My beliefs have changed regarding 911

reply to post by weedwhacker

0903 UAL 175 impact. It wasn't until then (and even then, it took more inutes for people to realize) that a pattern of hijacking, THEN attacks, was developing. Pentagon hit at -- 0937. Is that "over an hour" to you?

So you're misrepresenting my posts again.

If you would've payed more attention, you would've realised I said this:

...that includes a wayward plane flying towards it for over an hour, after other planes were reported hyjacked

I said after being reported hyjacked, not after they impacted.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by mikelee


Although I completely disagree with your conclusions, I respect that you went out and did some more of your own digging to come to that conclusion. People who seek truth and go out to search for it, regardless of what opinion they form due to it, are always much better than a people who just listen to others and tow the line.

I find your comments about building 7 very interesting, and if I may I would like to ask you a question.

If you think that in part explosives were used on building 7 to aid in bringing it down to spare lives... just when do you think that was done? How is it possible to wire the building when it is already on fire and/or suffering from damage due to the collapse of Towers 1 & 2?

Taking into account the testimony of Barry Jennings, would you put a demo team into that building to wire it to bring it down?

I would like to suggest a new interpretation of events based on the recent revelations about Silverstein and the controlled demolition of WTC7.
A few weeks ago it was revealed here that he was trying to get his insurers to cover a controlled demolition. The charges couldn't possibly have been installed that afternoon, so the preparation must have been done some time before.
I think it fair to assume prevailing opinion is that this would have been some weeks before with the intention of bringing down at least WTC7 and probably 1 and 2 , as part of the false flag operation. I suspect a different construction is nearer the truth: the charges were installed far earlier than that, and not as part of the conspiracy but rather to bring the buildings down in the event of anything threatening to cause them to collapse on to other neighbouring buildings, and thus incurring billions of dollars worth of damages and casualty compensation lawsuits.
It's possible Silverstein was not party to the conspiracy at all, he was independently engaged in an ass-covering exercise, and the real conspirators were unaware of the charges being there.
The videos of WTC7 collapsing show a typical demolition job complete with the 'crimp' half way along the side, and all the individual charges detonating. WTC1 and 2 however collapsed top-down - because the charges were not set off deliberately, the heat from the fires set them off. There wouldn't have been any charges at the very top of the towers because disintegrating tops would make for an unpredictable collapse - the tops would have been meant to fall more or less intact into the rubble below, to break up not far above ground level.
The orchestrated war-cause theory only needed a few casualties, not 3000. The forensic economics theory only requires certain offices to be hit. If it were genuine terrorists they could have waited an hour for thousands more people to get to their desks or just flown a plane into the nuclear power station one of the hijacked flights passed close to. There was no need for the towers to be completely destroyed.
Here's a thing: did Silverstein only have those three towers rigged with charges, or every building in the WTC? It's possible that there are still charges in place in the other WTC buildings, but with official denial and the climate of opinion in the truther movement, nobody has ever thought to look.

It might seem fanciful, but it makes sense of some of the apparent contradictions in the conspiracy theory. Please form an orderly queue and don't all flame at once.

reply to post by Point of No Return


IF YOU had paid attention....

I said after being reported hyjacked, not after they impacted.

There were no solid, definable TIMES of hte actual 'reporting' of hijackings...

Like I said, and please pay attention...it wasn't until some time AFTER UAL 175 hit that it became clear, to everyone, what was happening.

Just do a web search for the timelines, and read it yourself....

UNLESS you want to keep believing the garbage that "conspiracy" sites keep feeding...because, people who refuse to look at ALL of the stuff out there, will fall into and stay in the "conspiracy" garbage disposal, over and over again...

However with this stated, I do believe that WTC 7 was caused in part, by demolitions as it was beyond repair obviously and the use of demolitions only aided in brining it down for the safety of the public and others on site that day. WTC 7 was brought down because it had to be. No other reason in my mind exists.

So how did this demolition get designed and installed in less than EIGHT HOURS?

I love the way people say they have gone off and analyzed things and thought about it and then come back a say something REALLY STUPID.

So how do you analyze the top down collapse of 1 & 2 without even knowing the distribution of steel? How do you compute the amount of energy necessary to crush one level?

Newtonian Physics isn't about BELIEVING anything.

Science is getting enough accurate, trustwothy information to UNDERSTAND.

Try finding the weight of a complete standard floor assembly. There were 84 of them in each tower. Why haven't the physics people been demanding that information?

psik

reply to post by weedwhacker


You still misrepresented what I said.

