POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers, page 4

Originally posted by Muaddib
Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7

I'd love to see pictures of that. And then I'd love to be shown how taking out a chunk of a building's base in one direction causes it to fall straight down upon itself and not backwards.

plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....

Any evidence of this? Building 7 is some distance from WTC 1 and 2, and there is no known evidence of any pieces of burning debris or fuel (as ridiculous as that is, because the only fuel outside of the buildings was the fuel in the big fireballs, which was of course being spent as it burned), so far as I know, hitting any part of Building 7 as a result of the impacts.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Before 9-11 the only plausible scenario of a 707 hitting the WTC was of one landing

This isn't true at all.

Shadow, on the very morning of 9/11, the NRO was practicing evacuating their HQ as a part of plane-into-building scenario. And this is a much smaller building.

In 1945, a B25 crashed into the Empire State Building.

Samuel Byck hijacked a plane in 1974 and intended to crash it into the White House. In 1994, hijackers threatened to fly Flight 8969 into the Eiffel Tower.

So this stuff isn't new since 9/11, and anyone building such massive towers would definitely take into consideration such disasters. You have people that worked on the designs, construction, etc. for the WTC Towers, including the on-site construction manager Frank Demartini, on record saying those towers could take plane impacts and still stand without problem. Like pencils jabbed into netting, as Demartini said: the net holds just fine.

So when people come off saying "those people couldn't have possibly imagined something like this happening!," they're putting their own personal views onto experts that work in the field on the very projects in question and would certainly know much, much better whether or not the buildings were designed to withstand this or that.

When you say they couldn't have imagined it, what you mean is that you couldn't have imagined it, and therefore you don't see how they could either. That's fine, I suppose, because it wasn't your job to look into things like this, but the construction manager, architects, etc., though, will know about these things, and those that were involved in the construction of the WTC Towers have, again, said that those buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts.

Originally posted by billybob
When have you ever seen a modern sky scraper fall over side ways?

I have seen some really ignorant comments made about whether or not the towers should have fallen sideways on this thread. Not so much this one, but comments like "they could've only fallen sideways if they were pushed from the top," etc., a bunch of insanely wrong statements.

It would be extremely easy for the towers to fall to one side. In fact, it would be near impossible, if not impossible outright, for either of the towers, or Building 7, to fall straight down by gravity alone.

You can see that the South Tower most obviously began to fall sideways anyway:

But soon stopped for reasons I'll get to in a moment.

When something falls, it will fall where there is the least resistance to gravity. Gravity is what is pulling an object downwards towards the Earth. In the case of the towers, when they began falling, it would've been much easier and taken much less energy, because of much less resistance, for them to fall sideways. Obvious from the above graphic (and this happened to a lesser extent in the North Tower, too), they were already falling in this manner.

Seeing as how perimeter and core columns were only damaged in specific regions of the towers (where the planes had impacted), common sense would hold that the towers would fall into these damaged areas, as the missing columns would have provided the least resistance to gravity and offered the building with a way to fall. The buildings do lean outwards, but not by much, and it soon comes to an end, while vertical collapses of the buildings upon themselves and down to their own footprints roar on.

So, instead of falling into the area where there would be the least resistance to gravity, and where it would be easiest to fall upon the Earth, the buildings somehow begin falling perfectly evenly across the floors, falling straight down in a perfectly symmetrical manner at a ridiculously fast rate and seemingly without retarding - even as massive amounts of energy would have been spent to crush each floor, and the columns were becoming thicker and thicker all the way down.

I should also note that while the buildings were leaning outwards, they were simultaneously falling straight downwards, meaning there were two different movements going on at once for a little while as the buildings collapsed that totally contradicted each other (the buildings leaning outward would put more weight against one side of the towers, and so the towers falling downward perfectly evenly and symmetrically floor-by-floor makes little sense).

The fact that the leaning outwards stopped is extremely telling.

When an object moves, it has momentum, almost by definition. In the case of the towers, and in the case of the towers leaning outwards, this momentum is known as "angular momentum," because the buildings are leaning out at an angle from a fulcrum - in this case the point in where the floors are breaking away from one another as the top floors fall outwards. The angle of tilt was something like 15 degrees in the case of the South Tower.

So the towers leaning outward is called angular momentum. Now, I'm sure you've all heard Newton's First Law of Motion...

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Well, first of all, the parts of the building falling outward were massive. I don't think I have to describe to you how massive they were. That's enormous momentum. It's going somewhere - and it's going there hard.

Second of all, whatever "unbalancing force" acted upon the towers - if any - would necessarily be pretty much equal and opposite. That means, since the angular momentum in the towers stopped completely at around 2 or 3 seconds or so, going from 90-degrees straight up to about 75-degrees in that amount of time, and then staying around 75 degrees until the caps were obliviated, whatever would have "unbalanced" the tower caps would not have just unbalanced them but cancelled them out completely. No more angular momentum at all. Sort of like if two objects hit each other head-on going at the same speed, they cancel each other out and sit still in an ideal environment. Well, a similiar situation would've had to have taken place at the WTC to stop that momentum if you were to believe the official story.

Unfortunately, Superman was not out on 9/11 and I don't remember any other heros or monsters of any sorts pushing back on the buildings to cancel out the angular momentum. There was literally nothing in the sky that day that could have possibly pushed back on those buildings to cancel out that momentum.

So how did they stop? Well, there's another way for them to have stopped moving without breaking any laws of physics, and that way is very, very suggestive of demolition theory. The other way, which is the only remaining logical answer to this problem, is that the frames of the caps were shattered. This means that by some explosive means, the structures within the top floors that were breaking away at an angle were destroyed.

Imagine holding a long, heavy board over your head. You're doing a decent job balancing it, but then it begins to lean and you can't muster enough strength to line it back up, and it falls at an angle (it inherits angular momentum). The board will continue falling at that angle until it hits the ground or until somebody catches it. But, imagine that the board is somehow sliced into small, 2" pieces mid-fall. What happens to the board? Does it continue to fall down at an angle until it hits the ground? No! The individual pieces, no longer acting in relation to the rest of the board, lose their angular momentum and proceed to fall straight down.

This same principle is the only logical explanation of why the angular momentum in the Twin Towers disappeared, since Newton's First Law of Motion doesn't work because there was nothing that could have possibly countered the massive amount of momentum in the caps. There was only air and smoke over the towers that morning, and we all sure as hell know that those wouldn't stop those buildings from falling.