It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So... What if 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Julian Assange says 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy by the American government. In fact many great minds say 9/11 wasn't an inside job. What if they are right? I have been a truther for quite a few years now.

What if we are barking up the wrong tree?


I realise there are many questions but what if?... If it wasn't a conspiracy of the Government of the time, was it only allowed to happen?

I fear that all the time we are looking at how the towers both fell, was it not just a really harsh ending to 2 planes being slammed into the WTC?

Maybe it was allowed to happen... maybe the US defences/NORAD failed?

I don't know, it's just as a truther I like to ask myself that ever important question once in a while.
edit on 24-11-2010 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)


That's one of the points, out of many, that lead me to the non-truther conclusion.

When 99% of academics and experts in all these areas that people might find questions in regard to the 9/11 story attest to the official conclusion (for the most part) as well as some of the more famous analytical minds of our day, we have a situation where the truther POV does not tend to hold up.

I have a litmus test I use in regard to 9/11 conspiracy theories:

a.) Why?
b.) How?

That's it.

When breaking the problem down logically too many inconsistencies emerge. Why would such a thing be done by our government? Surely there could have been easier pretenses for war. The people involved already had massive influence and money, they didn't need some grand excuse to get more of it. Furthermore even if they did do it, how did they do it? How can such a thing even be plotted without leaks let alone carried out by the hundreds necessary without moral qualms? How could such a building be rigged to blow so easily without notice by so many without leaks? And if it were explosives, why have planes there as an excuse at all when "planes have never brought down such a building before?" Why not just say terrorists bombed it? It makes no sense the bomb argument at its most basic level. Because then you have to reverse prove things like the planes not being hijacked, the passengers not being dead (or not being hijacked), etc. It is illogical to try to work backward like that. At its most basic level it makes no sense and hence is why so many logical minds don't even acknowledge it and why so many less-critically inclined people do.

And that is just in regard to the explosives "theory." Whereas the explosives CTs have circumstantial and flimsy evidence backing them, no planers have no evidence backing them, it's really lunacy. I mean then you got to make believe magical technology exists that can make a 3D hologram in mid air crash into buildings and then detonate a plane-shaped hole (see above for the rigging of explosives pragmatic problems). It's completely ridiculous. If the government gave the no planer explanation then you would all call them all sorts of names, but some believe it here without any basis in any sort of evidence.

I mean comparing terrorists hijacking planes (which has happened) and crashing them into buildings (even if difficult, certainly probable considering the other theories) with some grand conspiracy involving hundreds to thousands of people rigging explosives without detection or error and STILL crashing planes into buildings for no reason, then you can see why some might not believe the truther line.




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Well if Julian Assange says it wasn't a conspiracy, then it must not have been. Seriously, what?????



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL from an Official Source after NINE YEARS?

Why haven't EXPERTS been demanding that information for NINE YEARS?


Why would experts want to know this? Isn't just the weight of the complete top section relevant? And isn't that information easily obtainable with a little research? I am not really sure what you are getting at. I don't know the exact numbers, but why would it be unreasonable to accept that the weight of the top section is enough to make the floors below it fail if it was to fall on it? Or why would it be unreasonable to accept that this weight is enough to initiate collapse after the columns holding it were weakened by heat and impact damage? I don't really see why this would be so obviously wrong, especially to people who did not have a proper education in this area. Also, If it is so obvious, I am kinda missing the numerous publications of the experts explaining it.


It is a little matter of the difference between BELIEVING and UNDERSTANDING.

There is something called the conservation of momentum. The formula is:

m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3

Say we have two masses m1 and m2. These masses each has a velocity v1 and v2. If mass 2 is stationary then v2 = 0. So after m1 collides m2 their velocity will be v3. If v2 was zero and the masses were nearly equal then v3 should be about half v1.

So say these two masses are in outer space. m1 equals 100 pounds and m2 equals 100 pounds. So let's say v1 is 100 mph and v2 is ZERO. After an inelastic collision where the masses stick together and no pieces go flying off the result is a 200 pound mass doing 50 mph.

If m2 was 200 then the combined 300 pound mass would be doing 33.33 mph. Now this is in a frictionless environment with no gravity and m2 is not held by any supports which must be broken.

Obviously the supposed collapse of the north tower is more complicated but that does not mean the conservation of momentum does not apply. The north tower came down in less than 18 seconds. the free fall would have been 9.2 seconds. So 18 seconds would mean an average of 50% of gravitational acceleration all of the way down. But skyscrapers are DESIGNED to hold themselves up. There is enough mass there in the form of steel to hold that weight plus the mass of the concrete would slow things down due to the conservation of momentum. Therefore kinetic energy of the falling mass would be used up trying to crush that steel. So those two effects combined should have stopped a collapse if it started. So the central question is, "How did the north tower come down so fast?"