Ok, maybe not reports of actual hyjacking, but it was known that something was going wrong with those planes for a long time.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

However with this stated, I do believe that WTC 7 was caused in part, by demolitions as it was beyond repair obviously and the use of demolitions only aided in brining it down for the safety of the public and others on site that day. WTC 7 was brought down because it had to be. No other reason in my mind exists.

Newtonian Physics isn't about BELIEVING anything.

So cite your source that said that there was something wrong with the newtonian physics on 9/11/01.

A lot of people have claimed that the collapse violated the law of conservation of momentum. Not a single one of them has cited their source for this information.

reply to post by butcherguy

Originally posted by butcherguy
Thanks for the thick reference earlier.

you are most welcome. see, i can't even type properly, using capital letters with most names, abbreviations nor on the beginning of the phrases - i must be fantastically idoit. i may sometimes cast offenses, but i think its not my fault if someone gets offended; you kinda showed some maturity in one aspect not to get too offended, but you couldn't help yourself mentioning it either.

well, that was not the topic tho. the topic was that you said basically that "wtc were not designed to endure plane collisions", but they were. although you are right though that they (propably, or at least no one has been able to dug up the evidence of that) were never tested before 9th september 2001 whether or not they actually do endure it. but still, they were designed for place crash, and also most skycrapers should be designed for that, as there is substantial propability plane crashing in them accidentally.

i know what you meant by airport control towers, but they are not appartments, so i dunno if they are supposed to endure plane crashing into them. and they were not really important regarding the topic. however, as pointed out already, there are official papers stating that wtc were "designed" to withstand 707 collision, but methods used in design had not been validated. but given their net like structure of thich steel columns, and taking into account the almost paperthin fuselage of a plane, mostly aluminum or other light alloys, it is hard to imagine using the common sense that it would be sufficient to bring them down.

in the end i dunno what brought the towers down (yes, i've seen most theories out there from controlled demolition to mininukes and fail of the fire insulation) and i must say that i am still puzzled how they could come down so fast even there were intact floor below that should've slowed down the crash.

however, i'm not going to depate this issue further as there's no point; i have no agenda to spread, instead i just will keep arranging 'the facts' within my head and conclude who knows what.

thanks for teh fish

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Geemor]

reply to post by iamcpc

Originally posted by iamcpc

So cite your source that said that there was something wrong with the newtonian physics on 9/11/01.

A lot of people have claimed that the collapse violated the law of conservation of momentum. Not a single one of them has cited their source for this information.

can i try?

the intact floors below the collision point and fires (unless the towers were again "designed" to collapse without resistance in case upper floors fails) should've resisted the crashing upper floors causing the crash take longer than just few seconds? (common sense (2010): 1-2)

Originally posted by Point of No Return
The 4 hyjacked planes' positions were known at all times, I think two were still flying quite some time after the others hit the WTC.

I would appreciate it if you were to actually read the 9/11 report before coming up with moot criticisms like this. The controllers had no idea where the hijacked aircraft were going nor did they even know how many planes were hijacked becuase there were a number of false hijacking reports coming in, so they initially didn't know where to send the interceptors. At the time they didn't know if there was one plane, three, or twenty.

Plus, when flight 77 approached Washington from the west it flew over the Appalachean mountains, and with the plane's transponder off it was indistinguishable from the ground clutter from the mountain range on radar screens. Ground controllers didn't pick it up again until it cleared the mountains and it was almost on top of them.

Is it not standard procedure to intercept wayward or non responding planes?

How many times do I have to say this- interceptors WERE scrambled. A flight of F-16s had been scrambled from Virginia and a flight of F-15s had been scrambled from Massachussets.

Yes, by coincidence, they all failed on that particular day. Right.

It wasn't the coincidental failures on that particilar day that allowed the attack to succeed. It was the attacks on that particular day that was the coincidence that caused the failures to happen all at once. I shouldn't have to point that out to you.

It's not about mistakes. Procedures were not followed on that day. Like I said, you are naive like a little girl if you think these things happen because people weren't paying attention.

"It's not about mistakes" is in the same sentence with "procedures weren't followed that day", and you STILL can't figure out that the procedures not being followed WERE the mistakes. I try to avoid personal criticisms, but good grief, you really are a piece of work.

Originally posted by Geemor

can i try?

the intact floors below the collision point and fires (unless the towers were again "designed" to collapse without resistance in case upper floors fails) should've resisted the crashing upper floors causing the crash take longer than just few seconds? (common sense (2010): 1-2)

Usually, when one tries to use a technical argument, it is accompanied by at least some kind of engineering facts.

