Why did the WTC towers fall directly through the path of most resistance, at free-fall speed?

Question

Here's more than enough info to figure this one out.

3.2808399 feet per meter

Height of WTC - 1,368 ft (417.0 m)

9.2 seconds to fall

g=9.80665 m/s² or g=32 ft/sec

s=1/2gt^2

Can this be explained without the use of explosives?

Answer 1

I'm no engineer but have read up on it from both sides. The argument for explosive seems much more credible than any of the various arguments the government has offered. That the governments arguments contradict each other should tell you something.

Anyway, I don't dwell on it. The manner in which the towers fell was a detail, albeit an important one. It is not necessary to subscribe to any theory about how the towers fell to take the view that people inside the government were complicit.  The abundance of evidence for complicity and foreknowledge is more important and it is compelling. Those are conspiracy FACTS not conspiracy theories. They stand alone as warranting a new and impartial investigation. The official investigation was an obvious cover-up and that is obvious to anyone caring enough to research it.

Anyone researching NIST's role in 9-11 with a critical eye can easily see it is covering up. It won't disclose some of its important research methods for peer review. That alone should tell you something. After all this time it has yet to issue a theory for the collapse of the third tower, building 7 (the tower that wasn't hit by a plane but which exhibited all the signs of controlled demolition).  That should also tell you something.

Answer 2

You might understand the how and why of the fall if you really understood how a hammer is able to drive a nail into a board. It's a nice example of the principle of conservation of momentum or impulse, and precisely analagous.

As NIST did not make clear enough, heat from the fires distorted the structure(s) and the distortion reduced their ability to sustain the loads, so they collapsed. I did the calculations, if you would like to see them.

Answer 3

Yes, it can be explained without the use of explosives.

There were seismographs and multiple cameras targeting the area during the time immediately before and during the disaster.  No seismographs detected any additional explosions, no cameras recorded any, either.

The buildings fell exactly the way structural engineers who do controlled demolitions say it would given the point of impact of each plane, and in fact the collapse did follow the path of least resistance.  A skyscraper doesn't fall like a tree.  

As far as "free fall":  

"..the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." -NIST, 6/2008

There is a lot of chatter about the possibility of explosives, but no evidence.

Answer 4

It was a controlled demolition.

In the weeks prior to the disaster, the WTC was 'closed' on the weekends for 'updated security measures'. In other words it was closed so that they could put in explosives.