I don't believe 911 was an inside job but I do have a question about the buildings?

Question

There have been theorys that the buildings could not have fallen that fast unless there were bombs already in the building. Is that true? I don't think the government planned this but if they did why?

Answer 1

They didn't. A plane loaded with jet fuel IS a bomb.

Answer 2

Shouldn't this question be listed in the Engineering or Science sections?

Before anyone tells Me their theory I always ask "Have You ever worked with Metal?" Guess What? Most have not. "Hanging Steel" frame buildings are not designed to remain standing once the vertical structural members are deflected outwards.The structural integrity of the "Gravity Anchor Effect" is lost, and all load bearing members become extra weight.

Try this little test. Put two cardboard boxes one inside the other. Gravity and friction hold them together. Invert them and put a loading on the bottom box. What happens? Slippage. Simple. As each floor fell it's weight was added to an already stressed rigid framework and Gravity took over.

As far as the "explosions" were concerned, that is the explosive disintegration of the window frames as the pressure ridge expanded. Ask a Fireman. They know all about it. Most "eye witnesses" to the event were unskilled observers.

Just for the fun of it why don't You compare the crash during WW11 with 911? They were both the same type of building structure yet the WW11 impact was virtually insignificant by comparison. It was the fuel element which made all the difference.

Answer 3

Your lack of awareness is excellent. No, i could no longer be a development engineer yet one ingredient i be responsive to is that no metallic shape had ever collapsed in historic past from hearth till that day, while no longer one, yet 3 did. and because you seem so clever, could you care to furnish your concept on why bldg. 7 collapsed? Oh sure, it is precise, the debris became into all carted off till now any purpose examine became into performed. That is wise. yet you seem too busy making up clever comments approximately liberals fairly of understanding Dems and Repubs are the two on the comparable team. doing some real examine approximately what befell and speaking out against it may make you a patriot, in simple terms going alongside with what your gov't advised you and putting a ribbon or flag on your vehicle would not.

Answer 4

Not that long ago it was theorized that bumble bees couldn't fly because their body was too big and their wings were too small - but they flew all around anyways.

Planes piloted by Islamic terrorists slammed into the towers. The resulting damage to the structure and the heat caused an entire story to collapse under the weight of the thirty stories above it - the rest is history.

No reasonable person can seriously believe that a cover up or conspiracy of this magnitude could have stood the scrutiny that this event has had with no verifiable or valid facts to indicate anything other than what they saw with their own eyes on the morning of 9/11.

Answer 5

I have seen a video where the military was testing concrete to see what it would withstand. They built a big thick block of concrete and put a track leading up to it. They then sent an obsolete Jet fighter down the track at a speed of several hundred miles per hour into the block of concrete. The Jet fight evaporated. It turned into tiny particles of debris, everything, the engines, the airframe, all of it.

Boeing 767s carry a lot of fuel and they weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds. Just the heat caused by the compression of all those materials would have to be a pretty significant amount and fuel burning under pressure is more like a cutting torch than a kerosene fire.

Now, consider that there were millions of pounds ABOVE the crash site applying tremendous down forces.

You asked the right question, Why would the government do such a thing? They wouldn't.

Answer 6

The planes that crashed into the building have a weight that is measured in hundreds of TONS. Their speed is measured in fractions of Mach (the speed of sound). And while jet fuel might not melt steel it can cause the aluminum to start burning.



Now using the equation Force equals Mass times Acceleration, imagine the force that a 300 tom aircraft will impact with when it is going about .5 Mach. It's kind of like sweeping your hand halfway through a card house.



There's a lot more research showing how this was absolutely not an inside job. Popular Science (or was it Scientific American) did a good article debunking all these myths.

Answer 7

I watched the entire thing. On TV, but that was enough for me to tell you, that it wasn't fast. It took a couple of hours for the first tower to be hit to fall. The second tower to be hit fell first. Probably because it was hit lower than the first. So more weight was borne by the damaged area of the building. You can bet that every structural engineer in the world has looked into this. And if these buildings were not brought down by the airliners. They cannot possibly all be involved in a conspiracy.

With that said, there have been times in history when governments used supposed attacks, on their homeland, to mislead their people into following their agenda. Such as the Nazi's burning of the Reichstag and the make believe attack on Germany by Poland.