I see all you have is incredulity.

Your opinion is therefore worthless.

Instead, try something like:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

www.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp...

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.



Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.


A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.



S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.



Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.


Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421



Engineering Conference Papers

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.



Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392




Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.




Fire Protection Conference Papers

"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings




Related Papers

Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)



Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)



A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7

Originally posted by Geemor
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Originally posted by iamcpc

So cite your source that said that there was something wrong with the newtonian physics on 9/11/01.

A lot of people have claimed that the collapse violated the law of conservation of momentum. Not a single one of them has cited their source for this information.

can i try?

the intact floors below the collision point and fires (unless the towers were again "designed" to collapse without resistance in case upper floors fails) should've resisted the crashing upper floors causing the crash take longer than just few seconds? (common sense (2010): 1-2)

www.plaguepuppy.net...

layscience.net.../124

Both pictures CLEARLY show debri falling FASTER than the collapse of the building. Notice how there is debri next to uncollapsed undamaged portion of the WTC tower? This is my first glaring indicator that something is offering greater resistance than just air to the collapse. Parts of the building with only air resistance are falling faster than the collapse. The collapse has resistance from something! I don't think the building was full of pillows and I didn't see a giant rubber band to help slow the fall. I don't believe it was slowed with magic. It is possible that it was slowed by the resistance from undamaged floors. I'm not sure yet so I do more digging. I knew the building collapse slower than free fall speed because of the debri. How much slower?

Using my handy dandy free fall with quadratic drag calculator here:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At free fall speed flat slabs of concrete/steel falling through air at sea level would have hit the ground in 9.2 seconds.

I found

"confirming that a gravity driven collapse of WTC 1 was in fact
sustainable."

Dr. Frank R. Greening
Physical Chemistry
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

www.journalof911studies.com...


Now I know a little bit more but I need to know more. How fast did the buildings collapse?

911research.wtc7.net...

Says 15 seconds and 17 seconds.

www.journalof911studies.com...

says 16.6 seconds

911review.com...

says over 13 seconds


Now I saw with my own eyes the collapse. I believe the CNN footage was not fake. So it collapsed around 7 seconds slower than than free fall speed.

Do you have any idea how much force it takes to slow the fall of 16 or more floors of steel and concrete by 7 seconds? Think of superman.

According to my handy dandy physics calculator to slow the fall even by a second of 30 stories of concrete and steel would need tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons of force.


To slow it by 4 seconds would take tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tonstons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tonstons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tonstons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons and tons and tons tons and tons and tons of force.

Where did all these tons of resistance come from? Do you have a source that says that the forces that slowed the speed of the collapse were not from the undamaged structure? I have not found one source that says that the undamaged structure offered no resistance to the collapse.







[edit on 10-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by Geemor however, as pointed out already, there are official papers stating that wtc were "designed" to withstand 707 collision, but methods used in design had not been validated. but given their net like structure of thich steel columns, and taking into account the almost paperthin fuselage of a plane, mostly aluminum or other light alloys,

I just want to say that I don't think any 707's hit the WTC, if in fact the buildings were designed to withstand that.

Also, there are antitank weapons that blow a disk of soft copper through the hardened steel armor of a tank. Just because a metal is softer and thinner than steel , doesn't mean that it can't damage it.

The aluminum skin of an airplane is like a beer can. My pal can crush a beer can onto his forehead with few (apparent) ill effects. But he is afraid to stand on the runway at the airport waiting to crush the nose of a Boeing 767 with that same noggin!(he is a woosie, eh?)

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Jeah, I knew i should've said, "The four hyjacked planes' locations, should've, been known at all times.

I would appreciate it if you were to actually read the 9/11 report before coming up with moot criticisms like this. The controllers had no idea where the hijacked aircraft were going nor did they even know how many planes were hijacked becuase there were a number of false hijacking reports coming in, so they initially didn't know where to send the interceptors. At the time they didn't know if there was one plane, three, or twenty.

Yes, and where were these flase reports coming from, and why then?

How many times do I have to say this- interceptors WERE scrambled. A flight of F-16s had been scrambled from Virginia and a flight of F-15s had been scrambled from Massachussets.

Yes, and after how long, were they cleared? And why?

It wasn't the coincidental failures on that particilar day that allowed the attack to succeed. It was the attacks on that particular day that was the coincidence that caused the failures to happen all at once. I shouldn't have to point that out to you.

