE CANDIDLY CONCEDED (IN A REPLY TO SOME OF US IN SEPTEMBER 2007):  "... WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A FULL

EXPLANATION OF THE TOTAL COLLAPSE" [25]. ..."

(capitalization added for emphasis)

Will we ever see a peer-reviewed, government-commissioned report explaining the total collapse?  I doubt it.  Can snakes fly?

Like most everything the government and media have fed us in regard to 9/11, the NIST and Popular Mechanics theories are pure propaganda.

Answer 8

Yes, for me I guess it would have to be the "molten metal".  As being the biggest "smoking gun" of a cover-up.

Now I'm no engineer, but I do have an opinion on how things fall.  And I would have never saw it coming ..how they came down.  

Perhaps some of you who've not seen videos/pictures of wtc 7 would like to see this page.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch...

And for the engineers here who've only seen the cartoony version of how the towers were constructed ...look here.  They were not really built that way.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...

Answer 9

An object will move to the side as it falls when it encounters and object in its path that can significantly influence its motion, such as a golf ball hitting a tree.  The falling tower however meets no such object as it falls however.

Buildings on the scale of the world trade center push the very limits of what humans find possible to build.  The building is strong enough to sustain day to day use safely but the strains on all the structural materials in the building are close to their limit.

This means that when say an additional weight of 20-30 stories of the tower is dropped on them, they offer almost no resistant force at all - the building falls straight through the tower because effectively it hardly affects the tower at all.

This is also the answer to your second question about why the tower seemed to free-fall.  It is because the tower almost was - as hard as it is to comprehend something free falling through a 100 story building.

Answer 10

I am not an engineer.

But I think those core structures served as a guide to ensure the two towers collapsed straight down, somewhat like sliding down a pole, only involving great weight and pancake-ing.

That would be true only for the initial phase, everything in a straight line.

After that, it is a question of huge downward smashing forces, fracturing everything.

Two things were holding these buildings up, the parts you describe and the outer walls -- no intervening supports, unless I misunderstood their televised anatomy.

It would seem floors pancaked when their support beams weakened with heat.  The pancake-ing floors were also guided by the wall structure, not totally compromised by the airplane crash (or the outside walls would have initiated the collapse instead of the pancake-ing floors).

Once started the huge weight coming down is sufficient, somewhere above 80th floor to continue straight down at which time it is like driving a nail in with a well-aimed, straight down blow.

However, this nail is in pieces that all come apart with the accelerating frequency of blows, floor....... hits .......floor

floor......hits.......floor

floor....hits.....floor

floor hits floor

flr hits flr

flr hts flr

fl ht fl

Last part of destruction is very rapid, huge cloud of paper, cement dust, air volume squeezed out.  Everything that huge weight coming down could pulverize.

Caution:  I am not an engineer, but have built lots of stuff, my quality level on things built is far higher than professionals doing same work.

Not that I could design 100 story buildings, though.

If there had been no fire the collapse video might have shown something about those central core parts to check my answer.

That's what a mostly medical person thinks.

Another question to ask is what would have made it fall sideways?   The only answer I can find is inferior engineering somewhere lower.

The fact it collapsed straight down is proof that it was well designed.

But it did not have its own fire department on the top floor staffed with enough firefighters to put out a big aircraft carrier fire using predeployed foam system.

Because no one imagined fully loaded and fueled big jet airplanes crashing right in on purpose.

The buildings survived the airplane crash, but not the fire.

I do not trust the government like Mother, but I would have to see considerable proof beyond anything yet offered to believe these buildings collapsed from airplanes plus some kind of sneaky demolition.

That is all too far out.  I could imagine some ultra horrible dictator doing that.  Possible in Zimbabwe if it is Opposition HQ.  No fear of God.

But enough Americans believe in God and the ultimate justice they would receive that I doubt any conspiracy to do this would succeed without big leaks.

No, I think this building collapsed straight down because it was well engineered.

No one wants tippy skyscrapers.

I think you can see the first floors that gave way were around the fire area, if I remember correctly.

Pancake-ing floors also served to draw the outer walls inwards by force of blows on the floor support girders, maybe air pressures too, after each floor collapse.

I do not have a video here, using memory, very flaky in old person like me.

Why don't you look at the video again, run it all in very slow motion if possible.

No explosions seen on outer walls.

Explosions would have had to be in those central parts you mention.

Since the buildings collapsed from top downwards, the explosions would have had a top down sequence as well, yes?

How would they manage to time all that in sequence with pancake-ing floors, so seamlessly that no premature explosion on any lower floor was detected.

No signs of any type like that.

Just the progressive downward pancake-ing.  Beginning near the top.

IF and ONLY IF I had seen something starting anywhere near the bottom, or in any of the floors below the fire.....

Then I would be suspicious.

But I do not see that.

Therefore, I do not agree with the conspiracy theories about explosives.

However, I have heard about another building there, seven stories I believe.  Filmed by BBC as it collapsed.

I have no opinion on that, have no way to analyze it as doing so is beyond my means.

But it did have a suspicious collapse based on the sketchy little info made available.

Too bad more detailed videos and discussion of its construction was not available as for the Towers.

So, my opinion here is about the Towers only, not that other building.

I would like to know why that other building collapsed myself, all details....

Would like to have a video to analyze.

Would like to know how it was constructed.

EDIT:  But I have two questions relating to potential conspiracy:

Why blow up the 7 story building or WTC7 or whatever it was called?

Wouldn't that be a give-away?

I see only airplanes as the cause of Towers falling.

Explosives in WTC7 would mean the perpetrators are linked with the aircraft hijackers.  

Don't see it.  I got at least 60 to 40 for official story minimum.

Best guess 70 to 30 is what I feel like, all smarts employed.

Nothing changes that until I analyze FULL COVERAGE TV program about WTC7!

Then I will be able to revise my estimate.

BTW, I don't care what degree a person has, seen many examples of stupid PhDs of all types.

Better to evaluate an actual line of reasoning or analysis.

And although I am medical mostly, I can do work in physics, geology, chemistry, electricity and electronics, including new energy.  My 360 blog shows some of that as well as other things.

In short, I am saying the Towers DID take the path of least resistance, straight down, congratulations to their designer.

Answer 11

FOR THOSE WHO CAN LOGICALLY EXPLAIN WHY TOWER 1,2 AND 7 FELL THE SAME EXACT WAY------

AGAIN WHO IS FUNDING THESE STUDIES.........???????

BEFORE YOU USE SOURCES PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH

Answer 12

after the smoke cleared I could see the bottom supports were cut at about a 65-70 degree angle. that's probably why it feel like it did. the molten steel at the bottom meant that something very hot was going on there, not kerosene. they found traces of thermite on the steel afterwards. I'm 100% sure that would do it. the whole report was a lie. been researching 9/11 since it happened. this is just the beginning of what they plan to do to us.