And I'd just like to add. Those who continuosly say that liberals are the conspiracy theorist are liars. They are just as guilty as the conspiracy theorist themselves, because they are doing nothing but forwarding their conspiracy theory. There has never been a survey taken to determine the ideological beliefs of the conspiracy theorist. For all anyone knows, they could all be John Birchers. And John Birchers would make your average, so called, conservative, look like Jane Fonda's Guru!

Answer 8

The jet fuel burning in the building melted the structure and then the metal structure buckled and collapsed. Some conspiracy nuts say that there has never been a building that has fallen this way before. True. But when has a 767 flown into a 110 story building before 9/11? Also if our government can't control our own borders what makes you think that they can take down a building?

Answer 9

We all watched the buildings fall. They did not fall from being hit by planes. The empire state building was hit by a b-52 bomber before and it still stands. The way the buildings fell they couldn't have concievably fallen from damage as a result of the crash. There is no way steel can melt at those temperatures. And if the fire was so hot that it melted steal all the way down the building then why were people just floors beneath the reckage and not burning alive? why were fire men on radio's not mentioning boiling to death? it can melt steal but not humans? i think not. .. also the buildings fell straight down, if the steal was weaken by the crash and melting than the steal would be weaker towards the direction of entry where both heat and physical damage would have occured therefore the buildings would fall towards a particular angle, they would fall the direction of entry not straight down... The official story is a lie that is a fact not theory. The theory is that the government did it, why else would they cover it up?

Answer 10

In the wake of most major incidences in this country, there are those who want to believe in conspiracy. It is more intriguing. For some, it is an escape from reality.



Some claim we did not land on the moon and if you were to see the film explaining how it was faked, you might believe it was true. The film I saw was many years ago.



For those who CHOOSE to believe the buildings were bombed, why not also believe it was done by the same group of Islamic radicals that hijacked the planes? Not nearly as hard to accept this theory.



Today, it is so easy to edit/fabricate a film showing whatever one wants it to show. There are phonied up film and photographs everywhere.



The buildings fell the way they fell - period. Shall we concentrate on those who did this instead of following sick individuals who obviously have their own agenda. Perhaps we should be asking what their agenda is. It's not good; obviously.

Answer 11

Here read this and it will answer all your questions. Its the fact sheet from the NIST investigation and answers a lot of the Conspiracy Claims



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents



Edit - Slits Throats please don't lie. The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 not a B52. A B-25 is only 33,500 lbs carrying 670 gallons of fuel and hit at 150 MPH. The 767 that hit the building was 280,000 lbs carried 10,000 gallons of fuel and hit the WTC with 200X the kinetic energy of a B-25

Answer 12

Once an object such as a plane is moving at a fast enough speed ( i dont know how fast the planes of 9/11 was traveling) and they hit another object all the energy from the moving object is transferred and distributed to the stationary object. With that much energy it causes an enormous amount of heat. Heat causes the structure to become weaker and eventually collapses.

Answer 13

Our Govt. was already poised to attack Afghanistan.

If you do a study on the pipeline they wanted to build through Afghanistan in the 90's but were unable to because of the lack of co-operaton from the Taliban Govt. you would understand the motive.



I forget which oil company was testifying at the time. The GWB admin needed a reason to stay out of the world court. They violated International laws, and then investigated 911 - 411 days after it happened, a sham investigation. Our military - contractors are their just to protect the pipeline that feeds Pakistan/India/China we don't go to war with Afgahnistan without having something on the plate for these major powers.

Answer 14

Actually, there is a loop hole in how Steel and Iron work. Both are structurally sound but heat from the inside out will literally make the metal melt on itself. That is why the towers really came down. They could have survived the plains crashing if it had not been for the fires. The heat combined with height, outside temperature difference, everything played into it. So no, the goverment had nothing to do with it.