Another question affected by the amount of steel is, "how did the south tower weaken in less than one hour?" There had to be enough steel on the 81st level to support another 29 levels. Isn't the quantity of steel going to affect the time to heat ie enough to weaken? So why doesn't everyone want to know the amount of steel in the vicinity of the fire?

So the whole 14 stories crushing 95 stories in less than 18 seconds is ridiculous. So the EXPERTS should want detailed data on the buildings to explain what happened on 9/11 within the realms of known physics. That is why I built this model to show why that should not have happened.

www.youtube.com...

How can anyone even do "inadequate" conservation of momentum calculations without steel and concrete distribution data. But the energy required to crush the steel is going to vary with the amount of steel. So they should want that information for multiple reasons.

It is only when people believe and don't question that they don't need the information to explain the phenomenon.

psik



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL from an Official Source after NINE YEARS?

Why haven't EXPERTS been demanding that information for NINE YEARS?


Why would experts want to know this? Isn't just the weight of the complete top section relevant? And isn't that information easily obtainable with a little research? I am not really sure what you are getting at. I don't know the exact numbers, but why would it be unreasonable to accept that the weight of the top section is enough to make the floors below it fail if it was to fall on it? Or why would it be unreasonable to accept that this weight is enough to initiate collapse after the columns holding it were weakened by heat and impact damage? I don't really see why this would be so obviously wrong, especially to people who did not have a proper education in this area. Also, If it is so obvious, I am kinda missing the numerous publications of the experts explaining it.


It is a little matter of the difference between BELIEVING and UNDERSTANDING.

There is something called the conservation of momentum. The formula is:

m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3

Say we have two masses m1 and m2. These masses each has a velocity v1 and v2. If mass 2 is stationary then v2 = 0. So after m1 collides m2 their velocity will be v3. If v2 was zero and the masses were nearly equal then v3 should be about half v1.

So say these two masses are in outer space. m1 equals 100 pounds and m2 equals 100 pounds. So let's say v1 is 100 mph and v2 is ZERO. After an inelastic collision where the masses stick together and no pieces go flying off the result is a 200 pound mass doing 50 mph.

If m2 was 200 then the combined 300 pound mass would be doing 33.33 mph. Now this is in a frictionless environment with no gravity and m2 is not held by any supports which must be broken.

Obviously the supposed collapse of the north tower is more complicated but that does not mean the conservation of momentum does not apply. The north tower came down in less than 18 seconds. the free fall would have been 9.2 seconds. So 18 seconds would mean an average of 50% of gravitational acceleration all of the way down. But skyscrapers are DESIGNED to hold themselves up. There is enough mass there in the form of steel to hold that weight plus the mass of the concrete would slow things down due to the conservation of momentum. Therefore kinetic energy of the falling mass would be used up trying to crush that steel. So those two effects combined should have stopped a collapse if it started. So the central question is, "How did the north tower come down so fast?"


After reading this I think you can agree with me that its not all that obvious. To me, a satishfying explanation is that the top section fell on the floor, not the level as you call it. The floors were not designed to hold up the mass of the building. So you have the stationary mass m1 with a weight of a single floor vs the moving top section with the weight of at least 15 floors plus the elevator shafts plus all the support columns plus anything on the roof. In other words, a mass that is significantly larger.

Now if anyone can come with a scientific study that shows that this mass it not large enough for a progressive collapse, that would be convincing. But I have yet to find this study.



Another question affected by the amount of steel is, "how did the south tower weaken in less than one hour?" There had to be enough steel on the 81st level to support another 29 levels. Isn't the quantity of steel going to affect the time to heat ie enough to weaken? So why doesn't everyone want to know the amount of steel in the vicinity of the fire?


It seems to me this isn't really a secret. I am not familiarized with the material enough to be able to give you the numbers, but I don't see why it would be that hard to find.



So the whole 14 stories crushing 95 stories in less than 18 seconds is ridiculous. So the EXPERTS should want detailed data on the buildings to explain what happened on 9/11 within the realms of known physics. That is why I built this model to show why that should not have happened.

www.youtube.com...

How can anyone even do "inadequate" conservation of momentum calculations without steel and concrete distribution data. But the energy required to crush the steel is going to vary with the amount of steel. So they should want that information for multiple reasons.

