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

Question

Objects falling though gravity take the path of least resistance.

So, looking at the WTC towers...

Let's assume that the fires weakened the steel. And let's assume that the floor joists gave way, allowing the top portion of the building... 20-30 or so stories to fall 1-3 stories onto the lower part of the building (the 70-80 stories that were still standing).

Now obviously, according to the official story, this weight was enough to cause a "pancake collapse", floor by floor, all the way to the bottom.

Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core columns were the largest steel beams ever built at the time. The outer core beams were 54 inches wide.

Now, my question to you people is...

Answer 1

Fluids flow through the path of least resistance; gravity acts on a object vertically.  You are mixing different principles of physics.

The tops of the towers did not topple because gravity acts vertically, not side ways.

>Aside from the aircraft hitting the building hours before, want lateral force was working on the building?  A force is needed to move the top of the building to the side for it to topple.

Answer 2

I'm thinking the answer to this question has less to do with Politics and Government than it has to do with Physics...

Answer 3

wow~!

just read BJK's link to that report, that is some serious investigative work going on there~!

it looks like things will be coming out if no-one  stops them from continuing on with their work~!!!

from what i have read so far, Bush and his crew are gonna be prison bi*ches after the investigation is done~!!!

Answer 4

Here you go - scientists at popular mechanics break it all down pretty good

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...

Answer 5

There is definitely something crooked about the way those buildings fell.  I don't know what happened on that day for sure, but I certainly don't believe the official story.  The conspiracy theory does make sense, but then I always have to wonder why bush and co couldn't have planted wmd over in iraq.  They pulled off the biggest cover up in history and managed to keep tons of people quiet, but they can't even plant wmd over in Iraq, or even fabricate some kind of evidence that would give us a reason to go to war with them?  I just don't think that part adds up.  All I know is that they are trying to hide something, and I hope we can get to the bottom of it someday.

Answer 6

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 7

you plp here just don't get it. those towers were blown up and for the chick that thinks Bush is a hero wake up Bush did it!

trust me this is very political,when your own gov attacks it's citizens I'd say it's political and no I'm not nuts, I wish I was. I saw the explosions going off and it's not my imagination. been researching since it happened 24/7 and trust me all roads lead to the White House.

Answer 8

beacause 9/11 was an inside job by bush he made it happen so we can start a war against the middle east and now he is making our economy fall below the ground

Answer 9

Answer this:  A jetliner traveling at a high rate of speed, loaded with fuel hits a building.  What happens next?

Answer 10

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Answer 11

Towers built in area like they where are designed to fall straight down in accidents like this, if they didn't then surrounding buildings would be f**ked, it fell at that speed because with each floor collapsing, it gains momentum.

Answer 12

It didn't tople over because it went floor by floor.

Imagene a huge floor of several tens of meters x several tens of meters. And that floor collapses on the floor beneath it. It doesn't topple over, it can't. and so it goes on and on.

Answer 13

your premise is faulty from the first sentence.

the least resistance the buildings could take was DOWN. there wasn't enough lateral force to make the "top" of the buildings topple over like a log.

there is no assumption on that fires weakened steel. THIS IS A FACT. And this is what happened on 9/11. Coupled with the damage done by the airplanes, the 15 floors that were affected by the damage and fire could no longer sustain the weight of the building above the impact areas.

the floors could be sagging under the weight of the top floors in each tower.

there is no such thing as "free fall" speed. its a term to describe ACCELERATION.

the towers took about 12-15 seconds to completely collapse on 911 each. That's SLOWER than what the "free fall" time of each tower would be.

another error on your part ; they didn't fall into a pile of dust. unless you count the 30 foot steel members to be 'dust'. or the 4 foot high concrete slabs, or the 13 story pile of debris above ground (6 stories underground due the subway)

Answer 14

Another good question to ask was why Pres. Dubya said finding Bin Laden just wasn't that important? And why did the government allow the Bin Ladens in US to fly out during the no fly zone?  Why didn't Congress impeach Dubya for lying to us about WMD?  Are impeachments only for blow jobs?  Small change has done a fabulous documentary on the points you raised in your post.  And guess who was in control of managing the towers?  Marvin Bush.

9/11 was an inside job and the elite who really rule are evil greedy b*st*rds.

Answer 15

Anyone care to Google "Operation Northwoods" ? Visit a few links and you will be surprised.

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

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northw...

http://www.attackonamerica.net/operation...

There's plenty on this declassified "false flag" and this should serve as a warning.

Answer 16

I dont really care.  I am just happy that GWB has gone after those responsible.  Thank God that he was in office instead of Bill CLinton who wouyld have just swept it under the rug again.

Answer 17

You are right.

The key issue is with the core - considering the weight, size and strength of the steel used to build it, even if you did accept that WTC7 WAS brought down by debris, it still wouldn't explain why the core collapsed, why it collapsed at freefall speed, why pools of glowing metal were being picked up as enormous heat signatures in space for weeks afterwards... or why it fell perfectly straight if it was so seriously damaged on one side(!) that it subsequently 'fell down'.

A well known TV series in the UK dealt with a character who used to demolish buildings manually, undermining a corner of a major building or a big chimney, propping it with wood, eventually burning it to make the building collapse - in a specific direction!  If you weaken one side of an otherwise equal structure it will always fall in the direction of the weakest part (which collapses first) because the other elements maintain structural integrity for slightly longer.

The '911 gullible' can't have it both ways - either the buildings fell directly because the core maintained its integrity... or the core failed, in which case why did they fall directly?  It's a logical conundrum that simply does not work: the evidence does NOT fit the facts.

A classic 'apology' explains that fires in buildings can make steel cores melt - in which case, 1/ Why hasn't it ever happened before?  2/ Why use explosives if fire will do a demolition job?  3/  How do demolitions make a building fall in a specific direction?

And if WTC7 or any of the other buildings like the Pentagon (comparison: the grass wasn't even scorched!) cannot be explained by the official story, then the entire scenario has to be questioned... doesn't it.

Answer 18

Oh well,

I think the court of public opinion is coming around to realize the truth about this issue.

Its only a matter of time,  unless Mad King George starts WWIII first.

Answer 19

This is a very good question.

I really wish debate on this subject was encouraged instead of laughed at. If there was nothing to hide why was the media and the government so quick to dismiss, without explanation, so many valid questions? Instead of intellectual arguments all they do is laugh and call you names.

I am not a full fledge "truther" but I know the official story has some gaping holes in it and I want some answers. The collapse of ww7 is very odd and there is no way it feel by fire - that is for sure.

Answer 20

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.

I'm betting that the pro-government answers here don't have the courage to read that report.  It's laughable that people still cite Popular Mechanics when NIST has debunked their collapse theory.  I'm wondering if they even know who NIST is and what research role they played in 9/11.  It is truly disturbing to see such strong opinions based on so little information.

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 21

Who Killed President John F Kennedy?  Why was NASA headquarters changed from Cape Canaveral, FL to Houston, TX? Why would Governor Thomas Ridge resign a governorship to go to Washington, DC almost a year before 9/11 with no official position in government?

Heinous crimes done in front of plain view.

Clue: There is a Texas connection.   Someone from Texas benefits from both events.  These are the facts.