9/11 Conspiracy

[realityhack]

So what you're saying is that the bits at the top fell quicker to the ground than if there was nothing under them. Just think about that for a bit.

Er, no. They fell at about the same speed as freefall - about the same speed as if there was nothing underneath them.

Edit: FFS

[Spacecadet]

Er, no. They fell at about the same speed as freefall - the same speed as if there was nothing underneath them.

"at about the same speed" is not the same as "at the same speed"

Think about that

[oraclesmith]

Simple physics is just too simple. You're ignoring, for starters, the effect that impacting concrete floors of rapidly increasing mass would have on the structures underneath. Each collapse will transmit an increasingly severe shock wave throughout the building ahead of the impacting floors. Lower structures will weaken, possibly to the point where they disintegrate before the upper structures actually hit them. That's just one of many complex interacting factors to take into account.

[The Lone Gunman]

Don't know if any of you guys know this, but skyscrapers are actualy being pulled downwards as part of their construction.

The concrete and steel structures become unstable in high winds so a mechanism of stressing cables are used to tension the whole building.
This stressing actualy makes the steel and concrete more capable of supporting weight too. Dont ask me the technical details, go read up on tall buildings and stressing galleries.

These cables would have been present in the load bearing outer shell and the non load bearing inner services shaft.

When the aircraft cut through the outer supports it was innevitable that the building would collapse.

The inner services shaft would have pulled the building downwards and inwards.
Once started the resistance from the lower floors would have been negligable.

[realityhack]

Simple physics is just too simple. You're ignoring, for starters, the effect that impacting concrete floors of rapidly increasing mass would have on the structures underneath. Each collapse will transmit an increasingly severe shock wave throughout the building ahead of the impacting floors. Lower structures will weaken, possibly to the point where they disintegrate before the upper structures actually hit them. That's just one of many complex interacting factors to take into account.

Very good point. That would account for an increase in velocity of the fall as the building approaches the ground, which would make sense if the total time of collapse significantly exceeded freefall, but it doesn't.
Local seismographs recorded peaks of activity consistent with the rubble hitting the deck that may show these shockwaves.

Around this - there are other, interesting seismic readings taken before the collapses, evidence of aluminium oxides, sulphuric residues on diagonally breached columns and lots more that would support foul play.

Yes it is being simplistic at the mo - that's why I think there should be an investigation. It would have been a lot easier if most of the steel hadn't already been shipped to China and recycled.

[realityhack]

Don't know if any of you guys know this, but skyscrapers are actualy being pulled downwards as part of their construction.

The concrete and steel structures become unstable in high winds so a mechanism of stressing cables are used to tension the whole building.
This stressing actualy makes the steel and concrete more capable of supporting weight too. Dont ask me the technical details, go read up on tall buildings and stressing galleries.

These cables would have been present in the load bearing outer shell and the non load bearing inner services shaft.

When the aircraft cut through the outer supports it was innevitable that the building would collapse.

The inner services shaft would have pulled the building downwards and inwards.
Once started the resistance from the lower floors would have been negligable.

Food for thought - didn't know that - thanks for that TLG. Wonder why the 911 Commission didn't make that one of their main arguments really, it's a lot stronger than the pancake theory.

[oraclesmith]

Very good point. That would account for an increase in velocity of the fall as the building approaches the ground, which would make sense if the total time of collapse significantly exceeded freefall, but it doesn't.

The building is already on the ground. All that is necessary to classify a 'collapse' is that the structures which make up the building aren't in their original form. All an explosion would do is to create a large shockwave through the building, just like collapsing floors would. It wouldn't pull it to the ground.

[The Lone Gunman]

Food for thought - didn't know that - thanks for that TLG. Wonder why the 911 Commission didn't make that one of their main arguments really, it's a lot stronger than the pancake theory.

As ever, I could be talking out of my arse. I am not qualified to give this advice.

I did watch the BBC series on tall buildings though and have seen a couple of reports on t'internet about the construction of the WTC.

[SallyAnne]

How much resistance do you think one floor at a time would put up against the weight of many floors above collapsing straight down?

It would be like me carrying SallyAnne then the both of us collapsing on top of you. Not a pretty picture.

You just cant stop thinking about me can you

[wendigo100]

You just cant stop thinking about me can you

Watch out everyone - incoming!