It is only when people believe and don't question that they don't need the information to explain the phenomenon.

psik


All I can say its not obvious that its impossible. And it is neither disproved. The model is obviously very flawed as it in no way represents the WTC building. To start with, it seems you are collapsing the supports on every floor, while in the WTC the floors (initially) collapsed, not the supports. That requires a lot less energy. The supports collapsed only as a result of that, as the floors pulled and pushed them all around. Besides, if you make it a lot weaker for example with other materials, it will react totally different.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
After reading this I think you can agree with me that its not all that obvious. To me, a satishfying explanation is that the top section fell on the floor, not the level as you call it. The floors were not designed to hold up the mass of the building. So you have the stationary mass m1 with a weight of a single floor vs the moving top section with the weight of at least 15 floors plus the elevator shafts plus all the support columns plus anything on the roof. In other words, a mass that is significantly larger.


You demonstrate the problem right there.

Didn't the core of the falling top portion of the north tower have to come down on the core of the lower stationary portion? It is so interesting that we have practically no data on the horizontal beams that had to connect the core columns. But the core could not have come down on the FLOOR outside of the core below.

So constantly using the FLOOR is confusing the issue after the fact.

psik



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Seems to me that is highly unlikely, if not impossible. The column were bend and deformed both in the top and bottom section, plus the top section was tilted. I don't see how the core columns of the top section could fall exactly on the footprint of the core columns below it. And even if it did I suspect it would just slip off again. So I deliberately used the term "floor" as that is exactly what I mean, thats by far the most likely scenario to me.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StlSteve
Well if Julian Assange says it wasn't a conspiracy, then it must not have been. Seriously, what?????


I didn't say that it must not have been an inside job 'because Jullian Assange says so'. I just referenced him as a believer of the official story. I think his opinion is quite relevant though considering he is public enemy number one for the US right now. Don't you?

I still haven't made up my mind about who did 9/11. Hence the 'what if?' question in my OP.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Seems to me that is highly unlikely, if not impossible. The column were bend and deformed both in the top and bottom section, plus the top section was tilted. I don't see how the core columns of the top section could fall exactly on the footprint of the core columns below it. And even if it did I suspect it would just slip off again. So I deliberately used the term "floor" as that is exactly what I mean, thats by far the most likely scenario to me.


I am not saying every core column came down on every core column. The core columns were connected by beams. It is not like there was nothing there but empty space between the columns. There were 5 inch floor slabs in the core made of the 150 lb/sq ft concrete. So the impacting beams would bend and twist columns and after coming down 4 levels there would be a huge mass of bent and broken junk between the two pieces of core.

psik



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


These beams were there to held the columns together, not to carry any mass. Likely scenario is that they break off and become part of the mass falling down, which is supported by the video evidence of some core columns still standing after collapse, but without the beams. Another possibility is that the beams will bent and pull the columns they are attach to together when a mass falls on it. The idea that the broken junk as you call it could become a support between the lower and top section could be a possible scenario, but to me very unlikely. The beams and columns in a building are carefully placed in a certain position for a reason. When you randomly throw them on top of each other, I don't think it is likely the result will be a structure that can support a massive weight. That just doesn't sound plausible to me.

Anyway, do you still think it is obvious that a building could never ever collapse like stated in the official explanation? Or do you see it as a viable theory?
edit on 28-11-2010 by -PLB- because: typo



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
The idea that the broken junk as you call it could become a support between the lower and top section could be a possible scenario, but to me very unlikely. The beams and columns in a building are carefully placed in a certain position for a reason. When you randomly throw them on top of each other, I don't think it is likely the result will be a structure that can support a massive weight. That just doesn't sound plausible to me.

Anyway, do you still think it is obvious that a building could never ever collapse like stated in the official explanation? Or do you see it as a viable theory?


The north tower began collapsing around the 95th floor. Newton's 3rd law should cause one level of the falling mass to be destroyed for every level of the stationary portion below. So destroying the lower portion down to the 84th floor would mean 20 stories of junk. That should be more mass than the intact portion above and still 80 stories below. I think it is more than viable, I consider the Official Theory to be ridiculous.

I certainly think believing that a 200 ton airliner could TOTALLY DESTROY a building weighing 400,000+ tons in less than 2 hours without knowing the TONS of STEEL in the core at each level and the TONS of STEEL in the perimeter at each level is TOTALLY ABSURD.