Answer 15

The answer is quite simple, bombs were not necessary. We will explore the mechanics of a vertical building collapse similar to the WTC Towers. We will have a 120 story building with each floor weighing about 10,000 Tons (fairly reasonable in the case of WTC). Each floor is supported by the outside structure (as is the case with the WTC Towers) that can support up to 20,000 Tons. If a critical failure in the structure occurs at the 90th story and the top part of the building vertically collapses, it will encounter the 89th floor, designed to support 20,000 tons of force. It already supports the 10,000 Tons of the floor itself so it will be able to support a force of another 10,000 Tons. Draw a free body diagram of the forces at work and you will see that a near free-fall collapse is reasonable. We have 310,000 Tons of force acting in a downward direction and 20,000 Tons acting in an upward direction, leaving us with a net force of 290,000 Tons in the downward direction. At the acceleration of gravity (free-fall) we would have a force of 300,000 Tons in the downward direction. That means that after impact with the 89th floor our acceleration will be decreased by only 3%, far from sufficient to match your prediction of a ninety second collapse. As you collapse the floors in a downward direction, you will have more and more force acting in the downward direction, leading to an acceleration closer to that of free-fall. No explosives are necessary for this to occur. Your ninety second collapse idea does not fit with the physics behind a building designed like the WTC collapsing in a vertical direction.

Answer 16

Well I am not sure myself, but here is some info for you. The melting point of steel is 2448 degrees ferenheit.

The highest temperature burning point for jet fuel is1796 degrees ferenheit in a vacuum, in open air the temp is 600 degrees ferenheait. It is very puzzling how they fell considering physically and scientificly they should not have fallen.

Answer 17

Read popular mechanics and forget about bogus websites like loosechange,



Here is a link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths

And think of this, wouldn't it have been a good idea for the administration to plant WMD's in Iraq if they were so inclined to conspire.

Answer 18

Sheeple People who refuse to accept the fact that the Bush administration Orchestrated the Terror Attacks of 911 are just plain ignorant. It's impossible for Jet fuel or Kerosene to melt iron...LOOK AT THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS. Also if the floors collapsed causing a chain reaction it would have taken well over 90 seconds for the buildings to come down. They came down at free fall speed....9 seconds. There is no logical argument here. Explosives were pre-planted in the building. Case closed! Why are so many people having a hard time accepting this?



http://patriotsquestion911.com/

911 TRUTH.ORG

REOPEN 911.ORG

PUBLIC ACTION.COM

SERENDIPITY.LI

APFN.ORG

911 ATTACK ON AMERICA.COM

INFOWARS.COM

TRUTHMOVE.ORG

FREE PRESS INTERNATIONAL.COM

ABLE DANGER.COM

911STUFF.COM

invisiblepatriots.com

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911sec...

http://www.awolbush.com/

http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html



http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

Answer 19

No, it is not true.The buildings were flawed in the their design and construction. The buildings were designed with less steel than normal buildings.



"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). "



"As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.



Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



"A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size."

"The complex towers were designed by Japanese American architect Minoru Yamasak"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

Answer 20

Anyone who has watched the detailed explanations on the collapse of the towers and doesn't understand how they collapsed is not intelligent enough to question anything.

Answer 21

Once the portion above the damaged section fell, nothing could stop it. How much does a nail slow down a hammer?

Answer 22

Why did the janitor hear a bomb go off in the basement before the plane hit? His employee skin was shredded by the bomb blast. So many questions and Cheney's not answering.

Answer 23

The planes were full of jet fuel which upon impact ignited melting the steel beems and putting an overload of pressure on the existing beems therefore the building collapsed on itself.

Answer 24

this will answer alot of your questions. the buildings were as they say "pulled" watch the video

Answer 25

The answer from a reputable source:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html



Page 4 addresses your question.



I hope this clears things up for you :-)

Answer 26

Made a great segway to invade Iraq didn't it? If Cheney planned the whole thing and it becomes known--I don't think you'd see much disbelief.

Answer 27

None of that is true, we all saw what happened....seeing is believing. We have heard stories from inside both towers, evil people from a foreign country attacked us....it actually is that black and white.

Answer 28

It IS true... they couldnt of fallen that fast without explosives.. and well.. dig up some vids.. if you look closely you can see explosions occuring like if the building was being imploded...same size from any other building if it was imploded.. look it up.. as to why? who knows... to go to war for some fake pretenses just to get oil........ maybe...

Answer 29

http://physics911.ca/members/

Tower #7 was never hit by an airplane, yet went down the same way towers #1& #2 did,why?



David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives.



... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.



The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).



Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman





Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."





Bio: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/

Answer 30

ditto mika

Answer 31

Completely false. Its just a bunch of hippies trying to make a name for themselves.