The twin towers did not collapse at near the rate of freefall

[bascule]

This is one of the most stupid and obnoxious claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

 

Watch this video. It was uploaded by a conspiracy theorist:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4389019269529461803

 

I guess I should briefly point out how crookedly the building collapses on top. This certainly doesn't look anything like any controlled demolition I've ever seen:

 

 

But all that aside:

 

Look at the debris from the collapse. It's falling much, much faster than the rate at which the building collapses. (the video provides a much better illustration)

 

And there you have it... simple as that.

[insane_alien]

well, you can't get simpler and more accurate than that. although anybody with a brain could spot that it wasn't controlled.

[mr d]

Hello

 

Just for fun, i'll play conspiracy theorist for a moment.

 

Debris from the structure would be traveling fast than the collasping building if. The debris is castoff from the inital explosion used to remove the underlying superstructure supports of the building.

 

Second - top of the upper collasping structure is angled.

If sequenced detonation is used one side of the structure will collaspe more quickly, with the rest following in sequence giving a slanted appearence. This is done to control the direction of the structures fall. It is not always the most fesible to drop the struct straight downward, sometimes buildings are dropped along sideway angles as more open space maybe available along a certain path.

 

 

That said to me it's much easier to dismiss such claims as in structure collaspe demolition, one of the first things a team will do is remove the underlying support of the building. All interior walls come out, as much of the support that can be savely removed is, with large steel cables strung between remaining support so that as one support begins to bend and break it takes out the next one.

You don't attach explosives to every support, only certain main ones, then let the building's own weight bring the structure down (the Science Chanel is fun to watch).

 

You'd think people walking into the building, or arriving by the underground subway might have noticed all the inside walls were missing. Or thought 'hey why are all these cables strung between the pillars.

 

And even more obvious, watch a control demolition on your local news. Try never will be the times you see them explode the top of the building, hoping it will then collaspe the lower sections.

 

Mr D

 

'We're all just figments of the imagination'

[Sisyphus]

9/11 conspiracy theories are ridiculous, but this hardly proves anything. It just shows it wasn't a typical demolition. It wouldn't be that hard to calculate where you would need to plant explosives on the upper floors such that the weight would bring each successive floor down. It would be wildly unsafe, of course, but there's already the premise that the perpetrators are intentionally killing thousands of people anyway.

 

A better proof would be to show that an airplanes could cause the damage that they did, then point out the fact that an airplanes did, in fact, crash into the buildings. And that's relatively simple to do: steel loses the structural strength that it needed to support the above floors at less than the temperature of burning jet fuel.

[Severian]

I am not sure I understand the point of this thread. Is bascule trying to support the premise? Presumably not, since he says it is ridiculous, but then why suggest it in the first place? (I see no link to anyone else suggesting it.)

[mr d]

Hello

 

I get the feeling, maybe incorrect here, that Bascule was pointing out how individuals like conspiracy theories attempt to manipulate images and the like to support their view.

 

Toss in a bit of truth and facts, such as how controlled explosions can collaspe a building, and package it up so that it sounds plausible with a few well selcted images. There we be those who are willing to believe.

 

Helping point it out helps exposes it for what it is before it can become more aceptable to others.

 

Mr D

[GutZ]

I am not sure I understand the point of this thread. Is bascule trying to support the premise? Presumably not, since he says it is ridiculous, but then why suggest it in the first place? (I see no link to anyone else suggesting it.)

 

Because it's "thee" claim of many that the collaspes was created by the US government with either explosives or "thermite".

[Severian]

Because it's "thee" claim of many that the collaspes was created by the US government with either explosives or "thermite".

 

Can you give a link to this claim?

[herpguy]

This is a video I found that says the towers did not collapse on their own and why. I thought it should go in this thread.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkoMOeBH-zM

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe we've already been shown links to every imaginable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

[bascule]

Can you give a link to this claim?

 

This was a meme started by Stephen E. Jones, specifically in regard to WTC7:

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

However, it's been parroted in 9/11 conspiracy theorist sites all over the web, including ones who try to corroborate their claims with physics, and applied to WTC1 & WTC2 as well:

 

http://physics911.net/closerlook.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html

http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/911wasinsidejob/2006/jul/31/the_official_9_11_conspiracy_theory_defies_physics

 

The incinuation is that "cutter" charges would need to be placed in the towers to clear the lower floors to allow them to collapse as the rate they did.