So why aren't EXPERTS like Richard Gage and Steven Jones demanding that some Official Source provide it?

psik
edit on 28-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The north tower began collapsing around the 95th floor. Newton's 3rd law should cause one level of the falling mass to be destroyed for every level of the stationary portion below. So destroying the lower portion down to the 84th floor would mean 20 stories of junk. That should be more mass than the intact portion above and still 80 stories below. I think it is more than viable, I consider the Official Theory to be ridiculous.


Each floor that collapses becomes part of the mass that is dropping down. So the mass that is falling on the lower floors is greater than the mass of the top section, and is increasing with each floor that collapses. The mass that would make a floor in the top section collapse remains constant, and is just the mass of the top section itself. Result is that the floors in the lower section are more likely to collapse with every floor that collapses.

This is just an explanation that came to my mind, and to me that makes perfect sense and is in no way ridiculous.



I certainly think believing that a 200 ton airliner could TOTALLY DESTROY a building weighing 400,000+ tons in less than 2 hours without knowing the TONS of STEEL in the core at each level and the TONS of STEEL in the perimeter at each level is TOTALLY ABSURD.

So why aren't EXPERTS like Richard Gage and Steven Jones demanding that some Official Source provide it?

psik
edit on 28-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


To me it is not absurd, I don't see why it should be. I also don't think that calling something absurd without any (scientific) proof to back it up helps to disprove or discredit it in any way. If you make a list of all ideas or theories that people called absurd throughout history that were later on proven to be possible, I think you will be busy for a lifetime to compile it. It is in no way how science works, and I don't think it will convince anyone.

Point is, an airliner crashing in to a skyscraper is not something that happens on a daily basis. How can anyone judge just out of the blue (you say it is even obvious) it is absurd when the skyscraper collapses as result?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



There had to be enough steel on the 81st level to support another 29 levels.


Again , your assumption is not only flawed , it is yet another attempt by you to muddy the waters for the benefit of those who seriously aren't educated in the design and construction of the towers .

I have explained this to you several times already , as has others . Why do you persist in offering this as a valid argument , when it has been explained to you time and again ?

One more time ... The 81st level DID NOT support "another 29 levels" . The 81st level did not even support the 82nd level . Do you even read replies to your queries ? Or do you read them and simply dismiss them because they don't support your views/opinions on how the towers 'should have ' collapsed ? I'm of the mind , that it's the latter .

Do yourself a favor and study up on how the towers were constructed . Come back and let us know how each floor level was supported . Hint : They were not supported by the floor level below them .
edit on 28-11-2010 by okbmd because: corrections



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
If 911 wasn't an inside job (on any level), and actually weather it was or was not, it was an utter failure on the part of the US government from top to bottom. A failure that has spawned multiple wars, millions of deaths, and trillions of dollars of debt.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



There had to be enough steel on the 81st level to support another 29 levels.


Again , your assumption is not only flawed , it is yet another attempt by you to muddy the waters for the benefit of those who seriously aren't educated in the design and construction of the towers .

I have explained this to you several times already , as has others . Why do you persist in offering this as a valid argument , when it has been explained to you time and again ?

One more time ... The 81st level DID NOT support "another 29 levels" . The 81st level did not even support the 82nd level . Do you even read replies to your queries ? Or do you read them and simply dismiss them because they don't support your views/opinions on how the towers 'should have ' collapsed ? I'm of the mind , that it's the latter .


Someone is trying to muddy waters alright. What are you suggesting supported the weight of the 29 levels above the 81st and where are you suggesting that it was? ROFL

psik



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Each floor that collapses becomes part of the mass that is dropping down. So the mass that is falling on the lower floors is greater than the mass of the top section, and is increasing with each floor that collapses. The mass that would make a floor in the top section collapse remains constant, and is just the mass of the top section itself. Result is that the floors in the lower section are more likely to collapse with every floor that collapses.


But don't columns have to be bent and dislocated for a level to be crushed? Isn't the thickness of the columns going to affect the amount of energy necessary to do that? Don't thicker columns mean that the weight of steel on that level had to increase?

So the amount of energy required is related to the amount of steel. But the energy required affects how much the falling mass will be slowed down to crush that steel. Therefore the supposed collapse cannot be analyzed without knowing the amount of steel on every level.

So that brings us back to the issue of why we don't have that information after NINE YEARS and why supposed experts haven't been demanding that information for all of that time.

So even if planes did it, it is absurd to claim that any scientific investigation had been done without having collected that data. So calling it absurd is accurate no matter what.

psik



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But don't columns have to be bent and dislocated for a level to be crushed? Isn't the thickness of the columns going to affect the amount of energy necessary to do that? Don't thicker columns mean that the weight of steel on that level had to increase?