That's BS. if all these failures would not have happened, the attack would've been foiled.

The fact that these failures all happened on this day is remarkable, is not by accident, this isn't just imcompetence.

"It's not about mistakes" is in the same sentence with "procedures weren't followed that day", and you STILL can't figure out that the procedures not being followed WERE the mistakes. I try to avoid personal criticisms, but good grief, you really are a piece of work.

When procedures are not followed, it has a clear reason. That is not a simple "mistake".

What do you think procedures are for?

reply to post by iamcpc
Nice post.

Did you download some sort of tool to re-type the word 'tons' over and over again?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

I see all you have is incredulity.

Your opinion is therefore worthless.

i know it without you telling it to me. but thanks for the links! i have no agenda trying to convience anyone about my opions. i am merely making fun about all of you, who so seriously and zealously put effort to backup any cause, whatever that'd be. call me mr. troll

c'mon, really. i appreciate that you bothered to link all those sources, i bet they explain well in terms which i cannot even understand what they discuss about, how the towers fell and why and so on.

my point was totally different - it was to show you guys how you get offended from little issues, you are so interested in proving others and yourselves about the nature of events that you spend all that energy doing it. well, its your choice of course, but you could use it otherwise as well. now don't get angered please. if you get angered, don't blame me, but yourself

you may get angry because you have no more energy to resist the frustration. but if you do get angry, look for the reasons. because of me? no, because of yourself! there's also teh ignore button

Originally posted by butcherguy
I don't think any 707's hit the WTC

me neither.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Also, there are antitank weapons that blow a disk of soft copper through the hardened steel armor of a tank. Just because a metal is softer and thinner than steel , doesn't mean that it can't damage it.

yea i know, roots of trees and plants penetrate concrete easily.

Originally posted by butcherguy
The aluminum skin of an airplane is like a beer can. My pal can crush a beer can onto his forehead with few (apparent) ill effects. But he is afraid to stand on the runway at the airport waiting to crush the nose of a Boeing 767 with that same noggin!(he is a woosie, eh?)

no it's not, beer can contains beer, airplane people, fuel, luggage - just to mention few

sorry, i know what you mean.

Originally posted by Geemor

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

I see all you have is incredulity.

Your opinion is therefore worthless.

i know it without you telling it to me. but thanks for the links! i have no agenda trying to convience anyone about my opions. i am merely making fun about all of you, who so seriously and zealously put effort to backup any cause, whatever that'd be. call me mr. troll

c'mon, really. i appreciate that you bothered to link all those sources, i bet they explain well in terms which i cannot even understand what they discuss about, how the towers fell and why and so on.

my point was totally different - it was to show you guys how you get offended from little issues, you are so interested in proving others and yourselves about the nature of events that you spend all that energy doing it. well, its your choice of course, but you could use it otherwise as well. now don't get angered please. if you get angered, don't blame me, but yourself

you may get angry because you have no more energy to resist the frustration. but if you do get angry, look for the reasons. because of me? no, because of yourself! there's also teh ignore button

I hope you didn't also ignore me when I presented the evidence that suggested that the law of conservation of momentum was not broken by the collapse of the wtc towers. I hope you noticed my sources for my information. (I didn't call your opinion worthless I just presented sources that refuted your opinion)

Can you cite your source that said the law of conservation of momentum was broken that day? Since so many people believe it I don't think it would be that hard to find one single study or expert to support that theory. I have been having a very very difficult time.

reply to post by iamcpc

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

plah plah plah

yesss.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Now I saw with my own eyes the collapse. I believe the CNN footage was not fake. So it collapsed around 7 seconds slower than than free fall speed.

okay. whatever you say. go on, believe.

Originally posted by iamcpc
Do you have any idea how much force it takes to slow the fall of 16 or more floors of steel and concrete by 7 seconds?

no i don't, but it doesn't make much difference does it? you made your calculations anyway. but i am not going to waste my energies to confirm them, but instead let them be.

Originally posted by iamcpc

I hope you didn't also ignore me when I presented the evidence that suggested that the law of conservation of momentum was not broken by the collapse of the wtc towers.

no way my fiend, how could i forgot you when you require so much attention?

forgive me for i too hastily took the challenge - propably no laws of physics were broken there. i lose. what i meant was that the speed was just too close to free wall considering the floors between the damaged part and the ground zero.

i haven't yet looked your 'evidence', i am so poor with the evidence ain't i? but yeah, i admitted: i lost. congrats, howzah it feels to be a winner?

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Geemor]