So the amount of energy required is related to the amount of steel. But the energy required affects how much the falling mass will be slowed down to crush that steel. Therefore the supposed collapse cannot be analyzed without knowing the amount of steel on every level.

So that brings us back to the issue of why we don't have that information after NINE YEARS and why supposed experts haven't been demanding that information for all of that time.

So even if planes did it, it is absurd to claim that any scientific investigation had been done without having collected that data. So calling it absurd is accurate no matter what.

psik


Columns don't need to be bend or dislocated. That is a consequence of the progressive collapse, not a requirement. The requirement is that the floors collapse. Again, this is supported by the video evidence that some of the core columns were still standing after the collapse. This is a clear indication that first the floors collapsed, and after that the columns. As for that specific data missing, I can find several estimates using Google. All you, or anyone else, need to do is show those estimates are a significant amount lower than the required mass. Or why don't you create your own estimates?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Someone is trying to muddy waters alright. What are you suggesting supported the weight of the 29 levels above the 81st and where are you suggesting that it was? ROFL


Seriously ? You mean to tell me that you have missed every single post , in several different threads , where I , and others , have answered this question repeatedly ?

Now I'm the one who is ROFL !!!

I have no intentions of combing through all those threads to show you that this question has been answered time and again . So , I will give you the short and the long of it ...

Each and every floor level was supported by the perimeter COLUMNS and the core COLUMNS . These columns held the floors in place . The floors held the perimeter columns in the vertical position . Take out all of the floors , the columns fall . Period .

Floor number 5 , did not support floors 6-110 . Floor number 6 , did not support floors 7-110 , etc ., etc ., etc .

The floors DID NOT support the combined weight of all the floors above them . How many times must this be explained to you , before you comprehend it ?

The floors DID NOT set on top of the columns , the columns DID NOT set on top of the floors . The most rudimentary of research efforts will show you that this is true .



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Columns don't need to be bend or dislocated. That is a consequence of the progressive collapse, not a requirement. The requirement is that the floors collapse. Again, this is supported by the video evidence that some of the core columns were still standing after the collapse. This is a clear indication that first the floors collapsed, and after that the columns. As for that specific data missing, I can find several estimates using Google. All you, or anyone else, need to do is show those estimates are a significant amount lower than the required mass. Or why don't you create your own estimates?


You are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core pancaking.

The NIST rejected that years ago.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

So believers don't know or accept what their own experts say. It's the 9/11 religion. It is like Christians that don't know the Bible.

psik



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


My point is that the columns did not need to bend for the collapse the progress, at least not all. Video evidence supports this, so one way or the other, you can't claim all columns needed to bend or deform, let alone how much.

The columns were build to withstand vertical forces, not horizontal forces. So they collapsed as result of the floors exercising a horizontal force. Like when you tie a rope between two posts and you hang a weight on that rope, the posts bend inward. But when you put the weight on top of a single post it wont bend, and you can add a lot more weight before a post breaks.
edit on 28-11-2010 by -PLB- because: typo



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
anyone should be able to see that in either scenario the towers should not have collapsed the way they did. if the floors below are holding up the floors above then you have to use the what im going to call pyramid theory because i cant remember the law right now. 2b+h base should be large enough to support the height. the taller the building goes the wider the base needed to support it. this is just to keep it from toppling over from its weight. let say that the building were essentially columns laterally attached and supporting weight in the middle. still has to be stable enough to support the weight of the building as a whole.

so now we take away some support beams and the building starts to collapse from a midpoint. in both scenarios there has to be sufficient momentum from above to collapse the sections below. lets say it starts with just one floor suddenly dropping onto the floor below it. if it was just one floor it doesnt matter. lets say 28 floors suddenly drop 1 floor level. in the case of the wide base supports tall tower then the base of the building up to halfway should be enough to support the top half of the building suddenly dropping one floor. and nothing further should happen. in the second case where the only thing holding up the floors are joints then 28 floors dropping 1 floor down should have destroyed the floors below it and with each successive floor the momentum should be slowed as the floors below are absorbing the energy released when those 28 floors suddenly dropped 1 floor height, or level.

so in this scenario even though the tower did start collapsing it should have slowed and stopped after what? 30 or so floors max. similar to that youtube video where the weights fell and crushed a few floors then stopped as the energy was absorbed. in either case the building should not have fallen. im not a physics major, in fact im just taking my first basic physics class. but even without physics class i knew that what happened on 9/11 was impossible based on the explanations and what i saw.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join